[ 0 → 8] Welcome to Episode 10 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins. [ 8 → 12] I'm your host, Keith Jones. [ 12 → 17] While this series focuses primarily on the topic of evolution, the age of the earth is [ 17 → 19] addressed in this episode. [ 19 → 24] As all evolutionists admit, that if the earth isn't hundreds of millions and even billions [ 24 → 29] of years old, then there would have been insufficient time for Darwinian evolution to produce the [ 29 → 33] diversity of life now observed. [ 33 → 38] Even though we have shown that due to genetic entropy, time is the enemy of evolution and [ 38 → 44] not its friend, evolutionists claim that all difficulties with Darwinism are magically [ 44 → 47] solved given enough time. [ 47 → 53] As Kenneth Miller assures trusting high school students in his textbook, Biology, radioactive [ 53 → 57] dating suggests that earth is about 4.5 billion years old. [ 57 → 61] That's plenty of time for evolution to take place. [ 61 → 66] In our last episode we demonstrated that there is sound reason to reject the evolutionists' [ 66 → 72] claim that the so-called geological column is hundreds of millions of years old. [ 72 → 78] What remains is for us to explore the widespread claim that radiometric dating methods confirm [ 78 → 82] the ancient ages assigned to the earth by evolutionists. [ 82 → 88] This episode explains the foundational flaws of radiometric dating methods and it explores [ 88 → 94] the increasing evidence suggesting that all plant life and animal life now extinct, including [ 94 → 98] the dinosaurs, are only thousands of years old. [ 98 → 105] Yet, as you will see, the evolutionary establishment refuses to acknowledge this possibility and [ 105 → 109] on occasion has actively worked to suppress the evidence. [ 109 → 114] This provides further testimony to our claim that Darwinism and gradualism are not based [ 114 → 122] upon sound science but instead are part of a false philosophy masquerading as legitimate science. [ 169 → 185] There are a number of widely used radiometric dating methods that we will discuss in this [ 185 → 187] episode. [ 187 → 193] The most well-known method is commonly called carbon-14 dating or C-14 dating and we will [ 193 → 197] focus on this method initially. [ 197 → 202] The history of carbon-14 dating is traced to Willard Levy, an accomplished scientist [ 202 → 209] involved with the production of enriched uranium for U.S. atomic weapons during World War II. [ 209 → 215] He subsequently went to the University of Chicago where, in 1946, he developed a method [ 215 → 217] of radiocarbon dating. [ 217 → 222] He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work in 1960. [ 222 → 229] Carbon dating refers to a method for dating once-living organisms, such as trees or animals, [ 229 → 235] by measuring the content of carbon-14 in the organism's remains. [ 235 → 241] Most people have some knowledge that the method is widely used in geology, archaeology and [ 241 → 246] other fields, but they probably do not know that the method provides strong support for [ 246 → 252] the biblical chronology set forth in Genesis. [ 252 → 258] Carbon-14 dating is linked to the understanding that in the atmosphere, both C-14 and carbon-12 [ 258 → 264] or C-12 combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which finds its way into the cells [ 264 → 266] of plants and animals through consumption. [ 266 → 271] While plants and animals are alive and breathing, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 remains the same [ 271 → 275] in their cells as in the atmosphere, because of the continual input of carbon from the [ 275 → 276] environment. [ 276 → 281] Once the plant or animal dies, however, the C-14 atoms can no longer be replaced and they [ 281 → 284] decay to nitrogen at a constant rate. [ 284 → 290] As a result, the ratio between C-14 and C-12 changes over time, making it possible to determine [ 290 → 294] the elapsed time since the death of the organism. [ 294 → 299] Experiments have shown that over a period of 5,730 years, half of the C-14 will convert [ 299 → 301] to N-14 or nitrogen-14. [ 301 → 308] Thus, 5,730 years is said to be the half-life of C-14. [ 308 → 312] Since the half-life of C-14 is relatively short compared to radioisotopes used in other [ 312 → 317] dating methods, C-14 dating has the benefit that it can be calibrated using organic objects [ 317 → 322] of known age, which extend to approximately 2,500 BC. [ 322 → 327] For example, to calibrate his results, Libby used wood from the tombs of Egyptian pharaohs, [ 327 → 330] whose reigns could be approximated from historical records. [ 330 → 335] Again, this calibration makes carbon dating much more reliable than several other radiometric [ 335 → 339] dating methods, having long-life isotopes that cannot be so calibrated. [ 339 → 344] But carbon dating also has a limitation due to the short half-life of C-14. [ 344 → 350] With a half-life of 5,730 years, all of the C-14 in the remains of a plant or animal should [ 350 → 356] break down into N-14 after no more than 100,000 years, meaning that no later than 100,000 [ 356 → 361] years after death, there would be too little C-14 to measure when using even the most sensitive [ 361 → 362] equipment. [ 362 → 369] In fact, the practical limit of C-14 detection is closer to 50,000 years because of the equipment. [ 369 → 373] This means that carbon dating is simply unable to establish that a plant or animal is millions [ 373 → 374] of years old. [ 374 → 381] It can, however, tell us if organic objects are less than approximately 50,000 years old. [ 381 → 387] To put these limits in perspective, Dr. Paul Geim, MD, has this to say. [ 387 → 393] If the entire Earth were made of nothing but carbon-14, all but one atom would decay [ 393 → 399] to nitrogen-14 in one million years, and that atom would have a greater than 99% chance [ 399 → 401] of also decaying. [ 401 → 406] In two million years, the weight of the entire known universe in carbon-14 could decay to [ 406 → 407] nitrogen. [ 407 → 412] Thus, if there is residual activity in material considered to be 350 million years old, or [ 412 → 419] two million years old, or even 300,000 years old, the material in question is simply not [ 419 → 423] that old. [ 423 → 428] Not surprisingly, most evolution-believing scientists have shown no interest in checking [ 428 → 432] to see if the remains of plants and animals in the sedimentary rocks all over the Earth [ 432 → 438] contains carbon-14, because these materials are presumed to be radiocarbon dead, or to [ 438 → 440] contain no residual carbon-14. [ 441 → 446] However, significant amounts of carbon-14 have recently been documented as being present [ 446 → 451] in coal, in fossil fuels, and even in dinosaur bones. [ 451 → 456] These findings strengthen the grounds for skepticism about the ages of tens of millions [ 456 → 461] of years that have been assigned to organic material in the conventional geologic time [ 461 → 462] scale. [ 462 → 465] Let's discuss some of these findings. [ 466 → 474] Dr. Paul Geim has compiled the following list of C-14 detection in fossils, marble, coal, [ 474 → 479] natural gas, graphite, and other presumably old materials. [ 479 → 485] The results are impressive, especially when one considers that every measurement he cited [ 485 → 489] was reported in a reputable secular science journal. [ 489 → 496] All in all, Dr. Geim cites 78 separate instances where C-14 has been found in material that [ 496 → 499] should be radiocarbon dead. [ 499 → 507] Again, this means that the items measured must be less than 100,000 years old and, practically [ 507 → 511] speaking, are likely less than 50,000 years old. [ 511 → 518] Dr. Don DeYoung is author of a book that summarizes a series of studies performed by several scientists [ 519 → 527] who participated in the Radioisotopes in the Age of the Earth, or RATE, project. [ 527 → 533] The findings of the RATE scientists who conducted their own radioisotope research concur with [ 533 → 537] Dr. Geim's compilation of data from the literature. [ 537 → 543] For example, in at least 10 separate samples of coal and 7 samples of diamond, the RATE [ 543 → 547] scientists found measurable amounts of C-14. [ 547 → 556] Putting together, this data presents a tremendous challenge to the long-age theories of geology. [ 556 → 560] Evolutionary biologists can offer several explanations as to why there would still be [ 560 → 566] C-14 present in material that should be C-14 dead. [ 566 → 572] The first of these is machine error, but this has been rejected by researchers in the field. [ 572 → 578] Because of the nature of the mass spectrometry method of counting C-14 atoms and its multiple [ 578 → 585] points of verification of the atom's identity, it is highly unlikely that any atoms are counted [ 585 → 589] which are not actually carbon-14. [ 589 → 595] A second hypothesis is that radiation in situ, or at the site where the material was located [ 595 → 602] before being taken into the lab, caused the formation of new C-14 continuously in the [ 602 → 605] sample during its time in the ground. [ 605 → 610] According to Dr. Geim and Dr. Hugh Miller, this is highly improbable and would require [ 610 → 615] an amount of radiation equivalent to a nuclear reactor. [ 615 → 621] This radiation simply would not be generated by trace amounts of other radioactive isotopes [ 621 → 624] present in the ground. [ 624 → 630] The third and most popular hypothesis is that the material was contaminated prior to or [ 630 → 636] during the test for C-14 by the scientists who were handling the material. [ 636 → 643] This hypothesis cannot be ruled out, as preparation-dependent differences in the measured value of C-14 [ 643 → 648] in samples have been reported in a significant number of studies. [ 648 → 653] However, given the tremendous care taken by the commercial labs that are involved in collecting [ 653 → 660] the data for some of the individual samples reported here, a blanket accusation of contamination [ 660 → 666] would implicate all radiocarbon dating, including that supported by evolutionists. [ 666 → 669] Also, as Dr. Geim points out, [ 669 → 674] It appears that the best data on fossil carbon with a published standard deviation with few [ 674 → 681] exceptions all cluster at about 0.15% modern carbon and are not statistically different [ 681 → 682] from one another. [ 682 → 688] It is difficult to imagine a natural process contaminating wood, whale bone, petroleum [ 688 → 693] and coal all to roughly the same extent. [ 693 → 699] When discussing possible sources of contamination in C-14 dating, diamonds make for an interesting [ 699 → 704] case study not only due to their assumed age but because they are the crystalline form [ 704 → 710] of pure carbon and are formed under enormous pressure and high temperatures far under the [ 710 → 711] earth's surface. [ 711 → 717] As a result, diamonds are the hardest natural substance on earth, making them extremely [ 717 → 720] resistant to contamination in situ. [ 720 → 725] This means that either the carbon-14 dating results of diamonds should be accepted as [ 725 → 731] accurate indicators of age or the entire carbon-14 method should be discarded under the reasoning [ 731 → 737] that if even diamonds can be contaminated and render C-14 dating meaningless, then no [ 737 → 740] C-14 results should be trusted. [ 740 → 747] Since the rate scientists found C-14 in seven separate samples of diamond, this poses a [ 747 → 753] thorny problem for evolutionary biologists. [ 753 → 759] There is also mounting evidence from carbon dating tests that extinct animals thought [ 759 → 765] to have lived hundreds of millions of years ago, lived instead only thousands of years [ 765 → 767] ago. [ 767 → 773] This includes the dinosaurs that, as we were all taught when young, supposedly lived more [ 773 → 776] than 50 million years ago. [ 776 → 784] There is now reason to doubt such ancient dates due to recent multiple carbon-14 tests [ 784 → 785] on dinosaur bones. [ 785 → 791] I can personally testify to this as I was part of a team that, over a period of years, [ 791 → 798] had 20 different dinosaur bones tested at leading carbon-dating laboratories. [ 798 → 805] These bones were recovered from various North America locations ranging from Texas to Alaska. [ 805 → 811] Amazingly, all of the dinosaur bones contained carbon-14 in the same range as the bones of [ 811 → 818] wolves, mammoths, and other creatures that are known to have lived together with man [ 818 → 821] less than 10,000 years ago. [ 822 → 827] Since no carbon-14 should have been present in the dinosaur bones if they were tens of [ 827 → 834] millions of years old, it suggests that the dinosaurs lived very recently. [ 834 → 840] This is groundbreaking information, and one naturally wonders why the results were not [ 840 → 848] widely publicized, and why this did not result in a great increase in carbon-14 testing to [ 848 → 850] confirm the results. [ 850 → 853] The answer is unsettling. [ 853 → 860] The results of our team's carbon-14 testing on dinosaur bones were presented in the proceedings [ 860 → 867] of the Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore during August 2012. [ 867 → 874] Our presentation was approved in advance and clearly described the collection, pretreatment, [ 874 → 878] and carbon-14 dating of the dinosaur bones. [ 878 → 883] The members of our research team and the laboratories we employed took special care [ 883 → 886] to avoid contamination. [ 886 → 893] This included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous [ 893 → 900] pre-cleaning the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants. [ 900 → 907] Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, we compared precision [ 907 → 914] accelerator mass spectrometry tests of collagen and bioappetite, which is hard carbonate bone [ 914 → 922] material, with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs. [ 922 → 930] If these dinosaur bones were really 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of [ 930 → 932] carbon-14 left in them. [ 932 → 939] But our findings showed again and again that extremely large numbers of carbon-14 atoms [ 939 → 942] were present. [ 942 → 947] The results were consistently obtained from different fossils, from different geographic [ 947 → 952] regions, and from different stratigraphic positions. [ 952 → 958] When I presented our research to a group of approximately 15 scientists, typical sized [ 958 → 964] audience for an oral presentation at the conference, all but two of the scientists in the audience [ 964 → 967] appeared to be of Asian background. [ 967 → 973] When the presentation was finished, none of the Asian scientists raised any objection [ 973 → 980] to the report or found any fault with the author's methodology or with the conclusions. [ 980 → 986] Only one of the non-Asian scientists employed at a European university stated that he was [ 986 → 992] shocked to hear that the researchers had found carbon-14 in dinosaur bones. [ 992 → 999] But he did not offer any reasonable explanation for the consistent results obtained from world-class [ 999 → 1006] laboratories evaluating the dinosaur bones, including, in several cases, different bone [1006 → 1009] fragments of the same dinosaur bone. [1009 → 1015] Moreover, none of the scientists in charge of the biogeoscience section of the conference [1015 → 1022] offered any criticism of our methodology, results, or conclusions during or immediately [1022 → 1025] after my lecture. [1025 → 1030] The next morning, during our approved poster session, the only other person to offer a [1030 → 1034] challenge was a scientist from Nova Scotia, Canada. [1034 → 1040] He volunteered that he had been up much of the night thinking of what he would say if [1040 → 1042] he ran into us. [1042 → 1049] He argued that our data could not possibly be valid since dinosaurs became extinct at [1049 → 1055] the end of the Mesozoic period, some 65 million years ago. [1055 → 1060] He also argued that the presence of dinosaur bones deep in tightly foliated rocks in the [1060 → 1066] Rocky Mountains proved that those dinosaurs must have become extinct millions of years [1066 → 1073] ago since the slow and gradual movement of the continental land masses, which raised [1073 → 1078] up the mountains and folded the layers of sedimentary rocks, had occurred over long [1078 → 1081] ages of time. [1081 → 1087] In reality, the tightly folded sedimentary rocks, showing no evidence of cracking, strongly [1087 → 1094] suggest the rapid and catastrophic formation of the sediments and subsequent rapid uplift [1095 → 1096] of the mountains. [1096 → 1103] In short, the scientist from Nova Scotia was closed to sound experimental results and would [1103 → 1108] not even consider cross-checking our data by repeating the experiments on other dinosaur [1108 → 1111] bones. [1111 → 1116] Within two days following the delivery of our presentation that challenged the consensus [1116 → 1124] view in geochronology, all references to our presentation had been deleted from the official [1124 → 1125] conference website. [1125 → 1133] The presentations were now listed from 1 to 4, then skipped to presentation number 6, [1133 → 1139] as the inconvenient truth in our presentation had been removed. [1139 → 1145] Replies to our letters of protest to the conference directors at first indicated that they had [1145 → 1153] no idea who had deleted the presentation from the program or why, but subsequent communications [1153 → 1160] noted that the amounts of carbon-14 reportedly found in dinosaur bones would have indicated [1160 → 1168] an age of tens of thousands of years and that there was obviously an error in their data. [1168 → 1174] When one of the co-authors of the paper pointed out that no claim had been made in the presentation [1174 → 1181] regarding the age of the dinosaurs, only regarding the amount of carbon-14 in the bones, and [1181 → 1186] that the conference reviewers had accepted the paper or presentation with full knowledge [1186 → 1191] of its contents, no further reply was provided. [1191 → 1198] Fortunately, each of the more than 2,000 attendees received a CD-ROM of the conference abstracts [1198 → 1201] and schedules, including ours. [1201 → 1207] Sadly, our experience at the Western Pacific Geophysics Conference in Singapore in August [1207 → 1214] of 2012 revealed the shocking extent to which many in the scientific community are willing [1214 → 1221] to censor experimental research that exposes fatal flaws in the microbe-to-man evolutionary [1221 → 1227] hypothesis. [1227 → 1230] The experience of Dr. Seiler's team is not unique. [1230 → 1235] It is increasingly clear that there is not only a lack of openness to consider evidence [1236 → 1242] that contradicts the prevailing geologic timescale, but there is also discrimination at work. [1242 → 1248] As told in the following account, the experience of Mark Armitage, a former employee of California [1248 → 1254] State University at Northridge, supports this contention. [1254 → 1261] In May of 2012, Mark Armitage made a discovery that he had dreamed of for years. [1261 → 1266] While digging in Montana, he uncovered one of the largest Triceratops horns ever found [1266 → 1272] in the Hell Creek Formation, a legendary stack of fossil-bearing rocks that date to the last [1272 → 1274] days of the dinosaurs. [1274 → 1281] Armitage drove the horn back home to Los Angeles, California, where his microscopic examination [1281 → 1288] revealed that it contained not only fossilized bone, but also preserved layers of soft tissue. [1288 → 1290] They were brown, stretchy sheets. [1290 → 1296] I was shocked to see anything that was that pliable, he said. [1296 → 1303] In February of 2013, he published his findings in the Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell [1303 → 1305] and tissue research. [1305 → 1310] Two weeks later, he was fired from his job at California State University, Northridge, [1310 → 1317] CSUN, where he managed the biology department's electron and confocal microscopy suite. [1317 → 1322] With the help of Alan Raynock, Armitage's attorney, he filed a wrongful termination [1322 → 1328] suit against CSUN, claiming that religious intolerance motivated the dismissal. [1328 → 1334] As a young earth creationist, Armitage says that finding soft tissue in the fossil supports [1334 → 1339] his belief that such specimens date to the time of the biblical flood, which he puts [1339 → 1343] at about 4,000 years ago. [1343 → 1347] For two years, CSUN fought Armitage's lawsuit. [1347 → 1352] The suit alleges that faculty members hostile to Armitage had him fired because they could [1352 → 1358] not stand working with a creationist who had been published in a legitimate scientific [1358 → 1359] journal. [1359 → 1365] The university alleged that his firing was simply a restructuring of their biology department [1365 → 1368] and not a case of religious discrimination. [1368 → 1375] But CSUN lost its bid to have the judge who merely throw the case out of court as groundless, [1375 → 1385] and CSUN settled with Armitage for $399,500, according to Inside Higher Ed. [1385 → 1391] Alan Raynock, Armitage's attorney, hailed the settlement as precedent-setting. [1391 → 1396] We are not aware of any other cases where a creationist received a favorable outcome. [1396 → 1400] This was truly a historic case. [1400 → 1405] Subsequent to the controversy, Armitage has been on additional digs and has found more [1405 → 1410] soft tissue, but is finding it difficult to get published. [1410 → 1412] I'm clearly being blackballed. [1412 → 1417] Soft tissue in dinosaur bones destroys deep time. [1417 → 1420] Dinosaur bones cannot be old if they're full of soft tissue. [1430 → 1440] The results of the C14 experiments on dinosaur bones and the presence of soft tissue fit [1440 → 1446] perfectly with the research of Dr. Mary Schweitzer of the University of North Carolina. [1446 → 1452] The results of her research on T-Rex fossils were published in the periodical Science, [1452 → 1458] with these results made widely known when she was later featured on 60 Minutes. [1458 → 1463] In her writings and interviews, she explained that she found soft tissue and elastic blood [1463 → 1467] vessels inside of T-Rex dinosaur fossils. [1467 → 1472] The material included real blood cells and proteins, material that could not plausibly [1472 → 1478] have survived the 65 million or more years assigned to the rock formation where the T-Rex [1478 → 1482] bone was found. [1482 → 1488] Yet Matthew Carano, a dinosaur curator at the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., confirmed [1488 → 1492] the authenticity of the proteins. [1492 → 1494] Here are the pieces of the protein. [1494 → 1499] If you're going to refute this, you have to explain how these pieces got in there. [1499 → 1503] It's not another molecule mimicking the protein and giving off a similar signal. [1503 → 1508] This is the actual sequence. [1508 → 1513] This was a shocking discovery, and since there is no known means through which soft [1513 → 1520] tissue would be so preserved in the outdoors for tens of millions of years, the implications [1520 → 1521] are clear. [1521 → 1527] Dinosaurs existed within the memory of mankind, and the entire geologic column dating is fatally [1527 → 1530] flawed. [1530 → 1533] Other discoveries have confirmed the findings of Dr. Schweitzer. [1533 → 1540] In 2010, paleontologists from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology found a mosasaur [1540 → 1543] fossil containing cartilage. [1543 → 1550] In 2011, a group of Swedish researchers published their discovery of soft tissue in the bones [1550 → 1555] of another mosasaur, allegedly 70 million years old. [1555 → 1562] In 2014, another group of researchers found intact, flexible proteins in worm sheaths [1562 → 1569] buried in rocks allegedly 551 million years old. [1569 → 1575] The discovery of so many pieces of organic material in a remarkable state of preservation [1575 → 1581] at every level of the so-called geological column strongly testifies to the rapid and [1581 → 1586] recent burial of these plants and animals in the sedimentary deposits of a worldwide [1586 → 1587] flood. [1588 → 1593] It is extremely interesting to observe the reaction of the mainstream scientific community [1593 → 1597] to these recent developments, because it shows just how wedded to the ancient view of the [1597 → 1599] fossil record they are. [1599 → 1601] Consider the following. [1601 → 1605] Scientists have long acknowledged that according to the laws of nature, no biomolecules could [1605 → 1609] survive for even 100,000 years in a natural environment. [1609 → 1614] Yet, an increasing number of dinosaur and other bones containing well-preserved biomolecules [1614 → 1615] have been well-documented. [1616 → 1620] Now, if you were constructing a logical argument with these two statements as your premises, [1620 → 1622] what would your conclusion be? [1622 → 1628] Would it be A. Therefore, the dinosaurs and other bones containing these biomolecules [1628 → 1630] must be less than 100,000 years old? [1630 → 1636] Or would it be B. Therefore, our understanding of the laws of nature must be wrong? [1636 → 1639] Instead of arriving at the logical conclusion that the bones weren't as old as they were [1639 → 1643] thought to be, most scientists discussing Dr. Schweitzer's finds insist that the T. [1643 → 1648] rex is 65 million years old, and that it's our understanding of the laws of nature that [1648 → 1650] have been wrong all this time. [1650 → 1655] Some critics of the research conducted by Dr. Seiler's team and the RATE project have [1655 → 1661] objected that even if their results are correct, they still contradict the biblical chronology [1661 → 1664] derived from the sacred history of Genesis. [1664 → 1670] This conflict is said to exist because the C14 ages obtained for dinosaurs are generally [1670 → 1677] 20 to 40,000 years before the present, and are all in excess of the 6 to 7,000 years [1677 → 1680] suggested by biblical chronologies. [1680 → 1685] But these critics fail to recognize the effects of the Earth's magnetic field on C14 production [1685 → 1687] in our atmosphere. [1687 → 1692] Regular measurements of the strength of the Earth's magnetic field for about 200 years [1692 → 1696] shows that it is decaying exponentially. [1696 → 1701] This is relevant because a much stronger magnetic field 4,500 years ago would have [1701 → 1707] likely resulted in much less carbon-14 in the atmosphere than now occurs. [1707 → 1713] For instance, the current ratio of C14 to C12 on Earth is 1 to 1 trillion, but the ratio [1713 → 1718] may have been in the range of 1 to 3 trillion only thousands of years ago. [1718 → 1724] If so, this factor would tend to make ancient organic matter test much older than it really [1724 → 1726] is. [1726 → 1730] organisms that lived in an atmosphere with significantly less carbon-14 would have taken [1730 → 1736] in significantly less C14 when they were alive, and they would have started out with lower [1736 → 1738] levels at their death. [1738 → 1744] This could artificially age samples, and making reasonable corrections for the effect of the [1744 → 1752] Earth's magnetic field decay produces ages that generally fit within the biblical chronology. [1752 → 1757] The RATE project scientists agree with this assessment and explain. [1757 → 1762] The carbon-14 content of coal, diamonds, and many other Earth materials translate into [1762 → 1769] carbon-14 ages between 44,000 and 57,000 years based on several assumptions, dates that are [1769 → 1775] dramatically younger than their normally accepted ages, typically hundreds of millions of years. [1775 → 1780] The RATE team concludes that a key assumption used in obtaining these ancient carbon-14 [1780 → 1788] ages is not correct, because the ratio of carbon-14 to total carbon was almost certainly [1788 → 1792] less during pre-flood times than it is today. [1792 → 1797] We know this from the great reservoir of fossil fuels which were buried during the flood. [1797 → 1802] Taking this pre-flood carbon distribution into account, the carbon-14 ages for coal [1802 → 1816] and diamonds is reduced to just several thousand years. [1816 → 1822] The final point to be made regarding C-14 dating results is to emphasize that the specific [1822 → 1827] results discussed in this episode are representative of carbon testing that has been done on a [1827 → 1829] great many fossils. [1829 → 1835] As Dr. John Sanford and Christopher Rupp explain in Contested Bones. [1835 → 1840] It is remarkable, but essentially everything in the fossil record contains measurable levels [1840 → 1841] of carbon-14. [1841 → 1847] This seems contrary to popular wisdom, but it is widely recognized within the carbon-14 [1847 → 1848] community. [1848 → 1854] Taken at face value, this suggests that the entire fossil record is less than 100,000 [1854 → 1855] years old. [1855 → 1861] Many will be offended by this idea, but like it or not, this is what the carbon-14 dating [1861 → 1885] appears to be showing. [1885 → 1888] Visitors may wonder how ages of millions of years can be assigned to fossils found in [1888 → 1894] rock strata if carbon dating has an effective limit of less than 50,000 years. [1894 → 1898] The answer is that carbon dating is not the only radiometric dating method, and in fact, [1898 → 1902] fossils are normally dated using the rocks they were found in. [1902 → 1907] These rocks are dated using alternative methods that include uranium-lead radiometric dating, [1907 → 1912] potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium dating, and the lead-lead method that measures [1912 → 1920] the formation of two lead isotopes, lead-207 and lead-206, from uranium-235 and uranium-238 [1920 → 1921] respectively. [1921 → 1924] Most of these methods are named in terms of the parent element and the so-called daughter [1924 → 1928] element into which the parent transforms over time. [1928 → 1932] Each radiometric dating method depends upon crucial but unprovable assumptions, as we [1932 → 1934] will now explain. [1934 → 1938] We will also explain why there are sound experimental reasons to doubt these assumptions and in [1938 → 1943] turn the ancient dates produced by these methods. [1943 → 1948] Some elements come in slightly different forms or isotopes. [1948 → 1953] Some isotopes are unstable, meaning that they tend to break down into more stable forms [1953 → 1956] at a steady rate of decay. [1956 → 1962] Carbon-14, which we have already discussed, is a good example of an unstable isotope since [1962 → 1965] it breaks down into nitrogen over time. [1965 → 1971] Another example is uranium, which breaks down into lead through a multi-step process [1971 → 1978] taking very long periods of time at the currently observed rate of decay. [1978 → 1983] Radiometric dating methods utilize the notion of an element's half-life, which was previously [1983 → 1984] discussed. [1984 → 1990] This table shows the half-life of some of the more commonly used radiometric methods, [1990 → 1993] measured in billions of years. [1993 → 1998] Since the half-life of these methods is so long, they theoretically should be able to [1998 → 2004] date strata that contains fossils thought to be hundreds of millions of years old. [2004 → 2009] It is important to recognize, however, that all radiometric dating methods used to date [2009 → 2013] rocks depend on three fundamental assumptions. [2013 → 2019] If these assumptions do not hold, the resulting estimates could be in gross error. [2019 → 2025] First, that there was no daughter element in the rock at the time that it formed. [2025 → 2030] Second, that the rate of decay has been constant for the rock's entire history. [2030 → 2036] And third, that the rock has been a closed system, meaning that no parent or daughter [2036 → 2040] element has been introduced or removed. [2040 → 2046] Unfortunately, there are sound reasons to reject each of the three assumptions and therefore [2046 → 2052] there are sound reasons to reject the resulting age estimates that these methods produce. [2052 → 2056] Regarding the assumption that the decay took place in a closed system, it is known, for [2056 → 2062] example, that water and other elements can impact the initial concentration of these [2062 → 2068] parent and daughter elements in cooling or solidified rock and they can be introduced [2068 → 2071] or leached out after rock formation. [2071 → 2076] The potential impact of water on rocks is especially important since, as we have discussed, [2076 → 2081] there is good evidence that a global flood has occurred and therefore there is good reason [2081 → 2086] to reject the assumption that rock has remained in a closed system and the concentration of [2086 → 2090] parent and daughter elements has been unaffected by water. [2090 → 2095] Evolutionists like to invoke this problem when it comes to the carbon dating of dinosaur [2095 → 2101] bones by suggesting that young carbon-14 may have been introduced into the bones through [2101 → 2103] water flow. [2103 → 2108] So it is arguably already acknowledged by evolutionary biologists that the geologic [2108 → 2113] column is not a closed system as their dating method requires. [2113 → 2118] Radiometric dating relies on counting the ratio of parent to daughter element and dates [2118 → 2122] are always calculated assuming that no daughter element was present in the rock at the time [2122 → 2123] it was formed. [2124 → 2129] There is no way to know if any of the daughter element was present in the rock at its formation [2129 → 2133] so this is an assumption that is impossible to verify. [2133 → 2138] Calculations assume that the daughter element has been accumulating at a constant rate according [2138 → 2143] to its currently measured half-life, but there is no way to verify whether the rate of decay [2143 → 2146] has remained constant throughout history. [2146 → 2150] This leaves us with two more assumptions needed for the results to be trustworthy. [2150 → 2155] Since they involve the history of the rock and the geosphere they cannot be empirically [2155 → 2161] verified and neither can the ancient ages that result from the dating methods. [2161 → 2166] While evolutionists claim that there are independent methods to evaluate these dates that support [2166 → 2171] radiometric dating, these methods, like looking at the position of the rock in the geologic [2171 → 2177] column, often depend directly or indirectly on the same flawed dating methods they are [2177 → 2179] supposed to be supporting. [2179 → 2184] With the lack of outside verification and the fact that experiments have shown that [2184 → 2189] there are sound reasons for rejecting the background assumptions for radiometric dating, [2189 → 2193] there is reason to reject this method as a reasonable one for determining the age of [2193 → 2194] the Earth. [2194 → 2198] We will cite three reasons for this rejection as we continue our discussion. [2210 → 2218] Viewers may wonder how experimental data calling the results of radiometric methods [2218 → 2224] can be obtained since no one was present when the rocks were formed, since no one was there [2224 → 2230] to measure the decay rate throughout the rock's supposed multi-billion year history, and since [2230 → 2235] no one was there to witness events that could have violated the premise of a closed system [2235 → 2238] so necessary to radiometric dating. [2238 → 2244] As it turns out, we do know when some rocks were formed because we know from historical [2244 → 2251] records the year in which several volcanoes erupted and formed volcanic rock. [2251 → 2256] These rocks contain elements that can be tested through radiometric methods. [2256 → 2262] In fact, most of the hominid fossils found in East Africa have been dated by evaluating [2262 → 2268] their location relative to strata containing volcanic ash that have been dated using the [2268 → 2271] potassium-argon method. [2271 → 2276] This link between volcanic material and the supposed age of human ancestors makes the [2276 → 2283] accuracy of radiometric dating methods as applied to volcanic rock of known ages extremely [2283 → 2285] important. [2285 → 2291] If radiometric methods produce dates for volcanic rock that correspond to the historical record [2291 → 2298] of recent eruptions, it would be an indication that the method can produce reliable results, [2298 → 2300] at least in the short term. [2300 → 2305] On the other hand, if the radiometric dates of volcanic rock vary significantly from the [2305 → 2311] known date of eruptions, then it is clear that one or more of the essential assumptions [2311 → 2317] behind radiometric dating methods does not hold, and the inaccuracy of the radiometric [2317 → 2320] dating method becomes obvious. [2320 → 2326] Many radiometric dating experiments of volcanic rock that formed in recorded history have [2326 → 2327] been made. [2327 → 2333] The rock so tested is typically basalt, which is generally formed from the cooling of lava [2333 → 2335] on the Earth's surface. [2335 → 2341] Time and again, radiometric dates have produced age estimates far in excess of the actual [2341 → 2344] known age of the rock. [2344 → 2352] To provide four examples, following the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, lava that subsequently [2352 → 2358] cooled and hardened was analyzed and found to contain a quantity of argon with an estimated [2358 → 2362] age of 350,000 years old. [2362 → 2368] Lava flows from Mount Nauruhoe in New Zealand that are known to be less than 100 years old [2368 → 2375] yielded an estimated age of up to 3.5 million years old. [2375 → 2382] Radiometric testing of samples from the Hualalai Basalt that formed after the 1800-1801 eruption [2382 → 2391] of a volcano in Hawaii yield dates of 1.4 and 1.6 million years old in two dating procedures. [2391 → 2397] Finally, the basalt from Mount Nauruhoe Andesite in New Zealand that has known eruption dates [2397 → 2407] of 1949, 1954, and 1975 has been dated to between 270,000 years and 3.5 million years [2407 → 2415] old based on potassium-argon dating, and the same rock has been estimated to be 3.9 billion [2415 → 2420] years old based on lead-lead dating methods. [2420 → 2425] There is a logical reason for these strange dates in volcanic rock. [2425 → 2431] Often as magma flows over an already formed layer of rock, it is so hot that it can actually [2431 → 2436] melt the lower rock and acquire traces of the minerals found there, including daughter [2436 → 2442] elements of radioactive species that should not be present in the newly formed rock. [2442 → 2449] As explained by the rate scientists, through this sort of mixing a rock exchanges radioisotopes [2449 → 2455] and other elements with its surroundings and it may happen with magma before it cools or [2455 → 2458] with solidified rock at a later time. [2458 → 2464] One way this occurs is when magma moves upward through the rut and melts some of the surrounding [2464 → 2465] rock. [2465 → 2470] This newly melted crustal material can be assimilated or incorporated directly into [2470 → 2471] the magma. [2471 → 2476] Then, when the magma cools and solidifies, the new rock contains isotopes from the melted [2476 → 2478] crustal material. [2478 → 2483] Another potential source of rock component mixing involves the underground flow of heated [2483 → 2485] water and gaseous fluids. [2485 → 2490] At high pressure, water readily moves through rock pores and fissures and between mineral [2490 → 2491] grains. [2491 → 2498] The inevitable result is an exchange of ions or charged atoms along the fluid path. [2498 → 2504] If this is occurring regularly in the formation of volcanic rock, it calls into question all [2504 → 2507] radiometric dates obtained for this type of rock. [2507 → 2513] As the evolutionists readily admit, especially when discussing incorrect C14 dates, that [2513 → 2519] very small amounts of radioisotope parent or daughter elements can yield ages that are [2519 → 2524] significantly different than the actual age of the rock. [2524 → 2527] These and other results raise the obvious question. [2527 → 2533] If even volcanic rock of known ages cannot be reliably dated, why would any radiometric [2533 → 2556] dates be trusted to provide accurate results? [2556 → 2562] One of the important results of the RATE project involved the comparison of estimated ages [2562 → 2568] of the same geological location by alternative radiometric dating methods. [2568 → 2574] The research, led by Ph.D. geologist Stephen Austin, involved the dating of rocks recovered [2574 → 2581] from ten sites through the use of five radiometric dating methods utilized by leading radiometric [2581 → 2583] dating laboratories. [2583 → 2588] The results were astounding because for each of the ten locations tested, the predicted [2588 → 2594] ages of the same sites varied enormously, depending on the method used and even within [2594 → 2596] the same method. [2596 → 2602] For example, samples from the Bass Rapids Diabase Sill, located at the lowest level [2602 → 2609] of the Grand Canyon and conventionally assigned an age of 1.07 billion years, were dated to [2609 → 2617] between 656 million years and 1.05 billion years through potassium-argon dating. [2617 → 2624] From between 1.25 billion and 1.58 billion years using the lead-lead method. [2624 → 2630] Likewise, the Cardenas Basalt, located in the eastern Grand Canyon and conventionally [2630 → 2637] assigned an age of 1.1 billion years, was tested to range from a low of 516 million [2637 → 2645] years ago to 1.59 billion years ago, depending on the radiometric dating method used. [2645 → 2651] Finally, rocks from the Apache Group Diabase Sill in central Arizona that are conventionally [2651 → 2659] assigned an age of 1.2 billion years were dated between 656 million and 1.58 billion [2659 → 2663] years, depending on the radiometric method used. [2663 → 2669] Given the inconsistency between radiometric dating methods, one again wonders why any [2669 → 2686] trust would be placed in the accuracy of absolute dates generated from these methods. [2686 → 2692] A third reason to suspect the accuracy of radiometric dating methods and uniformitarian [2692 → 2698] assumptions is that some methods assign older dates to strata that lie much higher in the [2698 → 2704] so-called geologic column than the layers that supposedly were laid down eons earlier. [2704 → 2710] This is seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon, in which the Cardenas Basalt layer has been [2710 → 2717] dated to 1.11 billion years using the Rubidium-Strontium method, while the Bass Rapids Diabase Sill [2717 → 2725] formation has been dated to only 1.06 billion years, or some 50 million years younger than [2725 → 2727] the deposits lying above it. [2727 → 2734] Similarly, the upper layer Cardenas Basalt has been dated to 1.59 billion years, while [2734 → 2741] the lower Bass Rapids Diabase Sill has been dated to 1.38 billion years by the same method, [2741 → 2746] meaning that the lower layer is more than 200 million years younger than the higher [2746 → 2749] layer if the dating method used is to be trusted. [2749 → 2755] Clearly, something is wrong with the methodology that leads to these results and there is good [2755 → 2760] reason to believe that each of the three fundamental assumptions behind radiometric [2760 → 2766] dating has been routinely violated, as concluded by the rate scientists. [2766 → 2771] Three basic requirements were listed earlier as keys to the correct dating of rocks. [2771 → 2776] These include known initial conditions for the rock, a closed system, and a constant [2776 → 2778] rate of nuclear decay. [2778 → 2784] It appears that all three of these dating essentials commonly fail at some level. [2784 → 2789] Radioisotope data for rocks provide a wealth of information, including their relative ages [2789 → 2792] and possible interactions with their environment. [2792 → 2799] However, absolute ages of rocks are not included in this information. [2799 → 2804] Evolutionists often think they've found a way around the problems with the assumptions [2804 → 2811] they're making about radiometric dating by using a method called isochron dating. [2811 → 2816] This method takes into account a wider variety of minerals present in the rock than just [2816 → 2823] the radioactive parent and daughter elements, and usually generates a linear slope that [2823 → 2828] is supposed to be a reasonable indicator that their dates are reliable. [2828 → 2834] The problem with this method is that while it yields very precise results in many cases, [2834 → 2840] it does not always yield the same precise result, as has been demonstrated by the rate [2840 → 2842] scientists. [2842 → 2847] And this begs the question of whether isochron dating really has any relationship to the [2847 → 2852] accuracy of the results being reported, or whether it is simply recording the relative [2852 → 2858] ages and abundances of the minerals in the rock. [2858 → 2863] Isochron dates can line up quite consistently without being accurate, just as a person throwing [2863 → 2869] darts might hit the same spot every time, but not be anywhere near the bulls-eye. [2869 → 2874] There is a difference between consistency, or getting a similar result every time, and [2874 → 2880] accuracy, getting the right result, that is generally being overlooked in this aspect [2880 → 2885] of the radiometric dating debate. [2885 → 2891] Any scientific method that proves as unreliable as long half-life radiometric dating would [2891 → 2896] normally be discarded by the scientific community. [2896 → 2901] That a method this unreliable continues to be cited as one that offers proof that the [2901 → 2908] earth is billions of years old, demonstrates that ideology rather than sound scientific [2908 → 2912] methodology is driving this claim. [2912 → 2918] Moreover, there are additional procedural problems with long half-life radiometric dating [2918 → 2922] methods that we will briefly discuss. [2922 → 2928] When a fossil is submitted to a laboratory for dating, the scientist who submits the [2928 → 2936] sample is required to say where in the geological column it was found, and how old he believes [2936 → 2938] it has to be. [2938 → 2944] This is clearly a process that invites self-fulfilling prophecies to be at work. [2944 → 2951] Based on the information provided, and before any experimental dating is generated, fossil [2951 → 2958] ages are estimated according to their position in the sedimentary layers, under the assumption [2958 → 2965] that strata were laid down at a uniform rate over long periods of time. [2965 → 2971] These sedimentary layers are, in turn, dated by their relative position to strata, whose [2971 → 2978] absolute age values can be estimated by laboratory dating of radioactive minerals that may be [2978 → 2979] present. [2979 → 2985] If no radioactive minerals are present, the fossils are usually dated based on their location [2985 → 2993] in the strata relative to other index fossils that have been dated elsewhere using radiometric [2993 → 2994] methods. [2994 → 3001] But, as we have seen, none of the dates arrived at by means of long half-life radioactive [3000 → 3006] dating methods can be depended upon in the first place. [3006 → 3012] So the whole dating game is based on circular reasoning. [3012 → 3019] Interestingly, beyond the high school textbooks and claims by committed evolutionists that [3019 → 3025] the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that this is plenty of time for evolution to have [3025 → 3031] worked, experts in the field of radiometric dating acknowledge that their processes are [3031 → 3037] highly flawed, as an article in the Anthropological Journal of Canada states. [3037 → 3042] The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. [3042 → 3048] Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions [3048 → 3053] have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself [3053 → 3056] in a crisis situation. [3056 → 3061] Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination [3061 → 3065] here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. [3065 → 3070] It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. [3070 → 3074] The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. [3074 → 3080] No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable or yielding accurate [3080 → 3082] and reliable results. [3082 → 3084] There are gross discrepancies. [3084 → 3087] The chronology is uneven and relative. [3087 → 3092] And the accepted dates are actually selected dates. [3092 → 3098] In reality, if the scientific community were to set aside the failed geochronological framework [3098 → 3105] that was established in the 19th century, scientists would find that, rightly interpreted, [3105 → 3111] the C14 dating data fit very well into the chronological framework derived from the sacred [3111 → 3113] history of Genesis. [3113 → 3118] And this is the truth which materialistic science refuses to admit, for they cannot [3118 → 3123] allow a divine foot in the door. [3123 → 3129] This is the eighth consecutive episode that has focused on the so-called science behind [3129 → 3133] evolutionary and uniformitarian claims. [3133 → 3138] As explained previously, naturalistic and gradual processes are required to support [3138 → 3144] the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative that rules the scientific community, and, for that matter, [3144 → 3150] the worldviews of humanism and New Age beliefs that now dominate the Western world. [3150 → 3158] The narrative has even strongly impacted those in the church by creating doubt and division. [3158 → 3167] This is a tragic impact, considering that, as we have shown, the claims made by the Darwinists [3167 → 3172] and Gradualists fail in every discipline. [3172 → 3177] In the field of evolutionary biology, we've shown that all claimed transitional forms [3177 → 3183] and icons of evolution fail to provide support for Darwin's theory. [3183 → 3188] This failure includes the dramatic failure of the claims for human evolution. [3188 → 3195] In fact, we have shown that, due to well-supported concepts such as genetic entropy, macroevolution, [3195 → 3201] including the evolution of mankind, are not possible. [3201 → 3207] In the field of cosmology, we have shown the failure of the so-called Big Bang theory to [3207 → 3214] explain the origin of the universe, its organization, and the supposed ancient age of the universe. [3214 → 3220] We have seen that, in an effort to not allow a divine foot in the door, the Big Bang model [3220 → 3226] has been propped up by multiple theoretical concepts that have not been observed and are [3226 → 3231] best left to the field of science fiction. [3231 → 3238] We've also shown that, in the field of geology, the fossil record does not fit Darwinian expectations [3238 → 3244] and the so-called geologic column is best explained by a mammoth flood that may well [3244 → 3251] have coincided with rapid movement of the Earth's plates and extensive volcanic activity [3251 → 3255] that ushered in a single and brief ice age. [3255 → 3261] Finally, we have seen in this episode that efforts to scientifically assign an ancient [3261 → 3268] date to the geologic column have failed, and the evidence from carbon-14 dating strongly [3268 → 3275] supports the position that all extinct animal and plant life, including even the dinosaurs, [3275 → 3278] lived in very recent times. [3278 → 3284] For those open to the truth, and I would hope that this includes all Catholic viewers, the [3284 → 3290] evidence mounts to an overwhelming rejection of the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative from [3290 → 3294] a scientific standpoint. [3294 → 3299] At the same time, the biblical claims of special creation and the suggested young age of the [3299 → 3303] Earth is supported by the evidence. [3303 → 3309] Only this view achieves the harmony of natural science and God's revelation. [3309 → 3315] All Catholics should sincerely seek and embrace this harmony if they embrace the aim of the [3315 → 3321] great church scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas. [3321 → 3327] The conclusions reached about the scientific evidence, while foreign to many Catholic instructors [3327 → 3333] and apologists who have been deceived, are not only based on the consideration of evidence [3333 → 3340] both for and against evolution, they are also in line with the position of all the church [3340 → 3347] fathers and doctors, and also with the authoritative statements of the magisterium. [3347 → 3353] It is only through the deceptive claims made by evolutionary proponents that confusion [3353 → 3359] about origins entered, and created confusion about the proper division between historical [3359 → 3362] theology and natural science. [3362 → 3368] And while the search for truth is admirable, now that you, the viewer, have been told the [3368 → 3375] truth about evolutionary claims, it is now appropriate to consider that it is time, indeed [3375 → 3382] it is well past time, to restore the truth about origins that is foundational to so many [3382 → 3385] Catholic teachings and dogma. [3385 → 3391] If you think that truth in science doesn't matter, or that now just isn't the right time [3391 → 3397] to restore the truth, then we will continue to suffer from the ongoing destruction of [3397 → 3404] society and of the Catholic faith witnessed in recent decades. [3404 → 3410] For those who think that the truth about origins has nothing to do with these undeniable trends, [3410 → 3417] we now transition to the final three episodes that chronicle the impact of the Cartesian-Darwinian [3417 → 3423] narrative on society, and even within the Catholic Church. [3423 → 3430] May God grant you the wisdom to see that truth about origins does matter as you watch these [3430 → 3432] three episodes. [3432 → 3434] In Jesus' name we pray.