Still Another Lie that Evolutionists Tell

A few years ago, I wrote “Five Lies that Evolutionists Tell.” A few months ago, I added a “6^th Lie That Evolutionists Tell.” Would it be too tired theme if I were to now add a 7^th? Perhaps I should throw in some of Eugenie Scott's whoppers and just make a Top Ten list. Nah. Maybe I'll do a top ten list later. For now, let's stick to a 7^th lie that evolutionists tell.

This lie comes from Talk Origins' “Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions” (FABNAQ). Actually, these questions have been answered many times on the net so even the title is a lie so the following question is a lie within a lie. Anyway, here it is:

Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas [sic] -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

The lie in the question rests in the premise that there is a “remarkable coherence among many different dating methods.”

Before I go any further, there's something I cannot let pass without comment. “Radioactivity” is not a dating method. Neither are “corals” nor “supernovas.” It's a typical tactic of evolutionists to spout off technical sounding words as though they're making an argument. The technical term for this fallacy is argumentum verbosium. These words might sound scientific but they don't mean anything in the context in which they are used.

Of course, I think I know what they're trying to say; when they say, “coral,” for example, they probably mean that we can observe how rapidly coral grows and then we can try to extrapolate backward to determine how long it's been growing. But then again, perhaps they are intentionally misusing the word in order to give the impression that “coral,” all by itself, is evidence for their theory. They could have said, “radiometric dating, dendrochronology, the growth rate of coral, etc...” but they didn't. They have used these words incorrectly – either out of ignorance or intentionally. So we not only have a question where the premise is a lie, the question doesn't even make sense anyway. By using these words this way, they put creationists in the position of seeming to argue against “radioactivity” rather than the veracity of “radiometric dating.”

Moving on now, let's get to the fundamental premise of the question. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no “remarkable” coherence of different dating methods. Such a coherence only occurs when evolutionists interpret the data according to their theory. In other words, evolutionists begin with the assumption that their theory is true, they arrange the data to fit the time lines they've already assumed to be true, then they pat themselves on the back because the data seems to support their theory.

Do you think I'm kidding? Let's look as some of the “dating methods” that TO suggested are remarkably cohesive. Dendrochronology studies tree rings to estimate the age of a tree or grove. It's a little more sophisticated than just counting the rings. Dendrochronology can only estimate to a maximum age measured in thousands of years. Astronomy is the study of stars. Scientists have developed theories concerning the life cycle of stars and all theories suggest that the life of stars is measured in millions or billions of years. So tell me, exactly how remarkably do “supernovas” comport with “tree rings”?

Likewise, archeology studies human history. Human civilization, according to evolutionary theory, only goes back a few hundred thousand years. Many radiometric dating methods are not considered accurate on samples less than a few million years old. It seems obvious that these dating methods do not support each other.

TalkOrigins also suggested that dating methods within biology correspond with other disciplines like geology. I imagine that it does as long as scientists date fossils according to where they appear in the geological column. They might date a certain species of dinosaur to 80 millions years ago, for example. If later, the same species is found in rocks believed to be 120 million years old, the age of the dinosaur is simply inflated to match the new data. A 50% error in the previous estimate isn't enough to cause doubt in the minds of scientists. The headlines will read something like, “New find shows x-species is older than previously thought” and scientists will continue touting the alleged coherence of their dating methods.

But just how reliable is radiometric dating anyway? Rocks formed during the eruption of Mt St Helens in 1986 were dated using Potassium-Argon dating and yielded ages between .35 million and 2.8 million years old. In this case, radiometric dating could not even corroborate the known age of these rocks!

In another case, Andrew Snelling had commissioned a secular lab to test some fossilized wood that had been encased in basalt. Carbon dating on the wood yielded an age of 37,500 years. However, K-Ar dating on the basalt yielded an age of 47.5 million years. So which is the correct date – 37,500 or 47.5 million years?

The seeming coherence of different dates is also propped up by the willingness of evolutionists to completely ignore data that contradicts their theories. A few years back, I wrote about trace fossils (human footprints) found in volcanic ash in Mexico. Radiometric dating on the ash yielded an age of 1.3 million years. This doesn't fit at all with evolutionary theory which says modern humans are only around 200,000 years and didn't arrive in Mexico until around 40K years ago. The only way to make the data seem to jibe is to assume 1) the ash is not really 1.3 million years old (thus admitting the radiometric date isn't valid), 2) modern humans were really in Mexico 1.3 million years ago, 3) somehow, modern footprints were recently left on ash that is 1.3 million years old, or 4) they aren't really footprints no matter how much they look like footprints.

This post has gone on a little too long but I have to mention carbon dating. As I've said already, many radiometric dating methods are only considered accurate on samples that are more than a few million years old. Carbon-14 (¹⁴C) has a half life of only 5,730 years and so is used to date organic materials less than 100,000 years or so. After 100,000 years, there should be no ¹⁴C left in the sample. The RATE research project at the Institute for Creation Research found ¹⁴C to be virtually ubiquitous. For example, they found detectable amounts of ¹⁴C in coal samples yielding a carbon date between 48-50K years for coal believed 40-320 million years old according to conventional dating methods. They also dated diamond samples – believed to be 1-2 billion years old – to be only 55,000 years old according to carbon dating.

TalkOrigins' question is sort of like the old question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” It suffers from a flawed premise. The only thing in common between many dating methods is that scientists have carefully arranged the data to force it to fit their theory.