Re: Young Earth

Keith B Miller (
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:06:20 -0600

To all:

I am posting this request for Ed who is seeking a way to respond to the
critiques of dating made below. Please cc any responses to Ed at
<> since he is not on the listserve.




>Could you help or do you know someone who has the time. This guy is way over
>my head. Here's his site. -
<A HREF="">Rocky Mountain Christian

>Have you read that Astronomers have known for decades about the strange
>'connection' between the galaxy NGC4319 and the quasar Markarian 205. There
>are other issues such as light speed changes, Schwartzchild time, possible
>distances are not so far after all...etc. I agree that there is a lot of
>science to dig through, but the problem you have is that since you rely on
>scientific evidence, your views will change with every tide. The bible has
>remained consistent far longer than any scientific discovery.
>It might also be pointed out that processes once thought to take long
>periods of time -- millions and millions of years -- are now known to occur
>in much shorter periods of time. It is generally assumed, for instance, that
>oil is formed only after the original complex organic matter is covered by
>several thousands of feet of overburden and after a lapse of several
>millions of years. Yet Smith has found hydrocarbons (oil is a mixture of
>hydrocarbons) in sediments dated as "Recent." A composite sample of
>hydrocarbons taken from the Gulf of Mexico and dated by the C14 method gave
>an age of 12,300 1,200 years,59 -- a far cry from the millions of years
>previously thought necessary for their formation.
>So my statements regarding K-Ar dating are meaningless? What about New
>Zealand's newest and most active volcano, Mt Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic
>Zone, produced andesite flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in
>1975. Potassium-argon "dating" of five of these flows and deposits yielded
>K-Ar model "ages" from <0.27 Ma to 3.5 0.2 Ma. "Dates" could not be
>reproduced, even from splits of the same samples from the same flow, the
>explanation being variations in excess 40Ar* content. A survey of anomalous
>K-Ar "dates" indicates they are common, particularly in basalts, xenoliths
>and xenocrysts such as diamonds that are regarded as coming from the upper
>mantle. In fact, it is now well established that there are large quantities
>of excess 40Ar* in the mantle, which in part represent primordial argon not
>produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K and not yet outgassed. And
>there are mantle-crust domains between, and within, which argon circulates
>during global tectonic processes, magma genesis and mixing of crustal
>materials. This has significant implications for the validity of K-Ar and
>40Ar/39Ar "dating".
>Since the matter of geochronological clocks is one of the central arguments
>for an old earth, it is crucial to see how young-earth advocates look at
>this evidence. Here are the foundational tenets necessary to read "time"
>into a ratio of chemicals in a rock specimen:
>1. The time units must be meaningful and readable.
>2. The timer must be sensitive enough to measure the interval in question.
>The same time would not be used for a hundred yard dash and the return of
>Halley's comet.
>3. We must know when the time was started. True, some clocks have a
>calendar, but a clock does not tell how many times its hands have gone
>4. We must not only know when the timer was started, but what the reading
>was on the timer scale when it started. Was the stop watch at zero when the
>race began? Or was it on thirty seconds?
>5. The timer must run at a uniform rate; if it does not, we must know what
>the irregularities are in order to have a meaningful timer.
>6. The timer must not have been disturbed in any way or reset since it was
>After a thorough and detailed study of each of the geochronological time
>clocks, Kofahl and Segraves concluded the following:
>Generally speaking, the evidence as it has been presented indicates that the
>radiometric and non-radiometric clocks being used by scientists to time
>earth events fall short in one or more of the requirements for the ideal
>clock which we studied earlier in this chapter. In particular, the last four
>of the requirements . . . are normally not met by the usual methods for
>There is no way to determine whether or not the "timer" was set at zero when
>it was started. As a matter of fact, if the world was created, we would
>expect it to display an appearance of age from the very beginning. Attempts
>to date it, then, would generally be expected to make it appear older than
>it really is.
>Similarly, the requirements that the timer ran at a uniform rate and that it
>not be disturbed in any way are not subject to experimental verification. We
>cannot prove that these requirements have been met over the years since the
>earth came into existence. We know, however, of several kinds of events
>which could have disturbed the timer or the rate at which it has run. The
>development of the industrial age, great storms on the sun, and variations
>in cosmic radiation are examples of such disturbances.
>There is sufficient evidence "solid rock evidence", that dating techniques
>are flawed. How do you deal with this?
>Thanks, in Him,

Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506