The earth is over 1 million years old

I think that I have successfully defended my position thus far and rather than repeat my arguments I will leave that for the voters to decide. I will spend the rest of my time on Radiometric Dating. The following information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View? by Henry Hiebert Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Carbon 14 (radioactive carbon) forms in the upper atmosphere at a constant rate, through the action of sunlight (cosmic rays) upon ozone. This radiocarbon finds it's way, along with natural carbon, into the living tissue of plants, and consequently animals, as well as becoming dissolved in the ocean waters. Immediately after its formation, C-14 begins slowly to decay (half-life about 5, 730 years). Scientists have calculated that after about 30,000 years from the commencement of such a process, the amount of radio carbon in the atmosphere, in all organic tissue, and in the seas would have built up to the volume where the amount decaying per day would just equal the amount being produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Such a state of equilibrium is essential for the success of this particular technique of dating. Does such a state of equilibrium exist? Definitely not! Scientists were amazed to find that upper-atmosphere balloon soundings measured a natural production rate of C-14 in excess of the calculated decay rate by as much as 25%. Using data from most recent tests, Nobel Prize Medalist Doctor Melvin Cook has determined that the production-decay rates are out of equilibrium by as much as 38%. This can only mean that the C-14 content of our atmosphere is still building up, a condition that could be expected only if the process had begun recently. This discrepancy of 38% between the formation and decay of C-14 has been calculated by Dr. Cook to indicated an age for our atmosphere of about 10,000 years. The likelihood that the specific production rate of Carbon 14 was greater by as much as three times (as evidenced by the luxuriant tropical vegetation and fauna from pole to pole as seen in the fossils). In the predeluvian world, would reduce this figure to a mere 7000 years. W. F. Libby, the discoverer of radiocarbon dating, chose to ignore this discrepancy, attributing it to some error of measurement, since he "knew" the earth to be much older than 30,000 years. Consequently, C-14 dates are reasonably accurate only for about the last 3000 years, becoming increasingly invalid as older samples are tested, which lived at a time when this lack of equilibrium was even greater. It has been found that when all radiocarbon dates are corrected for the known non-equilibrium conditions, all are less than 10,000 years. This includes dates on Neanderthal Man bones, Sabre-tooth tigers, cole and crude oil. Although subsequent and better tests have confirmed this lack of equilibrium, it has met with routine rejection from scientists on the basis that it cannot be so. The evolutionary model of origins demands vast ages, and most scientists believe in evolution. Data of this nature in consequently not disclosed in public literature. Radiometric Dates The various methods used (most commonly, the uranium-thorium-lead, the rubidium-strontium, and the potassium-argon methods) when applied to any given sample of rock apparently do not give the same dates at all. Widely discordant dates are the rule, not the exception. Even recently formed volcanic rocks of known age yield lead-uranium ages that are commonly over a billion years. There are at least three assumptions underlying all radiometric dating, which are not only unprovable, but unreasonable. 3 Assumptions Involved in Radiometric Dating 1.) The rocks being tested are assumed to represent a closed system. Always the assumption is made that these rocks have not, through leeching by groundwater or erosional water, intermixing, or any other physical process, lost or gained anything throughout the period of their existence. Here we have the probable reason for the widely discordant ages that are generally yielded in radiometric tests. It is likely that the minerals were affected to greatly varying degrees by the agencies listed above. "The concept of a closed system is an ideal concept, convenient for analysis, but non-existent in the real world. The idea of a system remaining closed for millions of years becomes an absurdity." - Henry M. Morris, Virginian Polytechnic Institute. 2.) The process rate of decay is assumed to have remained constant throughout billions of years. It is obvious that any factors that are capable of influencing atomic structures could affect radioactive decay rates, The Genesis account (of creation) could conceivably permit completely unprecedented decay rates in effect during the initial creation period, when all the cosmic energy needed for nucleo-genesis was present in the environment of the matter being created. The assumption that decay rates have remained constant is unprovable. 3.) It is assumed that no radiogenic daughter products were present when the minerals were first formed. The bible teaches quite plainly of a full-grown creation. It is reasonable that an equilibrium amount of the daughter elements would be created along with the parent, giving an appearance of age. If this was true of the organic creation it was probably true of the geologic creation as well. The assumption that no radiogenic daughter products were present at nucleo-genesis is highly suspect for other reasons. It has been found that radiogenic lead exists with uranium minerals even in recently formed volcanic rock. In the Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968, an instance in cited where lava from Kaupuleho, Hualalai, Hawaii, which was known to be 168 years old, was predicted by the potassium-argon method to be 2.96 billion years old. This is no rare occurrence. When modern volcanic rocks are dated radiometrically, their lead-uranium ages are commonly over a billion years. If rocks of known ages yield such unrealistic dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by the rocks of unknown age? In spite of the so-called knowledge explosion, too little is known about all the factors that may affect dates yielded in radiometric tests for textbook writers to be grossly dogmatic about even those dates that have been selected as acceptable. Conclusion There is thus no sound physical evidence (that the earth is millions or billions of years old). Objections to the concept of a young earth are not made on scientific, but rather on philosophic, grounds. The vast ages needed to camouflage the staggering problems caused by evolutionary assumptions must themselves be assumed. Still. such a great age for the earth continues to be represented as absolutely beyond question. "Given enough time, anything becomes possible" is the evolutionists' answer to the insurmountable problems which won't go away. But the scientific information and data rule out the vast ages desired to give evolution a semblance of credibility. The rate of decay of the earths magnetic field, the high pressure in deep oil wells, the continued presence of short-term comets, the existence of star clusters from which high velocity stars have not yet managed to escape, the current population "crises", the lack of equilibrium between the specific production and decay rates of radiocarbon, and a host of physical processes not listed here all point to a recent creation of the universe, and a young earth. This information is cited at length from the book "Evolution: Its Collapse In View?" by Henry Hiebert Pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32