For all the evolutionists out there, answer me this.?

Question

When the scientists use the standard evolutionary based radiometric dating methods to determine the age of things why is it always "hundreds of millions of years old?"

Why then when Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980, it took 5 months for a lava dome to form. When the radiometric tests were taken from that 5 month old lava cap, they concluded it was millions of years old. They couldn't pinpoint an exact date but could only give an estimate. Keep in mind, the cap was only 5 months old.

Evolution teaches that mountains, rivers, etc take thousands of years to form and that no single event could rewrite a map.

What about the Tsunami? Islands were moved over 10 meters, the earth began a slight wobble on its axis???


Please enlighten me.

Answer 1

Here is the relevant section from the talk origins archive.

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3): 335-343. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r01
Response:

1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Links:
Henke, Kevin R. n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Answer 2

Very disorganized, rambling and misinformed question, but I will try and answer anyway
1) It isn't always "hundreds of millions of years" old. It is whatever it actually measures at depending on what it is they are measuring, what radiometric methods (note the plural) they are using, and what other methods (note the plural) they are using to confirm.

2) I don't know that about Mt St Helens. Please reference if you want a better answer. My immediate reaction would be that the dirt that came from within the depths of the earth was millions of years old so of course that is how it would be dated. This was a pyroclastic volcano, the insides weren't destroyed in molten magma. The other possibility is that an error was made. Was this finding repeatable by other scientists or was it just one guy claimed this?

3) It's geology, not evolution, that teaches about mountains and rivers, and its thousands to millions of years again depending on what you are talking about. Evolution teaches that modern animals evolved from earlier versions by the process of natural selection. Natural selection over very long periods of time is what allows the chance beneficial variations to exponentially increase over time.

4) What about Tsunami? I don't understand your question. Yes the earth moved, that was the earthquake that caused the tsunami. The earth HAS a slight wobble to its axis, the Indonesian earthquake was far too tiny to affect it in any measurable way.

5) There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist", and why aren't you asking these questions in the appropriate science category, assuming you could find the right one. ? Why do Christians ask all their science questions in the R&S category??

I've tried valiantly, but somehow I doubt you will be enlightened,
However the problem is not at my end.

Answer 3

Why then when Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980, it took 5 months for a lava dome to form. When the radiometric tests were taken from that 5 month old lava cap, they concluded it was millions of years old. They couldn't pinpoint an exact date but could only give an estimate. Keep in mind, the cap was only 5 months old.

ok so the ground and rock just suddenly appeared?
God just put them there in that 5 month period?

wow i feel dumb for reading that question

Answer 4

St Helens ) The magma that formed the cap didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was underground for a lot longer than 5 months. Millions of years is probably pretty close to the actual age of the rock.

Tsunami/Islands moving ) You obviously know nothing about plate-tectonics. It has nothing to do with the world's axis. It was likely a tectonic shift that caused such a huge wave, it's no wonder than the islands ON the plate would shift with it.

This being directed at "evolutionists" ) How about asking anyone with common sense these questions? They have no relevance to so called "evolutionists" as there is nothing to do with biology in there.

Answer 5

OK, here's some enlightenment.

1. Volcanos, rivers, earthquakes, etc. are GEOLOGY topics, not R&S topics.

2. Evolution is a BIOLOGY topic, not an R&S topic.

3. Evolution is a BIOLOGY topic. It does not address GEOLOGY. (Those "six levels of faith" are a fiction invented by creationists. You will not find them in any science publication.) "Evolutionists," as you call them, are not the best people to ask questions about geology.

4. Get an education; correcting your misunderstandings enough to understand the answers to your questions is too big a job for Y!A. (See source for a starting point.) Then go to the appropriate Y!A forum with your informed questions.

@XYZZY - Radiometric dating is as accurate as your smoke detector. Your smoke detector relies on a predictable rate of decay of the radiactive metal americium-241. If what the young-Earth creationists say about radiometric dating is true, then your smoke detector doesn't work! Do you trust your children with that thing???

Answer 6

The method was developed immediately following World War II by Willard F. Libby and coworkers and has provided age determinations in archeology, geology, geophysics, and other branches of science. Radiocarbon dating estimates can be obtained on wood, charcoal, marine and freshwater shells, bone and antler, and peat and organic-bearing sediments. They can also be obtained from carbonate deposits such as tufa, calcite, marl, dissolved carbon dioxide, and carbonates in ocean, lake and groundwater sources.

Carbon dioxide is distributed on a worldwide basis into various atmospheric, biospheric, and hydrospheric reservoirs on a time scale much shorter than its half-life. Measurements have shown that in recent history, radiocarbon levels have remained relatively constant in most of the biosphere due to the metabolic processes in living organisms and the relatively rapid turnover of carbonates in surface ocean waters. However, changes in the atmosphere over the ages are a source of uncertainty in the measurements.

Carbon (C) has three naturally occurring isotopes. Both C-12 and C-13 are stable, but C-14 decays by very weak beta decay to nitrogen-14 with a half-life of approximately 5,730 years.

Answer 7

radiometric dating is only used to date old things and only specific materials. If you used on the wrong thing it will give you a bogus date. Plus Its like using a yardstick to measure of fly if you can only measure 1 yard as your smallest measurement.... you get some really wrong measurement

"yup thats fly is 1 yard long"

There is always evidence for a catisclimic action like a tsunami. If this happen to something like the grand canyon it would have left some evidence.

Answer 8

First, there are a number of radiometric dating techniques, each with its own level of precision. They do not ALL have error margins of hundreds on millions of years.

Second, Geochron labs (who performed the dating on that material) clearly stated at the time (they have since quit potassium-argon dating) that their laboratory equipment was not capable of dating material less than 2,000,000 years old (it has to do with contamination levels).

A thorough debunking of your assertion is available at:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

but we all know that you really are not interested in the truth – isn’t that right?

Answer 9

First of all, we "evolutionists" as you refer to us, are really just believers in the empirical world. We apply reason, logic, and common sense to phenomenon we observe in life. God gave us the ability to analyze our world, wouldn't He/She/It expect us to use that ability?

Second, lets make it clear....there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever which supports "Creationism." If the same standards of proof were applied to creation theory that are applied to real science, then that theory would be dead on arrival.

Third, there are observable and measurable processes at work on earth and in the universe. There is nothing observable, measurable, or even reasonable about the Bible. And while anecdotal information is sometimes interesting, it does not a sound theory disprove.

In sum, we would be foolish to ignore what science tells us. Don't you think that God's primary language is science? I do. He/She/It speaks to us in it every moment of every day!

We just need to listen.

Answer 10

Because scientists won't claim something as a fact unless they are absolutely sure.Putting the exact date on something millions of years old is pretty much impossible.
By the way,there is no such thing as an evolutionist.