Nick Brown #fundie

Nick Brown #fundie thedaonline.com

In 1975, evolutionist scientist H.C. Dudley changed the decay rate of 14 different elements, some by as much as 40%! He found that you can do this by changing the pressure on the rock, temperature, magnetic field, and/or other factors. So, a decay rate that is not always constant means that we have no way of accurately dating old rocks and fossils. This false dating method is still being used because scientists have no other ideas.

Since we now know that decay rates are not constant, we cannot objectively rely on carbon dating or other similar dating methods as 100% accurate. We have no way of knowing how accurate they are. So we cannot say with any reasonable certainty that the dinosaur fossil in question with red blood cells is millions of years old. It has not been irrefutably proved that red blood cells cannot last millions of years, but the evidence leans that way. So overall the evidence is on the side of the fossil being young, although I agree it is not proven.

I guess I got a little jumpy in applying Einstein's quote to this example. We have proof that carbon dating is not infallible, and if we could accompany that with proof that red blood cells are completely gone after a certain number of years, then we'd really have something. We're not quite there yet, but what we do know about carbon dating is that the published ages of fossils by evolutionists is conveniently the theoretically oldest possible, but most likely inaccurate.

My favorite example of a known inaccuracy is the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption. I've read that the youngest dating of that rock is 340,000 years (I don't doubt that you will let me know if that is off). But we know it's actually 29 years old because we saw it happen. If you are confident in believing in a method that has been shown to be 1172% wrong at times, that's your choice.

40 comments

old comment by Swede

Aren't there several other dating methods than carbon dating? Isn't carbon dating used on younger, more 'organic' things than rocks?

Even if you can speed up the decay process by 40 %, a dinosaur that is thought to be 80 million years old without the decay speed-up, will still be well over 6000 years old.
Whether it is 80 million years old or 45 million, it's still a major factor against the young-earth-argument.

Huh, I can find pictures of Mount St Helens, BEFORE the eruption.
Are you saying it was a flat piece of land before 1980, and ALL of the rock mass came up from the core of the Earth, and built that mountan on that day?
Or was there a huge hand, coming down from heaven with the index-finger pointing at the spot, and a booming voice saying "Let there be rock"?

old comment by MK

From Wiki-effin-pedia, dumbass...

A number of experiments have shown that decay rates of naturally-occurring radioisotopes are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by (or, for the small number of nuclides exhibiting electron capture, only very slightly affected by, with changes of approximately 0.2% or less) external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment and electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred long ago as the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time as well.
On the other hand, some recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a very weak dependence (0.1% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54 and Ra-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (about 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[3][4][5] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper [6] has found no evidence for such correlations in a half-dozen isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

old comment by Mister Spak

"In 1975, evolutionist scientist H.C. Dudley changed the decay rate of 14 different elements, some by as much as 40%! He found that you can do this by changing the pressure on the rock, temperature, magnetic field, and/or other factors. So, a decay rate that is not always constant means that we have no way of accurately dating old rocks and fossils. This false dating method is still being used because scientists have no other ideas. "

You missed the words "could not" when you read that.

"I've read that the youngest dating of that rock is 340,000 years "

So a rock that was 340,000 years old was blown across the landscape by an explosion and then was dated at 340,000 years old. How is evolution going to survive this revelation?

old comment by Berny

From what I've tried to dig up, H. C. Dudley's assertions were discredited a long time ago by real scientists. You are aware that several different radiometric methods are used when dating specimens, right? The different methods back each other up.
No red blood cells of dinosaurs have ever been found. You are misinterpreting a find of fossilized soft tissue from several years back. Not the same thing.
Creationists are always misusing the mount St. Helen's eruption for a variety bullshit, from fast erosion to try to prove the Flood cut the Grand Canyon (no it didn't) to errors in radiometric dating (scientists know about the errors and account for them).
You are simply demonstrating yet again that when it comes to science, creationists are way out of their depths.

old comment by Philbert McAdamia

@ Swede
Or was there a huge hand, coming down from heaven with the index-finger pointing at the spot, and a booming voice saying "Let there be rock"?

I believe that quote was made by Bill Haley in 1954.
Then in 1956 Elvis added, "and roll."

@ myheadhurts
All dating methods have a range of accuracy but ... is the reason why you'll see date ranges and not dates down to the day and hour.

Oh, so that's why the T. Rex placard at the Nat Hist Museum doesn't say "This animal was found to have died on March 17th, 63,000,435 BCE, on a Tuesday afternoon, on or about 4 p.m." (Much like the M.E.s on TV's CSI shows. Hmmm, this pile of bones and decay has been dead, mmm, oh let's say three weeks and nine and a half hours, give or take a few minutes. The suspect couldn't possibly have had time to drive from Kelly's Pub, in New York City, killed this guy in New Mexico, buried him here in Oregon, and driven back to Kelly's in time for his sister's wedding. We did, however, get his latent prints off the running water in that creek over there.)

old comment by HellorBust

WOW. this one isn't even hard. a quick Google search of "HC Dudley+decay" brings up 3 creationists websites, 1 site refuting creationists claims that hc dudley ever proved anything of the sort, and finally (result 5) was this very quote on this very site.

id also like to note that, while it is intellectually dishonest to not present any facts about evolution that post-date 1979, especially when so much work has been done since then, it IS an extremely good way to convert people who suck at research, and are easily influenced by propaganda.

(EVEN MORE TO THE SIDE NOTE: dudley did write an article about nuclear power in 1975, and if youve go the time, its worth a read. i strongly suspect ANY relevant quotes that support what he says were likely quote-mined.)