August 15, 2003, Vol.3, No.16.
Two new articles every two weeks.
Bible Question? E-mail
us.
THIS ISSUE: "Time
is of the Essence" (see below)
and "Calling on the Name
of the Lord"
Time is of the Essence
guest article by A.E. Proctor
 The
faith of many has been shaken by the assertion the data observed
in nature indicates a very great age for the earth. Such a great
age is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible that
the Creation and Flood of Noah occurred within a relatively short
period before our own time. Today we are indoctrinated with the
idea that the earth is of such a great age that every time we
see the exposed geologic deposits of this earth, the thought
come to mind, "It took millions of years for these layers
of rock to be built up." The assertion that modern geological
technology has been able to measure these formations to be millions
and even billions of years old is accepted even by those who
wish to believe in God's word and the account of the creation
as found in Genesis.
There are a number of methods used to determine the age of
soil and rock samples. Some methods are used as a check on the
accuracy of other tests, so that it seems that it would be impossible
for an error of any kind to be found in such age determinations.
I cannot describe all the tests now being used in an article
of this size, so I will limit my discussion to an examination
of the two major methods. To do this, we need to understand some
history of how present dating methods came about.
William Smith was an English canal builder who had opportunity
to examine much of the subsurface strata in many parts of his
native country during the early 1800's. He collected sample fossils
from many different layers of rock and soil, and kept careful
records of the area of Great Britain where the sample was located,
the depth of the layer of rock in which the fossil was found,
and the types of strata above and below the fossil. After a lengthy
study of the fossils he had collected, Smith noted that similar
fossils were generally found in the same strata throughout England.
He also noticed that smaller and less complex fossils tended
to be found in lower layers of the geologic column, and larger
and more complex organic remains were found in higher layers.
On the basis of these observations, Smith advocated the concept
that certain fossils always occurred in the same strata and that
the strata were always found in the same sequence. These particular
fossils became known as "Index Fossils." James Hutton,
a geologist who was a contemporary of Smith, taught that the
layers of rock had been built up over long periods of time. Using
Hutton's theory, Smith set up a system of groups of strata on
the basis of the fossils they contained and used these groups
to define the age of the earth. The groups subsequently became
known as Periods. (In later times, others consolidated the Periods
into Eras, and subdivided the Periods into Epochs.) Although
he did not advance the idea, it was implicit in Smith's theory
that the sequence of fossils found as the observer moved from
the bottom to the top of the geologic column changed from simple
to more complex forms.
In the middle part of the 19th century, Charles Lyell began
to assert that all strata studied by Smith and Hutton could have
been formed by existing natural forces if they were given enough
time, and that the then prevailing theory that the strata were
deposited by the flood of Noah and other floods was not necessary
to explain the existence of many layers of rock in the earth's
strata. Lyell also asserted physical conditions as they were
on the earth at that time had never changed throughout the earth's
existence. These teachings led to a great deal of debate between
his followers and those who held that all earth strata resulted
from many catastrophes, primarily the flood of Noah.
Those who opposed Lyell became known as followers of Catastrophism.
In time, Lyell's teachings became known as Uniformitarianism.
Unfortunately, religious division and differing interpretations
of the book of Genesis led to equally sharp debates among those
who opposed Lyell. As a result of this confusion, many scholars
and other intellectual men became convinced that those who taught
Catastrophism were in general an uneducated group who possessed
little, if any, credibility. A large number of educated men then
began to accept Lyell's teachings. The final blow to Catastrophism,
in the view of many, came when Darwin published his theory of
evolution. Using the assumption that organisms evolve from simpler
to more complex forms, several independent scholars adapted William
Smith's concept of index fossils to the evolutionary theories
of Darwin, and developed the so called "Law of Faunal Succession."
This "law" became the core of Uniformitarianism, and
subsequently, the philosophical foundation of modern Historical
Geology and Paleontology.
During the early part of the 20th century, most scholars abandoned
Lyell's claim that no catastrophes have occurred during the existence
of the earth. Earthquakes of different magnitudes have split
and fractured strata in many locations. The concept of "Ice
Ages" has been advanced to explain findings of large mammals
found completely frozen in arctic regions, and the existence
of the Great Lakes in North America. Local floods have eroded
and redeposited both strata and the fossils found in them. Although
rejecting parts of Lyell because the theory did not fit the data
observed in nature, modern geologists have retained the concept
of index fossils and faunal succession in all geological dating
systems.
Simply put, the system of dating by index fossils came about
when agreement was reached among scholars of the late 19th century
upon the ages of certain groups of index fossils. From that time
on, position of the rock in layers of strata, or in the depth
in which it was found became irrelevant. The only thing that
was of use to determine the age of any given strata was the groups
of index fossils found in it. Subsequent discovery of strata
in other locations on earth with "young" index fossils
many feet under "old" index fossils did not and could
not change the concept. If "old" rock was found on
top of "young" rock some other explanation had to be
developed. In the case of the Wyoming overthrust belt in North
America, it had to be assumed that hundreds of square miles of
"old" rock had in some way moved (leaped?) over hundreds
of square miles of "young" rock without leaving traces
of movement at the interface of the "young" and "old"
strata. Much study has been devoted to the characteristics of
this formation, but no truly satisfactory explanation outside
of the Creation Model has ever been advanced to explain it.
Continuing work in biology has also raised many questions
as the absolute accuracy of the relative ages of the index fossils,
and the assumed lines of descent. Many fossils in the index are
those of animals which were living during Smith's lifetime and
some fossils are from animals assumed to be extinct, but the
animal was subsequently found alive in the 20th century. The
student of the Bible should be aware that ultimately all systems
of dating depend upon the theory of index fossils, and faunal
succession. The proofs most often cited for a great age of the
earth can be grouped under the general classification of geological
radioactivity measurement.
To understand the measurement of age by radioactive decay
requires an understanding of the term "half life."
Half life is the span of time required for half the mass of a
radioactive substance to decay into a less radioactive substance.
At the end of the period of time known as the half life, one-half
of the original sample will be original material and one-half
will be the product of radioactive decay.
In general, uranium will, over a number of years, decay into
lead. It does not do so directly, but decays into less radioactive
isotopes and these isotopes in turn decay into less radioactive
isotopes until all becomes non-radioactive lead. The time sequence
for this decay process is measurable in the laboratory, and the
half life of most elements is well established.
If a scientist is given a sample of what was once pure uranium,
he is able, by measurement of the relative mass of each isotope,
to determine when in time the sample was 100 percent pure uranium.
If the sample was not 100 percent uranium in the beginning, but
contained some lead or other isotope of uranium, he cannot measure
the age of the sample, but can only calculate the point in time
when the sample would have been 100 percent uranium. In other
words, the rate of decay can be determined very precisely, but
the age of any sample can be determined only if you know the
type and amounts of each decay product in the sample at the point
in time you wish to verify. You have a system of fantastic accuracy,
but it isn't useful unless you can calibrate it. A number of
radioactive elements have differing decay rates and end products.
If you can find a sample with different radioactive elements
it is possible to make a cross check from the decay products
of one element to another; this will give a better number for
the half life, but it brings you no closer to the actual age
of the sample. It is the calibration process where all radioactive
measurement systems of age determination fail.
To properly use the measurement technique, we must have a
sample containing a radioactive element whose age is known from
other systems of measurement. It is then possible to calculate
the amount of original lead (called anomalous lead) in the sample.
If we then assume that other samples have the same amounts of
anomalous lead, and assume that the forces of nature have not
increased or decreased the amount of radioactive isotopes through
leeching or other known processes, we can measure the ratio of
the age of a given sample to the age of our calibration sample.
The accuracy of any such measurement comes down to the accuracy
of the estimate of age of our calibration sample.
The problem is where do we get our calibration sample of known
age? Why the Paleontologist will be happy to provide it. But
how does he know how many millions of years old his sample is?
He dates it by the use of index fossils in the strata where the
sample was taken. In the calibration process, any data from the
measurements which would indicate thousands rather than millions
of years would be discarded as irrelevant or flawed because the
Paleontologist knows the samples are so many million years old.
It is then understandable that the radioactive measurement would
tend to "prove" that which is already assumed. There
are many other objections to the methods and techniques of radioactive
dating, but for the purpose of this article I simply wish to
point out that a system of measurement cannot be calibrated with
the data it is supposed to verify.
In time, the science of Biology may abandon the theory of
evolution, but the Christian who wishes to enter the field of
Historical Geology or Paleontology must keep in mind that the
very existence of these fields of study not only assume the existence
of evolution, but demand it.
~ ~ ~
|
|
