Christianity and Science, Creationism, Science, Young Earth Creationism

Animal Death?- A Theological Argument Against Young Earth Creationism

[Answers in Genesis recently posted a critique of this article. I have responded here.] I have explored extensively the varied positions within Christianity about the origins and diversity of life. I come from a background in which I was a young earth creationist for quite some time, but my research has caused me to reject this position in favor of another. Those reading this article, please understand I do not wish to denigrate or devalue those who are young earth creationists (hereafter YEC and YECs). I appreciate that many who are YEC are doing their work in the field because they feel it is closest to the Biblical position and that they often believe science supports their view. That said, I cannot agree. In the following, I present a theological argument against the YEC position.

One of the theological arguments YECs use against other Christian positions (such as Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolutionism) is that it would imply death before the fall. I tried to track down an explicit syllogistic form of this argument and couldn’t find any in the literature with which I am familiar, however the argument is everywhere presented. For example, Ken Ham writes in The New Answers Book 1:

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin… and that all of God’s creation was ‘very good’ upon its completion… But if we compromise the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned… How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of his ‘very good’ creation? (36)

Elsewhere, we can find statements like this: “The Bible tells us very clearly that there was no death before sin from many passages. In fact, there are no Bible verses indicating there was death prior to sin.”

Now it is not my point in this post to cite every disagreement I have with such arguments (there are a great deal of them), but rather to show that the implications of an argument like this are absurd. One immediate problem with the argument is that it begs the question in the opening sentence by smuggling in a hidden premise. Namely, the notion that all death is the result of sin, as opposed to the death of mankind or a kind of spiritual death. Further, note the conflation of the terms in the second quote–just because there are no Bible verses which show there was death before sin, it does not follow that the Bible teaches that there was no death before sin. But those parts aside, I wish to show that this argument from YECs actually works against their position.

Suppose we lay out the argument:

  1. Death is the result of sin.
  2. If YEC is false, then things died before sin.
  3. Therefore, if YEC is false, God is unjust.

Now I know this is not the full argument. There are many premises I have left unstated, but it seems that is the gist of the passage cited from Ham. Why do I find this problematic? Well, it seems that the logic is that if death happened because of sin, then animals would not have died before the fall. But if that is the case, then why do animals die after the fall? The post on Answers in Genesis hints that it is because animals are cursed due to the serpent’s deception of Adam and Eve (cited below). One is still forced to wonder why all animals are cursed because a serpent–Satan–deceived Adam and Eve. Thus we are led to the following argument:

  1. If animals did not die before the fall, then their death must be the result of sin.
  2. Animals are incapable of sinning. (They have no culpability.)
  3. Therefore, their death would have to be the result of morally culpable agents’ sins.

But this argument, it seems, shows that YEC is morally impermissible. For on YEC, animals died because of Adam’s sin. The animals themselves didn’t do anything. One day, they were happily living potentially infinitely long lives, eating plants, and doing their animal things. The next day, Adam sinned, and so God decides to start killing them all, putting countdowns on their lifespans. But why? Because Adam sinned, not because they themselves sinned. Thus, animals, through no culpability of their own, suffered the punishment of death for Adam’s sin. This seems to be morally impossible.

Now it seems the YEC position could be modified to get around this argument, but it would have to drop the argument against the other positions that death could not have happened before the fall. The modification would essentially have to hold that animals were part of the natural world which lived and died. Or, the YEC position could charge that animals were moral agents, but that would seem absurd. Finally, the YEC position could hold that, somehow, the serpent’s culpability transferred to all other animals, but that would seem extremely difficult as well, particularly because the serpent is Satan.

The argument,  therefore, has been that animals are not morally culpable because they are not moral agents. Because that is the case, if they died due to sin, it was through not fault of their own. This would make God seem unjust if He caused animal death due to Adam’s fall. I’ve noted that YECs can avoid this injustice, but only by dropping the argument that Ham and others use against other positions.

There have been some interesting reactions to this article, and some of them are confusing my argument. What I’d like to note is this post is written from a perspective inside of YEC. In other words, I’m using the presuppositions of YEC against itself. What I’m not doing is personally saying that the death of animals is a morally impermissible state of affairs. What I am doing is saying that, on YEC, they assert it is morally impermissible, and so they have to accept the consequences of that argument.

Finally, I’d like to note that even if readers are unconvinced by this argument, they still must contend with other theological problems with YEC. For example, the notion that YEC makes God a deceiver. For this and other reasons I am no longer a YEC.

But what of the argument itself from YEC? What of the argument that there cannot be death before the fall? I urge readers to check out the following post over at geocreationism: Death before the fall — an old-Earth Biblical perspective. See also Luke Nix’s phenomenal post on the topic, “Cartoons, Animal Death, and Theology.”
Image Credit- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R%C3%B8d_r%C3%A6v_(Vulpes_vulpes).jpg image by Malene

Sources

Answers in Genesis, “Biblically, Could Death Have Existed Before Sin?” – http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/02/satan-the-fall-good-evil-could-death-exist-before-sin

Ken Ham, The New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, Arizona: Answers in Genesis, Master Books, 2006).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About these ads

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

Discussion

86 thoughts on “Animal Death?- A Theological Argument Against Young Earth Creationism

  1. I think there are many points to debate on this issue and Creationists of all shade and hue need to be prepared to engage with the difficult questions (whether they be questions of science of of biblical hermeneutics). However, I think this line of refutation is quite weak and I would put it to you that in your efforts to defend God’s justice, you make Him unjust. One could equally ask, why did God send His judgement upon animals as well as humans in the flood? Do we conclude that they were judged for sins of which they were not culpable? Or, on the off-chance you don’t think there was a flood, when the earth is burned up and consumed with fervent heat in God’s final judgement before restoration, all animals will (presumably) die; for whose sins will that be for? Is God judging the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

    This, to me, is half-way to ascribing personality to animals in a way which I don’t see as biblical at all. Why is it unpalatable to believe that the animals are simply a part of God’s Creation just as are the trees, the oceans etc. which have all been cursed and spoiled by the introduction of sin by man’s disobedience? I’m not saying that there aren’t difficult questions for young earthers to deal with regarding pre-Fall death, but I don’t think this is one of them.

    Thanks for posting!

    Posted by Duncan Ryan | March 12, 2012, 7:37 AM
    • J.W. and Duncan, both of you are right in that either way ,Yahweh errs. And theistic evolutionists have the problem of those vast ages of other animals suffering. God, Allah, Yahweh or whoever would be injust.
      The injustice of the curse is that Yahweh entrapped the pair. As omniscient He knoew what they would do. And His punishment is for knowing right and wrong, which otherwise, supernaturalists value for free will! To add posterity to inherit original sin is egregious. Oh, why, He should have thus let them know about right and wrong in the first place and make them immortal also without having to partake of the other tree!
      Might doesn’t make right.
      To affirm His omniscience then means that He wasn’t using it !
      Ah, but ti’s only a metaphor? What good is this as a metaphor as haughty John Haught would call it a good one for hope?
      No,ti’s just a weird fable! No snake or -donkey ever spoke!

      Posted by Lord Griggs | March 12, 2012, 9:22 AM
      • Griggs, as always thanks for the comment.

        I’m a bit confused though. It seems to me that “vast ages of animals suffering” is really not a moral wrong. Animals are not moral agents.

        Again, it is kind of hard for me to follow your chain of thought. Could you outline your argument more specifically.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 12, 2012, 1:39 PM
      • J.W., thanks.
        a Manynimals are sentient beings: they can,unlike, worm,s experience pain.It would be wrong to let them suffer for those ages were it possible to otherwise. So, I find it morally wrong for them to suffer so. We have now protections for them due to that wrong that people do to them.
        What is moral is to do what one can for sentient beings instead of wanting for humans to love one.The categorical imperative is to do justice to them,not the hypothetical of leaving it to ones whims as Kant would so state.
        J.W,. my right-side cortical defects can impinge on my thinking and style. I’ll try to remedy the difficulty of following my thought.
        Oh, with RIchard Carrier, I discovered that we share the effort to include different theories in our humanist morality- my covenant and his goal theory.

        Posted by Lord Griggs | March 19, 2012, 9:02 AM
    • Duncan,

      Was God judging people or animals with the flood?

      My main point in this post is that animals are not moral agents, so it is hard for me to see how the flood would show God is unjust. Basically, I’m arguing that on YEC it seems animals are made into moral agents. They are not. Now if something is not a moral agent, ending its life is not morally impermissible. This is a pretty tough argument when we look at animals overall–is it always okay to kill animals? Hunting seems permissible, but what about wanton killing of wildlife? Well, here we can point to the radical reliance of the animals upon God. The Bible is very explicit throughout over animals’ extreme reliance on God. God sends them food, rain, etc. It is God alone who preserves their being. Thus, it doesn’t seem impermissible for God to stop sustaining them. What requirement does God have to animals?

      I’m sure there are longer, better answers out there. Those are my initial thoughts. And here’s another serious difficulty that I see–your response is essentially a tu quoque,

      Your main response seems to be more along the lines of this: “Why is it unpalatable to believe that the animals are simply a part of God’s Creation just as are the trees, the oceans etc. which have all been cursed and spoiled by the introduction of sin by man’s disobedience?”

      I don’t find that unpalatable at all. That would be the position I hold. The problem is that YECs don’t seem to hold that position, or at least their argument against other positions undermines this answer. They say there was no death at all prior to the Fall. But with the fall, all of creation began to die. Contrast that with the other positions which essentially can point to the difficulty of farming, catching prey, etc. as the results of the fall because Adam/Eve are banished from the Garden itself.

      My point here is that YECs can take such answers around my argument, but only at the expense of dropping their argument against other positions. I’m fine with YECs holding similar views about the Fall to me. My point is that animals did die before the fall, and if they didn’t, it seems to make God unjust.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 12, 2012, 1:38 PM
  2. Just curious where the theological argument in your post is at. Where is the interaction with the texts to include an overview of the Hebrew words for good and very good as presented by respected Hebrew lexicons. There is no interaction with the verses used by YECs to support the clear biblical principle of death being an intrusion into a perfect creation as evidenced by the curse placed on all of creation in Genesis 3. All I see are efforts at presenting a logic based argument against the YEC position rather than a true depiction of the verses in question, the principles in the context of those verses as well as in the entirety of scripture, or any other line of thought that would be considered a sound hermeneutical and exegetical argument for your position.

    Scripture does not depict the fall and the resultant curse placed on all of creation as simply making it hard for mankind to farm, catch prey, etc. Mankind was banished from the Garden of Eden and sin and death became the new norm. The tired old arguments of trying to say the original creation was not perfect because the transliteration of the Hebrew word tov is good misses the clear meaning of that word in its context. Apparently in the OEC mindset, God created a somewhat good world where death was present before sin. That is not consistent with not just Genesis but the entirety of scripture as a whole.

    Posted by Michael Boling | March 13, 2012, 3:56 PM
    • Thanks for your comment. I appreciate thoughtful interactions with my posts.

      First, you wrote, “Just curious where the theological argument in your post is at.”

      I thought I made that quite clear:

      If animals did not die before the fall, then their death must be the result of sin.
      Animals are incapable of sinning. (They have no culpability.)
      Therefore, their death would have to be the result of morally culpable agents’ sins.

      Now I know, your point seemed to be that “All I see are efforts at presenting a logic based argument against the YEC position rather than a true depiction of the verses in question…”

      But of course, a “logic based argument” is just as much a theological argument as one based upon the minute details about one Hebrew word. Thus, it is just as powerful if it is sound.

      Regarding your second paragraph, it seems that here the interaction with my argument has broken down. I never argued that the world was created “somewhat good” or anything of the sort. Nor did I use any “tired old argument” about tov. In fact, I didnt mention it in the post at all. I am therefore forced to wonder whether you’re letting your preconceptions color the argument here.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 13, 2012, 4:30 PM
  3. Always appreciate your insights, JW!

    I’m a YEC, but your post was very thought-provoking. I printed it out with all the previous comments, too. :)

    The thing I wanted to throw out there was the Genesis 1:31 wherein God calls everything He had made “very good”. As Henry Morris, Ken Ham, and others have pointed out, if we say that animals were dying up to that point and afterwards, is it not odd that God would call such a thing not just good, but “very good”? What do you think about that point? What do you think that scripture implies? (Personally speaking, I would have a hard time understanding why God would see dead animals or animals stricken with all sorts of diseases and then pronounce it “very good”.)

    Another thing I was thinking about regarding how human sin impacted the lives of animals (who are, we agree, “not morally culpable”) even after the Garden under the old covenant. The people of Israel were instructed to offer different animal sacrifices in accord with the degree of the sin they committed, as we know. But what did the animals do to deserve that? The question is rhetorical, of course, because the animals did nothing. In some sense, it may have been yet another one of God’s methods to show us how evil the human heart is; that even seeing the impact of our sin on an innocent (non-morally culpable) animal would not turn us from them, since avoiding sins would mean that the animals wouldn’t need to be sacrificed. Was God unjust to command the sacrifice of animals for human sins? Again, a rhetorical question whose answer is “no”. But what does it imply?

    But feel free to help me see potential holes in my reasoning. We all need each other.

    One last thing: Here’s a loooong, heated debate between Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser vs. Ken Ham and Jason Lisle on the meaning of day in Genesis. (They do touch on the very “death” issue mentioned here, plant “death” in particular. If I recall, they do touch on animal death, too.)

    [audio src="http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/oldearth-youngearth-debate.mp3" /]

    Look forward to and value your responses…

    Joshua

    Posted by "No Apologies Allowed" Weekly Apologetics Cartoons | March 14, 2012, 10:01 AM
    • Joshua,

      As always you are insightful and courteous in your comments. I have loved our interactions over… what has it been? A year or two? In any case, I’ve grown through our conversations, thank you!

      Moving on, one thing that I think can be seen about the “very good” response, assuming animals did die (on an old earth perspective), is that there is beauty in creation. I hold to intelligent design (and an amalgam of other views), and so I do think that life evolved on our planet, guided by God. When I think of it that way, I can’t help but see God as an artist, weaving the threads of life as he brought it from single-celled organisms to dinosaurs and beyond. That life and death were part of animals natures from the start means that there is nothing unnatural about their death. Further, the fact is that animals don’t have awareness of their own suffering (for a brief discussion see Craig’s comments here). Thus, when animals died it was part of the natural order, and there’s nothing implicitly evil about it.

      I think those same comments would apply to the animal sacrifice issue.

      I want to clarify what my line of argument was. I wasn’t arguing that animal death is in itself a bad thing. What my argument is mean to address is the assumption, on YEC, that animal death is always bad. Given the assumption, on YEC, that animals dying before the fall, what does that imply for animals after the fall? Well it seems to me the implication is that animals, due to Adam’s sin, were also killed. It is this which I am saying is impermissible on YEC’s own assumptions. Thus, my argument isn’t that I myself hold the view that animal death is always a bad thing; rather, I’m saying that if that is implied by the YEC argument against an old earth, then it follows that animals were somehow punished for Adam’s sin despite not being culpable for it.

      Does that help clarify?

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 14, 2012, 10:22 AM
      • Thanks, JW. Yep, you’ve been a fantastic encouragement for going on nearly 2 years this November! Thanks so much. And it’s amazing how much your work has grown in just a year. Tons of articles and comments now. Fantastic.

        We would both agree that even in its current degenerate state, there’s a lot of beauty in creation. I’m eating a bowl of freshly picked strawberries as I write this. They are beautiful and they taste fantastic! But “very good” might have some limitations. For example, many of us YECs point to cancer (seen in the fossil record) as not “very good”. Could animals death post Adam’s sin have anything to do with the dominion man was given over the Earth and animals (Genesis 1:28)? (That man’s actions affect the environment, including animals. Look at the flood; the point mentioned earlier by one visitor about the flood during Noah’s age resulting in the death of all animals too. It would make more sense if the destiny of animals were somehow intertwined with humanity’s exercise of responsibility over them, or lack of.)

        Maybe the difference is simpler. Maybe it is that YEC gives a reason for animals dying, but OEC doesn’t. (Does OEC give a reason for animals death? And if so, is it a biblically based reason?) Adam’s sin brought death into the world (Romans 5:12). If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Hugh Ross, a well known OEC, interprets this verse to mean that death only came to humans after Adam’s transgression, but that it had already been operating in animals and plants since the beginning of creation. Personally speaking, I think that is saying something different than “kosmos” (the word rendered “world” there) intends. But how do you read it?

        As a side note: I’d be curious as to where the concept of long ages comes in. After all, the first immediate gap between our positions is one of time, old versus young. Is the idea of long ages a biblical concepts? Where does it come from?

        You’ve helped me in more ways than you know, brother.

        Joshua

        Posted by "No Apologies Allowed" Weekly Apologetics Cartoons | March 15, 2012, 12:11 AM
      • Joshua,

        You’ve asked some really great questions and I will get back to you. I just wanted to say I’m still recovering from the flu and my mind feels foggy right now, so I may not make a lot of sense right now.

        Regarding animal death and Adam’s dominion over the Earth–that seems like a possibility, I suppose. One could counter my argument simply by saying that God tied the fate of animals into the fate of humanity by giving humanity dominion over all the animals. That, I would think, would provide a possibly sound defense of the YEC position against my argument. I’ll have to reflect on it.

        Regarding a “reason” for animal death–I can’t speak for all OEC positions, but generally I would say that it is simply part of animals’ natures to die, just like it is part of predators’ natures to eat. We don’t morally judge an eagle for catching and eating a fish; nor should we morally judge the notion of animals dying. I don’t really see anything inherently wrong with it, particularly because animals have no awareness of suffering.

        Regarding long ages–that’s a huge question that would require a lot of exposition that I’m a bit too sick to write out. If I can be afforded something of a cop-out, let me point over to Reasons to Believe for some fantastic articles on the topic. Specifically, regarding the notion of death and the fall and regarding the age of the Earth in the Bible, I’d suggest using the filter to look at articles here.

        My apologies for the cheapness of that last part of the answer but I’m sick and tired (literally, not trying to say I’m sick and tired of you or anything).

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 16, 2012, 10:52 AM
      • I’ve already written a follow-up post to this, but continue to get feedback on this post. One thing I would like to note is that the “Adam’s dominion” argument seems to be a possible ‘out’–but I still don’t think it is for the YEC who wants to consistently maintain that animal death is a bad thing. If that is so, then it still seems that God has forced something bad upon animals just because of Adam. I guess it would really depend how robust one’s view of Adam’s dominion is.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 25, 2012, 2:29 PM
  4. A theological argument involves the use of theology, namely scripture to demonstrate what God has truly spoken in regards to an issue. Unfortunately, there was a lack of scriptural support, meaning the actual use of scripture to back up the claims being made in your post. In fact, I noticed not one scripture being used to support what was purported to be a theological argument.

    The entire creation groans under the weight of the curse of sin and death. Scripture makes that clear. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s clear command. As a result, all of creation was placed under a curse, one which involved death, physical death and decay for the universe and spiritual and physical death for humanity. If death was the norm prior to sin, then that means the entire creation has groaned under the weight of death at a minimum ever since God declared “Let there be light.” Scripturally, and logically speaking for that matter, that makes no sense in the grand scheme of God’s plan laid out in scripture. Death, regardless of whether it is relation to animals or humanity is a clear intrusion into God’s original creation.

    If one is to engage scripture in regards to understanding a principle, then you must allow scripture to speak for itself leaving aside presuppositions while letting the immediate context, the context of prior and following verses and chapters, genre, and overarching principles of scripture dictate meaning. That is the method to sound and proper hermeneutics and biblical exegesis, basically Bible interpretation 101. Making statements such as “that life evolved on our planet, guided by God” demonstrates a position that is founded on outside influences that have impacted your interpretation of scripture. Where is there any indication in Genesis 1 of creation evolving? God said…and it was so with the creation spoken into being on any given day immediately functioning as God intended.

    This is not just a YEC position, but the very words God has provided in his word.

    Posted by Michael Boling | March 14, 2012, 5:00 PM
    • Michael,

      Thanks again for the comment.

      One thing I’d note right at the start is you equivocate “theology” with the use of Scriptural passages. Clearly, that is something that needs to be done, but that is one part of theology. The argument outlined here is of the type of theology known as analytic theology: drawing out the ideas offered and seeing where the conclusions run. The argument I made is that based upon the YEC assumptions, the YEC position entails something morally impermissible (cf. Joshua’s response for one possible way around the argument for a YEC). This type of theology is similar to that done when analyzing the doctrine of the incarnation. The background is indeed the text, but the Biblical text doesn’t explicate how the data is to work analytically. I’m not going to offer a defense of analytic theology here, but I can’t help but think that this criticism is off base.

      It seems in your last two paragraphs that you’re not doing theology so much as exegesis. Of course, to use your own comment, you haven’t exactly put the texts out there to support your claims, so there’s not much I can comment upon here. Perhaps that’s where the confusion is, that you’re arguing for exegesis (one part of theology) as being the encompassing scope of the field.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 16, 2012, 10:59 AM
    • But mere men for the most part just say what they wanted to say , not what putative God wanted them to say or all their errors would not be thus!What rational person would take the word of men whom no one can vouchsafe: that circular reasoning doesn’t help matters.
      Theistic evolutionists just assume compatibility betwixt the supernatural and evolution, but never will illuminate how that could be, by the magic of let it be! and so, they rely on the argument from ignorance. Furthermore, per Lamberth’s the atelic-teleonomic argument notes that science finds no divine intent, then to posit that intent contradicts instead of complementing science so that theistic evolution is just an oxymoronic obfuscation!
      Science saves!

      Posted by Lord Griggs | March 16, 2012, 5:45 PM
  5. JW:

    The crucial unstated premise in the argument

    Death is the result of sin.
    If YEC is false, then things died before sin.
    Therefore, if YEC is false, God is unjust.

    is this:

    (P) If animals died prior to human sin, then such death would be unjust.

    You get close to this premise in your conclusion, but you should make (P) explicit, since it is the premise that seems to be exercising marginal control in the YEC argument you’re dealing with here.

    I think there are good reasons to doubt (P), but you’re right to focus on a different point. After all, it’s not exactly obvious why, if P is true, that P2 would follow:

    ( P2) Massive animal death after the Adam and Eve fall into sin is just.

    On the contrary, if P is true, it seems much more likely that P2 would be false. That is, if it’s unjust for animals to die prior the sin of Adam and Eve, it’s probably unjust afterwards as well.

    This alone gives one a non-neglible reason to doubt the truth of (P).

    Jay Richards

    Posted by Jay Richards | March 22, 2012, 9:50 PM
    • Jay,

      Thank you very much for your comment!

      You did correctly draw out the hidden premises there. I admitted to allowing myself a bit of leeway as I sketched out the argument. And, of course, I don’t think (P) is true; but it seems to me that YECs do. I have not run into a single one who seems to allow a denial of (P), but I have not run into an argument to support it either.

      One critique I’ve received over and over again is that this is not a theological argument, but the argument is theological in nature: if a position (YEC) makes God unjust, then there is a flaw in the theology there.

      Thanks again.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 22, 2012, 10:19 PM
  6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/17/news-to-note-03172012 There’s a refutal of this down in the ‘and don’t miss’ section.

    Posted by mm | March 24, 2012, 12:19 AM
  7. Hi JW. I just finished reading your post, the responses, and your reponses to the reponses to your response. Anyways, I want to commend you on how you handled the critiques against you. I do not think I have always been as graceful.

    Also, I should point out that the link you ascribe to me (GeoCreationism.com) is in fact a link to the GeoChristian. Easy mistake I know, and my heart jumped when I thought you were citing me… and then it jumped again when the link did not lead to my site. No hard feelings though. I just want the right guy getting credit.

    In regards to the article you link to however, I would like to point out the GeoChristian’s position that Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 “specifically” connect human death to Adam’s sin. Logically, such a position would make death the sting of sin, and Paul clearly says later in 1 Cor. 15 that sin is the sting of death. Paul’s formulation requires that death precede the Fall, and that would include animal death.

    Posted by Mike | April 11, 2012, 11:15 PM
    • Mike,

      thanks for the correction on the link… my apologies. Your own discussion is just as relevant and very well done (for interested reader’s check out GeoCreationism’s post “The Relationship Between Death and Original Sin.”

      Thank you also for your kind words. I think it is very important for those involved in this debate to refrain from name-calling and stick to the issue. I understand the concerns of those on the other side, so I try to be open to their criticisms, or at least respectful of the people themselves. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear I’m not getting such a fair reading or response myself. I can only hope and pray that this trend won’t continue.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 12, 2012, 1:57 AM
  8. TheIr argument and yours as well is NOT biblical. Both are based on wrong arguments and traditions. The bible clearly says that Adam and Eve were run out of the garden and not allowed to eat from the tree of life, lest they live forever. There was no fall. There was a choice between two trees and only one of those trees were said to be off limits. Eating from neither tree would produce the same result – death.

    Posted by John | June 24, 2012, 6:47 PM
    • What do you mean by saying “there was no fall”? What of the entire story about Eve being tempted by the serpent and giving into temptation?

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 24, 2012, 6:50 PM
      • Does the bible say, that if they were allowed to eat from the tree of life, they will live forever?

        Yes it does.

        And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

        Was Adam told he could not eat from the tree of life? No! He was told he could eat from ANY tree, which included the tree of life, before he chose to eat from the tree that gave the knowledge of Good and knowledge of Evil.

        The arguments on this subject are all wrong on both sides.

        Posted by John | June 24, 2012, 6:57 PM
      • You wrote, “He was told he could eat from ANY tree…”

        But Genesis 2:16b-17 states “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

        Not seeing it your approach mesh with Scripture very well.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 24, 2012, 8:21 PM
      • Correction – except for the knowledge of good – and evil. Otherwise, he would have known good all the days of his life – eating from the tree of life would have prolonged that to forever

        Posted by John | June 24, 2012, 7:02 PM
      • One last thing: The earth still rotates every 24 hours, doesn’t it?

        “and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years”

        The only confussion in creation is the difference in events between Genises 1 and 2. I would search for books and study them that are quoted in the bible, but since the earth and the lights in the sky have been formed, time has not changed.

        Posted by John | June 24, 2012, 7:32 PM
    • John,

      In my humble opinion, part of your point is on the right track, but I believe you unnecessarily conflate death with the fall, which is why you find JW’s post disagreeable. I resolve it for myself in this manner: Adam went from being a sinless man who could die (as you correctly point out), to a sinful man who could die. However, it was the commission of his sin, and his newfound knowledge of right-and-wrong that constituted mankind’s fall, not his ability to die. As it says in 1 Cor. 15, sin gives death its sting; before the fall, a man could die; after the fall, that death had a sting. As for animals, their death has no sting, and never did; aminal death was never a sin. In short, death precedes the fall. The **sting** of death however is for mankind only. That sting comes after the fall, and can only be removed by faith in Jesus Christ. That is why Paul can say death has no victory, yet we die… for the faithful in Christ their death has no sting.

      Posted by Mike | June 24, 2012, 11:01 PM
  9. Hey, I haven’t read all these comments, but I got here from Janitorial Musings, and thought some of the quotes I dropped there were relevant here as well:

    Finally, the YEC position could hold that, somehow, the serpent’s culpability transferred to all other animals, but that would seem extremely difficult as well, particularly because the serpent is Satan.

    Quoting “Rabbi” Duncan: “that is rash theorizing of Delitzsch’s about the palaeontological animals suffering death for the devil’s sin. A brute’s death can never be penal. Where there is no conscience there can be nothing penal. It is strange how far grotesque speculation carries some men.”

    [Joshua]Does OEC give a reason for animals death? And if so, is it a biblically based reason?

    Following Meredith Kline, Jesus’ words in John 12:24 imply that death is implicit in the creational command to be fruitful and multiply.

    But JW, I have to note that the core of your argument, which seems to be “animals, through no culpability of their own, suffered the punishment of death for Adam’s sin. This seems to be morally impossible.” is quite problematic. If it’s true that it is morally impossible for death to come solely as the result of the sin of another; then how do you maintain the doctrine of original sin? (And if the sin of the first Adam cannot be gratuitously imputed to others, how can the righteousness of the second Adam be graciously imputed to others?)

    Also, you have some serious issues with font in your original post.

    Posted by RubeRad | July 25, 2012, 10:34 AM
    • I think you’ve misunderstood the core of my argument, which I admit is easy to do. The core of my argument is that YECs hold to an inconsistent set of propositions:
      1) Death = Punishment for sin
      2) Animals are not moral agents [and therefore not able to sin]
      3) Death came through Adam’s sin
      4) Animal death came through Adam’s sin

      At least one of these 4 propositions must be dropped to make it a morally just state of affairs.

      Thus I am pointing out the problems with the YEC position. Because I don’t hold to all these propositions as necessarily applicable, I don’t have the same problem.

      Regarding original sin: I think there is at least one way to maintain original sin, as I’ve written elsewhere. Basically, if you hold to certain views of the soul, then there is culpability for original sin. Now I don’t necessarily hold this view, but it would preserve culpability.

      The font issues I have no idea how they happened. I tried to clear them up in HTML and it didn’t work. It doesn’t help that I’m borderline blog-technology-illiterate.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | July 26, 2012, 1:08 AM
  10. The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
    a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
    Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
    In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
    However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
    b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
    However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
    c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
    The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
    Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
    Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
    d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
    The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
    Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
    However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.

    Posted by zuma | August 24, 2012, 8:37 AM
  11. Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
    Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
    a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
    b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
    The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
    The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
    Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
    Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
    Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
    Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
    Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
    Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
    Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
    Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
    a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
    b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
    c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
    d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
    e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
    d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
    All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
    Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
    t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
    where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
    Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

    Posted by zuma | September 1, 2012, 5:41 AM
  12. Let’s furnish another mathematical formula below for the computation of age of fossils and the earth that could be located at the website address http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit4/U4L31A.html :
    t = 1/delta In (1+D/P)
    where t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen, D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today, P is the number of atoms of the parent product today, ln is the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and delta is the appropriate decay constant.
    In order that the formula could apply for the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth, the substance or objects or whatever must have established the relationship that one object must be the daughter of another. If the relationship between them could not establish to be one as parent and another as daughter, the above mathematical formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth.
    Let’s use Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 as examples for elaboration since scientists have linked up these two objects as parent-daughter relationship that would lead to the decay rate of 106 billion years. The following are the reasons why the computation by means of the above mathematic formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth:
    a)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning and Neodymium-143 would not be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, the relationship between them to be parent and daughter could not be established. As the relationship could not be established in case if they would have been created simultaneously in the very beginning, the above mathematical formula could not apply. This is by virtue of the above formula could only be applicable when two objects have established with the parent-daughter relationship.
    b)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would be as hard as a diamond that there could be no way for them to decay, the formula could not be applicable to this condition since Both of these items could not be established to be parent-daughter relationship as one could not be the transformation from another.
    c)Even if Samarium-147 could decay, how could scientists be so firmly that it could turn up to be Neodymium-143 instead of otherwise since nobody could live billion of years to witness the end-result of transformation for Samarium-147 to be Neodymium-143? As that could be so, to comment Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 to be parent-daughter relationship and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would lead to wrong age since they could have no relationship between them in the first place.
    d)What if Samarium-147 could decay to Neodymium-143 and yet the decay rate could not be established to be billion of years instead, it could only be a few thousand years, it would certainly affect the figure that has to be used for delta. This is by virtue of the unreliable decay rate would affect the decay constant figure that has to be used in the formula above. As the unreliable decay rate of the above substance would affect the decay constant to be used in the formula above, the end-result of the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would not be reliable.
    As it is hard to jump into the conclusion that one material or substance or whatever could be the daughter of another, this makes the computation to be unreliable and it is irrational to use radioactive dating method to jump into the conclusion that the age of fossils or the earth or rocks could be in billion years.

    Posted by zuma | September 1, 2012, 8:30 AM
    • First, there’s no way I could possibly respond to this in detail. Going forward, perhaps we could try to condense comments down to be shorter than the posts themselves. Let’s focus on just a few points at a time.

      Second, I hate to say it but this critique of radiometric dating is off-base. This is the kind of YEC argument that shows a lack of knowledge about how we actually establish dating methods. The reason is because, like many YECs who make this argument, you present it as though there are just a few possibilities for dating things via isochron/radiometric dating. That is false. Rather, scientists can use a broad range of dating methods and can change them based upon the thing they are trying to date.

      For example, Young and Stearley, anticipating this exact objection, write in The Bible, Rocks and Time:

      …[Y]oung Earth scientists must consistently maintain that every isochron interpretation espoused by the geologic community contradicts what the young-Earth advocates take to be a “biblically-based time frame” of only a few thousands of years. Because isochron diagrams (and there are thousands of them) invariably yield ages in the range of tens of millions to billions of years, young-Earth creationists must conclude that all isochrons are false… If radiometric dating cannot withstand legitimate, knowledgeable critique, then geologists will abandon its methods. They have already shown that they will abandon defective methods following compelling criticism by members of the scientific community. But several other methods have long withstood critical analysis and are thereby considered frutiful tools of geological investigation. The evidence obtained from a wide range of radiometric dating methods overwhelmingly indicates that the Earth is billions of years old. The clues that God has left in the rocks in the form of radioactive isotopes and their daughter products could not be much clearer. (438, 442-443 emphasis theirs).

      They have about 80 pages in the book showing how various YEC arguments fail, so I do highly recommend reading that book.

      Furthermore, I don’t see any reason to accept the “what if” scenarios above. For example, hardness does not somehow prevent decay (point b)). I don’t actually even know what that is supposed to mean. All isotopes have half lifes. It doesn’t matter how “hard” they are. Of course, this defeats c). Regarding d), the classic YEC argument “no one was there” is extremely disingenuous. YECs try to use science to show the world/universe is 6-10000 years old, but of course none of us were there for that. Therefore, using the same logic, YEC is false.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | September 1, 2012, 10:08 AM
    • JW, I hope you don’t me respondign to Zuma in more detail. I tried to resist after his first post, but these last two just got to me…

      Zuma, please understand that the arguments you are writing betray a lack of scientific understanding. I believe in the same savior as you, and the same Bible. So, I am not attacking your faith in my reply below. However, I have studied the science that you criticize, and when I read your arguments, it is just too obvious that whoever gave you these arguments does not understand the science. I will reply point by point. I mean no disrespect…

      From your first post:
      a)The Salt Clock method of aging the earth – Scientists today don’t do this. They already agree with you.
      b)Aging by earth’s temp – The earth was only created solid if God created the earth to appear older than it is. Assumes the earth is young.
      c)The Grand canyon – If not created flat, then God created the earth to appear older than it is. Assumes a young earth.
      d)What if the parent isotopes co-existed with their products? Scientists start with the process that would have created the parent isotopes. If that process would not also create the “child”-type isotopes, then they know then can proceed. Very logical.

      From your second post:
      On Noah’s ark accelerating decay… this is only suggested by Young Earthers looking for a reason why the aging tecniques of mainstream scientists are giving such old ages. In other words, the age of the earth is the premise of this argument, so cannot be the conclusion. Nonetheless…
      a)Hard rocks (such as diamonds), known as crystals, do not visibly decay, but they do corrode. Corrosion is therefore a valid means to age, but it is extremely inaccurate. That said, crystals give off isotopes, and quite predictably. This makes them quite suitable for aging the earth… if you can find undamaged ones.
      b)You are suggesting that two rocks of identical chemical makeup can be of such different hardness that one decays into the other such that modern scientists cannot tell the difference. But, such hard rocks are known as crystals, and non-crystals do not decay into crystals.

      You then turn to radio-metric dating. You suggest a rock that does not even produce radio-active isotopes. Here’s the thing: The reason scientists can measure radio-active decay that has a half-life of a billion years is because they measure the rate at which it is giving off isotopes right now, and then measure that rate against the current ratio and concentration of parent and child isotopes. In other words, if there are crystals that are so hard that they do not even emit radiotivity, scientists are not using them. Nontheless…
      a)Scientists do age things based on a double-decay. It just feeds the mathematical equation.
      b)Explained above.
      c)Explained above.
      d)Explained above.
      e)Explained above.
      d)Explained above.

      As for your examination of the equation, I have already explained that scientists did not pick the decay rates. They **measured** them. Decay “rates” express measures of probability, not deterministic transformation.

      From your third post:
      Your hypotheticals are just that. Scientists on the other hand (in this case at least) simply measure and observe. They then figure out if there is a mathematical model to represent what they see. Then, they compare to other similar experiments. Differences are accounted for, and then the answer is the answer. If the answers came out to 6,000 years, then that is what our atheistic scientists would be saying. But it doesn’t, so they don’t.

      I strongly suggest studying the science more. By perpetuating the scientific ignorance of our well-meaning brothers in Christ, I am afraid it does us all a disservice.

      Posted by Mike | September 1, 2012, 11:54 AM
  13. Mike, What if those objects that have been classfied as parent isotopes and daughter would have been created at the same time in the very beginning, scientists should not jump into the conclusion certain objects should be the daugther isotopes of another? This is due to all the objects would have been created at the same time in the very beginning. Unless one material could be transformation of another, it is then rational to conclude one should be the daughter isotope of another. How do the scientists establish the relationship between one to another to establish whether one is the daughter isotope of another?

    Posted by Isaac | September 18, 2012, 12:44 AM
    • Scientists will consider the mathematical ratio of parent to child isotopes, relative to the rate at which child isotopes are produced by the parents. If all of the child isotopes come from parent isotopes, then the actual ratio will match the predicted. If the child isotopes were created with the parent isotopes however, then the ratio will not work out. I have read of this happening, and in those cases, they have to resort to other means to determine an accurate age.

      Posted by Mike | September 20, 2012, 1:29 AM
  14. Objects might have emitted radioactive decay. How could scientists be assure that radioactive decay that has been emitted by an object could cause the quality of that material to be converted to the appointed daughter isotope as indiated by scientists.

    Posted by Isaac | September 18, 2012, 12:51 AM
  15. According to scientists, parent istopes could be converted to daughter. Could any minerals or subjects be able to converted to parent isotopes? Or could daughter istope be able to convert to parent?

    Posted by Isaac | September 20, 2012, 8:14 PM
  16. What would cause parent isotopes be created? Or can new parent isotopes be formed?

    Posted by Isaac | September 20, 2012, 8:23 PM
    • The gaining or loss of a neutron.
      Yes.

      Posted by Mike | September 22, 2012, 7:12 PM
      • Mike, You have mentioned that parent isotopes are created through gain and loss of neutron. What has caused Samarium-147 to be created? What has caused Rubidium-87 to be created? What has casued Carbon-14 to be created? What has caused Uranium-235 and 234 to be created? What is the scientific formula that has supported to your theory that Samarium could be created? If you could not furnish in detail, that implies that you are incorrect.

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 8:30 PM
      • I edited this comment on the last word. Do not come even close to pseudo-cursing again or you will be blocked from commenting.

        Posted by J.W. Wartick | September 23, 2012, 8:33 PM
      • Mike, If you would suggest that Samarium-147 (Parent isotope) could turn up to be Neodymium-143 and yet Neodymium-143 could turn up to be Samarium-147. If that is so, how could Samarium-147 be treated as Parent Isotope of Neodymium-143 since Neodymium-143 could turn up to be Samarium-147 through gaining or losing of neutrons? If Neodymium-143 could turn up to be Samarium-147 through gaining or losing of neutrons, it is irrational to support that Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143 by 106 billion years since it could reverse the situation by not transforming into Neodymium-143. If that could be so, it is irrational to use isotopes to compute the age of the earth, fossils and the earth due to the possible reversee

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 8:53 PM
      • If all the materials that have been classified by scientists to be parent isotopes would restore to their original condition, how could they differentiate materials to be parent isotopes or daughter? This is due to the possible reverse in transformation through gaining or losing neutrons that might lead to inability to be transformed into daughter isotopes. As parent isotopes might not be able to transform into daughter due to the possible reverse in transformation, parent isotopes might not be able to turn up to be the appointed daughter. As that could be so, how could scientists establish materials to be one is the daughter isotope of another? As parent-daughter relationship could not be established due to the possible reverse in transformation, all the mathematical formulas that have been used by scientists to compute the age of rocks, fossils and the earth could not be reliable.

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 11:39 PM
      • Isaac, This will be my last round of responses to you unless you can do something for me. Site secular articles describing what you are attacking. Why secular? Because Christian articles that attack science tend to propose unobserved hypotheticals and then extrapolate from those, whereas secular articles extrapolate from the observed. I will then read those articles and either confirm your view or refute it, based on the articles, and not based on a hypothetical you suggest, and not based on my own recall of the science. In this case, you would need to site for me a scientific article documenting the observations that led to a conclusion that Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 alternate, and an article that uses these isotopes for dating the earth. Otherwise, I will be forced to conclude (which I’m very nearly there) that you are simply proposing unobserved hypotheticals that other Christians have provided you, whether be it through their writing or otherwise. Such is not a dialog, and is not a case of iron sharpening iron, but a case of saying foolish things to point where the other stops responding, so that the former can call them foolish. I hope that is not what you are doing.

        Posted by Mike | September 24, 2012, 9:03 AM
      • You discontinue your discussion implies you can’t defend the science and that is why you give up. I have many to support my view that is why I would prefer to discuss with you.

        Posted by Isaac | September 24, 2012, 9:55 PM
      • Mike, You are wrong about Christianity. Christians will try not to tell lies but speak fact and truth. What is against the fact and truth, they will point out. There is no wrong with them since they speak what come out from their mind.

        Posted by Isaac | September 24, 2012, 10:16 PM
  17. Mike, You have mentioned that scientists have used mathematical formula to determine whether parent isotope would be the daughter of another. What formula is this?

    Posted by Isaac | September 20, 2012, 9:08 PM
    • It depends.

      You know, there is plenty to read on this, and your comments suggest that you do not know much about the subject. Frankly, it’s quite fascinating. I suggest googling on isotopes, and start reading.

      Posted by Mike | September 22, 2012, 7:15 PM
      • Mike, You call me to read the science. It proves that your knowledge in science could not defend radioactve dating method or else you would furnish to me.

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 8:34 PM
      • I referred you to reading, because you appear to be interested in the science, but have apparently not studied it, just the criticisms of it. If this was more test of what I’ve memorized, and not you trying to learn, then I was mistaken to answer you.

        Posted by Mike | September 24, 2012, 9:10 AM
  18. Detailed examination about the reliability of half life value as spelt out by radioactive dating method or radiometric dating method.
    The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, Half-life, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life:
    (Half-life (t½) is the time required for a quantity to fall to half its value as measured at the beginning of the time period. In physics, it is typically used to describe a property of radioactive decay, but may be used to describe any quantity which follows an exponential decay.)
    As the phrase, half life (t½) is the time required for a quantity to fall to half its value, is mentioned above, it gives the implication that radioactive decay would cause the value of substance to reduce to half of its value. Or in other words, the value of substance would turn up to be zero upon another half life period has passed.
    Let’s examine the list of isotopes that has been adopted by scientists to assess the age of rocks or fossils or the earth. The following is the list of isotopes extracted from the website address, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html, and, http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/table_of_isotopes.htm:
    Parent Isotope; Stable Daughter Product; Half-Life Values
    Lutetium-176; Hafnium-176; 37.8 billion years
    Uranium-238; Lead-206; 4.5 billion years
    Uranium-235; Lead-207; 704 million years
    Thorium-232; Lead-208; 14.0 billion years
    Rubidium-87; Strontium-87; 48.8 billion years
    Potassium-40; Argon-40; 1.25 billion years
    Samarium-147; Neodymium-143; 106 billion years
    Carbon-14; Nitrogen-14; 5730 +/-40
    The above list shows that Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 would turn up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 in 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, 704 million years respectively in order to achieve the half life values. As we know scientists have assessed the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years, all these Carbon-14, Potassium-40, Uranium-235 would currently be turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40, Lead-207 since the current age of the earth ever since its creation, i.e. 4.5 billion years as computed by means of radioactive dating method, should have exceeded 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, and 704 million years respectively since their creation. As all the Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235, that have existed since the creation of this earth, should have been turned up to be Nitrogen, Argon-40 and Lead-207 currently, there should not be any of these isotopes be available in this modern society. The current existence of Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 has placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question. If Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 could have turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 after 5730 +/-40 years, 1.25 billion years and 704 million years and that the age of the earth should be 4.5 billion years, none of the above substances, i.e. Carbon-14, Patassium-40 and Uranium-235, could be found available in this modern society since they should have been turned up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and lead-207 currently. The above have placed the reliability of the rest of the isotopes that have been established by scientists into question due to nobody could live billion years to witness the actual transformation of materials from one to another. The unreliability of radioactive dating method would simply falsify the age of fossils, rocks and the earth into billion years. As radioactive dating method is unreliable, the age that has been derived from this method could not be used to assess the age of fossils. As it is not accurate to compute the age of fossils by means of radioactive dating method, the order of fossils that has been set by radioactive dating method could not be accurate. Thus, it is irrational to use this method to comment that dinosaurs and apes should have existed earlier than the origin of human beings so as to support evolutionary theory.
    Would there be any existence of radioactive after full complete radioactive decay?
    The following extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, What Is Radioactive Material And How Does It Decay?, from the website address, http://ohioline.osu.edu/rer-fact/rer_20.htm, has placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question:
    (All materials are made of atoms. Radioactive atoms are unstable; that is, they have too much energy. When radioactive atoms release their extra energy, they are said to decay. All radioactive atoms decay. After releasing all their excess energy, the atoms become stable and are no longer radioactive.)
    The phrase, All radioactive atoms decay…the atoms become…no longer radioactive, as mentioned above implies that radioactive would lose its effectiveness upon the complete atoms decay after the entire process. Besides, the phrase, no longer radioactive, as mentioned in the later part of the extract gives the proof the substance would lose its radioactive after the entire radioactive atoms decay.
    As listed among the isotopes, Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 would turn up to be Nitrogen-14, Argon-40, Lead-207 in 5730 years +/- 40, 1.25 billion years, 704 million years respectively in order to achieve the half life values by means of radioactive decay. Or in other words, after transforming into Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207, it would need another 5730 years +/-40, 1.25 billion years and 704 million years for Nitrogen-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 respectively to cause another reduction of half life values so as to cause the ultimate annihilation of radioactive decay. Once a full reduction of value has been stretched over the process, there should not be any radioactive decay remains at the end.
    As mentioned above that radioactive decay would become ineffectiveness after the entire process and it would take 11460 years (i.e. 5730 * 2), 2.50 billion years (i.e. 1.25 billion years * 2) and 1.408 million years (704 million years * 2) for Carbon-14, Potassium-40 and Uranium-235 to achieve full complete lives of decay. A question has to be raised. As scientists have used radioactive dating method to assess the current age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years and these computed years should have exceeded the number of years in which Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Lead-207 would have completed their decay in radioactive atoms, the current Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Uranium-235 should have lost their radioactive after their entire atoms decay. Yet we could locate Carbon-14, Argon-40 and Uranium-235 currently that would emit radioactive decay. This has placed the unreliability of radioactive dating method into question. There is a question about the reliability on how scientists would link up one material to be the daughter isotope of another. Besides, the unreliability of the use of isotopes would place the reliability of the age of fossils, rocks and the earth that has been computed by scientists to be in question. The unreliability of the age of fossils, rocks and the earth through radioactive dating method has placed a question about the reliability of the order of fossils, i.e. dinosaurs should have existed before the origin of human beings, since we could no longer trust the figures that have been computed through this method. It seems to be that radioactive dating method should not be used to support evolution.

    Posted by zuma | September 22, 2012, 9:41 PM
    • Zuma, you illustration describes a linear process. The article you cite says it’s exponential, which is not linear. The article is correct.

      Posted by Mike | September 23, 2012, 9:26 AM
      • Even if it is exponential process, another half full value would have gone for a number of years later. For Carbon-14, it takes 5730 years to turn up to be Nitrogen. As the age of the earth has been computed by scientists to be 4.5 billion years, does it mean it needs to take more than 4.5 billion years for Carbon-14 to lose all its radioactive decay so as to fulfil the decay of another full value? That sounds illogical. How could that be possible for Carbon-14 to take only 5730 years to fulfil its first half and yet it would take more than 4.5 billion years to fulfil another full decay? This has placed radiometric dating method into question. Even if it is exponential process, there will be an ending in emtting radioactive decay instead of exist permanently.

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 9:13 PM
      • As there is a problem in Carbon-14, a question to be raised about the reliability on how scientists link up the rest to be one is the parent isotope of another. As that is so, the relaibility of radiometric dating method is in question and it could not be used to compute the age of fossils, rocks and the earth.

        Posted by Isaac | September 23, 2012, 9:17 PM
      • Dating the 4.5 billion year age of the earth with Carbon dating? Really? See? You went too far. Your question tipped your hat, so to speak. No reputable scientist today ages the earth itself by Carbon-14. They **know** it is unreliable going back much beyond 50,000 years (aghad, not the precise value!). The reasons is because of environmental conditions that impact the rate at which Carbon-14 decays. But, you didn’t know that. Instead, you attacked me without knowledge of how the science you attack is in fact used. This tells me you are well-versed in attack campaigns, and have ample questions to wear down a debate opponent so that you can have the last word. However, you have not actually studied the science itself. I like to try answering people like you every now and then, just in case your questions are a true attempt at learning, but then you go and make assertions like this. (See my post on Googling. Seriously.)

        Posted by Mike | September 24, 2012, 9:21 AM
      • Mike, If Carbon-14 could be transformed into Nitrogen-14, Carbon-14 should have vanished in this world. Why is it that it still exists? It proves that Carbon-14 might not be able to transform into Nitrogen-14. Just that scientists have found a little bit Nitrogen-14 from Carbon-14 and then conclude that it could be transformed without having physical witness that Carbon-14 could turn up to be Nitrogen. As that could be so, how could scientists place them together that Carbon-14 should be the parent isotope of Nitrogen-14. The same rule would apply to Samarium-147 and etc. in which they have been classified to be the parent isotopes of others without physical witness about the transformation.

        Posted by Isaac | September 24, 2012, 9:48 PM
      • I am not attacking, but speaking in reason. In science, the one that speaks logically that stands.

        Posted by Isaac | September 24, 2012, 9:51 PM
      • Mike, If radiometric dating method is true, you should bring out all the subjects into discussion. I am not attacking science, but speaking in reasoning. It is a peace talk whether who will win, it does not matter. If the radiometric dating method is truth, why should you be afraid to discuss with me since what is truth would never be proven wrong unless it does not seem right in the first place.

        Posted by Isaac | September 24, 2012, 10:04 PM
      • Isaac, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but here’s the thing. I sincerely see the logic in your words, and if the few facts you know about radiometric dating were all there was to know about the subject, then your logic would certainly cause one to think. However, you know very little about the subject, and when I answer you, your response is to request the equation. I tell you there is an equation because I have read about them, and within my educational background, they answered my questions. I did not post the equations because 1) The equations can vary. 2)They require notations that are not supported by a blog’s interface. 3)It’s a common tactic of combative debaters who would rather back people up against a wall than concede a point.

        It’s like arguing with my son, who asks why he cannot have an ice cream sandwich after dinner. After all, his brother did. Yeah, but his brother ate all his dinner. Ah, my son replies, but “I am full. I can’t eat all my dinner” Well, that’s why I didn’t give him the ice cream. “Yeah, but can I still eat some ice cream.” Then you can have more dinner. “But I’m nauscious.” Then, I’m not giving you ice cream or more dinner. “But I’m starving.” And so it goes, him thinking I don’t have a good reason for withholding the ice cream, and me waiting until the day when he is older and wiser about such things. This isn’t exactly what you’re doing, but my point is that I can see the gap in his thinking and his knowledge, while he only thinks there is a gap in mine. I know he left room in his stomach for the ice cream. That’s the parallel. I see the gaps in your knowledge, but rather than asking a question from a position of inquiry, you ask your question as if you know all about the subject. You don’t, and you think that if you ask a complicated question that I refuse to answer here then I must be the one without any knowledge. So, when I encourage you to read more, you react by telling me that I must not be able to defend myself. Defending myself isn’t the goal anyway. Helping my fellow Christians (I am a Christian too, who loves Jesus and is grateful for his sacrifice on the cross) to understand the true science that they criticize is my goal… when I engage them anyway. I will occasionally let Christians such as yourself engage me for a time, longer than others will I suppose, to see if you are truly desiring to understand these things. But you seem more intent on tearing what I believe down, rather than learning why what you believe might be wrong, or at least incomplete. Come to me from a position of knowledge, and I might consider the possibility that I am the one who is wrong. Attack my knowledge from a position of ignorance and it just shows the futility of my efforts. I have patiently answered your questions. If you are in fact just being combative, then I’m done. If you are able to admit that you don’t know much about this science and want to learn, then that’s another matter. But short that, I’m still done. You unfortunately are filled with facts and figures, but not the theory to back it up. Without the theory, of course it doesn’t make sense to you. Of course I would appear like I’m dodging but I’m not. You simply don’t know the scientific theory, and cannot see the gaps in what you know, and cannot discern honest answers to your questions.

        I think it’s time we stopped taking advantage of JW’s hospitality, of which I am quite appreciative. You can always click on my link if you want learn more. From this point, I will teach you what I know if you are interested, and refer you to sources more knowledgeable than I, but I will not debate you.

        Posted by Mike | September 25, 2012, 9:12 AM
      • Mike, If you are a Christian and feel that radiometric dating method is right, you should stand up for the fight and argue with your right instead of hiding. I too am a Christian. I would stand up for the discussion when situation seems different a matter of fact. You have to behave as a Christian soldier instead of hiding the truth when confronted with difficulty. Speak what is right from your mind. If you say I know nothing about radiometric dating method, that is wrong. There are many equations on radiometric dating methods. I am just pondering which formula has been used by you to support your view since I do not know your mind. I might overlook some equations in which you might have used them to support your view. Once I gather the information, I would express my view that your opinion so as to express whether what you say is right.

        Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 4:59 PM
      • If radiometric dating method is right, you as a Christian to defend the truth. The same as me. When I see it, it does not seem quite right to me that is why I comment. I do not want to speak a lie that contradicts to my conscience and that is why would like to clarify with you for some doubts.
        I feel that radiometric dating method affects Christianity the most.
        Let’s me elaborate what’s my opinion. Muslims believe in Jesus but the so-called, Jesus, that they believe, did not resurrect from the cross of Jesus. Besides, they do not believe Jesus is God. Certainly! Their belief in Jesus would not cause them to be saved due to the so-called, Jesus, is entirely different from us.
        People might claim to believe in Jesus. As you know Jesus is God as well as the Son of God. By treating God that did not involve in direct creation of Adam and Eve or to believe that He had created all animals through evolution if He did really involve in direct creation of all creatures, He would turn away from them for their salvation since the so-called, God, that they believe is not what He should be.
        The so-called, Christians, might act smart so as to twist and turn the Bible to suit them and yet it would not alter what God had done in the past. If God had created all creatures directly instead of evolution, those people that twist and turn the scripture to suit their belief simply go against the nature of God or they are fighting against God. Their false believes that God did not involve in the creation of all creatures but through evolution would certainly distort the image of Jesus since Jesus is God. As Jesus is God, Jesus might ignore your salvation as the same as what he ignores the salvation of muslims since their belief in God is different from what God is. Their belief in God would cause the belief in Jesus to vary since the so-called, Jesus, would turn up to involve in evolution when He did not. Certainly! If the so-called, Jesus, would turn away from them since they believe not what He should be, they might not be saved and just bear the name of Jesus.
        If you are Christian and support that radiometric dating method is right, you should continue in argument and to bring out what comes out from your mind to fight for it.
        Do you see the spirit of Paul in the New Testament? He fought for God to reach out to the Jews as well as Gentiles. That should be the spirit of Christianity should have.
        If it is fact and truth, try all your means to argue. If you know it is not true, just bring out for discussion.

        Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:26 PM
      • You raise questions and expect the answerer to know what your mind is and when someone ask you question, you give a brief answer and expect him to know your mind. If he asks further, you say he knows nothing. This is entirely wrong. I am just human being and could not read your mind. There are many equations and principles to go about in radiometric dating method. I do not know how you would approach it and that is why I ask.
        As you give your reply, I would presume what your mind should be and go ahead in discussion. My discussion might well differ from you due to my understanding of what your mind is. Asking what equations to support your mind is reasonable since I would capture your mind for what has supported your view and I would attempt accordingly.

        Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:44 PM
  19. I am Zuma. I am also Isaac Milton.

    Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:46 PM
  20. The reason why I play around with name is due to some might not furnish the information fully to me if I mention that I am Zuma since I discover that some scientists would avoid argument from me when I name myself as Zuma. To stand up for God for the gospel’s sake, I have no choice to use the alternative name, Milton.

    Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:49 PM
  21. So, you can call me, Zuma, as well as, Milton. As I name myself to be these, any name you could call me and I admit.

    Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:51 PM
  22. You might say why I use the name, Milton. I have no choice for the sake of Gospel.

    Posted by zuma | September 25, 2012, 5:53 PM
  23. Let’ me round up the whole diwcussion. As scientists use only just a very small portion of Lead-206, Nitrogen-14 and etc. that have been found in Uranium-238, Carbon-14, and etc. without seeing any physical transformation and conclude that the Lead-206, Nitrogen-16 and etc. should be the parent isotopes of Uranium-208, Carbon-14 and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth by means of radioactive dating method, the accuracy of the ages that they have computed are questionable.

    Posted by Isaac | September 25, 2012, 8:14 PM
  24. The following is the extract from the 6th paragraph from the website address, http://www.chemicool.com/elements/samarium.html:
    It wasn’t until 1885 that Carl Auer von Welsbach established that ‘didymium’ was actually composed of two distinct, new elements: neodymium and praseodymium.
    The above extract mentions that didymium consists of neodymium and praseodymium and yet didymium was found in Samarium. With the discovery, they conclude that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium in 106 billion years. Their conclusion that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium is not based on seeing the physical transformation from one to another, but the substance, Neodymium, was found in Samarium. That has caused us into doubt about the reliability of radiometric dating method.

    Posted by Isaac | September 25, 2012, 9:59 PM
    • Could Samarium be able to isolate itself in the air without influence? No, it could not since the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm, shows the immediate chemical reaction upon Samarium when it has contacted with air. The following is the extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:
      [Samarium ( /səˈmɛəriəm/ sə-MAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sm and atomic number 62. It is a moderately hard silvery metal which readily oxidizes in air. Being a typical member of the lanthanide series, samarium usually assumes the oxidation state +3. Compounds of samarium(II) are also known, most notably monoxide SmO, monochalcogenides SmS, SmSe and SmTe, as well as samarium (II) iodide. The last compound is a common reducing agent in chemical synthesis. Samarium has no significant biological role and is only slightly toxic.]
      The phrase, Samarium…hard silvery metal which ready oxidizes in air, as mentioned above implies the ease to respond to air in chemical reaction. The ease in chemical reaction with the contact of air would certainly affect the quality of Samarium and even the radioactive decay since it would not be only Samarium but the response of other elements in the compound. This certainly would put radioactive dating method into question.

      Could scientists be able to separate Neodymium from Samarium? The following is the extract under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003267094002746:
      (A separation scheme for strontium and light rare earth elements and its application to the isotopic analysis of strontium and neodymium in silicate rocks are presented. This method benefits from the selectivity and high capacity of two newly introduced extraction Chromatographic materials, referred to as Sr.Spec and TRU.Spec, respectively. These afford a straightforward separation of Sr and Sm + Nd with high yield, good purity and satisfactory blank levels, on very small (0.25 ml) columns using small volumes of solutions of a single mineral acid, HNO3.)
      The phrase, These afford a straightforward of Sr and Sm + Nd…using small volumes of… HNO3, gives the information that scientists could separate Samarium and Neodymium through mineral acid, HNO3.
      Could Neodymium be able to stand alone from scientific point of view. Let’s observe the sequence of pictures of Neodymium in direct contact in air as shown in the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm. For instance, if the Samarium would turn up to be Neodymium-143 in a half life and that is 106 billion years, there would not be another half life for it since it would corrode in the air and ultimately vanish since it could not be isolated itself in the air. The computation of Samarium-Neodymium isotopes by means of radiometric dating method presumes Neodymium still retains for another half life and yet in reality, it would not. This has put the accuracy of radiometric dating method by means of Samarium-147 into question especially it has been used to date the age of old fossils or rocks or the earth. The possible corrosion of Neodymium-143 to its ultimate vanishing for another half life would cause a wrong computation of the age since Neodymium-143.

      Posted by Isaac | September 26, 2012, 8:07 PM
      • According to radioactive computation, Samarium-147 could be the parent isotope of Neodymium-143, the above show the impossibility due to the ease of Samarium-147 to respond in act in chemical reaction that forms new compound that contains other elements that would have possible influence upon the original effectiveness of radioactive decay in the original state of Samarium-147.

        Posted by Isaac | September 26, 2012, 8:28 PM
  25. The following is the extract from the last paragraph of Potassium-argon dating in the website address, http://www.ehow.com/way_5229579_fossil-dating-techniques.html:
    Unfortunately, only 11 of 100 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, and only one of every 10,000 potassium atoms is the K-40 isotope; fortunately, potassium is one of the most abundant minerals on the Earth’s surface.
    Read more: Fossil Dating Techniques | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/way_5229579_fossil-dating-techniques.html#ixzz27XhJ1BMh
    The transformation is immediate for K-40 despite the sum is as low as 11 out of 100. Why should scientists mention it would take a half life for P-40 to turn up to be K-40 then? This has placed radiometric dating method into query too.

    Posted by Isaac | September 25, 2012, 10:29 PM
  26. The following is the extract to the website address,

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1914Natur..93..479L:

    THE work of Boltwood and Holmes some years ago on the occurrence of lead and uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead.
    The above gives the fact of the uncertainty whether Thorium would turn up to be lead. Yet sceintists have joined these to be one to be the parent isotope of another. Again the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question.

    Posted by Isaac | September 25, 2012, 11:56 PM
  27. The following is the eextract from the 3rd paragraph of the subtitle, isotope, from the website address, http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/P-T/Rubidium.html:
    When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock, it changes into a new isotope, strontium -87
    The above implies the immediate transformation once rubidium-87 was broken into rocks. As that is the case, why should there need to wait for 48.8 billion years, half life, for rubidium-87 to be transformed into strontium-87? The reliability of half life in radiometric dating method is again questionable.

    Posted by Isaac | September 26, 2012, 12:56 AM
  28. The irrgularity of transformation among the materials that are suggested by scientists to be parent isotopes have placed the reliability of radiometric dating method into question.

    Posted by Isaac | September 26, 2012, 1:00 AM
  29. I believe all the scientists and even Mike himself could not solve the above questions that have put radioactive dating method into question.
    Even I myself also would find no way to handle the above problems.

    Posted by Isaac | September 26, 2012, 1:03 AM

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Animal Death?- A Response to AiG Critique of My Argument « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - March 18, 2012

  2. Pingback: Why Animals, Humanity and the Rest of Creation Suffers for Adam’s Sin | DefendingGenesis.org - March 22, 2012

  3. Pingback: Tony Breeden – Why Animals, Humanity and the Rest of Creation Suffers for Adam’s Sin » Christian Apologetics & Intelligence Ministry - March 26, 2012

  4. Pingback: Adam, Animals, and the Fall: A response to ‘Defending Genesis’ « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - March 28, 2012

  5. Pingback: Animal Death – BAAYEC # 7 « Janitorial Musings - July 23, 2012

  6. Pingback: RRP 9/27/13 | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - September 27, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,434 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,434 other followers

%d bloggers like this: