1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,060 molten hot and the sun only came later. Why did God do that? So, we wouldn't worship the sun. 2 00:00:09,180 --> 00:00:13,680 God is the giver of... people say, where did the light come from? Well, God supplies the light in 3 00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:18,120 the new heaven and the new earth. Why couldn't He supply it at the first heaven, at the first earth? 4 00:00:19,040 --> 00:00:24,560 And then the sun was made to take over bearing that light. Well, it's also assumed that radioactive 5 00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:29,400 dating works accurately, which is what I want to focus on for the next half hour or so. 6 00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:36,120 So, how do these methods work? Now, don't get bogged down with too many of the technical details, 7 00:00:36,220 --> 00:00:42,160 because I'm going to try and simplify this as much as possible. But some elements, some atoms of some 8 00:00:42,160 --> 00:00:49,900 elements, for example, carbon-14 and uranium-238, have too many particles in their nuclei, so they 9 00:00:49,900 --> 00:00:58,000 are unstable atoms. And so, those unstable nuclei spit out or eject subatomic particles to make the 10 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:06,740 nuclei smaller and therefore more stable. So, for example, carbon comes as carbon-12, carbon-13 and 11 00:01:06,740 --> 00:01:15,700 carbon-14. It's all carbon. It's the same carbon as most of its regular carbon-12, but some atoms of 12 00:01:15,700 --> 00:01:22,000 carbon have an extra neutron in their nucleus, so they're carbon-13. Carbon-14 has two extra neutrons, 13 00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:29,420 so it's unstable, and it spits one out, and it decays. And that's what it's based on. This radioactive 14 00:01:29,420 --> 00:01:36,740 decay process is when these decaying atoms that are known as radioactive isotopes, or radioisotopes for 15 00:01:36,740 --> 00:01:44,880 short, and one element decays into, from unstable atoms of one element, decays into stable atoms of a 16 00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:51,540 different element. And the decaying radioactive atoms, or radioisotopes, are called parent atoms, 17 00:01:51,540 --> 00:01:57,140 and the resultant stable atoms are called daughter atoms. I'm just giving you some of the 18 00:01:57,140 --> 00:02:05,880 terminology. Now, minerals, rocks, and fossils contain some of these radioactive parent atoms and 19 00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:11,900 the daughter atoms. Now, the methods that you've probably heard about a carbon-14, a lot of people 20 00:02:11,900 --> 00:02:15,980 think that carbon-14 is used to date rocks as millions of years old. Well, I've got news for 21 00:02:15,980 --> 00:02:23,020 you. Most rocks don't have carbon in them. And carbon-14 decays so rapidly that if every atom 22 00:02:23,020 --> 00:02:28,400 in the earth was carbon-14, all gone within a million years, which is why they don't normally date 23 00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:33,200 fossils with radiocarbon, because they already believe they're millions of years old. But that's 24 00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:39,080 a whole different story. We want to focus on uranium that decays to lead, and there's two types of 25 00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:45,960 uranium that decays to two types of lead. Potassium decays to argon, rubidium decays to strontium, 26 00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,120 and samarium decays to neodymium. And you might not have heard of those last two, 27 00:02:50,500 --> 00:02:56,940 but neodymium is very strategic metal. You know those wind towers that generate electricity? 28 00:02:57,640 --> 00:03:01,380 The magnets in those have got neodymium in them that give them better, 29 00:03:01,380 --> 00:03:08,940 make the magnets better, and give better production of electricity. So, it's a very sought-after metal, 30 00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:17,280 but it's a rare metal. And so, it's very expensive. So, let's think about this process. 31 00:03:18,040 --> 00:03:26,360 What happens? A rock is chemically tested for these parent and daughter atoms. You collect the 32 00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:32,640 samples, you do a chemical analysis. And here's how it works. You've got the parent and daughter 33 00:03:32,640 --> 00:03:40,240 atoms that you've measured. If the decay rate has made constant, you can calculate how long it took 34 00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:45,720 for those daughter atoms to have come from decay of parent atoms. 35 00:03:45,720 --> 00:03:54,820 And if that period of time is then regarded as the rock's age. Well, I probably lost half of you, 36 00:03:54,900 --> 00:04:00,860 so let me try and explain it again like this. You're familiar with an hourglass clock, an egg timer, 37 00:04:01,440 --> 00:04:07,320 or an hourglass was rated at one hour, because if you started with all the sand grains in the top 38 00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:14,000 glass bowl, it took one hour for the grains to fall to the bottom. Well, let's use this analogy. 39 00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:21,680 The top grains will make them red, and we'll call those the parent atoms. And as they fall, 40 00:04:21,780 --> 00:04:27,940 it's analogous to radioactive dating, they turn into green sand grains at the bottom, the daughter 41 00:04:27,940 --> 00:04:36,060 atoms. Now, it's quite simple. Ladies, you're doing some baking in the kitchen, and you've put a cake in 42 00:04:36,060 --> 00:04:42,780 the oven, and you want to go and do some washing in the laundry. So, you put your hourglass clock on, 43 00:04:42,780 --> 00:04:47,700 you started with all the sand grains in the top, you go out to the laundry, do your washing, you come 44 00:04:47,700 --> 00:04:51,860 back, and you want to know how long your cake has been in the oven. Well, you look at your clock, 45 00:04:52,320 --> 00:04:56,620 and you do a chemical analysis. You say, how many grains are up the top, how many grains are down 46 00:04:56,620 --> 00:05:01,940 the bottom? Well, you discover that half the sand grains that were at the top are now down at the 47 00:05:01,940 --> 00:05:08,420 bottom. So, how long were you out of the room? Half an hour. And that's how simple it is. The geologists 48 00:05:08,420 --> 00:05:13,980 want to study how many red atoms and green atoms, and then because of the number of green atoms, 49 00:05:14,080 --> 00:05:22,060 they know how long it takes them to form from red atoms, they back calculate. So, if we start with all 50 00:05:22,060 --> 00:05:26,920 the sand grains in the top bowl, it takes one hour for all the red sand grains before the bottom is 51 00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:33,160 to become green sand grains. So, a rock is chemically tested to measure the amounts of red and green 52 00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:40,420 atoms. And then we can, if the rate of radioactive decay or falling has remained constant at today's 53 00:05:40,420 --> 00:05:46,020 measured rate, then it can be calculated how long it has taken the measurement amount of green atoms 54 00:05:46,020 --> 00:05:53,720 to accumulate from the parent red atoms. And that time period is regarded as the rock's age. 55 00:05:55,740 --> 00:06:01,480 You mind starting to think about this? What are the assumptions involved? What's going on here? 56 00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:09,060 The point is, there are three assumptions that you make with that hourglass clock. 57 00:06:10,700 --> 00:06:17,500 And if they're crucial for the working of that hourglass clock, they're even more crucial for 58 00:06:17,500 --> 00:06:24,920 the radioactive dating methods of rocks. The reason, of course, is that you were there when the clock 59 00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:32,380 started. And that's the first assumption. The geologists have to assume the amounts of parent 60 00:06:32,380 --> 00:06:38,980 and daughter atoms at the beginning when the rock formed. That is, the initial conditions must be known. 61 00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:47,400 You see, you have to assume there were no green atoms in the bottom of the glass bowl at the beginning. 62 00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:53,220 You were there in the kitchen, but guess what? The scientists weren't there when the rocks formed. 63 00:06:53,520 --> 00:06:58,580 How do they know that there weren't daughter atoms in the rock when the rock formed? 64 00:06:58,980 --> 00:07:05,340 They weren't there. They don't know. It requires an observer. So that's a problem, as I'll show you by 65 00:07:05,340 --> 00:07:11,740 practical examples in a moment. That's assumption number one. Requires an observer, but it's about the past. 66 00:07:11,740 --> 00:07:19,380 They weren't there. Number two, all the daughter atoms measured today must only have been derived by 67 00:07:19,380 --> 00:07:27,020 in-situ radioactive decay of parent atoms. You had to have a closed system. In other words, all the green 68 00:07:27,020 --> 00:07:32,960 atoms must have been derived from the falling of red atoms only, that is. That is, there's been no 69 00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:37,580 contamination. This also requires an observer. Ladies, when you were out of the kitchen, you know what 70 00:07:37,580 --> 00:07:43,640 happened? You didn't realize it, but your mischievous 10-year-old son snuck in, lifted up the lid and put 71 00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:50,920 some more red atoms in, so that when you came in, you thought that was half and half, but you were 72 00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:55,920 wrong because he added more at the top. And now, you were out of the room actually for 40 minutes and 73 00:07:55,920 --> 00:08:02,080 your cake's now burnt in the oven. You get the point? If you're not there to observe it all the time, 74 00:08:02,080 --> 00:08:08,340 how do you know there hasn't been some contamination? And if you weren't there when the clock was 75 00:08:08,340 --> 00:08:13,820 started, if you just walked into the room and you saw that hourglass on the bench and you saw the 76 00:08:13,820 --> 00:08:19,500 green atoms, you might assume that there were none there to begin with, but guess what? It just 77 00:08:19,500 --> 00:08:24,560 started. There were already green atoms to begin with. How do you know if it requires an observer? 78 00:08:25,900 --> 00:08:31,140 And then now, assumption number three, the radioactive decay rate must have been constant at today's 79 00:08:31,140 --> 00:08:37,680 measured rate. But have the scientists been there for millions of years measuring these decay rates? 80 00:08:38,360 --> 00:08:46,020 No. We measure the rate today and we extrapolate backwards. We make a huge assumption 81 00:08:46,020 --> 00:08:52,940 that, and I'll show you in a moment, that we've only been measuring these decay rates over the last 82 00:08:52,940 --> 00:08:59,940 70 or 80 years. So we take 78 to 80 years of measurements and extrapolate that back four and a 83 00:08:59,940 --> 00:09:09,500 half billion years. That's five orders of magnitude extrapolation. And it should be readily recognized 84 00:09:09,500 --> 00:09:15,240 that there are problems with these assumptions. So the assumption number one, there's no initial 85 00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:22,480 inheritance. In other words, no daughter of green atoms to begin with. No other processes affected the 86 00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:26,840 parent-parent-daughter relationship. That means no contamination. And assumption number three, 87 00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:33,800 constant decay rates. There can't have been changes. You should already recognize that none of these 88 00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:40,260 assumptions are provable. Why? Because the scientists weren't there in the past to observe and measure and 89 00:09:40,260 --> 00:09:48,460 test. The reason why they accept these methods is because they work to give them the millions of years. 90 00:09:48,460 --> 00:09:54,880 But in reality, not only are these assumptions not provable, they're not even reasonable. 91 00:09:55,480 --> 00:10:03,740 Because all three assumptions have been repeatedly falsified. And I did a study a number of years ago 92 00:10:03,740 --> 00:10:11,500 where I went into the literature and in the textbooks even that are used in the universities, 93 00:10:11,700 --> 00:10:18,160 they document out of the literature the problems with these methods in terms of the assumptions that 94 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:24,960 have been falsified. And I'll give you a few examples. See, daughter atoms have been known 95 00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:31,660 to have been inherited when rocks form. But even when we're not detected, it doesn't mean there hasn't 96 00:10:31,660 --> 00:10:38,340 been inheritance. Just because we make the assumption doesn't mean that there hasn't been a problem. 97 00:10:39,280 --> 00:10:45,680 Assumption number one is often violated, no inheritance. Subsequent contamination is common. 98 00:10:45,680 --> 00:10:52,580 You realise that if you, you may not have been down a mine shaft, but you can go down a kilometre 99 00:10:52,580 --> 00:10:59,880 down into a mine and you will still see contamination of the rocks. Down cracks, the water will come 100 00:10:59,880 --> 00:11:06,920 bringing oxygen in the groundwater and you'll see rusting at that sort of depth. And yet the samples 101 00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:14,960 are collected at the earth's surface where rainfall, groundwater, atmosphere is readily going to 102 00:11:14,960 --> 00:11:21,320 contaminate. Uranium is very soluble in groundwaters. It will move in and out of rocks very rapidly. 103 00:11:22,580 --> 00:11:29,500 And so contamination is a constant problem. And even if it isn't detected, doesn't mean that it 104 00:11:29,500 --> 00:11:36,960 isn't present. So assumption number two, no contamination is often violated. And several lines 105 00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:44,620 of evidence have demonstrated conclusively that decay rates were grossly accelerated during a recent past 106 00:11:44,620 --> 00:11:50,720 catastrophic event. I'm going to touch on that again in a moment. So assumption number three, 107 00:11:50,860 --> 00:11:58,840 no change rates is violated by demonstrated past accelerated radioactive decay rates. 108 00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:06,100 Now I want you to understand the quality of the chemical analyses of the rocks is not disputed. 109 00:12:06,100 --> 00:12:15,220 The reason is that you can repeat those, repeat those analyses. I can send the pieces of the same sample 110 00:12:15,220 --> 00:12:20,560 to five different laboratories and I'll guarantee you they'll both, they'll all come in close to the mark, 111 00:12:20,560 --> 00:12:28,600 on the same mark. So, you know, they spend millions of dollars building these laboratories to measure such 112 00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:35,660 tiny amounts and they do it very accurately. That's not the issue. The issue is the interpretation of 113 00:12:35,660 --> 00:12:42,380 those chemical analyses. I send a lab, a sample to the lab, they'll send me back the analysis and then 114 00:12:42,380 --> 00:12:49,180 they plug the analysis into equations with the assumptions built in to calculate the age of the rock. 115 00:12:49,180 --> 00:12:55,200 So it's the interpretation of the millions of years based on these three unprovable, 116 00:12:56,220 --> 00:13:02,340 repeatedly falsified assumptions that we're disputing. So let me give you some concrete examples. 117 00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:09,920 Some of you for this may be revision, but that's fine. Mount St. Helens, when it erupted in 1980, 118 00:13:10,920 --> 00:13:16,660 after that eruption, a new lava dome started to build inside the blown out crater. 119 00:13:16,660 --> 00:13:26,300 And we could actually observe these form. And my friend and colleague Steve Austin went up 120 00:13:26,300 --> 00:13:35,700 and got some samples from lavas in the lava dome whose age we knew by observation. We knew 121 00:13:35,700 --> 00:13:43,480 that the lavas had formed, had flowed out of the volcano, the molten rock had crystallized and cooled 122 00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:53,020 back in 1986. And in 1996, the samples went to the laboratory. So the rock from observation was only 123 00:13:53,020 --> 00:14:00,100 10 years old. So what results were obtained? Potassium argon ages range from the whole rock 124 00:14:00,100 --> 00:14:08,000 at 0.35 million years up to one of the minerals, pyroxene, gave an age of 2.8 million years. That's one of the 125 00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:13,160 minerals in the minerals in the rock that was separated. Why did it give such large ages? 126 00:14:13,800 --> 00:14:21,200 Simply because it inherited daughter argon to begin with. What do I mean by that? Well, 127 00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:27,880 most people don't realize that more than 70% of what comes out of a volcano is actually steam 128 00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:36,900 and gases. And in those gases is argon. So what happened is when the rock cooled and crystallized, 129 00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:43,820 it trapped some of that argon in the rock and it didn't come from radioactive decay of potassium. 130 00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:51,920 But when they analyzed it and calculated the age, the age was based on assuming that all the argon 131 00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:58,720 had come from potassium decay. You get the point? The rock was artificially old because it was 132 00:14:58,720 --> 00:15:05,900 contaminated or inherited argon, the green atoms, the daughter atoms to begin with. Now, this is well 133 00:15:05,900 --> 00:15:13,380 known in the scientific literature. Here's a list of examples, come straight out of the scientific 134 00:15:13,380 --> 00:15:21,340 literature. Lava flows in Hawaii from 1881 gave potassium argon ages of up to 1.6 million years. 135 00:15:21,340 --> 00:15:28,740 In Mount Etna and in California and Arizona, again, and these are just several examples from 136 00:15:28,740 --> 00:15:35,300 the literature. I could give you screeds of articles from the scientific literature that document this 137 00:15:35,300 --> 00:15:45,520 problem. So you see, it begs the question, if a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, a recent lava flow, 138 00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:50,960 where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer 139 00:15:50,960 --> 00:15:57,760 wrong using the potassium-argon method. How can we trust it on ancient rocks where we don't have the 140 00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:04,380 historical documentation? The answer is we can't. And interestingly, that's also being documented 141 00:16:04,380 --> 00:16:13,560 because there were 10 Zairean, that's now the Republic of Congo, diamonds yielded a potassium-argon 142 00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:19,540 isochron age of 6 billion years. But that means the diamonds were older than the earth itself. 143 00:16:20,860 --> 00:16:26,500 So how could they be older? Well, the answer is the diamonds inherited extra argon. They found that 144 00:16:26,500 --> 00:16:34,380 inside the diamond there were fluid bubbles that were rich in argon. And if they didn't take that into 145 00:16:34,380 --> 00:16:41,420 account, they got the wrong age. So unless you know the reasons, you can't be sure that you're 146 00:16:41,420 --> 00:16:48,740 actually measuring the true amounts that relate to radioactive decay. Let me give you another example 147 00:16:48,740 --> 00:16:56,260 from the Grand Canyon, no less, for good reason. It's very in your face when you realise what's going on 148 00:16:56,260 --> 00:17:03,400 here. This is a geological diagram of the Grand Canyon. Don't get spooked by the complexity. It's 149 00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:10,440 really very simple. See those horizontal layers? They're fossil-bearing sedimentary layers related 150 00:17:10,440 --> 00:17:16,380 to the flood. The ones below that that are tilted all the way down to the bottom left, they're all 151 00:17:16,380 --> 00:17:24,760 pre-flood. And in amongst those rocks, near the top of the pile of the pre-flood rocks, just near the 152 00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:30,440 beginning of the flood, you've got basalt-basalt lavas. I have to keep on reminding myself I'm in 153 00:17:30,440 --> 00:17:37,220 Australia, I'm not in the US. Basalt. Cardenas-basalt lavas. These are some of the ancient lava flows 154 00:17:37,220 --> 00:17:42,900 at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon. But also in the western Grand Canyon, there are still volcanic 155 00:17:42,900 --> 00:17:48,840 craters from eruptions that were so recent, the lavas flowed down the walls of the canyon. 156 00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:56,720 The Eurincarut Plateau basalt lavas. And we can see the remnants of those lava flows here 157 00:17:56,720 --> 00:18:02,880 in the western Grand Canyon. You can see Vulcan's throne and you can see where the lavas spill down 158 00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:08,260 the walls of the canyon. By the way, you can just see the Colorado River there and just around the 159 00:18:08,260 --> 00:18:15,500 corner is the fastest navigable rapid in North America. Lots of fun. 19 seconds of sheer terror. 160 00:18:17,480 --> 00:18:24,300 You want an adrenaline rush, that's the way to get it. So, we've got the contrast between the 161 00:18:24,300 --> 00:18:32,140 recent lavas. Some of these lavas erupted at maybe as recently, by the time the Native Americans got to 162 00:18:32,140 --> 00:18:36,660 North America, there's some evidence that some of them may have seen some of these eruptions. So, 163 00:18:36,660 --> 00:18:44,420 we know they're quite young. And these are the ancient, the Cardenas basalt lavas. So, just to get 164 00:18:44,420 --> 00:18:50,980 the picture, the very ancient ones, the most recent ones. What ages do they give by Rubidium 165 00:18:50,980 --> 00:19:00,880 Strontium? The same Rubidium Strontium age. The most recent lava flows give essentially the same 166 00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:07,200 1.1 billion year old Rubidium Strontium age as the oldest lava flows in the Grand Canyon. 167 00:19:07,200 --> 00:19:08,440 How can that be? 168 00:19:11,020 --> 00:19:20,580 The answer is that they came from the same source. Because the basalts actually come from deep at the 169 00:19:20,580 --> 00:19:27,040 top of the earth's mantle. The rocks melt and it comes up through fractures. The most recent ones 170 00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:33,160 came from the same source as the ancient ones. In other words, they inherited the same source 171 00:19:33,160 --> 00:19:40,180 chemistry. So, the chemistry of the rock of Rubidium Strontium has nothing to do with the age of the 172 00:19:40,180 --> 00:19:46,700 rock. It has to do with the source of the rock. Isn't that interesting? If you don't take that into 173 00:19:46,700 --> 00:19:54,780 account, and there's lots of evidence from recent basalt lavas around the world that the source plays 174 00:19:54,780 --> 00:20:01,540 a very important role in determining the chemistry of the rock. And if you don't know that, you'll get 175 00:20:01,540 --> 00:20:09,980 vast ages that aren't really true ages. What about contamination? I want to show you a few examples 176 00:20:09,980 --> 00:20:17,100 of granites. You all know what a granite is? Well, it's a very coarse, crystalline rock. And 177 00:20:17,100 --> 00:20:25,620 there's grains in there called zircon, zirconium silicates. In fact, they used to mine zircons out here 178 00:20:25,620 --> 00:20:34,060 on Stradbroke Island, in the beach sands. And these have come from granites. And they've run into 179 00:20:34,060 --> 00:20:39,620 a problem when they've tried to date the granites and the zircons in the granites because they find 180 00:20:39,620 --> 00:20:47,300 that the zircon grains are vastly older than the granites. So, they assume that the zircon grains 181 00:20:47,300 --> 00:20:55,440 have been inherited. So, for example, zircon grains from a Himalayan granite, supposedly 21 million years old, 182 00:20:55,440 --> 00:21:03,560 will give uranium lead ages up to 1753 million years. Or zircon grains from granites in Australia, 183 00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:10,680 southeastern Australia, supposedly 426 million years old, will have zircon grains that give ages 184 00:21:10,680 --> 00:21:19,540 of 3,500 million years. That's 3.5 billion years. How could the grains in the rock be so vastly older 185 00:21:19,540 --> 00:21:27,360 than the rock itself? And so, they say that that has to be contamination. Well, hold on. 186 00:21:28,140 --> 00:21:35,840 What other contamination is there? It's an arbitrary loophole or escape clause for them to get out from 187 00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:44,020 the obvious implications of this. Well, if you think that's bad, here's one example that they can't 188 00:21:44,020 --> 00:21:52,400 ignore or get out of. A Himalayan granite, supposedly 20 million years old, has zircon grains within it 189 00:21:52,400 --> 00:21:59,840 that have uranium lead ages up to 1483 million years, but also contains monazite grains, which is another 190 00:21:59,840 --> 00:22:07,540 mineral in there, with uranium lead ages of minus 97 million years. What does that mean? The grains 191 00:22:07,540 --> 00:22:19,900 haven't formed yet. So, that's obviously something is wrong with these dating methods if you get such 192 00:22:19,900 --> 00:22:27,160 diverse results, assuming that all these minerals formed in the rock at the same time you get these 193 00:22:27,160 --> 00:22:33,640 strange results, tells you there's something wrong with these dating methods. Well, let's go back to the 194 00:22:33,640 --> 00:22:40,700 Grand Canyon and let's look again at the Cardenas Basalt, the Cardenas Basalt. Here's the lava flows 195 00:22:40,700 --> 00:22:46,040 you can see by looking over the into the canyon from the eastern, one of the eastern Grand Canyon overlooks 196 00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:54,140 and here's the lavas again up close and personal and here we went in to sample them and you can see 197 00:22:54,140 --> 00:22:59,280 that the boundary between two lava flows. Now, what we did, this was research that we did ourselves in 198 00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:06,340 the Grand Canyon on a previously successful research application to the Park Service. 199 00:23:06,340 --> 00:23:15,320 we decided we'd do something different. You see, in the textbooks, they claim it doesn't matter which 200 00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:21,320 of the radioactive clocks you use, you should get the same result. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? 201 00:23:21,940 --> 00:23:28,040 It's like you've got four hourglass clocks lined up on the bench, but they've each got different 202 00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:34,920 coloured or different sized sand grains. Okay, so if you start with all the sand grains in the top 203 00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:42,000 when the to begin with, over time the sand grains are still going to fall and at the end of the day 204 00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:49,500 you should have the same age. In other words, the uranium clock, the potassium clock, the rubidium clock, 205 00:23:49,960 --> 00:23:55,520 at the beginning when the rock formed they started ticking and they've all ticked through the same 206 00:23:55,520 --> 00:24:01,700 real-time period from when the rock formed till when we measure it today. So they should give you 207 00:24:01,700 --> 00:24:06,720 the same result. Even though they're different atoms and they might decay at different rates, 208 00:24:06,720 --> 00:24:12,300 they should all measure the same real-time period from when the rock formed to the present day. 209 00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:15,720 That's if the assumptions are correct. 210 00:24:17,380 --> 00:24:23,980 That's a big if. So we decided we'd test that because we couldn't find many examples in the 211 00:24:23,980 --> 00:24:29,520 literature where they'd taken the same samples and dated them by all the different methods. 212 00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:35,540 So I said, we'll do it and find out if that assumption is correct. And guess what? When we 213 00:24:35,540 --> 00:24:41,120 dated the potassium, we dated the Cardinus basalt, what did we get? The potassium argon gave an age of 214 00:24:41,120 --> 00:24:47,960 516 million years, rubidium strontium an age of 1111 million years, Sumerium being 1588 million years, 215 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:54,260 which is the correct age? Maybe none of the above. How would we know without an observer? And notice 216 00:24:54,260 --> 00:25:01,800 this is not some trivial difference. The rubidium strontium age is twice the size of the potassium 217 00:25:01,800 --> 00:25:07,960 argon age. The Sumerian needed an age is three times the size of the potassium argon. That's not very 218 00:25:07,960 --> 00:25:15,400 close to hitting the bullseye, is it? Well, how would you reconcile this disparity? 219 00:25:15,400 --> 00:25:22,700 The evolutionists can't, the long-age geologists can't reconcile it, but we can. How? Well, it's 220 00:25:22,700 --> 00:25:27,660 simple. If the radioactive clocks were accurate, always ticking at the same rates as measured today, 221 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:33,160 each clock should have given the same age, but they didn't. Therefore, the different ages means 222 00:25:33,160 --> 00:25:38,120 that the clocks in the past must have been ticking at different, faster rates than today. 223 00:25:38,120 --> 00:25:48,280 What do I mean by that? Well, it's simple. In the Cardinus basalt, the potassium argon clock ticked 224 00:25:48,280 --> 00:25:54,440 through 516 million years from when the rock formed to the present time, while at the same time, 225 00:25:54,520 --> 00:26:00,400 the rubidium strontium clock ticked more rapidly through 1111 million years, and the Sumerian 226 00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:09,200 EMDM clock ticked even more rapidly through 1,588 million years. Now, remember, those ages are based 227 00:26:09,200 --> 00:26:16,740 on assuming the present decay rate. So, what I'm saying is, we have demonstrated that the decay 228 00:26:16,740 --> 00:26:23,700 rates measured today were different in the past. They were faster in the past, and that makes sense, 229 00:26:23,700 --> 00:26:30,360 because during the flood, you had catastrophic geological processes operating at rates that we 230 00:26:30,360 --> 00:26:37,740 can't even imagine or simulate today. So, if geological processes of erosion and transportation 231 00:26:37,740 --> 00:26:43,940 of sediments and fossilisation were occurring catastrophically, why not radioactive decay rates? 232 00:26:45,620 --> 00:26:51,460 So, the different ages can be explained if these radio clocks ticked at faster rates in the past 233 00:26:51,460 --> 00:26:58,120 at different, faster rates than today's measured rates. So, that means, if the decay rate wasn't 234 00:26:58,120 --> 00:27:06,000 constant, radioactive dating cannot yield the claimed absolute ages of millions of years. 235 00:27:06,760 --> 00:27:15,420 Now, if you think that this was just a one-off serendipitous discovery, we measured this, we did 236 00:27:15,420 --> 00:27:19,940 this repeated on four different rock units in the Grand Canyon. I'll give you two more examples. 237 00:27:19,940 --> 00:27:27,980 This is where the molten basalt didn't make it to the surface out through the volcano. Instead, 238 00:27:28,140 --> 00:27:34,380 the molten rock was squeezed laterally between the rocks and cooled under the ground. We call it a 239 00:27:34,380 --> 00:27:40,840 die-based sill. And this is, there's several of them in the Grand Canyon, deep in the Grand Canyon. 240 00:27:40,840 --> 00:27:46,360 What results did we get? Potassium, argon, age of 841 and a half million years, rubidium stride in 241 00:27:46,360 --> 00:27:53,520 1,060 million years, lead, lead, 1,250 million years, Sumerian ended in 1,379 million years. 242 00:27:54,040 --> 00:28:01,260 Again, which is the correct age? And by the way, notice the potassium was always younger than the 243 00:28:01,260 --> 00:28:06,560 rubidium. That's why we knew there was something systematically going on, 244 00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:12,240 because there was the same pattern. Potassium, argon was always the youngest and potassium, 245 00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:18,020 argon was always younger than rubidium strontium. Here's another example. This is where deep in the 246 00:28:18,020 --> 00:28:25,440 canyon, previous lava flows were metamorphosed by heat and pressure. They were changed into a new type 247 00:28:25,440 --> 00:28:32,200 of rock called an amphibolite. And here's the results that we obtained. Again, notice that rubidium is 248 00:28:32,200 --> 00:28:38,740 younger than the lead and the Sumerian. By the way, I should explain, lead-lead is where you contrast, 249 00:28:39,060 --> 00:28:45,840 you've got two types of uranium decay to two types of lead, so you can compare the two types of lead to 250 00:28:45,840 --> 00:28:52,700 also get an age. And I'll explain later, that's regarded as the gold standard in radioisotope dating, 251 00:28:53,700 --> 00:29:01,980 the lead-lead ages. And so we demonstrated that there is good evidence, in fact there were several 252 00:29:01,980 --> 00:29:07,440 up, that's just one line of evidence. In that research project we found that there were five 253 00:29:07,440 --> 00:29:13,100 lines of evidence that converged on the same conclusion, that decay rates were catastrophically 254 00:29:13,100 --> 00:29:19,680 faster in a recent catastrophic event. And that's a whole, another story in itself. 255 00:29:20,480 --> 00:29:26,220 So how reliable is radioactive dating? We can demonstrate that assumption number one is violated 256 00:29:26,220 --> 00:29:32,420 by inheritance, assumption number two is violated by contamination, and assumption number three is 257 00:29:32,420 --> 00:29:39,300 violated by accelerated decay rates. But you see, the scientific community simply ignores these 258 00:29:39,300 --> 00:29:44,220 problems with these assumptions. You will not find these assumptions discussed in the textbooks, 259 00:29:44,760 --> 00:29:51,280 you'll not find them discussed in the scientific papers. They ignore them. Why? Because the millions 260 00:29:51,280 --> 00:29:56,540 of years are what they want to obtain, and these methods seem to work for them to give them the 261 00:29:56,540 --> 00:30:04,860 millions of years. And they've convinced themselves that they can use the isochron technique because 262 00:30:04,860 --> 00:30:10,700 it eliminates the need to know the initial conditions and supposedly indicates contamination when 263 00:30:10,700 --> 00:30:17,440 samples do not plot on the isochrons. How does that work? Well, you can take a single sample 264 00:30:17,440 --> 00:30:24,660 and you can measure the parent and daughter atoms, and we call that a model age, so you get one sample to 265 00:30:24,660 --> 00:30:32,940 calculate the age. The isochron technique takes multiple samples. It's quite simple. Different samples 266 00:30:32,940 --> 00:30:38,080 from the one granite, different samples might have different amounts of potassium in them. 267 00:30:39,100 --> 00:30:43,280 Well, if they've got different amounts of potassium, it means they'll have different amounts of 268 00:30:43,280 --> 00:30:50,000 argon. The one with greater potassium will have greater amount of argon. The one with lesser amount 269 00:30:50,000 --> 00:30:56,340 of potassium will have lesser amount of argon. So when you plot potassium versus argon, the sample 270 00:30:56,340 --> 00:31:05,500 should line up on a straight line, the iso same cron. So you use multiple samples, and that's regarded 271 00:31:05,500 --> 00:31:12,220 as the gold standard. Because it's assumed that if a sample doesn't fall on the line, it's contaminated. 272 00:31:12,220 --> 00:31:19,560 But if one sample doesn't fall on the line, maybe it's all the other samples of the contamination. How 273 00:31:19,560 --> 00:31:25,960 would you know? And you don't need to know the initial conditions because you're only contrasting the 274 00:31:25,960 --> 00:31:29,840 different amounts in the different rocks. So they think they've got around the problem, but they really 275 00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:37,080 haven't. They assume the method works because it gives them the ages they want in the right order 276 00:31:37,080 --> 00:31:44,420 in the rock layers to prove the millions of years needed for evolution to occur. But a question I asked 277 00:31:44,420 --> 00:31:51,720 myself several years ago, how reliable and objective are the measured decay rates that are used to 278 00:31:51,720 --> 00:31:58,860 calculate the great ages? And I'm going to summarize, like I said, in 200 pages of technical literature 279 00:31:58,860 --> 00:32:05,920 that I produced as a result of this research. I went back to all the original papers. How I measured, 280 00:32:06,020 --> 00:32:11,180 how these decay rates measured, there are two parameters. There's the, and one of them is the 281 00:32:11,180 --> 00:32:17,040 half-life, you've probably heard that, and that's one we'll focus on. Basically it goes like this, 282 00:32:17,060 --> 00:32:23,480 if you start with a pound of uranium, or I should say a kilogram, to translate it into Australian 283 00:32:23,480 --> 00:32:32,100 measurements, a kilogram of uranium, in one half-life, half of that uranium will decay to lead, 284 00:32:32,220 --> 00:32:38,900 so you don't have half a kilogram left. And then if you weighed another half-life, that half a kilogram 285 00:32:38,900 --> 00:32:43,200 will decay to a quarter of a kilogram, and so you get smaller and smaller amounts. 286 00:32:43,200 --> 00:32:50,980 There's been three methods used. Direct counting, what does that mean? Well, you stick a Geiger 287 00:32:50,980 --> 00:32:57,620 counter in front of a uranium sample, each click of the Geiger count is a uranium atom that's decayed. 288 00:32:58,220 --> 00:33:05,260 So you stick it there for a year, and you can measure a million counts in a year, that's a million 289 00:33:05,260 --> 00:33:10,780 atoms that are decayed in a year, so you know the rate of decay. And then there's the other method, 290 00:33:10,780 --> 00:33:15,300 measuring in growth of the daughter isotopes. Instead of having a Geiger counter, you measure 291 00:33:15,300 --> 00:33:20,940 the uranium, at the end of one year, you measure how much, how many lead atoms are in the rock, 292 00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:27,300 and that many atoms you'll have assumed have accumulated in that one year, so that's the 293 00:33:27,300 --> 00:33:34,720 number of uranium atoms that decayed, so you can work out the decay rate. And the third method that 294 00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:42,240 they've used, is the one based on assuming that no matter what clock you use, you should get the same 295 00:33:42,240 --> 00:33:49,420 age. An interesting thing is, they've often found that you don't quite get the same age. So what do 296 00:33:49,420 --> 00:33:58,920 they do? They adjust one of the decays to match, to get the age to match, and that's how they determine 297 00:33:58,920 --> 00:34:07,060 the decay rate. And I'll go into this very quickly. Potassium argon, the potassium 40 half-life, 70 years 298 00:34:07,060 --> 00:34:14,420 of determinations, the half-life has been determined at 1.248 billion years. Here's the determinations 299 00:34:14,420 --> 00:34:22,980 over the last 70 years. Notice how the earlier results were quite scattered, and now I might say, 300 00:34:23,060 --> 00:34:28,200 well that's because the early equipment wasn't very good. Well the interesting thing is, we need to 301 00:34:28,200 --> 00:34:33,900 remember, the people have more and more relied upon computers, rather than being hands-on with 302 00:34:33,900 --> 00:34:40,080 their equipment. If you regard, get a computer control, what's going on, how do you know, if you 303 00:34:40,080 --> 00:34:44,480 haven't got your hands on, whether the experiment is going as well as you think it might be? So in 304 00:34:44,480 --> 00:34:48,900 actual fact, some of these early experimenters were probably very good at what they were doing. 305 00:34:50,140 --> 00:34:57,700 Notice the red markers, increasingly there's been a reliance on these comparison of ages. Now there's 306 00:34:57,700 --> 00:35:07,280 two uncertainties in the potassium argon half-life. We don't know precisely the abundance of potassium 307 00:35:07,280 --> 00:35:17,400 40 in natural potassium. And not all potassium 40 decays to argon 40. Most of it actually decays to 308 00:35:17,400 --> 00:35:25,340 potassium 40. So if you don't know the amount that decays by each way, how can you be sure that you're 309 00:35:25,340 --> 00:35:33,180 actually measuring the correct half-life? So the potassium argon half-life is ultimately being 310 00:35:33,180 --> 00:35:42,500 calibrated against standard samples of known lead-lead ages. What does that mean? Well they dated the same 311 00:35:42,500 --> 00:35:52,920 samples with lead-lead and with potassium argon and the calculated ages were based on the assumed decay rates 312 00:35:52,920 --> 00:36:00,780 of potassium. To get the ages to agree, they changed their measurement of the decay rate of potassium 313 00:36:00,780 --> 00:36:08,880 so that the potassium age would now agree with the uranium age. Is that objective? No, it's very 314 00:36:08,880 --> 00:36:16,640 subjective. You'll often hear them say, oh but the ages agree. Well the answer is they've been made to agree 315 00:36:16,640 --> 00:36:25,660 by tweaking the decay rate of potassium that they use to calculate those ages. And there's the scientific 316 00:36:25,660 --> 00:36:33,040 literature reference there. Don't take my word for it, you can go to that journal and you can read that 317 00:36:33,040 --> 00:36:40,020 article for yourself. What about the rubidium? Over the last 60 years there's been measurements 318 00:36:40,020 --> 00:36:48,100 by the various techniques and the decay rate has been determined at 48.8 billion years. And again you 319 00:36:48,100 --> 00:36:54,880 can see the early measurements were wildly divergent and then they seem to converge particularly as they 320 00:36:54,880 --> 00:37:02,300 began to use that tweaking method, tweaking the rubidium half-life so that the ages, the rubidium 321 00:37:02,300 --> 00:37:08,380 astronomy majors agreed with the uranium lead ages. Well of course they agree if they're made to agree. 322 00:37:10,380 --> 00:37:15,980 But the interesting thing is in the last decade there's been two groupings of determination results. 323 00:37:16,860 --> 00:37:26,140 Group one consists of half-lives of rubidium based on measuring earth materials and meteorites and lunar rocks 324 00:37:26,140 --> 00:37:33,740 and group two only using earth materials. And so they've found there's this disparity depending on the 325 00:37:33,740 --> 00:37:42,700 starting materials that you use. Such groupings can only be sustained if precedence is given 326 00:37:42,700 --> 00:37:48,380 to half-life determinations by comparison with the lead lead ages, in other words tweaking the rubidium 327 00:37:48,380 --> 00:37:55,900 strontium. The interesting thing is more recent direct counting and in-growth determinations 328 00:37:56,860 --> 00:38:01,900 which should be given the emphasis over the other methodology because you're actually directly 329 00:38:01,900 --> 00:38:09,900 measuring how many decays of rubidium have occurred, they actually give you an entirely different 330 00:38:10,460 --> 00:38:20,460 determination. The actual experiments to measure the actual atoms of decay give you a different result to 331 00:38:20,460 --> 00:38:28,140 to deliberately tweaking the rubidium half-life to match the uranium, to get the same uranium ages. 332 00:38:29,180 --> 00:38:36,380 So has the rubidium decay half-life been finally determined? No. There's still some uncertainty as 333 00:38:36,380 --> 00:38:43,340 to what today's value should be. Ultimately the rubidium decay half-life is calibrated against lead lead ages on 334 00:38:43,340 --> 00:38:48,140 the same samples. Again don't take my word for it, it's there in the scientific literature. 335 00:38:48,140 --> 00:38:56,940 Sumerian, determinations over the last 80 years, a half-life said to be 106 billion years. 336 00:38:56,940 --> 00:39:04,220 But again notice the early ones were all over the place and then they reached a certain level back in 337 00:39:04,220 --> 00:39:12,940 the 1970s in their determination that they decided what the value was. But notice there's two results 338 00:39:12,940 --> 00:39:18,140 there that are wildly different. That's interesting. Let me tell you the story. 339 00:39:18,140 --> 00:39:27,420 By the mid-70s comparison of Sumerian needed in ages of two meteorites with their lead lead isochron and 340 00:39:27,420 --> 00:39:37,420 model ages had already settled that the Sumerian half-life was 106 billion years. Yet those two more 341 00:39:37,420 --> 00:39:43,260 recent direct counting determinations have given higher values and they've been discounted and ignored. 342 00:39:43,260 --> 00:39:49,740 These are actual experiments that have been meticulously done in the 2003 measurement. 343 00:39:49,740 --> 00:39:55,260 They use multiple repeated measurements with multiple Sumerian sources with two different 344 00:39:55,260 --> 00:40:01,100 counting instruments and they did a detailed analysis of the efficiencies of their equipment. 345 00:40:01,740 --> 00:40:08,220 And yet the scientific community has ignored the results of those measurements by the experimental 346 00:40:08,220 --> 00:40:15,660 measurements because they disagree with the half-life determination made in the 1970s based on two 347 00:40:15,660 --> 00:40:21,900 meteorites and their lead lead and Sumerian needed in ages being made to agree. In other words, 348 00:40:22,780 --> 00:40:27,980 there's a lack of objectivity involved here. There was subjective massaging of the results, 349 00:40:27,980 --> 00:40:31,660 ignoring the experimental evidence to the contrary. 350 00:40:31,660 --> 00:40:41,100 And so the recommended half-life for Sumerian is now based on the subjective recalibration, 351 00:40:41,100 --> 00:40:49,100 based on the lead lead dating of only two meteorites. So ultimately Sumerian decay half-life 352 00:40:49,100 --> 00:40:56,060 is calibrated against the lead lead ages on the same samples. And again, don't take my word for it, 353 00:40:56,060 --> 00:41:03,420 it's documented in the scientific literature. Well, finally, what about uranium? There's two types of 354 00:41:03,420 --> 00:41:14,780 uranium, 238, 235. 235 is the one that they want for nuclear bombs. And most of your natural uranium is 238. 355 00:41:14,780 --> 00:41:21,980 That's why they have to enrich the uranium in 235 to make it for bomb-grade uranium. 356 00:41:21,980 --> 00:41:28,460 The determinations over the last 85 years have primarily been by direct counting using the Geiger 357 00:41:28,460 --> 00:41:36,940 counter. And there's the currently recommended half-lives, 4.4683 billion years for uranium-238, 358 00:41:36,940 --> 00:41:46,700 203 million years for uranium-235. So there's the determinations over the last 90, 85, 90 years, 359 00:41:46,700 --> 00:41:57,660 and here's the 235. But the optimal lead lead ages still have the effect on them of the crucial 360 00:41:57,660 --> 00:42:05,660 uranium-238, 235 ratio. What do I mean by that? Remember I said you've got uranium-238 decays to 206 lead, 361 00:42:06,220 --> 00:42:12,700 235 uranium decays to 207 lead. If you're going to make an age based on comparing the leads, 362 00:42:12,700 --> 00:42:17,260 you better know what the ratio was between uranium to begin with. 363 00:42:19,340 --> 00:42:28,220 Has that ratio been constant? Until recently it was determined as 137.88. That is 97%, 364 00:42:30,300 --> 00:42:37,100 what was the figure I gave you earlier? Most, the 99 point, just over 99% is natural, 365 00:42:37,100 --> 00:42:45,180 of uranium is 238. And if you contrast that to the little bit of 235, you get a ratio of 137.88. 366 00:42:45,740 --> 00:42:52,220 The interesting thing is that in the last few years, they've been found, as they've done the 367 00:42:52,220 --> 00:43:00,460 measurements, great variance in this ratio between in meteorites, rocks, minerals and uranium ores. 368 00:43:00,460 --> 00:43:09,100 And if that ratio varies, it requires significant adjustments to the lead lead ages that are 369 00:43:09,100 --> 00:43:14,620 calculated thereby. But the lead lead ages are the gold standard for calibrating all the other ages. 370 00:43:15,580 --> 00:43:21,420 So do we really know those uranium lead ages as accurate as we thought? No, we don't. 371 00:43:22,380 --> 00:43:27,980 We've actually found different minerals in the same rock will have different uranium-uranium ratios. 372 00:43:27,980 --> 00:43:35,740 And it'll vary from rock to rock. Even the same type of granite, the zircons in the granite, 373 00:43:35,740 --> 00:43:42,220 will give you different uranium-235, 835 ratios. And in meteorites, you get the same variation. 374 00:43:43,020 --> 00:43:50,220 So there is still uncertainty about this crucial uranium-235, 238-35 ratio. 375 00:43:50,220 --> 00:43:55,900 And these small consistent differences have been measured in all minerals and rocks. 376 00:43:57,820 --> 00:44:01,980 At the same time, there are residual uncertainties about the measurements 377 00:44:01,980 --> 00:44:13,580 of the uranium-238 and 235 decay rates. So these two problems plague all uranium lead and lead lead ages. 378 00:44:13,580 --> 00:44:21,500 They're all subjected to these large uncertainties. So if there's uncertainties in the gold standard, 379 00:44:22,060 --> 00:44:26,940 uranium lead and lead lead ages, that means all the other radioactive half-lives 380 00:44:27,660 --> 00:44:34,220 and ages calibrated against uranium and uranium lead and lead lead ages will never be certain. 381 00:44:34,220 --> 00:44:39,340 So that means all radioactive dating is not accurate. 382 00:44:41,660 --> 00:44:50,860 So let me conclude this section. Also, let's remember inheritance, contamination and non-constant decay rates 383 00:44:50,860 --> 00:44:54,700 make all the radioactive dating methods totally reliable and unusable. 384 00:44:54,700 --> 00:45:00,380 Therefore, the radioactive dating methods cannot provide absolute ages for rocks and meteorites. 385 00:45:00,380 --> 00:45:08,380 And don't forget the age of the earth was determined on meteorites assuming an unobserved evolutionary history 386 00:45:08,940 --> 00:45:13,340 that is contrary to the explicit statements in God's Word. 387 00:45:14,220 --> 00:45:18,140 Well, is there evidence from science that the earth is young? Yes. 388 00:45:18,140 --> 00:45:24,060 But we need to remember that all scientific evidence for the age of the earth involves unprovable assumptions. 389 00:45:25,100 --> 00:45:29,580 We're in the same boat. Why? Because we weren't there when God made the earth to make measurements. 390 00:45:30,140 --> 00:45:37,100 What we do, we take a process and we assume the rate that we measure today has been constant in the past. 391 00:45:37,580 --> 00:45:40,300 We have some reasonable and suitable starting conditions, 392 00:45:41,100 --> 00:45:46,220 but we cannot prove those conditions because no scientist was there to start to observe them. 393 00:45:46,940 --> 00:45:52,220 We assume the process rate has been constant since at the start at the same rate measured today, 394 00:45:52,220 --> 00:45:55,740 even though no scientists were there over time to verify this assumption. 395 00:45:56,460 --> 00:46:03,260 So all such processes can only ever give a qualitative maximum age for the earth. 396 00:46:04,220 --> 00:46:09,500 Thus, there is no absolute scientific proof of the earth's age. 397 00:46:10,140 --> 00:46:15,500 But surprisingly, most dating methods give a young age for the world. 398 00:46:16,220 --> 00:46:22,220 In fact, it's been estimated that 90% of the measurements that have ever been used give a young age. 399 00:46:23,180 --> 00:46:25,420 Less than 10% give an old age. 400 00:46:26,460 --> 00:46:28,540 Let me just focus quickly on a couple. 401 00:46:28,540 --> 00:46:33,340 And there's much more information that you can get in our resources on all of these topics. 402 00:46:33,820 --> 00:46:35,660 Let's look at comets. 403 00:46:36,620 --> 00:46:38,940 Comets are essentially dirty snowballs. 404 00:46:38,940 --> 00:46:42,940 They're made up of dust and ice that orbit through the solar system. 405 00:46:42,940 --> 00:46:50,140 But you see, as they get close to the sun, they disintegrate because particles come out of the sun, 406 00:46:50,140 --> 00:46:55,820 knock off pieces of ice and dust, which is why you've got the tail of the comet lit up by the sunlight. 407 00:46:56,460 --> 00:46:58,780 So they're crumbling, they're disintegrating. 408 00:46:59,500 --> 00:47:04,380 Now, everyone says the comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system. 409 00:47:04,940 --> 00:47:07,100 And they say that was five billion years ago. 410 00:47:07,100 --> 00:47:14,940 But these comets are disintegrating so rapidly that in less than 10,000 years there should be none left. 411 00:47:16,380 --> 00:47:21,900 So because we still see them today means that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old. 412 00:47:21,900 --> 00:47:27,260 So the Earth has a magnetic field and it's decaying. 413 00:47:28,460 --> 00:47:32,540 It's generated by electric currents inside the Earth's core. 414 00:47:32,540 --> 00:47:37,100 The Earth's core is believed to be made up of molten iron with a little bit of nickel in it. 415 00:47:37,660 --> 00:47:43,020 And what happens if you get electrical currents flowing through a wire, you can do this in a laboratory, 416 00:47:43,420 --> 00:47:48,440 put electrical current down through a wire, you can actually generate some magnetic field, which you can measure. 417 00:47:48,880 --> 00:47:50,620 Well, that's what's happening inside the Earth. 418 00:47:50,620 --> 00:47:54,900 But what we've discovered is that it's decaying away. 419 00:47:55,320 --> 00:47:55,500 Why? 420 00:47:55,600 --> 00:48:01,460 Because the electrical currents, they bump into atoms and they slow down and the magnetic field gets weaker. 421 00:48:02,020 --> 00:48:06,460 We've also discovered there were reversals during the time of the flood. 422 00:48:07,420 --> 00:48:12,760 And those reversals will again decrease the stored energy in the Earth's magnetic field. 423 00:48:13,300 --> 00:48:19,400 So here's the historical measurements that confirm, this is over the last 200 years, 424 00:48:19,400 --> 00:48:24,960 real-time measurements all around the globe indicate that the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased. 425 00:48:25,780 --> 00:48:31,660 And we can look at even going back to the magnetic field that's been recorded in pottery, 426 00:48:31,860 --> 00:48:37,920 that's had magnetic particles baked in with the clay, will give you an idea of the strength in the past 427 00:48:37,920 --> 00:48:47,140 and the fluctuations when the Earth's magnetic field changed as a result of the way the currents and things moved inside the Earth during the flood. 428 00:48:48,100 --> 00:48:55,380 Now, if we extrapolate that backwards, ignoring the flood, we'd go back over 10,000 years. 429 00:48:55,380 --> 00:49:03,060 If you bring the flood in, then you get to a maximum where the Earth's magnetic field would be so strong, 430 00:49:03,120 --> 00:49:06,640 it would be as strong as a magnetic star because it was stronger in the past. 431 00:49:06,720 --> 00:49:07,800 You extrapolate backwards. 432 00:49:08,140 --> 00:49:15,520 So that limits the maximum age for the Earth's magnetic field and therefore the Earth at about 10,000 years. 433 00:49:15,520 --> 00:49:18,320 Now, you all know that the sea is salty. 434 00:49:19,700 --> 00:49:22,260 It's usually assumed that you start with no salt. 435 00:49:22,880 --> 00:49:27,780 How long would it take for the salt to accumulate in the ocean to the level at which it is today? 436 00:49:28,260 --> 00:49:33,220 Well, we can measure how much salt is coming down in rivers and by other means into the oceans. 437 00:49:33,220 --> 00:49:35,060 We can work out how much is going out. 438 00:49:35,360 --> 00:49:39,100 Take the element sodium, which is part of common salt, sodium chloride. 439 00:49:39,100 --> 00:49:46,260 And starting with fresh water, with the present rate of salt addition, 440 00:49:46,740 --> 00:49:50,420 the maximum age for the Earth's oceans is 62 million years. 441 00:49:51,180 --> 00:49:55,520 Yet the conventional wisdom says the oceans have been there for 3 billion years. 442 00:49:56,280 --> 00:49:57,760 Now, let me back up here a minute. 443 00:49:57,800 --> 00:50:01,000 Remember I said it depends on your assumptions about the starting conditions? 444 00:50:01,640 --> 00:50:05,020 Let's plug in some biblical assumptions here. 445 00:50:05,420 --> 00:50:07,580 Would God start with a fresh water ocean? 446 00:50:09,100 --> 00:50:10,700 Maybe, maybe not. 447 00:50:11,260 --> 00:50:14,680 He certainly made fish to be able to swim in a saltwater ocean, didn't he? 448 00:50:15,520 --> 00:50:18,160 So maybe it didn't start fresh to begin with. 449 00:50:19,520 --> 00:50:20,660 Assumption number two. 450 00:50:21,200 --> 00:50:25,000 Has the addition of salt always been constant at today's rate? 451 00:50:25,660 --> 00:50:26,100 No. 452 00:50:27,100 --> 00:50:32,180 With all that erosion during the flood, that releases salt into the oceans today. 453 00:50:32,380 --> 00:50:35,420 During the flood, it would have been orders of magnitude greater. 454 00:50:35,420 --> 00:50:38,000 In fact, most of the salt would have accumulated during the flood. 455 00:50:38,000 --> 00:50:42,220 So that 62 million years comes all the way down. 456 00:50:43,120 --> 00:50:44,460 It's a qualitative maximum. 457 00:50:45,380 --> 00:50:48,480 And even then, it doesn't agree with their claimed 3 billion year age. 458 00:50:49,420 --> 00:50:51,840 Biological materials decay too fast. 459 00:50:51,920 --> 00:50:55,320 You've heard the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, 460 00:50:55,820 --> 00:50:59,500 DNA in Neanderthal, dinosaur blood cells. 461 00:50:59,640 --> 00:51:05,280 There's photographs there of the soft tissue and some of those red blood cells. 462 00:51:05,280 --> 00:51:11,380 You know, all of those biological materials we know from experimental evidence decay rapidly. 463 00:51:12,720 --> 00:51:19,280 The dinosaurs can't be 65 million years old and have fresh tissue in them or DNA or red blood cells 464 00:51:19,280 --> 00:51:21,700 because those things can't survive that long. 465 00:51:22,060 --> 00:51:23,960 We know that from experimental evidence. 466 00:51:23,960 --> 00:51:28,940 In actual fact, fossils do contain radiocarbon. 467 00:51:30,360 --> 00:51:34,720 We've tested wood, shells, bones, coal, oil, natural gas. 468 00:51:34,800 --> 00:51:35,760 It's all in the literature. 469 00:51:36,300 --> 00:51:39,980 We've done our own radiocarbon dating. 470 00:51:40,660 --> 00:51:44,460 And all of them contain ages of only thousands of years. 471 00:51:44,460 --> 00:51:52,120 That's assuming radiocarbon has built up in the Earth's atmosphere at the rate we measure today. 472 00:51:52,280 --> 00:51:56,100 It would have been different in the past because of the Earth's magnetic field. 473 00:51:56,300 --> 00:51:59,420 When you start to take into account biblical assumptions, 474 00:52:00,040 --> 00:52:06,540 those tens of thousands of years ages crunch down to less than 5,000 years back to the time of the flood. 475 00:52:06,540 --> 00:52:10,000 Even diamonds have young radiocarbon ages. 476 00:52:10,700 --> 00:52:14,700 Diamonds that can't be contaminated internally or externally 477 00:52:14,700 --> 00:52:17,840 because they're the hardest natural substance that we know. 478 00:52:18,580 --> 00:52:22,140 Diamonds that gave ages conventionally of 1 to 3 billion years 479 00:52:22,140 --> 00:52:26,020 gave standard radiocarbon ages of about 60,000 years. 480 00:52:26,460 --> 00:52:30,800 Once you correct those, they come down to less than 10,000 years. 481 00:52:30,800 --> 00:52:34,460 The diamonds supposedly formed at the same time as the Earth formed. 482 00:52:35,100 --> 00:52:37,440 Therefore, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. 483 00:52:37,920 --> 00:52:41,480 And don't you believe what you read in the blogs and the atheist websites? 484 00:52:42,280 --> 00:52:46,520 Because a lot of what you read on the internet hasn't been peer-reviewed. 485 00:52:49,500 --> 00:52:52,540 Some will claim that the diamonds have the carbon-14 486 00:52:52,540 --> 00:52:55,940 because of uranium in the diamonds and underground neutrons. 487 00:52:55,940 --> 00:52:59,920 We've done the calculations and demonstrated that it's not possible. 488 00:52:59,920 --> 00:53:04,240 The carbon-14 is there because it was there at the time of creation. 489 00:53:04,600 --> 00:53:06,900 These diamonds didn't have contact with the atmosphere. 490 00:53:07,380 --> 00:53:08,680 The carbon was intrinsic. 491 00:53:09,080 --> 00:53:12,220 Carbon-14 was intrinsic to when the diamonds were created. 492 00:53:12,740 --> 00:53:16,720 And so the carbon-14 dates the formation of the diamonds and therefore the Earth. 493 00:53:17,120 --> 00:53:19,240 One last example before we wrap up. 494 00:53:20,660 --> 00:53:23,200 You know, the evolutionists claim that there's a Stone Age 495 00:53:23,200 --> 00:53:25,940 which lasted for 185,000 years. 496 00:53:25,940 --> 00:53:28,860 And through that 185,000 years, 497 00:53:29,040 --> 00:53:33,480 the human population was roughly about a constant level of 1 million. 498 00:53:34,360 --> 00:53:35,200 You think about it. 499 00:53:35,460 --> 00:53:41,340 1 million people living and dying constantly over 185,000 years. 500 00:53:41,860 --> 00:53:45,920 You'd estimate the total population over that 185,000 years 501 00:53:45,920 --> 00:53:47,640 would be 8 billion people. 502 00:53:48,100 --> 00:53:49,660 Where are all their skeletons? 503 00:53:49,660 --> 00:53:54,720 Why do we find so few human remains? 504 00:53:55,520 --> 00:53:58,140 Well, we don't find them amongst the fossils from the Flood 505 00:53:58,140 --> 00:54:01,880 because God said He was going to utterly destroy man from the face of the Earth. 506 00:54:02,080 --> 00:54:05,700 So He made sure that there were no human fossils with dinosaur fossils 507 00:54:05,700 --> 00:54:07,760 that we know of. 508 00:54:10,100 --> 00:54:13,440 All the human remains we find at the present Earth's surface, 509 00:54:13,980 --> 00:54:15,720 the Neanderthals, the Cro-Mannians, 510 00:54:15,720 --> 00:54:18,220 they're all descendants of Noah and his family. 511 00:54:20,140 --> 00:54:23,040 And so, they're only thousands of years old, 512 00:54:23,120 --> 00:54:26,440 which makes sense of only thousands of remains that we've found. 513 00:54:27,460 --> 00:54:29,600 By the way, where does the Stone Age fit in? 514 00:54:31,680 --> 00:54:33,080 Noah and his family got off the ark, 515 00:54:33,160 --> 00:54:35,700 they had an advanced technology that they used to build the ark, 516 00:54:36,020 --> 00:54:38,820 they had metal tools that they brought out from the ark, 517 00:54:39,040 --> 00:54:41,200 and they went on to build the Tower of Babel. 518 00:54:41,260 --> 00:54:42,060 What went wrong? 519 00:54:42,060 --> 00:54:44,880 Well, Ken's going to talk about it in the next session. 520 00:54:45,000 --> 00:54:46,580 There was confusion at Babel. 521 00:54:47,560 --> 00:54:49,320 And so, those who left hurriedly, 522 00:54:49,680 --> 00:54:51,160 left behind their metal tools, 523 00:54:51,260 --> 00:54:53,680 what did they get when they got out into the mountains? 524 00:54:54,360 --> 00:54:55,400 Picked up stones. 525 00:54:55,680 --> 00:54:57,320 They regressed in their technology 526 00:54:57,320 --> 00:54:59,160 until they settled their, 527 00:54:59,660 --> 00:55:01,020 in a more settled way of life, 528 00:55:01,080 --> 00:55:02,780 where they could redevelop their technology 529 00:55:02,780 --> 00:55:05,640 that they already knew about to get metals to make metal tools. 530 00:55:06,840 --> 00:55:09,180 So, it's very simple to understand these things 531 00:55:09,180 --> 00:55:10,680 from a biblical perspective. 532 00:55:10,680 --> 00:55:13,620 So, most methods give a young age, 533 00:55:14,100 --> 00:55:17,400 but let's remember all scientific evidence 534 00:55:17,400 --> 00:55:20,000 for the age of the earth involves unprovable assumptions, 535 00:55:21,000 --> 00:55:23,700 because no human has witnessed all of earth's history. 536 00:55:24,320 --> 00:55:28,860 All scientific methods can only ever give a qualitative maximum age for the earth. 537 00:55:28,940 --> 00:55:29,580 But guess what? 538 00:55:30,400 --> 00:55:32,680 We actually have the birth certificate for the earth. 539 00:55:33,120 --> 00:55:34,120 It's in God's Word. 540 00:55:34,120 --> 00:55:38,360 The only certainty we have is the God-breathed eyewitness account 541 00:55:38,360 --> 00:55:41,260 in the scriptures of the earth's age and history. 542 00:55:42,200 --> 00:55:43,920 Here, where I leave a challenge. 543 00:55:44,100 --> 00:55:45,140 Why does this matter? 544 00:55:46,340 --> 00:55:50,220 You see, the tragedy is that so many Christian leaders and Christian scholars 545 00:55:50,220 --> 00:55:54,720 have allowed the finite, fallible, fallen human interpretations 546 00:55:54,720 --> 00:55:57,000 to trump God's Word. 547 00:55:58,660 --> 00:56:01,460 You know, they accept the millions of years, 548 00:56:01,680 --> 00:56:04,440 but they don't understand that those millions of years 549 00:56:04,440 --> 00:56:07,500 are their interpretation based on assumptions 550 00:56:07,500 --> 00:56:09,680 that reject the authority of God's Word. 551 00:56:10,380 --> 00:56:12,940 And then they want to add those millions of years to the Bible 552 00:56:12,940 --> 00:56:16,720 and reinterpret the Bible based on determinations 553 00:56:16,720 --> 00:56:18,600 determinations that reject God's Word. 554 00:56:20,080 --> 00:56:21,060 That's a tragedy. 555 00:56:22,040 --> 00:56:25,500 Because our only certainty is the God-breathed eyewitness account 556 00:56:25,500 --> 00:56:28,060 in the scriptures of the earth's origin, age and history. 557 00:56:28,880 --> 00:56:31,620 And in closing, let me remind you why this matters. 558 00:56:32,300 --> 00:56:34,220 You see, Jesus said in John 3.12, 559 00:56:34,460 --> 00:56:36,800 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe. 560 00:56:37,100 --> 00:56:39,720 How then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 561 00:56:42,120 --> 00:56:45,800 See, Jesus said, if you don't believe what I tell you about Noah 562 00:56:45,800 --> 00:56:47,960 and about Adam and about the flood, 563 00:56:48,560 --> 00:56:52,780 how are you going to believe that I go to prepare a home for you in heaven 564 00:56:52,780 --> 00:56:55,640 and there will you be with me for eternity? 565 00:56:57,200 --> 00:57:00,020 See, Jesus said, as I mentioned last night, 566 00:57:00,360 --> 00:57:02,540 he spoke about the creation which God created 567 00:57:02,540 --> 00:57:04,960 and he said from the beginning of the creation, 568 00:57:05,400 --> 00:57:08,520 not after billions of years, God made male and female. 569 00:57:08,520 --> 00:57:14,920 And so the evolutionary time frame from the secular viewpoint 570 00:57:14,920 --> 00:57:20,500 has the earth coming at four and a half billion years, 571 00:57:20,620 --> 00:57:23,700 man coming only in the last million years. 572 00:57:24,340 --> 00:57:27,080 And Jesus said, no, from the beginning of creation. 573 00:57:27,420 --> 00:57:30,060 The earth was created on day one, man on day six, 574 00:57:30,140 --> 00:57:32,180 five days later, that's back at the beginning. 575 00:57:32,540 --> 00:57:34,080 Radically different timescale. 576 00:57:34,260 --> 00:57:35,900 You cannot reconcile those two. 577 00:57:36,160 --> 00:57:38,560 Remember the Big Bang includes the sun 578 00:57:38,560 --> 00:57:40,920 and they've got the sun before the earth? 579 00:57:40,920 --> 00:57:43,860 No, God said, I made the earth first and the sun came later. 580 00:57:44,960 --> 00:57:48,120 You see, if we cannot trust Genesis on the young age of the earth, 581 00:57:48,560 --> 00:57:50,920 how can we trust God's offer of salvation? 582 00:57:51,780 --> 00:57:52,780 John 3, 16. 583 00:57:52,900 --> 00:57:55,880 Notice that four verses after the verse I just quoted. 584 00:57:57,080 --> 00:57:59,500 Jesus said, if you don't believe the earthly things, 585 00:57:59,540 --> 00:58:01,440 I tell you, how are you going to believe the heavenly? 586 00:58:01,860 --> 00:58:04,540 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. 587 00:58:05,780 --> 00:58:08,480 You see, there can be no compromise with the age of the earth 588 00:58:08,480 --> 00:58:11,820 because the millions of years are based on an assumed, 589 00:58:12,040 --> 00:58:14,140 unobserved evolutionary history 590 00:58:14,140 --> 00:58:18,440 that is contrary to the explicit statements of God's word. 591 00:58:19,040 --> 00:58:20,860 That's why it ultimately matters. 592 00:58:21,120 --> 00:58:23,160 That's why I get passionate about that issue 593 00:58:23,160 --> 00:58:25,680 because the millions of years undermine 594 00:58:25,680 --> 00:58:28,840 the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ 595 00:58:28,840 --> 00:58:31,780 and the gospel message that is the only hope 596 00:58:31,780 --> 00:58:35,740 for a dying world that needs a saviour to rescue it. 597 00:58:35,740 --> 00:58:38,160 Well, you've been very patient. 598 00:58:38,960 --> 00:58:40,340 Let me just remind you again 599 00:58:40,340 --> 00:58:43,240 that you'll get your free digital subscription 600 00:58:43,240 --> 00:58:45,560 for one year to the magazine. 601 00:58:46,360 --> 00:58:49,540 And a lot of this information is already in our Answers magazine 602 00:58:49,540 --> 00:58:52,320 and a lot of the articles are already on our website. 603 00:58:52,780 --> 00:58:54,820 And this makes a great gift, by the way, 604 00:58:55,020 --> 00:58:56,360 for friends and family. 605 00:58:56,940 --> 00:58:59,840 Don't forget the conference special, 15% off, 606 00:58:59,900 --> 00:59:00,660 the Answers book. 607 00:59:00,660 --> 00:59:04,180 We've even answered radiocarbon in one of these Answers books. 608 00:59:05,080 --> 00:59:07,000 And there's DVDs as well. 609 00:59:07,500 --> 00:59:10,120 There's only three DVDs but four Answers books. 610 00:59:10,740 --> 00:59:12,800 There's also this DVD, check it out. 611 00:59:13,280 --> 00:59:15,900 These are little four-minute punchy explanations. 612 00:59:16,220 --> 00:59:17,600 There's one on radiometric dating, 613 00:59:18,260 --> 00:59:20,480 which very quickly goes through some of the issues 614 00:59:20,480 --> 00:59:23,520 that I, with very detailed little graphics 615 00:59:23,520 --> 00:59:25,700 that are very quick-fired, 616 00:59:26,160 --> 00:59:28,340 that really help people to grasp these issues. 617 00:59:28,340 --> 00:59:32,200 So there's six little segments in that DVD 618 00:59:32,200 --> 00:59:34,340 that touch on the major issues, 619 00:59:34,400 --> 00:59:37,640 including one of those that Ken will deal with in the next hour. 620 00:59:38,240 --> 00:59:39,260 The age of the earth, 621 00:59:39,860 --> 00:59:43,060 that's not on the table, but it is available. 622 00:59:43,900 --> 00:59:47,140 Compromises and crucial assumptions of millions of years. 623 00:59:47,220 --> 00:59:49,620 It covers a lot of what I did today. 624 00:59:50,420 --> 00:59:52,120 Circular reasoning in the dating method, 625 00:59:52,220 --> 00:59:53,660 that deals with radiocarbon, 626 00:59:54,580 --> 00:59:56,500 tree ring dating and VARV, 627 00:59:56,500 --> 00:59:57,900 that is lake sediment dating. 628 00:59:58,340 --> 01:00:00,100 And there's also my two-volume work. 629 01:00:00,160 --> 01:00:00,920 It's not two books. 630 01:00:01,020 --> 01:00:02,540 It's two volumes of the one book, 631 01:00:02,880 --> 01:00:04,220 Earth's Catastrophic Past, 632 01:00:05,040 --> 01:00:07,880 and that has all this information in it and more. 633 01:00:08,360 --> 01:00:10,700 And then there's our Answers Research Journal. 634 01:00:10,800 --> 01:00:12,500 I cannot emphasize enough it's free. 635 01:00:12,860 --> 01:00:14,620 There's no subscriptions required. 636 01:00:15,120 --> 01:00:16,760 You just go onto our website, 637 01:00:17,380 --> 01:00:18,740 look at the articles, 638 01:00:19,000 --> 01:00:20,440 download the PDF files, 639 01:00:20,520 --> 01:00:21,440 anytime you want to, 640 01:00:21,500 --> 01:00:23,520 anywhere around the world. 641 01:00:23,520 --> 01:00:26,520 Usually when we have a paper come out, 642 01:00:26,840 --> 01:00:29,180 it's featured on the homepage on the day 643 01:00:29,180 --> 01:00:31,220 in which it's published on our website. 644 01:00:31,940 --> 01:00:34,960 So if you regularly get updates from our website, 645 01:00:35,180 --> 01:00:37,240 you'll know when there's new papers coming out. 646 01:00:37,660 --> 01:00:39,900 And that's where you get all the technical information 647 01:00:39,900 --> 01:00:43,300 that underpins the lay presentations 648 01:00:43,300 --> 01:00:44,820 of all this information. 649 01:00:45,060 --> 01:00:46,060 Well, if you've been very patient, 650 01:00:46,240 --> 01:00:47,700 Joss, over to you. 651 01:00:47,700 --> 01:00:57,900 Thank you very much.