First published: Creation 5(1):17 June 1982 Browse this issue Subscribe to Creation Magazine

In Brief—Summary of technical article for the layman
‘Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth’ (page 41-44 in this issue)

4.5 Billion Years

Before 1955, it was popular to believe the age of the earth was only 3 billion years. During 1955 an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson² claimed the age of the earth to be the same as that of meteorites. These he dated at 4.5 billion years. He believed that the meteorites were left-over remains of material dating from the time of formation of the earth and other planets. The value of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth is now the popular belief used by most evolutionary scientists. This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale²¹, showing that Patterson’s beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from, was provably wrong. Gale showed that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite. Therefore, despite the claims in school books, university lectures, and in the media, meteorites and the earth are not ‘proven’ to be 4.5 billion years old.

Edited Data

Such widespread beliefs as the 4.5 billion years of age, and the infallibility of the radiometric dating methods, are unfortunately kept in the public view by two rules agreed upon by many scientists, i.e. if a date disagrees with 4.5 billion years it must be wrong-and if dates do not fit the expected view of evolutionary history, they are simply edited out of any data published.
References to these practices are given in the Technical Article under the headings, Concordant Data and Selective Publication^21-34.

References

1. Faul, H. ‘Nuclear Geology’ John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York p257 [1954)
2. Patterson, C., Tilton, G. & lnghram, M., Science 121 69 (1955) Return to text
3. The outstanding example of this is the rejection of all geochronometers that indicate a significantly younger age than 4.5 b.y.
4. Reference 1, p18.
5. Dudley, H.C. ‘The Morality of Nuclear Planning’ Kronos Press in association with the centres of Interdisciplinary Studies, Glaseboro State College. Glaseboro, New Jersey p61 [1976]
6. Dudley, H.C. Chem. and Eng. News p2 April 7 [1975]
7. Read, J. Chem. and Eng. News p5 July 14 (1975)
8. Pauling, L. ibid.
9. Emery, G.T. Ann. Rev. Nuclear Science 22 165 [1972)
10. Anderson, J.L. J. Phys. Chem. 76 3603 (1972)
11. Anderson, J.L. and Spangler, G.W. J. Phys. Chem. 77 3114 (1973)
12. Hahn, H.-P., Born, H.-J. and Kim, J.I. Radiochimica Acta 23 23 [1976)
13. Barton Jnr. J.M. Canad. J. Earth Sciences 14 1641 (1977]
14. Faul, H. reference 1 p264
15. Russell, R.D. and Farquhar, R.M. ‘Lead Isotopes in Geology’ Interscience Publishers New York [1960)
16. Cook, M.A. ‘Prehistory and Earth Models’ Max Parrish London p44 (1966)
17. Faul, H. reference 1 p298
18. Cook, M.A. reference 16 p37
19. Faul, H. ‘Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars’ McGraw-Hill Book Co. p75 [1966)
20. Reference 19 p74
21. Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. Nature Phys. Science 240 57 [1972)Return to text
22. Chem. and Eng. News, Summary of an Amer. Chem. Soc. symposium, p330 January 23 [1956)Return to text
23. Sabine, P.A. and Watson, J.J. Geol. Soc. London 12 525 (1965)
24. Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 5 p505 [1976)
25. Reference 1 p258
26. Reference 16 p64
27. Reference 16 p66
28. Mauger, R.L. Contributions to Geology 15 37 [1977)
29. Bath, A.H. J. Geolog. Soc. London 130 570 (1974)
30. Haystsu, A. Canad. J. Earth Sciences 16 974 [1979)
31. Houtermans, F.G. ‘The Physical Principles of Geochronology’ Coltoques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique No.151 p242 [1966]
32. Science May/June p55 [1980). What is not said in this article is that other ages ranging from 2 to 28 b.y. have been obtained.
33. Reference 19 p69
34. Woodmorappe, J. Creation Research Society Quarterly 16 102 (1979)