Once again:
Creationists believe that the assumptions of radiometric dating are invalid and cannot be proven. These assumptions are:
(1) the radioactive element decays at a constant rate
(2) the rock crystal being analyzed is not contaminated by infusion of excess end product
(3) the rock crystal contained no end product when it was formed
(4) leaching of the parent element out of the rock sample did not occur.
The
Potassium-Argon dating method suffers from both leaching and contamination problems. Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks (*J.F. Evernden, et. al., "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 154). Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock. *Rancitelli and *Fisher explain that 60 percent of the potassium can be leached out of an iron meteorite by distilled water in 4.5 hours (*Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 1967, p. 167). Potassium, Rubidium and Uranium salts are highly soluble. This reduced the concentration of the potassium ions to the point that it increased the date of the rock dramatically. Rubidium-Strontium and Uranium-Lead also has problems of the same kind.
Thermoluminescence dating always relies on the assumption that the material being dated has been thoroughly bleached or "zeroed" before it was deposited in an archaeological context.
Isochron dating also has its faults. (Evidence was posted earlier.)
According to Dr. Walt Brown, one of the tests that has not been done on the methods is to subject it to a
DOUBLE BLIND STUDY.
Check out Dr. Walt Brown's book on-line at The Center for Scientific Creation. On page 67 of his book he describes the
DOUBLE BLIND TEST needed to establish credibility for radiometric dating. Creationists believe that since evolutionists expect certain rocks to yield dates that agree with their theory, no laboratory will publish dates that are wildly out of whack, or they wouldn't get paid for producing a result that would be hotly contested as experimental error. Woodmorappe shows that even the published results are enough to render the method as unreliable.
And, to be fair, here is a link to a discussion between David A. Plaisted, creationist, and Kevin R. Henke, geologist and advocate of radiometric dating. Mr. Henke lists many references to support radiometric dating, and claims there has been double blind studies done.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/plaisted-review2.html Oh, as for the definition of a
DOUBLE BLIND TEST:
"A
double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls. A random test is one which randomly assigns items to the control or experimental groups."
Just for the record, the Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could tell which specimen was from the Shroud. The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories. I wanted to say this because it would be unfair to say that the Shroud is true, but then say fossils are wrong.
TRANSITIONAL FOSSILSHomo erectus - I think the picture below says it all. Does this look anything like a human skull? (Take off your evolutionary glasses)
Australopithecines -
For many years, creationists (e.g., Gish 1993) have referred to the studies on Australopithecus by evolutionists Charles Oxnard and Lord Sully Zuckerman. These evolutionists, having analyzed postcranial (body) material of Australopithecus, contend that Australopithecus was not bipedal and transitional to man, but walked rather like a chimp. Using a completely different approach from that of Oxnard and Zuckerman, and examining a different anatomical complex (the inner ear), anthropologist Fred Spoor (Recently, using a CT scanner) and his coworkers support Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions. The "semi-circular canal dimensions" of Australopithecus, they write, resemble "those of the extant [living] great apes" (Spoor et al., 1994, p. 645).
Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis - Does this look human either?!?
Propliopithecus Haeckeli - "A primate known as Propliopithecus (one lineage sometimes called Aegyptopithecus), from the Fayum fossil sites of Egypt, is an archaic-looking catarrhine, and is thought to be what the common ancestor of all later Old World monkeys and apes looked like." (Encarta)
Homo Habilis -
The discovery of a more complete fossil skeleton of Homo habilis, although still quite fragmentary, considerably strengthens the contention of creation scientists that these creatures, while not the same as any one of the modern apes, were, nevertheless, simply apes, in no way related to man. The fossil remains were discovered by Tim White of the Johanson team and are described in a recent Nature article. (D. C. Johanson (and nine co-authors), Nature, 327:205 (1987).) Several important features of this creature took evolutionists by surprise. The first shock was its tiny stature. The fossil is of an adult female that stood only about three feet tall. This is as short, or shorter, than that of "Lucy." Furthermore, the postcranial skeleton (that portion of the skeleton below the skull) was every bit as primitive, or ape-like, as that of "Lucy," who is supposedly two million years older than this allegedly 1.8-million-year-old adult female, H. habilis. Recovery of the remains of the arm of this H. habilis fossil revealed the fact that, just as is true of apes, it had very long arms, with finger tips reaching almost down to the knees.
Ramapithecus - A 1932 find in India by G. E. Lewis. On the basis of a handful of teeth and fragments of a jaw, it was claimed by Simons and Pilbeam in the 1960s that this was an evolutionary ancestor to modern man. Pilbeam admitted in 1984 that his conclusions were based more on his preconceived ideas than actual data. It should be noted that a baboon that lives in high altitudes in Ethiopia, Theropithicus galada, has teeth and jaw characteristics very much like Ramapithecus and Australopithicus. Ramapithecus is now generally classified as essentially the same animal as a fossil orangutan known by the name of Sivapithecus.
Let's talk about "Lucy".
Lucy (Australopithecus Afarensis) is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female, discovered by paleontologist Dr. Donald Johanson on November 30, 1974, in Hadar, Ethiopia. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered. The find includes a V-shaped jaw, part of hip and large bones, and other assorted bones with very little skull fragments. There were other finds at the same location, other skulls and U-shaped jawbones.
What evidence makes this creature a transitional form? According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws.
And what evidence supports the idea that this creature walked upright? The angle that the upper leg bone makes with the lower leg bone at the knee. Looking head on, chimpanzee and gorilla legs have an angle of 0 degrees. Humans have an angle of about 9 degrees. If the angle is much greater it gives a "knocked kneed" condition in humans. Lucy and the australophithecines have a larger angle of about 15 degrees. (Present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are extremely adept tree climbers.)
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy and why he thinks she is our ancestor. It included the ideas already mentioned and that Lucy's femur and pelvis were more robust than most chimps and therefore, "could have" walked upright. After the lecture he opened the meeting for questions. The audience of approximately 800 was quiet so some creationists asked questions. Roy Holt asked; "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" (The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities)
Ok, I am stopping now. I am SERIOUSLY tired of chasing your "mountains of evidence" around.
