Hello everyone,
I'm Dr. Sven  string.
00:00:36.46\00:00:38.57
It has been great going on this
Evolution Impossible journey
00:00:38.67\00:00:41.94
together, where we're
leaving no stone unturned
00:00:41.97\00:00:44.91
to find out whether
Darwin's theory of evolution
00:00:45.01\00:00:47.38
could actually work.
00:00:47.41\00:00:48.74
I'm delighted to be able to
welcome back, Justin Torossian.
00:00:48.78\00:00:51.25
Good to have you here.
00:00:51.28\00:00:52.61
And we're very privileged
to have Melvin Sandelin,
00:00:52.65\00:00:55.92
who has a
Swedish-Dutch background.
00:00:56.12\00:00:58.15
Now, Melvin, I reckon
if we go back far enough,
00:00:58.19\00:01:00.76
we could find a
Swedish common ancestor.
00:01:00.79\00:01:03.56
And also we have
Jeandré Roux who is a pilot.
00:01:03.96\00:01:06.59
Glad you could drop by.
00:01:06.63\00:01:08.00
And always here to
give us good answers for our
00:01:08.43\00:01:11.00
questions is Dr. John Ashton.
00:01:11.03\00:01:12.80
Thanks for being here.
00:01:12.83\00:01:14.17
You know, figuring out
the age of something in nature
00:01:15.27\00:01:17.51
is not always an easy task.
00:01:17.54\00:01:19.57
However, there is one dating
method that scientists tell us
00:01:19.61\00:01:23.41
is really simple
and very reliable.
00:01:23.45\00:01:26.48
And that is radiometric dating.
00:01:26.51\00:01:29.05
It's like reading the
time off clocks in the rocks.
00:01:29.08\00:01:32.15
But does radiometric
dating really tell us
00:01:32.49\00:01:35.66
the true age of the rocks?
00:01:35.69\00:01:37.26
That's what we
are exploring today.
00:01:37.29\00:01:38.93
Now, guys, I just
want to ask you, how do you
00:01:38.96\00:01:42.30
understand radiometric
dating to actually work?
00:01:42.33\00:01:46.03
I'll let you guys handle that.
00:01:46.90\00:01:48.24
You go ahead.
00:01:48.27\00:01:49.60
Well, I'm a bit, like,
scared to say anything,
00:01:49.64\00:01:51.84
since in your
introduction you said scientists
00:01:51.87\00:01:53.94
say it's really simple.
00:01:53.98\00:01:55.31
But when I read about
it, I'm a bit confused.
00:01:55.51\00:01:58.08
It has something
to do with the decay,
00:01:58.11\00:02:00.48
measuring certain decay in
rocks, and then dating the age.
00:02:00.58\00:02:04.32
And I would need some more
explanation on that actually.
00:02:04.35\00:02:07.32
~ Excellent. John,
good to have you here.
00:02:07.36\00:02:09.16
Can you fill in some
of the details about how
00:02:09.36\00:02:11.89
radiometric
dating actually works?
00:02:11.93\00:02:14.20
Yes, well, there are materials
that we call, radioactive.
00:02:14.43\00:02:20.14
And that is, they slowly emit
atomic particles of some type.
00:02:20.17\00:02:25.44
And they actually, some of
them, change from one element
00:02:25.47\00:02:28.24
into another element.
00:02:28.28\00:02:29.61
So we call that, the
mother element changes
00:02:29.64\00:02:31.95
into the daughter element.
00:02:31.98\00:02:34.12
~ Gamma rays and
particles? - Yes, that's right.
00:02:34.15\00:02:38.55
Neutrons; these
sort of particles,
00:02:38.59\00:02:40.66
or maybe a beta
particle or electron is emitted.
00:02:40.69\00:02:43.46
So what we can do is, the
method involves very accurate
00:02:43.49\00:02:48.33
chemical analysis
of these isotopes.
00:02:48.36\00:02:51.87
Now what an isotope is,
an element is defined by
00:02:51.90\00:02:55.74
the number of protons, or
positive charges in the nucleus.
00:02:55.77\00:02:59.57
But it can have different
masses which are dependent
00:03:00.04\00:03:04.25
on the amount of
neutrons in the nucleus.
00:03:04.28\00:03:06.41
And so, an element is defined,
as I said, by the number of
00:03:06.61\00:03:09.82
protons, but when it has
different number of neutrons
00:03:09.85\00:03:12.52
we call that,
different isotopes.
00:03:12.55\00:03:14.62
Now when it has
different numbers of neutrons
00:03:14.72\00:03:16.99
it may alter the stability.
00:03:17.03\00:03:19.19
And when it's less
stable, it emits these particles
00:03:19.29\00:03:22.23
that we call radioactive.
00:03:22.26\00:03:24.03
And so, uranium is one
of the classic radioactive
00:03:24.07\00:03:27.17
materials, one of
the first discovered
00:03:27.20\00:03:29.10
that had these properties.
00:03:29.80\00:03:31.37
And so, what scientists do
is, by very accurately using
00:03:31.57\00:03:36.51
mass spectrometers these
days, they measure the amount of
00:03:36.54\00:03:41.25
one particular
isotope in the rock,
00:03:41.28\00:03:44.99
the parent isotope, and
then they measure the amount of
00:03:45.02\00:03:48.52
the daughter isotope.
00:03:48.56\00:03:49.89
And in the meantime,
they measure the rate at which
00:03:50.03\00:03:53.16
these elements have changed.
00:03:53.36\00:03:54.83
So they've studied
the radioactive material
00:03:54.86\00:03:57.27
over a period of
time, and they have measured
00:03:57.53\00:03:59.63
what they call, the
half-life, of the material.
00:03:59.67\00:04:03.00
Now this is a
very important factor.
00:04:03.47\00:04:05.44
This is the mathematical
factor that is used to
00:04:05.47\00:04:08.34
calculate the age.
00:04:08.38\00:04:10.01
And so, what it essentially is,
is the time measured in years,
00:04:10.28\00:04:15.18
usually, that it takes
for half of the mother element
00:04:15.22\00:04:21.02
to decay to the
daughter element.
00:04:21.06\00:04:23.02
And so, if the
half-life, say, was 5000 years,
00:04:23.39\00:04:27.53
then after 5000 years half
of the radioactive material
00:04:27.80\00:04:31.90
would decay away.
00:04:31.93\00:04:33.57
After another 5000 years
another half of what remains
00:04:33.87\00:04:38.04
has decayed away.
00:04:38.07\00:04:39.41
So we now only have a
quarter of that material.
00:04:39.44\00:04:41.31
So again, from chemical
analysis and mathematical
00:04:41.64\00:04:44.31
equations we can
calculate on that basis.
00:04:44.35\00:04:47.88
Assuming that radiometric
decay rates haven't changed,
00:04:47.92\00:04:52.39
assuming that there
is no leaching out of
00:04:52.42\00:04:55.69
or removal of the
mother parent element
00:04:55.72\00:04:59.26
or the daughter
element by some other means,
00:04:59.29\00:05:01.90
it's only radiometric
decay, then we can calculate
00:05:01.93\00:05:06.33
the age of that particular
rock that it's found in.
00:05:06.37\00:05:10.11
So you're counting the
parent, the mother isotope,
00:05:10.61\00:05:15.28
you're counting the daughter,
00:05:15.31\00:05:16.64
then you're
putting it on the curve,
00:05:16.68\00:05:18.05
and out comes the
date for the rock.
00:05:18.08\00:05:19.91
Yes, that's right.
00:05:19.95\00:05:21.28
There's a mathematical
formula in there, yes.
00:05:21.32\00:05:22.98
Fantastic.
00:05:23.02\00:05:24.35
Any questions on that process?
00:05:24.39\00:05:25.72
Yeah, I was just
wondering, like you mentioned,
00:05:25.75\00:05:27.69
a time of, for
example, like 5000 years.
00:05:27.72\00:05:30.39
In your book, you describe
certain other numbers that
00:05:30.43\00:05:32.79
can span billions of
years for half-life reactions.
00:05:32.83\00:05:36.33
How do they come
up with the times?
00:05:36.60\00:05:39.73
Like, how can
you measure that it's
00:05:39.77\00:05:41.20
5000 years,
yeah, of the half-life?
00:05:41.24\00:05:43.54
How can you know that?
00:05:43.94\00:05:45.27
~ Well, I'm not an
expert on atomic clocks,
00:05:45.31\00:05:48.58
but I understand that
with these atomic clocks
00:05:48.61\00:05:51.85
that they can measure
those particular half-lifes.
00:05:51.88\00:05:54.75
But that's an area I have
to actually explore the rate
00:05:54.78\00:05:57.79
at which they, or the
actual laboratory method of
00:05:57.82\00:06:01.29
measuring those half-lifes.
00:06:01.32\00:06:02.99
But I have read the papers
where they have noted that
00:06:03.32\00:06:06.96
half-lifes can
change, for example.
00:06:07.00\00:06:09.53
So under very high temperatures
00:06:09.73\00:06:11.97
they measure
different half-lifes.
00:06:12.00\00:06:13.74
And also they
measure different half-lifes
00:06:13.77\00:06:16.47
that appears in association
with different sunspot cycles,
00:06:16.50\00:06:20.71
and this sort of thing,
which is very interesting.
00:06:20.74\00:06:23.81
And there's also the
theory that you can produce
00:06:23.85\00:06:27.48
accelerated nuclear decay.
00:06:27.52\00:06:30.15
But anyway, that's a good point.
00:06:30.85\00:06:32.69
I need to read up on the actual
methodology that they use.
00:06:32.72\00:06:36.89
But we do have very
accurate atomic clocks.
00:06:37.06\00:06:39.63
In the olden day they use
to measure radiometric decay
00:06:39.66\00:06:42.66
rates using Geiger counters,
00:06:42.70\00:06:44.67
which actually counted
the number of particles.
00:06:44.90\00:06:48.64
And so, I guess by integrating,
if we count the number of
00:06:48.74\00:06:52.27
particles over
now very accurately,
00:06:52.31\00:06:54.84
and there are lots
of particles involved,
00:06:55.91\00:06:57.81
then we could actually calculate
billions of years ages.
00:06:57.85\00:07:00.98
I'm sure it's just a
physical calculation problem.
00:07:01.02\00:07:04.22
But I haven't
actually entered into that.
00:07:04.29\00:07:05.99
~ So it's fairly accurate,
but it's really dependent on
00:07:06.76\00:07:10.23
what kind of external
circumstances could have
00:07:10.26\00:07:12.39
influenced this
half-life reaction over time.
00:07:12.43\00:07:15.40
~ Yes, I imagine that
the measurements of the
00:07:15.43\00:07:18.30
rate of decay are
actually quite accurate
00:07:18.33\00:07:19.97
because they're done
in a controlled laboratory
00:07:20.00\00:07:21.87
situation and we've got
quite accurate machines now.
00:07:21.90\00:07:24.41
What we can't control, of
course, is the environment
00:07:24.51\00:07:27.51
that those rocks are in.
00:07:27.61\00:07:28.94
They're out in nature.
00:07:28.98\00:07:30.61
And also we can't control
and we don't necessarily know
00:07:30.71\00:07:33.92
what the
conditions were in the past.
00:07:33.95\00:07:35.58
And that's one of the big
downfalls of radiometric dating,
00:07:35.62\00:07:40.16
in that we have to
assume that none of the daughter
00:07:40.19\00:07:44.39
element has leached away,
or that more of the daughter
00:07:44.43\00:07:47.90
element has leached in,
for example, also, you know.
00:07:47.93\00:07:50.63
And the same with the mother.
00:07:50.67\00:07:52.00
So these are physical processes.
00:07:52.03\00:07:53.74
You have elements
in rocks, you know;
00:07:53.77\00:07:55.54
there's water and other
fluids can be leaking through.
00:07:55.57\00:07:59.67
So yes, there's a lot of issues.
00:08:00.68\00:08:02.11
~ The same thing
with what we talked about
00:08:02.24\00:08:03.71
last time with the sedimentary
rates and the erosion rates.
00:08:03.75\00:08:07.78
We don't know what
happened in the past.
00:08:07.82\00:08:09.78
~ Yes, yes.
00:08:09.82\00:08:11.15
But they're still
using the same erosion rates
00:08:11.19\00:08:13.89
that they're calculating or
measuring for billions of years.
00:08:13.92\00:08:17.43
~ Yes. - Yeah.
00:08:17.46\00:08:18.79
One of the ways they try
to improve the accuracy of
00:08:18.83\00:08:21.13
radiometric dating is a
technique that has been used
00:08:21.16\00:08:25.07
since the last 1980's.
00:08:25.10\00:08:27.34
And that's called the
isochron dating method.
00:08:27.44\00:08:29.80
So the methods for that
particular form of radiometric
00:08:29.84\00:08:34.21
dating, we can only
date volcanic rocks.
00:08:34.24\00:08:36.71
And the crystals in the
volcanic rock often have
00:08:36.75\00:08:39.81
or sometimes have
radioactive elements in them.
00:08:39.85\00:08:45.02
And there will be different
minerals, crystals in the rock.
00:08:45.55\00:08:48.59
And so, those different
crystals have different chemical
00:08:48.76\00:08:52.76
compositions, and
so they'll be made up,
00:08:52.79\00:08:54.76
they'll have different
radioactive elements in them.
00:08:54.86\00:08:57.00
So one of the things
we can do in the rock is
00:08:57.03\00:08:59.10
analyze, separate out
the different crystals,
00:08:59.37\00:09:02.10
and then individually analyze
or date those different crystals
00:09:02.14\00:09:06.27
in the one rock, and
then plot those together.
00:09:06.31\00:09:09.21
And if we get a
pretty good straight line...
00:09:09.24\00:09:11.55
In other words, the data
from all the different crystals
00:09:11.65\00:09:14.98
in the rock are matching up,
00:09:15.02\00:09:16.45
then that gives us
fairly high confidence.
00:09:16.65\00:09:18.85
So that's the
most accurate method.
00:09:18.89\00:09:20.36
That's called the
isochron dating method.
00:09:20.39\00:09:22.29
Are there any assumptions
underlying the isochron method
00:09:22.32\00:09:26.63
that we still
need to be aware of?
00:09:26.73\00:09:28.46
Oh, well, they're the
same assumptions as before.
00:09:28.56\00:09:31.63
And you can get other problems
too, in that for example
00:09:32.07\00:09:35.87
how do we know there aren't
mixing of much older rocks
00:09:36.07\00:09:39.81
with younger rocks
during the molten time,
00:09:39.84\00:09:43.38
and this sort of thing?
00:09:43.41\00:09:44.75
I mean, it is fraught with
a whole lot of assumptions.
00:09:44.78\00:09:47.62
And this is what people I think
just generally don't realize.
00:09:47.65\00:09:51.09
You know, okay, we've got
this result and we've got this
00:09:51.12\00:09:55.36
measurement; and
people automatically assume
00:09:55.39\00:09:58.19
that it's correct.
00:09:58.23\00:09:59.86
One of the classic things
that I like to point out is that
00:10:00.36\00:10:03.30
radiometric dating methods
have never been validated
00:10:03.33\00:10:09.50
for pre-historical dates.
00:10:09.54\00:10:11.47
We haven't actually been
able to validate the method,
00:10:12.17\00:10:15.74
that the method
is actually working.
00:10:15.78\00:10:17.68
And this blows
people's minds away.
00:10:17.88\00:10:20.15
I've actually written
and pointed this out to
00:10:20.18\00:10:22.75
sort of fellow scientists.
00:10:22.78\00:10:24.32
Because a lot of people
think, "Okay, we get this result
00:10:24.52\00:10:27.39
from a
laboratory; it must be true."
00:10:27.42\00:10:31.33
Well in reality,
chemical analysis
00:10:31.56\00:10:33.70
is very different from that.
00:10:33.73\00:10:35.06
You know, I can
remember seeing the results from
00:10:35.10\00:10:38.33
government laboratory trials,
00:10:38.70\00:10:41.60
sorry, government
trials of laboratories
00:10:41.70\00:10:44.31
where we were testing
the accuracy of laboratories
00:10:44.34\00:10:46.91
and where samples
had to be analyzed by
00:10:47.21\00:10:51.81
the leading
analytical laboratories.
00:10:51.91\00:10:53.75
And the results
were widely spread.
00:10:53.78\00:10:56.38
And the sample was
actually a known sample.
00:10:56.58\00:10:59.79
And I think, I can't remember
how many labs were involved,
00:10:59.82\00:11:02.72
but there were dozens
of laboratories involved.
00:11:02.76\00:11:04.99
And I think there were
only two or three out of those
00:11:05.19\00:11:07.46
laboratories that got
the actual accurate answer.
00:11:07.50\00:11:10.27
So this is
something we need to measure.
00:11:10.57\00:11:12.27
There's two things: there's the
performance of the laboratory,
00:11:12.30\00:11:15.17
but there is also
the method itself.
00:11:15.34\00:11:19.01
And one of the things is
that the radiometric dating
00:11:19.21\00:11:21.84
method hasn't been validated.
00:11:21.88\00:11:24.45
~ When you say,
"pre-historic ages,"
00:11:24.48\00:11:26.95
so that's going back for
millions and billions of years.
00:11:26.98\00:11:29.48
But what about, I mean,
science has been very active
00:11:29.52\00:11:32.32
over the last 200
years, so what about validating
00:11:32.35\00:11:36.89
radiometric
dating over that period?
00:11:36.93\00:11:38.99
How has that worked?
00:11:39.03\00:11:40.50
Oh yes, okay, so this
really highlights the problems
00:11:40.53\00:11:44.23
with radiometric dating.
00:11:44.27\00:11:45.77
Or one of the issues.
00:11:46.77\00:11:48.90
And perhaps what I
should highlight before
00:11:48.94\00:11:52.67
I answer that is that
typically when we date rocks,
00:11:53.17\00:11:58.11
there are a number of
different radiometric dating
00:11:58.71\00:12:01.18
methods we use.
00:12:01.22\00:12:02.55
We might use samarium-neodymium,
00:12:02.58\00:12:04.79
or potassium-argon,
or rubidium-strontium.
00:12:05.72\00:12:09.89
- We'll have a quiz
on those names later.
00:12:10.36\00:12:12.36
And what often happens
is, depending on the method
00:12:14.76\00:12:19.13
that we use, which are all valid
radiometric dating methods,
00:12:19.17\00:12:22.60
we'll get widely different
answers for the same rock.
00:12:22.70\00:12:25.47
~ That's very
unusual. - That is.
00:12:26.01\00:12:27.54
So what generally happens
is, you have an age for a rock
00:12:27.58\00:12:31.55
that is based on
the fossil record ages
00:12:31.58\00:12:34.68
that were based on
estimates of sedimentation rates
00:12:34.72\00:12:40.56
and the
thicknesses of those layers
00:12:40.59\00:12:43.02
in which the fossils were at.
00:12:43.06\00:12:44.39
The physical thicknesses.
00:12:44.43\00:12:45.76
And so, they estimated the ages.
00:12:46.03\00:12:48.43
And so, this gives
us what was known as
00:12:48.46\00:12:50.87
the standard fossil age.
00:12:50.90\00:12:53.03
And that's the age that
you'll find in the textbook.
00:12:53.07\00:12:55.60
Now if you find a rock
that is associated with layers
00:12:55.80\00:12:59.57
above or below the
fossils that we're finding,
00:12:59.61\00:13:02.41
that are listed
there in the textbooks,
00:13:03.01\00:13:05.61
and it might be,
say, 200 million years.
00:13:05.65\00:13:08.52
And then when you
start dating it, one method
00:13:09.35\00:13:11.62
might give you
130 million years,
00:13:11.65\00:13:13.69
another method might
give you 250 million years,
00:13:13.72\00:13:16.39
another method might
give you 700 million years,
00:13:16.59\00:13:18.89
another method might
give you a billion years.
00:13:18.93\00:13:21.33
~ It's sort of pick your age.
00:13:21.43\00:13:23.00
Well, what happens is, when
you're writing up your thesis,
00:13:23.03\00:13:26.27
you say, "Well, I've
got all these values there.
00:13:26.30\00:13:28.74
250 million years is
closest to the fossil age of
00:13:29.14\00:13:33.41
200 or 220 million years.
00:13:33.51\00:13:35.58
I'm going to put that in."
00:13:35.61\00:13:36.95
So you record that result.
00:13:37.08\00:13:38.78
And what is happening...
00:13:38.88\00:13:40.22
But why aren't the
other results considered?
00:13:40.25\00:13:42.22
Why aren't the results that gave
you a billion years, you know?
00:13:42.25\00:13:45.12
Usually uranium-lead values
will give you billions of years
00:13:45.15\00:13:50.83
for most rocks.
00:13:50.93\00:13:52.26
And this is one of the problems.
00:13:52.29\00:13:54.70
Now the other thing
is, and this has been done
00:13:54.73\00:13:58.53
a number of times, when
we radiometrically date rocks
00:13:58.57\00:14:03.30
that we know
the actual age from:
00:14:03.34\00:14:05.37
so it's a volcanic eruption that
occurred maybe 200 years ago,
00:14:05.41\00:14:08.71
people have observed it,
they go and chip out the lava,
00:14:08.74\00:14:11.51
and take the sample to the lab,
00:14:11.55\00:14:13.42
these always come
back as being dated
00:14:14.55\00:14:17.79
hundreds of thousands
to millions of years old.
00:14:17.99\00:14:21.16
Even though we know
the rock was 200 years old.
00:14:21.19\00:14:24.16
And that's the
question that I had.
00:14:24.26\00:14:25.79
When different
methods are being used,
00:14:25.83\00:14:29.90
with all those names that
you pronounced that I won't try,
00:14:29.93\00:14:32.50
but they give
these different answers.
00:14:33.30\00:14:36.27
Like really different answers.
00:14:36.30\00:14:38.01
But they use the same
principle it is dating
00:14:38.34\00:14:40.91
that half-life time reaction.
00:14:40.94\00:14:42.51
~ That's right. - And
if that is fairly accurate
00:14:42.54\00:14:45.11
in itself, but the
answers are so, they can differ
00:14:45.15\00:14:49.55
billions of years, where
does that difference come from?
00:14:49.58\00:14:53.19
~ Well I'm not sure, but I
think one of the things is that
00:14:54.16\00:14:57.53
when you look at the half-lifes
of a lot of those systems
00:14:57.56\00:14:59.79
that are used, those half-lifes
are billions of years.
00:14:59.83\00:15:02.50
And so, it seems to me very
reasonable that you're going to
00:15:03.00\00:15:07.27
get hundreds of millions
of years as your answers.
00:15:07.30\00:15:09.84
And I think the classic
example of this was work
00:15:10.21\00:15:12.77
that was done here in Australia
where samples were taken
00:15:12.81\00:15:18.55
from the eruptions from
Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand,
00:15:18.58\00:15:21.98
and it erupted in the
late 1940's early 1950's.
00:15:22.02\00:15:25.25
And when those
samples were analyzed
00:15:25.65\00:15:28.26
at one of the
geoscience laboratories at
00:15:28.29\00:15:33.29
the Australian
National University
00:15:33.33\00:15:35.16
here in Australia, the
samples gave ages, from memory,
00:15:35.73\00:15:40.34
ranging from
about 130 million years,
00:15:40.37\00:15:43.81
300 million years, and I
think 350,000 million years
00:15:43.91\00:15:49.81
for rocks that we
knew were 50 years old.
00:15:50.11\00:15:52.88
Well the analysis were done in
the late 1990's to early 2000's.
00:15:52.91\00:15:56.38
So at that stage the
rocks were only 50 years old.
00:15:56.42\00:15:59.75
And yet, they all gave
more than 100 million years
00:16:00.29\00:16:04.29
via different
methods by one of the best
00:16:04.33\00:16:07.53
radiometric dating
laboratories in Australia.
00:16:08.26\00:16:11.13
~ What about the idea that
the rocks might be 50 years old,
00:16:11.33\00:16:16.54
but the chemical composition,
00:16:16.81\00:16:18.84
the material might
have been very old?
00:16:18.87\00:16:23.51
Would that play into
this calculation at all?
00:16:24.55\00:16:27.72
Well it could, but what
it means is that it's useless
00:16:28.55\00:16:32.79
in dating any rock, isn't it.
00:16:32.82\00:16:34.46
If rocks that are
only 50 years old date as
00:16:34.59\00:16:36.73
millions of years old,
and you pick up another rock
00:16:36.76\00:16:39.13
sample and you get some
millions, how old is it?
00:16:39.16\00:16:41.56
Is it millions of years
old or is it 50 years old?
00:16:41.60\00:16:44.50
And the thing is, that
isn't just an isolated example.
00:16:44.53\00:16:47.87
If you go to the standard,
you know, some of the standard
00:16:47.90\00:16:52.27
radiometric dating textbooks,
they site these examples
00:16:52.37\00:16:55.28
where Hawaiian lava flows
were being dated, and so forth.
00:16:55.31\00:16:59.11
And again, the sad explanation
is, "Well, somehow there was
00:16:59.31\00:17:03.55
some sampling errors, or somehow
there was sort of some mixing."
00:17:03.59\00:17:07.29
You know, the magma
or something like that.
00:17:07.72\00:17:11.66
But what the ratios were
that God originally created,
00:17:11.93\00:17:15.83
you know, we don't know.
00:17:16.73\00:17:18.07
Really, it doesn't matter.
00:17:18.10\00:17:20.24
When we compare
that with erosion rates
00:17:20.27\00:17:22.50
and all these other
factors we can see, it virtually
00:17:22.54\00:17:25.77
wipes out radiometric dating.
00:17:25.81\00:17:27.68
Now one of the things that
often happens in, you know,
00:17:27.71\00:17:30.85
the general popular thinking,
if I can put it that way,
00:17:30.88\00:17:33.15
is that as soon as you
hear, radiometric dating,
00:17:33.52\00:17:35.72
you think, carbon-14 dating.
00:17:35.75\00:17:37.69
But they're actually, they
are the same class of dating
00:17:38.49\00:17:42.62
method, but
they're quite different.
00:17:42.66\00:17:43.99
And there are
some misunderstandings
00:17:44.03\00:17:45.63
about carbon-14 dating.
00:17:45.66\00:17:47.00
Can you just
enlighten us on that topic?
00:17:47.03\00:17:49.53
Yes, okay, so carbon-14
dating is another dating method
00:17:49.86\00:17:53.64
that actually doesn't, it
works on a different principle.
00:17:53.67\00:17:58.64
In other words, in radiometric
dating we calculate the age.
00:17:58.67\00:18:01.94
But carbon-14 dating
depends on so many variables
00:18:02.41\00:18:07.12
that it itself
has to be calibrated
00:18:07.15\00:18:09.78
by some secondary method.
00:18:09.82\00:18:11.25
So how carbon-14
dating works is this:
00:18:11.29\00:18:13.62
That in the atmosphere,
the upper atmosphere is hit by
00:18:14.16\00:18:18.56
cosmic rays coming from
outer space which are charged
00:18:18.59\00:18:21.13
high-energy particles.
00:18:21.16\00:18:22.56
They collide with atoms
up in the outer space area
00:18:22.86\00:18:27.07
and generate
high-energy neutrons.
00:18:27.10\00:18:28.94
Some of those
high-energy neutrons
00:18:28.97\00:18:30.94
then hit a nitrogen nucleus.
00:18:31.21\00:18:33.58
So nitrogen is one of the
gases in the atmosphere there.
00:18:33.61\00:18:36.48
And it has seven
protons and seven neutrons.
00:18:36.64\00:18:40.62
And what happens is, sometimes
those high-energy neutrons
00:18:40.98\00:18:44.09
knock a proton out of
the nucleus, leaving only
00:18:44.29\00:18:48.16
six protons, which
changes that nitrogen to carbon.
00:18:48.19\00:18:52.53
It very quickly
reacts with oxygen before it
00:18:53.06\00:18:55.56
becomes carbon dioxide.
00:18:55.60\00:18:57.17
But that is now carbon-14.
00:18:57.20\00:18:59.97
Normally carbon is 12.
Six protons and six neutrons.
00:19:00.00\00:19:04.07
But now it's
carbon-14, and it's unstable.
00:19:04.24\00:19:07.51
And it has a
half-life of 5730 years.
00:19:07.54\00:19:11.05
And so, after 5000 years
we only have half the level.
00:19:11.38\00:19:15.75
Or five and a
half thousand years.
00:19:15.78\00:19:18.15
After 11,000 and a bit years,
00:19:18.19\00:19:20.12
we'll have only a
quarter of the level.
00:19:20.16\00:19:21.69
After 15,000 years, we'll only
have an eighth of the level.
00:19:21.72\00:19:25.13
So by measuring
the amount of carbon-14
00:19:25.16\00:19:27.93
that we have, we can back
calculate the age of things.
00:19:28.30\00:19:31.57
Now carbon-14 is very good
for dating the actual fossils
00:19:31.60\00:19:35.04
because they
have carbon in them.
00:19:35.07\00:19:36.87
So we can date the
actual fossils that way.
00:19:37.07\00:19:39.97
But the thing is we measure...
00:19:40.28\00:19:45.01
Back in 1950 they standardized
the level of carbon-14
00:19:45.05\00:19:48.75
in the atmosphere.
00:19:48.78\00:19:50.12
Well since then
it's been changing.
00:19:50.15\00:19:51.49
We've had a lot more
carbon dioxide come up;
00:19:51.52\00:19:53.56
by the way,
which is diluting it.
00:19:53.59\00:19:55.06
The other thing is that
the earth's magnetic field
00:19:55.32\00:19:59.33
repels a lot of the cosmic rays.
00:19:59.36\00:20:02.33
And so, the amount of
carbon-14 that is present
00:20:02.96\00:20:06.84
in the atmosphere depends
on that carbon-14 flux anyway.
00:20:06.87\00:20:10.94
In the past, we know the
earth's magnetic field has
00:20:11.27\00:20:13.68
been decaying; it's decayed
about 10% in the last 150 years.
00:20:13.71\00:20:18.41
6.5% since 1900, for example.
00:20:18.45\00:20:21.25
So in the past, a stronger
magnetic field would have
00:20:21.45\00:20:26.15
repelled more cosmic rays,
which means lower levels of
00:20:26.19\00:20:29.49
carbon-14, which gives
us artificially longer ages
00:20:29.52\00:20:34.56
if we base it on the current
level, which is what we do.
00:20:34.66\00:20:38.60
Now how it works is
that when a plant is alive
00:20:38.80\00:20:41.64
it's taking in
the carbon dioxide,
00:20:41.67\00:20:43.37
and there's an equilibrium.
00:20:43.41\00:20:44.74
The same level of
carbon-14 that's in the
00:20:44.84\00:20:46.88
plants is in the atmosphere.
00:20:46.91\00:20:48.24
But when it dies
or when it's buried,
00:20:48.28\00:20:50.08
and the same with an animal,
there's no more interchange
00:20:50.11\00:20:53.72
with carbon-14, so what
is there begins to decay.
00:20:53.75\00:20:56.79
And so it will have a
lower level over time.
00:20:56.99\00:20:59.65
So that's how
they calculate the age.
00:20:59.69\00:21:01.96
But it's very
interesting, because after about
00:21:02.22\00:21:05.69
100,000 years there would be
no detectable carbon-14 left.
00:21:05.73\00:21:09.63
So if we find
carbon-14 in something,
00:21:10.40\00:21:13.13
it means it's got
to be quite young.
00:21:13.34\00:21:15.34
~ Less than 100,000 years
old. Interesting, interesting.
00:21:15.37\00:21:17.84
~ And I think you
mention in your book that
00:21:17.87\00:21:20.48
there were some diamonds
taken from the De Beers mine
00:21:20.51\00:21:23.38
in the southern part of
Africa, and that these were
00:21:23.41\00:21:26.88
carbon-14 dated, I think it was.
00:21:26.92\00:21:28.92
They're estimated to be between
1 and 3 million years old.
00:21:29.02\00:21:31.79
But like you mentioned,
if they have carbon in them,
00:21:32.05\00:21:35.19
they have to be, what,
less than how old was it?
00:21:35.22\00:21:37.43
- 100,000? ~ 100,000.
00:21:37.46\00:21:38.79
~ Yes, well that's right.
00:21:38.83\00:21:40.50
And that's a very
interesting example, because
00:21:40.53\00:21:42.70
diamonds were meant to
have formed when the continents
00:21:42.73\00:21:44.90
formed under
intense heat and pressure.
00:21:44.93\00:21:46.84
And they're meant to be
1.5 to 3 billion years old.
00:21:47.17\00:21:51.37
So they should
have absolutely none.
00:21:51.41\00:21:54.34
And of course, they began
finding carbon-14 in diamonds.
00:21:54.54\00:21:57.75
And this was
seriously challenged.
00:21:57.78\00:21:59.31
And so, some every accurate
studies were done at the
00:21:59.35\00:22:04.09
University of California,
Los Angeles campus, from memory,
00:22:04.12\00:22:07.59
using one of the most accurate
mass spectrometers in the world.
00:22:07.79\00:22:11.06
And sure enough,
carbon-14 was there in diamonds.
00:22:11.26\00:22:13.66
And so, that is
powerful evidence that the
00:22:13.70\00:22:18.23
continents can't be that old.
00:22:18.27\00:22:19.67
And now, of course,
they have carbon-14 dated
00:22:19.70\00:22:22.00
dinosaur remains,
and the same thing.
00:22:22.04\00:22:24.51
And sometimes they come
out at around, you know,
00:22:24.61\00:22:28.11
20 or 30 thousand years.
00:22:28.14\00:22:29.84
And people say, "Well,
that's still a lot older
00:22:29.94\00:22:31.98
than the Bible dates."
00:22:32.01\00:22:33.35
But that is just
the straight age date.
00:22:33.38\00:22:36.35
We haven't
corrected for the lower values
00:22:36.55\00:22:40.69
caused by the lower
cosmic rays flux in the past.
00:22:40.72\00:22:46.09
One of the things, there are
Christians in the world today
00:22:47.30\00:22:51.73
who say, "We want
to believe in the Bible
00:22:51.77\00:22:54.64
because it has
changed our lives.
00:22:54.67\00:22:56.47
It made such a big difference.
00:22:56.50\00:22:57.84
But also, science has
been so transformative
00:22:57.87\00:23:01.04
in our society as well.
00:23:01.08\00:23:02.44
And we want to
integrate those two."
00:23:02.54\00:23:04.48
And we head towards something
like theistic evolution,
00:23:04.51\00:23:08.95
where God supervised or
guided the process of evolution.
00:23:08.98\00:23:13.49
What's your thoughts on
this concept or proposal
00:23:13.52\00:23:16.69
of theistic evolution?
00:23:16.73\00:23:18.79
Well, I guess
there's two aspects.
00:23:19.06\00:23:20.46
You can have the theological
aspect, that it certainly
00:23:20.50\00:23:23.00
doesn't fit with the
concept of sin and death
00:23:23.03\00:23:25.53
that the Bible talks about.
00:23:25.57\00:23:26.90
But the other problem
is, why are they doing that?
00:23:27.24\00:23:29.97
Why do they believe
that the earth is so old?
00:23:30.01\00:23:33.48
And I think it's because
they've been inculcated with
00:23:33.51\00:23:35.74
this idea from radiometric
dating of the long ages.
00:23:35.78\00:23:39.48
But you're just bowing the
knee to a false science then.
00:23:39.88\00:23:43.95
You know, we have so much
evidence now that the earth
00:23:44.25\00:23:47.96
can't be those hundreds
of millions of years ages
00:23:47.99\00:23:51.89
that the radiometric
dating results give us.
00:23:52.16\00:23:55.06
We know
classically from erosion rates.
00:23:55.43\00:23:58.03
We know from the
soft tissue in dinosaurs.
00:23:58.23\00:24:00.30
There's so many things that
are pointing to this young age.
00:24:00.34\00:24:03.67
It's the fact that we can find
carbon-14 in coal, and so forth.
00:24:03.71\00:24:08.21
So to me, this whole
concept of theistic evolution,
00:24:08.24\00:24:12.11
that God had to bow
the knee to evolution
00:24:12.15\00:24:14.95
and produce it slowly
over time, just doesn't
00:24:14.98\00:24:18.52
fit the scientific data.
00:24:18.55\00:24:19.95
Plus, why does
God need to do that?
00:24:20.16\00:24:22.46
He said He spoke
it into existence.
00:24:22.49\00:24:24.49
And the other problem
too that we often forget
00:24:24.53\00:24:27.23
is that evolution has major
problems in terms of ecology,
00:24:27.33\00:24:32.43
as we've talked about, in
that you need the insects,
00:24:32.93\00:24:35.74
and the flowering
plants need one another.
00:24:35.77\00:24:37.97
There's a whole lot
of ecological balance.
00:24:38.14\00:24:40.48
The ecosystems, yeah.
00:24:40.51\00:24:41.84
And it doesn't follow the lines
of the evolutionary, you know,
00:24:41.88\00:24:45.55
phylogenetic trees.
00:24:45.58\00:24:46.95
So they're caught out.
00:24:47.32\00:24:50.02
They're caught out with
science, and they're caught out,
00:24:50.22\00:24:52.25
in my view, with
theology as well.
00:24:52.29\00:24:53.89
What the Bible actually says.
00:24:53.92\00:24:55.46
Do you have any
further questions on this topic
00:24:55.79\00:24:57.89
of radiometric dating
and theistic evolution?
00:24:57.93\00:25:00.33
~ What you're saying, it's just
a mindset of people thinking
00:25:00.36\00:25:04.47
that it's millions of years.
00:25:04.50\00:25:05.83
Does that sort of correlate with
the biblical account of creation
00:25:06.07\00:25:13.14
where they say, or the
Bible says, "evening and morning
00:25:13.44\00:25:17.48
was the first day,"
but they claim that it was
00:25:17.58\00:25:20.22
millions of thousands of
years time period that passed?
00:25:20.25\00:25:23.92
~ Well, time is a
fascinating thing,
00:25:25.55\00:25:28.59
as we have talked
about just briefly.
00:25:28.62\00:25:31.16
But no, they are
24 hour earth days.
00:25:31.19\00:25:33.60
And the whole universe
was created in that time.
00:25:33.76\00:25:35.96
Because if we
look at Genesis 2:1,
00:25:36.00\00:25:37.83
it says, "And God was finished."
00:25:37.93\00:25:39.70
And you know, the whole host
of them had been created then.
00:25:39.97\00:25:43.71
And we talk about, God
spoke things into existence.
00:25:43.74\00:25:47.64
And to me,
that's very reasonable.
00:25:47.94\00:25:51.21
You know, I think a
classic example of this is...
00:25:51.25\00:25:54.45
Let's do an
experiment live on television.
00:25:55.18\00:25:58.22
Move your little finger.
00:26:00.09\00:26:01.52
Can you move your
little finger? Right, okay.
00:26:01.72\00:26:03.83
Does your brain have mass?
00:26:03.86\00:26:05.26
You can weight
your brain, can't you?
00:26:06.90\00:26:08.50
~ Yes. - Yeah.
00:26:08.53\00:26:09.86
Can you weigh your thoughts?
00:26:10.07\00:26:11.50
~ No.
00:26:11.53\00:26:12.87
How did you move
your little finger?
00:26:12.90\00:26:14.24
Your thoughts, your
thoughts are non-material,
00:26:15.70\00:26:18.24
but they affected
this material world.
00:26:18.27\00:26:20.51
God is Spirit,
He's non-material,
00:26:21.08\00:26:23.91
why can't He just create
matter and affect the universe?
00:26:24.18\00:26:28.35
If our non-material
thoughts, our consciousness,
00:26:28.38\00:26:31.89
can affect electrical
impulses in our brain,
00:26:31.92\00:26:34.36
and affect nerves and muscles,
and through our thoughts
00:26:34.39\00:26:37.66
we can create things...
00:26:37.69\00:26:39.03
We can create a poem, we
can create a mobile phone.
00:26:39.06\00:26:42.80
Surely God can
create, just like that.
00:26:43.77\00:26:47.04
Speak it into existence.
00:26:47.07\00:26:48.40
It makes more scientific sense
than all this evolution rubbish.
00:26:48.44\00:26:51.17
It is amazing, really amazing to
think about radiometric dating
00:26:52.01\00:26:55.88
can be so wildly wrong.
00:26:55.91\00:26:57.71
And if our planet earth
is not billions of years old,
00:26:58.08\00:27:01.38
but only a few thousand years,
00:27:01.42\00:27:03.59
that would mean that
evolution simply does not
00:27:03.82\00:27:06.45
have enough time to occur.
00:27:06.49\00:27:08.39
So that means that
evolution is impossible.
00:27:08.79\00:27:11.09
Now I realize that can be
quite a confronting idea to you,
00:27:11.73\00:27:15.40
and so I encourage you to get a
copy of Dr. John Ashton's book.
00:27:15.43\00:27:19.27
And work through all
the lines of evidence
00:27:20.57\00:27:23.24
that he describes in the book.
00:27:23.27\00:27:25.51
If evolution
really didn't happen,
00:27:25.67\00:27:28.14
could this mean that
there's a God out there
00:27:28.18\00:27:30.61
who originally created
this world and loves you?
00:27:30.65\00:27:34.22
Hang onto that thought
as we journey back in time
00:27:34.32\00:27:36.69
in our next episode
to the Big Bang itself.
00:27:36.89\00:27:39.85
And if you missed
any previous programs,
00:27:40.16\00:27:42.36
you can watch
them on our website.
00:27:42.39\00:27:44.13
We look forward to seeing
you again back at the Big Bang.
00:27:46.90\00:27:50.63