GEOSCIENCE REPORTS
Winter 1990 No. 10
GEOCHRONOMETERS: HOW ACCURATE ARE THEY?
C. L. Webster Jr, Senior Research Scientist,
Geoscience Research Institute
Before one can determine the accuracy of a geochronometer it is best
to understand what a geochronometer is. A chronometer is a device for accurately
determining the passage of time. Geo is a syllable meaning "earth" in many
compound words of Greek origin. Therefore a geochronometer should be a device used for
telling the passage of "earth time" or how old the earth or a portion of the
earth is. There is no such device per se. However, a geochronometer can consist of a
physical feature, material, or element whose formation, alteration, or destruction can be
calibrated or related to a known interval of time.
The obvious function for a geochronometer is not the present but its
application to the past, specifically the ancient past beyond historic time.
The basic underlying principle of any geochronometer is the principle
of uniformity, which traditionally states,1 "The present is the key to the
past." Simply applied, this means that a measured present-day rate of occurrence is
logically extrapolated back into time.
For example: Suppose we measure the vertical growth rate of a tree seedling to be one centimeter per year. In the forest we find a tree that is 100 meters high. Knowing that seedlings grow at the rate of one centimeter per year we estimate the tree's age at 10,000 years 1(100 meters) x (100 centimeters/meter) x (1 year/centimeter)].
This example is an overstatement because the seedling growth rate
does not equal the sapling growth rate, etc. It also points out a major problem with
logical extrapolation - namely, a current rate of occurrence may not reliably represent
all of the processes involved or account for any cyclic nature inherent within the
processes.
Over the years, many investigators have examined numerous geological
processes and their rates in hopes of determining the age of the earth. Some major
non-radiometric areas of investigation include:
Areas one through four are directly related to each other and areas
five and six are indirectly related to the first four areas. An argument could be proposed
that the rate of erosion of the continents is the primary control for all of the other
rates except seven and eight.
The rates of erosion have been shown to be dependent upon the elevation
of the land mass and the amount of precipitation received. Clearly, if one is to determine
the age of the earth from erosion rates, the estimates obtained will not be precise
because they will be determined from average continental elevations and average recent
continental precipitation accrual.
The average elevation for a continental land mass can be determined
with some degree of accuracy. However, the determination of the average precipitation
accrual will be very uncertain at best. Precipitation rates are dependent upon long term
and short term cycles such as sun spot cycles and the appearance of such phenomena as El
Niño. The amount of precipitation also is influenced by topography.
A brief look at some data from the United States will serve to
illustrate the point. The average continental height of the United States is 623 meters
above sea level and the estimated average erosion rate is 6.1 cm/1,000 years. However, the
rate of erosion has been estimated to be about 800 cm/l,000 years at Mt. Rainier
(elevation = 4,391.6 meters) in Washington state. Using the average rate of erosion and
elevation of the United States the continent should be completely eroded down to sea level
in about 10.2 million years, yet Mt. Rainier should erode away in only 549,000 years! An
additional thought, if geologic ages were a reality and if the rates of erosion in the
past were anywhere equal to today's rates, how can we explain the existence of any portion
of the geologic column? Since the Cambrian (claimed to be 500 million years ago)
continents could have been eroded to sea level many times. Obviously our present does not
even begin to shadow the past.
In addition to the aforementioned complexities, each major landmass
would need to be calculated as an independent entity. Consequently any age for the earth
derived from the average erosion rates will be subject to a large uncertainty.
Similar arguments for uncertainty can be presented for rates two
through six. Each process will have unique circumstances in addition to those presented
for the rates of erosion. For example, factors affecting the adsorption and chemical
precipitation of ions from solution must be taken into account when studying the salinity
buildup of the oceans. Each ion will exhibit different chemical precipitation features,
equilibrium constants, and adsorption rates and will consequently yield different
conclusions as to the residence time of the ions in solution. These residence times are
not to be confused with age estimates but residence time considerations demonstrate that
salinity buildup cannot be used for age determinations.
Another example of complex and perplexing data is the rate of mountain
orogeny (uplift). Current rates of mountain uplift have been directly measured and are
shown to vary from mountain range to mountain range. For example, the rate of uplift for
the Swiss Alps is about 100-150 cm/1000 years while the Rocky Mountains in North America
rise at the rate of 100-1000 cm/1000 years. The reported rate of uplift for the central
Andes is about 300 cm/1000 years, while another researcher has reported uplift rates of
about 7,200 cm/1000 years in Japan!
If an average uplift rate of 300 cm/1000 years were assumed, the
average mountain would be uplifted 3.0 km in a million years. Even if high rates of
erosion were taken into account, mountain uplift rates would be inconsistent with
geological time estimates. Another thought, if these rates of uplift were correct, why do
we still observe uneroded sections of the geologic column in the mountain ranges? Clearly,
mountain orogeny cannot be used as an accurate geochronometer.
If one assumes that the population rate doubles once every generation
(forty years), the world's population of five billion people could be accounted for in as
little as 1,280 years. Taking into account higher death rates etc. in the past, the human
population could still be accounted for in a relatively short period of time. Only
thousands of years would be needed for the human population growth, not the half a million
years currently proposed for the existence of Homo sapiens.
A statistical consideration of the time needed for biological evolution
to occur via random processes currently postulated requires a time frame extending well
beyond the five-billion-year figure proposed for the age of the earth.
The age estimates derived from the eight non-radiometric rate processes
are summarized in the following table:
Non-radiometric Age Estimates
Rate Process: Estimated Age (years) Erosion of the Continents 15± 5 million Oceanic Sediment Buildup 75±25 million Continental Sediment Buildup 199+47 million Ocean Salinity Buildup 240+20 million * Mountain Uplift <<1 million Volcanic Ejecta Buildup 64±30 million Human Population Growth 1,280 thousand # Biological Evolution >>5 billion * Residence time for Na ion, not age
# Minimum growth time necessary
After careful contemplation of the geochronologic data it is
permissible to assume that while the same processes occurring today occurred in the past,
it is impossible to envision the conditions of the past. Current rates in no way reflect
the rates of the past, nor do current conditions reflect the conditions of the past.
Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that a source of information
outside of science is necessary to correctly understand the past.
"When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." John 16:13. 0nly by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning "was brooding upon the face of the waters;" of that Word by whom "all things were made," of that "true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world"can the testimony science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned.
EDUCATION, p. 134
This article is taken from a talk given in South America recently For further details see Roth, Ariel A. 1986. Some Questions About Geochronology. Origins 13:64-85
1 This principle has been redefined to state that the same laws governed processes in the past as are currently in operation today.
BOOK REVIEW
Austin, Steven A. 1984. Catastrophes in Earth History. Institute for Creation Research, Technical Monograph No. 13 El Cajon, CA. 318 pp.
Creationists who believe in a worldwide flood as described in
Genesis do not have a modern example for comparison. No recent event involving flood water
on a global scale is available for study. Therefore understanding the dynamics and
consequences of such a deluge is difficult.
Lacking universal flood data, the next best is the study of local
catastrophes. Dr. Steven Austin of the Institute for Creation Research has made such a
comparison easier by compiling and summarizing a large collection of mostly scientific
references dealing with catastrophes. Many of the references deal with phenomena that may
have been the consequences of a worldwide flood. Others are obviously post-flood or even
recent.
The references are categorized as cosmic catastrophes, water
catastrophes, volcanic catastrophes, etc. This collection is by no means exhaustive. As
time passes, research results and observations, formerly given a uniformitarian
interpretation, are seen as best understood from the viewpoint of catastrophism.
Turbidites (sediments formerly thought to have been laid down slowly but now known to be
rapidly deposited) is a good example. Furthermore the volume of literature dealing with
unusual and disruptive events is increasing rapidly, especially in recent years.
Catastrophes in Earth History makes fascinating and sometimes
frustrating reading. The brief summaries raise curiosity and stimulate the desire to
obtain more information from the original literature. I suspect Austin had this as one of
his objectives when he prepared the volume. It also serves as a useful sourcebook for
those looking for evidences in support of the Biblical deluge.
GEOSCIENCE NEWS
Creation Seminars in South America
Creation Seminars were conducted by GRI personnel in South America during September and
October, 1989 on the campuses of four colleges: Inca Union University, near Lima, Peru;
River Plate College in Entre Rios Province, Argentina; Brazil College, in Sao Paulo; and
Northeast Brazil College, in Bahia State. Dr. Harold Coffin directed the Seminars with the
assistance of a local coordinator from each college and Dr. Nevil Gorski, Director of
Education for the South American Division. Lecturers were Dr. David Rhys, a retired
educator from South America, and GRI staff members Drs. Ben Clausen, Jim Gibson, and Clyde
Webster.
Each six-day seminar included a one-day field trip. The "high
point" of the Seminar held at the Inca Union University was a field trip by auto to
the summit (15,885 ft.) of the Andes Mountains. Other field trip sites included
fossiliferous Miocene to Pleistocene sediments near River Plate College in Argentina, and
a visit to a limestone cave in Brazil. A total of nearly 700 persons attended the
Seminars, including university students, pastors, teachers, and other professionals. There
is great interest in creationism in South America and plans are underway to strengthen
communication between GRI and the South American colleges.
Staff Changes
Dr. Robert H. Brown was honored with a plaque in recognition of many years of service
to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and to the Geoscience Research Institute at a meeting
of the Biblical Research Institute Science Council (BRISCO) held at Rock Springs, Wyoming
in August. Brown officially retires from the Geoscience Research Institute at the end of
December, 1989. He was director of the Institute from 1973 until his partial retirement in
1980 at the age of 65. Since then he has continued his research and contributions to the
Institute almost full-time. He and his wife Frances will continue to live in the Loma
Linda area. Knowing his dedication to creation science, we predict that he will continue
to contribute to the efforts of GRI even after full retirement.
Dr. Ben Clausen will join the Geoscience Research Institute staff on
the Loma Linda campus starting January, 1990. He has been with GRI since 1987 but has been
on a two-year research leave at the University of Virginia. Clausen's doctorate is in
nuclear physics from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1987. He will bring to GRI
expertise that will greatly assist in the study of geochronology and geophysics problems.
The GRI staff looks forward to his arrival in January with his wife Debbie and daughter
Karen.
Academy Creation Supplement
THE EARTH: ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY, a creation
supplement written by Dr. Clyde L. Webster, Jr. of the Geoscience Research Institute and
developed under the direction of the North American Division Education Department,
currently is being used in classrooms.
This book was prepared primarily as a supplement for the academy
biology course. It provides material that supports belief in the scriptural record of the
origin of life and events in early Earth history. It is not intended to be an exhaustive
reference to support belief in special creation, but a handbook or ready source to aid the
student who examines and evaluates the arguments for and against evolution and creation.
A teacher's resource manual has been prepared to accompany the student
text.
Audiovisual Materials Available
A series of slide sets with commentary is being prepared by the
Geoscience Research Institute staff for use in schools and churches. This series will
cover topics in creation/evolution of most concern and import to Seventh-day Adventists.
The first set consisting of 50 slides with written commentary for each slide is now
available through the Ministerial Department of the General Conference, 12501 Old Columbia
Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904. The price is $14.50 for each set.
This first program deals with the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the
giant log raft on Spirit Lake at the base of the mountain. Important implications
concerning past geologic events and activities that occurred during the Genesis Flood are
drawn from this modern catastrophic eruption.
Conferences and Seminars
Geoscience Research staff members have been involved in a number of
appointments in different parts of the world during the past year.
Dr. Clyde Webster, along with Dr. John Stout of Andrews University,
presented a series of lectures to approximately 200 professional Adventists (mainly
physicians) in Paris, France in November, 1988. Webster also led out in talks to Adventist
pastors and teachers in the Sitka, Alaska area in December, 1989.
Dr. Harold Coffin assisted in Bible Conferences in Sri Lanka,
Indonesia, and Thailand during April and May.
Dr. James Gibson, at the invitation of the West Nordic Union of
Seventh-day Adventists, presented a series of talks to about 75 teachers from Norway,
Denmark, and Sweden in late June and early July.
Dr. Ariel Roth has just returned from conducting a series of creation
seminars at Adventist educational institutions in England, France, Austria, East and West
Germany. This is the continuation of an arrangement far biannual visits to Europe by a
Geoscience Research Institute representative.
SCIENCE NEWS NOTES
Fossil Bee in Cretaceous Amber
A fossil stingless bee, in Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, has
been described as "remarkably similar to extant South American forest bees of the
genus and subgenus Trigona" (Michener and Grimaldi, 1988). This fossil was in a piece
of amber that resided in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History for many
years without being studied.
"The oldest previous known fossil bees are various species (six
families) from the Late Eocene Baltic amber ... about 40 million years old" (Michener
and Grimaldi, 1988). The New Jersey Cretaceous bee is considered to be 80± Myr (million
years). This fossil bee is a worker, which means the bee was a member of a social order
that was similar to that of modern bees. It has the complex structures and hairs that are
used to gather nectar and pollen.
This fossil presents two problems for evolutionists — the
development of such complex morphology and behavior required by insects of a highly
organized social structure so much farther back in time than previously thought and the
evolutionary stasis (lack of subsequent change) evident for 80± Myr.
Creationists see this fossil as another example of the lack of
transitional forms in the fossil record (See main article in GEOSCIENCE REPORTS,
No. 9). They would consider the similarity of this fossil bee with living species in the
genus Trigona to be evidence that major evolutionary changes have not occurred
and that insufficient time has transpired since the entrapment of this bee in Araucaria
tree pitch to bring about more than trivial changes.
Suggested Reading
Green Sea Turtle Migration
Animal navigation, especially those migrations to islands in mid
ocean, has been an intriguing study for many years. For example, how do the big green sea
turtles of the Atlantic find their way from the feeding grounds off Brazil to the island
of Ascension to lay their eggs? This island, approximately 2000 km from Brazil, is only a
tiny spot of land in a big ocean. It would surely be missed by only a slight navigational
error.
Archie Carr and Patrick J. Coleman (1974) advanced the theory several
years ago that this migration route developed gradually during 40 Myr (million years) as
the Western Hemisphere separated from Europe and Africa. Before the separation of the
continents, Ascension Island (or a precursor) originally lay in the narrow ocean close to
Brazil. Continental drift gradually (2 cm/year) increased the distance between the
turtles' feeding beaches along the Brazil coast and the Ascension Island nesting grounds.
According to the theory, during geological ages and over many generations the turtles,
driven by their homing instinct, adapted to longer and longer migrations to their nesting
beaches.
Although this theory was appealing to many, it had some problems. If
green turtles, like salmon, return to the place of their hatching, even one break in the
yearly routine during the 40 Myr would effectively end this migration. That the beaches of
Ascension (or its precursor) would be unsuitable for nesting sometime during those 40 Myr
is almost a certainty. In fact, erosion, based on modern average rates, would have removed
Ascension Island by now. Erosion on a sea island such as Ascension far exceeds the
average.
Recent research by Bowen, Meyland and Avise (1989) on the mitochondrial
DNA (mtDNA) of these turtles does not support Carr and Coleman's theory. Green turtles
that nest off Venezuela and Florida, as compared to those that nest at Ascension Island,
should show significant differences in the mtDNA because their different homing instincts
would have kept each group isolated from the other groups for millions of years; more than
enough time for major differences to develop.
The research of Bowen and associates shows that the differences between
the turtles of the three Atlantic nesting sites are so small that a 40 Myr separation
between them is not a reasonable consideration. The slight differences suggest that the
"separation occurred a few 10s of 1000s of years ago at most" (Lewin, 1989).
These results are more in agreement with a short earth history. Carr
and Coleman's theory, if placed within the time frame of Scripture, could still be a
possible explanation for this remarkable feat of navigation.
Suggested Reading
MAY I ASK A QUESTION?
What single discovery tomorrow could substantiate creation into believability by evolutionists or what could "disprove" or "refute" evolution?
Historical events are not well handled by the scientific method of
experimentation and observation. Even if an event could be reproduced or observed in the
laboratory, we would not be certain that the historical event occurred in a similar
manner. Even if scientists could produce life in the laboratory, we would have no
assurance that life originated in a similar way in the past.
In reality, neither creation nor evolution can be "proved."
They are not subject to falsification, a requirement for a good scientific theory.
Evidences (not proofs) can be marshaled for both theories. For evolutionists, probably no
single discovery would make creation believable. Individuals who do not wish to
acknowledge a Being superior to man will accept no evidence for creation regardless of its
believability. Although neither evolution nor creation can be proved, it is our belief
that the creation theory of origins gives more satisfactory answers to questions than does
evolution theory.
The discovery of authentic human remains well down in the geologic
column could be significant for the substantiation of creation, especially if the bones
were clearly much larger than bones of modern humans. However, such a discovery would not
"prove" creation nor "refute" evolution.
GEOSCIENCE REPORTS - Winter 1990 No. 10
Editor --- Harold G. Coffin
Associate Editor Katherine Ching
Subscription requests, correspondence, and notices of change of address should be sent to: Geoscience Reports, Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92 3 50.
Geoscience Reports is a newsletter published by the Geoscience Research Institute to present current happenings at the Institute as well as articles of general interest which deal with creation/evolution issues for secondary school and college science classes. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Institute.
Staff of the Institute are Ariel A. Roth - Director, Katherine Ching, Ben L.Clausen, Harold G. Coffin, L. Jim Gibson, and Clyde L. Webster.