The Creation Explanation
|The Age of the Earth|
A General Young Earth
The success of Arndts and Overn's explanation of rubidium/strontium isochrons in terms of mixing suggests that the mixing of different source magmas may well explain the apparent ages yielded by other radiometric systems. They have found that this is indeed the case.48 As was shown in earlier sections of this chapter, the array of "ages" given by the several uranium/lead and other radiometric methods reveals in fact a rather bewildering mass of anomalous and discordant results.49 When the appropriate isotopic rations from the uranium/lead systems are plotted, a curved line called a "concordia curve" theoretically should result. In general the plotted line is not such a curve, but often it approximates a straight line called a "discordia line." The points of intersection of the discordia with the theoretical concordia curve are interpreted to give two times, the time since the original crystallization of the rock and the time since the rocks were subsequently reheated and lost varying amounts of lead. Radiochronologists have recognized that such data could also be explained by the mixing in various proportions of two remelted rocks which originally had been crystallized at the two indicated times in the past. This interpretation has always been rejected in favor of assumed massive disturbances of the rocks which supposedly made them temporarily open systms, thus upsetting the radiometric clocks. In some cases, not just a single metamorphic event, but two or even three have been assumed to explain the confusingly discordant radiometric data.
Arndts and Overn, have shown that a straight discordia line can be explained in terms of the mixing of two source magmas having different original ratios of the pertinent isotopes. Therefore, there is no need to accept radiometric chronologies as proof that the earth is billions of years old. The concept of mixing of different source magmas, therefore, may provide a general creationist interpretation of radiometric data and show that the alleged 4.5 billion year age of the earth is only an assumption.
48. Arndts, Russell and William Overn, Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 19, Feb. 1981, pp. 1, 3, 4, 7.
49. Woodmorappe, John, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, Sept. 1979, pp. 102-129, 147.