Archived - Ask the Expert: Dr. Donald DeYong

Dr. Donald DeYoung chairs the science and math department at Grace College, Winona Lake, IN. He holds a doctorate in physics from Iowa State University and a Masters of Divinity from Grace Seminary. He has written 17 books on Bible-science topics including astronomy, pioneer creation scientists, and object lessons for children.

Dr. DeYoung is currently president of the Creation Research Society with 1700 members worldwide. He is an active speaker on creation topics and believes that the details of nature are a powerful testimony to the Creator's care for mankind.

His latest book, Discovery of Design — Searching Out the Creator's Secrets, was co-authored by Derrik Hobbs and is an exciting look at cutting-edge scientific advances that highight incredible examples of God's design. His website is DiscoveryofDesign.com.

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Dr. DeYoung was the featured expert on CreationConversations.com

Comment by Matthew on May 12, 2010 at 5:39pm: Is creationism testable?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 13, 2010 at 3:18pm: Matthew, thanks for asking whether the creation worldview is testable. My answer is yes, although neither creation nor evolution worldviews can be verified or falsified to everyone's satisfaction. The intricate *intelligent design* of both living and non-living things provides data in favor of creation. And even if a mechanism is suggested by which such design could have occurred naturally, it does not follow that it happened natually. Growing evidence for a *young earth* favors creation since evolution theory requires a vast time span. Lab efforts continue to duplicate or verify the spontaneous *origin of life.* Thus far, these tests fail completely. *Fossils* worldwied show us intricate design from the beginning, a lack of transitional forms, and catastrophic burial.
Creation research continues on the three testable areas mentioned along with many other projects. Always, of course, assumptions and presuppositions enter into the interpretation of data.

Comment by Matthew on May 13, 2010 at 6:41pm: Thanks for your response. An evolutionist told me that "Common creator arguments cannot be falsified, tested, or practically applied." He told me that common ancestor could be proven. Please refute common ancestry and why common designer is more practical.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 14, 2010 at 11:07am: I agree with the comment that the common Creator explanation of homology (similarities) cannot be proven scientifically. However, neither can the common ancestor assumption be proven. One would need a time machine which replays literal life history showing the entire process unfold. The fossil record does not serve this purpose, nor do computer simulations or DNA research. Let's call it a draw, either common ancestor or common Creator. Why not present both views to public school students and let them decide for themselves instead of giving only half the story. The creation position may not be more practical but it is more dangerous since it makes us accountable to our Maker.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 15, 2010 at 5:31pm: I will reverse things and pose a question to readers: What is the most basic physical law in all of Creation?

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on May 16, 2010 at 11:46am: Dear Don,
I would venture to say that "gravity" would be the "basic" law; however I would say that the 4 basic laws of creation (nature) would all be equal in this regard.

Comment by J. Lee Maurer on May 17, 2010 at 3:49pm: Hello Dr. DeYoung!

I am planning a trip to Grand Canyon this summer. I understand that there are lava flows on top of the canyon that were radioisotope dated at the same age as those on the bottom of the canyon. Would you know what these formations are called and where they are? Thanks!

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 18, 2010 at 1:18pm: Greetings Jeremy,
There are indeed towering lava flows within portions of the Grand Canyon. Here is how John Wesley Powell described the scene in 1869, "What a conflict of water and fire there must have been here! Just imagine a river of molten rock running down into a river of melted snow. What a seething and boiling of the waters; what clouds of steam rolled into the heavens!"
The black basalt lava formations are in a very rugged portion of the canyon mainly accessible from the Colorado River. Dormat volcanoes are located on the Uinkaret Plateau on the north rim of the Canyon. The flowing lava multiple times blocked the river, resulting in lakes which later broke through. Today, the upper and lower Lava Falls drop 27 feet, a wild raft ride. Radioisotope dating of the basalt varies everywhere from 10,000 years (K-Ar) to 2.6 billion yrs (Pb-Pb isochrons). Meanwhile lowermost Cardenas Basalt which predates Canyon formation dates at about one billion years. How can it be that recent basalt (2.6 billion yrs) predates older basalt (1 billion yrs)? Most likely, none of the ancient dates are accurate due to multiple factors. In the young earth creationist view, the Canyon and the later lava flows are all post-Flood, occurring within the last 4500 years. It would be of interest to research possible traditions of Indian ancestors observing the Canyon's firey, cascading lava waterfalls.

Comment by Matthew on May 20, 2010 at 9:30pm: Is there are growing number of Creationist Scientist?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 24, 2010 at 8:13am: The new generation of scientists and graduate students is encouraging, many with an interest in creation studies. Creation-evolution is still a David and Goliath scenario but the creation worldview is indeed growing, encouraged by the Expelled film, the Intelligent Design movement, and a flood of creationist materials. There is also the Creation Research Society, a group of 1700 members with a special interest in creation research, many of them professional scientists (Creationresearch.org). The entire science establishment is not ready to adopt creation anytime soon; however, the option is increasingly clear and attractive to many. Contrary bias comes from the U.S. National Academy of Science, 1800 elite members who advise the government and media, 90 percent categorizing themselves as atheistic or agnostic. And how did that David and Goliath story turn out?

Comment by Peter Bilmer on May 25, 2010 at 1:26pm: What is the most basic physical law in all of Creation?
.Maybe:
Life begets life. Like begets like.
Basic for science of biology.

In the Bible:
"20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
Genesis 6:20

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on May 30, 2010 at 4:43pm: What is the most basic physical law in Creation? Suggestions have included universal gravity, biogenesis (life comes from life), and Einstein's energy mass formula, E = mc**2. My suggestion is that there are two basic, fundamental laws which control all of nature. Both involve energy and both have theological implications. They are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

The First Law is that energy is conserved or constant. There are many forms of energy including heat, light, chemical, nuclear, and motion. These forms can be manipulated but not a single calorie of energy can be created or destroyed. This First Law may have been put in place at the end of the Creation Week when the Creator ceased inputing energy into the physical universe from His infinite supply.

The Second Law describes the trend toward energy becomeing spread out and unavailable over time, often as waste heat. Energy transfer processes, for example in a car engine, are always of low efficiency. About 2/3 of the fuel purchased for a car is wasted as heat while 1/3 propels the car down the road. This Second Law is "less friendly" than the first and is somehow connected with the Curse of Fall of mankind in Genesis 3. At that point the Second Law may have been broadened or generalized.

Both of these fundamental laws involve energy and both come from Genesis. They also control the world's economy, lifespans, sunshine, and every science experiment.

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on June 2, 2010 at 10:38pm: I was told, (by someone who would rather not believe it.) that the distance of the moon from the earth is no problem for evolution and that AiG's article about it is incorrect. What are your thoughts on this?

Comment by jeb smith on June 5, 2010 at 6:33pm: Is this a problem for Catastrophic plate tectonics from a talk orgins article http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html

Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 9, 2010 at 6:59am: Dear Dr. DeYoung,
I after one of my seminar sessions, an individual approached me and made the following statements:

1. That lightning strikes around the world produces more oxygen than the plant life does in a 24 hour period.
2. That plant life alone will not support animal life in oxygen production.

Is there any validity to those statements. I asked him if he could document thoses statements and he said no that it was something he learned through the 4H club.
Thank You

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 11, 2010 at 3:11pm: I will answer several recent questions briefly. The recession of the moon is indeed a serious, ongoing problem for evolutionary time. The dynamics as currently understood would bring the moon into direct contact with the earth about 1.4 billion years in the past. However, the moon is said to be 4.6 billion years old. There is something drastically wrong with the assumed lunar age, since a near approach of the earth and moon would shred the moon into fragments. Read more about this at http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/45/45_2/CRSQ%20Fall%2008%.... This is a 2008 article, Tides and the Creation Worldview, published in the Quarterly of the Creation Research society (CreationResearch.org).

The distinct Hawaiian Islands do indeed trend older as one moves from the southeast to the northwest. A hot spot beneath the Pacific Plate forms the islands as the plate moves. However, the actual island ages depend on past rates of plate movement, possible changes in rates of radioactive decay, and several other factors. As with many geologic dates, there is the need to delete three or more zeros from published age results.

Regarding Allen's questions, the person who suggested oxygen formation by lightning was misinformed. Lightning does indeed put atmospheric nitrogen into a form useable to vegetation (the nitrogen cycle), but does not make either oxygen gas or ozone. It is plants that "breathe" the opposite of us and produce oxygen worldwide. Incidentally, sea vegetation (kelp, algae, "grass of the seas," etc.) produces more oxygen than all the land plants combined.
.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 11, 2010 at 3:50pm: Dear Dr. DeYoung,
I after one of my seminar sessions, an individual approached me and made the following statements:

1. That lightning strikes around the world produces more oxygen than the plant life does in a 24 hour period.
2. That plant life alone will not support animal life in oxygen production.

Is there any validity to those statements. I asked him if he could document thoses statements and he said no that it was something he learned through the 4H club.
Thank You

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on June 11, 2010 at 6:02pm: Thank you for answering my question!

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 12, 2010 at 7:05am: Thank you Dr. DeYoung, I thought theses ideas were strange; as I have not come accross them in 30 years of research. But then I thought I could have missed something along the way.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 19, 2010 at 5:57pm: Friends,
A math question follows. Write the next three numbers in the number sequence shown; give the name and creation significance of the sequence. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, __, __, __

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 19, 2010 at 6:28pm: 8, 13, 21, 34, etc. These numbers show divine or the golden ratio, also known as the Fabonacci sequence.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 19, 2010 at 6:29pm: It shows Divine order and mathmatical foundation to creation.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 22, 2010 at 11:16am: Yes, Allen, these numbers make up the Fibonacci Sequence, named for Leonardo Fibonacci (c.1170-1240). The numbers are generated by adding the two previous values: 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, etc. These special numbers often occur in nature. For example the number of spirals on a sunflower are always Fibonacci; likewise the spirals on a pine cone or pineapple, and the needles in a cluster of a conifer. The ratio of two higher Fibonacci values is called the golden ratio with many special properties. What does all this mean? One might suggest that math is the language of creation, and the intelligent pattern of Fibonacci numbers reveals God's fingerprint.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 22, 2010 at 11:23am: Here is another question for readers: June 21, 2010 is marked on the calendar as the first day of summer for the northern hemisphere. How is this day determined; that is, what physically happens?

Comment by Brian Guiley on June 24, 2010 at 4:59pm: First day of summer is the longest day of the year. After that the hours of daylight start decreasing and hours of night start increasing.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 27, 2010 at 10:45am: Brian, You are correct: June 20, 21, or 22 is the longest day of the year for the northern hemisphere, and shortest day for the south. For the upper Midwest there are 15 hours of light and 9 hours of darkness in June. Meanwhile, on the equator, there are 12 hrs of daylight and 12 hrs of darkness year around. On the first day of summer the sun is positioned furthest north, directly over the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 degrees north of the equator. The earth is actually a couple million miles further from the sun in June than in winter. Our seasons are due to the earth's tilt, not the sun-earth distance.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 29, 2010 at 10:24am: Dear Dr. Young
Can a strand of DNA from, lets say a frog, be spliced into a section of DNA in another different organism, say a rabbit, and have is "take" and not uncouple?
Respectfully,

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 29, 2010 at 10:28am: Sorry, Dr. De Young... I realized I missed the "De" the same time I clicked "add comment" :(

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on June 30, 2010 at 3:32pm: Allen, I went to biochemist Dr. Kevin Anderson, Director of the Creation Research Society lab in Chino Valley, AZ. His response: It's doubtful that the rabbit would retain the frog DNA. Each species (using a loose definition of species) has unique tags or markers on its DNA that makes it unique to that organism. The rabbit repair system would see the frog DNA as foreign, and remove it. This can be compensated for in a lab, where the frog DNA can be modified to have some of the same tags and markers as the rabbit DNA. This would give the frog DNA an increased chance of remaining in the rabbit genome, but unless the DNA is serving some useful purpose, the rabbit repair systems would still likely drop it out. Also, whatever function the frog DNA may serve in the frog, the rabbit is not necessarily going to be able to use it for the same function. Posttranslational systems, chaperone systems, secretion systems, etc, are different in a rabbit and a frog. So, a product (RNA, protein) from the frog DNA is not necessarily going to be recognized and utilized by the rabbit.

Bacteria are usually the most 'amenable' for this type of DNA transfer, which is why mammalian genes can sometimes be cloned and maintained in E. coli. But, even then, careful selective pressure is usually applied to "encourage" the bacteria to retain the foreign DNA since E. coli has little interest or need to make insulin or mammalian hormones, etc.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 30, 2010 at 4:18pm: Thank you Dr. De Young. So if I understand what Dr. Anderson stated, there are genetic barriers that reinforce the Genesis "After its kind" separation of animals and plants. Which means you can't get a cat from a fish to have a "cat fish." Therefore it the information is not in the genome to start; it will not be expressed.
Again, thanks

Comment by Stephen B. Lampman on July 1, 2010 at 8:58am: Do you folks have an updated vidio on the Flood?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 1, 2010 at 10:30am: Allen, the preservation of biblical kinds is as you write; however, the boundaries of the word "kind" are not known. The Institute for Creation Research has a related ongoing research project. An update is in the July 2010 Acts and Facts publication, "The Limits to Biological change, found at http://www.icr.org/article/5479/.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 1, 2010 at 10:43am: Stephen, the only Genesis Flood updates I know of are specialized. They include Ark design (Noah's Flood: Thinking Outside the Box, Tim Lovett) and the time issue (Noah's flood: Washing Away Millions of Years, Terry Mortenson). Perhaps Creation Conversation friends can suggest other recent Flood DVDs.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 2, 2010 at 1:14pm: Another thought question: When do you think angels were created, or were they created at all? Hints may be found in Colossians 1:16 and Job 38:6-7.

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on July 2, 2010 at 2:53pm: Job 38:6-7 sounds like the angels were created before the universe, which I had kind of thought anyway but not really thought about Colossians 1:16 says God made everything "whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities" I think angels would be among those things.

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 2, 2010 at 9:18pm: Hey Dr. De Young,

I was challenged about how Baraminology could be falsified. My guess would be if a naturalistic mechanism could be found that could convincingly explain the existence of discontinuity in living systems and establish a seemless continuity explanation. Such a mechanism would be far beyond the current understandings of Darwinian evolution as believed today.

However, I was curious if there is an "official" creationist position on how Baraminology as a scientific theory could be falsified. I know creation scientists believe in falsification as part of good science because I've seen creation theories like the water canopy pretty much falsified.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 3, 2010 at 12:08pm: Regarding angels, Colossians 1:16 implies (no...states) that the entire spirit world, apart from God, was part of the original Creation. Taking the days of Genesis 1 as literal, and with the angels (morning stars) watching the unfolding drama of creation, it may well be that angels are created early on Day 1. It then becomes a challenge to rapidly fit in the Fall of Lucifer, but this was a unique period of earth history.
Alexander asks if there is an official position on baraminology, the definition of biblical kinds and the biochemical constraints on the limits of variation. No, there is not "official position" on baraminology, nor on the precise age of the earth, or continental drift, or the past existence of a vapor canopy (many of us still support this idea), or the demise of the dinosaurs, etc. You get the idea! The modern creation movement has attracted a wide range of independent thinkers, many with their own physical models and preferences. And this is healthy. When all creationists agree on nonessential issues, that is the time worry. Many biologists are working on baraminology details and we look forward to the resulting ideas and healthy debates.

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 3, 2010 at 12:48pm: Thanks for the answer Dr. De Young! Do you agree that a falsification criterion is a requirement for a theory to be science the way Popper believed or do you believe it has been shown by Kuhn to be a non-essential.

If it is a requirement would a naturalistic mechanism that could be found that could convincingly explain the existence of discontinuity in living systems and establish a seemless continuity explanation be a good falsification criterion or would there be a better one that you can think of?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 5, 2010 at 8:19am: I am wary of siding with any particular manmade philosophy view of science, although I find the thinking of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) inviting. Similar to scientific creation models, every view has strong and weak points. Some specifics: 1. Science inquiry traditionally was the search for truth. Many scientific pioneers were led directly to recognition of their Creator. In recent centuries science has been redefined and limited to naturalism alone with no allowance for creation, miracles, supernatural, prayer, angels, etc. As a result the entire science establishment has gone off on a tangent and impoverished itself. 2. Faith, whether in the Creator or in one-time historical events, is beyond falsification yet may well be true. 3. Even if a consistent, natural scenario is offered for the origin of life, or of the moon, or of the univese, this does not mean that the technical scenario actually took place. Such tentative explanations by no means rule out creation. They would simply offer a possible alternatives. 4. All physical data is subject to alternate interpretations. Even if a fossilized cowboy was found riding a dinosaur, I expect there would result creative naturalistic explanations

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 5, 2010 at 5:55pm: So basically, a creationist theory is falsified only once there is another creationist theory capable of better explaining the evidence. I think that is pretty much how the evolutionary paradigm works as well. It makes sense. So what is the best way to explain just that process to an adherent from another paradigm? Would it be to go into Thomas Kuhn and his explanations about how Newton's explanation of gravity better explained the evidence than Aristotle's and that Einstein's relativity better explained it than Newton and that neither Newton nor Aristotle were falsified in the way it is thought of today?

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 5, 2010 at 5:58pm: After all, when you think about how the vapor canopy theory was falsified it was primarily due to a better understanding of genetic entropy and genetic bottlenecking and how that explains what we observe in the fossil record better than the environmental explanation of a vapor canopy.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 7, 2010 at 8:33am: Regarding competing creation models, I would refer to Occam's Razor, the principle from five centuries ago stating that the simplest, most elegant solution or explanation should have priority over alternative solutions with more complexity and assumptions. To this I would add that priority should also be given to models which display clear mathematical elegance, since math is truly the language of creation. One might apply this approach to the problem of seeing distant starlight in a young universe, comparing the models of decaying light speed, relativistic cosmology, mature creation, etc.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 16, 2010 at 12:52pm: Friends, Here is a Bible-science literature puzzle for you. What is the error in the following quote from Mark Twain? The error is not grammatical or theological: "Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody." Taken from Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, in Following the Equator, 1897.

Comment by Steve Paul Johnson on July 16, 2010 at 2:56pm: Dear Dr. DeYoung,

Creationists go back and forth on whether or not there was a canopy over the earth before the flood. Have any tests been done to see if a canopy would actually be necessary to have some of the things we have found?
For example, huge insect fossils have been found. Would increased oxygen be enough to have larger insects? Or do you have to have increased air pressure as well. The same goes for the larger fish and plants that have been found.
To do an experiment on this seems pretty simple to me. If an insect grows larger when given more oxygen, a canopy may not have been necessary. But if the insect only grows larger under increased air pressure, then a canopy becomes more likely. Of course, if the insect can't be made to grow larger at all, then the gene for largeness is probably gone. But it would be neat to know it had been tried. I believe in the canopy. I believe it did not rain before the flood and that God established the rainbow as the sign when Noah saw his first rainbow.
God bless, Steve

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 16, 2010 at 8:13pm: Hmm, a moon is a satalite that orbits a planet?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 20, 2010 at 9:40am: The vapor canopy theory is a century-old idea first suggested by Quaker scholar Isaac Vail (1840-1912). Various options include gaseous vapor, liquid water, or ice surrounding the preflood world as a high altitude shell. Positives include the reference to waters above (Gen 1:7), the mild global preflood climate, no mention of rain or rainbows until Noah's day, longevity of OT patriarchs, and giantism in fossil record. The theory is on "hard times" today according to some creationists. One problem is that the collapse of a vapor canopy during the flood would generate life-threatening amounts of heat. Of course, the Flood story has supernatural aspects and thermodynamics constraints are not a fatal flaw.
Such a canopy could increase earth's atmospheric pressure greatly, four times or more. Such hyperbaric (high) pressure could well have an effect on the respiration, size, and lifespans of plants, animals, and people. Research is limited, although hyperbaric pressure chambers have beneficial results in certain medical procedures.

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 20, 2010 at 9:43am: A Mark Twain hint: The problem centers on his word "dark." The problem is physical, not theological.

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 20, 2010 at 10:55am: The dark side is not actually dark... just not visible?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 21, 2010 at 1:02pm: Alexander, you solved the puzzle. The moon has a hidden side, not a dark side. The back side is in sunlight half the time. We only see one side of the moon because its periods of rotation and revolution are the same.
Another creation question: How did animals get distributed to Australia following the global Genesis Flood (kangaroos, koalas, kookaburras!)?

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 21, 2010 at 2:25pm: My guess would be that they migrated there over land bridges or mats of floating vegetation. The reason they don't appear anywhere else may be that they didn't have as competitive an advantage as other non-marsupials and so as other animals migrated into their area they had to continue their migration and the marsupials that stayed behind were out-competed or hunted to extinction in those areas. Finally they made it to Australia and could no longer migrate anywhere else. The ocean barrier was enough to keep the other animals from migrating there so they were isolated from outside competition finally.

Comment by Justin Mooney on July 22, 2010 at 1:09pm: Dr. DeYoung,

Can accelerated decay explain consistency between different radioisotope dating methods?

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 22, 2010 at 2:50pm: Is there consistency between different radioisotope dating methods? Or is that a popular myth?

Comment by Justin Mooney on July 23, 2010 at 4:46pm: Just to clarify, I am aware that the RATE group found that different kinds of isotopes tend to give different ages (e.g. alpha decay isotopes tend to give older ages), but the claim of consistency is so common I'm wondering if maybe there is a degree of truth to it? If the decay of all radioactive isotopes was accelerated together, maybe there is some degree of consistency between them, even though they don't give exactly the same dates?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 23, 2010 at 7:27pm: Regarding animal distribution to far corners of the earth following the Flood, two suggestions stand out. One, they may have been transported by people who spread across the planet following the Tower of Babel episode. This cultural dispersal of plants and animals still goes on today. Two, there is evidence of an ice age occurring in the centuries following the Flood. Great amounts of ice on land resulted in sea levels lowered by perhaps hundreds of feet. This opened up wide land bridges for aniimals and people to migrate across the earth. As the ice age ended, the seas refilled and locations such as Australia and New Zealand were isolated.

Regarding radioisotope dating, many rock samples give relative agreement (concordance) in age using the various isotope ratios. We do not accept the "deep time" results but they do occur; it is not a myth. There is not some grand conspiracy by geologists to hide bad data. Other samples, however, give large-scale discordance in age. We found this over and over in the RATE research. One reason among many involves the unknown initial amounts of elements inherited from the original melt. An analysis method called isochrons is thought to answer the question of inital conditions, but the RATE work found isochrons faulty.

The proposal of accelerated radioactive decay during the Creation Week and also during the Flood comes from the vast amount of decay products (decay products, fission tracks, radiohalos) found in creation rocks and also in Flood deposits. We do not have sufficient data to give precise information on variations within accelerated decay. Also, we do not understand the actual accelerated decay mechanism. The RATE project did find hints of the trend that that alpha emitters give older ages than beta emitters, and isotopes with longer half-lives tend to give longer radiosotope ages. Further work may strengthen evidence for these trends. The topic of accelerated decay itself is revolutionary and, as always, much further work is needed.

Comment by Justin Mooney on July 23, 2010 at 9:10pm: Thanks Dr. DeYoung. I have a follow-up question for you: Where concordance does occur between different radioisotope methods, would you attribute this to just chance, or is there some other cause?

Comment by Alexander Martin on July 23, 2010 at 10:47pm: Dr. DeYoung, I agree about concordance concerning very old ages but has the RATE project discarded what John Woodmorappe discusses in his book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" (1999) in which he reveals that there is no tight consensus of results when it comes to radiometric dating (Waterhouse 1979, p. 499) and in fact broad deviations with considerable scatter in dates are the norm (Paul 1980, p. 184). Discrepant isotope dating results are not rare at all but rather a usual phenomenon that surprises nobody (Skobelin et al. 1990, p. 25). This leads to a majority of dates that have to be rejected for being too young or too old for the expected date of the rocks (Dickin 1988, p. 111).

How does concordance explain what Dr. John Morris presents in his book "The Young Earth" (2007) regarding the meteorite named "Allende?" It was dated radiometrically using Pb-206/U-238, Pb-207/U-235, Pb-207/Pb-206, Pb-208/Th-232, Sr-87/Sr-86, and other methods whose results were deemed too unreliable and so were not reported. The U-Th-Pb suite of tests resulted in a scatter of dates ranging from 3.91 Ga to 16.49 Ga with 13 out of 18 "ages" being impossibly high even when the assumed amount of daughter isotopes are subtracted out. Interestingly enough 16.49 Ga is pretty close to how old many cosmologists believe the big bang initiated. The Rb-Sr techniques yielded ages from .7 Ga to 4.84 Ga. Thus the reported variance of radiometric dates is between .7 Ga to 16.49 Ga, a spread of 15.79 billion years (Tatsumoto et al., 1976).

Dickin, A.P. 1988. The North Atlantic Tertiary Province (pp. 111-149), in J.D. MacDougall, ed., Continental Flood Basalts, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 341 p.

Paul, C. 1980. The Natural History of Fossils, New York: Holmes and Meier Pub. Co.

Skobelin, E.A., I.P Sharapov, and A.F. Bugayov. 1990. Deliberations of state and ways of Perestroika in geology (pp. 17-37), in Barto-Kyriakidis, A., op. cit.

Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systemetics of Allende and U-Th-Pb Systematics of Orgueil," Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 40, 1976, pp. 616-634.

Waterhouse, J.B. 1979. "Chronologic, ecologic, and evolutionary significance of the phylum Brachiopoda," in E.G. Kauffman, and J.E. Hazel, eds., Concepts and Methods of Biostrategraphy. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

Comment by Steve Paul Johnson on July 25, 2010 at 5:39pm: Dear Dr. DeYoung,
I am in a debate right now with several evolutionists. I have presented my view that Micro evolution is a fact that we see in nature. Beneficial Mutations, Natural Selection and survival of the fittest is all true. But it has its limits. The evolutionists then asked me why I am so sure that there are limits and gave me evidence of DNA being able to change.

Is there an honest, straightforward answer for them? Is there a known limit to how much DNA can change over time? For me, regardless of how much it can change, I still incredible design to get it started in the first place. Plus, I see it breaking down in nature, not getting more complex. Thanks, Steve

Comment by Jeremiah Stiles on July 26, 2010 at 7:19pm: I know I'm not Dr Deyoung, but I recently watched a dvd by Jonathan Sarfati that stated that The difference between what is really happening out there and what evolutionists believe is happening is the direction in which the changes occur. In other words, micro and macro are real, if a beetle mutates so that it has no wings, that is a big "macro" change, but is still a loss and not a gain of information. Hope this helps! God bless!

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on July 31, 2010 at 7:59pm: Justin asks if radioisotope dating concordances are by chance, and the answer is usually not. Concordance simply shows that a rock has a specific age. However, the typical geologic deep time age needs to recalibrated due to multiple known and unknown factors. As an analogy, consider the one-mile thickness of Grand Canyon strata. The lower strata indeed trends older than the higher strata. However, instead of extending over 1/2 billion years, the total strata thickness covers just one year

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on August 1, 2010 at 10:41am: Micro and macro evolution changes in nature are not precisely defined, and groups such as AIG discourage their use. With this caveat, I contend that there are no incontestable macro examples living today or in the fossil record. A beetle losing its wings is a negative, micro mutation. The very meaning of a mutation is a mistake. An important part of the Second Law of Thermo is the inevitable loss of order or information in any energy transfer process. One part of a system may increase in order, but at the greater loss of other parts.

Comment by Justin Mooney on August 1, 2010 at 2:03pm: Could the amount of accelerated decay be proportional to the half-lives of the different isotopes?

Comment by Don B. DeYoung on August 3, 2010 at 8:59pm: Yes, Justin, RATE research did indeed find evidence that isotopes with a longer half-life underwent greater accelerated decay during the year of the global Flood. This intriguing trend is seen in a summary graph in the RATE summary book Thousands not Billions (Master Books, 2005, p. 121). A second trend from the same graph shows that isotopes undergoing alpha decay experienced more accelerated decay than the beta process. These findings are tentative, fascinating, and merit further research.

Welcome to
Creation Conversations

Sign Up
or Sign In

You can also sign up with:

Resources

SEARCH Creation Conversations

Badges | Report an Issue | Terms of Service