Absolute Dates

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(1 Corinthians 15:41) KJV

Radiometric dating has been contrived in such a way as to make it look as if the “dates” it calculates for rocks are absolute. Absolute means that the dates are separated on a timescale which is known.

The way that this has been accomplished is to apply the half-life rate law to nuclear decay (an unwarranted assumption) and then use the present day readings of radioactivity as an indicator of past activity (19th Century Uniformitarianism) to obtain something called the decay constant. That’s a very shaky start for a supposedly scientifically rigorous discipline.

We can only measure the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes in the present. We can’t measure them in the past. As such the theoretical decay constant is untestable and therefore unscientific.

The scientific community, particularly to good people of peer review, want you to believe that we test the hypothetical decay constant through stellar spectroscopy. However, this is the quintessential example of inductive reductive circular reasoning.

Inductive Reductive Circular Reasoning

• By assuming heliocentricity we can use stellar parallax to confirm heliocentricity.
• We also assume that stars are distant suns and galaxies (synonymy).
• By assuming that stars are distant suns we can use the assumption of heliocentricity to calculate vastly inflated distances to them.
• The vastly inflated distances may be used with stellar spectroscopy to support the assumption of an ancient Earth (needed for biological evolution) as follows:
  1. spectra show that radioisotope ratios in stars match the ratios we measure on Earth,
  2. by assuming that the light has traveled for billions of years across the distances contrived by assuming heliocentricity,
  3. this supports the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay has been constant for billions of years.

The problem here is that the hypothesis that stars are distant galaxies is also untestable, so it’s not scientific either. The stars are observed to be minute specks or swirls of minute specks. We don’t actually know what they are. They’ve been given the name galaxies.

We can define the word galaxy as “a system of millions or billions of stars, together with gas and dust, held together by gravitational attraction“. However, there’s no way to prove that the definition of the word is the nature of the object we observe. The real problem is that the words star and sun are used as synonyms, so a gravitationally bound cluster of stars is, by extension, a gravitationally bound cluster of suns. The Bible makes it very clear that the sun is unique and it’s not the same as a star. Therefore the definition of the word galaxy is bogus. It’s another example of the use of an Atheist Deity: Synonymy.

It’s a leap of faith to believe that an unknown phenomenon, a swirl of specks, has the nature of a word we define to be what our theory needs. We designed a concept, and gave it a name, specifically to fit the narrative of the popular science paradigm (SciPop).

---