Ancient Atoms & Inconsistent Isotopes, Part 1

Serious researchers, those thoroughly groomed by the established authorities of the field, have an understanding, even an unwavering faith, in the fact that radiometric dating methods are definitive in the data they provide, and that those absolute dates represent good, trustworthy data on which to build a case for deep-time. There is no “wiggle room” for these people, no justification for questioning the established truths of the field. After all, there is no valid reason to ever stand in opposition to such solid evidence for deep-time, for all know, without question, that the decay of radioisotopes is steady, persistent, and flawless. Many have built their careers, staked their research and their professional reputations, on this fact. Through the undeniable quality of the work in this field, the evolution paradigm and ancient naturalism in general have found sure footing amongst the masses. Even so, how accurate are these dating methods really?

Right away we should acknowledge a few things. No matter how precise the dating methods, regardless of how advanced the equipment, in spite of how detailed the data seems to be, a simple, critical fact lies at the heart of all radiometric dating techniques, and that fact is the dirty little secret of the whole industry. That fact is that all radiometric dating techniques rely on measuring the amount of decay present among isotopes within a given sample, from which, through fairly straightforward equations, researchers determine the absolute age of the sample. The problem is that none of the methods are capable of determining the amount of the measurable isotopes present in the sample when the decay began. 

Without a defined starting point, how could anyone expect to generate a trustworthy age for the material tested? How could the distance of a race be accurately measured if the starting position is unknown? How could we learn how long the candle in the cave had been burning if we couldn’t actually know how long its wick was to start?

This lack of solid foundation in testing – while dogmatically withheld from public discussion by mainstream researchers – has in fact been used to their advantage a number of times.

One such case involved none other than Richard Leakey and a particular hominin skull. 1 Material from the Kay Behrensmeyer Site, the location of the skull’s discovery, radiometrically dated first to 212-230 million years, but knowing that this could not possibly be so, a second analysis was conducted which yielded an age of 2.61 million years. Leaky, accepting that age, estimates his skull at 2.9 million years in age. The problem however was that the skull was far too modern in form to come from the evolutionary basement of human development. Several more radiometric tests were conducted using a variety of methods, including potassium-argon dating, fission-track dating, and a paleomagnetism study, yet each came back different than the last.

The confusion, the researchers confessed, was due to contamination of the test samples by exogenous argon isotopes from the site. From this, two critical things should be noted. The first is that the researchers admitted that the testable samples had been influenced by outside sources, thus confirming that radiometric dating, the gold standard in geochronology, was not perfect or foolproof. Second, the observant reader should question, if the samples couldn’t be trusted to provide a definitive age, how then did these researchers know that the sampling was flawed? They, of course, relied on the fossil artifacts of the site and their preconceived expectations based on the evolution paradigm to establish an acceptable range. Thus the whole affair was one of blatant circular reasoning. 

The researchers sought diligently to confirm the age of the artifacts but since their first, second, and even fifth tests yielded results that were not completely compatible with their expectations, they continued to test until such results were produced. Ultimately, the story continued to grow even more convoluted, with Leaky eventually refuting all prior results in favor of another, but I shall digress on that matter here. 

This case was hardly the first and certainly was not the last to demonstrate such intellectual abuses. Given the nature of the field and the frightful expectations that must be met, there is no doubt that seemingly anomalous radiometric yields are hidden, buried beneath test after subsequent test, as the powers that be seek the results they need to confirm their expectations. How could it be any other way, for this is the standard of the community; make the data fit the model. It is no longer a case of providing honest answers through a trusted verification process, but rather a deluded quest to maintain the illusion, to support the doctrines of naturalism. Anything that contradicts those notions is inherently false, and reporters of such findings are rewarded with only ostracism and alienation amongst peers.


– This was an excerpt fromRemnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –


  1.   Lubenow, Marvin L.,”The Pigs Took it All,” Creation 17(3):36–38 June 1995


Subscribe to the blog here at WordPress, like us on Facebook, or follow me on Twitter at @FOUNDRY_4

FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation

The IAC Logo















Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s