Deposition of Garth Russell Akridge - Page 2
Q I see stars with the naked eye from the
other galaxies, to I not?
A That's right.
Q What do you mean, the light isn't here
A My view is that if our galaxy were
created without any radiation background, zero radia-
tion there and it's heated up in the last few thousand
years, then it seems reasonable -- although I guess
not necessarily -- that's what happened to other
galaxies. But, really, who knows about the other
Q I guess my question is, what does it
mean? I see this star. Doesn't it mean that the
light from the star is here for me to see?
A It means you see the -- it means you
see at least light you think came from that star,
Q How do you explain it?
A Explain what?
Q The fact that I see light from a star
that's beyond this galaxy.
A Well, in that case, the light just had
to be -- had to have been created en route around
the star at the same time the star was created.
Q My question is then, how many other
other galaxies are there?
A Well, who knows? Billions may be
measured -- I mean photographed -- but who knows
about how many are out there?
Q But at least billions?
A I think an estimate is from two to three
billion, something like that.
Q And the total of the light from these
billions of galaxies would have no heating effect
on our own?
A That's right. The visible light -- all
we're aware of because they're totally so far away.
It's the invisible light. We look at the sky and
we don't see any of them.
Q Is it your understanding that the source
of this background radiation is that each one of these
stars in the galaxy is a separate source of background
A That would be the original source for
Q Shouldn't that make for little hot spots
all over the galaxy in terms of background radiation?
A It would make for local hot spots, but
you think the stars themselves would be local hot
spots, and no matter how you interpret where they
came from, there are these stars; there are local
hot spots and gases in the galaxy. The dense clumps
are local hot spots, but they're still three-degree
radiation regardless of where you say it comes
from, so that's got to be.
Q Is another hypothesis that the galaxy
was hot but it's cooling down to reach the level of
A Well, you can make that hypothesis, you
know. That's just a guess and if you said that,
then you'd have to discuss that, well, it must be
losing energy faster than it's absorbing its own
energy. And I think that there's kind of a dust
Radiation, loses as I remember, 25% of
its energy. As I remember, the rate of energy loss
is about 25% of the rate of the total energy within
it, at least in the unit's volume, so it would just
be a mass of numbers. It would have to be eventually
heat up to some temperature to at least be in equi-
librium absorbing the energy from the other galaxies
as it radiates.
If it started out hotter than that, it
would cool down. The question is what would be
an equilibrium temperature? I don't know.
Q If the universe was expanding, would it
A It might and it might not.
Q Might not? Why wouldn't it?
A Well, it would depend what is on at the
boundary of the universe.
For example, if you can, imagine a uni-
verse contained within a metallic boundary so nothing
could get out.
/ / /
Q I've always wondered what's beyond the
other side of the metallic boundary.
Q If you get there, let me know. Let's
just take a for instance, because this would cool the
universe. If the universe is contained in a kind of
metallic balloon, you know, and everything is con-
tained in there, the matter can't get through the
walls. The light reflects off the walls, then,
sure enough, as it expands, it's got to cool because
the same total of energy is spread over the greater
volume, and the temperature goes down. And in addi-
tion, it doesn't work against the walls for
Of course, nobody that I know of thinks
there's such a coating on the outside of the universe.
If it were, it would cool.
Q And if it weren't to cool?
A Well, there would be no such coating
in the room here. If you shine a flashlight, the
light would stay here in degrading wavelengths from
red to infrared to microwave. It would go out the
door. And, supposedly, if you could have somebody
stationed, ahead of them, as it passed them it would
be the same color. It might be spread out, but it
wouldn't cool the color.
So, I don't think so.
Q Do we receive radio waves from other
A Oh, yes.
Q Do these radio waves receive reflex or
calculations without background?
A I haven't included them. I don't think
they would be anywhere near the source of energy
that the -- say, I think I used 20% of our own
galaxy's energy, would effect it. If it would,
then that would make it heat faster and would effect
the calculations. I just don't think it would make
Q Is background radiation a radio wave?
A Well, it's a microwave which means that
it's a longer wave length. Electromagnetic wave is
what it's usually called, a radio wave, but the same
thing is vibrating the electromagnetic field.
Q Let me understand this. The background
radiation is picked up by various dust particles,
absorbed by various dust particles, and then re-
radiated and absorbed and re-radiated and absorbed;
is that right?
Q How wide is the band of the background
A You mean in distance or wave length?
Q Wave length.
A Well, it's a statistical kind of a
distribution, and so the wave length span, wide
length of wave length, it would be the dominant
wave length that would be that microfrequency.
Theoretically, all wave lengths are wide to some
Q Is the universe expanding in your
Q Is it highly possible? Could I have
misunderstood your article on the expansion of the
A Well, I don't know. What did you
understand about it?
Q I understood it to say that the universe
was expanding but that the Hubble constant calculation
that was done to say how long it had been expanding
for was inappropriate for that purpose, but that the
universe itself was expanding?
A Close. Here's what I attempted to convey
in the article, that if the universe is presently
expanding, that it could have been created that way.
It didn't have to have started out as a nugget and
expanded where it is now. I don't recall saying it
is expanding or that I tried to prove that it was.
That if it is, it didn't have to have started at a
Q But you don't believe that the universe
A Well, no I don't.
Q The article makes reference to the
Q And it says that certain limitations are
on the Hubble constant. To what distance is the
Hubble constant compared from?
A How do you -- could you verify the
Hubble constant for large distances? Usually that's
what is used to measure large distances, so how could
Q What I'm asking is what distance has
Hubble's law been verified?
A Well, the law has been verified by
different methods. Some are more reliable than
others. It's not the fault of anybody. It's just
the business you can do. Probably the best method
is to use what's called cepheid variables, and they're
just pulsating stars, very light pulsating stars,
and you can use them to at least infer the distance
to a galaxy that contains them, since you know
something about how bright they really are. The
trouble is, you can't seem them individually except
just the closest of the galaxies, because once you
get a galaxy so far away, you can no longer resolve
those stars. So that's about the best direct test
of Hubble's law, and that would take you out to, gee,
I'm not sure of the lineup. Let me just make a wild
guess. It would be about 10,000,000 light years.
The closest galaxy would be something
on the order of -- well, the magellanic clouds, I
guess, would be a galaxy, but about 10,000,000 light
Q Your article on the expansion of the
universe said, page 176, "The Hubble equation only
can be checked out to a distance of one or two
billion light years." Is that wrong?
Q I'm quoting your article, "The Hubble
equation can only be checked out to a distance of
one or two billion light years."
A Well, that was a while back. I have in
my mind a much less accurate check than I explained
to you, a much less accurate check would say if you
see a galaxy which you could make out in light years
away with enough equipment that you, at least in
some approximation, determine how far away it was,
if it was very dim. If all galaxies are more or less
the same, or if you have some way in telling if they
are different in just looking at them like spiral
or color or something, then if you look at a galaxy --
and you know, if you got right up on it, it would be
very bright. But if you looked at it and it's
very dim, you say, that must be a very long way away.
You're assuming it's dim because it's small, and that
is a much less accurate test.
I'm not really sure what I had in mind
there, but that wouldn't be nearly as accurate as
a cepheid variable.
Q Are you familiar with B. L. Lacertan?
A No, I'm not.
Q You're not familiar with the fact if a
galaxy moved to measure distance?
(Thereupon, a short recess was had.)
/ / /
Q What experimental evidence do you have
that supports your Theory of Background Radiation?
A Well, it is there and the dust is there.
And the dust absorbs the light and the energy has
got to go somewhere. So that's the evidence that
Q I understand that you observed that there
is background radiation?
Q You have observed that there is dust?
Q Other than making those two observations
and drawing the conclusion, what other kinds of evi-
dence do you have?
A That's it.
Q Dr. Akridge, are you a member of the
Creation Research Society?
A Yes, I am.
Q What kind of a member are you; a voting
member or a sustaining member?
A Voting member.
Q As a voting member, did you have to sub-
scribe to certain beliefs?
A I think to vote, you have to sign a state-
ment that you believe in a young earth. And I am not
sure that's on it. There are some statements that you
do have to sign to vote.
MR. KLASFELD: Let's take a break for
(Thereupon, a short break was held.)
Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Dr. Akridge, does the
Creation Research Society require that you believe
that the Bible is literally true?
A I don't remember.
Q Do you believe that the Bible is literally
A Depends on what you mean by literal. Try
and give me a real precise term when you say literal.
Q Do you believe what the Bible says is
A Are you talking about just historical
parts now? There is poetry and everything else in
the scriptures. I am wondering if you are talking about
just the historical things.
Q Was there an Adam and Eve?
A Yes, I think there was.
Q Were they the first two humans?
Q Was there an Ark?
A I think there was.
Q Was there a world wide flood?
A I think there was.
Q Which parts of the Bible are you referring
to as poetry?
A Well, some parts are poetry, I would say.
Job is written as poetry, many of the books around
Solomon and Job, all throughout the Bible.
Q Is there any scientific evidence that
would lead you to believe that Adam and Eve were not
the first man and woman?
A Do you say were not?
A I guess not, no.
Q Is there any scientific evidence that
would lead you to believe that there wasn't a world
A That there was not?
A You are actually asking me a question out
in the field, but I will give you the answer just as
a person. I know there are things that I find diffi-
cult explaining, large salt beds that appear to be
the result of a long-time evaporation are hard for me
to understand on a short-time scale.
Large limestone beds which appear to be
the result of marine fossils, living and dying and
accumulating are hard for me to understand and similar
things like that. Maybe there is an explanation;
I hope there is. But it kind of baffled me.
Q What did you mean by short-time scale?
A Well, we talked about the time 10,000
years. To pin it down, let's say 10,000 years.
Q Why 10,000 years?
A That's the general figures that I would
come up for the age of the galaxy based upon three
Q What does that have to do with the scienti-
fic evidence for the world wide flood?
A I thought you were asking for scientific
evidence that would deny world wide flood --
A Well, if these things were laid down by
the world wide flood and any time during the last
10,000 years, they wouldn't have had time to evaporate
to the depths. The marine, coral, or shellfish of any
kind wouldn't have time to live and die and accumulate
to form massive amounts of limestone that are known
as far as I could figure in that time period. If that
occurred, it was within the 10,000 years.
Q Why do you think that the flood occurred
within 10,000 years?
A Well, the age of the galaxy. The whole
galaxy is less than 10,000 years old. You couldn't
have had a flood before the galaxy is created.
Q What is the time scale of these factors
that had to do with the world wide flood?
A Maybe you need to rephrase the question
then maybe; I am misunderstanding it. Please rephrase
it or repeat it.
Q I think that I asked you what scientific
evidence would you accept that there was no world
wide flood? And your response was that the soft depo-
sits that appeared to have been left by the evaporation
of water and the formation of the dying specie creatures
did not seem to fit into this short-time scale.
And I asked you what the time scale of
those factors had to do with the world wide flood?
A Well, you see, to take a hypothetical case,
if the world were a million years old and you had a
world wide flood, a million years ago, there would be
time for whatever salt accumulated in such a flood.
There would be time for it to dry out, and there might
have been time for that many fossils -- I mean marine
plant and animals to live, die, and accumulate.
So it is coupled with the time, too. Really,
I thought you were asking me what evidence would deny
a flood recently.
Q I didn't say anything about recently.
A That's the way that I was answering the
question. As far as just a world wide flood at any
time, I really don't know. I have never thought about
it. It would take a little more time to think about
it than I want to give right now.
Q Does the Bible say anything about when
the flood was?
A As I recall, it does in terms of age. But
we have to read it and see. I wouldn't want to try
and quote part of the Bible from memory unless I have
Q Would the Bible suggest to you that it was
less than three million years ago?
A The flood?
A Well, it would seem to me that that would
make it less than three million years ago, although
there again the interpretations of the Bible is differ-
Q Would it be less than 50,000 years ago?
A To me?
A To me, it would.
Q At what age would it make it?
A I would say somewhere -- sometime less
than 10,000 years old, I would say.
Q The Bible says that?
A No, I said that. Don't blame that one
on the Bible, that's mine.
Q Does the Bible say anything about how
long ago the Flood was? You said that it did.
A In terms of Noah's live, but the rest
of it we have to go through the Bible and look
through it. I don't want to quote that from memory.
I can't remember the details. I just don't know.
Q What scientific evidence is there that
the Flood took place less than 10,000 years ago?
A Well, much of the sedimentary layers
that appear can be interpreted in terms of a flood
as well as in terms as anything else. The fossils
Q How do you interpret the sedimentary
layers to lead you to believe that they are 10,000
years old or less?
A How do I interpret --
Q How did that lead you to the conclusion
that they were laid down more recently than 10,000
A Well, if I would just look at them, I
really wouldn't know when they were laid down. It
beats me. I'm not a geologist. I just don't know.
The only thing that would have been from
the time scale -- I don't know, but they could have
been as the result of a large single event as well
as many long-term but very slow events.
Q Are you familiar with the Varves?
Q Are you familiar with any of the work
that's been done to date the ice in Greenland and
A Over there in the place that begins with
an "I" Aigu or something like that?
A I read the two articles in Scientific
American that have come out about it. That's the
extent of what I know.
Q How far did those articles say that
the ice went back?
A That's supposed to be the oldest rock
on the planet or thereabouts. Just from memory,
I recall them saying around three and a half billion
years; certainly in the billions of years.
Q Are you familiar with the technique of
A I have never done it myself, no.
Q And people who do radiometric dating,
how old do they think the earth is?
A Well, I don't think I'm going to answer.
You're just have to ask them. I don't want to tell
Q What's the range?
A Surely it would depend on what you're
dating. I just don't know. I don't think I'm
qualified to answer that one. You'll have to ask
a person what he thinks about it.
Q How do they figure up that ice in
Greenland was three and a half billion years old?
A In the article, as I recall, they did
MR. CHILDS: I'm going to object
to this. The witness has indicated
that he did not have the expertise
on radiometric dating. I'm not going
to instruct him not to answer, but
I will interpose an objection.
Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) You can answer.
A Are you still asking the question?
A I recall it's a method called isocrons
Q How does this information from the
rock in Greenland, the salt beds, the buildup of
marine layers -- how does that fit in with your
theory about the background radiation?
A Well, those particular ones conflict
very strongly on the times, you see. Ten thousand
years conflict terribly with three and a half
billion years, so those two won't fit in at all.
Q Using your definition of scientific
method, how, with your theory, do you deal with this
A Well, like I said, whenever you get
contradictory information, that's a chance for
research right there. And I think I would rethink
the three-degree radiation.
See, if there was some other interpre-
tation of it, that's -- that fits that particular
set of data better and if I were one of those radio-
metric data fellows, I would rethink my methods and
see if the radioactive samples that I'm measuring
could be interpreted in any other way, other than
long age, and try to rethink it all.
It's a good chance to have a good research
Q Have you rethought your research about
A I rethought it many times, you know.
My procedure is to write it down -- I have several
of my articles that haven't been submitted yet --
and find things that are wacko, about them, and let
it mature for a while in my mind and, then, I
rewrite them and eventually submit them. But they
change quite a bit and sometimes I throw them away
And, after I submit them, there are
some things I wish I could change. So, yes, we
thought it through several times and I'm still
more satisfied with my interpretation that any
other that I can think of.
Q As a scientist, you're more satisfied
with that one piece of data that you have in the
face of this other contradictory data from a
host of different disciplines?
A Well, are we talking about data or
See, if a fellow says something is
three and a half billion years old, that's an
interpretation of data. The amount of radioactivity
in the sample, that's the data. Ant the data for
three-degree radiation is the intensity and wave-
length of radiation.
So when the test's through, we're
talking about interpretation of data.
Q All these experts in all these fields
interpret this data. You apparently interpret the
salt deposit data in a certain way that troubles you.
Do you, as a scientist, feel any need
to reflect on other experts' interpretations of
the data in their fields in terms of development
of your own theory?
A Well, I see a need to get together
on it. People should feel free to share ideas
on different theories about what the interpretation
of the various data is.
My experience is that any time you have
people and they think about interpretation of what
they've got in their hands and what they measured.
they'll come up with different interpretations.
And you learn and you compare those things and you
feel share to free them.
Q You said you feel share to free them?
A I did do that, didn't I?
You need to be able to freely share
those pieces of information and your thoughts on
them. And, so I see that as a great need here.
Q Let me show you this application for
the Creation Research Society and ask you if you
filled out one similar to it when you became a
A Is this like the first sheet of the
Creation Research Society Quarterly?
Q Yes, I think so.
A That's the tear-off. That's the one
MISSING PAGE 74
Deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its
extend and effect."
Do you believe that?
A I do.
Q Four, "Finally, we are an organization
of Christian men of science, who accept Jesus Christ
as Lord and Savior. The account of the special
creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman,
and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis
for belief in the necessity of a Savior for all
mankind. Therefore, that can come only through
accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior."
Do you believe that?
A Well, I believe -- except the first
sentence, I suppose it's correct. I don't know
if all the members are Christians or not.
Q Fair enough.
A But other than that.
Q I'm supposed to be a lawyer, so I read
every word of these carefully.
What is the scientific evidence for the
statement that, "All basic types of living things,
including Man, were made by direct creative acts of
God during Creation Week?"
A Gee, I don't know. That's kind of
biology. I don't know.
Q Are you aware of any scientific evi-
A Well, I don't think -- I don't even
think I'm competent to offer any kind of testimony
on that. That's totally unrelated to anything I
have any familiarity with.
Q Are you aware of any scientific evi-
dence in support of that?
A In support of what?
Q The statement that "All basic types
of living things, including Man, were made by direct
creative acts of God during Creation Week?"
A I've heard it talked about pro and
con, but I don't remember how the argument went
or what they were. I don't know.
Q Would you accept any scientific evi-
dence that could prove that all basic types of
lving things, including Man, were not made by
direct creative acts of God?
A That is a hypothetical thing. If such
evidence appeared, then would I accept it?
A Certainly, I would. You cannot deny
the facts, but you can deny interpretations of them.
I don't think of it happening, but if it did, then
that's the breaks.
Q What evidence would you accept?
Q What evidence would you accept?
A Of what?
Q As a denial of that statement.
A Well, I just told you I can't imagine
any evidence conclusively disproving it, si I
Q Can't imagine any evidence that you'd
believe -- that would lead you to believe that that
statement was scientifically true?
A No, I really can't.
Q What scientific evidence would you
accept that would lead to believe that the Great
Flood described in Genesis was not a historical
A Let's see -- no, I can't -- I can't
dream them up. Maybe you could supply me with a
simple hypothesis and see what I feel like. I can't
think of something -- like if you found and didn't
find that it would -- I don't know.
/ / /
Q What evidence would you accept, what
scientific evidence would you accept, that would prove
to you that the account of special creation of Adam
and Eve was not true?
A Well, I will accept any evidence of any
kind regardless. But I can't imagine what evidence
could conclusively prove it.
(A short recess.)
MR. KLASFELD: I'd like to mark as
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 a xerox of a document
that Dr. Akridge supplied to us this morning.
It's a two-page document, the first page of
which is the copy of a file folder, and it
says "Doug", I believe it's, "Parsons" on
it. And the second is a letter from Mr.
Parsons to Dr. Akridge.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit
No. 2 was marked for identifi-
cation by the court reporter.)
Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Would you look at this
letter, Dr. Akridge, and tell me if it's a letter that
you, in fact, received from Mr. Parsons?
A Looks like it. Looks like it. That's
his letter to me.
Q Right. This indicates that you replied
A Wrote him something. I don't have a copy
of my letter to him.
Q Do you recall what it is that you said
in the letter?
A I just don't have -- I didn't keep my
letters at the time. I just wrote that so I would
know I have answered the fellow is all.
Q The first sentence of Mr. Parsms' -- is
A I think it's Parsms.
Q It says, "I have an interesting conversa-
tion concerning evolution versus creation. I am
essentially interested in the earth being 10,000 years
old or less. If you have copies of articles you have
written, I would appreciate it.
Do you know why he was interested in
arguments that the earth was 10,000 years old or less?
A I don't know why. And I never met him,
never received another correspondence from him. I
have no idea.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that the
standard radiometric data procedures are in error?
A You know, there are a lot of procedures
like which one are you talking about?
Q Is it potassium-argon?
A Well, potassium-argon is the -- let me
answer it this way. I have no reason to doubt that
the facts that they come up with are at all in error.
But the facts aren't to date with the amount of radio
activity of a certain species. And so I don't doubt
the radio, you know, the measurements that are made,
but I feel free to question the interpretation of the
age that they draw from it.
Q What is the interpretation that they make
that you disagree with?
A Well, I don't think that they are as old
as they say, but that's just my feeling. And I'm not
an expert in radiometric dating and don't claim to
be. So I think I will just let someone else argue
that one for awhile.
Q Are there some assumptions they make that
you don't go along with?
A Well, you know, I feel certain that the
different methods make different assumptions. And if
you would just tell me one of the assumptions, I might
be able to tell you what I thought about it. But still
I'm not an expert.
Q Well, the assumption as I understand is
that the rate of decay was relatively constant over
time. Is that an assumption you disagree with?
A No, I don't disagree with that assumption.
Q If the rate of decay was relatively con-
stant over time, what is it that you disagree with
about the result?
A For potassium-argon?
A Well, there must be something else involved
in that calculation. What else is it that's involved
Q Well, I understand there's a difference
of the two elements.
A Uh-huh. (Positive response.)
Q And the decay of one element into the
other element and that you can measure the rate at
which it's taking place and knowing how much of what's
called the daughter element which is the new element
that's created, if there -- did you make a judgment
on how long that took?
A To come from where?
Q How long it took to create the daughter
element from the other element.
A From no daughter at all to the present?
A Well, you could certainly answer that
question. And, you know, I feel with great recision
how long it would take for all the daughter to accumu-
late from initially pure parent given the species as
to game. I feel you could answer that question with
Q You believe that's an incorrect assumption?
A I don't believe in -- I said I don't
believe they do that in radiometric dating method.
Q What do they do that's different?
A Well, I don't want to be obstinate, but
I don't want to assume I know a lot about it. I think
I would rather let you or your associates answer
that. You asked me some precise questions and I could
just tell you really just a totally nonexpert answer.
Just as a feeling, I would tell you what I did feel.
Q I guess what my question basically is over
the long haul is there all these different unrelated
ways that come up with substantially greater ages for
the universe and the earth that you believe to be
A I understand that.
Q You're not expert in these areas, but
you reject -- you reject it as satisfactory evidence,
and I'm wondering why.
A Because other people that have done work
on that show for different reasons that the radiometric
dating processes, the interpretation of the ages that
they get from them, are in error.
A Well, there's a fellow by the name of
-- let's see, friend from St. Cloud University, St.
Cloud, Minnesota, as Russell Arndts, A-r-n-d-t-s,
has done some work on it, and has concluded that they
are a result of mixing, not of radiometric decay.
Q And how did you become aware of -- is it
A Uh-huh. (Positive response.)
Q How did you become aware of Dr. Arndt's
A Heard him give a seminar in Atlanta here
about six months ago.
Q Was this a seminar of the Bible Science
A Yes, it was.
Q Was it a seminar which you were also a
lecturer on astronomy?
A That's right.
Q Does anybody agree with Dr. Arndts?
A Gee, I don't know. He didn't give any boos
from the crowd that night.
Q I am sure he didn't.
A So I don't know. I wouldn't know. I've
never heard of a poll taken on his work.
Q Are you aware of any criticism of Dr.
A Let me see. No, I'm not.
Q (By Mr. Klasfeld) Based on this speech
by Dr. Arndts at this Bible Science Association, you're
prepared to reject all of the evidence from radio-
A Well, I'm prepared to rethink it. But
you can't rethink it all just on the spur of the moment.
It takes a lots of time, and really I don't know if
I will ever get around to doing that. It's a totally
different field. It does bear rethinking.
Q Are you aware of the efforts that people
who do radiometric dating make not to mix the -- to
be sure that there was no mixing of the mother element
and the daughter element?
A You mean while they are doing their dating
A Before they arrive on the scene?
Q I don't guess I'm too aware of that. I
explained to you, I'm not an expert on that.
What did they do?
Q My understanding is they do very highly
sophisticated tests to insure that it didn't happen,
because it's an obvious concern. I guess my point
is, you would have to think these people were utterly
stupid to think that they don't take any consideration
with the problems that Dr. Arndts has raised.
A Well, you just have to ask them about that.
I don't know.
Q Is his complaint a very sophisticated one?
A Not too sophisticated. As I remember it
does have a little math associated with it, nothing
much more than averaging, adding fractions, though.
Q But people that are at least competent, if
not clever scientists, I mean, don't you think they
took into consideration what it was that Dr. Arndts
A Well, looks like they should have, but I
don't see any account of it.
Q Where have you looked for such an account?
A Well, the only two articles that I told
you that I read about it were in Scientific American
where they presented the isocrons, and I didn't notice
anyway that they said that they could be sure that
mixing the argons -- in fact, come to think about it,
I don't know how you could be sure mixing didn't occur
when you weren't there to observe that id didn't.
Q You're not an expert in the field?
Q Are you familiar with carbon-14 dating at
A I just heard about it, but I'm certainly
not qualified to testify about it.
Q And this sort of notion of Dr. Arndts'
is sufficient for you to, as a scientist, to completely
disbelieve all of the work, all of the people who are
doing radiometric dating?
A Well, you see, to me it's not a matter of
the odd. Truth is never a matter of the odd. You can
have the odds on your side or against it. I would
like to rethink these things. And equally good inter-
preation comes up even though the odds are astronomical.
In this case, my ownself, I say I'm ready
to rethink that, so the odds don't matter to me.
Q I'm not talking about the odds. When
Einstein critized Newton and his theories, his criticism
was a very sophisticated one based on new reasoning and
new thinking and Einstein's own approach to it.
Dr. Arndts' criticism, as I understand it,
is not at all sophisticated, not at all new and is
something that it strikes me that these scientists
working in the field must have given some thought to.
A I guess you ought to ask him about that.
Q My point is, I'm asking you as a scientist,
how you evalute this information of Dr. Arndts.
A Well, like I explained, that's worth re-
thinking the whole thing to see how each side arrives
at its conclusion. And if there's really a way, you
can tell the difference.
Q Let me just understand. You, as a scien-
tist, if there's a whole realm of scientists or
authorized other scientists working in a certain area
and some other scientists makes sort of an unsophis-
ticated criticism of what it is that they are doing,
that one scientist criticism would lead you to rethink
the whole of science that they are looking at.
A If I were interested in it, yes, it would.
Q You make reference to cratering in one
of the articles in Creation Research. Are you aware
of cratering as a technique for dating objects in the
A Just generally, but I did write that article
on it. That's true.
Q It's sort of standard astronomers use
cratering as a technique for dating. What time
periods did they come up with and age?
A Well, I think it would be somewhere in
the neighborhood of four billion years.
Q Does it concern you that that's
approximately equivalent to the age that we get
for the rocks by radiometric dating?
A Well, you mean that the two are agreed?
Q That the two are agreed and completely
dissimilar from your own theory?
A Not much. In fact, I would rather
expect that they would be compatible with one
another based on just a general evolutionary model
of the development of the universe through the last
five billion years.
Q Do the decay rates of isotopes have
anything to do with the cratering of bodies in the
A In terms of causing them or internal
heating or what?
Q Does the analysis of the decay rates
of isotopes bear any similarity to the analysis of
the cratering rate of the bodies in the galaxies?
Did those analyses -- are they in any way dependent
on one another?
A Oh, no, not as far as I know, not for
the analyses I know. As far as I know, they seem
independent, you're right.
Q Now, do all astronomers believe in
A Gee, I don't know.
Q You mean some astronomer who is going
out there and he's counting craters and he's counting
rocks in the galaxies, does he care what the answer
A You've got me. I don't know. I guess
you would have to ask somebody. You're asking me
to guess. Human nature, I can't do that.
Q You said the fact that both of these
methods stem from the evolutionary model didn't
give you any concern that they agreed with one
another. I mean, what bias does some counter have?
All he's doing is counting. He's counting rocks,
he's counting craters. What bias does he have to
come up with the number that the same -- that you
get from the isotopes breakdown?
A Well, if all he's doing is counting
craters and saying so many craters per square mile
or whatever, that's fine. Nobody has any argument
The same with the radiometric data. If
somebody says a certain dumber of curries of
radioactivity, no problem with that. It's the
interpretation you're drawing from them.
You see, the less cratering, they say,
that means the surface must have been formed fairly
recently, because cratering occurred four billion
years ago in the solar system. That's a whole
different ball game. That's an interpretation.
So cratering us in dating is not
strictly a matter of counting. It's a matter
of counting and then inferring an age based on
what the belief is, of the solar system. It is
like a long time ago.
Q And you believe age is based on an
A Well, I do. If you had no way to
tell when surface solified, then it wouldn't
matter how many craters you counted or didn't
count. You couldn't tell how old the surface was.
Q But only somebody who believes in
evolution could come up with the number four billion;
is that what you're saying?
A Gee, there's all types of people in
the world. It's a different question, that a person
who believed that the world was only 10,000 years
old sure wouldn't come up with a date like that.
Just as evolutionists being able to do it,
I don't know. You would probably argue about
what evolutionary is.
Q I was trying to pick up what you said,
the coincidence of the radiometric dates of the
cratering dates didn't concern you, because they
were both based on the evolutionary model?
A Do you want me to explain that?
A Okay. The model goes like this. About
four a half billion years ago, most of the planets
and moons in the solar system were somewhat fluid,
and the earth, too. And therefore, about that time
they all began to solidify , at least the surface
And the impact craters that began to
impact, formed craters that were made, and then all
the debris was gone. It impacted with something that
left the solar system.
And also about that time, these deposits
of minerals solidified on the earth, and so you have
both these events occurring at the same time.
And if you have an object with prac-
tically no craters on it, then you say to yourself,
it must have been formed after the surface had
solidified, so after four billion years ago. On
the other hand, if you have something that you get
a radiometric dating from, you date from whatever
that original process was, the way you assume it
condensed, all about the same time.
So no wonder you get the same dates.
If there's not anything wrong with the theory. In
fact, internal consistency is rather nice. You ought
to have that in any scheme, that anybody dreams up.
But you do have to check against it, that you don't
think it proves anything. It's necessary, but it
hardly proves anything.
Q How is Dr. Arndts' criticism about the
possible mixing of the daughter and the parent
explain the fact that with different test samples
we get approximately the same date?
A I think that I started trying to give
an explanation, I'll probably mess it up somewhere,
and I don't think I want to do that. I would much
prefer you contact him.
Q Well, I'm asking you as a scientist
who said that he's heard one person who no one else
in the field agrees with offer an criticism of the
entire field. And on the basis of that criticism,
you as a scientist rejected all of the conclusions
coming out of that field. And I'm trying to explore
with you what analysis you went through as a
scientist in order to reject all of this information.
A Well, what I went through was all of
what I could go through, just the mathmatical
details of both approaches, the evolutionary ap-
proach and what would be the results.
Q Why do you call it the evolutionary
A Well, what would you like to call it,
the long-term approach?
A So let's call it the long-term approach.
What should we call the Creation approach?
MR. CHILDS: Short.
A (Continuing) Let's use long-term and
short-term. With the long-term approach, if you
got through the equation of what you should have
now after a long-term decay, you'd just get
standard certain equations which usually plot out
straight lines with a slope womewhere. And if you
assume that the species mixed up at some time, you'd
get a straight line with a slope somewhere. And a
person who gets a straight line with a slope some-
where, if he says, well, that was due to long-term
methods, the slope means the age and the Y inter-
cept means the original concentration.
For a person who assumes the short-term
-- I've forgotten what the short-term is.
The short-term, the Y intercept, it is
the concentration in one of the species that mixed.
And I really forgot what the slope is. But you get
the same general equation in either case.
Q Did Dr. Arndts explain to your satis-
faction why we get youger ages from rocks that we
believe to be younger for other reasons than radio-
metric dating from older rocks?
A No. And as a matter of fact, if it will
make you feel any better, I wondered that myself.
There does seem to be some consistency there. So I
can't -- I just don't know that. It seems to be
that you've got consistency.
Q Well, how do you as a scientist feel
A Well, try to rethink it all. But, you've
got everything in the world to rethink at once and
it's kind of hard. If you overlook a small detail,
that might be the one thing that's necessary in all
this. You have to use super human capability.
You've got to.
Q Are you aware of any other dating
techniques that give several billion years' life
to the universe or the earth?
A Well, you've got the magnetic dating
of the ocean floor, you've got -- the fossils are
supposed to give these long dates, especially the
microfossils, and we've talked about the radiometric
dating, we've talked about cratering. We should
have talked about the age of the sun and stars,
assuming they get their energy from fusion.
And there's all kinds of different
dates and ways to get it at a date.
Q Are there other ways?
A There's all kinds. You've got the
brightness and temperature of the stars that's used
to arrive at a date for the star, the amount of
non-hydrogen and nonheating material in the stars
that's supposed to indicate when that star was
There are all kinds of ways to arrive
at a date with more or less precision.
Q Are there any other ways?
A I guess there are. There are probably
thousands of ways.
Q And you reject the evidence of every
one of them?
A No, not reject the evidence of any of
them. What I reject is the fact that -- I'm going
to strike the word "fact". What I would like to
reject is that a person shouldn't be forced to buy
somebody's interpretation of those data.
Q If the manner in which the magnetic
dating of the ocean floor that comes up with an
old age, is that related in any way to the micro-
fossils that come up with an old age?
A You know, I really don't know. I'm
not sure how they age microfossils. I would just
have to say I don't know.
Q Is it related in any way in how experts
in that field date the age of stars by fusion?
A Is what related to it?
Q How do you get the date a very long
period from magnetic dating of the ocean floor to
microfossils, is the analysis in any way the same
for getting for getting a long age by analyzing
the fusion reaction in the stars?
A In only a very general way, in that
they are usually assumed to start out in some pure
state which then changes or evolves as time goes by.
And it dates back to a more or less pure state for
the ocean floor. It was a time that hadn't spread
apart. And for the star, it was a time in which it
was collapsing and had not heated up enough to
cause fusion. So you have that kind of mental thing
Other than that, I don't believe so.
But I'm not an expert on this ocean floor dating,
don't claim to be atall.
Q It's not relating to sort of analyzing
relative amounts of helium and hydrogen in the
A Don't think so. But I have no idea
how they date that ocean floor spreading or any
Q Do five or six different dating tech-
niques come up with approximately the same age?
A Well, no. They date different objects.
Q Well, do they come up with approximately
the same age, say, in terms of billions of years
instead of tens of thousands of years?
A Yes, they do.
Q And, if I understand that, you reject
the interpretation of each and every one of them?
A I must say this: I would prefer to
just rethink them and see how they come up. In
other words, see if that's a requirement if they
have to have that, as the only interpretation if
there are alternatives. That's a rather exciting
thing in education for me, what alternatives do
Q Is everybody's interpretation of the
same information equally valid?
A I don't know.
Q Well, isn't science in some way a
discipline or expertise?
A Well, I think science is an application
rather than a scientific method.
Q But presumably, I mean, do you believe
that your opeinion about the flow of the potassium
argons is superior to my opinion about it?
A Gee, I don't know how I could judge if
the opinion is superior. We each have a right to
our own opinion.
Q I understand. You have a Doctorate
in Physics and have written many papers on discussion
of the flow potassium and other ions.
The last physics course I took was in
high school, where we in terms of an application
of the scientific method, if we were to both try
and convince Mr. Childs of the strength of our
opinion, do you think that your interpretation
will be entitled to more weight than mine?
A Not on the basis of reputation or cre-
dentials alone. I think each person deserves to
be heard and then decide, based on what you've
heard, what you think about it.
Q What about if it was you and a hundred
other people who studied potassium ions?
A Well, the human thing would take over,
and I think just personally that I would tend to try
to snub the other guys, just say, look, you're out-
voted, sorry, fellows. But it would upset me. But
you've still got to think about alternatives. And
if somebody comes up with an alternative, we've got
to think it through. If you're interested, think
(Whereupon a lunch break was held.)
/ / /