He commented on the many discordances in results, the problem of separating "common lead" from radiogenic lead, the possibility that some of the supposed radiogenic elements could have been added either before or after deposition, the possibility of changes in disintegration rates, the possibility of selective leaching, and the many conflicts with previously assumed geologic ages. Whitney published many other papers, as well as two small books, all advocating recent creation and flood geology.
He was even able to get at least one paper included in the Reports of the Committee on Geologic Time (he was on good terms with Professor Lane) and in the There were a few others in the old Creation-Deluge Society (which I joined in 1943) who believed in recent creation, but the next important article—so far as I know—was one by geologist Clifford Burdick, entitled "The Radioactive Time Theory and Recent Trends in Methods of Reckoning Geologic Time." The paper had been written earlier, but was finally published in 1946, in volume 1 of a short-lived journal established by the "old-earthers" who had taken over the Creation-Deluge Society.
As this dating method began to be developed, a Committee on the Measurement of Geologic Time was formed by the National Research Council with Professor Alfred C.
Lane, geology professor at Tufts University, as chairman.
Fossils are generally found in sedimentary rock not igneous rock.
Sedimentary rocks can be dated using radioactive carbon, but because carbon decays relatively quickly, this only works for rocks younger than about 50 thousand years.
The Committee first met in December 1923 and then began publishing in "Annual Reports," reviewing and discussing all the papers on radiometric dating during each successive year, continuing until 1955 or so.
When I first heard of these (about 1946), I purchased all the back issues and subscribed to all future issues, trying to note all studies and comments potentially useful to creationists. During the century after Lyell and Darwin and up until about 1950, the reaction of practically all Christian leaders was to accept uniformitarianism and the radiometric ages, accommodating them by either the gap theory or the day-age theory. Perhaps the first was Dudley Joseph Whitney, an agricultural scientist who had graduated from Berkeley and then edited various agricultural journals.
The new edition was published in 1951 by Moody under the title At the university I also took a course on geophysics which included sections on radiometric dating. However, this conference and my later correspondence with John Whitcomb did lead finally to the book, included a 48-page discussion of radiometric dating and its fallacies (as I saw them, at least) with suggested resolutions.
Whether or not we creationists can ever come to a firm consensus on the significance of the radiometric data, we must never forget that the evidence for the inspiration, integrity, and clarity of God's word is far greater than the illusory and self-serving arguments offered by evolutionists and compromising creationists for an ancient earth.
We need to remind ourselves over and over that there is no hint whatever—anywhere in the Bible—that the earth is significantly older than the few thousand years of recorded history.
Find additional lessons, activities, videos, and articles that focus on relative and absolute dating.
The dating of rocks by the radioactive decay of certain minerals is undoubtedly the main argument today for the dogma of an old earth.