1 A We just discussed the bill in general. I assumed

2 everybody had read it. They'd had it in their books for

3 quite a while.

4 Q Do you recall that there were a number of materials

5 that you gave us including some material from a man named

6 Luther Sunderland in Apalachin, New York?

7 A No.

8 Q Well, I will show it to you and perhaps that will

9 refresh your recollection. These are a series of

10 documents you gave us. Here is one, "Introducing the

11 Model Teaching of Origins in Public Schools, An Approach

12 that Works" by Luther D. Sunderland, 5 Griffin Drive,

13 Apalachin, New York.

14 A If I gave it to you I am sure I received it.

15 Q Did you note the organizations from whom he

16 suggested that one could obtain creationist materials?

17 A No.

18 Q Could you take a look at that first letter, the one

19 that I have marked for you there, and tell me the names of

20 the organizations from whom he suggests that a public

21 school district looking to institute such a model might

22 obtain material?

23 A You want me to read these off?

24 Q Yes. Would you, please?

25 A Creation Research Society, Model Science

Association, Institute for Creation Research, Creation


1 A (continuing) Science Research Center, Students for

2 Origin Research, Citizens for Fairness in Education.

3 Q Any others?

4 A I don't see anything else.

5 Q In all of the materials that were submitted to you,

6 Senator Holsted, did you ever discover any organization

7 other than those which you have just read which were

8 indicated as organizations from which you might be able to

9 obtain creationist material?

10 A That was not my problem.

11 Q I understand that. I am merely inquiring as to

12 whether you were ever able to ascertain the names of any

13 organizations other than those which you have just read

14 which might be able to furnish such information?

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, the question assumes a

16 fact not in evidence. It calls for speculation on the

17 witness' part. There is no showing that Senator Holsted

18 ever tried—

19 THE COURT: All he has to do is say no, as I

20 understand it.


22 MR. WILLIAMS: For the record, I want to interpose

23 an objection on the grounds that I think this does,

24 perhaps, go to the question of legislative privilege and

25 the immunity that a legislator has to consider whatever he

wants to in passing on a bill.


1 THE COURT: I think if there is anybody can invoke

2 that, that's Senator Holsted if he wants to. I am not

3 sure that privilege goes that far, but if he wants to

4 invoke that—

5 THE WITNESS: What do I get to invoke it?

6 THE COURT: But in any event, not Mr. Williams.

7 THE WITNESS: It will be up to the Department of

8 Education to determine what materials will be used and to

9 obtain materials I received stuff— You wouldn't believe

10 how much stuff I received. Most of it I didn't even look

11 at. I just stuck it in a box.

12 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

13 Q Let me ask you to just take a look at this. Here is

14 the second page of Mr. Sunderland's book—I am sorry, Mr.

15 Sunderland's communication. At the bottom of that first

16 page he describes how somebody might go about reaching a

17 community and convincing folks that they ought to enact a

18 scientific creation approach.

19 Can you tell me the names of the two books that he

20 suggested one obtain and look at in order to do that

21 convincing? Just read that sentence.

22 A He obtained a number of copies of The

23 Creation-Evolution Controversy by Wysong, and Evolution:

24 The Fossils Say No, Public School Edition by Gish.



1 Q By the way, Mr. Sunderland was also selling something

2 for fifty dollars, too.

3 A Oh, is that right? I am sure it is. You would be

4 surprised how many people have got stuff to sell.

5 Q Another one of his points, and I think this will be the

6 last one I will ask you about, are these two over here.

7 Will you just read those?

8 A Points on Reaching the Community. Always document

9 your main points with good references. Never use

10 references from creationist books, religious literature or

11 the Bible. Any aspect of the creation model which

12 requires reference to or interpretation of a religious

13 doctrine should be avoided other than the fact, of course,

14 that a Creator did the creating.

15 Q Then just one more thing I want you to look at.

16 This is also in your materials, and this is a list of,

17 from your materials, dated September, 1980, Creation

18 Evolution Material. It says, "The following books,

19 periodicals, pamphlets and tapes offer invaluable aid to

20 those interested in learning more about evolution versus

21 creation." Can you tell me the names of those sources?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, I object to that. I

23 think the characterization is, this is the witness'

24 writing, that the document is his own. I don't think that

25 is correct. I don't know where that came from.


1 THE WITNESS: I never used these in—

2 THE COURT: Mr. Kaplan, the witness never saw them,

3 never used them. I have a hard time seeing how it is

4 admissible through him.

5 MR. KAPLAN: Fine, your Honor.

6 MR. KAPLAN: (Continuing)

7 Q Let me ask you as a final matter, Senator Holsted,

8 whether in your experience the Senate has ever considered

9 a bill, for example, to allow Christian Scientists to be

10 released from health classes or discussion of various

11 matters that might conflict with their religious views?

12 A No. I think the only thing we did last session that

13 I can remember concerning Christian Scientists is, we

14 released, certain designators in the Christian Science

15 faith from jury duty because they were a minister under

16 their designation. We exempt ministers from jury duty.

17 That was the only thing I can think of that was done like

18 that.

19 MR. KAPLAN: That's all I have. Thank you.

20 THE COURT: We will take about a ten minute recess.

21 (Thereupon, Court was in recess from 4:10 p.m.

22 until 4:20 p.m.)








3 Q Senator Holsted, how long does the Arkansas

4 Legislature meet and how often does it meet?

5 A It meets once every two years, constitutionally

6 sixty days. We generally run sometimes eighty, ninety

7 days.

8 Q In that period of time, meeting sixty to eighty

9 days every two years, are all bills given a long

10 deliberative and investigative process by the Legislature?

11 A In the past session we considered over sixteen

12 hundred pieces of legislation that came through the

13 Senate, to either vote on or for our consideration to vote

14 for, and there's no way possible to have hearings on every

15 piece of legislation that comes through. We'd still be

16 going on on last year's bills.

17 Q Is it unusual to have a bill to be considered in

18 committee only for a matter of minutes?

19 A Not at all. This last special session a lot of

20 bills didn't even go to committee. The only thing the

21 committee process does is try to speed up the flow of

22 legislation, because you have different committees meeting

23 all the time to consider many different bills.

24 The best hearing, of course, that's possible is to get



1 A (Continuing) it on the floor and all thirty-five

2 senators hear it.

3 Q At the time that you introduced what is now Act

4 590, as to the extent of your knowledge as a layman in

5 science, did you feel that there was and is scientific

6 evidence to support creation science?

7 A Yes, I did.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: No further questions.

9 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?

10 MR. KAPLAN: Yes, Your Honor.

11 MR. CEARLEY: Plaintiffs call Doctor Brent

12 Dalrymple. Mr. Ennis will handle direct.


14 Thereupon,



16 called on behalf of the plaintiffs herein, after having

17 been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined and

18 testified as follows:




21 Q Doctor Dalrymple, will you please state your full

22 name for the record?

23 A Yes. My name is Gary Brent Dalrymple.

24 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit

25 Ninety-eight for identification, your curriculum vitae.


1 Q (Continuing) Does that accurately reflect your

2 education, training, experience and publications?

3 A Yes, it does.

4 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I move that Plaintiffs'

5 Exhibit Ninety-eight for identification be received in

6 evidence.

7 THE COURT: It will be received.

8 MR. ENNIS:. (Continuing)

9 Q When and where did you receive your Ph.D.?

10 A The University of California at Berkeley in 1963 in

11 the field of geology.

12 Q What is your current employment?

13 A I am presently employed as the assistant chief

14 geologist for the western region of the United States

15 Geological Survey, and I am one of three assistant chief

16 geologists for the three regions of the United States.

17 The western region includes the eight western states in

18 the Pacific coast territory.

19 Q Were you responsible for scientific testing of the

20 lunar rock samples returned from the moon?

21 A Yes. I was selected by NASA to be one of the

22 principal investigators for the lunar rocks returned by

23 the Apollo Eleven through Thirteen missions.

24 Q What are your areas of expertise?

25 A My areas of expertise include general geology,


1 A (Continuing) geochronology, paleomagnetism, and

2 radiometric data in general.

3 Q What, briefly, is geochronology?

4 A Well, geochronology includes methods that are used

5 to determine the ages of geological events.

6 Q Have you published a substantial number of books

7 and articles in these fields?

8 A Yes. Over a hundred scientific papers and a book

9 that is commonly used as a textbook in radiometric dating

10 classes.

11 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, I offer Doctor Dalrymple as

12 an expert in the fields of geology, geochronology,

13 paleomagnetism and radiometric dating techniques in

14 general.

15 MR. WILLIAMS: No objection.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

18 Q Doctor Dalrymple, I have just handed you a copy of

19 Act 590. Have you had an opportunity to read Act 590?

20 A Yes, I have.

21 Q Is there anything in the Act's definition of

22 creation science to which the field of geochronology is

23 relevant?

24 A Yes. Section 4(a)(6) specifies, and I quote, A

25 relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds,

end of quote.


1 Q Is there anything in the Act's definition of

2 evolution to which the field of geochronology is relevant?

3 A Yes. Section 4(b)(6) specifies, quote, An

4 inception several billion years ago of the earth and

5 somewhat later of life, end of quote.

6 Q Are you familiar with the creation science

7 literature concerning the age of the earth?

8 A Yes, I am. I have read perhaps two dozen books and

9 articles either in whole or in part. They consistently

10 assert that the earth is somewhere between six and about

11 twenty thousand years, with most of the literature saying

12 that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.

13 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

14 indicate that the earth is no more than ten thousand years

15 old?

16 A None whatsoever. In over twenty years of research

17 and reading of scientific literature, I have never

18 encountered any such evidence.

19 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

20 indicate the earth is no more than ten million years old?

21 A None whatsoever.

22 THE COURT: Wait a second. What is it that the

23 creation scientists say is the age of the earth?

24 A They make a variety of estimates. They range

25 between about six and about twenty thousand years, from


1 A (Continuing) what I've read. Most of them assert

2 rather persistently that the earth is less than ten

3 thousand years. Beyond that they are not terribly

4 specific.

5 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

6 indicate the earth is no more than ten million years old?

7 A None whatsoever.

8 Q Are you aware of any scientific evidence to

9 indicate a relatively young earth or a relatively recent

10 inception of the earth?

11 A None whatsoever.

12 Q If you were required to teach the scientific

13 evidences for a young earth, what would you teach?

14 A Since there is no evidence for a young earth, I'm

15 afraid the course would be without content. I would have

16 nothing to teach at all.

17 Q Is the assertion by creation scientists that the

18 earth is relatively young subject to scientific testing?

19 Q Yes, it is. It one of the few assertions by the

20 creationists that is subject to testing and falsification.

21 Have such tests been conducted?

22 A Yes. Many times, by many different methods over

23 the last several decades.

24 Q What do those tests show?

25 A Those tests consistently show that the concept of a

young earth is false; that the earth is billions of years


1 A (Continuing) old. In fact, the best figure for the

2 earth is in the nature of four and a half billion years.

3 And I would like to point out that we're not talking

4 about just the factor of two or small differences. The

5 creationists estimates of the age of the earth are off by

6 a factor of about four hundred fifty thousand.

7 Q In your professional opinion, are the creation

8 scientists assertions of a young earth been falsified?

9 A Absolutely. I'd put them in the same category as

10 the flat earth hypothesis and the hypothesis that the sun

11 goes around the earth. I think those are all absurd,

12 completely disproven hypotheses.

13 Q In your professional opinion, in light of all of

14 the scientific evidence, is the continued assertion by

15 creation scientists that the earth is relatively young

16 consistent with the scientific method?

17 A No, it is not consistent with the scientific method

18 to hold onto a hypothesis that has been completely

19 disproven to the extent that it is now absurd.

20 Q How do geochronologists test for the age of the

21 earth?

22 A We use what are called the radiometric dating

23 techniques.

24 Q Would you tell us very briefly, and we'll come back

25 to the details later, how radiometric dating techniques



1 A Yes. Basically we rely on the radioactive decay of

2 long lived radioactive isotopes into isotopes of another

3 element. By convention we call the long lived isotopes

4 that's doing the decaying the parent, and the end product

5 we call the daughter.

6 What we do in principal is we measure the amount of

7 parent isotopes in a rock or mineral and we measure the

8 amount of the daughter isotope in a rock or mineral, and

9 knowing the rate at which the decay is taking place, we

10 can then calculate the age.

11 It is considerably more complicated than that, but

12 that's the essence of those techniques.

13 Q Are these isotopes, isotopes of various atoms?

14 A Yes, they are.

15 Q Could you briefly tell the Court what an atom is,

16 how it's composed?

17 A Well, an atom consists of basically three

18 particles. The nucleus, or inner core of the atom, has

19 both neutrons and protons. The number of protons in the

20 nucleus determines what the chemical element for that atom

21 is. Both neutrons and protons have the same mass.

22 Neutrons have no charge. The number of neutrons in an

23 atom do not determine the elemental characteristics of

24 that atom, only the number of protons.

25 Orbiting the nucleus of the atom is a cloud of electrons


1 A (Continuing) that orbit more or less like the

2 planets around the sun.

3 Q Could you tell us briefly what an isotope is?

4 A Yes. Differing atoms of the same element that have

5 different numbers of neutrons in a nucleus are called

6 isotopes of that particular element. The addition of a

7 neutron, more or less, as I said, does not change the

8 character of the element, it only changes the atomic

9 mass. And in some cases, when several neutrons are added

10 to the nucleus, the atom becomes unstable and becomes

11 radioactive.

12 Q Could you give an example of an isotope?

13 A Yes. Carbon-14, for example. The element, Carbon,

14 normally contains six protons. Ordinary carbon contains

15 six neutrons, as well, giving it an atomic mass of

16 twelve. That is usually indicated by the capital letter

17 C, for carbon, and the superscript in the upper left hand

18 corner denotes it being Carbon-12 for the atomic mass. If

19 we add two neutrons to that atom, it can become Carbon-14,

20 which is designated C-14.

21 Carbon-14, because of those two extra neutrons, is

22 unstable and is radioactive, whereas Carbon-12 is not

23 radioactive.

24 Q Why did geochronologists rely upon radiometric

25 dating techniques rather than other techniques?

A Because radioactivity is the only process that we


1 A (Continuing) know of that's been constant through

2 time for billions of years.

3 Q Is radioactive decay affected by external factors?

4 A No, radioactive decay is not affected by external

5 factors. That's one reason we think it's been constant

6 for a long time.

7 Q Could you give an example of processes that are

8 affected by external factors.

9 A Yes. Examples would be the rates of erosion or the

10 rates of sedimentation. That is the rate that sediments

11 are deposited into the oceans and lakes. Both of those

12 processes are affected by the amount of annual and daily

13 rainfall, they are affected by the height of the

14 continents above sea level, they are affected by the

15 amount of wind, and so forth.

16 We know that all those factors vary with time, both on a

17 daily and annual basis, and, therefore, the rates are not

18 constant. They can't be used to calculate ages of any

19 sort.

20 Q Do creation scientists rely on the rates of erosion

21 or sedimentation in their attempts to date the age of the

22 earth?

23 A Yes. In some of their literature they have used

24 both of those techniques, and that is a good example of

25 how unscientific some of their estimates are, because


1 A (Continuing) again, these processes have not been

2 constant over time.

3 Q Could you tell us why radioactive decay rates are

4 basically impervious to external factors?

5 A It's basically because the nucleus of an atom is

6 extremely well protected from its surroundings. And also

7 because radioactive decay is a spontaneous process that

8 arises only from the nucleus; it's not affected by

9 external factors.

10 The cloud of electrons that surrounds the nucleus of an

11 atom provides very good protection against external

12 forces. And also the strength of the nuclear glue, the

13 strength of the nuclear binding, is among the strongest

14 forces in nature. This is one reason why scientists have

15 to use powerful and extensive accelerators in atomic

16 reactors to penetrate the nucleus of an atom. It's really

17 tough to get in there.

18 Q Have scientists tested and measured those decay

19 rates under various circumstances to see whether they

20 would be affected by external forces?

21 A Yes. There has been a variety of tests over the

22 past number of decades addressing exactly that point. And

23 they found, for example, that decay rates do not change

24 with extremes of temperature, from a hundred ninety-six

25 degrees below zero Centigrade to two thousand degrees


1 A (Continuing) Centigrade. The rates were not

2 affected.

3 At pressures of a vacuum or two thousand atmosphere, for

4 example, thirty thousand pounds per square inch, we found

5 that the combining of radioactive isotopes in different

6 chemical compounds does not affect the decay rates.

7 Q Have any tests ever shown any change in the decay

8 rates of any of the particular isotopes geochronologists

9 use in radiometric dating?

10 A None. They've always been found to be constant.

11 Q Are changes in decay rates of various isotopes at

12 least theoretically possible?

13 A Yes. Theoretically in some instances, and let me

14 explain that. There are three principal types of decay

15 involved in radioactive dating techniques. One is alpha

16 decay. That's the decay that involves the ejection of an

17 alpha particle from the nucleus of the atom. Another is

18 beta decay. That involves the injection of something like

19 an electron - it's called a beta particle - from the

20 nucleus.

21 Theory tell us that neither of those types of decay can

22 be affected by external factors, and in fact, none of the

23 experiments have ever shown any effect on either alpha or

24 beta decay.

25 There is a third type of decay called electron capture,


1 A (Continuing) where an orbital electron falls into

2 the nucleus and converts a proton into a neutron. That

3 type of radioactive decay, because the original electron

4 comes from the electron shell, one can imagine if you

5 depress that shell a little bit, you might increase the

6 probability of the electron falling into the nucleus.

7 Theory tell us that such changes in electron capture

8 decay are possible, but theory also tells us that those

9 changes should be very small. And in fact, the maximum

10 changes ever detected or ever forced have been the

11 Beryllium-7, and that changes only one-tenth of one

12 percent. No larger.

13 There have never been any changes affecting any of the

14 decays being used for radioactive dating.

15 Q Do creation scientists challenge the constancy of

16 those radioactive decay processes?

17 A Yes, they do. There have done that on a number of

18 occasions.

19 Q Have they advanced any scientific evidence to

20 support their challenge?

21 A None whatsoever.

22 Q Did they use the relevant data on the decay rates

23 in a fair and objective manner, in your professional

24 opinion?

25 A No. In fact, they frequently cite irrelevant or


1 A (Continuing) misleading data in their claims of

2 decay rates change.

3 Q Could you give an example?

4 A Yes, I can give two examples. The first is in an

5 Institute for Creation Research technical monograph

6 written by Harold Slusher entitled, I believe, A Critique

7 of Radiometric Dating.

8 In that publication he makes the statement that the

9 decay rates of Iron-57 have been changed by as much as

10 three percent by strong electric fields. The problem with

11 that is that Iron-57 is not radioactive. Iron-57 is a

12 stable isotope. When Iron-57, it does undergo an internal

13 conversion decay, and by that I mean simply a mechanism

14 for getting rid of some excess energy. And that type of

15 decay does also have a decay rate, but it's completely

16 irrelevant to radioactive dating.

17 So when Iron-57 decays, "by internal conversion", it

18 remains Iron-57. One of the dating schemes used in

19 geology involved internal conversions. So the example of

20 Iron-57 cited by Slusher is simply irrelevant.

21 And in fact, he did reference his source of that data,

22 and I've been unable to confirm the fact that Iron-57

23 decay rates by internal conversion have been changed, so

24 I'm not sure that's even true.



1 Q But even if it were true, it would be irrelevant

2 because Iron-57 would remain Iron-57?

3 A That's exactly right.

4 Q And the isotope techniques you rely upon are

5 changed from one element to another?

6 A That's true.

7 Q Could you give, another example?

8 A Yes. Another example frequently cited is the use

9 of neutrinos. They frequently claim that neutrinos might

10 change decay rates. There are several things wrong with

11 that hypothesis also. The first thing, the source of

12 their statement was a column in Industrial Research by

13 Frederich Houtermanns entitled Speculative Science or

14 something. Scientific Speculation is the title of his

15 column.

16 And without any empirical evidence whatsoever,

17 Houtermanns speculated the neutrinos might somehow effect

18 radioactive clocks. But there is no theory for that and

19 there is no empirical evidence that such is the case.

20 The creationists conveniently leave out the speculative

21 nature of that particular idea.

22 The second thing is that neutrinos are extremely small

23 particles. They have virtually no mass or little mass and

24 no charge. They were first postulated by Pauli back in

25 the 1930's as a way of an atom carrying off excess energy


1 A (Continuing) when it decays by beta decay. They

2 interact so little with matter, in fact, that they're very

3 difficult to detect, and it's several decades later before

4 they were even detected. Neutrinos can pass completely

5 through the earth without interacting with the matter, and

6 there's no reason at all to suspect that they would change

7 the decay rates or alter the decay rates in any way.

8 Finally, the creationists typically argue that neutrinos

9 might reset the atomic clock. I am not quite sure what

10 they mean by that, but if it's used in the usual sense, to

11 reset a clock means starting it back at zero. The effect

12 of that would be that all of our radiometric dating

13 techniques would overestimate the geologic ages and ages

14 of the earth, not underestimate them. So that works

15 against their hypothesis.

16 Q If they reset the clocks, then the test results

17 from that resetting would show the earth to be younger

18 than in fact?

19 A Yes. What, in fact, we would have would be a

20 minimum age instead of a correct age. So it works in

21 exactly the opposite direction.

22 Q In addition to questioning the constancy of the

23 decay rates, do creation scientists make other criticisms

24 of radiometric dating?

25 A Yes. One of their other criticisms is that your


1 A (Continuing) parent or daughter isotopes might be

2 either added or subtracted from the rock between the time

3 of its formation and the time it would be measured. And

4 they commonly say that since we can't know whether or not

5 the daughter or parent isotopes have been added or

6 subtracted, therefore, we have no basis for assuming they

7 are not, or for calculating an age from this data.

8 Q Is that commonly referred to as the closed

9 system-open system problem?

10 A Yes. Basically all radiometric dating techniques

11 require - most of them do, not all - most of them

12 require that the rock system, the piece of rock or the

13 mineral they were measuring, has been a closed system

14 since the time of crystallization up until the time that we

15 measure.

16 And what they're basically saying is that we have no way

17 of knowing whether they have been a closed system or not.

18 Q What steps do geochronologists take to insure that

19 the samples they test have remained closed systems and

20 have not changed since they were initially formed?

21 A We try to be fairly careful with that. We don't

22 run out and pick up just any rock and subject it to these

23 expensive and time consuming tests. There are several

24 different ways we go about this. The first thing is, we

25 can observe the geological circumstances in which the


1 A (Continuing) sample occurs. And that tells us a

2 lot about the history of that sample, what kinds of

3 external factors it might have been subjected to.

4 The second thing is that there are microscopic

5 techniques that we can use to examine the rock in detail

6 and tell, whether or not it's likely to have been a closed

7 system since its formation.

8 You see, all things that can affect the rock system in

9 terms of opening it also leave other evidence behind, like

10 changes in minerals that we can observe. So we have

11 pretty good field and laboratory techniques which will

12 tell in advance whether a system has been a closed system

13 or an open system.

14 Q Do you, yourself, engage in that testing process?

15 A Oh, yes, all the time. As a result, I personally

16 reject perhaps a half to three-quarters of all samples for

17 dating just for that very reason that the samples are not

18 suitable. This rejection is done before we get any

19 results.

20 Q Once you have a sample which you believe has not

21 changed since formation, is there any objective way to

22 test a sample to determine whether you're right or wrong?

23 A Yes. There are a number of objective ways to do

24 that. These ways rely on the results themselves.

25 Q Do the results themselves show whether the sample has

changed its formation?


1 A Yes, they do.

2 Q If the results of a test showed that a sample had changed

3 since formation, is that sample then utterly

4 worthless?

5 A No, not at all. We are not always interested in

6 the age of the rock, For example, sometime we are

7 interested in the age of the heating events. If, for

8 example, a rock body has been subjected to heating, we

9 might be more interested in what event caused that heating

10 than the usual crystallization age of the rock, so that

11 usually these kinds of results give us other kinds of

12 information.

13 They also tell us a good deal about the state of that

14 sample, whether or not it has been an open or closed

15 system. So just because we don't get a reliable

16 crystallization age doesn't mean that we aren't getting

17 other information.

18 For example, we might end up with the age of the heating

19 events which would be an extremely valuable piece of

20 information. Sometimes just knowing the sample has not

21 been a closed system is an extremely valuable piece of

22 information.

23 So we use these dating techniques for lots of things

24 other than determining the age of the rock sample.

25 Q How many methods are there for determining


1 Q (Continuing) subjectively whether a sample has been

2 changed since formation?

3 A Well, there are quite a variety, but I think they

4 can be lumped into about four categories. Those include

5 dating two minerals from the same rock; using two

6 different techniques on the same rock; other tests that

7 are called geological consistency tests, and finally,

8 there is a category of techniques called isochron

9 techniques that also serve that purpose.

10 Q Could you briefly describe the first method?

11 A Yes. In dating of two minerals from the same rock,

12 the reason we do that is because different minerals

13 respond in different ways to external factors.

14 For example, in the potassium argon method, the daughter

15 product is argon, which is a rare gas. It's not terribly

16 happy being inside minerals. It doesn't chemically

17 combine with any of the other elements there.

18 If we take the mineral biotite, that's a mica, for

19 example, and date that with the potassium argon method,

20 then we also date the mineral hornblende with the

21 potassium argon method, if there has been an external

22 influence on this system, we expect those two minerals to

23 respond differently.

24 This is because the biotite would start to release its

25 argon at temperatures of perhaps two-fifty to three


1 A (Continuing) hundred degrees centigrade, whereas

2 the hornblende would reach six or seven hundred degrees

3 centigrade before it starts to release its argon.

4 There, of course, has been a heating event of, let's say

5 hypothetically five hundred degrees, we would expect to

6 see argon loss or younger ages from the biotites, whereas

7 the hornblende might retain all of its argon completely.

8 The main point is that when we get a discrepancy like

9 this, we know that something has happened to the system

10 that made it, violate our assumption of a closed system,

11 and that's valuable information.

12 Q And if you get that result, you then do not use

13 that sample to postulate an age for the initial formation

14 of the samples?

15 A That's right. The results themselves tell us that

16 that would be a very dangerous conclusion to come to. But

17 we can postulate that there has been something happen to

18 that rock.

19 Q Go to the second method you use.

20 A The second method involves using two different

21 dating techniques on the same rock. This has a couple of

22 advantages. It's a little more powerful than the first

23 method.

24 For example, if we use the potassium argon method, which

25 has a half life of one point two five billion years, and


1 A (Continuing) we use the rubidium strontium method,

2 which has a half life of forty-eight point eight billion

3 years, we essentially have two clocks running at different

4 speeds but keeping the same time.

5 If I could use an analogy, we might have two

6 wristwatches. One wristwatch might use a balance wheel

7 that rotates back and forth five times a second. On the

8 other hand we might have a digital watch that uses a

9 little quartz crystal that operates at a speed of, let's

10 say, twenty thousand times a second. We, then, have two

11 watches that are ticking at different rates but keeping

12 the same time. That same advantage accrues to using two

13 different methods on the same rock.

14 The second advantage is the daughter products are

15 different. The daughter product of the potassium argon

16 method is argon. It's a rare gas. It behaves quite

17 differently to heating, whether in alteration, than does

18 strontium-87, which is the daughter product of the

19 rubidium strontium method. Strontium-87 is not a gas,

20 it's a chemical element that likes to be in chemical

21 combination with certain other things in a rock.

22 So again we expect a different response.

23 Q Does testing a sample with the two or more

24 techniques frequently yield the same age for that sample?

25 A Yes. Particularly in the cases where we know from


1 A (Continuing) other evidence that the sample has

2 been undisturbed, we commonly get that result.

3 Q What do creation scientists say about age

4 agreements between different techniques?

5 A Well, they usually just ignore them. They don't

6 pay any attention to them at all.

7 Q Does testing a sample with two or more techniques

8 ever yield different rates for that sample?

9 A Yes. Quite often it does.

10 Q What do creation scientists say about those age

11 disagreements?

12 A Well, they usually use those disagreements and

13 purport that they have evidence that the techniques don't

14 work.

15 Q Is that a scientific assessment of the evidence?

16 A Well, no. There are several things wrong with

17 that. In the first place, when we get disagreements, they

18 are almost invariably caused by some external factor that

19 has caused one of the clocks to read in a way that's too

20 young. It gives us an age that is too young.

21 The second thing is that age that is too young might

22 measure, for example, the age of the event. Those ages

23 that are too young are still millions and millions of

24 years old, which, even though we don't have agreement

25 between the techniques, still contradict the hypothesis


1 A (Continuing) of an earth less than ten thousand

2 years old.

3 Finally, the reason for doing these kinds of tests is to

4 determine in advance upon the results themselves whether

5 or not the technique is reliable. Therefore, they are

6 using our very test method as a criticism of the method

7 itself, and I sort of consider that dirty pool. It's not

8 very honest.

9 Q What's the third method commonly used to test the

10 changes in a sample?

11 A Well, the third method involves geological

12 consistency. Rocks don't occur all by themselves. They

13 usually are surrounded by other rocks, and the

14 relationship of the sample to these other rocks can be

15 determined.

16 Perhaps the simplest example might be a lava flow. If

17 we have a stack of lava flows from a volcano and we are

18 interested in determining the age of that volcano or that

19 stack of lava flows, we wouldn't just date one rock. We

20 would date one from the top of the sequence, perhaps; we

21 would date one from the bottom of the sequence, and we

22 might date eight or ten intermediate in the sequence.

23 We know because of the way lava flows form, one on top

24 of the other, that all of those ages should either be the

25 same or they should become progressively older as you go


1 A (Continuing) down in the pile.

2 If, in fact, we get random or chaotic results, that

3 tells us that something is wrong about our assumption of

4 the closed system, so we can use a variety of geological

5 consistency tests like this to test the results as well.

6 Q What is the fourth method that you rely upon?

7 A Well, the fourth is really a family of methods

8 called isochron techniques.

9 Q How do the isochron techniques differ from the

10 other techniques you've just mentioned?

11 A These are techniques that have especially built in

12 checks and balances, so that we can tell from the results

13 themselves, without making any other assumptions, whether

14 or not the techniques are giving reliable ages.

15 Some isochron techniques really work very well, and work

16 best on open systems. Isochron techniques typically yield

17 two important results. One is, most of the isochron

18 techniques are able to tell us the amount and composition

19 of any initial daughter that is present. That's not

20 something we need to assume, it's something that falls out

21 of the calculations.

22 The second thing is that the isochron techniques tell us

23 very clearly whether a sample has been opened or closed.

24 If the sample is still an isochron, then we know that that


1 A (Continuing) sample is a good closed system. If we

2 don't get an isochron, we know that something is wrong

3 with the sample. And we get these results just from the

4 experimental data themselves, without any other geological

5 consideration.

6 So they are ultimately self-checking, and they are one

7 of the most common, surefire ways to date rocks.

8 Q Have creation scientist's produced any evidence or

9 suggested any plausible theory to support their assertion

10 that the earth is only about ten thousand years old?

11 A No. I know of no plausible theory that they

12 suggest. They have proposed several methods that don't

13 work.

14 Q Have you looked into the creation science claim

15 that the decay of the earth's magnetic field shows a young

16 earth?

17 A Yes. I've looked into that in some detail. That

18 is rather fully described in an Institute for Creation

19 Research technical monograph by Thomas Barnes, which if I

20 recall correctly is titled The Origin and Destiny of the

21 Earth's Magnetic Field.

22 Let me try to explain briefly what Barnes asserts. For

23 the last hundred and fifty years or so, since 1835,

24 scientists have analyzed the earth's magnetic field, and

25 they have noticed that the dipole moment, and we can think


1 A (Continuing) of that just as the strength of the

2 main magnetic field, has decreased, and it has decreased

3 in intensity over the last hundred and fifty years.

4 The decrease amounts to about six or seven percent.

5 Barnes claims that the earth's magnetic fields are

6 decaying remnants of a field that was originally created

7 at the time the earth was created, and that it is

8 irreversible decaying and will eventually vanish, in about

9 nine or ten thousand years.

10 What Barnes does is assume that this decay is

11 exponential. Actually you can't tell whether it's

12 exponential within the earth, but he assumes it's

13 exponential going back to a hypothesis proposed by,

14 actually a model proposed by Sir Forrest Land back in the

15 eighteen hundreds.

16 Land is not talking about the magnetic field, though.

17 He gives the mathematical calculations that Barnes uses.

18 Barnes then calculates a half life with this presumed

19 exponential decay, extrapolates backwards in time and

20 concludes that in 8000 B.C. the strength of the earth's

21 dipole moment would have been the same as the strength of

22 the magnetic star.

23 And since that is obviously absurd, and I would have to

24 agree that that would be absurd, therefore, the earth must

25 be less than ten thousand years old.


1 Q What is wrong with that claim?

2 A Well, there are quite a few things wrong with that

3 claim. To start with, Barnes only considers the dipole

4 field. The earth's magnetic field, to a first

5 approximation, is like a dipole. That is, it produces the

6 same field as would a large bar magnet, roughly parallel

7 to the axis of rotation of the earth, lining across the

8 merging poles, circle around the earth, and return back in

9 at the other pole. But that's not the whole story.

10 That's only the part that Barnes works with.

11 The other component of the magnetic field is the

12 non-dipole field. These are irregularities that are

13 superimposed on the dipole field and amount to a

14 considerable proportion of the total field.

15 Finally, theory tells us that there is probably another

16 very large component of the magnetic field inside the core

17 of the earth that we can't observe because the line of the

18 flux are closed.

19 So Barnes makes several mistakes. First, he equates the

20 dipole field with the total earth's field, which it's

21 not. It's only a part of the earth's field. And second,

22 he equates the dipole field strength with the total

23 magnetic energy. And both of those extrapolations are

24 completely unjustified.

25 Careful studies of the non-dipole and dipole field over


1 A (Continuing) the past fifty years have shown that

2 the decrease in the dipole field is exactly balanced by an

3 increase in the strength of the non-dipole field.

4 In fact, over the last fifty years, as far as we can

5 tell, there has been no decay in total field energy

6 external to the core at all. Similar studies over the

7 last hundred and twenty years show a very slight decrease

8 in the total field energy external to the core. So in

9 fact, we don't know exactly what's happening to the total

10 field energy.

11 And finally, paleomagnetic observations have shown that

12 the strength of the dipole moment doesn't decrease

13 continually in one direction, but it oscillates with

14 periods of a few thousand years. So it goes up for a

15 while and goes down for a while. At the same time the

16 non-dipole field is also changing.

17 And lastly, he completely ignores geomagnetic

18 reversals. Paleomagnetic studies of rocks have shown

19 conclusively that the earth's field has periodically, in

20 the past, reversed polarities, so that the North Pole

21 becomes the South Pole, and vice versa. This happens

22 rather frequently geologically, that is, hundreds of

23 thousands to millions of years at a time.

24 We now have a pretty good time scale for those reversals

25 over the last ninety million years. And Barnes completely


1 A (continuing) ignores that evidence.

2 One thing we do know about geomagnetic reversals from

3 the evidence, of rocks is that during the process of the

4 field reversing, the dipole moment decays.

5 Q What do creation scientists say about the

6 possibility of the polarity reversals?

7 A Well, they claim that they can't happen, and they

8 claim that they have not happened.

9 Q Is there any basis for that claim?

10 A No, none whatsoever. The paleomagnetic evidence is

11 very sound, and, in fact, it's verified by other evidence

12 as well.

13 It's also interesting to note that the earth's field is

14 not the only field that reverses polarity. For example,

15 in 1953, the dipole field of the sun was positive polarity

16 in the North and negative polarity in the South pole.

17 Over the next few years the strength of the sun's dipole

18 field began to decrease, very much in the same way that

19 the strengths of the earth's dipole field is now

20 decreasing, until within a few years it had vanished

21 entirely. It couldn't be measured from the earth.

22 Then gradually it began to reestablish itself, and by

23 1958 the sun's dipole field was completely reversed, so

24 that the North Pole, instead of being positive, was now

25 negative, and vice versa for the South Pole.


1 A (Continuing) So geomagnetic reversals are not a

2 surprising phenomena, and in fact, they are expected.

3 Magnetic reversals have also been seen in the stars.

4 Q But creation scientists just deny that that happens?

5 A Well, they never mention that. It's simply ignored.

6 Q Do creation science arguments for a young earth

7 rely on the cooling of the earth?

8 A Yes. They commonly use that argument. And again,

9 that argument is one that has been championed by Thomas

10 Barnes and some of the patrons of the Institute of

11 Creation Research.

12 That particular theory, or idea, goes back to an idea

13 championed by Lord Kelvin (Thomson) who started in the

14 mid-eighteen hundreds. At that time you must remember

15 that there was no such thing as radioactivity. By that I

16 mean it had not been discovered yet.

17 Kelvin observed that the temperature of the earth

18 increased as it went downward from the surface. That is,

19 he observed the geothermal gradient. He had started with

20 the assumption that the earth started from a white hot

21 incandescent sphere and it cooled to its present state.

22 So he calculated how long that would take.

23 His first estimates were something between twenty and

24 four hundred million years. Later he settled on

25 twenty-four million years, which was not his figure, but


1 A (Continuing) it was a figure that was first

2 calculated by the geologist Clarence King, who quite

3 incidentally was the first director of the Geological Survey.

4 The problem with total analysis in Barnes championing of

5 this thing is that partly he took a physical way to

6 calculate the age of the earth. The problem with that is

7 that in 1903 Rutherford and Soddy demonstrated

8 conclusively that there's an enormous amount of energy

9 available in radioactive decay. In fact, all of the heat

10 now pouring outward from the earth can be accounted for

11 solely by radioactive elements in the earth's crust and

12 mantle.

13 Kelvin never publicly recanted his views, but in the

14 history of his life it has been recorded that he privately

15 admitted that the discovery by Rutherford and Soddy that

16 said this enormous energy is from radioactive decay had

17 completely disproved his hypothesis. Even Kelvin knew it

18 was wrong.

19 It's quite amazing to me that the creationists would

20 hold such an idea for a couple of reasons. The first

21 reason being that we've known for all these centuries that

22 Kelvin's calculations were completely irrelevant. And the

23 second thing is that Kelvin thought the earth was billions

24 of years old.

25 Q Do creation scientists rely on the accumulation of meteor

dust as evidence for a young age of the earth?


1 A Yes. That's another one that they claim. And I've

2 looked into it some, and if you don't mind, I'd like to

3 refer to some notes on that so that I get the figures

4 straight.

5 Q Could you explain that creation science claim?

6 A Yes. Morris, in 1974, and also a book by Wysong in

7 1966, both claim that there's evidence that the influx of

8 meteoric dust to the earth is fourteen million tons per

9 year.

10 And they calculate that if the earth were five billion

11 years old, this should result in a layer of meteoric dust

12 on the earth a hundred and eight-five feet thick. And

13 they say, "How absurd, we don't observe this," of course.

14 There are some problems with that, however. They are

15 relying on calculations done by a man by the name of

16 Peterson in 1960. What Peterson did was collect volumes

17 of air from the top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, using

18 a pump originally developed for smog, I believe.

19 Then he thought about the dust. Then he analyzed this

20 dust for nickel content. He observed that nickel was a

21 fairly rare element on the earth's crust. That's not

22 exactly true, but that was the assumption that he used.

23 And he assumed that the meteoric dust had a nickel

24 content of two and half percent. So using the mass of

25 dust that he had and the nickel content of the dust and an


1 A (Continuing) assumed two and a half percent nickel

2 content for meteoric material, he was able to calculate

3 the annual volume of meteoric dust that flowed into the

4 earth.

5 He came up with a figure of about fifteen million tons

6 per year, but when he weighed all of the evidence, he

7 finally concluded that perhaps, about five million tons per

8 year was about right.

9 Morris, on the other hand, and Wysong, both choose the

10 higher number, I think because that makes the layer of

11 dust thicker.

12 The problem with that is that nickel is not all that

13 uncommon in the earth's crust, and probably Peterson was

14 measuring a lot of contamination.

15 There have been more recent estimates than Peterson's.

16 In 1968, for example, Barker and Anders made an estimate

17 of the meteoric influx of cosmic dust based on the uranium

18 osmium contents, which are extremely rare, of matter in

19 deep sea sediments. And they came up with an influx

20 figure that was a factor of twenty-three lower than

21 Peterson's figure, and, therefore, twenty-three times

22 lower than the figure used by Morris.

23 Probably the best completely independent estimates,

24 however, are based on satellite data, satellite

25 penetration data. That is, the number and the mass of

particles distract satellites as they orbit the earth.


1 A (Continuing) And NASA collected quite a bit of

2 these data in the 1960's.

3 There was a review of that done in 1972, and you note

4 that that information was available when Morris and Wysong

5 wrote their book, but they didn't cite it.

6 Q What does that NASA data show?

7 A Well, that showed that the influx of meteoric

8 materials was, in fact, not fourteen million tons or even

9 five million tons per year, but more like eleven thousand

10 tons per year. In other words, two orders of magnitude

11 lower.

12 And coming out here on the plane, I redid Morris'

13 calculations using these better figures, and I came up

14 with a rough layer of four point six centimeters in five

15 billion years. And of course, with the rainfall and

16 everything, that simply would have been washed away.

17 There's an interesting aside. NASA was quite concerned

18 about the layer of dust on the moon. NASA estimated that

19 it would produce a layer of dust on the moon in four and a

20 half billion years of about one and half to perhaps

21 fifteen centimeters maximum. And in the least disturbed

22 areas of the moon, the astronauts measured a thickness of

23 about ten centimeters, so the observations agree exactly

24 with the predictions.

25 Q Do these observations on the moon prove that the


1 (Continuing) earth or the moon are, in fact, four

2 point five to five million years old?

3 A No, they don't prove anything whatsoever except

4 that there's dust on the moon. It's another one of those

5 processes that has a non-constant rate. We have more

6 reason to suspect that the rate of influx of meteoric dust

7 has been constant with time. In fact, we have a lot of

8 reasons to suspect that it is not.

9 For example, in the early history of the earth, four and

10 a half billion years ago when the earth was first formed,

11 it was sweeping up out of space enormous amounts of

12 material. During those periods of the earth's history, we

13 would expect the influx rate to be very, very high. Now

14 it's much lower.

15 The evidence indicates it has probably been constant for

16 perhaps the last ten million years. We have no idea what

17 the rate of influx of meteoric dust has been over geologic

18 history. So it's one of these things that you simply can't

19 use.

20 Q Do creation scientists rely upon the shrinking of

21 the sun?

22 A Yes. That's another one I've read, and that stems

23 from a paper, I think in the Institute of Creation

24 Research Impact, Number 82, published in April of 1980.

25 Their claim is based on a paper by Eddie Inpornasian (Aram

Boornazian) which was published in 1979. Using


1 A (Continuing) visual observations of the sun, Aram

2 Boornazian observed that they thought that the sun's

3 diameter was decreasing. And it was decreasing at such a

4 rate that in a hundred thousand years the sun would vanish

5 to a point.

6 And the creationists work this backwards and say that if

7 the earth was as old as geologists claim it was, then the

8 sun would have been very large in the past history, and

9 would have been so large that life would not have been

10 possible on the earth.

11 The problem with this particular calculation is that the

12 original data of Aram Boornazian was completely wrong.

13 There had been another study done by Irwin Shapiro of MIT,

14 who used twenty-three transits of mercury across the face

15 of the sun that occurred between 1736 and sometime within

16 the last few years, a much more accurate way to measure

17 the diameter of the sun than the techniques used by Aram

18 and his colleagues. Shapiro, his paper was published in

19 1980. He said rather conclusively that the sun's diameter

20 is not changing at all. The sun is not shrinking or it's

21 not growing.

22 Q Are you aware of other supposed tests for the

23 earth's age proposed by creation scientists?

24 A Yes. There are a number of them in a book by

25 Morris called, I believe, The Scientific Case for Creation.

As I recall, he proposes about seventy


1 A (Continuing) different methods that he lists. They

2 ranged all the way from influx of soda aluminum into the

3 oceans, for which he gets a figure of a hundred years, I

4 believe, to influx of magma into the crust, for which he

5 gets a figure of five hundred million years.

6 MR. ENNIS: Your Honor, Plaintiffs have previously

7 marked for identification excerpts from that particular

8 book that include approximately six pages to which Doctor

9 Dalrymple might refer in his testimony. I have given

10 copies of those additional six pages to the Attorney

11 General.

12 If there is no objection, I'd like for those six pages

13 to be added and included with Plaintiffs' Exhibit

14 Eighty-Six for identification.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MR. ENNIS: (Continuing)

17 Q I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit Eighty-Six

18 for identification.

19 A Okay.

20 Q Does Mr. Morris, in that book, acknowledge any

21 assumptions he used in deciding which of those tests to

22 rely upon and which not to rely upon?

23 A Yes, he does. On page 53 he makes the following

24 statement: "It is equally legitimate for creationists to

25 calculate apparent ages using assumptions which agree with


1 A (Continuing) their belief in special creation,

2 provided they acknowledge that fact. And then he goes on

3 to present seventy such calculations, most of which are

4 made by him and his colleagues, but some of which he

5 refers to the scientific literature.

6 Q What do those seventy tests supposedly show?

7 A Well, Morris approaches this in a rather strange

8 way. He says, "I'm going to make all these calculations

9 for the age of the earth using these assumptions," and

10 then gets a variety of results, ranging from too small to

11 measure, to, I don't know, five hundred million years,

12 something like that.

13 And he says, "Look how inconsistent the results are. As

14 you see, we really can't calculate the age of the earth."

15 However, he thinks that the young ages are probably more

16 reliable than the old ages, basically because there would

17 have been less time for external factors to affect the

18 calculation.

19 The problem with these seventy ages is that most of them

20 rely on rates that are not constant. And these seventy

21 also include things like the magnetic field and meteoric

22 dust, which I have already discussed.

23 Sometimes, however, he uses very misleading and

24 erroneous data.

25 Q Could you give me an example of that?


1 A Yes, I can. There is one which is here, number

2 thirty-three. It's entitled, "Formation of Carbon 14 on

3 Meteorites." The age he lists is a hundred thousand

4 years, and the reference he gives is to a paper published

5 in 1972 by Boeckl. There is a problem with that, and that

6 is that Boeckl's: paper was not about meteorites at all;

7 Boeckl's paper was about tektites. Tektites are objects

8 which are thought to originate on the earth.

9 The second thing was that Boeckl was interested in

10 calculating the cosmic rays exposure ages for these

11 tektites. He wanted to know how long they had spent in

12 space.

13 In order to make the calculations he was trying to make,

14 he had to assume an initial age for the tektites. His

15 calculations were not terribly sensitive at all to what he

16 assumed, so he just assumed ten thousand years for his

17 particular purpose.

18 I don't know where Morris got a hundred thousand years.

19 That figure he must have made up. But the fact is that

20 Boeckl's paper wasn't about the subject Morris claims it

21 was. There was no data in Boeckl's paper that could be

22 used to calculate the age of the earth or anything else.

23 The one age that Boeckl was trying to calculate was the

24 residence time of these objects in space, and that's all.

25 So this is truly misleading and very unscientific.


1 Q Doctor Dalrymple, in conclusion, in your

2 professional opinion, is there any scientific evidence

3 which indicates a relatively recent inception of the earth?

4 A There is none whatsoever.

5 MR. ENNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: I think we probably ought to recess for

7 the night. How long do you think your cross examination

8 is going to be?

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Not very long, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: You are talking about five or ten

11 minutes?

12 MR. WILLIAMS: It will be a little longer. Might

13 take twenty minutes, or under.

14 THE COURT: Why don't we wait until tomorrow to do

15 it if you don't mind.

16 I found out today that GSA recalculated the cost of

17 driving an automobile, and it is not twenty-two and a half

18 cents a mile like they were paying us; it is twenty cents

19 a mile. And you can find some comfort in that, but I

20 think I am going to protest by quitting early today.

21 (Thereupon, Court was in recess

22 at 5:15 p.m.)







3 Witness:

4 On Behalf of the Plaintiffs:



7 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 449

8 Redirect Examination by Mr. Ennis Page 471

9 Recross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 486



12 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 494

13 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 577



16 Direct Examination by Mr. Novik Page 514

17 Cross Examination by Mr. Williams Page 611



20 Direct Examination by Mr. Cearley Page 641

21 Cross Examination by Mr. Childs Page 684










5 Plaintiffs' No. 121 474 474

6 Defendants' No. 1 486 486

7 Plaintiffs' No. 93 494 494

8 Plaintiffs' No. 96 515 515

9 Plaintiffs' No. 101 552 552

10 Plaintiffs' No. 123 556 556

11 Defendants' No. 2 616 616

12 Plaintiffs' No. 40 649 649

13 Plaintiffs' No. 41 - 50 660 660

14 Plaintiffs' No. 128 667 667

15 Defendants' No. 3 689 689












1 (December 9, 1981)

2 (9:00 a.m.)

3 THE COURT: I see you all made it back, and I

4 believe we are about to begin the cross examination of

5 Doctor Dalrymple.




8 Q Is constancy of the rate of radioactive decay a

9 requirement for radiometric dating?

10 A Yes. It is required that radiometric dating be

11 based on constant decay rates, at least within limits of

12 significant areas, and what I mean by that is that if the

13 decay rates were to change a percent or two, that would

14 probably not significantly alter any of our major

15 conclusions in geology.

16 Q To the best of your knowledge, has the rate of

17 radioactive decay always been constant?

18 A As far as we know from all the evidence we have, it

19 has always been constant. We have no, either empirical or

20 theoretical reason to believe it is not.

21 Q So as far as you know, it would have been constant

22 one billion years ago, the same as it is today.

23 A As far as we know.

24 Q Five billion years ago?

25 A As far as we know.