Piltdown Superman

Down Arkansas way, they have an interesting state park called Crater of Diamonds . Folks might get a mental image of a hole full of sparkling diamonds, but the crater is volcanic, and people commence searching for raw, uncut diamonds. Some find them, too. Cut diamonds that go onto jewelry are mighty expensive, but you can buy a 15-carat raw diamond for about $400 USD in some places. The park has the usual old-Earth propaganda that satisfies the owners of the Darwin Ranch, but those are dead wrong. Digging at Crater of Diamonds State Park Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Doug Wertman  ( CC BY 2.0 ) The Bearded Buddha needs deep time so he and his votaries can perform their magick, but the hands at the Darwin Ranch hate diamonds because they friendly to creation science . Not only does Crater of Diamonds State Park unwittingly have evidence that fits a Genesis Flood model, but diamonds themselves were tested and found to be a hostile witness to deep time. At Crater of Diamonds State...

Secular geologists will tell you that diamonds are several hundred millions years old, or more. However, there are certain facets of science that are conveniently ignored., showing that diamonds are nowhere near as old as believed. One of the main reasons for this is an a priori commitment to "deep time", since Darwinian evolution beliefs require huge amounts of time. Pixabay / studiopratisaad0 Diamonds form under intense heat and pressure under the earth's surface, and are one of the hardest materials (the Mohs scale of hardness gives it a 10). However, like opals , they can also be made by man. "Synthetic" diamonds have that qualifier because, although they're made of carbon like natural ones, the process itself is not from nature. (Also, don't confuse synthetic diamonds with cubic zirconia , that critter is chemically different but looks like a diamond.) The fact that they can be home grown shows that it's conditions, not time, that are t...

Most of us have ideas about diamonds, how they're valuable, look mighty fine, the hardest substance on Earth, made of highly-organized carbon, have industrial uses, and are even useful in superconductors. (Maybe the lethal satellite in Diamonds Are Forever isn't so far-fetched?) The ones you see in jewellery stores or up for auction are specially cut and polished, rough (or "raw) diamonds look quite a bit different , and don't fetch quite a high price. Secular geologists assign dates of somewhere around a billion years old, but since radiocarbon exists in them, they are actually thousands of years old. They're also a bit of a mystery. So where do they come from? Image credit: Pixabay / Aenigmatis-3D Diamond deposits (and, naturally, diamond mines) are not everywhere on the planet. Also, they're unstable. They had to form way down yonder with Earth's basement rocks, and made the journey to the surface without breaking down into graphite. Creationar...

morgueFile/imelenchon (modified) Another evidence for a young Earth that uses uniformitarian assumptions against evolutionists is the existence of Carbon-14 in the wrong places. According to presuppositions about an ancient Earth and the fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods , Carbon-14 should not be found in things that are allegedly millions of years old, like diamonds. This is similar to the problem of the amount of helium in rocks , discussed previously. Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at bill...

Creationists will often see a fallacy called appeal to authority in discussions with atheists and evolutionists. We frequently encounter this at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interweb. While referring to an authority on a subject is legitimate, many tinhorns will refer to someone who has no qualifications in a subject, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins railing about theology. Atheists and anti-creationists get the bits in their teeth and ride hard to heavily biased atheistic storage facilities to find material on a subject, throw links at us, and essentially say, "I cited TalkOrigns! Case closed! " (Seems to me that this might qualify as confirmation bias , but I digress.) Citing those places is easier than thinking or reading creationary material, but those sites are unreliable; it is appeal to false authority in action. Recently, I made a post and said that opponents will go to the excuse mills. A furious atheopath proved me right by ignori...

Secular scientists have been stunned — stunned , I tell you — when C-14 has been found in diverse items (including diamonds) that they claim are millions of years old. For a mighty long time, their presuppositions prevented them from bothering to test these things for radiocarbon. Credit: GoodFreePhotos / Thorn Yang I'll allow that there are some things we simply know and do not feel a need to check; I know that when Basement Cat goes down the steps, she will not float to the ceiling because she's not equipped to defy gravity. When it comes to the age of the earth and things in it, believers in deep time do not actually know the facts (and some question those assumptions ). It is inferred, then they presuppose that previous assumptions are correct and that oil, diamonds, and so forth cannot have radiocarbon in them. But they do. That is because the earth is not billions of years old, and the best explanation can be backtracked to the Genesis Flood. Circle the wagons!...

This is the third in a three-part series on Carbon-14. Part 1 discussed the basics of Carbon-14 dating , and Part 2 pointed out a major dilemma for evolutionists : Carbon-14 is found where is should not be, according to their reckoning. This section points out that creationist models have to deal with date ranges that do not fit their  model, either. Also, there are assumptions that are made in all radiometric dating, and some greatly affect Carbon-14 dating. A Biblical creation model fitting the Noahician Flood geology is explored and offered as the best explanation. Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years? Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of...

Blue diamond by Kathy Reed This is the second of a three-part series on Carbon-14. Previously, the basics of the process were explained . This part brings up an interesting dilemma: Why is it found in rocks that are allegedly millions of years old? Carbon-14 should have vanished after 5,730 years. Excuses are made about bad measurements and  contamination , but those do not withstand scrutiny. If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old. Many people think that scientists use radiocarbon to date fossils. After all, we should be able to estimate how long ago a creature lived based on how much radiocarbon is left in its body, right? To finish reading "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds, an Evolution Enigma", click here . 

Ancient-Earth advocates don't cotton to using carbon-14 to date fossils, coal, diamonds and such because it has an upper limit of about 60,000 years according to their reckoning. Why test things that they "know" are billions of years old, since there won't be any found anyway? Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions has hindered scientific research (such as claiming that the appendix is a "vestigial structure" leftover from our alleged evolutionary past, doing damage to people, then finding out that it's useful). What's interesting is that scientists have found carbon-14 in old materials. Some owlhoots rush to say, "Contamination!", which not only impugns the skills of the technicians, but is also very unrealistic. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research have been doing carbon-14 studies, and are continuing their work. The results are promising, supporting the Genesis Flood model and causing consternation for unifo...

One of the ways that evolution hinders scientific progress is because of the multitude of assumptions made. For instance, so-called "junk DNA" was not thoroughly investigated for many years because it was presumed that since scientists did not understand all of it, it must be junk from our putative evolutionary past. Then evolutionists were embarrassed to learn that it's not junk after all . Dinosaur bones were not tested because of the presumption that they've been extinct for millions of years. Soft tissues were a real shocker ! Test diamonds for carbon-14? That's absurd, they're billions of years old and there will be none of that. Wrong, carbon-14 is in diamonds ! Carbon-14 physics/Wikimedia Commons Similarly, carbon-14 should not be in natural gas wells, so evolutionists did not bother to look. A creationist scientist had testing done, wrote up a peer-reviewed paper that was published by the prestigious Creation Research Society, and did an inter...

stock.xchng/amalrik We keep seeing that evolutionary scientists are locked into their preconceptions and are unwilling to change their frameworks to fit the data. They also insist on their assumptions, including that the decay rate of the radioactive materials used in the measurements is constant . Although there is abundant evidence for a young Earth, such data are discarded as "wrong" because they do not fit. People believe the stories that the age of the Earth is "proved" by radiometric dating, but are unaware that the dating methods disagree. In fact, they disagree a great deal. And yet, it appears that many of the scientists are comfortable with the conflicting data. Even when the age of rocks are actually known, radiometric dating is amazingly inaccurate. How weird is that? When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they? Fossil wood...

Thinking people may find this hard to believe, but there are scum-to-skeptic evolutionists who insist that Bible-believing scientists are not really scientists despite their credentials. (Reminds me of that bumper sticker I used to see here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" In their case, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!") Some of this is also related to the claim that creation science is a "science stopper" because creationists believe that "God did it", and do not investigate further. Not hardly! Creationists give God the glory, but don't stop, they want to know how God designed things to work. Ironically, "Evolution did it™" is the real science stopper. Coal, diamonds, fossils, other things were not tested for carbon-14 because they "knew" there was none in those items; they were too old. It was found in many things after reluctant testing. Scientists "knew" th...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, with research by David Harrison This is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Science supports creation and is hostile to evolution, even though Darwin's ranch hands get all het up about the facts and conjure up train loads of fact-free excuses. Some of the more recent events include: The refutation of "junk" DNA (which creationists predicted was not junk at all, and were proved right) The magnetic fields of several planets fit creationist predictions while evolutionary predictions were astronomically (heh!) wrong Uninformed remarks by C. Richard Dawkins and others about "bad design" have been refuted Carbon-14 where it "doesn't belong", such as coal, diamonds, and so forth The amazing complexity of biology, down to the cellular level Stars and galaxies convolute "deep time" cosmology Various planets, their moons (as well as our own), and other things in the solar system are not acting "old...

G'day. Uniformitarian explanations for the very complicated formation of the opal are inadequate, and biblical creationist theories involving their formation due to the Genesis Flood fit the data far better. It is not time, not millions of years, but conditions that make the difference. In fact, opals can be made in laboratories in a matter of weeks! For that matter, diamonds can be made in labs , too. morgueFile / cohdra This attractive gemstone is mainly found in a certain area of Australia. (There are some bland common opals, but you're not likely to find them mounted in a ring.) You can get fine opal jewellery on a cattle baron's salary, but even the ranch hand that works for him can save up and afford a good-looking piece his own self, too. Precious opal, with its dazzling display of brilliant blues, greens, yellows, and fiery reds, is one of the most recognizable Australian icons. More than 95 percent of the world’s opals are mined in this one country, exp...

Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) dating is not the thing that believers in deep time use to affirm that Earth is old. This is a common mistake. Instead, C-14 is used to get a handle on the age of something organic. C-14 atoms are unstable, and their therapy is to break down into nitrogen-14, which is a random process (for more on how it works, see " Carbon-14 Dating — Understanding the Basics "). Since C-14 does not last a huge amount of time, it has been somewhat useful to approximate the ages of some things. It is helpful to corroborate it with historical artifacts. Charcoal is almost entirely carbon, Pixabay / Rudy and Peter Skitterians Carbon-14 itself is affected by conditions on Earth. Nuclear bomb experiments decades ago made big changes, but also gave scientists some calibration. However, that is dissipating. In addition, carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions is hindering the effectiveness of carbon-14. This will be problematic for old-Earth advocates, who are still deali...

Radiometric dating is fraught with difficulties. These include conflicting results , no sign of anything resembling calibration, and especially a number of assumptions . When radioactive elements decay, they turn into a different, stable element (parent-daughter): Rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon and so on. The assumptions are: They know how much of the parent and daughter elements exist, no outside factors affected the quantities, and that the rate of change remained constant. Results from radiometric dating are varied, and the scientists can choose the results that best suit their preconceptions. But there have been problems with Carbon-14. This is primarily used on organic materials, and there should be no  detectable Carbon-14 in materials that are allegedly older than 100,000 years, such as diamonds . But it's there, and they make excuses such as "lab contamination". Carbon-14 yields results that do not fit with evolutionary time scales. When usi...

There are some things we know because we know them. You know? That is, we have some things we presuppose without verification. When we discover that we had something wrong, we are often surprised. Since this is human nature, it happens in science as well. Dr Sherry Mayo operating the XuM ultra-high resolution X-ray microscope Photo by Mark Fergus for CSIRO ( CC BY 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents; this is a picture of a scientist doing science stuff) If you study on it, things that are taken for granted and "conventional wisdom" can be overturned with a bit of research or testing. Sometimes that startles us reg'lar people, and I reckon it does the same for scientists. One example is that because of their presuppositions of deep time and evolution, carbon-14 dating of coal, diamonds and other items was slow in happening because they "knew" there would be no carbon in them. There was carbon in them after all, and those of us who support rec...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Scoffers of the Genesis Flood often ask where all the water went, and biblical creationists point out that Earth is 70 percent covered by water. Also, if the earth were completely smooth, it would be completely covered by water. But there's more. Credit: NASA / ISS 42 / Terry Virts (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) Something secularists detest (as do many old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists) is that Genesis indicates the Earth was created out of water. Dr. D. Russell Humpreys based his accurate predictions of planetary fields on this. I reckon that if science contradicted creationism, we would light a shuck out of there. When materialistic assumptions and circular reasoning are stripped away, science supports creation; we have an especially good time with geology. I was spurred to write this here article because of one from 2018, " Science confirms Genesis Flood account, again ". While it is not a science...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Sometimes, anti-creationists riding the Owlhoot Trail want to slap leather with creationists but they don't bring a gun to a gunfight. They don't even bring a knife or a pointed stick. I reckon they don't want to say anything meaningful, they just want to "prove the st00pid dumb creotard" wrong. Problem is, they show their own lack of thought and look mighty silly. Courtesy of Why?Outreach Too many people read just the caption of a picture or a few lines of text and then leave a comment. Unfortunately, this short attention span trend is common and seems to be growing, and the ignorant comment is a bane to many Page owners and bloggers. I shared this picture, " The Lincoln Memorial Disproves Old Earth Theories " about stalactites and stalagmites that had formed quickly under the memorial. Apparently, this guy didn't bother to pay attention to the excerpts in the caption or look at the two links. He complained, "...