Piltdown Superman

While it's helpful to read about creation scientists of the past and present , it's nice to hear actual interviews with them. It also helps silence owlhoots who lie about the lack of intelligence and credentials of creation scientists. Real Science Radio 's Bob Enyart continues his invasion of Britain with an interview of Professor Steve Taylor (not to be confused with recording artist Steve Taylor ). Dr. Taylor is an expert in electrical engineering, and has done work on accelerated mass spectrometry . He works on mass spectrometry at the University of Liverpool . National Electrostatics Corporation 250kV accelerator mass spectrometer in a biomedical laboratory. Image Credit: US Department of Energy Professor Taylor rejects evolution and affirms biblical creation. Steve and Bob discussed accelerated mass spectrometry, making a portable carbon-14 device, his work with his government in helping detect chemical weapons, and more. The interview begins at the get-go.

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, "

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels  was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on. First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels  video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don

We've seen before that when Darwinists have evidence that does not support their claims, they have been known to fudge it to pretend they have not been falsified.  Way up yonder in Siberia, a dog fossil was found. What did they do? Made up another batch of fudge. (If anyone has a notion to make some for me, you should find a good recipe here .) So anyway... Go on, pet it. You know you want to. Credit: US National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Evolutionary scientists obtained disagreeing dates about the Siberian dog fossil, so they did what we dread to hear from our car's GPS: "Recalculating". There are problems with the framework in which they interpret data. Using a biblical timeline with recent creation, the evidence falls into place. DNA research identified a Siberian fossil as an ancient dog bone. But its radiocarbon date doesn't match the accepted evolutionary story for dog origins. The ease with which scientists

We've reached the conclusion of this series on radiometric dating, which are methods used to determine the age of the earth and rock samples; clocks in the rocks. The linked articles have had information for lay people as well as those more technologically inclined, showing how methods of radiometric dating are based on several assumptions, circular reasoning, wildly varying results, and more. Here are links to the previous installments in the series: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 .  This article discusses some heavy metal stuff. That is, isotopes of lead. It is supposed to be reliable if scientists include some interesting data juggling. But like the other methods, this one also goes over like a lead balloon. If uniformitarian geologists would play the cards they're dealt, they'd see that the earth was created, and it was created much more recently than they want to believe. Sorry, Papa Darwin, no time for evolution to h

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. These are based on uniformitarian presuppositions, which are in turn based on several assumptions, including a constant decay rate. In addition, they not only give wildly varying results, but outrageously bad old-earth ages for young  rocks of known  ages! This is science? Not hardly. But they cling to this because they are locked into naturalism, and cannot allow a divine foot in the door, even though their methods are unreliable. Evolution requires a great deal of time, and uniformitarianism is essential to that. Creationist scientists have demonstrated that the rate of decay is not constant, which ruins one of the primary assumptions of uniformitarian dating methods. The biggest causes of change was the Genesis Flood. In addition, there are many other indicators of a young earth that are conveniently ignored by old earth geologists and evolu

The beat goes on in this series on radiometric dating clocks, and I reckon that fans of uniformitarianism are getting ticked. (Ticked...clock...I made a funny!) I thought the series was put into the corral last month, but ICR surprised me. Links to the previous articles in the series are here . This time, the subject is the heavy metal clocks, such as Uranium-Lead and Thorium-Lead. There are other methods that are not so popular today (the Uranium-Helium method gave ages that were "too young"), but they all have several things in common that make for circular reasoning. These dating methods are well-established, and have a somewhat different approach from the others. Proponents of rocks-to-radiologist evolution frequently indulge in faulty logic, and uniformitarian geologists have the same problems. Why don't they "follow where the evidence leads" and see the passel o' problems that their worldview has? That would mean that the evidence refutes their p

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags looking for solid evidence to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils. All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work. Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological

This is the sixth in a series on radiometric dating. (Actually, I think of this one as part 5B since Part 5 laid the groundwork.) If you want to catch up or review, get your bookmarking apparatus and think bones ready: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 . Or you can feel free to read on anyway. It has been established that radiometric dating methods are unreliable, showing widely-varying results, and even yielding millions of years for rocks of known age. These methods use several assumptions and circular reasoning. There are many other methods that show the earth to be far younger than secularists would like, but I reckon that they have to use bad science in order to preserve their old-earth evolutionary paradigm. Other radiometric dating methods have been attempted, but these, too have assumptions and are flawed. This series has summarized radioisotope dating models, their assumptions, and how those assumptions mistakenly lead to a “deep time” picture of our univers

This is the fifth in a series of articles on radiometric dating. You can find links to previous articles in the series here . Really, radiometric dating has some things in common with rolling the dice, as readers of this series have seen. Evolution requires an ancient earth, so quite a bit of finagling and selective citing is involved in order to keep the belief in "deep time" alive. Previous articles gave a general explanation of radiometric dating, then went into more detail on various methods. Those included the isochron method, noble elements, and alkali metal dating. This latest installment on rare earth elements could be considered Part 5A, since the article said that it's continued next month. Like the previous articles, there is material that should appeal to people who want to consider the mathematics involved. Past articles in this series have attempted to establish a foundation for understanding the radioisotope dating models or hypotheses, their assump

The previous installments in this series are " Radiometric Dating and Reason ", " Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 2 ", and " Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 3 ". Old-Earth advocates insist that radiometric dating methods are accurate and reliable, but they've put the shoes on the wrong horse. Not only do radiometric dating methods require three basic assumptions that are improbable at best, some of those assumptions mask important secondary assumptions. In addition to unscientific assuming, they get wildly varying results (such as rocks known to be 60 years old testing to be 133 million years old, and ranges of a hundred million years or more). More than that, the age of the world has been calculated by using meteorites, not Earth rocks — which has several major assumptions as well. The Rubidium-Strontium method has all of the aforementioned assumptions and problems, plus a few more. For one thing, adequate quantities of rubidium-conta

As you can see, this is the third installment in a series on radiometric dating. ( Part 1, on the most common forms of radiometric dating methods, is here . Part 2, on the isochron method, is here .) Uniformitarian geologists rely on a number of assumptions to make their dating methods work. Unfortunately, the assumptions are unrealistic. On a side note, did you know that there is a huge assumption made about the age of the earth? It is not determined from terrestrial rocks, but from meteorites ! The assumption is that everything formed at the same time, and meteorites are purer than the rocks on our own world. Old son, that's circular reasoning. Back to the main topic now. In Part 3, the Potassium-Argon dating method is examined. Although considered to be the most reliable, this method is so loaded with assumptions, it is actually unreliable and unscientific. Once again, a proper interpretation of the evidence points to a young planet. Radioactive dating methods—many of w

A month ago, I posted about the most common form of radiometric dating methods . Some scientists are recognizing that these have some serious problems, and have decided to saddle up a different horse. They are proposing a new model called isochron dating.  The math looks good, but there are still some major difficulties. These include several assumptions (including an old-earth fudge factor), and yielding results that are not only contradictory, but wildly inaccurate for rocks whose ages are actually known. The Bible is quite clear about the origin and timeframe for the creation of Earth and the cosmos. If Scripture is inaccurate in this, then how can it be trusted in anything else? Some evolutionists throw out theistic evolution (God using evolution as His creative process) as a philosophical panacea, with the goal of leading people to conclude that Genesis is a myth. Like Nimrod of ancient times, they know they must provide an alternative (i.e., naturalism, specifically scienti

Some people are herded into the corral of "radiometric dating proves an ancient world". A herd mentality may not be such a bad thing if people were believing something that was the result of solid reasoning and good evidence, but the fact is, secular methods of radiometric dating are fundamentally flawed. Not only are there assumptions, but circular reasoning. And the circular reasoning is "validated" by additional circular reasoning. I reckon that the whole process is a wreck. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the atheistic conclusions and bad logic. Conditions during the Great Flood of Genesis play a significant factor in fouling up uniformitarian dating methods. Radioactive dating is a key concept in determining the age of the earth. Many secular scientists use it to dismantle the faith of Christians and cause them to accept uniformitarian assumptions that, in addition to being scientifically erroneous, demand a figurative and distorted interp

No, the Frink dating method has nothing to do with the romance and marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Frink. Rather, it is the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio method postulated by Douglas Frink. Like other methods used to try to determine the age of items, it relies on several assumptions about the dating process. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SPA Archaeologist Jeremy Decker records a piece of fire-cracked rock, one of a series of artifacts showing where prehistoric people built a hearth. Also, the OCR method is calibrated with carbon-14, another dating method that requires many assumptions. But at least Frink points out difficulties in his process that need to be worked out instead of rushing in as a hero of science. So this, too, is not a reliable method to conjure up long ages for the sake of evolution. MM from Australia asked about a new dating method called “oxidizable carbon ratio” (OCR) dating, which was brought to his attention by a friend. It

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

A few months ago, I was included in a reply to mail from Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker. (He is blocked from my account, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.) This served as my introduction to John Heininger.  Haywire was commenting about John's "tactics". John replied, " I always relish people who can appreciate "my tactics"... I hate to think that I go to all the trouble of devising clever tactics that no one appreciates or notices. So, I have again reattached "The Dating Game Assumptions" article in PDF format for you to share around." I was given permission to reproduce it, and did some minor editing of formatting, a couple of typos and such. HOW TO PLAY THE DEEP-TIME "ASSUMPTIONS" DATING GAME How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth!  ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don't have any solid facts to prove yo