Piltdown Superman

Many of those who believe in an ancient earth like to point to zircons as if they were conclusive proof of their views. Zircon dating is often trotted out by owlhoots who want to play the "Gotcha!" game, not realizing that zircon crystals have their own problems, such as the presence of carbon . Now some secular scientists are raising serious questions. Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane Image credit: NASA / GSFC / METI/ERSDAC / JAROS, and U.S. / Japan ASTER Science Team (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Detrital zircons contain traces of uranium and lead. Researches took some from a pile at the base of a slope and the results were surprising. In fact, the researchers are showing that assumptions (which always occur in radiometric dating) may be not only biased, but biases may appear that other scientists are unaware of. Kind of hard to get reliable indications of an old earth when the dating methods are fundamentally flawed.

Archaeology is a fascinating area of study when it is used properly. It is certainly something I would not want to do, what with carefully digging in specific areas and examining things in the rain, under the hot sun, and so on. Be careful, can't break something important! My back wouldn't tolerate that. (Even more challenging by my way for reckoning is underwater archaeology .) Originally, archaeologists knew that the Bible was accurate, but secularists would still try to find excuses to scoff at it. Credit: US National Park Service One famous case was that of the Hittites. People would say something to the effect of, "Archaeology has never found the Hittites, therefore, the Bible is wrong." That is an inexcusably fallacious argument from silence. It ignores the antiquity of the regions, and the fact that some folks are so selfish, they actually build homes and cities where archaeologists want to excavate. The nerve of some people, living and stuff. By the way

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Last week, we had some fun with Wretched Radio , also examining how atheists and evolutionists ridicule Christians and creationists . Today, I have another audio excerpt made into video format from the show, which appears at the end of this post. In this informative and entertaining piece, some problems with radiometric dating and the alleged oldest color on Earth , pink, are discussed. I thought that Todd and Tony would need me to saddle up and ride over there to help them up. That'll be the day! No help needed from this child. They are aware of the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ that Darwin's disciples utilize, and that proponents of deep time use unfounded assumptions. Also, secular scientists presuppose that Earth and the universe are extremely old. The Bearded Buddha (Darwin) requires huge amounts of time for his speculations to work, so his loyal followers do their best to give him all the time in the world. Uniformitarian

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

Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject of dinosaur soft tissues distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny that they exist! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong. No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete. Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree , to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined . Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further eviden

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them. Meteor image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ g

For molecules-to-misotheist evolution to work, it needs huge amounts of time. Secularists ignore evidence that shows the earth is young, and make excuses for tremendous flaws in radiometric dating (see " Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law? " for more on the subject, including several links). I reckon they must feel that bad science is better than admitting that evidence fails to produce an old earth, so they keep on with radiometric dating. Assembled with graphics from Openclipart More specifically, radio carbon dating deals with organic matter and the amount of carbon contained therein. Carbon-14 should not be found in certain items after 57,000 Darwin years, so certain things that have been dated at millions of years should not contain any carbon. But they do. Sure, evolutionists circle the wagons to protect their prize pig, making excuses such as "contamination". Such excuses do not withstand scrutiny and change the fact that

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son. Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch have realized that they don't have to play the cards they're dealt, such as doing a  force-fit of recalcitrant data into their worldview . A part of this involves  fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods giving results they don't like; there are wildly varying results, so just keep drawing until you get the card you want, and keep it up your sleeve until needed. Adapted from images obtained from Clker clipart Rock containing footprints was dated, the date was accepted and published. Uh, oh! Those footprints are identical to those of the sandpiper. Time to retest the rock. They obtained an acceptable result, but the footprints were still problematic, what with dinosaur-to-bird evolution and such, and there are more difficulties involved. And it's not an isolated case. If they were able to be honest about the data, evolutionists would stop being evolutionists and admit that science supports recent creation. Using well-kno

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Forensic science is very important in obtaining evidence about the past. Naturally, the more recent the evidence, the more persuasive it is, especially in a court of law. To send someone to jail or certain other instances nowadays in American courts, guilt must be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt". In small-claims court, someone needs "a preponderance of the evidence". Good thing that procedures have advanced from the time of "Hanging Judge" Isaac Parker, who tried 13,490 cases his ownself and sentenced 160 who were convicted to death by hanging  (but only 79 actually attended a necktie party). Evolution and radiometric dating use forensic science , but we're not talking about what happened last week or a few months ago. Rather, these are the ultimate " cold case files ", supposedly going back millions of years. Radiometric dating is a mite different though, since the measurements of parent-daughter materials a

There are many speculations put forward as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and some are rather outlandish . The most common idea is that an asteroid fell to Earth and caused them to head for the last roundup, but it doesn't have a lot of explaining power. Others have suggested that volcanoes had something to do with the dino die-out. Lately, some geology work prompted a new idea: both asteroids and volcanoes. Scan of Bulgaria stamp from my collection, with added clip art from Clker While uniformitarian assumptions and the circular reasoning in radiometric dating are unreliable, they do give relative dates to work from. Some Genesis Flood geology models postulate that, since the rain was supplemented by the fountains of the deep being broken up (Genesis 7:11), an asteroid impact may have been a part of the great global Flood. Rapid fossilization, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, the Ice Age, change in climate — the whole shootin' match supports creation science model

The more things change — the more things change. A heap of evolutionary icons are being overthrown, often by evolutionists' own science. (Sorta like being shot with your own gun.) There are numerous challenges to the age of the solar system and the universe (especially with discoveries regarding Pluto), Lenski's bacteria experiments prove that a virus can stay pretty much the same, endo symbiosis needs a re-think and some actua l evidence , water on primordial Earth is being reexamined , Lucy was an extinct ape that walked on its knuckles , and more. It's a good time to be a biblical creationist! Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane Image credit: NASA / GSFC/METI / ERSDAC / JAROS, and U.S. / Japan ASTER Science Team (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) But wait, there's another bronc bucking in the corral at the Darwin Ranch! Zircon crystals are showing traces of carbon. Darwinists are assuming that the carbon came from

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The age of the Earth is determined primarily through radiometric dating methods. However, radiometric dating is loaded with scientific difficulties, circular reasoning, presuppositions, and other anti-science posturing by long-age proponents. (Links to an eight-part series on radiometric dating difficulties can be found here , and you can also search the site for articles on "age of the earth".) The workers at the Darwin Ranch don't bother to use Earth rocks very much. Instead, they calculate the putative age of the Earth from space rocks . Meteor Crater, Arizona / Image credit: NASA The cognating on using meteorites and other space rocks is that the rocks right here on the place they're trying to find the age for are no good, what with plate tectonics fouling them up and all. Using their presuppositions, secular scientists assume that, since everything was formed at the same time billions of evolutionist years ago, space rocks are mor