Piltdown Superman

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!...

Way down where it is mighty damp, the seafloor, are some things called nodules or pellets. Secular scientists insist through radiometric dating that the things take millions of years to form. Like so many other attempts to make the earth seem old, bad logic is necessary. Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) These nuggets — millions of them — are formed when exposed to seawater, but stop when covered by a certain amount of sediment. This raises questions about some of the larger nodules, because according to secularist reckoning, they shouldn't be there. Since they are there and a potential source of materials that humans need, forms of deep-sea mining are being developed. Once again, the narrative supersedes observed evidence and interferes with actual scientific research. Pellets (or nodules ) composed of various metals, such as manganese and iron, often litter the ocean floor. These nodules form when c...

We have examined radiometric dating on this site many times, and the article linked below provides some information that is inconvenient for those who believe in deep time. The age of the earth is calculated this way by testing meteorites , not rocks on Earth. However, the dating methods are unreliable. Assembled with graphics from Openclipart It should raise the suspicions of almost anyone that there are numerous dating methods used on rocks. This is because they are not consistent and have results that vary wildly with one another, and there are numerous assumptions that must be made . Creation scientists have done their own calculations and shown how secular systems are flawed. Further, a Genesis Flood model is a far better fit for the facts. Have you ever pulled apart a large mass of taffy and watched it break into two approximately equal masses? This is an illustration of what happens in the subatomic world when a 238 U or 235 U atom undergoes splitting, or fission. Nuclea...

Mockers reject the biblical timeline for several reasons, most of them superficial. Some will say that there were civilizations in existence thousands of years before the Old Testament was written, but scoffers accept questionable sources while rejecting biblical material out of hand. Sumerian kings were listed as living thousands of years, and the Egyptian chronologies are in doubt . Add to questionable history the inaccurate results of carbon dating, and mockers have their biases confirmed. Triceratops image source: Good Free Photos Elsewhere, we considered dealing with discrepancies between secular geology and the global Genesis Flood . This post brings up related material. Although most readers probably know this, carbon dating does not work for deep time or the age of the earth. It only works on things that are or were organic. That means dinosaur bones and pottery discovered in rock layers that are assumed to be millions of years old can be tested, but they yield far youn...

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...