Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query diamonds. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query diamonds. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Diamonds Aren't So Old After All

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.

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.
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 the key.

Other details that rile believers in uniformitarianism is that burnable (unpermineralized) wood has been found in diamond-bearing rock — and in more than one location. Further, there's the carbon-14 problem: it's not supposed to exist in diamonds, but hey, there it is. This is evidence that diamonds, and the earth itself, are nowhere near as old as some people want us to believe.
Jewellers sometimes tell awe-struck customers that diamonds have been sitting undisturbed in the ground for hundreds of millions of years, since before the time of the dinosaurs, just waiting to add sparkle to rings, necklaces and broaches. The British Jewellers’ Association says that all natural diamonds have existed for at least 900 million years, with the oldest specimens being 3.2 billion years old!

These are extraordinary claims, but scientific facts indicate a different reality. It is interesting to consider the compelling evidence that all natural diamonds are actually far younger.
Diamonds are hard, but the rest of this article is not so hard. (See what I did there? Fallacy of equivocation to make a funny.) To finish reading, click on "Diamonds—Are they really all that old?

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, July 22, 2016

Diamonds from the Basement

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?

Diamonds formed with Earth's basement rocks, and somehow made the long journey upward without breaking down. The Genesis Flood provides the right conditions and scenario.
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. Creationary scientists have models involving the Genesis Flood that can bring diamonds from way down there up to where they can be reached without breaking down.
The clue to the origin of diamonds is their location. Diamond deposits are found in only a few isolated locations around the world. Historically, diamonds have been found and mined in southern and central Africa, where some 49% of diamonds originate. However, today large deposits are found in specific regions of Siberia, Canada, Australia, and Brazil.

The common denominator is unique areas of particular rock types known geologically as the “cratons.”1 Cratons consist of the foundational basement rocks of the continents, before they broke apart during the Flood and were covered by fossil-bearing sedimentary layers. These basement rocks were likely formed back in the Creation Week.

Diamonds apparently formed at the roots of these cratons. Why do we think this?

One clue is the radioisotope markers in the diamonds that match those of the basement rocks. (Based on occasional minute inclusions within them, diamonds are claimed to be 1–3.2 billion years old.2 While these secular dates are wrong, the relative radioisotope dating is helpful, indicating that diamonds were formed earlier than the Flood deposits.)

Another clue is that these craton roots are in the diamond stability zone.
You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on "Dazzling Diamonds by Special Delivery". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 7: Carbon-14 in the Wrong Places

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 billions of years old?
Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon. Further, analyses of fossilized wood and coal samples, supposedly spanning 32–350 million years in age, yielded ages between 20,000 and 50,000 years using carbon-14 dating. Diamonds supposedly 1–3 billion years old similarly yielded carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.
You can read the rest of this layman's-level article at "Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal and Diamonds", here. For the more technically inclined, "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds". 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Appeal to False Authority, TalkOrigins, and Diamonds

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.

Sites like TalkOrigins are false authorities and terribly unreliable

Recently, I made a post and said that opponents will go to the excuse mills. A furious atheopath proved me right by ignoring my remarks and giving a link to TalkOrigins at his post. The material was outdated and irrelevant, but people like this act like we've been debunked because of the "authority" cited. My belief is that they act this way because they are afraid to read material that refutes evolutionism and deep time.

One of the boilerplate responses to the existence of carbon-14 in diamonds (or in other places where 14C "should" not exist) is contamination. If you study on it, that's a heap of contamination from quite a few labs doing a great deal of testing. Those critics who are squirming to escape the inconvenient evidence are impugning the skill of those technicians — technicians and labs that they applaud when dating results fit their paradigms! Two standards, no waiting. No, there is no contamination. Fact is, Earth was created, and far more recently, than secularists are willing to admit.
C S from United States wrote in:
I was looking at talk origins’ little archive on Diamonds and C14 in summary. They say Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.
CMI’s Joel Tay responds:
To see Joel's response, click on "Carbon-14 in diamonds: Refuting Talk.Origins". You may be interested in another article, "Propaganda Talk about Origins". Also, there's a short video below.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Fooling with Radiocarbon Contamination Claims

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.

When diamonds and other things show radiocarbon, scientists and others claim there was contamination. The burden of proof is on them and their assumptions.
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! The most popular rescuing device is that materials that were tested were contaminated. Wow, that sure was a passel of contamination in many items to be detected by your equipment, Hoss. Also, it's a big insult to the scientists who do that for a living. Hypocritically, they depend on the lab results when their biases are confirmed. Stating that there is contamination gives the accusers the burden of proof.
Radiocarbon (C-14) keeps popping up in the wrong places. Carbon-dating labs have struggled to find ancient samples with zero radiocarbon levels. C-14 has turned up in coal, natural gas, and fossils. Naturalists believe all these specimens are many times older than radiocarbon can theoretically last, which is fewer than 100,000 carbon years.

In contrast, biblical scientists believe Noah’s Flood deposited these materials thousands, not millions, of years ago. A colleague and I expected to find radiocarbon in similarly old samples, and we did.
You can finish reading by clicking on "Contamination Claims Can’t Cancel Radiocarbon Results".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, May 18, 2012

Carbon-14 Part 3: Data and Assumptions

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 only 5,730 years.
This creates a dilemma for conventional geology, as explained in Part 2 of this series.2 Absolutely no radiocarbon should be left in fossils, coals, and diamonds, because after just one million years it should have decayed away.
Yet the radiocarbon in these fossils, coals, and diamonds equates to “ages” of up to 55,000 years. This is much older than the biblical time frame of earth history, which attributes most fossils and coals to the global Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,350 years ago. What should Bible-believing Christians think about this apparent discrepancy?
To finish reading "A Creationist Puzzle: 50,000-Year-Old Fossils", click here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Creationists Using Carbon-14 on Fossils

Carbon-14 is not supposed to exist in some things, so secular scientists are not interested in testing for it. But carbon-14 is being found, and creation scientists are doing significant research — upsetting uniformitarian views.

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 uniformitarianism. After all, long ages are vital for evolution to work, and they can't have their foundation threatened, can they?
ICR researchers continue to look for radiocarbon in ancient carbon-containing Earth materials. Archaeologists commonly use carbon-14, or radiocarbon, to estimate ages for organic artifacts. No measurable amounts should exist in samples older than about 100,000 years because radiocarbon atoms would decay into nitrogen-14 before then. However, we keep finding carbon-14 in materials designated as tens or even hundreds of millions of years old.

ICR’s RATE initiative (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) revealed radiocarbon in coal samples and deeply buried diamonds deemed hundreds of millions of years old. Andrew Snelling later reported radiocarbon in supposedly 32 million-year-old wood from a Colorado mine3 and in a supposedly 116 million-year-old ammonite shell.
To read the rest, click on "Carbon-Dating Fossils". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Carbon-14 Found Where It Does Not Belong — Again

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 interview on Real Science Radio.
* CRS Makes John Doughty Paper Publicly Available: The Creation Research Society, upon request from Real Science Radio, has made available to the general public a 2007 paper previously only accessible to subscribers of their peer-reviewed journal. That paper, Deep Wells—Deep Time?, presents the results of testing natural gas from a deep well for Carbon 14. RSR now interviews 14c researcher John Doughty, aerospace and mechanical engineering Ph.D. and former Lt Col program director of a U.S. military space laser program.
You can listen online or download the interview here. Be sure to check out the supporting links on the site, too.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, August 17, 2012

What about the Radiometric Dating Deviations?

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 from a quarry near the town of Banbury, England, some 80 miles north-west of London, was dated using the carbon-14 method. The ages calculated ranged from 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old. However, the limestone in which the wood was found was of Jurassic age, of 183 million years. Clearly the dating methods are in conflict.
Surprisingly, these conflicting results do not unsettle mainstream geologists.
Diamonds analyzed from mines in South Africa and Botswana, and from alluvial deposits in Guinea, West Africa, found measurable carbon-14—over ten times the detection limit of the laboratory equipment. The average ‘age’ calculated for the samples was 55,700 years. Yet the rocks that contained the diamonds ranged from 1,000 to 3,000 million years old. Dating methods are in conflict again.
You can read the rest of "Radioactive dating methods —

Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Carbon-14 Part 2: Found Where It Should Not Be

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

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Dinosaur Tissue Preservation and the Iron Maiden

If you want to get the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod, just mention dinosaur soft tissues. This is because soft tissues in dinosaurs and other critters is a threat to old earth uniformitarianism. From there, particles-to-parasaurolophus evolution is severely inconvenienced. There are several articles on that subject here as well as other biblical creationist sites.

Dr. Kevin Anderson is interviewed on Real Science Radio about dinosaur soft tissues
Metallized triceratops profile derived from an image a Pixabay from Dimitris Vetsikas
Ever since Mary "Iron Maiden" Schweitzer got fame for herself because of dinosaur soft tissues, evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have been running the excuse mill at full steam. (They don't even get overtime pay from their cheap bosses.) One of the premier excuses was formed by Schweitzer: iron as a preservative.

Dr. Kevin Anderson was interviewed by Bob Enyart on Real Science Radio. (Dr. Anderson is one of the scientists in Is Genesis History? My review is here.) You see, Dr. Schweitzer reckons that iron in blood keeps tissues somewhat intact for millions of Darwin years (this is why the guys at RSR refer to her as the "iron maiden"). She kept the tissue and blood sample in pristine conditions for a spell, then extrapolated backward for millions of Darwin years. Although a professing Christian, Schweitzer's primary commitment seems to be toward atheistic interpretations of science. That might explain why she does science like other owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand, which is to ignore important factors and commit sloppy science. At least she's not obnoxious like so many evolutionists on teh interweb.

Something else that was discussed is radiometric dating, especially carbon-14. Darwin's disciples often insist that radiometric dating is reliable despite the great disparity in results from various methods, and the fact that rocks of known ages are dated at millions of years. Carbon-14 is found in coal and diamonds, but evolutionists wave away that fact by denigrating the skill of technicians in the labs, claiming "contamination". (Were you there? Did you see something done wrong? Do you have your own lab so you can do better, Hoss?) Then they claim that carbon-14 dating is impeccable when the results are in their favor. Two standards, no waiting in their attempts to reject the Creator.

Seems to me that I've given enough introductory material. It's time to let you hear the two podcasts in question. Both are free to hear online or to download. (Disclaimer: Bob Enyart is an advocate of "open theism", so I do not recommend his theological material.) As a bonus, a video of Dr. Anderson discussing the iron as a preservative rescuing device follows.

Slaying the Iron Maiden: Mary Schweitzer's Vulnerability

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 20, 2016

"Evolution's Achilles' Heels" — Book Review

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.

For the most part, the origins controversy is science-based, and it helps if you have a science background when reading this book. I seriously doubt that many people will read it with comprehension on a Sunday afternoon, as there is quite a bit of information in this paperback's 260 pages (not including the index). 

Evolution's Achilles' Heels has eight chapters divided into subsections and has many illustrations, mostly in color. The footnotes are somewhere around 500, primarily for supporting references, plus some URLs to CMI articles for further reading. It was good to see that the publishers didn't scrimp on paper, it's good quality my fingers didn't smear the ink.

Here are the chapters, and some brief notes about the contents. Don't be getting the notion that the book's contents are superficial just because my comments are — we don't want this article to be excessively long now, do we?

1. "Natural Selection", by Dr. Donald Batten

Darwin began his hypothesis that natural selection gave rise to wholesale changes from simple to complex life forms. The problem for atoms-to-author evolutionists is that, when properly understood, natural selection only refers to minor changes that do not add genetic information; natural selection is not evolution, but rather, a conserving process.

2. "Genetics and DNA", by Dr. Robert Carter

Although evolutionists claim that DNA supports Darwinism, that's the opposite of the truth: DNA is hostile to evolution and friendly to special creation. "Junk DNA", repair mechanisms, genes and RNA, how genetics supports "out of Babel" rather than "out of Africa", and more are discussed.

3. "The Origin of Life", by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Previously, the chapters showed flaws in evolution by giving it a head start and presupposing a self-reproducing cell that has an operational genetic system. Although the typical Internet evolutionist will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, that is both ridiculous and untrue. The origin of life is a huge problem for evolutionists — which is probably why they don't want to talk about it. Dr. Sarfati continues the progression that the other authors established, showing that the amazing complexity of DNA could not form or operate in the "primordial soup". Various chemical evolution studies have been self-defeating, showing intelligence involved in the formation of life's building blocks.

4. "The Fossil Record", by Dr. Emil Silvestru

Evolution proponents like to claim that the transitional forms that were missing in Darwin's day have been found, and are abundant in the fossil record. Fact is, transitional forms were missing back then, and they are missing now. Dr. Silvestru gives us definitions, some history about taxonomy and Carl Linnaeus. Biblical creationists expect to find evidence supporting the Genesis Flood, and the fossil record fits creationary models quite well.

We are also shown several areas where fossils are "out of place" according to evolutionary thinking, and how the Cambrian explosion (the Cambrian is a very old layer that has the sudden appearance of fully-formed, complex life forms that have been preserved). From here, we move on to fossils that have "exceptional preservation", then what qualifies as a "transitional" fossil, false claims about transitions, living fossils, ape men, and more. 

5.  "The Geologic Record", by Dr. Tasman Walker

The previous chapter discussed the fossil record, this time is the geologic record, which is "the arrangement of the rocks on Earth through time" (p. 155). When using the word "record", it's a mite misleading because it gives the connotation that rocks layers can be "read" in an orderly fashion to provide a valid history. Not possible. 

Dr. Walker provides a brief history of geology and uniformitarian interpretations, but the geological evidences does not require long ages. Fossils, finely laminated sediments, diamonds, opals, other rocks and geological features are shown to be able to form in much shorter periods of time than secularists demand; slow and gradual interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. In fact, biblical Flood interpretations provide far superior interpretations of geologic evidence.

6. "Radiometric Dating", by Dr. Jim Mason

Evolution requires long ages, so when flaws in the dogma of radiometric dating are presented, village atheists and their Darwinist friends get very upset. Although there are several methods of dating the Earth, most give results that are supportive of the young Earth, so they prefer tendentious radiometric dating results. 

Dr. Mason presents the science behind radiometric dating, the accuracy of the processes, and the huge discrepancies in results. There are several major assumptions that need to be made when using radiometric dating, so scientists have proposed isochrons. Do they help? Although the isochron method is impressive mathematically and scientifically, it has serious problems as well. From rocks, the author rolls on to Carbon-14, and also radiometric dating using helium (which really puts burrs under the saddles of Darwinists). Although touted as science that is devastating to biblical creation, radiometric dating has some serious flaws and gives their views no credible support.

7: "Cosmology: Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws", by Dr. John Hartnett

When creationists write or post material refuting the Big Bang, it is not uncommon for critics to say, "What does this have to do with evolution?" (Yet, they don't make such comments when I post a picture of our Basement Cat on my Page, for instance.) This is a variation on the dishonest denial of, "The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution", since the cosmic origin of everything is directly related to evolution. Just do a search on "We are all star stuff", or, "Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you might live", and their variations. But I digress.

We have to begin with the modern history of cosmogony. It is not based on science, but is a philosophy that needs scientific support. Despite initial resistance, the Big Bang became the dominant cosmogony and cosmology. But it's loaded with difficulties, so the Big Bang has had to keep evolving (heh!) with numerous add-ons and tweaks. Dr. Hartnett discusses redshifts, Hubble's Law, the cosmological principle, and more. He points out that there are five evidences where cosmologists explain unknown factors by invoking other unknown factors. "The fatal flaw of the big bang model of cosmic evolution is that it is based on unverifiable assumptions, primarily the cosmological principle" (p.231). No, the Big Bang is not settled science, and most certainly does not support cosmic evolution.

8: "Ethics and Morality", by Drs. David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood

Here is the "why it matters" section. Atheistic materialism and evolution are inconsistent and irrational, and they do not want to know about that. Our worldviews (everyone has one) affect our daily thoughts and actions, but evolution-based morality is disastrous. 

People reject the God of the Bible, and their excuses really come down to the fact that they just don't like him. Misotheists present God as a big meanie in the Old Testament, but such thinking is based on prejudicial conjecture, ignorance of history and cultures, problems with semantics, and other difficulties that could be settled if honest people did their homework. This is not about reason, but about emotion and spiritual rebellion. (I have long maintained that if logic and reason were consistently used by unbelievers, there would be no conflict, because everyone would be a biblical creationist; it is the worldview best supported by science, logic, theology, and history.) Evolutionary worldviews lead to nihilism and despair, yet rebellious people continue to use fraud to bolster this belief system.

In recent history, the mistreatment of native Australians, the Herero genocide, eugenics, and other evils were rooted in evolution. In fact, many people know that Hitler was an evolutionist and wanting to eliminate those that he defined as unfit, but World War I also had evolution as one of its causes. Famous atheist dictators murdered millions with their unrestrained atheism and evolutionary views. No, I am not saying that Hitler was an atheist, he had a strange religion all his own, and was a strong Darwinist. Even in more modern times, murderers such as those at Columbine and in Finland were evolutionists, and that was their motivation. And why not? Such teaching only leads to despair, and the violence of atheists and evolutionists is consistent with their worldview; there is nothing there to offer restraint for their actions.

Biblical Christianity is a stark contrast to materialistic thinking. It is not just another code of ethics. There is hope and salvation in Jesus, and the scientific evidence supports not only recent special creation, but Scripture itself. No, theistic evolution and other efforts to compromise Scripture with evolutionary science philosophies will not work — they actually undermine the gospel message.


People are locked into their rebellion against the Creator, and many are unwilling to consider the truth. In my preparation for writing this review, I saw an atheopath site asking for help in debunking Evolution's Achilles' Heels. One respondent offered a link to canned responses to creationists' claims. That's intellectually dishonest, old son. You want to debunk this book? Deal with the specifics, including the hundreds of supporting references. Also, they used the term "science deniers", a favorite of misotheists that is a logical fallacy, equivocating science with evolution. Then they call us stupid.

As you probably expected, I recommend Evolution's Achilles' Heels for people who want to examine scientific evidence refuting evolution and affirming biblical creation. In fact, you would do well in purchasing both the book and the DVD (sometimes the two-pack is on sale). I'll go you one further. Both Creation Sunday and Question Evolution Day happen on February 12, 2017. My suggestion is to utilize that weekend to have your church stand up for creation and against compromise. Showing the video would be excellent, and reading the book would be a whole heap of helpful as well. You can obtain the book at CMI or search for other retailers.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels is available at various locations, and in e-book format. Although I appreciate the advantages of e-books, unless you can view images in color and full-size, I recommend the physical book. Besides, underling an e-book reader is bad for it.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law?

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 are done in the present, but require several assumptions about the past.

Origins and the age of the Earth are forensic sciences. Would radiometric dating stand up in a court of law? Here is an imagined discussion, and then several links on radiometric dating for your research and reference.
Image composed of graphics obtained at Clker clipart.
So, I was spending some time thinking —

"I thought I smelled wood burning!"

We're getting close to the campfire — hey! Stop playing.

As I was saying, I was thinking about someone presenting radiometric dating to convince a court about the age of the Earth. Would a judge or jury be able to make a ruling? Dealing with matters of science in court can be a fiasco, as in the 2005 Dover case, but let's let the mustangs of our imagination run free for a spell.

"I would now like to examine the witness' evidence to support the validity of radiometric dating, if it pleases the court".

"What material do you test to determine the age of the Earth?"

"The best source material comes from meteorites."

"Meteorites? What on Earth for?" (Chuckling in courtroom at the play on words.)

"Because certain meteorites contain the purest substance from the formation of the solar system, and are uncontaminated."

"Can you support your assertion?"

"Well, we have several theories about the formation of the solar system after the Big Bang—"

"I'll take that as a no, then. How about the testing for radioactivity?"

"We have several methods, including potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and so on. We know the half-life of radioactive elements, Potassium-40 is 1.248×109 years, so we calculate how much potassium and argon are in the sample and use our formulas."

"How do you know the amounts of potassium of potassium and argon were there at the beginning?"

"Well, uh, we're scientists, so, it's complicated".

"In other words, you do not know how much was there at the beginning. Moving on, how do you know if the decay rate remained constant, and whether or not material was added or removed?"

"That's complicated, too."

"I see. You mentioned uranium to lead."

"Yes, there are several materials that we can compare."

"Do these methods agree with each other in the results?"

"No, they can vary greatly."

"So, what do you do when the results differ?"

"We choose the one that we feel is the most accurate."

"Rather subjective, isn't it? You're basing the results on presuppositions and assumptions. So far, we have a whole heap of assumptions, old son."

"Back off, man, we're scientists!"

"Didn't mean to put a burr under your saddle. Or did I? Anyway, what about other methods to determine the age of the Earth, aside from radiometric dating? These give results for a much younger Earth, don't they?"

"Yes, but those cannot be trusted because the results are much too young."

"What about Carbon-14?"

"That is useless for rocks because it only works on organic materials."

"Are the Carbon-14 results reliable? My mother-in-law has been carbon dated to 20,000 years, but I know for a fact that she is only 523 years old."

(Laughter in the court. Judge bangs gavel and demands order.)

"Seriously, though, are the results reliable?"

"Yes, reasonably accurate."

"You said that Carbon-14 is only used on organic materials. I know that it has a half-life of 5,730 years, so there should be none found in old rocks and things. Yet it's been found in 'ancient' things like coal and diamonds."

"That's due to contamination!"

Kind of impugning the work of many scientists in many labs there, aren't you? So those results are rejected out of hand as unreliable when they conflict with your paradigm. In other words, you've already decided that the Earth is ancient. After all, when Kelvin told Darwin about his young Earth calculations, Darwin said, 'I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thomson, for I require for my theoretical views a very long period before the Cambrian formation'. Your cherry-picked results are selected to enable evolution to happen, which requires large amounts of time.

"Your honor, I recommend that this witness be disqualified, since he is biased and selects 'answers' according to his ideological preferences!"

That's kind of how I think it would go if someone were to present radiometric dating as evidence in court; even a hangin' judge would want better evidence and reasoning before rendering a verdict. 

 The public tends to believe what scientists say because they're scientists. Fact is, in many areas, they are full of the east wind. Biblical creationists encourage people to utilize critical thinking so they can see the poor reasoning used to support evolution and long-age thinking.

Radiometric dating is loaded with difficulties and assumptions, including cherry-picked data and biases. There is a great deal of evidence that Earth is young, created recently. Here are some links to give you further information — scientific things that the anti-creationists keep under wraps. These range from lay level to highly technical.
The links will take you to some reliable information, but feel free to search those sites (and this one as well) for further information on radiometric dating and other information on evolution and such.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 2, 2015

Science Stoppers, Real Science Radio, and Professor Andy McIntosh

Some evolutionists insist that believing in creation is a "science stopper". Creation-believing scientists show this is false, including Professor Andy McIntosh, interviewed by Bob Enyart for Real Science Radio.

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" that a good chunk of the genome was loaded with "junk" DNA, so they stopped looking until recently. A use for almost all of the "junk" has been found, and serious research was hindered in genetic research because of evolutionary paradigms. In addition, the evolutionary paradigm has led to many surprises for scientists in the area of space exploration, instead of "that's what we predicted".

Such claims by these owlhoots are at best prejudicial conjecture, but my money's on bigotry rooted in willing ignorance (Romans 1:18-19, 2 Peter 3:3-5 KJV). I've posted many links to articles here and on The Question Evolution Project where biblical creation scientists discuss their faith and science. To learn more about how creation-believing scientists are actual scientists and publish in scientific journals, click here.

An earlier post linked to an interview with Dr. David Rosevear by Bob Enyart for Real Science Radio. Enyart made another stop in the UK to interview science-award winning Professor Andy McIntosh, who has impressive credentials. Some of the discussion touched on a topic that is mentioned here, biomimetics. (Dr. McIntosh had ideas from the bombardier beetle. Why not? Scientists are working on something from the vampire bat, of all things.) You can listen live online or download the show. The first part is a narrative about Bob's trip to the UK, plus some odds and ends. The actual interview with Professor McIntosh at the 24 minute 50 second mark. To listen, click on "RSR in the UK with a Research Professor from Leeds".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists

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", but instead evidence a young solar system
  • Neanderthals were fully human, even interbreeding with "modern" humans
  • "Lucy" is losing status as a transitional form to our supposed evolutionary past
  • Evidence that dinosaurs have not been extinct for alleged millions of years, and have lived with humans
  • It just keeps getting better
Evolutionists are often hostile to scientists who present evidence that refutes their dogmas. Also, scientific evidence is being suppressed, especially regarding soft tissues in dinosaurs.
Pixabay.com / Efraimstochter

We're going to focus on the recent dinosaur discoveries. I posted some links a spell back about dinosaurs in the Bible, and more recently, I listened to a podcast where David Harrison of Spark Light Ministries [1] was interviewed by Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training [2] regarding dinosaur soft tissues as well as historical evidence of man and dinosaurs co-existing. I made a link to two articles on biblical dinosaur articles as well as the two-part podcast [3]. The discussion was very interesting, and there were a couple of things for which I asked if Mr. Harrison's documentation was handy. (In interviews and discussions like this, people don't tend to keep supporting links nearby.) It turns out that David went to a lot of work and gave me a wagon load of information.

One question I had was about his remark that Mary Schweitzer has been ostracized because of the dinosaur soft tissues work, even though she's an evolutionist. I reckon he's right. From a "Discover" article:
Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. [4]
From the anti-creationist, Bible-compromising "Biologos" site:
Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways, suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought. It’s also hard because, being a Christian evolutionary biologist, I receive a lot of mail that is not fun—fellow Christians suspect my faith, and scientific colleagues suspect my science. But I have no agenda, except to produce data. [5]
Creation Ministries International (CMI) had this to say:
But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’” [6]
An article at Smithsonian.com included this bit of hostility toward her work:
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” [7]
No bones about it, since scientific discoveries did not comport with evolutionary dogma, Schweitzer isn't exactly welcome in the saloon at the Darwin ranch. For that matter, evolutionists were hostile to the work of Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues [8, 9]. Can't let the facts get in the way of promoting the state religion of humanism, which is built on evolution, can we? After all, if dinosaurs lived recently, then many old-earth speculations get stampeded off a cliff.

We can hope that Mary Schweitzer will reconsider her evolutionary views and realize that the evidence, including her own, supports recent creation.

Remember that I said there were two things I asked David Harrison about? Of course you do, readers here are bright and pay attention. Anyway, the second question was about how dinosaur soft tissue research is censored in the United States. It wouldn't surprise me if those owlhoots pulled stunts like that. Yep, they did.

Here is a quote from CMI.
The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterwards, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.” [10]
In addition to censorship, the British Humanist Association uses a straw man fallacy to ridicule creationists [11]. Not surprising, since bigotry and censorship against creationary scientists is rampant [12]. For those inclined to dig deeper, here is a PDF, "Censorship of Information on Origins" [13]. It's typical of those who live by a "survival of the fittest" worldview to lie that creationists do not publish in scientific journals [14].

Seems to me that it's a reasonable conclusion to make that Darwinistas are afraid because more and more evidence supports biblical creation and refutes evolution. They need to wake up and stop suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18-10). God judged the world once with the Flood, and he's coming back. The final Judgment will be with fire (2 Peter 3:7). Where will you be on that day?

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!