Posts

Showing posts matching the search for diamonds

Carbon-14: Not Much Good Anymore

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

Ancient DNA and Overused Evolutionary Terms

Image
Time and time again, Darwin's disciples are trapped by their erroneous presuppositions. They filter observed evidence through their worldviews  and are continually surprised when their speculations do not match the facts. Rescuing devices and obambulating weasel words are utilized. As regular readers have seen, secular cosmologists are constantly surprised that facts do not align with preconceptions. This also happens in biology, paleontology, and so on. "Earlier than thought", "Later than thought" and similar terms are vague but unapologetic admissions of error. They are used in discussions of ancient DNA. One major problem for those of the deep-time persuasion is that they assume the earth is billions of years old despite frequent evidences to the contrary . It was extremely difficult to get labs to carbon date diamonds because they "knew" there would be no C14. Wrong. Dinosaurs and other creatures "cannot" have soft tissues and discernable

Crater of Diamonds and the Age of the Earth

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

Secular Science Confirming the Genesis Flood?

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

Scientists Should Test and not Assume

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

Fooling with Radiocarbon Contamination Claims

Image
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!

Dinosaur Tissue Preservation and the Iron Maiden

Image
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. 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 i

Appeal to False Authority, TalkOrigins, and Diamonds

Image
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

"Evolution's Achilles' Heels" — Book Review

Image
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.

Diamonds from the Basement

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

Creationists Using Carbon-14 on Fossils

Image
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

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

Image
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

Science Stoppers, Real Science Radio, and Professor Andy McIntosh

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

Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists

Image
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&qu