Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Sometimes, anti-creationists riding the Owlhoot Trail want to slap leather with creationists but they don't bring a gun to a gunfight. They don't even bring a knife or a pointed stick. I reckon they don't want to say anything meaningful, they just want to "prove the st00pid dumb creotard" wrong. Problem is, they show their own lack of thought and look mighty silly. Courtesy of Why?Outreach Too many people read just the caption of a picture or a few lines of text and then leave a comment. Unfortunately, this short attention span trend is common and seems to be growing, and the ignorant comment is a bane to many Page owners and bloggers. I shared this picture, " The Lincoln Memorial Disproves Old Earth Theories " about stalactites and stalagmites that had formed quickly under the memorial. Apparently, this guy didn't bother to pay attention to the excerpts in the caption or look at the two links. He complained, "

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

G'day. Uniformitarian explanations for the very complicated formation of the opal are inadequate, and biblical creationist theories involving their formation due to the Genesis Flood fit the data far better. It is not time, not millions of years, but conditions that make the difference. In fact, opals can be made in laboratories in a matter of weeks! For that matter, diamonds can be made in labs , too. morgueFile / cohdra This attractive gemstone is mainly found in a certain area of Australia. (There are some bland common opals, but you're not likely to find them mounted in a ring.) You can get fine opal jewellery on a cattle baron's salary, but even the ranch hand that works for him can save up and afford a good-looking piece his own self, too. Precious opal, with its dazzling display of brilliant blues, greens, yellows, and fiery reds, is one of the most recognizable Australian icons. More than 95 percent of the world’s opals are mined in this one country, exp

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. 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 t

One of the ways that evolution hinders scientific progress is because of the multitude of assumptions made. For instance, so-called "junk DNA" was not thoroughly investigated for many years because it was presumed that since scientists did not understand all of it, it must be junk from our putative evolutionary past. Then evolutionists were embarrassed to learn that it's not junk after all . Dinosaur bones were not tested because of the presumption that they've been extinct for millions of years. Soft tissues were a real shocker ! Test diamonds for carbon-14? That's absurd, they're billions of years old and there will be none of that. Wrong, carbon-14 is in diamonds ! Carbon-14 physics/Wikimedia Commons Similarly, carbon-14 should not be in natural gas wells, so evolutionists did not bother to look. A creationist scientist had testing done, wrote up a peer-reviewed paper that was published by the prestigious Creation Research Society, and did an inter

Radiometric dating is fraught with difficulties. These include conflicting results , no sign of anything resembling calibration, and especially a number of assumptions . When radioactive elements decay, they turn into a different, stable element (parent-daughter): Rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon and so on. The assumptions are: They know how much of the parent and daughter elements exist, no outside factors affected the quantities, and that the rate of change remained constant. Results from radiometric dating are varied, and the scientists can choose the results that best suit their preconceptions. But there have been problems with Carbon-14. This is primarily used on organic materials, and there should be no  detectable Carbon-14 in materials that are allegedly older than 100,000 years, such as diamonds . But it's there, and they make excuses such as "lab contamination". Carbon-14 yields results that do not fit with evolutionary time scales. When usi

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 bill

stock.xchng/amalrik 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

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 onl

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 .