Posts

Showing posts matching the search for diamonds

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

Relationship Status of Opals to the Earth — It's Complicated

Image
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

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

What Does Carbon-14 Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?

Image
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

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

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

Anti-Creationists and Facepalming

Image
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, "

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

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