Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

More evidence.

More walls of text that you don't understand.

What you present here is nothing new. It's simply the "cosmological argument" for the existence of God. It is not logically sound, for this reason: it is not necessarily true that "everything has a cause."

In fact, "everything" -- literally, all that exists -- cannot have a cause.

What is a "cause" exactly? It always take the form of one event leading to another event consistently with a coherent and plausible mechanism. But an event is always only PART of the universe. It is not the whole of the universe, which includes all of time as well as all of space. Causation, therefore, applies only within the bounds of natural reality, to relationships among fragments of the whole. It cannot apply to the whole itself.

The argument that the universe must have a cause depends on the fallacy of improper reasoning from the part to the whole.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Dragon]

Speak for yourself.

Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The Earth Is Unique

And still more walls of text.

What you present here is what is known as the "anthropic principle." It is similar to the business about all the universe moving uniformly away from us: an illusion of viewpoint.

Basically, it's like this. The Earth appears to be unique (in our solar system anyway) because it has the characteristics for life to evolve here, which means that only Earth is there any possibility of anyone existing to OBSERVE that it is unique. In fact, the conditions for life could have happened anywhere in the solar system and if it had, THAT planet would similarly be found unique. It's a tautology.

No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve you have to prove that first. That is like putting the cart before the horse or trying to drive a car with no steering wheel.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Speak for yourself.

Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.

I was the one correcting you the other day and your gonna say I don't understand what I post.

Why don't you show why what I posted is wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Speak for yourself.

Unlike you, I did. You, instead, let a wall of text that you don't understand speak for you.

When are you gonna respond to my questions ?

 

[Dragon]

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?

Because they're fossilized, of course.

All organisms have mutations,how come we don't see species in the process of evolving ?

We do.

What evidence is there showing life can happen spontaneously from non-life ?

It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)

Why do you hold the view that non-intelligence can produce intelligence ?

Because there is no reason not to.

Can you produce evidence for mutations causing a feature change ? How did it benefit the organism ?

Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.

Why are there more harmful mutations then beneficial mutations ?

Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.

Why is there life on only one planet ?

1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.

2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.

Why does your side make many different family trees if we are all related ? why not just one tree since you believe DNA similarity proves ancestry.

For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.

How is ancestry proven today ? Why can't we use the same method for the past ?

What makes you think we don't?

Why do you trust dating methods created by man when they have proven to be unreliable ?

They have not proven to be unreliable.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?

Specifics, please.

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.

Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.

Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you are as predictable as genetics.

And, it's worth noting (again) your continued refusal to answer the question directed at you.

Here you go.

Evidence for Intelligent Design

So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.

Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." 1 By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.

Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. 2 However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level! 3



It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology. 4
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.

However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...


When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:


In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.6

Miracle of Life

So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time...

Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.



In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.

...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.

In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:


The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:


An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4


Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"

Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1

There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.

After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...

"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."

He stared at me with that look...

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"

He thought for only a second...

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."

In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!


Metaphysics - Now What?

Physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive. Scientific discovery implores us to follow the observational evidence, no matter what the destination. Antony Flew, a British philosopher, Oxford professor and leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century, said it best:



"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Well, at age 81, Flew honestly followed the evidence and renounced his atheism, concluding that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. He declared, "A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."

For me, logic screamed that someone (or something) was responsible for life. Now, I couldn't go back. To be intellectually honest with myself, I had to go forward and discover who (or what) caused everything that I see. It could be God... it could be Mother Nature... it could be UFO's -- but it was something in the realm of metaphysics...

To be honest, I was very uncomfortable -- I didn't like the "metaphysical" implications of what science and technology revealed. For me, evolution was dead. The world did not create itself. Therefore, my comfortable humanist, materialist world-view also had to die. Since someone (or something) was out there, logic declared that my relativistic view of things also had to go…

Although skeptical about my next subject, I had to keep searching... I started reading the various myths, stories and histories about our past. I studied the ancient civilizations. I reviewed maps of the ancient world. I was fascinated by the archaeological evidence. In fact, I had no idea mankind was writing government records, statutory codes and legal contracts in 2500 BC. I thought ancient history was merely oral traditions of very simple cultures. Then, I started reading the so-called "holy books"...

Read the Next Chapter!


Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others using the social media buttons below. What is this?

Evidence For Intelligent Design

 

[Dragon]

No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve

Same thing.

 

[Dragon]

Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind.

False. And that invalidates the entire argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?

Because they're fossilized, of course.



We do.



It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)



Because there is no reason not to.



Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.



Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.



1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.

2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.



For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.



What makes you think we don't?



They have not proven to be unreliable.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?

Specifics, please.

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.

Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.

Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.

Prove it.

Fossilized fossils show no change because they're fossilized you need to explain this ?

Everyone knows abiogenesis is not possible. Give me one peer review that accepts the theory of abiogenesis.

What you are saying I am gonna believe even though there is no supporting evidence.

Feature Morphological Structures and Mechanisms.

One question I forgot to ask . how and why would a non-intelligent process create a mechanism to repair mutations ?

Well beneficial mutations must build on each other how is that possible with many neutral mutations and the admittence of harmful mutations greatly out numbering the beneficial mutations ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind.

False. And that invalidates the entire argument.

How is language developed ?

How was sicence developed ?

How does a house get built ?

How does a car get built ?

How is music developed ?

What was all technology developed by ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve

Same thing.

Only by a biased opinion.

 

[Dragon]

Fossilized fossils show no change because they're fossilized you need to explain this ?

Well, it's a fossil. It's made of rock. Rock has a tendency to last a long time without significant changes.

Everyone knows abiogenesis is not possible. Give me one peer review that accepts the theory of abiogenesis.

No, it's not true that everyone "knows abiogenesis is not possible."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v331/n6157/pdf/331612a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v230/n5289/pdf/230107a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5113/pdf/216408a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/pdf/216029a0.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v205/n4969/pdf/205328a0.pdf

There are FIVE peer-reviewed articles whose authors accept the possibility of abiogenesis. All I did was go to Nature on line and do a search for "abiogenesis." It's a significant topic within biology, so I knew I'd get some hits. Nature is probably the world's premier general science journal, and everything in it is peer-reviewed.

One question I forgot to ask . how and why would a non-intelligent process create a mechanism to repair mutations ?

Well beneficial mutations must build on each other how is that possible with many neutral mutations and the admittence of harmful mutations greatly out numbering the beneficial mutations ?

That's where natural selection comes in. A harmful mutation (by definition) is one that either hurts the chances of survival, or lowers the chances of procreation. When harmful mutations show up, they tend to kill the organism or prevent it from reproducing. In either case, the mutation is not passed on and dies out (except in the case of recessive genes). A beneficial mutation (by definition) either helps survival or helps procreation, and so DOES tend to be passed on and does NOT die out.

Let's say there's a 90% chance a given mutation will be harmful. Using a random number generator, I generate numbers from 1 to 10 and only a 10 represents a beneficial mutation. This will show how, over time, we can end up with five beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool -- even though most mutations (90% of them in this illustration) are harmful.

First 16 mutations are all harmful -- and they all die out.

The 17th is beneficial. It is passed on. We now have 1 beneficial mutation and no harmful mutations in the gene pool.

Next 5 are harmful. They all die out. 1 beneficial and zero harmful mutations in the gene pool so far.

The 23rd is beneficial, and it's passed on, so now we have 2 beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool.

6 more harmful mutations. They all die out.

Next 2 are beneficial. They're passed on. We have 4 beneficial mutations and no harmful ones in the gene pool.

3 more harmful mutations.They all die out.

The 35th mutation is beneficial and is passed on. We now have 5 beneficial mutations and zero harmful ones in the gene pool. It took 35 mutations to reach this state, but none of the harmful ones have been "kept" -- natural selection got rid of them all. All 5 of the beneficial ones have been passed on.

See how that works?

 

[Dragon]

How is language developed ?

How was sicence developed ?

How does a house get built ?

How does a car get built ?

How is music developed ?

What was all technology developed by ?

Specific samples prove nothing. You need to prove the general principle that nothing similar to language, science, houses, cars, music, or technology can arise without being the product of a mind. There is no principle of information theory that insists on this as you claimed. That many things ARE the products of minds is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Dragon]

No the planet possesses all the characteristics for life not for life to evolve

Same thing.

Only by a biased opinion.

No, in the context we're discussing at the moment (the anthropic principle), they're the same thing. It doesn't matter whether life actually evolved or not; all that matters is that the planet possessed the ability to support life, and that is the reason why life exists on it -- without which there would be nobody to observe that it does. If life had emerged on Mars, then we would be saying the same thing about Mars. If life had emerged on Jupiter, we'd be saying the same thing about Jupiter. If life never emerged in this solar system at all, we wouldn't be saying it anywhere. The anthropic principle is a tautology; it doesn't say anything of significance about the universe except that we are in it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Transitional fossils from precambrian . Transitional fossils during the cambrian,where are they ?

Every fossil in the fossil record, except those of currently-living species, is a transitional fossil.

Why do the fossils found in the precambrian show no change today ?

How come fossils found and dated from way back in the past show no change ?

Because they're fossilized, of course.



We do.



It's complicated. If you really want to know, do a search for "abiogenesis." (Of course, once again, this has nothing to do with evolution.)



Because there is no reason not to.



Before I present that evidence, please define "new feature" as I asked you to do before. There is evidence of any REASONABLE meaning of this phrase.



Because mutation is a random change, and there are many more possible random changes that are harmful than that are beneficial.



1) Because only a fairly narrow set of conditions can allow life as we know it to exist.

2) We don't know that there is life on only one planet. There are many planets in the universe that have never been explored, and it is in fact very likely that there is life on some of them.



For the same reason that when driving I might use a map of California rather than a globe of the earth.



What makes you think we don't?



They have not proven to be unreliable.

How do you account for things with a known age showing up much older then the known age ?

Specifics, please.

Why do you believe beneficial mutations are the engine that drives macro-evolution when they are so rare and do not change the organism the way Neo say's ? If I'm wrong provide evidence.

Because evolution happens over a very long time, plenty of time to allow for beneficial mutations to explain what we see, even though they are rare.

Again, please define "new feature." Until you do, it is pointless to present evidence, as you will simply use the ambiguity of the phrase to escape out the back way. You must pin yourself down so no such dodge is possible before I am willing to proceed.

You are not being honest here.

The truith is there are very few full bodied fossils,most creatures they have less the 25% of the fossil of an organism they used their imagination to create many creatures that exist in the fossil record.

What does being fossilized have to do with not showing gradualism ? They were once living creatures if they evolved,the changes would be locked in before they died.

Specifics please. Look through this site and see all the evidence I am speaking of.


Living-Fossils.com


EXPERTS ON DATING

Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions 1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death; 4) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31

Examples of where uniformitarian dating has been shown to be wrong:

In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around 170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607


Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167


A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61


Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634


Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+


A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+


15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466


Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209


A metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River (Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]


“The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966


A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]


Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994


Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and (f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897


Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209


In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9


William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (animal breeding) (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in-The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, p. 80.-"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called 'index fossils'. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established. This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such 'living fossils' obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence."
pp. 82 and 84.-"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long term radiological 'clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..."



DATES THAT DON’T MATCH THE THEORY OR DISCARDED

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon." In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.


Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained."


LINKS TO STUDY MORE ON DATING AND EVOLUTION

serious problems of dating techniques (last half is best and has quotes by evolutionists)
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/philebadcarbon.html

7 wonders of Mt. St. Helens (showing that volcanoes and natural disasters make uniformitarian dating very very inaccurate.)
http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders. Atmospheric Experiments

Early earth atmosphere science
Early Earth Display

Detailed Data on moon dust from direct talks with NASA scientist (there are 4 pages on this, so make sure to click next. The conclusion is that if the moon were 4 million + years old, it should have at least 50 times more dust than it does. Very scientific and of course analyzes the comets and such in depth).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotesa4.html#1023996

Problems with the Big Bang (Christians and atheists both who do believe in the big bang say that it had to be extremely precise in many factors for life to develop. Even some of the atheists are saying that it must have been guided somehow)
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 54.** First Law of Thermodynamics

Rapid burial (many fossils show that they were buried rapidly showing that uniformitarianism is not the way that all fossils were created!).
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 20.** Embryology

Speed of light changes even just in last few centuries (another evidence that uniformitarian's assumption of constant rates always is completely unjustified) and in the past possible up to a million fold faster than it is now!!!
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Why Does the Universe Seem to Be Expanding?

major changes in rates of stalactite growth (another nail in the uniformitarian theory)
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 63.** Radiometric Dating

DNA Production DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced by only DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32.** Genetic Distances

out of place fossils showing that the geological column is not accurate
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24.** Missing Trunk

logical and scientific impossibility of sexual reproduction evolving by evolution
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37.** Metamorphosis*******

living technology is greater than our technology which was carefully researched and planned!
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 39.** Sexual Reproduction

CIA and Noah's ark
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/phileark.html

EXTRA INFORMATION

Evolution depends critically on long time periods of time in order for it to be rationally possible…below are many references that show that the dating methods used are testably vastly in error and extremely inaccurate. They are based on the uniformitarian methods which gives at least 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. With a theory like that, you can just pick whatever dates suit your theory best. But, the data proves that this is very inaccurate and can’t be trusted.

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error",-Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the-Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19 (2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125).-"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs."....
"Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence?
"Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."...
"No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology is 'uneven' and 'relative', and the accepted dates are actually 'selected' dates.
"This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}"

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism",-Science, vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.-"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron (equal in duration; equal intervals of time) model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature."

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in "Strontium Isotope Geology", Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.-"These results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism (the process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances) and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), "K-Ar ages of biotites -(dark brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous and metamorphic rocks, characteristically splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment} found in igneous {formed from a molten [made liquid by heat] state} and metamorphic {formed by pressure, heat} rocks)-from tuffs-(a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel)-in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado".-Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained."

M. L. Keith and G. M. Anderson (Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, USA), "Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells",-Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.-"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et al'. (16), but are also extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years."

Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, The University of Kansas), "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land",- Antarctic Journal-(Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211.-Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

(flood) "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution.
Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."


Luther D. Sunderland, "Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"

Evolution Says .....
Sedimentary rocks are millions of years old, as they take millions of years to form. Gemstones and petrified wood also takes millions of years to form. These are all proof of the old age of the earth.

The Facts Are .....

A petrified orange has been found in a creek near Gayndah (Queensland). The orange cannot be
more than about 25 years old, as the first oranges were not produced in the area until 1968. This short
period of time for an organic object to turn into rock nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis that millions
of years are required for the process to occur. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1988 p:11 [photographs included]

A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the
water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

A bowler hat was buried in the volcanic eruption of Te Wairoa village (North Island, New
Zealand) on June 10, 1886. It was discovered 20 years later, and found to have turned to stone. A leg
of ham had also been petrified after being buried in the same catastrophe. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986
p:10 [photos included]

In the 1780's a Maori chief was buried by being placed in a burial cave at Cavern Head (NZ). The
remains of the chief were discovered by Walter Traill in 1877, and were found to have turned to stone.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10

Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as
short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by
bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years
to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out
of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,
November 5, 1994 p:6 (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

A hammer has been found embedded in Ordovician rock in London (Texas, USA), and has been
assigned the age of 400-500 million years. The handle of the hammer is wooden, and the head is steel.
An analysis of the head by Batelle Laboratories (USA) indicates that it was not prepared by any
known modern process of steel production. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985 p:14-16 [photos included]

Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron
thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and
(f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely
announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

Human fossil skulls and bones have been found in anthracite coal. The assessed age of the rock is
hundreds of millions of years older than the time when humans are said to have evolved. Science Frontiers,
September/October, 1991 p:3

The US Geological Survey has documented that as much as 90% of the radioactive elements in
some granites could be removed by leaching the rock with a weak acid. They also state that as much
as 40% of the uranium in fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable. K.R. Klepper & D.G. Wyant, "Notes
on the Geology of Uranium", US Geological Survey Bulletin, No. 1046-F, 1957 p:93

The Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time expressed their lack of confidence in
radioactive dating as far back as 1950. They said that the 'dates' were like railway timetables in that
they are subject to change without notice. "The Penguin Dictionary of Geology", Penguin Books: Middlesex (England), 1972 p:378

"There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as
previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic
clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close
may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.
Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are
claimed to be ..... The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists ....." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science of
Evolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84

"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on
basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many
hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and
there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the
literature." Written by Dr C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Canada) and others, in their article "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role
in Young Continental Volcanism", in Science, Vol. 193, September 17, 1976 p:1093

"Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in
many instances the isotopic age is not necessarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to
an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists." Written by Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller in their article "Interpretation
of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" in "Time and Place in Orogeny", Geological Society of London Special Publication, No. 3, 1969 p:137

Eleven distinct types of microbes have been identified in rock samples from Marble Bar (W.A.) dated
at 3.5 billion years old, in evolutionary terms. This date puts the rock at forming only 400 million years
after the earth cooled enough for life to exist - according to evolutionary theory. The assessed age of
these organisms is in total conflict with the current ages assigned by evolutionists to the origin of life on
Earth. Time (Australia), May 10, 1993 p:15; Science, April 30, 1993 p:640-646

In the 1960's, scientists took ten samples of lava from both vegetated and unvegetated sites on
Mount Rangitoto (Auckland), and had their ages calculated using the Potassium-Argon method. The
ages of the ten samples ranged from 146,000-500,000 years. Not only did the tests produce a
discrepancy in age of the rocks, but the rock formed when the volcano erupted around 200 years ago,
according to Maori legend. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 33, 1969 p:1485-1520

In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon
radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around
170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating
rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its
geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607

Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian
Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.
35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167

Radiocarbon and Uranium-Thorium dates calculated by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory
(New York) for samples of Caribbean coral have been found to differ by 3,500 years. These tests show
how inaccurate, and artificial, age assessments from radio-dating are. Science News, June 9, 1990 p:356

Lava flows on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Grand Canyon are a most recent formation, being
only a few thousand years old. Radiodating of this rock using Rubidium-Strontium and Lead-Lead
methods has produced ages from 1.5 - 2.6 billion years. Clearly, the age assessment techniques are vastly
inaccurate if the young lava flow is assessed as being older that the sedimentary rock on which it lies.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1989 p:37


Radiodating of minerals collected from a drill core in Northern Australia, using the Uranium-
Thorium-Lead method, has produced conflicting ages. One sample was dated as 862 million years old,
while three other samples were each assessed as being 0 (zero) million years old. This adds to the
confirmation that radiodating techniques are highly variable, and therefore cannot be used to accurately
date objects. Search, Vol. 3, 1972 p:382-385; Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 11, 1976 p:133-154.


(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of
Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14
since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small
variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray
intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000
years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United
States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and
produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative
test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error
terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,
September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly
astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The
radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected
dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which
funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,
No. 3, 1981 p:9
(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true
ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide
true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar
ages". Diggings, August, 1990 p:8
(7) "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.
Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian

Lots more on this site.

The dating game

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?

 

[Dragon]

Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?

Look again. I did provide evidence where what I was saying wasn't self-evident and common knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're still not responding to all my questions dragon.

What developed the things I listed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny how you offer an opinion dragon but no evidence to support what you're saying,why ?

Look again. I did provide evidence where what I was saying wasn't self-evident and common knowledge.

Show how and why they came to those conclusions.

Still waiting to hear what developed the things I listed.