Creation scientists

[Amo]

You can keep posting this stuff and I well understand why you do so.  And I applaud you for your dedication and tenacity.  But the ones who want to substitute a religious belief in evolution over God's inspired narrative of how the Earth, the Solar System and the Universe came to be will never get it.  They can't grasp something that simple.  They have to gum it up.  Mankind is smarter now.  No need to believe God.  We can stick our own humanistic wisdom in place of God's dictates.

They are not going to stop teaching and preaching their theories, neither should we stop teaching and preaching the truths of God's word. There is much evidence which supports the same for all to see. Never mind nonsensical claims that there can be no such a thing as Creation Science. Such is absurd. Whether these "Christian" evolutionists accept it or not, as those who still believe God created all in a different way than scripture states, their theories and observations are creation science as well. If in fact God did created all by one method or another, then all science is basically creation science. The study of that which God created. There is no escaping this reality, save one deny God created all, and basically therefore deny God. Those who deny a literal interpretation of the biblical creation account, and yet still believe God created all in a different way, cannot escape creation science. Everything they examine or observe in the formulation of their theories, is necessarily Creation science, as ones who believe God created everything they are examining. When they declare there can be no such thing as creation science, they either bite their own hands, or reveal the contradiction of their own claims. As though true science cannot include God in the equation. Nonsense!

[Amo]

Mars, Earth, and the rest of the planets in our solar system are the same age, that isn't even a question, it's a well known fact.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/extrasolar-planets/the-age-of-the-jovian-planets/

The Age of the Jovian Planets

by Dr. Ron Samec  on April 1, 2000

Abstract

Since the jovian planets have only recently been formed, they do not need nuclear processes to keep them hot for non-existent evolutionary aeons.

Morrison et al. state that a planet is a body of significant size that orbits a star but does not shine by its own light.1 In other words, we normally think of planets as having no internal power source. Thus the power they return cannot be greater than the power they receive from the sun.

But this is not so for the jovian gas giants. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all give off more heat than they receive. The power excess for Jupiter is 3 x 1017 watts.2Jupiter actually radiates, mostly in the infrared, nearly twice as much power as it receives from the Sun.2 Saturn, although generating about half as much total power as Jupiter,2 has only 30% of its mass. So it produces nearly twice the energy per unit mass than Jupiter! Uranus and Neptune also produce excess energy but much less in total than their big brothers. All this means that there has to be an internal energy source in all of the jovian worlds.

The most common explanation is that all four planets are contracting and releasing gravitational energy. We know by the virial theorem, that during gravitational collapse, half the energy is released as radiation and half is absorbed as internal energy.3 However, the models tell us that too much energy is needed for the contraction idea to work unless Jupiter is 0.6 billion years older than the supposed age of the solar system.2

The major source of this additional heat was theorized to be helium separating out in the liquid hydrogen mantle and raining down upon the core.4 This gravitational mechanism involves the migration of only one element. Recent studies of Jupiter's global oscillations show that this is not occurring.5 They show that even in the most optimistic scenario, only 30% of the helium is stratified into the planet's interior.2 This is far too little to contribute appreciably to the excess heat.

In order to preserve the billion-year age, Ouyed et al. have theorized that there are nuclear processes, in particular, deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion reactions, occurring in the interior of Jupiter.2 Deuterium is heavy hydrogen, or hydrogen with a nucleus containing one proton and one neutron. However, the present core temperature of Jupiter in 'mature' (billion-year) models is less than one-eighth of that needed to support D-D fusion. The reaction requires a temperature of 17 eV (electron volts) or ~160,000 K as compared to 2 eV in the mature Jupiter models.6 Only a young Jupiter, newly formed from the gravitational in-fall of gas, would have a core temperature hot enough to support this reaction. But a young Jupiter would not need a nuclear reaction to explain the excess energy problem, as we will see.

As well as having a high enough temperature for the nuclear reaction, we would have to have deuterium in the core at just the right time so that it could ignite. Ouyed et al. theorize that deuterium sank rapidly to the core after the planet accreted and formed a layer before the planet had time to cool off—all in just a few million years.2 Deuterium fusion, they say, would then maintain the same core temperature as a young Jupiter for a long time. This tells us that Jupiter still exhibits its primordial (original) core temperature! It has not changed for the alleged 4.5 billion years. In fact, they calculate that there should be enough deuterium in Jupiter (if it all collected in this layer) to burn for 100 billion years!

This scenario says the deuterium layer would have had to assemble itself at just the right time and just the right place to sustain Jupiter's primordial core temperature. It requires a remarkable coincidence of amazingly precise conditions. The same incredible conditions would also have had to occur in Saturn, Uranus and Neptune so that they too could support nuclear reactions and maintain their primordial state for billions of years. It would be much simpler to hypothesize that the jovian planets are young! But the uniformitarian planetary geologist or astronomer would find that quite unacceptable. Jupiter's age would only be 0.07% of the assumed 4.5 billion year age of the solar system.

What is a star? Some would say any large self-gravitating gaseous sphere with a continued nuclear reaction in its core is a star. All other objects are either called brown dwarfs or planets. If we accept the notion put forth by Ouyed et al., then we would conclude that there are currently five stars in our solar system—five suns! The authors of this article admit that their model is 'still debatable.'

So how do we explain the excess energy given off by the jovian planets? When God created these planets, the total energy they contained was the sum of the work He supplied plus any gravitational potential energy. The total energy of these processes was converted into heat and this is the source of the primordial energy. Uniformitarians postulate that the primordial energy was derived from accretion in the solar nebulae. Both models give the same result—the jovian planets were initially hot. It is only because the uniformitarian assumes the planets are billions of years old that he runs into problems.

However, once we accept that the jovian planets are young, the excess energy problem disappears. There is no need of a solution. Since the jovian planets have only recently been formed, they do not need nuclear processes to keep them hot for non-existent evolutionary aeons. Rather, they are only thousands of years old and have been hot since they were created.

[4WD]

Never mind nonsensical claims that there can be no such a thing as Creation Science. Such is absurd.

Just another example proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You don't even understand what science is, never mind the fact that you know nothing about it.

God's creation is the producing of something from nothing.  There is no science that speaks of or deals with creation ex nihilo.

[Alan]

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/extrasolar-planets/the-age-of-the-jovian-planets/

[Amo]

Just another example proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.  You don't even understand what science is, never mind the fact that you know nothing about it.

God's creation is the producing of something from nothing.  There is no science that speaks of or deals with creation ex nihilo.

Yea. Cause 4WD says so. Creation Science is about explaining the exact processes of how God created things, just like all the articles form creation scientists do. Not! It is about the evidence suggesting life was formed highly complex and completely functional from the beginning, in the short period of time scripture plainly states. As apposed to deep time slow simple to complex evolutionary processes. It is also about the abundant evidence the world over, of God's destruction of that first creation by a global flood.

You have said before 4WD, that you believe in creation. As an evolutionist, can you tell us when or where the creation you spoke of above happened? When and where, or what did God create ex nihilo?

[Amo]

https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/

Creation 101: Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth
by Dr. Lisle | Oct 27, 2017 | Geology, Origins, Physics

"Science has proved that the earth is 4.5 billion years old."  We have all heard this claim.  We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks.  We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old – a concept known as deep time.

This apparently contradicts the biblical record in which we read that God created in six days, with Adam being made on the sixth day.  From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about 6000 years ago.  Has science therefore disproved the Bible?  Is radiometric dating a reliable method for estimating the age of something?  How does the method attempt to estimate age?

Can Science Measure Age?

People often have grave misconceptions about radiometric dating.  First, they tend to think that scientists can measure age.  However, age is not a substance that can be measured by scientific equipment.  The tools of science allow us to measure mass, volume, pressure, force, weight, and composition...  but not age.  The former quantities are physical properties that can be directly measured using the right equipment.  But age is not a physical property.  It is conceptual.  Age is the concept of the amount of time an object has existed.  It is the present time minus the time at which the object came into existence.  The only way that this can be known scientifically is if a person observed the time of creation.

This may seem like a trivial or obvious point.  But it is a very important one.  One cannot measure the "amount of age" contained in something – as if age were a substance that accumulates over time.  Instead, it would be far more accurate to say that scientists attempt to estimate the age of something.  Thus, the "ages" assigned to rocks on the basis of radiometric dating are not measurements; rather they are estimates.  This is an important distinction because a measurement is direct, objective, repeatable, and relatively independent of starting assumptions.  An estimate, on the other hand, is indirect and highly dependent on starting assumptions.  Sometimes deep time advocates ignore this important distinction.

Of course, there is nothing wrong at all with attempting to estimate the age of something.  We simply need to remember that such estimates are not nearly as direct or objective as a measurement of something like mass or length – measurements that are directly repeatable in the present.  And, as we will find below, age estimates are highly dependent upon starting assumptions.

Estimating Age

Since age cannot be measured, how is it estimated?  This is done by measuring a proxy and performing a calculation.  In science, a proxy is something that substitutes for something else and correlates with it.  As one example, age is not a substance that accumulates over time, but dust is.  The amount of dust can serve as a proxy for the amount of time since a room was last cleaned.  Though age cannot be measured, the depth of dust can be measured.  The estimated age is then computed based on the measured dust.

In order for this kind of estimate to work, certain assumptions must be used.  One set of assumptions concerns the initial conditions.  These are assumptions about the state of the system when it first started.  In the case of estimating the time since a room was last cleaned by measuring dust, we might reasonably assume that the room had zero dust at the time of its cleaning.  Presumably then, all the dust we measured has accumulated since the room's last cleaning.

Another assumption concerns the rate of change of our proxy.  In this case, we must know something about the rate at which dust accumulates.  Often the rate can be measured in the present.  We might measure the amount of dust at one time, and then measure it again a week later.  We might find that dust accumulates at one millimeter per week.  But we must still make an assumption about the rate at which dust accumulated in the past.  Perhaps dust always accumulates at the same rate it does today.  But it is difficult to know for certain; hence, this remains an assumption.

Finally, we must make some assumptions about the "closed-ness" of the system.  In the case of our hypothetical example, we might assume that no one has gone into the room and added dust, or blown dust away using a fan.  The assumptions of initial conditions, rates, and closed-ness of the system are involved in all scientific attempts to estimate age of just about anything whose origin was not observed.

Suppose a room has 5 millimeters of dust on its surfaces.  If dust accumulates at one millimeter per week and always has, if no one has disturbed the room, and if the room started with zero dust at the time of its cleaning, we can reasonably estimate the time since the last cleaning as five weeks.  Our estimate will be as good as our assumptions.  If any of the assumptions is wrong, so will our age estimate be wrong.  The problem with scientific attempts to estimate age is that it is rarely possible to know with any certainty that our starting assumptions are right.

Radiometric Dating

In radiometric dating, the measured ratio of certain radioactive elements is used as a proxy for age.  Radioactive elements are atoms that are unstable; they spontaneously change into other types of atoms.  For example, potassium-40 is radioactive.  The number (40) refers to the sum of protons (19) and neutrons (21) in the potassium nucleus.  Most potassium atoms on earth are potassium-39 because they have 20 neutrons.  Potassium-39 and potassium-40 are isotopes – elements with the same number of protons in the nucleus, but different numbers of neutrons.

Potassium-39 is stable, meaning it is not radioactive and will remain potassium-39 indefinitely.  But potassium-40 will naturally transform ("decay") into argon-40.  This happens when one proton in the potassium's nucleus captures an orbiting electron, thereby converting into a neutron.[1]  This changes the atomic number of the atom from 19 to 18, and so the potassium atom becomes an argon-40 atom.  No external force is necessary.  The conversion happens naturally over time.

The time at which a given potassium-40 atom converts to argon-40 atom cannot be predicted in advance.  It is apparently random.  However, when a sufficiently large number of potassium-40 atoms is counted, the rate at which they convert to argon-40 is very consistent.  Think of it like popcorn in the microwave.  You cannot predict when a given kernel will pop, or which kernels will pop before other kernels.  But you can predict that after 2 minutes, 90% of the kernels will have popped.  It's the same way with radioactive elements.  You cannot tell when a given potassium-40 atom will "pop" into argon-40.  But the rate of a large group of them is such at after 1.25 billion years, 50% of them will have converted to argon.  This number has been extrapolated from the much smaller fraction that converts in observed time frames.

The time it takes for 50% of a radioactive substance to decay is called the half-life.  Different radioactive elements have different half-lives.  The potassium-40 half-life is 1.25 billion years.  But the half-life for uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years.  The carbon-14 half-life is only 5730 years.  Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years, and oxygen-20 has a half-life of only 13.5 seconds.  Why use "half-life" instead of "full-life"?  The answer has to do with the exponential nature of radioactive decay.  The rate at which a radioactive substance decays (in terms of the number of atoms per second that decay) is proportional to the amount of substance.  So after one half-life, half of the substance will remain.  After another half-life, one fourth of the original substance will remain.  Another half-life reduces the amount to one-eighth, then one-sixteenth and so on.  The substance never quite vanishes completely, until we get down to one atom, which decays after a random time.

Since the rate at which various radioactive substances decay has been measured and is well known for many substances, it is tempting to use the amounts of these substances as a proxy for the age of a volcanic rock.[2]  For example, suppose a rock contains 2 micrograms of potassium-40.  After 1.25 billion years, the rock will have only 1 microgram of potassium-40, and will have gained some argon-40.  So, if you happened to find a rock with 1 microgram of potassium-40 and a small amount of argon-40, would you conclude that the rock is 1.25 billion years old?  If so, what assumptions have you made?

The Assumptions of Radiometric Dating

In the previous hypothetical example, one assumption is that all the argon-40 was produced from the radioactive decay of potassium-40.  But is this really known?  How do you know for certain that the rock was not made last Thursday, already containing significant amounts of argon-40 and with only 1 microgram of potassium-40?  In a laboratory, it is possible to make a rock with virtually any composition.  How can we know that the laboratory of nature didn't make the rock with such a composition very recently?  Ultimately, we cannot know.

But there is a seemingly good reason to think that virtually all the argon-40 contained within a rock is indeed the product of radioactive decay.   Volcanic rocks are formed when the lava or magma cools and hardens.  But argon is a gas.  Since lava is a liquid, any argon gas should easily flow upward through it and escape.  Thus, when the rock first forms, it should have virtually no argon gas within it.  But as potassium-40 decays, the argon-40 content will increase, and presumably remain trapped inside the now-solid rock.  So, by comparing the argon-40 to potassium-40 ratio in a volcanic rock, we should be able to estimate the time since the rock formed.

This is called a model-age method.  In this type of method, we have good theoretical reasons to assume at least one of the initial conditions of the rock.  The initial amount of argon-40 when the rock has first hardened should be close to zero.  It sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it?  Yet we know that this assumption is not always true.  We know this because we have tested the potassium-argon method on recent rocks whose age is historically known.  That is, brand new rocks that formed from recent volcanic eruptions such as Mt. St. Helens have been age-dated using the potassium-argon method.  Their estimated ages were reported as hundreds of thousands of years based on the argon-40 content, even though the true age was less than 10 years.

Since the method has been shown to fail on rocks whose age is known, would it make sense to trust the method on rocks of unknown age?  We might ask, "Why did the method fail?"  It seems that at least in some cases the assumption that lava cannot hold significant amounts of argon-40 is simply false.  Deep time advocates blame the faulty results on "excess argon."  The initial amount of argon in the newly formed rocks was apparently not zero, and this false assumption led to the wrong answer.  But many secular scientists continue to trust the potassium-argon model-age method on rocks of unknown age.  But isn't it possible that they also have excess argon?  If so, then their true ages are much less than their radiometric age estimates.  The age estimate could be wrong by a factor of hundreds of thousands.  But how would you know?

We must also note that rocks are not completely solid, but porous.  And gas can indeed move through rocks, albeit rather slowly.  So the assumption that all the produced argon-40 will remain trapped in the rock is almost certainly wrong.  And it is also possible for argon-40 to diffuse into the rock of course, depending on the relative concentration.  So the system is not as closed as secularists would like to think.

There are some mathematical methods by which scientists attempt to estimate the initial quantity of elements in a rock, so that they can compensate for elements like argon-40 that might have been present when the rock first formed.  Such techniques are called isochron methods.  They are mathematically clever, and we may explore them in a future article.  However, like the model-age method, they are known to give incorrect answers when applied to rocks of known age.  And neither the model-age method nor the isochron method are able to assess the assumption that the decay rate is uniform.  As we will see below, this assumption is very dubious.

RATE

Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates.  We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed.  But why?  Which of the three main assumptions (initial conditions are known, rate of decay is known, the system is close) is false?  To answer this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth).  This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating results.

As mentioned above, the isochron method uses some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system.  However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past.  In other words, all radiometric dating methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today.   If that assumption is false, then all radiometric age estimates will be unreliable.  As it turns out, there is compelling evidence that the half-lives of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past.  This may be the main reason why radiometric dating often gives vastly inflated age estimates.
First, a bit of background information is in order.  Most physicists had assumed that radioactive half-lives have always been what they are today.  Many experiments have confirmed that most forms of radioactive decay are independent of temperature, pressure, external environment, etc.  In other words, the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, and there is nothing you can do to change it.  Given the impossibility of altering these half-lives in a laboratory, it made sense for scientists to assume that such half-lives have always been the same throughout earth history.

But we now know that this is wrong.  In fact, it is very wrong.  More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts.[3]  For example, Rhenium-187 normally decays to Osmium-187 with a half-life of 41.6 billion years.  However, by ionizing the Rhenium (removing all its electrons), scientists were able to reduce the half-life to only 33 years!  In other words, the Rhenium decays over 1 billion times faster under such conditions.  Thus, any age estimates based on Rhenium-Osmium decay may be vastly inflated.

Accelerated Radioactive Decay

The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past.  Several lines of evidence suggest this.  But for brevity and clarity, I will mention only one.  This involves the decay of uranium-238 into lead-206.

Unlike the potassium-argon decay, the uranium-lead decay is not a one-step process.  Rather, it is a 14-step process.  Uranium-238 decays into thorium-234, which is also radioactive and decays into polonium-234, which decays into uranium-234, and so on, eventually resulting in lead-206, which is stable.  Eight of these fourteen decays release an alpha-particle: the nucleus of a helium atom which consists of two protons and two neutrons.  The helium nucleus quickly attracts a couple of electrons from the environment to become a neutral helium atom.  So, for every one atom of uranium-238 that converts into lead-206, eight helium atoms are produced.  Helium gas is therefore a byproduct of uranium decay.

And since helium is a gas, it can leak through the rocks and will eventually escape into the atmosphere.  The RATE scientists measured the rate at which helium escapes, and it is fairly high.  Therefore, if the rocks were billions of years old, the helium would have had plenty of time to escape, and there would be very little helium in the rocks.  However, the RATE team found that rocks have a great deal of helium within them.  In fact, the amount of helium in the rocks is perfectly consistent with their biblical age of a few thousand years!  It is wildly inconsistent with billions of years.

But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium.  At the current half-life of uranium-238, this would take billions of years.  But if it actually took billions of years, then the helium would have escaped the rocks.  The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium-238 was much smaller in the past.  That is, in the past, uranium-238 transformed into lead-206 much faster than it does today.

The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay.  Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the year of the global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today.  The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives.[4]  So, slow-decay chains like uranium-lead, potassium-argon, and rubidium-strontium were drastically accelerated, while faster decaying elements like carbon-14 were only minimally affected.

All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today.  But we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false.  And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who do not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock.  This of course is exactly what we observe.  We already knew that radiometric dating tends to give ages that are much older than the true age.  Now we know why............................

Conclusions

Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known.  Yet, secularists continue to assume that it gives correct age estimates on rocks of unknown age.  We now have a good idea why most radiometric dating methods give inflated ages: there was at least one episode of accelerated radioactive decay in earth's history.  This is the only reasonable way to make sense of the abundance of helium found trapped in various rocks.  The abundance of helium indicates that much radioactive decay has happened.  But if it had happened slowly over billions of years, then the helium would have diffused out of the rocks long ago.
One of the few radiometric dating methods that gives consistently reliable results when tested on objects of known age is carbon dating.  But carbon dating confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years.  It never gives age estimates of billions or even millions of years – even on things evolutionists believe to be very old like coal and diamonds.  Carbon dating of dinosaur remains confirms their biblical age of thousands of years.  When we understand the science, we find that radiometric dating actually confirms the biblical account of history.

[Alan]

More bogus science, courtesy of Mr Science himself; Amo 

[Cobalt1959]

More bogus science, courtesy of Mr Science himself; Amo

This coming from someone who chooses which parts of the Bible are inspired and which parts are not.  You might want to re-examine your own theology before you condemn someone else's.  All I see when it comes to any of your posts is Worldly.  You are not about conforming to God's standards, you are all about conforming to worldly standards.

[4WD]

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/accelerated-radiometric-decay

Accelerated Radiometric Decay?

by Hugh Ross
October 31, 2004
TNRTB Archive – Retained for reference information
News that scientists observed the largest-ever increase in the rate of radiometric decay offers no hope either for young-earth creationists or for those intent on denying evidence for supernatural fine-tuning in the radiometric decay rates. The observed increase was seen only for that kind of radiometric decay where the decay occurs as electrons stray into the nucleus. The researchers forced the accelerated decay rate by encasing the radiometric atoms inside buckeyballs (soccer-ball-like lattices of sixty carbon atoms) which surrounded the radiometric atoms with a dense field of electrons. Even for this highly contrived circumstance, the decay rate was sped up by only 0.9 percent. (A young-earth scenario would require orders of magnitude changes in decay rates.) This extraordinary experiment in no way would alter any radiometric dates for the age of the earth or the universe or any of the evidence for the supernatural design of the radiometric decay rates for the benefit of life.

T. Ohtsuki et al., "Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rates of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages," Physical Review Letters 93, 112501 (2004).
https://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000093000011112501000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
Philip Ball, "Radioactivity Gets Fast-Forward," news@nature.com, 17 September, 2004, doi:10.1038/news040913-24.
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/pf/040913-24_pf.html
Related Resource
Hugh Ross and John Rea, "Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!"
Product Spotlights
A Matter of Days, by Hugh Ross

[4WD]

Read and learn



https://storage.googleapis.com/reasons-prod/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf

Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective

by
January 1, 2002
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National

Radiometric Dating by Roger Wiens
Technical Version, 790Kb PDF File

By Dr. Roger C. Wiens

[Alan]

This coming from someone who chooses which parts of the Bible are inspired and which parts are not.  You might want to re-examine your own theology before you condemn someone else's.  All I see when it comes to any of your posts is Worldly.  You are not about conforming to God's standards, you are all about conforming to worldly standards.

I don't recall saying any parts of the Bible are uninspired, and before you charge me with conforming to a worldly position, take a peek out your window and have a look at God's creation. Science simply makes the observation of the result, not much more than that really. It just so happens to conflict with the weird idea that the earth is a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time as modern man.


OTOH, some hold the view that science isn't wrong, all life and matter is observable from a scientific viewpoint and the findings will be the same as that which science reports, but this is exactly how God created it and in His timeline. I don't subscribe to that theory but FWIW, it's 100 x more plausible than the pseudo-science being pushed in this thread. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

God's creation is the producing of something from nothing.  There is no science that speaks of or deals with creation ex nihilo.

I'm thinking there's quite a bit of science dealing with the beginning of the universe. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

This coming from someone who chooses which parts of the Bible are inspired and which parts are not.  You might want to re-examine your own theology before you condemn someone else's.  All I see when it comes to any of your posts is Worldly.  You are not about conforming to God's standards, you are all about conforming to worldly standards.

I think you might be confusing Alan with me.

Anyhow, I don't see Amo posting any theology.  Just "science."

[Amo]

Read and learn



https://storage.googleapis.com/reasons-prod/files/articles/non-staff-papers/roger_wiens_radiometric_dating.pdf

Reading the article as time allows. The following quote reveals assumptions already, which if incorrect trash the entire process.

Also unlike the hourglass, there is no way to change the rate at which radioactive atoms decay in rocks. If you shake the hourglass, twirl it, or put it in a rapidly accelerating vehicle, the time it takes the sand to fall will change. But the radioactive atoms used in dating techniques have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions to the extent that would be experienced by rocks or magma in the mantle, crust, or surface of the Earth or other planets without any significant change in their decay rate.1

First as always, there is the fact that no one knows the conditions or effects of creation itself upon the processes described above, or the original condition of that being measured. Second, neither do those promoting this method know the extent of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and or strong chemical reactions involved in the processes of creation. They must assume all of these. Nor do they likely admit of the global flood concerning our own planet, and the unusually high and unknown rates of these processes during such a divinely produced global catastrophe. So again as always, we are back to faith in either God's word, or the assumptions of fallen humanity. Take your pick. YEC's assume the creation account in Genesis is literal as the rest of scripture backs up and testifies. They have faith in this. Deep timers do not. They place their faith rather in the assumptions upon which fallen humanities theories are built, and therefore do not accept a literal interpretation of the same creation account. As always, it comes down to one's faith. I will continue reading the article as time allows. My following post will be an article regarding the assumptions of deep timers.

[Amo]

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Article below from link above.

Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling  on October 1, 2009; last featured August 4, 2010
Featured in Answers Magazine

Radiometric dating is often used to "prove" rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.

Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works. Part 1 (in the previous issue) explained how scientists observe unstable atoms changing into stable atoms in the present. Part 2 explains how scientists run into problems when they make assumptions about what happened in the unobserved past.

The Hourglass "Clock"—An Analogy for Dating Rocks

An hourglass is a helpful analogy to explain how geologists calculate the ages of rocks. When we look at sand in an hourglass, we can estimate how much time has passed based on the amount of sand that has fallen to the bottom.

Radioactive rocks offer a similar "clock." Radioactive atoms, such as uranium (the parent isotopes), decay into stable atoms, such as lead (the daughter isotopes), at a measurable rate. To date a radioactive rock, geologists first measure the "sand grains" in the top glass bowl (the parent radioisotope, such as uranium-238 or potassium-40).

They also measure the sand grains in the bottom bowl (the daughter isotope, such as lead-206 or argon-40, respectively). Based on these observations and the known rate of radioactive decay, they estimate the time it has taken for the daughter isotope to accumulate in the rock.

However, unlike the hourglass whose accuracy can be tested by turning it upside down and comparing it to trustworthy clocks, the reliability of the radioactive "clock" is subject to three unprovable assumptions. No geologist was present when the rocks were formed to see their contents, and no geologist was present to measure how fast the radioactive "clock" has been running through the millions of years that supposedly passed after the rock was formed.

Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero

No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.

For the other radioactive "clocks," it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, or neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions 2 and 3).

Yet lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected.1 For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) (Figure 1) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated "age" of 350,000 years!2 Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 2), known to be less than 50 years old, yielded "ages" of up to 3.5 million years.

So it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages.

There are similar problems with the other radioactive "clocks." For example, consider the dating of Grand Canyon's basalts (rocks formed by lava cooling at the earth's surface). We find places on the North Rim where volcanoes erupted after the Canyon was formed, sending lavas cascading over the walls and down into the Canyon.

Obviously, these eruptions took place very recently, after the Canyon's layers were deposited (Figure 3). These basalts yield ages of up to 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years. This is the same age that we get for the basalt layers deep below the walls of the eastern Grand Canyon.4

How could both lavas—one at the top and one at the bottom of the Canyon—be the same age based on these parent and daughter isotopes? One solution is that both the recent and early lava flows inherited the same rubidium-strontium chemistry—not age—from the same source, deep in the earth's upper mantle. This source already had both rubidium and strontium.

To make matters even worse for the claimed reliability of these radiometric dating methods, these same basalts that flowed from the top of the Canyon yield a samarium-neodymium age of about 916 million years,5 and a uranium-lead age of about 2.6 billion years!6

Assumption 2: No Contamination

The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive "clock" in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium "age" of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium "age" of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead "age" of 3.908 billion years!8

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate

Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks "work"!

New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past.9 For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite (Figure 5) yields a uranium-lead "age" of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.

This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today's measured rate! For more details see Don DeYoung's Thousands . . . Not Billions (Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005), pages 65–78.

The assumptions on which the radioactive dating is based are not only unprovable but plagued with problems. As this article has illustrated, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations. Or inflowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rocks. In addition, the radioactive decay rates have not been constant.

So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive "ages" of countless millions of years, especially since they contradict the true history of the universe as recorded in God's Word.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/surtsey-island

Quoted article below from link above.

Surtsey Island, Iceland, forms million-year features in 10 years

Of the brand new island that formed off the coast of Iceland in 1963, New Scientist reported in 2007 about Surtsey that "geographers... marvel that canyons, gullies and other land features that typically [i.e., allegedly] take tens of thousands or millions of years to form were created in less than a decade."

Iceland's official geologist wrote in the early months of the volcanic island of Surtsey, "that the time scale", he had been trained, "to attach to geological developments is misleading." For what is said to "take thousands of years... the same development may take a few weeks or even days here," including to form "a landscape... so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief" with "wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags... gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs... hollows, glens and soft undulating land... fractures and fault scarps, channels and screes... confounded by what met your eye... boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round..."

Similar to the rapid-formation lessons of Surtsey, the entire life cycle of one of the seven natural wonders of the world, the volcano Parícutin, took only nine years from it's birth, witnessed by a farmer's family in Mexico, to its going "extinct" after reaching a height of nearly 1,400 feet!)

Here's the Point: Of course most islands are much older than the recently formed Surtsey, but the rapidly grown formations on this island undermine the old-earth, knee-jerk assumption presented to hundreds of millions of students that the kinds of geologic features seen on Surtsey require million-year timeframes to form.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/manganese-nodules

Quoted article below from link above.

Rapid manganese nodule formation "around beer cans"

Manganese nodules can form rapidly (just like opals, gold veins, and even a river gorge). However the biased old-earth Wikipedia entry (consistent from 2005 through 2016) claims that: "Nodule growth is one of the slowest of all geological phenomena, on the order of a centimeter over several million years." Wow, that would be slow! And a Texas A&M Marine Sciences technical slide presentation says, "They grow very slowly (mm/million years) and can be tens of millions of years old."
​
However, according to a World Almanac documentary manganese nodules have formed "around beer cans," said marine geologist Dr. John Yates in the 1997 video Universe Beneath the Sea: The Next Frontier. Evolutionists hold to a belief that these nodules form super slowly, but their belief seems to conflict with actually measurable deposition rates of ocean sediment which would bury nodules as much as 1,000 times more quickly than the nodules would form.

Thus millions of manganese nodules (also referred to as naturally-occurring ferromanganese) wouldn't be just sitting where they are on the ocean floor. Nor would these buried nodules be disproportionately in uppermost layers of ocean sediments where drilling demonstrates that most nodules are in fact concentrated. From Marine Geosciences: "fast formations of ferromanganese incrustation have been also observed near ships wrecked during the First World War (Goldberg, 1958) or around motor plugs (Andrews, 1972)." (Note: If you track down the Goldberg and Andrews references, please email your findings to Bob@RealScienceRadio.com. Thanks!)  Also, many nodules exist in the Great Lakes of North America.

Typical of contradictory old-earth claims, a paper in Marine Biology states that such encrustation forms "slowly... at 1 to 5 mm" per million years, yet "by a process that is poorly understood," which is essentially an admission that they don't know how quickly ferromanganese forms. So, if they don't understand the process, why claim that they can quantify the rate of the process? Industry-wide, a scientist's claim is more readily accepted by the biased old-earth community if he says that some process takes a million years. However, if nodules and other such encrustments take that long to form, just as the Texas A&M presentation above pointed out an obvious conflict, the paper states, "It remains unexplained why crusts are not overwhelmed by more rapid biological processes occurring simultaneously."

Yes, unexplained. And unexplainable. Because nodules don't require millions of years to form. Regarding their formation and mining, a John Hopkins University doctoral dissertation states that manganese nodules seem to, "grow around shark's teeth, pieces of bone, or other previously-existing cores. Whatever their origin, they are being formed continuously at a rate which makes them effectively non-depletable." Learn more about this in the Journal of Creation, see the Manganese Nodules thread at TheologyOnline.com, and listen to a chat about these with John Baumgardner, for many years a Los Alamos National Laboratory geophysicist.
​
Here's The Point: The marine geologist's testimony of rapidly forming manganese nodules disproves the claim that hundreds of thousand of years are *required* for such growth. Of course, countless nodules can be older than the canning industry. But manganese nodule growth on a beer can undermines the credibility of old-earth scientists who make knee-jerk claims, without strong evidence, that countless geologic features take thousands or millions of years to form (like opal formation, a few weeks, not 10,000 years, and geologic features on Surtsey Island, a few months, not eons). Since evolutionists tend to have a zero concession policy, which is not evidence of confidence in their position, don't look for old-earthers to acknowledge that manganese nodules should now be taken off their list of evidence for an old earth.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/carlsbad-cavern

Carlsbad Caverns removes sign after series of unsubstantiated age claims

Did you know that stalactites can grow several inches within a few days? While old-earth claims abound in the area, the National Park Service at New Mexico's Carlsbad Caverns changed the sign that claimed the cave formed 260 million years ago. They replaced it with one that said it formed eight million years ago, and then they replaced that one with a sign that claimed the cavern formed two million years ago. Today you can hear Carlsbad park ranger Jeff Axel saying, "This cave has been watching the world go by for about a million years," yet the NPS wisely took down that old sign altogether.
​
On a family vacation one of the Real Science Radio co-hosts, Bob Enyart, heard onsite the official audio tour (which the NPS recently removed from the Internet), which states about Carlsbad Caverns that the, "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water." That's accurate of course, and suggests that a sufficiently catastrophic flood on the surface could form the entire cave rapidly. The Carlsbad Caverns: A Walking Tour in 3D video with official audio narration asks about the cave formations, "Do you know how quickly they grow?" And answers, "Nobody knows the answer to that question. For one thing, formation growth is based on the amount of rain or snow on the surface." (In 2016 RSR will try to make that audio tour available online again.)

Carlsbad area native and cave expert with the U.S. Forest Service, geologist Jerry Trout, said that, "From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor's sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988, the sign was changed to read 7 to 10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone." The January 1993 Arizona Highways magazine interview, pp. 10-11, continues: "In short, he  says, geologists don't know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that... stalactites take years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days." And while even stalactites, which hang from the ceiling, can grow rapidly, Carlsbad's official audio tour acknowledges that, "stalagmites are generally made by faster dripping water. "Dr. Walt Brown (Ph.D., MIT) reports this in his book, In the Beginning, and see more at Real Science Radio.

Here's the point: The old-age mindset makes typical knee-jerk claims such as that opals required tens of thousands of years to form, whereas geologists now acknowledge that microbes make them in wet sand on the beach in just a few weeks. Likewise, that old-age mindset claims that countless features on earth, including caves, could not form in the biblical timeframe of less than 10,000 years. However, one-by-one, hard science is disproving these claims of deep time. See for example the dinosaur soft tissue and dinosaur bone and egg shells that are loaded with short-lived left-handed amino acids and especially short-lived carbon 14!

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/supernova-remnants

Millions of years of missing Supernova Remnants including Stage 3s

An explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) and formed the Crab Nebula. Old-earth scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe, and particularly the Milky Way Galaxy, is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that allegedly should exist, are missing. Instead, the number of supernova remnants corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old! This is especially true considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3, which is the great diameter that they should eventually reach and still be observable. Of course, if the universe is young, it is not surprising that there are no Stage 3 SNRs.

​For more info, check out this 2007 Real Science Radio program on missing SNRs, and for more generally from the wonderful discoveries of astronomers, see Real Science Radio /big-bang for our debate with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/missing-collisions

Spiral galaxies are missing millions of years worth of collisions

Cosmologists who accept the Big Bang model naturally predicted that because spiral galaxies are, allegedly, at least hundreds of millions of years old, the large ones must have formed by mergers of smaller galaxies, so therefore the bulges in the center of the spirals would have formed from millions of years of collisions. However, astronomers carefully studying large spiral galaxies have found that 1) often there are no bulges at all, and 2) spirals exhibit a perfect orderliness in the trajectory of their stars. As reported in the New Scientist article, "Galaxies too good to be true," Princeton University cosmologist Jim Peebles added that, "It's really an embarrassment."
​
Cosmologist John Kormendy admitted that the pristine spirals, "were something of a shock." For they, "look rather too perfect." Yes, too perfect, like our DNA. Similar to evolutionary biology with its now falsified junk DNA prediction, the materialistic view of origins thinks it sees chaos even where order reigns.

Google: big bang predictions or evidence against the big bang, and see Real Science Radio's highly ranked articles at kgov.com. Carefully following this area of study, RSR hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams recommend two videos that highlight the important discoveries that contradict materialistic origins stories like the big bang. Spike Psarris, formerly with the U.S. military space program, created the greatest astronomy DVDs ever made, Vol. I about our Solar System, and Vol. II about Stars and Galaxies. Also, YoungEarth.com thanks Creation magazine for alerting us to the above spiral galaxy cluster findings. As reported for years on the RSR broadcast and podcast and as at rsr.org/list-of-shocked-evolutionists, those who believe in materialist origins are forever dismayed, shocked, and even call the latest discoveries "horrendous," because scientific observations typically contradict the fundamental predictions of atheistic origins.
​
The public's confidence is misplaced in the claim that scientists have figured out an atheistic origin of the universe, for in reality, even under their own theories that were devised in order to explain the formation of the universe, in moments of clarity they admit that they can't explain galaxies. Rather than having a robust theory that stepwise explains the origin of stars and galaxies, materialists cannot even say whether stars formed before galaxies, or whether galaxies formed before stars. John Maddox, physicist and 23-year editor of the journal Nature, admits on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, that scientists don't even know, "Which objects came first, stars or galaxies?" Thus evolutionists oversell the evidence for the big bang to the public, and neither for Earth nor for space can they answer the chicken-or-egg dilemma. So while big bang cheerleaders like theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss told us here at youngearth.com that, "All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang," the Albert Einstein professor emeritus of science at Princeton, Jim Peebles, said that the pristine star trajectories in the bulges, "is wildly unexpected in the standard model."
​
Here's the Point: Predictions are the hard currency of science. When the data contradicts big-picture predictions in an enormous way, as with galaxies-worth of contrary evidence from trillions and trillions of stars, the scientifically-minded student of nature will then reconsider the validity of the original model which led to the erroneous predictions, especially when this happens repeatedly. For more "shocking" discoveries from NASA and other big bang astronomy institutions, see the two other examples here at YoungEarth.com and see our RealScienceRadio.com/list-of-evidence-against-the-big-bang.

[Rella]

https://www.youngearth.com/manganese-nodules

Quoted article below from link above.

and a double thumbs up to most of the posted rest of the articles

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/heavy-metal

Nine billion years of missing metal in a trillion stars

Some people don't like heavy metal, but who would have chucked nine billion years worth? Led by a University of Indiana astronomer, a study of fifteen entire galaxies contradict the standard model of star and galaxy formation which claims that as billions of years pass during star evolution, they're supposed to create way more heavier metals than these trillion or so stars possess. See this at Space.com and see our debate with theoretical physicist (emphasis on the theoretical) Lawrence Krauss at RealScienceRadio.com/big-bang.

Here's the Point: We are not talking here about whether a particular meteor may or may not crash into a lesser moon of Jupiter. This is a big-picture prediction that flows naturally from the most fundamental claims of the Big Bang model. When major predictions of a theory are contradicted by enormous quantities of data (in this case, by a trillion stars), the case therefore can be made that the public's confidence in the underlying theory is undeserved.

[Amo]

https://www.youngearth.com/deformed-pinwheel-arms

The pinwheel arms of spiral galaxies should deform after a million years

After their alleged billions of years the spiral arms of "pinwheel" galaxies should now be deformed, since as has been known for decades, the speed of the arms does not align with the galaxy centers. Therefore there is "missing billions of years" of deformation in spiral galaxies. Atheistic astronomers have great difficulty even explaining where our own Moon came from, let alone our entire solar system and the entire universe. And just like Darwin's origin of species begins with species, the standard models of star formation typically begin either with the star already forming or with pre-existing stars exploding. Astrophysicists even admit that they cannot figure out which formed first, stars or galaxies, showing that their Big Bang hypothesis does not merit the public's confidence.

John Maddox, the editor of the journal Nature for 23 years, on page 48 of his book, What Remains to be Discovered, wrote: "Which objects came first, stars or galaxies? Theoretical science offers no clear guidance..." So, far from being able to explain how the universe could form apart from God, atheists are actually just groping in the dark. (See RealScienceRadio.com/which-came-first-stars-or-galaxies.)
​
As rescue devices, in defense of their theory, Big Bang proponents propose enormous secondary assumptions not at all predicted by the core Big Bang theory itself, including the existence of so-called dark matter. However, hundreds of relevantly degreed scientists, many at prestigious institutions, have stated, "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy [etc.] the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors."

Here's the Point: Big Bang believers search for "dark matter" hoping to show that spiral galaxies don't really disprove their theory. But that dark matter would not explain the millions of years of missing heavy metal in a trillion stars, nor the missing shadow of the Big Bang, nor the missing millions of years of collisions in galaxy clusters. For each huge conflict with actual observational data, proponents need to create additional, strained rescue devices. When an entire series of such fundamental scientific predictions are falsified in spectacular and even galactic ways, the unbiased student will question the assumptions that went into those predictions.

​

[Amo]

and a double thumbs up to most of the posted rest of the articles

An interesting site, with fairly short and sweet articles which get right to the point. Good questions concerning observable evidence, or a lack thereof. Good food for thought, from those of the young earth creationist faith.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYCPcjHcq7g

Good video concerning scientific observations of Mount St. Helens eruption. The localized destruction it caused, effects, and natural recovery. Making comparison to global evidence of similar destruction, effect, and recovery world wide.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekejmQKfNI&t=2836s

Another good one addressing the problems of the uniformitarian views concerning ice ages, and the alternative creation science views which solve some of those problems.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4XaNYWIrgI&t=3s

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRoQL7W5jg8

The Best movie explaining Noah's Flood Ever made !

[Rella]

Thanks AMO,

Very informative but afraid too many will not watch the entirety of things..... especially those who see the flood as being regional and their starting out with the references from other cultures.

But it is well done and fast moving so all should

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MlTjws-y8U&t=17s

This video about the Jesuits, also addresses the big bang theory. You'll never guess where it came from.

[4WD]

That George LeMaitre was the first [known] person to solve Einstein's equations of relativity formulating the concept of the big bang has been well known for many years.  He was not however the one who coined the term 'Big Bang'.  That was a Fred Hoyle who first applied the term to LeMaitre's formulation.  It was a term of derision because Hoyle believed the universe to be in a condition of steady state having no beginning. It is said, though I couldn't find a reference for it, that the primary reason for rejecting LeMaitre's theory of the concept of the big bang was that it posited a beginning for the universe and that implied a 'beginner' for the universe and that implied the existence of God.  And since Hoyle was a staunch atheist, he could not and would not admit to LeMaitre's big bang.

Aside from that, I have no reason to doubt the video's presentation on the RCC Jesuits.  It certainly helps explain the present Pope.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipkBmbi6k5c

Video addressing more admitted mistakes by deep time evolutionists. They never scrap their deep time narrative though, just adjust and re-explain their position according to their faith. The constant references I have posted many times on these boards revealing complexity further and further back in time, are actual evidence supporting creation and complexity from the beginning. Those of the evolutionary faith though, will never accept the continued increasing evidence suggesting such, as such. Their faith in their theory is too blind apparently, to change their views, but rather forces them to admit of complexity further and further back in time. They do not want to change their theoretical speculations regarding the deep time slow processes they assume it took to build the geological formations of the earth, therefore they must move the complexity issue further back in time. So be it.

[4WD]

Amo, for every video that you post that you think presents your warped view of the history of the universe there are hundreds or even thousands presenting a better view. 

But the more interesting thing is that the video you just posted proclaimed the existence of Precambrian predatory life forms, i.e., predatory life forms existing before about 540 million years ago.  Did you even bother to pay attention to what the video was saying?  Nothing in that video would support anything you believe about the history of the universe.

Again you simply display your nearly complete ignorance of science and all things scientific.  You really need to stick to your own analytics of scripture and stay completely away from the science that you know nothing about.

[Alan]

The wife of some good friends of ours has now adopted the flat earth theory. This is an intelligent woman, but it shows how easily some people can be deceived by watching an 8 hour video and joining in with like-minded people. There is literally no evidence to suggest the earth is flat, but there are millions of bits of evidence to show that the earth is a sphere, as well as eye witness testimony. The same applies to a 6000 year old universe, no genuine evidence supports that nonsense, but a plethora of evidence points toward a 13.8 billion year old universe, if you can't accept that you're simply entwined in ignorance.

[Rella]

Alan,

Would you ask this woman or your friend to ask her what the bottom of the earth is like.

It is obvious that some airplane at some time has flown East to West and then under the earth... they have to have observed something.