|
Bryan
Bissell
How old is the earth? This is one of the major
questions of the creation/evolution debate. Creation actually does not need to
have the earth be young or old. The Bible makes no claim about the age of the
earth itself. God could have created the materials and rocks millions of years
ago (or even created it fully formed like he did Adam and Eve) and then just
recently put life on it. It’s possible, but there’s nothing biblically to say
what happened before creation.
The creation of life according to the Bible though
certainly cannot be millions of years old. Scholars estimate that Bible history
is less than 10,000 years old. But, evolution requires millions of years of
history to be even considered possible. If this earth is only a few thousand
years old, then evolution is completely impossible. Evolution has so far never
been able to prove that one kind of animal DID evolve into another animal (for
example a deer to a giraffe) or that life can come from non-life. You will see
that this area of dating the age of the earth also is also very doubtful
scientifically.
Almost all dating methods are based on the
uniformitarian theory. But, this requires 4 assumptions:
-
The rate of change is always about the same.
-
There was no major disaster, such as earthquakes,
volcanoes, floods or other such things that would hugely distort the results
-
You
must assume how much of the element/material there was at the beginning.
-
You must assign certain years to the experimental numbers
that you find.
 It’s kind of like a candle. If you come into a room
and see a candle burning, how can you tell how long it’s been burning? You
don’t know what the starting height was. You don’t know if it was always
burning or if it stopped burning for 100 years and then started again. You
don’t know how fast it was burning at every point in history. So, there is no
way to tell how long it has been burning. This is the same problem that all
uniformitarian methods have whether they are used by evolutionists or
creationists. Scientific things must be checked by experiments where they can
be repeated and retested. You can’t redo and retest history. The only way to
check dating ages accuracy would be to have something that you are certain is 1
million years old and test against that. But, we don’t have anything that we
are sure is 1 million years old.
Here are 4 reasons (and there are many more)
uniformitarianism should not be trusted and then there are man examples and
quotes below by scientists showing that it shouldn’t be trusted:
1)
PICK ANY THEORY YOU LIKE
Most dating methods are based on the uniformitarian method. This method
measures rates of change and estimates age. There are over 80 ways of dating the
earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. Such a
wide variety of possibilities makes it impossible to tell for certain the age of
the earth using that method. You can just pick and choose the date that fits
your theories. This is not scientific at all. It’s guessing.
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth according to evolutionists has been
doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age
has multiplied by a factor of 100! But, over 50 of the 80 methods show that the
earth, solar system, and universe are young than 1 million years old. This
makes evolution impossible.
Here’s one example with volcanoes. Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of
material into the atmosphere each year. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the
entire volume of the earths sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion
years. Actually, only about 25% of the earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin,
and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been
proposed which can remove or transform all these volcanic sediments. Earth’s
sediments, therefore, appear to be much younger than 4.6 billion years old. In
addition, 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)
You can see many other methods at:
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm and http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html#1012191
But, again, if you can choose any method of checking the age of the earth from
400 years old to 100 billion, this is not science. It’s only guessing.
2)
RATES CHANGE
 Scientists can measure current rates of growth or change, but how do they
know that it was the same or even similar throughout history. Certain events
can have disastrous effects on the systematic counting of dates. Volcanoes and
earthquakes are known to change the date by millions of years at times and yet
they happen in a day or less. If the earth was a pangea or in an ice age as
evolutionists suggest or had a water layer as creationists suggest, the climate
and rates and other aspects could be drastically affected. It is a total faith
assumption to think that the rates now were the same or similar in the past.
There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the
early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth
enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the
atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result. The theory (not
definitely biblically) of some creation scientists is that this was because of a
water layer around the earth.
 Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air
bubbles
that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. "The
researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadruple mass
spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance.
As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released,
exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising
evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today."
(Discover, February, 1988, p. 12. A Yale study published in the March 3,
2000 issue of Science independently confirms the high levels of oxygen present
in the earth’s distant past.
A 50% change in the atmosphere is a huge change that is not accounted for by
uniformitarian dating. It would have huge effects on the rates of growth.
Dr.
Kei Mori of Kao University in Tokyo raised plants under special light that
filtered out IR and UV radiation. He claimed it could promote healing and
"because the ultraviolet is blocked, this sunlight does not fade fabrics or
damage skin." (Gilmore, Elaine, "Sunflower over Tokyo," Popular Science, May
1988, p. 75.) One long-lived tomato plant (shown right) was grown in a special
nutrient-rich solution to be exhibited at the Japan Expo Under piped sunlight
and controlled atmosphere, this tomato tree grew over 30 ft high and yielded
more
than
13,000 ripe tomatoes during the six months of the Expo! (Hiroshi, Koichibara, "Tomatomation,"
UNESCO Courier, March 1987.) The rate of growth of this tomato plant is hugely
different from rates that we see today normally. Mori’s environment of filtered
sunlight, enhanced carbon dioxide, and nutrient-rich liquids could be similar to
the conditions on earth near creation. This would explain why many ancient
fossils
are much larger than these days fossils: 13 meter crocodiles, 3-4+ meter humans,
60 centimeter cockroaches, 1 meter dragonfly wings and others (see more info at:
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exper/exper.htm,
http://www.s8int.com/mega1.html or
http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html).
3)
SCIENCE CHECK
There is no known check available for dates over 10,000 years. They are
total assumptions since there were no witnesses and there’s nothing to check
your tests against. Carbon 14 has been found to be fairly accurate for dates
under 4000 years since it can be checked against known historical documents.
But, beyond that, even it's discoverer could not trust it. I even suspect the
4000 years when cataclysmic events are known to have happened. In Hawaii, lava
stones known to be 160 years old were dated at 160 million to 3 billion years
old (national geographic magazine) and there are many other similar cases.
A dating method that cannot be checked against an item known to be of similar
age (by other methods such as historical methods) has almost no credibility.
That's not science, it's speculation, something that evolutionists have
indulged in to an incredible degree and so have some creationists.
4)
CALIBRATION OF DATA
Rocks don’t tell you how old they are. There is no sign saying, “I am 3 million
years old.” Scientists make a scale from their observations and then assign
years to different numbers. This is VERY subjective and is heavily influenced
by the scientists’ opinion. If a scientist believes in evolution, he will
assign millions of years to certain data. If he is a creationist, he will
assign a few thousand years to that data. Here is one real example.
CORAL REEF DATING
 Enewetak coral reef has been drilled through and is about 1,405 meters thick.
Evolutionists say that this proves the world is millions of years old. But,
here is the real scientific data. This shows how all scientists will interpret
data according to their own worldview. Here are the facts:
FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick
FACT:
Observed rates range from .5cm (=5mm/year) to 414mm/year with many in the
100-200mm range.
1405m = 1,405,000mm
5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age
50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age
100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age
200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age
300mm/year
rate =4,683 years estimated coral age
414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age
 These are ONLY the observed rates. There may be faster and slower rates that
haven’t been observed. In 1992, this coral in the picture above was found on a
shoe that was less than 4 years old. This shows that coral growth can sometimes
be extremely fast.
Which rate happened at
Enewetak? Nobody has been watching and measuring the Ewenetak coral reef for
5,000 years, so we don’t know. Science can only say what might have happened.
Skeptics choose the 5mm rate. Creationists choose the 200-400 rates. Both are
using a lot of faith. It does seem logical to match the fast rates with the
thickest corals on the planet, but this is just logical guess.
Data above and more coral
info at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/coral.asp#tale,
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0345.html,
http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm
In
the same way, all uniformitarian dating ages are only logical guesses with many
assumptions. The only dating ages that can be trusted are those that have
been tested and compared against historical materials of a known age.
If the earth is only a few thousand years old, then the theory of evolution is
completely impossible scientifically and scientists should learn to be much more
accurate and careful scientifically and not instill propaganda in people’s
minds.
===============================================================================
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.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/exper/exper.htm
Early earth atmosphere science
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/earthdis/earthdis.htm
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)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences15.html#1011757
Rapid burial (many fossils show that they were buried rapidly showing that
uniformitarianism is not the way that all fossils were created!).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#1029340
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!!!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#1143332
major changes in rates of stalactite growth (another nail in the
uniformitarian theory)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#1012011
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.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#1009536
out of place fossils showing that the geological column is not accurate
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#1055073
logical and scientific impossibility of sexual reproduction evolving by
evolution
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#1028968
living technology is greater than our technology which was carefully
researched and planned!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#1027893
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 Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990
p:8]
|
