So far, we’ve examined:
- There is an absolute moral standard in the universe.
- There is something greater than myself
- That something set up those absolute moral standards.
- That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
- If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
- If it was created, it had a creation.
- If it had a creation, it had a creator.
- If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
- A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
- There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
- If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
- It is nearly impossible to know A+B=c if you don’t know the value of A or B
- The same scientist who popularized the Big Bang theory also proposed the Oscillating State theory, which is contradictory
- Red light spectrum shifts may be objects receding from us, gravity bending the light, or objects between us and the star. We cannot say for sure at this time.
- There is not enough background radiation to account for the Big Bang
- radio waves from space are probably just the sounds of comets, stars and planets
- Triangulation to determine the distance of starts is not accurate past a certain point, as the error factor becomes too great
- The laws of thermodynamics prevent the Big Bang or Evolution for that matter to be valid science
- Gambler’s Ruin decrees that sooner or later the gambler loses – so the Big Bang and Evolution should have degenerated into chaos and death long before life arose.
- Space is a vacuum. Prior to the creation of the universe, there was nothing to slow down particles once accelerated. After the Big Bang, all the subatomic particles should have just kept flinging on into space… forever.
- There was nothing to cause the subatomic particles to form atoms and molecules. Still no satisfactory explanation from Science how this happened.
- Gas is too nebulous and lacks sufficient weight and mass to start the attraction of elements to one another, and would not have compacted into ultra-dense objects to become stars.
- We lack discovery of any active proto-stars or stage 1 stars, required for the theory of the birth of stars.
- We lack any organizing external force to cause any of the elements to change into heavy metals such as Uranium necessary to cause the star to explode from compacting.
- If the first and second laws of Thermodynamics prevent all of this from “Just happening”, what external force caused it to happen?
- Compacting gasses requires some external force.
- Gas is composed of elements very low on the periodic table. It has VERY little weight, and almost no mass.
- Science truly has no way to explain stars, solar systems and galaxies.
- Science has conflicting theories about how planets formed, all of which lack evidence
- We should be crowded with plutoids and planets if the Universe is as old as Evolutionists claim – and yet we’re not.
- According to evolutionists, the earth had no air when the planet was first created, and the rocks absorbed it. (Huh?)
- most so-called fossil evidence is actually plaster. Many exhibits are constructed from a few actual bones. One species of “primitive man” was constructed from a single tooth, which turned out to be… from a pig. Oops.
- The Schoolbooks still present a long time between the creation of the Earth, and the origin of life – but Gould wrote that the evidence shows that life arose on Earth “as soon as it cooled enough to support it.”
- A simple display of logic blows huge holes in the theory of Evolution – any living thing that spontaneously was created would have to have a way to take in nutrition, process that nutrition, excrete wastes, and duplicate itself. The odds against that rise so phenomenally high that it has to be discarded as impossible.
- The Miller-Urey experiments were deliberately conducted in a way to produce favorable results – and still produced nothing more than amino acids that could not have supported life, and were insufficient in number to have sustained life.
- Scientists are now convinced that all of the parameters used by Miller-Urey were incorrect.
- If science is still going to champion Miller-Urey, they need to redo the experiment with the correct parameters.
- I will buy and mail a King James Bible at my own expense to any scientist who replicates the Miller-Urey experiments with the correct parameters, for helping to disprove evolution.
- The odds of a complete DNA-RNA strand and the correct m-RNA, Amino Acids, s-RNA etc. arising by chance is 10 to the 600th power – far beyond the level mathematicians dismiss as impossible.
- The odds of dropping 200 decks of cards and having them all land in order by suite are roughly comparable to the odds of DNA-RNA arising by chance.
- The argument of “top of the food chain” is flawed.
- There are many animals with more chromosomes than human beings, including shrimp and crayfish. At least we have more than a mouse.
“I have a theory. 6,000 years ago the Lord made the Heavens and the Earth. 4,400 years ago there was a flood…” Kent Hovind
Let’s look at the fossil record. Let’s abandon answering the theory for a while, and examine things we can pick up in our hands.
First, we’ve got the circular reasoning issue with dating the fossils. How do we determine how old a fossil is? By what rock layer they’re buried in.
How do we know how old the layer is the fossil is buried in? The Paleontologists reading this just started jumping up and down. “I know, I know!”
Yes, go ahead…
“by the index fossils!”
Um… so you date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils?
That exchange in public is enough to freeze a paleontologist in his tracks. After all, he makes his living at this. He gave up his summer vacations in college to go poking around in rock pits in Wyoming instead of spending them with family. Could his information be wrong?
Well, by now you know me well enough to say, “yeah… it’s wrong.”
There was an estimation done in the 18th century that one inch of dirt equals one century. Wow, that information is still true today. I’m going to discredit that line of thinking rapidly.
- What about wind erosion?
- What about water erosion?
- What about Jean-Claude and Etienne in the south of France, digging in their yards to create canals to water their crops with?
- What about landslides, rockslides, mudslides?
- What about earthquakes?
- What about volcanic eruptions? Wow, those REALLY mess everything up! Pyroclastic flow (my favorite) and Laharr’s REALLY distort the findings beyond all reason.
- What about trees?
Trees? Well, yes, we have some trees in some areas that are embedded in the rock. And they’re growing through MILLIONS OF YEARS of rock layers. Are these the world’s oldest fossilized trees?
Some scientists, usually geologists, are completely convinced there was a universal flood. They think it was farther back in time, but the conclusion is that there was a universal flood. Now other scientists (usually not the ones who actually make this their field of study) dismiss it.
Oceanologists should climb Everest, and take a careful look around. “huh. Clams.”
Clams are good eating, by the way. Have I mentioned that yet? I like fried, breaded clams myself. Dip them in tartar sauce with some cole slaw… or do the New England thing and combine the clams and tartar sauce on a hot dog bun…
It’s just funny that one of the tallest mountains on earth has clams on top of it. In the closed position. Something happened rapidly to kill them, because clams open when they die. So, what happened? And how on earth did those clams ever crawl so far from the ocean on top of the tallest mountain on earth? Why, tour guides of course!
So, if there is a universal flood, say, around 4,400 years ago… what would that do to your 1 inch = 1 century calculation?
What about torrential downpours say, once a year? How does that affect the calculations? I’ve seen an inch of soil washed away in my own yard after a heavy downpour. That’s supposedly a hundred years of dirt. So now anything found in my yard, the exact date of which is suspect.
Earthquakes create something called liquefaction, in which the layers of soil and small rock sometimes shake violently, and things buried in an inch of soil can sink even lower.
I found objects digging in my yard, two inches down, left by the previous occupant of the house. I actually delivered those long lost items. How long ago? six years. Wait! It should be 200! It should have been buried in the year 1811! Yet, it was six years ago. No big deal, it’s only an error of 92%.
Under the BEST of circumstances, there are many factors that call the entire dating scheme in question. Add in Earthquakes, mudslides, volcanoes, and a universal flood, plus the vast pressures of tectonic plates pressing together… wow. Maybe Paleontologists and Archaeologists should have consulted with Geologists first before creating that concept.
Next, Carbon 14 dating. This assumes that the amount of carbon 14 on the earth has been constant on the earth forever. Just like the assumption that the soil layers are undisturbed by meteorological effects and geological effects.
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)
Two thousand years ago, the Bible predicted this would be your position! Noah’s flood really distorts many of the factors we look at today to determine the age of things.
So… Carbon 14. How accurate is it? The Paleontologists here are secretly looking at their shoes in shame, because I’m sure many of them know.
The major Achilles heel of dating methods is this:
- The assumption that the environment today is exactly the same as it was in the beginning – that elements have not increased (their theory) or decreased. The very theory of the Earth picking up its atmosphere from passing particles shows this is a false assumption and contradictory to their own theories. In addition, there’s marks on the earth of meteor strikes and comet strikes. Can you guarantee that the amount of C-14 did not increase drastically with the Yucatan meteor strike, or the Tunguska strike? Or the environment of the Earth – did it have higher levels of radiation in the beginning – or far less? What impact did the detonating of hundreds of nuclear devices during the Cold War have on these results? What about meteor showers? It’s a little known fact that meteor strikes on the Earth are fairly common – but that most of these objects burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the ground.
- The assumption that these items all decayed at a steady rate. It was discovered this was not the case in the 1980’s, calling all previous date predictions to be off by thousands of years, possibly millions. John Joly’s research at Trinity University, Dublin shows conclusively they did not decay at the same rate – back before 1930! Sadly, estimated dates already proved to be wildly inaccurate for 90 years remain unchanged in textbooks.
- The assumption there was no contamination of these objects from external sources – possible only if all these specimens were buried in lead vaults.
- The assumption there were no contaminates present when these objects were alive (or in the case of rock strata, there were none of the daughter elements already present). This is a HUGE assumption, and causes all of the dating to be questionable at best.
- The assumption that the rotation of the Galaxy does not pass through “hot spots”, places of higher background radiation.
- The assumption that the Sun did not have periods of intense activity – which we know is a constant cycle of active then inactive.
- The assumption that the Van Allen belt does not interfere with decay rates, or does not experience much activity – which any Astronomer that specializes in this will promptly start laughing at, because the Van Allen Belt is VERY active.
- Petrifying involves the absorbing of minerals from the soil into the object being petrified. How much does geographic location affect how much mineral content? And does the amount of C14 in the soil skew the results? If Bambi gets petrified in the forest and is only 6 years old, but the minerals in the soil are 6,000 years old, how many millions of years will the C14 test show Bambi to be?
- The assumption that geographic location does not play an influence in altering decay rate. Does the soil have a great amount of pitchblende in it, by any chance? What impact does naturally occurring radioactive materials play on other nuclear materials?
- The assumption there is no lead contamination in the item, which would skew all the results. Yet examinations of many individuals have shown environment plays a factor in how much lead is present in any individual. Many dinosaurs it is theorized had a gizzard, in which they consumed small stones to help pulp up their food intake. Were any of these containing trace elements of lead?
- The assumption there was no acid contamination from the environment. Anyone who grows tomatoes will tell you it requires a high-acid soil to grow them well.
- The assumption that the C14 does not have a half life – which all nuclear materials do.
“Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.” — Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Cruncher
As you can see, there are so many factors that throw off all of the various dating methods (and don’t you believe that the C14 tests are the most commonly used – as many objects would lose their C14 levels if older than its successive half lives), that I could literally get any dating you use thrown out in a court of law, or at least call it so greatly into question that most Judges would literally give it little if any weight when deciding a case. Without your dating methods, it’s now your theory against mine.
Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods! — Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Cruncher
How old’s that dinosaur? You say 20 million years. I say 4500 years old. Your word against mine, because I’ve just called into question every dating method used to date!
In addition, there’s one additional flaw – how we determine these readings. Let’s say a sample reads 16.2 on your machine. Another sample reads 15.8 – and all that proves is that one has a higher reading than the other. What do we then do to get our readings? We examine decay rates, which says let’s say, .0001 over 20 years. We then have to compare this to SOME KIND of data to get our dates. Where do we go?
One inch of dirt equals one century – a guesstimate still used today after 250 years. We assume because a strata of rock in one place in the UK is 4 feet down, it’s 480 years old. It may be that depth in Kent, but how far down is it in an area near London? Or in Wales, or France, or in Moscow or Toronto?
I’ve saved the biggest piece of evidence for last.
Apparently, there have been a number of items that have been carbon-dated to being many millions of years old, which embarrassingly are of recent origins. Such as a stainless steel hammer, obviously of recent origin, but dated to millions of years old. A Wooly mammoth fossil, in which one part of the animal was dated to an older era than the other part of the same animal. So, I guess the back half of that mammoth existed for 10 million years before the front half.
These are embarrassing inconsistencies, all of which point out that there is either a very large amount of user error in radiocarbon dating, or the basic premise is subject to many, many variables that were originally never considered.
I think it’s safe to say that all of our radiocarbon dating methods are incredibly inaccurate.
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 1 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 2 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 3 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- Atheism & Evolution Answered 4 (matthew714ministries.wordpress.com)
- 21. Evidence for God – Design Convinces Scientists 7 (biblescienceguy.wordpress.com)