Evolutionists On The Defensive

Posts in my conversation with alleged scientists and other evolutionists on the website of the Sensuous Curmudgeon
  1. @Anonymouus: IGRF Data: Electromagnetic Field is certainly measurable. Dr Humphries used IGRF data to calculate and extrapolate and it says no older than 10,000 years and you have 2,000 years left: Excerpt from my post, 40 Billion Pound Elephant Chris Queen BSME, quoting Dr. Humpries PhD Physics. Quote: ‘This paper [writes Dr Humphreys] closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the loss of energy from various parts of the earth’s magnetic field. Using ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists [an amazing faith] had claimed that energy gains in minor (“non-dipole”) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main (“dipole”) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with the newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970-2000, the dipole part of the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy [that’s lots] while the non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that 30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half it energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining reversals of polarity [shifts of magnetic direction south pole to north pole and back again rapidly] during the Genesis Flood and intensity fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model: the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God created it about 6,000 years ago.’” Your Loud Mouth Will Only Take You So Far.

     

    40 Billion Pound Elephant HERE the post that caused them to attack.  Have to give in and admit moral responsibility to their creator if we show evidence.

 

Add soft tissue in dinosaur bones VIDEO HERE, rearing its head as the Norm so predicted by Armitage and by the preponderance of the evidence especially in view of the Unexplained Cambrian Explosion i.e. Darwin’s Doubt and the geologic sediment record showing, a flood as reported in the Smithsonian and the evidence is beginning to way outside Darwin’s Favor. Add the fact there is carbon in the bones and way too much helium in the rocks and your arguments are loosing traction. CQ 2/18/2019

THEY HAVE GONE SILENT!  Can’t imagine.  Probably few Physicists over there in “We Don’t Need No Stinking 2nd Law of Physics Land” i.e. Evolutionists Delusion.

This is what I mean by arming young people with math and science to help them hold onto their faith in the face of the Powerful Delusion still in its seed stage.

TomS: Daniel 12: 3, 4: Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

13 “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”

That is a prophesied word problem. Jesus pointed to Daniel precisely here from Matthew 24. Then moving to Revelation 11:1 we get an angel speaking to John telling him to measure the temple.

So I (the wise … Ok I guess) have Jesus pointing to a temple word problem 600 years later and the identical problem 60 years after his death (followed by resurrection and guess what? No not chicken butt. PERFECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO WORD PROBLEMS with the Lord of Creation Jesus in the bright spotlight of history. I’d say Power is finally proven as omnipotent. CONTRIVANCE! Idiotmorons. Nine more word problems solved in Miscquoting Calculus. Sixth grade math! Simple enough for even Richard Dawkins to follow leaving you with 1 x 10 ^ -8 chance (very near zero) chance God Did Not Write the Bible. $ 3.99 on Amazon. “End of Days” Daniel’s scrolls are unsealed and the Dawkins Delusion is almost at an end.

CQ  2/18/2019.  Please hit the Follow Button above and to the right for future updates.  Please read my books Misquoting Logic and Misquoting Calculus by Chris Queen BSME on Amazon etc. and have your teenagers read them also.  Or above here from booklocker.com  Please have a day of grace in Jesus.  Please leave your valused comments here below in the form.

Advertisements

Author: genuinearticlex7

Author of Misquoting Logic What Bart Ehrman Forgot To Tell You About The Coming Apocalypse And Your Place In It and Misquoting Calculus What Isaac Newton Tried To Tell Bart Ehrman and Misquoting Calculus What Isaac Newton Tried To Tell Bart Ehrman.

35 thoughts on “Evolutionists On The Defensive”

  1. The article clearly states that the magnetic field has varied throughout history. You’re extrapolating, but you shouldn’t be.

    Ever try extrapolating the speed of light, radiometric data, or the geologic record?

    Like

    1. Johnny Johnny have Evolutionists Extrapolated when they should not be? Think so. Dr. Humphries also published on the subject of fluctuations occurring during the flood. Piles of dinosaur bones with all other animals of modern form indicates clearly to anyone not trying to avoid a God as one to whom they are morally responsible as created in his image can plainly see happened around 5,000 years ago when all antiquity prior disappears. Soft tissue is the norm, as predicted by Mark Armitage and the soft tissue includes proteins consistent with DNA per Mary Scheitzer, Evolution is the DOGMA of the Religion Darwin himself could not believe and you offer no examples of transitional species because there aren’t any, as ALL paleontologists admit. Meanwhile the Pope is forging a one world religion and New World Order is the call of the foolish in our day. CQ

      Like

  2. Creationists on the defensive!
    From the same blog mentioned above:

    “Word problem:

    If the destruction of the temple was in 70 C.E., and the Gospel of Matthew was written between 80 and 90, how many years after the destruction of the temple did the anonymous author predict the event?”

    Still no answer!

    Like

    1. Radiometric dating is not correct. We know because it has been tested many, many times. Millions of years old Mount Saint Helens Rock we knew was a decade or so old. The Big Lie is from the dating.
      Reason Number 8

      Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend

      Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.

      What is Radiometric Dating?

      Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope.
      The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
      The beta decay rate

      For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.

      There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.

      But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
      The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
      The decay rate must be constant.

      But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.

      Some Dating Games

      Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.

      G. Wolde Gabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994

      One could question their assumptions and ask if the 17 samples they used for the dates they wanted were the compromised samples and the ones the discarded because they had the ‘wrong’ dates were actually the ‘good’ dates. It is form of tautology to get a fossil you assume to be at 4.4 Ma and then select a radiometric date that corresponds to the date you want and then claim the date your assumed is true from the radiometric data!

      There is a similar story around the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. The radiometric dates from surrounding basalt started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which according to the fossils was far off the mark as “humans weren’t around then’. After various attempts to find rock that would yield lower dates a date of 2.9 Ma was accepted due to an agreement between several different published studies although those studies also had ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates just like the original study of KNM-ER 1470.

      Later from some work with some pig fossils in Africa, evolutionists became convinced that the 2.9 Ma for KNM-ER 1470 was too ‘old’. Further studies of the rocks brought the age down to 1.9 Ma and those studies now ‘confirmed’ the new dates. Circular reasoning at its best my friends!

      M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995

      But you have to say that the evolutionists are not really conscience that they are involved in a tight tautology here, they are letting their presumptions lead them rather than the data. This is very common in radiometric dating methods and paleontology.

      Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand’s northern Island is the most active volcano in New Zealand. It is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839. In 1948 and 49 Mt. Ngauruhoe went through a strong eruptive phase with lava flows and then again in 1954 and 55 another strong eruptive phase with lave flows of about 280 million cubic feet.

      Eleven samples were taken from the slopes of the mountain, two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. All the samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston for whole rock K-Ar dating – first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within the samples, second pieces of the two 30 June 1954 lave samples were also sent. The samples were also describes as young with little argon so as to require extra care in sampling. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory. The results are in the following table.

      Flow Date

      Sample

      Lab Code

      K-Ar “Age” Millions of years

      11 February 1949

      A

      R-11714

      <0.27

      B

      R-11511

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      4 June 1954

      A

      R-11715

      <0,27

      B

      R-11512

      1,5 +/- 0.1

      30 June 1954

      A #1

      R-11718

      <0.27

      A #2

      R-12106

      1.3 +/- 0.3

      B #1

      R-12003

      3.5 +/- 0.2

      B #2

      R-12107

      0.8 +/- 0.2

      C

      R-11513

      1.2 +/- 0.2

      14 July 1954

      A

      R-11509

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11716

      < 0.29

      19 February

      A

      R-11510

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11717

      < 0.27

      Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

      As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from 267,000 years to 3.5 million plus or minus 20 thousand years.

      What About Carbon Dating?

      Carbon dating fares a little better but is still not very accurate. In 1984 Hansruedi Stutz found some sandstone with fossilized mussels in it and with fragments of coalified wood. The sandstone described as coming from Magenwil, Switzerland is said to be 20 million years old and thus the coalified wood found in the sandstone along side the mussels could be at the approximate same age. Mr. Stutz sent samples to the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. This is a very prestigious laboratory and could be counted on in processing the samples with utmost care to eliminate any contamination. Given the ‘assumed’ date of the sandstone the 14C reading in the wood, assuming it was the same age, should read as an infinite age as all perceptible 14C would have been converted to 12C in around 100,000 years.

      Instead the laboratory gave the date of 36,440 years +/- 330 years. That all the 14C is not gone shows that the sandstone is probably not near the date ‘assumed’ either.

      Are Decay Rates Constant?

      The decay rate is limited by the light constant c and if c has changed over the years as Barry Setterfield (in physics section above) says then past decay rate could have been much substantially faster.

      But some recent experiments in beta decay of ionized atoms have been accelerated up to a billion fold. During experimentation 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal earth conditions would found to decay to 163Ho in 47 days when the conditions were bare nucleus of the completely ionized state. That is 1400 times the normal half life in the 163Dy – 163Ho decay rate. In the rhenium – osmium dating system, which is an isotopic clock used by evolutionists, the 187Re decays to 187Os with a half life of only 33 years. The experiment involved the fully ionized 187Re in a storage ring which were found to decay at a rate of almost a billion times faster than normal decay. The normal 187Re – 187Ho half life is 42 billion years.

      Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996. For further discussion of this experiment, see: Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos, pp. 181–186, 1999.

      We will now leave radiometric dating. I could put much more, but I believe I have shown the problems in the dating game played by the evolutionists and their circular way of thinking.

      From: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#radiometric

      Reason Number 9

      Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friend (Or with a theory this broken, why don't they get a new one?)

      Like

      1. “Radiometric dating is not correct. We know because it has been tested many, many times.”

        Liar. What’s your evidence?

        You seem to ask for evidence a lot, but don’t provide any yourself.
        From: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#radiometric
        Some Dating Games

        Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.

        G. Wolde Gabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994

        One could question their assumptions and ask if the 17 samples they used for the dates they wanted were the compromised samples and the ones the discarded because they had the ‘wrong’ dates were actually the ‘good’ dates. It is form of tautology to get a fossil you assume to be at 4.4 Ma and then select a radiometric date that corresponds to the date you want and then claim the date your assumed is true from the radiometric data!

        There is a similar story around the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. The radiometric dates from surrounding basalt started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which according to the fossils was far off the mark as “humans weren’t around then’. After various attempts to find rock that would yield lower dates a date of 2.9 Ma was accepted due to an agreement between several different published studies although those studies also had ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates just like the original study of KNM-ER 1470.

        Later from some work with some pig fossils in Africa, evolutionists became convinced that the 2.9 Ma for KNM-ER 1470 was too ‘old’. Further studies of the rocks brought the age down to 1.9 Ma and those studies now ‘confirmed’ the new dates. Circular reasoning at its best my friends!

        M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995

        But you have to say that the evolutionists are not really conscience that they are involved in a tight tautology here, they are letting their presumptions lead them rather than the data. This is very common in radiometric dating methods and paleontology.

        Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand’s northern Island is the most active volcano in New Zealand. It is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839. In 1948 and 49 Mt. Ngauruhoe went through a strong eruptive phase with lava flows and then again in 1954 and 55 another strong eruptive phase with lave flows of about 280 million cubic feet.

        Eleven samples were taken from the slopes of the mountain, two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. All the samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston for whole rock K-Ar dating – first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within the samples, second pieces of the two 30 June 1954 lave samples were also sent. The samples were also describes as young with little argon so as to require extra care in sampling. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory. The results are in the following table.

        Flow Date

        Sample

        Lab Code

        K-Ar “Age” Millions of years

        11 February 1949

        A

        R-11714

        <0.27

        B

        R-11511

        1.0 +/- 0.2

        4 June 1954

        A

        R-11715

        <0,27

        B

        R-11512

        1,5 +/- 0.1

        30 June 1954

        A #1

        R-11718

        <0.27

        A #2

        R-12106

        1.3 +/- 0.3

        B #1

        R-12003

        3.5 +/- 0.2

        B #2

        R-12107

        0.8 +/- 0.2

        C

        R-11513

        1.2 +/- 0.2

        14 July 1954

        A

        R-11509

        1.0 +/- 0.2

        B

        R-11716

        < 0.29

        19 February

        A

        R-11510

        1.0 +/- 0.2

        B

        R-11717

        < 0.27

        Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

        As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from 267,000 years to 3.5 million plus or minus 20 thousand years.

        What About Carbon Dating?

        Carbon dating fares a little better but is still not very accurate. In 1984 Hansruedi Stutz found some sandstone with fossilized mussels in it and with fragments of coalified wood. The sandstone described as coming from Magenwil, Switzerland is said to be 20 million years old and thus the coalified wood found in the sandstone along side the mussels could be at the approximate same age. Mr. Stutz sent samples to the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. This is a very prestigious laboratory and could be counted on in processing the samples with utmost care to eliminate any contamination. Given the ‘assumed’ date of the sandstone the 14C reading in the wood, assuming it was the same age, should read as an infinite age as all perceptible 14C would have been converted to 12C in around 100,000 years.

        Instead the laboratory gave the date of 36,440 years +/- 330 years. That all the 14C is not gone shows that the sandstone is probably not near the date ‘assumed’ either.

        Are Decay Rates Constant?

        The decay rate is limited by the light constant c and if c has changed over the years as Barry Setterfield (in physics section above) says then past decay rate could have been much substantially faster.

        But some recent experiments in beta decay of ionized atoms have been accelerated up to a billion fold. During experimentation 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal earth conditions would found to decay to 163Ho in 47 days when the conditions were bare nucleus of the completely ionized state. That is 1400 times the normal half life in the 163Dy – 163Ho decay rate. In the rhenium – osmium dating system, which is an isotopic clock used by evolutionists, the 187Re decays to 187Os with a half life of only 33 years. The experiment involved the fully ionized 187Re in a storage ring which were found to decay at a rate of almost a billion times faster than normal decay. The normal 187Re – 187Ho half life is 42 billion years.

        Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996. For further discussion of this experiment, see: Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos, pp. 181–186, 1999.

        We will now leave radiometric dating. I could put much more, but I believe I have shown the problems in the dating game played by the evolutionists and their circular way of thinking.

        Like

        1. Liar? Darwin’s proselytizes are the Liars. It is common knowledge that radiometric dating of identical samples produce wildly diverse dating. One more time Mount Saint Helens rocks were sent to various dating labs and the known dates were overestimated by millions of years. The only place radiometric dating works is in the churches of Evolution and among the high priests of the Darwinian Religion he himself admitted looked like error. CQ

          Like

    2. Reason Number 8

      Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend

      Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.

      What is Radiometric Dating?

      Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope.
      The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
      The beta decay rate

      For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.

      There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.

      But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
      The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
      The decay rate must be constant.

      But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.

      Some Dating Games

      Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.

      G. Wolde Gabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994

      One could question their assumptions and ask if the 17 samples they used for the dates they wanted were the compromised samples and the ones the discarded because they had the ‘wrong’ dates were actually the ‘good’ dates. It is form of tautology to get a fossil you assume to be at 4.4 Ma and then select a radiometric date that corresponds to the date you want and then claim the date your assumed is true from the radiometric data!

      There is a similar story around the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. The radiometric dates from surrounding basalt started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which according to the fossils was far off the mark as “humans weren’t around then’. After various attempts to find rock that would yield lower dates a date of 2.9 Ma was accepted due to an agreement between several different published studies although those studies also had ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates just like the original study of KNM-ER 1470.

      Later from some work with some pig fossils in Africa, evolutionists became convinced that the 2.9 Ma for KNM-ER 1470 was too ‘old’. Further studies of the rocks brought the age down to 1.9 Ma and those studies now ‘confirmed’ the new dates. Circular reasoning at its best my friends!

      M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995

      But you have to say that the evolutionists are not really conscience that they are involved in a tight tautology here, they are letting their presumptions lead them rather than the data. This is very common in radiometric dating methods and paleontology.

      Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand’s northern Island is the most active volcano in New Zealand. It is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839. In 1948 and 49 Mt. Ngauruhoe went through a strong eruptive phase with lava flows and then again in 1954 and 55 another strong eruptive phase with lave flows of about 280 million cubic feet.

      Eleven samples were taken from the slopes of the mountain, two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. All the samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston for whole rock K-Ar dating – first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within the samples, second pieces of the two 30 June 1954 lave samples were also sent. The samples were also describes as young with little argon so as to require extra care in sampling. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory. The results are in the following table.

      Flow Date

      Sample

      Lab Code

      K-Ar “Age” Millions of years

      11 February 1949

      A

      R-11714

      <0.27

      B

      R-11511

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      4 June 1954

      A

      R-11715

      <0,27

      B

      R-11512

      1,5 +/- 0.1

      30 June 1954

      A #1

      R-11718

      <0.27

      A #2

      R-12106

      1.3 +/- 0.3

      B #1

      R-12003

      3.5 +/- 0.2

      B #2

      R-12107

      0.8 +/- 0.2

      C

      R-11513

      1.2 +/- 0.2

      14 July 1954

      A

      R-11509

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11716

      < 0.29

      19 February

      A

      R-11510

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11717

      < 0.27

      Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

      As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from 267,000 years to 3.5 million plus or minus 20 thousand years.

      What About Carbon Dating?

      Carbon dating fares a little better but is still not very accurate. In 1984 Hansruedi Stutz found some sandstone with fossilized mussels in it and with fragments of coalified wood. The sandstone described as coming from Magenwil, Switzerland is said to be 20 million years old and thus the coalified wood found in the sandstone along side the mussels could be at the approximate same age. Mr. Stutz sent samples to the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. This is a very prestigious laboratory and could be counted on in processing the samples with utmost care to eliminate any contamination. Given the ‘assumed’ date of the sandstone the 14C reading in the wood, assuming it was the same age, should read as an infinite age as all perceptible 14C would have been converted to 12C in around 100,000 years.

      Instead the laboratory gave the date of 36,440 years +/- 330 years. That all the 14C is not gone shows that the sandstone is probably not near the date ‘assumed’ either.

      Are Decay Rates Constant?

      The decay rate is limited by the light constant c and if c has changed over the years as Barry Setterfield (in physics section above) says then past decay rate could have been much substantially faster.

      But some recent experiments in beta decay of ionized atoms have been accelerated up to a billion fold. During experimentation 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal earth conditions would found to decay to 163Ho in 47 days when the conditions were bare nucleus of the completely ionized state. That is 1400 times the normal half life in the 163Dy – 163Ho decay rate. In the rhenium – osmium dating system, which is an isotopic clock used by evolutionists, the 187Re decays to 187Os with a half life of only 33 years. The experiment involved the fully ionized 187Re in a storage ring which were found to decay at a rate of almost a billion times faster than normal decay. The normal 187Re – 187Ho half life is 42 billion years.

      Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996. For further discussion of this experiment, see: Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos, pp. 181–186, 1999.

      We will now leave radiometric dating. I could put much more, but I believe I have shown the problems in the dating game played by the evolutionists and their circular way of thinking.

      http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#radiometric

      Reason Number 9

      Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friend (Or with a theory this broken, why don't they get a new one?)

      Like

    1. Where is your data from and is it extrapolated or does it involve the radiocarbon dating that is clear does not work?
      Right here: http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#radiometric

      Reason Number 8

      Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend

      Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.

      What is Radiometric Dating?

      Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope.
      The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
      The beta decay rate

      For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.

      There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.

      But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.

      The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
      The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
      The decay rate must be constant.

      But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.

      Some Dating Games

      Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.

      G. Wolde Gabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994

      One could question their assumptions and ask if the 17 samples they used for the dates they wanted were the compromised samples and the ones the discarded because they had the ‘wrong’ dates were actually the ‘good’ dates. It is form of tautology to get a fossil you assume to be at 4.4 Ma and then select a radiometric date that corresponds to the date you want and then claim the date your assumed is true from the radiometric data!

      There is a similar story around the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470. The radiometric dates from surrounding basalt started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which according to the fossils was far off the mark as “humans weren’t around then’. After various attempts to find rock that would yield lower dates a date of 2.9 Ma was accepted due to an agreement between several different published studies although those studies also had ‘good’ and ‘bad’ dates just like the original study of KNM-ER 1470.

      Later from some work with some pig fossils in Africa, evolutionists became convinced that the 2.9 Ma for KNM-ER 1470 was too ‘old’. Further studies of the rocks brought the age down to 1.9 Ma and those studies now ‘confirmed’ the new dates. Circular reasoning at its best my friends!

      M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995

      But you have to say that the evolutionists are not really conscience that they are involved in a tight tautology here, they are letting their presumptions lead them rather than the data. This is very common in radiometric dating methods and paleontology.

      Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand’s northern Island is the most active volcano in New Zealand. It is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839. In 1948 and 49 Mt. Ngauruhoe went through a strong eruptive phase with lava flows and then again in 1954 and 55 another strong eruptive phase with lave flows of about 280 million cubic feet.

      Eleven samples were taken from the slopes of the mountain, two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. All the samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston for whole rock K-Ar dating – first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within the samples, second pieces of the two 30 June 1954 lave samples were also sent. The samples were also describes as young with little argon so as to require extra care in sampling. Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory. The results are in the following table.

      Flow Date

      Sample

      Lab Code

      K-Ar “Age” Millions of years

      11 February 1949

      A

      R-11714

      <0.27

      B

      R-11511

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      4 June 1954

      A

      R-11715

      <0,27

      B

      R-11512

      1,5 +/- 0.1

      30 June 1954

      A #1

      R-11718

      <0.27

      A #2

      R-12106

      1.3 +/- 0.3

      B #1

      R-12003

      3.5 +/- 0.2

      B #2

      R-12107

      0.8 +/- 0.2

      C

      R-11513

      1.2 +/- 0.2

      14 July 1954

      A

      R-11509

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11716

      < 0.29

      19 February

      A

      R-11510

      1.0 +/- 0.2

      B

      R-11717

      < 0.27

      Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows.

      As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from 267,000 years to 3.5 million plus or minus 20 thousand years.

      What About Carbon Dating?

      Carbon dating fares a little better but is still not very accurate. In 1984 Hansruedi Stutz found some sandstone with fossilized mussels in it and with fragments of coalified wood. The sandstone described as coming from Magenwil, Switzerland is said to be 20 million years old and thus the coalified wood found in the sandstone along side the mussels could be at the approximate same age. Mr. Stutz sent samples to the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland. This is a very prestigious laboratory and could be counted on in processing the samples with utmost care to eliminate any contamination. Given the ‘assumed’ date of the sandstone the 14C reading in the wood, assuming it was the same age, should read as an infinite age as all perceptible 14C would have been converted to 12C in around 100,000 years.

      Instead the laboratory gave the date of 36,440 years +/- 330 years. That all the 14C is not gone shows that the sandstone is probably not near the date ‘assumed’ either.

      Are Decay Rates Constant?

      The decay rate is limited by the light constant c and if c has changed over the years as Barry Setterfield (in physics section above) says then past decay rate could have been much substantially faster.

      But some recent experiments in beta decay of ionized atoms have been accelerated up to a billion fold. During experimentation 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal earth conditions would found to decay to 163Ho in 47 days when the conditions were bare nucleus of the completely ionized state. That is 1400 times the normal half life in the 163Dy – 163Ho decay rate. In the rhenium – osmium dating system, which is an isotopic clock used by evolutionists, the 187Re decays to 187Os with a half life of only 33 years. The experiment involved the fully ionized 187Re in a storage ring which were found to decay at a rate of almost a billion times faster than normal decay. The normal 187Re – 187Ho half life is 42 billion years.

      Bosch, F. et al., Observation of bound-state b– decay of fully ionized 187Re, Physical Review Letters 77(26)5190–5193, 1996. For further discussion of this experiment, see: Kienle, P., Beta-decay experiments and astrophysical implications, in: Prantzos, N. and Harissopulus, S., Proceedings, Nuclei in the Cosmos, pp. 181–186, 1999.

      We will now leave radiometric dating. I could put much more, but I believe I have shown the problems in the dating game played by the evolutionists and their circular way of thinking.

      Reason Number 9

      Evolutionists are not Evolution's Friend (Or with a theory this broken, why don't they get a new one?)

      Like

      1. Where in the Bible is the word idiotmoron? Is that what Jesus would say?

        Have you extrapolated the speed of light? How do we receive light from stars that are millions of light years away?

        Like

          1. I’m sorrow, too. Really, really sorrow.

            Looks like you can dish but you can’t take, huh?

            No answer for the speed of light I take it? Figures.

            And, the word is “amateur.”

            Like

            1. Speed of light. God can create everything in place including light waves. Now you problem is this in reality: https://genuinearticlex7.com/2019/02/25/10164-the-chance-to-get-one/ Odds of ever getting just one isolated protein from the “primordial soup” and Richard Dawkins, as you need about 20 of them in the same nano neighborhood by chance simultaneously all properly fitted chemically to spontaneously function together and produce a cell. FAT CHANCE. Watch the video! Tell us how anyone except the God of this creation could ever roll that many dice and get all ones on one roll.

              Like

        1. The earth was covered with water without form and it by the way could not be for a planet day because there was no sun and rotating planet. God asked Job were you there when I see the foundations of the earth? I wasn’t. And by the way it appears the speed of light may not be a constant after all. Additionally if God lives outside time and matter then what is impossible for you and I to even understand is possible for him. Finally answer the math showing for certain the Bible tells history in advance just as God says. Your theory? A string current ran through a muddy stream and spontaneously constructed the Saturn V. That it? The magnetic field rules out enough time for tadpole soup.

          Like

            1. That is what the Bible says and your buddy here wants to argue from it. The earth is young and the magnetic field and soft tissue in bones (not fossilized) prove it. The remaining questions will only make it more clear, this si a creation.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.