It is fact that an ancient Earth would not prove, produce, or picture evolution. Even if one is firmly convinced of an ancient Earth, he still can’t prove molecules-to-monkeys-to-man evolution. Long ages do not mean evolution happened. Most Americans have been conned into believing that the many radiometric dating methods have proved an ancient Earth but they are wrong. Curt Teichert admitted in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, “At present, no coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings.” But inflexible, incoherent, and insecure evolutionists keep trying–without success.
Most evolutionists teach that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating. However, that is not reliable. The problem is that scientists now believe that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought; moreover, they are not immune to environmental influences. So, as Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared in Industrial Research and Development, “this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Oops, that means a major segment of evolutionary teaching is a myth.
Yet, most people think that “scientific” dating methods have definitely established an age for the Earth as being at least 4.5 billion years old. These methods are supposed to be very sophisticated and reliable. Yet, geologist Dr. Henry Faul (who specialized in dating rocks) wrote concerning one of those “reliable” dating methods–uranium dating: “…widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot.” Different dates from the same spot! That fact was confirmed by Joan C. Engels, in the Journal of Geology: “It is now well known that K-Ar [potassium-argon] ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.” That means to disagree! That’s about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!
Moreover, when a fossil is dated by different radiometric dating methods, it is common to get vastly different results! Radiocarbon [Carbon-14] is the best known dating method but scientists admit it can’t be reliable past 50,000 years and it can only date items that were alive in the past. If you ever see a scientist on a television program holding an igneous rock in his hand saying, “We know by carbon-14 dating that this rock is four and a half billion years old,” you can be sure that he has in his head what he’s holding in his hand.
Dating expert Robert E. Lee further warned about radiocarbon dating in the Anthropological Journal of Canada when he admitted: “The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radio-carbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation….It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …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.” (Emphasis added.) It seems evolutionists have made a guessing game out of the dating game.
Note that half of the dates are rejected and there are “gross discrepancies.” Question: how could any evolutionist speak with authority regarding dating without blushing? Should you believe him? Surely some healthy skepticism is required!
Science magazine declared, “Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorians’ prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties, in some cases absurdities, that follow strict adherence to the published Carbon 14 dates.” My, my, “uncertainties” and “absurdities”!
Here is a devastating fact from a meeting of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden. They admitted, “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.” I could rest my case (but I won’t) on the new “reliable” methods of dating and the dishonesty of many evolutionists who talk endlessly of “billions of years.”
The same dishonesty happens in America as R. L. Mauger of East Carolina University wrote about modern dating in Contributions To Geology: “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 the discrepancies fully explained.” Hummm.
William D. Stansfield, Professor of Biological Sciences at the California Polytechnic State University, believes that the Earth is billions of years old but acknowledges the dating problems. He wrote in The Science of Evolution: “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.’” What an admission!
We laughed at the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who declared that she “sometimes believed in six impossible things before breakfast.” Evolutionists “outbelieve” her easily regarding impossible things. They are using a broken clock to support their broken theory of Goo-to-You evolution.
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.