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!”

All creationists and all thinking people (but then I repeat myself) have always believed that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” That is settled; however, when the universe and Earth were created has not been settled for many people. Was it billions of years ago or less than 10,000 years ago? That is the question and it is a fact that most Americans believe in a young universe and Earth but almost half do not.

In Matt. 19 Christ said that man was made at “the beginning.” So, no matter what the myth-makers in their ivory towers declare, whenever the beginning was, man was there. That fact alone negates all kinds of evolution! That settles the origins issue for believers but now we must convince the weak, the wavering, and the wrong souls that the Earth is young.

A recent column by one of my favorite columnists, Lord Monckton at World Net Daily declared, “One should no longer believe that a bishop [Archbishop Ussher] was correct in calculating that the world began 6,000 years ago.” (Famous historian Josephus believed the same as Ussher!) Even some creationists accept the columnist’s erroneous conclusion. What about the science to support an ancient Earth? It is not sufficient to say, “But every sane person knows that the Earth is billions of years old.” After all, in ancient times some men said, “Everyone believes that the world rests on the back of a giant elephant,” (some said a giant turtle) or “Any fool can see that the Earth is flat.”

It seems that few creationists have taken on the highly qualified scientists with counter arguments to demand some answers about the age of the Earth and Universe. I will do so even though my doctorate is not in science.

When discussing the age of the Earth, the ancient-earther always supports his position with modern dating methods, but that dog won’t hunt and can’t hunt because it is crippled in two legs! Modern dating methods are not reliable! It seems necessary for me to declare that rocks and fossils are not found stamped with a date of origin! Their ages are assumed by using various “clocks,” which I will cover in this series. Some of the “clocks” indicate a young age for the Earth. It depends on what “clock” is being used and what assumptions are being made.

While Archbishop Ussher’s Bible dates are not inspired, they are rather accurate when compared to other “clocks.” The fact is the Earth and the universe are very young–not very ancient–much to the consternation of the evolutionists who must have long periods of time to develop their cockamamie story of macro-evolution.

Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon . . . indirect reasoning.” I can assure you that most evolutionists are astute at “indirect reasoning,” and are experts in circular reasoning. Some evolutionists are Professors of Tautology.

Evolutionist Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared: “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Wow, that from an evolutionist!

Criticism of modern dating methods continues to grow and many evolutionists run from confusing, comical, and contradictory decay rates like a mythical vampire flees the morning sun! One reason is that fossil rock may be contaminated. Many other contingencies are possible that might affect the date. Furthermore, a “global disaster” would disturb the status of the rocks. Do you think maybe that a worldwide flood qualifies as a “global disaster”? So the world Flood could reset all the radiometric clocks because of the swirling waters, volcanic eruptions, the atmospheric pressure, vast temperature fluctuations, magnetic reversals at the poles, etc., thus producing the long dates evolutionists must have–or get new jobs that might require them to work.

NASA hired the famous John (Jack) Eddy to write a book which enabled him to do research in the great astronomy libraries such as Harvard and the Naval Observatory. He used those facilities to do research on the Maunder Minimum (unexplained period of drastically reduced sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715) and his findings were published in the journal Science as a cover story. National Geographic also documented his work. That public exposure led to radio and television shows and lectures.

At a scientific conference at Louisiana State University Dr. Eddy, an ancient-earther, shocked the audience when he said, “I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” Another kick in the teeth for evolutionists by an evolutionist!

So, maybe Archbishop Ussher was not nuttier than a Snicker’s Bar after all, but evolutionists are!

(Four more columns will follow dealing with modern dating methods.)

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!”