Any “scientifically” deduced date will be discarded if the date does not conform to the pre-determined age of the strata where the fossil was discovered. The dating firm will often ask, “What date will be acceptable?” Real science, huh?

Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods whether used by evolutionists or creationists. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young Earth, rely on many assumptions.

We are told (over and over) that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old yet rocks have been dated to an excess of 10 billion years! I think we can all agree that earth’s rocks can’t be older than the Earth itself! Why are these modern dating methods still being used after they have been discredited? My guess is that it impresses the gullible and those who want to believe.

We know that the moon is slowly receding from the Earth at about 1.5 inches per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. However, if the moon had been in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the Earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. The “clock” is not working.

Scientists used both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods to date Apollo moon samples and they got results which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! That is some difference!

Lava flows produced submerged volcanic rocks near Hualalai, Hawaii in the years 1800-1801 and potassium-argon dated them from 160 million to 2.96 billion years according to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Seems as if the “clock” is a little off! It seems the “experts” are deducing instead of dating. Deducing means to “infer” or to “assume.” I like “guessing.”

Scientists used potassium-argon dating to date a rock sample from the recently formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens and the newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. Not even in the ball park but fanatics continue to play the game!

Another absurdity is obvious when wood taken from living trees was dated to be 10,000 years old by carbon-14! And mortar from an English castle about 800 years old was dated 7,370 years! But can you believe it gets worse?

Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava on Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand that are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The samples were sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts to ascertain their approximate age. They got dates ranging from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old! Maybe scientists throw darts to arrive at dates?

Some Russian volcanic rocks only a few thousand years old were labeled as being from 50 million to 14.6 billion years old! This is getting to be embarrassing!

The shells of living mollusks have been dated at up to 2,300 years old according to Science magazine.

Wayne Jackson wrote, “Freshly-killed seals have been dated at up to 1,300 years, and mummified seals, dead only about thirty years, have yielded dates as high as 4,600 years. In our book, Creation, Evolution and the Age of the Earth, we documented one case where muscle tissue from a mummified musk ox was dated at 24,000 years, while hair from the same carcass dated only 7,200 years!” Hummm, that’s interesting!

Dr. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the Earth’s magnetic field. His findings indicate that the magnetic field was created only a few thousand years ago, and is decaying toward extinction!

A major problem in radiometric dating is the assumption of a closed system. A closed system demands that uranium or potassium was in the rocks for “millions” of years without any kind of contamination. However, that requires a massive leap of faith without any foundation in science. There can be no doubt that, over the years, leaching, evaporation, etc., took place that throws off the “clock.”

The thing that surprises me when an evolutionist spouts his drivel about how they can “prove” the great age of the Earth is that informed people don’t fall to the floor, gasping and holding their sides with raucous laughter! And the most reserved critics will only express a grin and a muffled giggle.

The biblical account of creation is growing brighter and brighter as the ancient-earthers’ predictions are growing dimmer and dimmer. Or is that dumber and dumber?

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!”

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!”

I hope to prove to thinking people that scientific creationism has better answers for the questions posited by scientists, be they evolutionists or creationists.

Note that the debate title referred to “origins.” However, evolutionists run from that topic as if their hair was on fire. They want to start the creation/evolution discussion at Darwin’s warm mythical pond and focus on non-life becoming life. That’s slime-to-slug-to-sloth-to-scholar evolution, or, expressed another way, molecules-to-monkeys-to man. But I insist on knowing the origin of the universe and how the little pond arrived when nothing existed!

Evolutionists, not wanting to open that can of worms, tell us that cosmology is different from Darwinian evolution. But if words mean anything, origins must deal with origins so how did we get here?

What’s the origin of the universe? There are only four possibilities that explain our presence in the universe: (1) The universe created itself, but then that is contrary to the First Law of thermodynamics that says no new matter is being created, so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the Second Law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. Evolution requires the universe to run up to complexity not down to death. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not known to most evolutionists! (4) God did it! Maybe you can guess which one I chose.

That’s it. Most modern evolutionists hold tenaciously to number one hoping that a pushy creationist will not ask them about the First Law. Creationists have the same four possibilities as to origins but they choose number four–God did it. Ockham’s Razor demands that choice!

Another origin problem is the origination of natural laws. Focus on Earth Science, a high school text, tells students that nothing created everything as the natural laws (where did they come from?) were suspended (by whom?). We are told the Big Bang “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle–transcending physical principles….” Hey, here’s a scoop: some evolutionists believe in “true miracles”–just not Bible miracles! Of course, no rational person believes nothing created something, anything, or everything. However, evolutionists must believe that since they can’t believe God did it even if He did it! Which He did!

So, natural laws were suspended so the Big Bang could “kick off” this thing called “life,” but when and how and by whom did the natural laws originate? And what power “suspended” those laws? What about the laws of gravity, inertia, First and Second Laws, Laws of Planetary Motion, etc.? Since we are discussing origins, when and by whom did those laws arise? Those laws are here so there had to be a Cause!

Moreover, maybe some evolutionist will inform us how a massive explosion took place and resulted in an incredible universe that runs like a Swiss clock with planets, stars, and moons. Evolution requires a random, haphazard cosmos; instead the universe is orderly, precise, and functional.

After the evolutionist, who must have enormous faith, explains the origin of the universe and the natural laws that no one disavows, I want to know man’s origin! According to evolutionary scientists this globe was at one time rock, so how did plants originate followed by animal life? How did goo-to-you evolution get started? After we nail down evolution from amoeba-to-aardvark-to- astronaut, we can discuss the fossil record, natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.

When we get an explanation for the origin of the universe, the natural laws, and man; we can then look at the physical condition of the earth and see whether evolution or creationism has the better explanation.

One of the greatest mysteries of life is how life appeared abruptly in the Cambrian strata, the lowest level of the geologic column in which are found an abundance of complex fossils! The lower four-fifths of the rock of the earth’s crust are without any signs of life! Then, all at once, life abruptly appears out of nowhere! Maybe, as if it had been created? Evolution requires ancestors but there aren’t any so their model doesn’t work. The creation model works perfectly since all scientists admit that the Cambrian Explosion seems to indicate that the fossils began without precursors.

The physical condition of the earth screams carnage, cataclysm, and change. The strata all over the earth, the sea creatures on mountaintops, the mass burial of land and sea creatures, elephants and whale fossils on mountains all fit with creationism not evolution. By the way, elephants don’t climb mountains and neither do whales!

In the fossil record we see distinct creatures, not the gradual formation and transition from one creature to another as evolution demands. There are changes but never from one species to another. No new information is ever introduced. A dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, and a horse is always a horse–of course. Again, creationism is the best model, not evolution.

How does evolution provide the origin of mind/intelligence, meaning, conscience, altruism and morality? It has no answer; however, the creation model provides a concrete, correct, and complete answer.

The main proof of evolution is based on the assumption that evolution is factual but that assumption is a farce, a fraud, a fake, not a fact. Evolution is a cockamamie religion about which we can dicker, discuss, and debate–but it will never be true.

Evolution is a sacred cow that needs to be butchered and made into hamburger. Ken Ham helped in that process and posterity will credit him with changing the world’s perception of creationism.

Good job, Ken.

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!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.