INDEXJust click/ctrl-click the section you want to go to. This file is a collection of things I’ve written from MUCH reading of experts & also a couple articles I’ve found. Read the links for MUCH more information if you need to.

INTRO NOTE—Do academic establishments have bias & ban good evidence?...................................................1THOUGHTFUL QUOTES ON THE DANGERS OF EXCESSIVE SKEPTICISM.............................................376+ ways to date the Earth by Uniformitarian Theory............................................................................................5Polonium Halos-One Strong Evidence for a Young Earth (stronger than any of the methods that show an old earth)......................................................................................................................................................................11What Significance Does the Existence of Radio Halos Hold for Recent Creation?.............................................11THE DATING GAME by Bryan Bissell..............................................................................................................15

!SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERED IN DINOSAURS!........................................................................................16ASSUMPTIONS OF DATING METHODS....................................................................................................17REASONS UNIFORMITARIANISM IS UNTRUSTWORTHY....................................................................18DATING EXAMPLE 1: Coral Reef Dating in Enewetak................................................................................21DATING EXAMPLE 2: Dating the Grand Canyon:........................................................................................22DATING EXAMPLE 3: Ice Core Sample Dating/The Lost Squadron............................................................23

QUOTES FROM EXPERTS ON DATING ABOUT GIGANTIC ERRORS IN DATING METHODS............28LINKS FOR FURTHER STUDY ON DATING (and Evolution).......................................................................32EXTRA INFORMATION (more quotes).............................................................................................................33

INTRO NOTE —Do academic establishments have bias & ban good evidence?(Dr. RvdW with a B.A. in geology, an M.Sc in geochemistry and a Ph.d. in earth science from respected secular universities was kind enough to briefly review this article and suggest some improvements to what I have written below (She has worked at the Netherlands Energy Research Center, Florida State University and other places). This was 95% written or collected by me and does not reflect her work though. But, she does think it’s a good overview for laymen.

I cannot tell you the real name of this earth science Ph.d. because of the persecution in academia against people who think the testable data supports the creation science worldview better. So, she said to refer to her as Dr. RvdW in this article. But, if you would like to e-mail her directly, I can arrange that. She wrote this to me:

"They {the school she works at} will fire me straight away if their name is publicly linked to creationism, since I am teaching Earth Science there. My colleagues and students are very suspicious of me about the moment, because I have told them I believe in a Creator and that evolution has not in any way been proven. I do not try to hide it at all, but the way I want to be open about it, I want to control myself, otherwise information may be used to get rid of me. I am also in touch with people formerly connected to ICR, but they keep my input anonymous, since they know how it can hurt me." Dr. RvdW

Establishments in a number of areas aggressive try to stop people from even investigating things outside certain dogmatic limits. It’s NOT ONLY a problem in creation areas. I have documented cases in history, language teaching, archaeology and other fields. ECONOMICS: “…one problem is that the economics profession ‘“has gotten much more intolerant of divergence

from orthodoxy,” says Philip Mirowski, an economic historian at Notre Dame. ’The range in which dissent happens is so narrow. In a sense they still cannot imagine the system can operate to undermine itself. That is not a position that is allowed anywhere in the economics profession. The field got rid of methodological self-criticism. This Great Moderation stuff was just arrogance, hubris.’ …New thinkers say they are still having trouble breaking in. Among the new NSF grant awardees is J. Doyne Farmer, a physicist at the Santa Fe Institute who is trying to bring the idea of complexity back into economics by making use of advanced computing power to map human economic behavior the way weather or climate change is tracked. But Farmer says he got his $450,000 grant for a three-year study of systemic risks in markets only after a sympathetic NSF case officer overruled negative assessments by “neoclassical economists” who reject any model that doesn’t tend toward general equilibrium. ‘The established view just holds this stuff back,’ Farmer says. ‘One of the dangerous cultural patterns that economics has fallen into is an excessive emphasis on theorem proof for its own sake rather than what gives you scientific results. That’s led to a disdain for computer simulation.’ Johnson, who is director of the new Institute for New Economic Thinking funded by George Soros, says: ‘You do see some new thinking, but it doesn’t get traction in terms of policy.’” http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/16/our-best-economic-minds-are-failing-us.print.html

LINGUISTICS: My mentor, Dr. Palmer, has 26 years experience teaching EFL language and linguistics and has his Ph.D. from a respected American university in the same field. He has presented research at international conferences and not even the best researchers in the field could find fault with his methodology. Yet his research on using Korean to accelerate English language acquisition has been rejected by many journals because it’s too controversial and has financial implications. He has experienced so much ridiculous prejudice and bias in trying to publish solid and painstaking research that he has about given up on publishing on this topic. His research on other topics is published fine. But, even though the same methodologies are used, this topic is taboo.

HISTORY: Here’s another example from history, “Forbidden History” by Gunnar Thompson about how the Chinese discovered America before Columbus and how dogma and prejudice has blocked his research on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot0IFN1cqt0).

SCIENCE: Another science professional wrote this in regard to nuclear physicist Dr. Gentry’s research on polonium halos (articles and links below):

I hope you’ll forgive me if I don't sign my name. I do not want my colleagues to know that I have even read any literature on creationism, let alone a book such as Dr. Gentry’s. My career is too important to me to admit that I read any material other than approved technical journals.

The creationist response was appropriate: It must be ghastly working in an environment where your colleagues will seek to destroy your career if you simply read unorthodox material (This is the way the cults operate to keep their people in line). …I hope you copied down the list of Gentry’s journal publications—at least keep the easily accessible ones from Nature and Science. Surely, they wouldn't hang you for reading his peer reviewed articles from approved technical journals. Study them carefully.http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/AnonymousGeorge.html

I would add to this that the environment of this scientist, which is all too common, is diametrically opposed to how genuine science is supposed to operate.

These are just a few of MANY examples of the blatant prejudice and bias in the establishment & the dogmatic boundaries that are set up to keep people from EVEN reading alternatives to the establishment’s choice (which was based far more on biased politics than on science) and they are extremely active and aggressive in trying to ban even the investigation of alternatives, even those with significant evidence. The fact is that MANY of the greatest advances in the history of science have been made against the conventional view of the establishment (Kepler’s heliocentric concept, Galileo, Pasteur’s ideas on bacteriology and others). We are hindering science, possibly important science, when we ban research that doesn’t follow the current dogmas and conventional views. We should let the scientists do their research and present their evidence and let the evidence determine what we teach as truth, NOT bias, propaganda and dogma.

Establishments throughout history whether political, educational, historical, scientific or whatever set up boundaries and have often banned ideas that fall outside those boundaries. There is no country on the planet immune from this and probably no field of science or religion either. Dr. Thomas Kuhn wrote the seminal book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” cataloguing numerous cases in the history of science, both ancient and modern.

. Hitler and other mass murders were masters of propaganda and information control. His horrific crimes were made possible by controlling education and by many people who wouldn’t think outside what the establishment told them:

“Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state?” and ”What good fortune for those in power, that people don't think!”

If you watch the movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", it gives a lot more evidence of this happening in a number of places...one professor who was teaching at Georgetown, only MENTIONED Intelligent Design without advocating it and got fired.

Where is the objectivity I ask and the freedom to be intellectually curious and follow the evidence wherever it leads. It’s certainly not in the scientific establishment in America in these areas. Talk about intolerance and bias. Evolutionists are so afraid of free speech, they try all sorts of methods to suppress and ban evidence that can expose their house of cards, even threatening to fire solid researchers just because they think the evidence supports another worldview better than the establishments.

If scientists today were anything like Kepler, they would go with the evidence instead of following establishment thinking. By just mindlessly following the dogma of establishments, they dishonor even Darwin’s legacy. Here's just a bit of the course an objective scientist followed and the result:

"When Brahe died in 1601, Kepler inherited all the Mars observations. Kepler is considered the Father of Celestial Mechanics.  The story of how he worked for eight years trying to figure out the orbit of Mars and the

other planets from the observations of Tycho Brahe is legendary.  Kepler was a perfectionist; close enough was not good enough.  He started by assuming the common belief that the orbits of the planets were perfect circles.  Moreover, he had a tempting hypothesis that the ratios of the orbital distances matched the proportions of the regular solids, but it did not quite work.  It was Keplers genius and integrity that forced him to abandon his pet theory and discover the truth.  After many years of work, and thousands of pages of tedious calculations, he fit the data to the formula for an ellipse, and finally, everything fell into place.  This illustrates how in science frequently a fundamental truth lays lurking in the minute details that do not fit the expectations.  To an honest scientist, the data must drive the conclusions, and Keplers discovery ranks as a seminal point in the history of science.  With this finding, he overcame 1500 years of error based on the thinking of Ptolemy, Aristotle and even Copernicus that the heavenly orbits must be perfect circles."http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_1.htm#kepler  (this site has MANY incredible stories of Christian scientists making fundamental breakthroughs in science).

Shouldn’t modern scientists have the objectivity of Kepler and follow the evidence where it leads? Here are quite a few other scientists and great thinkers who think they should.

THOUGHTFUL QUOTES ON THE DANGERS OF EXCESSIVE SKEPTICISMHere are some quotes from great thinkers and scientists on how new ideas are not easily accepted, even in scientific circles. Tradition is a problem in scientific circles in ways not much different from how it’s a problem in religious circles. BOTH science and religion change…but it usually takes a lot of time…in the case of the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the solar system, it took 1500 years for science to come around to the truth. In the case of bleeding patients, it took science 2,000 years to figure out that this was damaging instead of helpful (The Bible said that life was in the blood over 3,000 years ago, but science didn’t listen to them and many died as a result.).

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - M. Planck

"If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress. " - Carl Sagan

"Science is the search for truth - it is not a game in which one tries to beat his opponent, to do harm to others." - Linus Pauling

"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best – and therefore never scrutinize or question." -Stephen Jay Gould

“...By far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for them." - William James

"No pessimist ever discovered the secrets of the stars, or sailed to an uncharted land, or opened a new heaven to the human spirit" - Helen Keller

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." -Tolstoy

"The common idea that scientists reject a theory as soon as it leads to a contradiction is just not so. When they get something that works at all they plunge ahead with it and ignore its weak spots... scientists are just as bad as the rest of the public in following fads and being influenced by mass enthusiasm." - Vannevar Bush

"I am not very skeptical... a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met not a few men, who... have often thus been deterred from experiments or observations which would have proven servicable." - Charles Darwin

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"If you restrict the journal to publishing only what pleases the referees, you end up publishing what is popular, and while it does make everyone feel more comfortable, you are guaranteed to miss the occasional breakthrough." - A. Dessler, Editor, Geophysical Research Letters, (regarding small-comet bombardment of Earth.)

"One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."-- J. D. Watson "The Double Helix"

"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from invalid conventional wisdom that becomes effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks in every generation - people who keep challenging convention and thinking up new ideas for the sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness." - Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist, U. Chicago.

"If I want to stop a research program I can always do it by getting a few experts to sit in on the subject, because they know right away that it was a fool thing to try in the first place." - Charles Kettering, GM

"The farther the experiment is from theory, the closer it is to the Nobel Prize." - Joliet-Curie

"I believe there is no source of deception in the investigation of nature which can compare with a fixed belief that certain kinds of phenomena are IMPOSSIBLE." -William James

"Be not astonished at new ideas; for it is well known to you that a thing does not therefore cease to be true because it is not accepted by many." - Spinoza

"When the human race has once acquired a superstition, nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it." - Mark Twain

"Scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, openmindedness and humility that many of them might like others to believe." - Marcello Truzzi, CSICOP

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are that good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." - Howard Aiken

"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself." - Mark Twain

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold

"The whole of science consists of data that, at one time or another, were inexplicable." - B. O'Regan

"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism." -Nietzche

"Biologists can be just as sensitive to heresy as theologians." - H.G. Wells

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

"The love of the marvellous is the most dangerous enemy of natural science." - minerologist Eugene de Patrin, said in 1802 while dismissing reports of meteorites.

76+ ways to date the Earth by Uniformitarian Theory

Let’s start with 2 articles on this topic that are crucial. The first deals with the fact that uniformitarian theory can be used to make a stupendous range of dates for the earth. Then you can just discard the ones you don’t like and accept the ones you do like. This can and is done by both evolutionists and creationists. But, neither is solid science since there are many other explanations and ages with evidence that is similar.

IMPACT No. 17

THE YOUNG EARTHby Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

ICR, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469

August 1974Copyright © 1974 All Rights Reserved

It should be recognized that it is impossible to determine with certainty any date prior to the beginning of historical records—except, of course, by divine revelation. Science, in the proper sense, is based on observation, and we have no records of observation except historical records. Natural processes can be used to estimate prehistoric dates, but not to determine such dates. The accuracy of the estimates will depend on the validity of the assumptions applied to the use of the processes in making such calculations.Assume, in the general case, a simple process in which there are two main components, one "parent" and one "daughter" component—call them A and B, respectively. The initial magnitudes of these components at zero time (that is, the time when the particular system came into existence) are A0 and B0. After an additional time T these magnitudes have changed to AT and BT. The average time-rate at which A changes into B during the time T is RT. The instantaneous rate may either be constant or may change in some fashion with time, in which case it may be expressed in functional form as:

(1)rt = f (A0, B0, t),

since it may possibly depend on the process components as well as on time.If the process is not a closed system, then there may be changes in A and B which result from extraneous influences, other than those expressed in the normal rate function. Let such changes be represented by the quantities a and b where a may be either positive or negative and represents the modification in A brought about during the time T by such external influences. A similar definition applies to b.Putting all these quantities together, the following equations express the effect of these changes in A and B.

(2)A0 a - (RT)T= AT

(3)B0 b + (RT)T = BT

Subtracting equation (3) from equation (2):(4)

(A0 - B0) ± ( a b) - 2RT(T) = (AT - BT)from which the time T is calculated as

follows: (5)

T =     (B T - B0) + (A0 - AT) ± ( a ± b)     2RT

This equation is relatively simple, involving only two components in the chronometric system. Many processes would involve more than this. Some, of course, might involve a change in only one component.To solve the equation and obtain the duration T, it is obvious that all the terms on the right-hand side of equation (5) would have to be known. The problem, however, is that only AT, BT, and rT (the present magnitudes and rate) can actually be measured.There is no way by which the average rate RT can be determined unless the functional relationship expressed in equation (1) is known. Mathematically this average rate could be expressed as follows:

(6)

RT =     0

T rt

(dt)     T

This cannot be calculated, however, unless the equation for rt is known. It is customary simply to assume that RT = (rt) as it is measured at present. In other words, it is arbitrarily assumed that the process rate has been constant throughout the period T. This is an unrealistic assumption since, in the real world, there is no such thing as a process rate which cannot be changed.Furthermore, there is no way by which a and b can be determined, since there is no way of knowing what extraneous influences may have affected the system in the prehistoric past. The common assumption is that the system has always been a closed system and thus both a and b are zero, but this assumption is likewise unrealistic since, in the real world, all systems are open systems.Similarly, there is no way of knowing the initial magnitudes of the parent and daughter components, A0 and B0, since no scientific observers were present to measure them at the time. Again, however, it is commonly assumed that there was no daughter component present initially, so that BO is zero, and that the initial parent component has been modified only by the amount corresponding to the present daughter component, so that A0 = BT + AT.If all these assumptions are made, then equation (5) becomes:

(7)T =   (B T - 0) + (BT + AT - AT) + (0+0)   =     B T   

2RT RT

Since both BT and rT can be measured, it is thus easily possible to calculate T. However, the resulting date is obviously only as accurate as the assumptions.To recapitulate, any geochronometric calculation is based on at least the following assumptions:1. Constant process rate (or known functional variation of process rate).2. Closed process system (or known external effects on the open system).3. Initial process components known.

It is significant that not one of these three vital assumptions is provable, or testable, or reasonable, or even possible! Therefore, no geochronometric calculation can possibly be certain, and most of them are bound to be vastly in error.

Since the magnitude of the error in the assumptions obviously will vary quite widely from process to process, one would expect to get a wide range of "apparent ages" from different processes.In Table I have been listed 76 different processes for calculating the age of various integral parts of the earth and, thus, presumably of the earth itself. All of them yield an

age of much less than a billion years, whereas the present standard evolutionary estimate is approximately five billion years.

The presently-favored geochronometric methods (that is, those that give long ages, such as uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, and potassium-argon) have not been included in the tabulation, nor are they discussed in this paper. However, it has been shown elsewhere (1, 5, 6, 7) that these can also easily be reconciled with young-age concepts.

The most obvious characteristic of the values listed in the table is their extreme variability—all the way from 100 years to 500,000,000 years. This variability, of course, simply reflects the errors in the fundamental uniformitarian assumptions.

Nevertheless, all things considered, it seems that those ages on the low end of the spectrum are likely to be more accurate than those on the high end. This conclusion follows from the obvious fact that: (1) they are less likely to have been affected by initial concentrations or positions other than "zero"; (2) the assumption that the system was a "closed system" is more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time; (3) the assumption that the process rate was constant is also more likely to be valid for a short time than for a long time.

Thus, it is concluded that the weight of all the scientific evidence favors the view that the earth is quite young, far too young for life and man to have arisen by an evolutionary process. The origin of all things by special creation—already necessitated by many other scientific considerations—is therefore also indicated by chronometric data.

Finally, the reader should note that these conclusions were reached with no reference at all to the testimony of the Bible relative to chronology. It is, therefore, all the more significant that these results correspond closely to the brief chronology of terrestrial and human history given long ago by divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures.

TABLE IUniformitarian Estimates—Age of the Earth

(Unless otherwise noted, based on standard assumptions of closed systems, constant rates, and no initial daughter components.)

Process Indicated Age of Earth Reference1.Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere 1,750 - 175,000 years 12. Influx of meteoritic dust from space too small to calculate 13. Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system 5,000 - 10,000 years 14.Development of total human population less than 4,000 years 15. Influx of uranium to the ocean via rivers 10,000 - 100,000 years 16. Influx of sodium to the ocean via rivers 260,000,000 years 17. Influx of nickel to the ocean via rivers 9,000 years 18. Influx of magnesium to the ocean via rivers 45,000,000 years 19. Influx of silicon to the ocean via rivers 8,000 years 1

10. Influx of potassium to the ocean via rivers 11,000,000 years 111. Influx of copper to the ocean via rivers 50,000 years 112. Influx of gold to the ocean via rivers 560,000 years 113. Influx of silver to the ocean via rivers 2,100,000 years 114. Influx of mercury to the ocean via rivers 42,000 years 115. Influx of lead to the ocean via rivers 2,000 years 116. Influx of tin to the ocean via rivers 100,000 years 117. Influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers 100 years 118. Influx of carbonate to the ocean via rivers 100,000 years 2

19. Influx of sulphate to the ocean via rivers 10,000,000 years 220. Influx of chlorine to the ocean via rivers 164,000,000 years 221. Influx of calcium to the ocean via rivers 1,000,000 years 222.Leaching of sodium from continents 32,000,000 years 223.Leaching of chlorine from continents 1,000,000 years 224.Leaching of calcium from continents 12,000,000 years 225. Influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers 30,000,000 years 326.Erosion of sediment from continents 14,000,000 years 327.Decay of earth's magnetic field 10,000 years 428.Efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure 10,000 - 100,000 years 529.Formation of radiogenic lead by neutron capture too small to measure 530.Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capture too small to measure 531.Decay of natural remanent paleomagnetism 100,000 years 532.Decay of C- 14 in pre-Cambrian wood 4,000 years 533.Decay of uranium with initial lead too small to measure 634.Decay of potassium with entrapped argon too small to measure 635. Influx of juvenile water to oceans 340,000,000 years 736. Influx of magma from mantle to form crust 500,000,000 years 737.Growth of active coral reefs 10,000 years 738.Growth of oldest living part of biosphere 5,000 years 739.Origin of human civilizations 5,000 years 740.Formation of river deltas 5,000 years 841.Submarine oil seepage into oceans 50,000,000 years 942.Decay of natural plutonium 80,000,000 years 1043.Decay of lines of galaxies 10,000,000 years 1144.Expanding interstellar gas 60,000,000 years 1245.Formation of Carbon 14 on meteorites 100,000 years 1346.Decay of short-period comets 10,000 years 1447.Decay of long-period comets 1,000,000 years 1548. Influx of small particles to the sun 83,000 years 1549.Maximum life of meteor showers 5,000,000 years 1550.Accumulation of dust on the moon 200,000 years 1551.Deceleration of earth by tidal friction 500,000,000 years 1652.Cooling of earth by heat efflux 24,000,000 years 1653.Accumulation of calcareous ooze on sea floor 5,000,000 years 1754. Influx of lithium into ocean via rivers 20,000,000 years 1855. Influx of titanium into ocean via rivers 160 years 1856. Influx of chromium into ocean via rivers 350 years 18 1857. Influx of manganese into ocean via rivers 1,400 years 1858. Influx of iron into ocean via rivers 140 years 1859. Influx of cobalt into ocean via rivers 18,000 years 1860. Influx of zinc into ocean via rivers 180,000 years 1861. Influx of rubidium into ocean via rivers 270,000 years 1862. Influx of strontium into ocean via rivers 19,000,000 years 1863. Influx of bismuth into ocean via rivers 45,000 years 1864. Influx of thorium into ocean via rivers 350 years 1865. Influx of antimony into ocean via rivers 350,000 years 1866. Influx of tungsten into ocean via rivers 1,000 years 1867. Influx of barium into ocean via rivers 84,000 years 1868. Influx of molybdenum into ocean via rivers 500,000 years 1869. Influx of bicarbonate into ocean via rivers 700,000 years 19

70.Escape of high-velocity stars from globular clusters 40,000 years 2071.Rotation of spiral galaxies 200,000,000 years 2072.Accumulation of peat in peat bogs 8,000 years 2173.Accumulation of sediments for sedimentary rocks 20,000 years 2174.Lithification of sediments to form sedimentary rocks 20,000 years 2175. Instability of rings of Saturn 1,000,000 years 1576.Escape of methane from Titan 20,000,000 years 15

REFERENCES  1. Henry M. Morris (Ed.), Scientific Creationism for Public Schools (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1974).   2. Dudley J. Whitney, The Face of the Deep (New York, Vantage Press, 1955).   3. Stuart E. Nevins, "Evolution: The Ocean Says No.", Impact Series, ICR Acts and Facts, Vol. 2, No. 8., October 1973.   4. Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1973).   5. Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London, Max Parrish, 1966).   6. Harold S. Slusher, Critique of Radiometric Dating (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1973).   7. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961).   8. Benjamin F. Allen, "The Geologic Age of the Mississippi River", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9 (September 1972), pp. 96-114.   9. R. D. Wilson et al., "Natural Marine Oil Seepage", Science (Vol. 184), May 24, 1974, pp. 857-865. 10. "Natural Plutonium", Chemical and Engineering News, September 20, 1971. 11. Halton Arp, "Observational Paradoxes in Extragalactic Astronomy", Science, Vol. 174 (December 17, 1971), pp. 1189-1200. 12. V. A. Hughes and D. Routledge, "An Expanding Ring of Interstellar Gas with Center Close to the Sun", Astronomical Journal, Vol. 77. No. 3, pp. 210-214. 13. R. S. Boekl, "Search for Carbon 14 in Tektites", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 77, No. 2 (1972), pp. 367-368. 14. Harold S. Slusher, "Some Astronomical Evidences for a Youthful Solar System", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 8 (June 1971), pp. 55-57. 15. Harold S. Slusher, "Age of the Earth from some Astronomical Indicators", Unpublished manuscript. 16. Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics, A Challenge to Geologic Time", Impact Series 16, ICR Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research, July 1974. 17. Maurice Ewing, J. I. Ewing & M. Talwan, "Sediment Distribution in the Oceans-Mid-Atlantic Ridge", Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 75 (January 1964), pp. 17-36. 18. Chemical Oceanography, Ed. by J. P. Riley and G. Skirrow (New York, Academic Press, Vol. 1, 1965), p. 164. See also Harold Camping, "Let the Oceans Speak", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, (June 1974), pp. 39-45. 19. Stuart E. Nevins, "How Old is the Ocean?", Unpublished manuscript.20. George Mulfinger, "Critique of Stellar Evolution", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7 (June 1970), pp. 7-24. 21. Henry M. Morris, Unpublished calculations.

Polonium Halos-One Strong Evidence for a Young Earth (strong er than any of the methods that show an old earth) If you’re going to consider uniformitarian theory valid, then polonium halos and similar dating methods rule out millions and billions of years and the radioactive methods rule out the young ones and you’ve just got chaos and people just picking whichever method matches their prejudice. See some of these links for much more in depth data. The below article is just an overview for starters. http://www.halos.com/index.htmhttp://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htmhttp://www.halos.com/videos/0004-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthEnglish-214k.htm (This video has testable experiments of coalification progressing in just two weeks...showing that things that evolutionists assume are millions of years old can be made in a very short time in certain conditions. It also has sections from peer reviewed journals showing how coal can be made in a short time artificially that is indistinguishable from the real thing. Watch minutes 4-19 (esp. the last 5 minutes or so)http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.html

An Overview

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

----------

What Significance Does the Existence of Radio Halos Hold for Recent Creation?

From: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.html

In recent years, physicist Robert Gentry has called our attention to an unusual phenomenon which he interprets as pointing to the instantaneouscreation of certain granites. His conclusions have been published in scientific journals and in his book Creation's Tiny Mystery.

Scientists have long known that when each particular radioactive atom decays, it gives off energy at a characteristic level. This energy burst damages the mineral matrix in which the atom rests, and the size of the damaged zone reflects the level of energy released. Because uranium atoms (for purposes of this discussion) are usually found within certain minerals as inclusions of billions of atoms (which together still occupy a very tiny point of space), the decay of these unstable atoms over time produces a sphere of damage around the radio-centers.

As mentioned before, uranium decays to lead through a series of intermediate steps, each of which has its own characteristic energy level upon decay. If the inclusion resides in a well-formed crystalline structure, as is common in the mineral biotite (a form of mica frequently found in granitic rocks), the damage will form a series of concentric spheres around the inclusion or a series of concentric circles when one views a slice of the sphere through a microscope. These circles have come to be known as “pleochroic halos,” or radio halos. Each element has its own characteristic halo. By observing the particular array of halos, one can deduce the make-up of the original inclusion (or the type of parent element present when the mineral formed).

RIGHT: Polonium-210 - radiohalos (“squashed”) indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were depositedwithin months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional timescale.

Polonium-218 (half-life 3 minutes) radiohalos (“orphans”) found in Earth's granite; suggested as evidence of extremely rapid granite solidification in Earth's base rocks or for major changes in decay rate.

Several of these intermediate decay steps have extremely short half-lives. For instance, when radon-222 (half-life of 3.82 days) changes into polonium-218 (half-life of 3.05 minutes), it rapidly changes once again into lead-214. Likewise, when bismuth-214 (half-life of 29.7 minutes) changes into polonium-214 (half-life of 1.6 X 10-4 seconds), it rapidly changes once again into lead-210. Obviously, the atom does not linger very long in either polonium state before it decays into the next isotope in the decay chain.

Amazingly, the set of halos characteristic of polonium isotopes is sometimes found without the more slowly forming uranium halos, showing no evidence of a parent cluster of

uranium - just polonium. Apparently, there never was a uranium cluster present at this location, and the original cluster must have been only polonium.

Granite is thought to require many years to cool from an original melted crystals to form, although the individual minerals, especially when concentrated, can rather quickly solidify once the temperature drops to the crucial point. Even pegmatite, a coarser-grained version of a granite, frequently occurring as veins within granite, requires an appreciable length of time to harden. Since polonium isotopes have such a very short half-life, it would be incredibly unlikely for the polonium halo to occur by itself with no evidence of its parent material. This has led Gentry to speculate that the granites were instantaneously created in a hardened condition with polonium inclusions present, which subsequently decayed.

It is contended by Gentry that polonium occlusions by themselves could not occur in a slowly cooling granite, nor could they migrate to a central location all the while decaying rapidly. The granite would have to be in a rather fluid state so that polonium could concentrate in one location in the first place, then must be solid when the polonium decayed, in order for the zone of damage to be preserved. But the granite cools too slowly, and the polonium decays too rapidly to accomplish this in any scenario other than instantaneous creation, or so it apparently seems. Evolutionists have come to call this a “tiny mystery.”

Gentry feels that the evidence only fits the idea that God created polonium, with its short half-life, and allowed it to decay instantly during creation week as His signature of creation. An alternative view is that after Adam sinned, and God declared “cursed is the earth for [Adam's] sake” (Genesis 3:17), certain elements became unstable and began to decay. Obviously, we can't know for sure. God hasn't given us all the details. But the polonium halos do exist, and must be explained. The only hope for a true interpretation necessitates going back to Genesis for our basic model.

Gentry's proposal is not without critics, even among creationists. Sticky points include the fact that all of these “orphan” halos are of elements included in the decay chain of naturally occurring uranium and thorium atoms. Why have no halos of other possible elements, which are truly independent, ever been discovered? Another problem is that some of Gentry's halos, which while discovered in association with granites, were found in “pegmatite dikes,” and pegmatites are suspected to form much more rapidly that the host granite, although not instantaneously. Furthermore, granites are sometimes found within Flood deposits, demonstrating conclusively that granites are not all Creation rocks. Also, how could fully formed uranium halos be found in the same rocks as the polonium halos? The uranium halos, which consist of numerous rings reflecting the longer decay chain, would seem to take a much longer time to form. Gentry proposes a short but intense burst of radioactivity, with altered decay rates for most radioactive isotopes, to account for these halos.

Gentry's proposal of more rapid decay rates at times in the past has some merit. In fact, several creationist theorists, for a number of reasons and with good observational data and Biblical hints to focus their research, have speculated on such changing of decay rates, most likely associated with the “stretching out of the heavens,” mentioned often in Scripture, as occurring during Creation week, and possibly during the Flood. These projects are as yet incomplete, but are leading in some interesting directions.

Several critiques of Gentry's concept have been advanced, and as yet, some questions remain. I present this evidence here because I feel it is quite compelling, and I suspect that out of this exercise will come a strong and persuasive argument for the Biblical model of earth history.

As encouraging as these finding are, let me not leave the impression that radioisotope dating has been disproved. It has been called into question, flaws in its foundation exposed, and its results shown to be inconsistent. In short, it is in trouble, but it is still a very formidable concept in the minds of many. Much research needs to be done, and is being done at ICR and elsewhere.

Excerpt from The Young Earth by John D. Morris, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994—with permission from the Institute for Creation Research

THE DATING GAME by Bryan Bissell How old is the earth? This is one of the major questions of the creation/evolution debate. This is a short article giving a brief overview of the topic with a couple articles, links and quotes from academic journals after that. Other good sites to check out for different levels of scientific skill are at the end. Creation actually does not need to have the earth be young or old. The Bible makes no claim about the age of the earth itself. God could have created the materials and rocks millions of years ago or even created it fully formed like he did Adam and Eve and then just recently put life on it. It’s possible, but there’s nothing certain biblically to say what happened before the creation of life. The creation of life according to the Bible, though, certainly cannot be millions of years old. Scholars estimate that Bible history is less than 10,000 years old. But, evolution requires millions of years of history to be even considered possible or correct. The claims of some that God used evolution create life are impossible to reconcile with the Bible since throughout the Bible, MANY writers, including Jesus speak of the creation of life as a literal event. See more on this here: http://creation.com/is-it-possible-to-be-a-christian-and-an-evolutionist

Evolutionary scientists have so far never been able to prove that one kind of biological life DID evolve past the family boundary (this is the minimum step 1 requirement to prove Darwinian evolution. They have big problems in the sequence from the birds from the reptiles for example. Many claimed that archeoptrix was a missing link between reptiles and birds, but then they found a similar fossil that was actually older than the reptiles). They are not even able to demonstrate this at the bacterial level and for those who are atheists there is no evidence that life can come from non-life (a hypothesis that violates the scientific law of biogenes and doesn’t have even one case of testable proof. See the interview at this link for more on that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEMKVFEoOXE). If this earth is only a few thousand years old, then evolution is completely impossible. In this article, you will see many examples and cases of why dating the age of the earth also is also very doubtful scientifically, both for evolutionists and creationists.

Let’s start by reviewing how carbon dating works (and many other methods work similarly). http://www.weneedice.com/articles%20Has%20carbon%20dating.html has a good description of it:

To have some understanding of how carbon dating works I will describe it for you. Basically the sun shines down on the earth's atmosphere, which is composed mostly of nitrogen 14. By the sun shining on the atmosphere it makes the nitrogen 14 or (N14) atom unstable changing into a carbon 14 isotope or (C14). The small amount of C14 made each day combines with our normal carbon dioxide. Organic objects such as people, animals, and trees are either taking or breathing in carbon dioxide every day. When an organism dies it will no longer take in any more C14. So the C14 unstable isotope continues to decay. Scientist measure this decay time by a unit called half-life. The half-life of C14 is 5,730 years. Scientists then take what organic item they want to date and find out how many half-lives have passed on that object. Thus the date of an organism is found. See figure 1 to visualize the paragraph above. See the figure to visualize the paragraph above.

But right away we run into some problems. Here’s a quote from Dr. Robert E. Lee, published in an article, "Radiocarbon: ages in error" in the Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Here’s what he wrote about the accuracy of dating:

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs…Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon

determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."... "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. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}" "Radiocarbon: ages in error" in the Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29.

There are so many assumptions that are required in these dating systems (some listed below) & these gigantic assumptions are often proven seriously wrong by the evidence in cases like this:

Regarding dinosaurs, some of the proofs that they lived with people are:1) There are quite a few historical accounts of people fighting with and killing them wth independently corroborated historical witnesses 2) We have many many anatomically correct drawings by even cavemen who know nothing of how to reconstruct bones and muscles on them, Here are a couple carvings of stegasuarus among other known living animals in an Asian temple and there are many more examples like this: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=YyY9Fuv3A9w & http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtQU5OLjEY&feature=relatedOthers at: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=DSxBkif71ks&feature=related

There's a longer seminar with evidence that dinos lived with man here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs

3) And recently evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils has been confirmed by researchers at top notch universities, making evolutions view of their age quite irrational.

!SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERED IN DINOSAURS! Professor Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University found shocking and direct confirmation of dinosaur soft tissue in fossils. Can evolution explain how soft tissue, cells, capillaries, etc. can survive ~65 million years? Obviously not. Dr. Schweitzer puts it this way:"If you take a blood sample and stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So, why would there be anything left in dinosaurs" http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

She has published several studies on this finding in several prestigious scientific journals. One is entitled, "Soft Tissue and Cellular Preservation in Vertebrate Skeletal Elements From the Cretaceous to the Present"

This finding is a MASSIVE contradiction of the evolution hypothesis. The researcher states that this flies in the face of everything she knows about the degradation of cells (according to the evolution hypothesis). She can't explain it at all or fit it with evolutionary theory because she and evolutionists assume based on faulty dating methods that dinosaurs are 60+ million years old.  This and many other cases like this fit fine with the Bible's theory that dinosaurs and people co-existed at some point.http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=sJXyp8Zy1GY&NR=1

The lead researcher, Professor Mary Schweitzer, IS on record ON VIDEO at this link below as affirming that it's soft tissue with only the slightest of reservations. And you can see alot more detail in this video: http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA&NR=1 (an interview with lead researchers, and pictures of the soft tissues and confirmation by a Yale university professor that red blood cells and soft tissue were found in dinosaur cells. There was even tissue that proved the dinosaur was pregnant.).

I was trying to talk about this with one of the best youtube evolution video makers with I think a ph.d in evolutionary biology on this. His answer:"They didn't find soft tissue...Yes, the lab who did the study got it wrong...Dude, you're way out of your league. I've personally spoken to Dr. Schweitzer about this, and you're wrong in virtually every area and the researcher is furious that creationists are butchering her findings :("

Problems with this?1) He lied (or was very ignorant...hard to believe since he says he talked with the researcher directly). Dr. Schweitzer and other researchers SEVERAL times said they found soft tissue and you can see it for yourself. She never ONCE denied that, NOT ONCE. She ALSO says that they found "It looks like blood vessels and it looks like bone matrix and it certainly looks like cells and it acts like cells".  She affirms that she has observed capillary structures and vessels.  She says that they can take vessels and squeeze them out into solutions.  She has only the slightest of reservations that they need to do some chemical analysis to be 100% sure.  But, her attitude throughout the video is that she's 98% certain it's soft tissue, cells, capillaries and vessels and she has NO CLUE how to explain this happening and it flies in the face of all science she knows of (of course referring to evolution science).  If it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, acts like a duck...well you know the conclusion. 2) He insults people he knows nothing about.3) He made untrue generalizations about me being wrong in every area...HELLO…I just pointed him to a video that SHE made.4) About the only true thing he said was that the researcher is furious...since her physical findings contradict her worldview.

ASSUMPTIONS OF DATING METHODS Almost all dating methods are based on the uniformitarian theory. But, this requires 5 assumptions:

1) The rate of change is always about the same (even the speed of light may vary according to some recent research).

2) There were no major disasters, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods or other such things that would hugely distort the results. More accurately, you have to assume that there is a closed system with no input or output during the lifespan of the rock, no change at all. This is quite a disputable assumption since even evolutionists say that changes can happen (maybe rocks evolve LOL ).

3) You must assume how much of the element/material there was at the beginning. How much of the daughter elements were already there to begin with? This has to be assumed.

4) You must assign certain years to the experimental numbers that you find.5) Fractionation (redistribution) of isotopes occurs all the time. Fractionation has most of the time not been

taken into account for the starting material: it is assumed that the starting material is representative for the abundance of the isotope at the time.

“Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions 1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death; 4) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact.” Willard F. Libby, "Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p: 8, 10, 19-31

An other site lists 17 problems with dating methods (note to self—new section that needs to be checked with an expert):

1. No rock in the world is a closed system. They all can be, and probably have been, contaminated

2. Decay rates could have been different in the past. Under varying conditions, we have already found evidence of change in the present—and Joly found changes in the past

3. Daughter products could easily have been present in the beginning. An original intermingling of such products would nullify present attempts to date by daughter products

4. Unknown changes in our past environment could ruin the narrowly drawn assumptions. There is no way of knowing exactly what each local past environment was like

5. High energy particles, nearby radioactive minerals or contact with certain chemicals could earlier have significantly altered decay rates

6. Earlier changes in the atmosphere would have greatly affected decay rates. No one knows whether the earlier atmosphere was identically like our present one

7. The decay clocks did not have to start at the beginning of their chains. Daughter products could have been present in the beginning

8. Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. It is only an assumption that all the lead could only be an end-product

9. Common Lead 9 (PB-209) could have been mixed in. This would also seriously affect the dating

10.Leaching could easily have occurred in past time. Passing solutions could have carried away portions of daughter products

11.Comparisons of lead ratios could be inaccurately made. This could damage test results in five ways

12.Any earlier change in the Van Allen belt would have decidedly affected decay rates. —And we have only known of this high-atmospheric belt since 1959

13.Free neutrons could be captured from neighboring lead 206. Most radiogenic lead on earth could have been produced by neutron capture

14.If the earth had originally been molten, this would have resulted in wide variations of rock settings. Intense heat damages radiodating clock settings

15.Uranium dates, thorium dates, and all the other dating methods always disagree with one another. This itself is strong evidence of the unreliability of the various methods

16.Some of the daughter products (such as argon) are gases which easily migrate out of the rocks. Why then are these daughter products relied on for dating purposes? http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat6.htm Also see this section for many informative quotes on the problems with dating systems:http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

It’s kind of like a candle. If you come into a room and see a candle burning, how can you tell how long it’s been burning? You don’t know what the starting height was. You don’t know if it was always burning or if it stopped burning for 100 years and then started again. You don’t know how fast it was burning at every point in history. So, there is no way to tell how long it has been burning.

Another comparison would be someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour, (B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. We know the Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method. It’s for precisely the same reason that we really cannot trust most if not all uniformitarian dating methods unless corroborated from history by something of a known age or something really solid like that.

Evolutionists keep on finding examples like this that keep on throwing cold water on their long held presuppositions:

Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in asshort a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created bybacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of yearsto form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

This is the same problem that all uniformitarian methods have whether they are used by evolutionists or creationists. Scientific things must be checked by experiments where they can be repeated and retested. You can’t redo and retest history. The only way to check the accuracy of dating ages would be to have something that you are certain is 1 million years old and test against that. But, we don’t have anything that we are sure is 1 million years old or more to test against.

Scientists do try to check the ages with different tools: such as geomagnetism evidence, the growth rate of stalagmites and stalagtites, etc. but the calibrations of mother and daughter elements to definite ages can be based on either a creationist worldview or a evolutionary worldview which causes extremely different results, not to mention the wildly differing results that even evolutionists on their own often get, even from the same sample sent to different laboratories. It’s not hard to assign dates based on one philosophy to decay levels and ratios in different systems and get superficially similar results. But, if evolutionists are the ones assigning the dates to element levels, they will appear uniform because of their

apriori commitments to evolution, NOT because the science actually says how old the rocks are (this is especially true after it goes through lots of trial and error to get the calibrations to line up). If I got creationists to assign the dates for C14, potassium-argon, etc., I could EASILY get them all to line up in favor of creation by assigning creationist ages to the different element levels.

REASONS UNIFORMITARIANISM IS UNTRUSTWORTHY Here are 4 reasons (and there are many more) uniformitarianism should not be trusted and then there are man examples and quotes below by scientists showing that it shouldn’t be trusted:1) PICK ANY THEORY YOU LIKE

Most dating methods are based on the uniformitarian method. This method measures rates of change and estimates age. There are over 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion . Such a wide variety of possibilities makes it impossible to tell for certain the age of the earth using that method. You can just pick and choose the date that fits your theories. This is not scientific at all. It’s guessing.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth according to evolutionists has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100! But, over 50 of the 80 methods show that the earth, solar system, and universe are young than 1 million years old. This makes evolution impossible.

Here are two examples with volcanoes. A) Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of the earth’s sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of the earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed which can remove or transform all these volcanic sediments (The volcanic sediment could though become part of the rock cycle again, getting remelted and subducted down into the earth again. But, this still doesn’t answer the problem of why so little of the earth’s sediments are of volcanic origin if the world really is very old.). Earth’s sediments, therefore, appear to be much younger than 4.6 billion years old. This would make evolution impossible.

B) Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tons of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist, November 5, 1994 p:6 (we should have quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

You can see many other methods at: www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm and http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html#1012191

But, again, if you can choose any method of checking the age of the earth from 400 years old to 100 billion, this is not science. It’s only guessing.

2) RATES CHANGEScientists can measure current rates of growth or change, but how do they know that it was the same or even similar throughout history. Certain events can have disastrous effects on the systematic counting of dates. Volcanoes and earthquakes are known to change the date by millions of years at times and yet they happen in a day or less. If the earth was a pangea or in an ice age as evolutionists suggest or had a water layer as creationists suggest, the climate and rates and other aspects could be drastically affected. It is a total faith assumption to think that the rates now were the same or similar in the past.

There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result. The theory (not definitely biblically) of some creation scientists is that this was because of a water layer around the earth.

Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air bubbles that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. "The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadruple mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today." (Discover, February, 1988, p. 12. A Yale study published in the March 3, 2000 issue of Science independently confirms the high levels of oxygen present in

the earth’s distant past). A 50% change in the atmosphere is a huge change that is not accounted for by uniformitarian dating. It would have huge effects on the rates of growth.

Dr. Kei Mori of Kao University in Tokyo raised plants under special light that filtered out IR and UV radiation. He claimed it could promote healing and "because the ultraviolet is blocked, this sunlight does not fade fabrics or damage skin." (Gilmore, Elaine, "Sunflower over Tokyo," Popular Science, May 1988, p. 75.) One long-lived tomato plant (shown right) was grown in a special nutrient-rich solution to be exhibited at the Japan Expo Under piped sunlight and controlled atmosphere, this tomato tree grew over 30 ft high and yielded more than 13,000 ripe tomatoes during the six months of the Expo! (Hiroshi, Koichibara,

"Tomatomation," UNESCO Courier, March 1987.) The rate of growth of this tomato plant is hugely different from rates that we see today normally. Mori’s environment of filtered sunlight, enhanced carbon dioxide, and nutrient-rich liquids could be similar to the conditions on earth near creation. This would explain why some ancient fossils are much larger than recent fossils: 13 meter crocodiles, 3-4+ meter humans, 60 centimeter cockroaches, 1 meter dragonfly wings and others (see more info at: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exper/exper.htm, http://www.s8int.com/mega1.html or http://www.s8int.com/ giants1 .html ) .

3) SCIENCE CHECKWe don’t have any object that we KNOW for 100% certain is over ~5,000 years. This means there is no way to verify the dating methods as accurate.

Even historical dates are not always very certain and scholars have changed some, especially the more ancient ones, drastically in the last century (the dating of the ancient Egyptian dynasties is one example). Evolutionists will say that there are several different methods that can be compared. But, none of them have any object of a known age to test against to verify accuracy. They were WILDLY out of sync at first. But, with time, evolutionists have synchronized them better with their concept of evolution. But, NONE of them can be verified against something of a known ancient age over 1 million years for example. The dates ALL depend on gigantic major assumptions since there were no witnesses and there’s nothing of a 100% certain age to check your dates against except other tests which are ALSO based on biased guesses with nothing of 100% certainty to check against. Carbon 14 has been found to be fairly accurate for dates under 4000 years since it can be checked against historical documents of known (although even those have changed significantly at times). But, beyond that, even the inventor of this test says it’s not that trustworthy (need to find reference for this). Even dates under 4000 years can be drastically wrong when cataclysmic events are known to have happened. In Hawaii, lava stones known to be 160 years old were dated at 160 million to 3 billion years old (national geographic magazine) and there are many other similar cases (see quote section).

A dating method that cannot be checked against an item known to be of similar age (or by other methods such as historical methods) has almost no credibility. That's not science, it's speculation, something that evolutionists have indulged in to an incredible degree and so have some creationists.

4) CALIBRATION OF DATARocks don’t tell you how old they are. There is no sign saying, “I am 3 million years old.” Scientists make a scale from their observations and then assign years to different numbers. This is VERY subjective and is heavily influenced by the scientists’ opinion. If a scientist believes in evolution, he will assign millions of years to certain data. If he is a creationist, he will assign a few thousand years to that data. Here is one real example.

Below are a couple examples of the very best cases commonly cited by evolutionists to support an old earth. But, the actual data can easily support creationism and sometimes supports it much better. This shows that far from what evolutionists claim, that they also must use enormous amounts of faith, often far more than creationists.

DATING EXAMPLE 1: C oral Reef Dating in Enewetak Enewetak coral reef has been drilled through and is about 1,405 meters thick. Evolutionists say that this proves the world is millions of years old. Creationists say it’s only a few thousand years old. But, here is the real scientific data. This shows how all scientists are tempted to interpret data according to their own worldview. Here are the facts:

FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick (2nd pic is enewetak)

FACT: Observed rates range from .5cm (=5mm/year) to 414mm/year with many in the 100-200mm range (faster or slower rates may also exist but haven’t been observed). z1405m = 1,405,000mm5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age300mm/year rate =4,683 years estimated coral age414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age

These are ONLY the observed rates of coral growth. Faster or slower rates may have that haven’t been observed. In 1992, this coral in the picture above was found on a shoe that was less than 4 years old. This shows that coral growth can sometimes be extremely fast.

For Enewatak’s rate of growth, we only have recent observations. Many things can cause drastic changes in the rate of growth and we don’t know the rates of growth for most of the past. Which rate happened at Enewetak? Nobody has been watching and measuring the Ewenetak coral reef for 5,000 years, so we don’t know. Science can only guess what might have happened. Skeptics choose the 5mm rate. Creationists choose the 200-400 rates. Both are using a lot of faith. It does seem logical to match the fast rates with the thickest corals on the planet, but this is just a logical guess and cannot be proved scientifically.

Data above and more coral info at:http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2058&cat=5 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp, http://www.seaworld.org/just-for-teachers/classroom-activities/4-8/pdf/How%20Water%20Temperature%20Affects%20Coral%20Growth.pdfhttp://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0345.html, http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

In the same way, all uniformitarian dating ages are only logical guesses with many assumptions. The only dating ages that can be trusted are those that have been tested and compared against historical materials of a known age. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, then the theory of evolution is completely impossible scientifically and scientists should learn to be much more accurate and careful scientifically and not instill propaganda in people’s minds.

DATING EXAMPLE 2: Dating the G rand Canyon : In an article in the Nov. 17, 2004 issue of Time magazine, Leon Jaroff, a well known science writer wrote an article, “Faith based Parks” This article included a lot of propaganda and slander showing that propaganda can be anywhere…even in Time magazine. Here’s an excerpt:

“At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false…The creationists have demonstrated again that they are scientifically illiterate, and out of step with the 21st century.”

What does science really say about this? Are the creationists really full of “nonsense” or should both views be considered? Remember, to be scientific, it must be observed. If it hasn’t been observed, then it’s faith. Maybe possible, but still faith. Has anyone seen a canyon formed in a short time? Yes! Let’s go to Walla Walla, Washington (where Professor Bissell went to university).

In 1904, a series of irrigation canals was constructed to provide water to this rather arid high desert area. In March 1926, winds collected tumbleweeds blocked the flow of water along one of the canals. The engineers diverted the flow into a diversion ditch leading to nearby Pine Creek. The ditch had been a maximum of 3 m (10 ft) deep and 1.8 m (6 ft) wide, and often with no water in it at all. The sudden cascade of waterfall became a waterfall. Suddenly, the ground gave way and began to quickly erode. The small ditch became a gully. The gully became a gulch. The gulch became a miniature Grand Canyon. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed around 150,000 m3 (five million cubic ft) of silt, sand and rock. This canyon, Burlingame canyon, is now 450 m (1,500 ft) long, up to 35 m (120 ft) deep, and up to 35 m (120 ft) wide, winding through a hillside.

Yes, canyons can form rapidly. A good maxim to remember is, ‘It either takes a little water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time.’ But then, we’ve never seen a canyon form slowly with just a little water. Whenever scientific observations are made, it’s a lot of water and a short time.

One of the most basic scientific proofs is to make a prediction and then investigate to see if your prediction is accurate. If it is, that’s quite strong (but not conclusive) proof that your theory is accurate.

Dr. Walter Brown (an engineer who received his Ph.D from MIT) made an interesting prediction. He said that if the Grand Canyon was formed quickly, in the past there would have been a huge amount of water in lakes above the canyon…in 1 or 2 lakes. He did many calculations to find these ancient lakes (and found local Indian legends that also agreed with this theory). Then he traveled to the area and found evidence of where these ancient lakes had been (the black part at the right is the Grand Canyon and just above it used to be 2 huge lakes). This is scientific confirmation that this theory is very possible (although we still can’t say 100% that it did happen this way because we didn’t see it). ( see “A Canyon in 6 Days” at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/canyon.asp, See Dr. Brown’s detailed explanation at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon3.html. You can read the story of how it happened at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia27.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia28.html, and http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Julia29.html Also highly recommended is his hydroplate theory at: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

DATING EXAMPLE 3: Ice Core Sample Dating/The Lost Squadron

P–38 Lightning fighter plane

The P–38 Lightning was one of the deadliest planes to come out of WWII. Powered by twin Allison V–12 engines, it had one 20 mm cannon and four .50

calibre machine guns in its nose. Operational from 1941–49, the nickname given to it by German pilots, on account of its double tail, was Der Gabelschwanz

Teufel (the fork-tailed devil). They are a highly prized collector’s item; only five were believed to be flying at the time the Lost Squadron P–38 was salvaged —

under c. 75 metres (250 feet) of solid ice!...(story continued on next page).

by Carl Wieland

From a secret US Army air base in Greenland, six P–38 Lightning fighter planes and two gigantic B–17 Flying Fortress bombers rose into the early dawn. The date was July 15, 1942, and they were headed for a British airfield to join the war against Hitler.

Heading east over the polar icecap, they ran into a massive blizzard. Flying blind, they heard that their first planned refueling stop, in Iceland, was ‘socked in’, forcing them to return to their home base. As they approached this, however, critically low on fuel, they found that it, too, was closed. Realising that their only hope was to crash-land on the icy wastes of Greenland’s east coast, they desperately searched till they found a break in the cloud cover.

The nose-wheel of the first plane to land hit a crevasse, which caused it to flip. Fortunately, the impact on the canopy of the 8-ton P–38 was cushioned by snow, and the pilot’s injuries were minor. After they saw this, the rest of the squadron came in with their wheels up for belly landings. The planes were only lightly damaged.

All the crewmen were rescued unharmed by dogsled, about nine days later. However, the planes had to be abandoned where they had slithered to a stop.1

In the years to follow, a few people occasionally recalled the legendary Lost Squadron of 1942, but it was only in 1980 that anyone thought of a salvage mission. U.S. airplane dealer Patrick Epps told his friend, architect Richard Taylor, that the planes would be like new. ‘All we’d have to do is shovel the snow off the wings, fill them with gas, crank them up and fly them off into the sunset. Nothing to it.’

It took the two of them many years, much money and several failed expeditions before the first real clue came. Using a sophisticated form of radar with the help of an Icelandic geophysicist, they located eight large shapes beneath the ice in 1988.

As a small, makeshift steam probe began to melt a hole in the ice, expedition members watched dumbstruck as more and more extensions were added to the hose, some 75 metres (250 feet) before reaching the first airplane!

None of the discoverers thought that the planes could possibly be buried under more than a light cover of snow and ice. And why would they? After all, the impression the general public has is that the buildup of glacial ice takes very long time periods — thousands of years for just a few metres (see ‘deep freeze salamanders’). [Ed. note: We were not claiming that the salvagers’ perceptions were correct. Published figures of average ice accumulation rates are quite a bit lower than 1½ m/year that clearly must be true here, but not nearly as low as the salvagers thought. But it shows how much the ‘millions-of-years’ ideas have permeated into the general public, and the point of this article was to undermine this common preconception, as the subtitle should make clear] In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.2

It is the same sort of conditioning which makes many people instinctively think in terms of millions of years for coral reef growth, for stalactites to form, and so on. This is in spite of ample demonstrations that these things do not need vast time periods.3, 4, 5

Epps and Taylor realised that it would be impossible to dig or blast through this astonishing depth of solid ice, which had built up in less than 50 years. They returned in 1990 with a low-tech implement called a super gopher. This five-foot-high device, wound with copper coils through which hot water is pumped, melted a four-foot-wide shaft into the ice at about two feet an hour until it

struck the wing of a B–17. A worker lowered down the shaft then used a hot water hose to make a cavern around the plane. To their disappointment, the huge bomber was crushed and mangled, beyond worthwhile salvage.

Dejected, the pair returned home. However, only a month later they realised that the more solidly-built P-38s would have had a much better chance of having survived the ice’s weight. In May, 1992, they returned with fresh financing from investors in a high-precision effort. True to expectations, the P–38 they located seemed in superb condition.

After many weeks of intense effort, the wings and fuselage were brought to the surface through a large opening made by using the ‘gopher’ to sink four more holes side by side. The pieces were helicoptered to a Greenland port, then sea-freighted to the US for final restoration. This turned out to be more difficult than imagined, as the plane had actually been more damaged by the crushing weight than met the eye. However, when operational again, it will be using around 80% of its original parts. Interestingly, the planes under the ice were in exactly the same pattern in which they had landed — except they had been moved (by glacial flow) three miles from their original location!

Evolutionists and other long-agers often say that ‘the present is the key to the past’. In that case, the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation. Allowing of course for compression of lower layers, (which is also offset by the inevitable aftermath of a global Flood, namely much greater precipitation and snowfall for a few centuries6) there is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up — even under today’s generally non-catastrophic conditions.

As usual, it is not the facts which speak against the Biblical account of a recent creation, but the mindset of our culture. ‘Millions of years’ are casually tossed around so often that we unconsciously perceive all natural changes as taking long timespans. That is why many are ‘amazed’ to hear of facts like 180 metres (600 feet) of layered sedimentary rock built up in months after the Mt. St Helens May 18, 1980 eruption.7 Or when hearing of real precious opal formed in months,8 or coal from simple heating of wood in mere months.9 Or about the flag, tent and sledge left at the South Pole by Antarctic explorer Amundsen in 1911 now being 40 feet under the ice,10 or this deeply buried lost squadron.

However, we should really not be surprised when the facts show that things generally happen more quickly than expected within the old-earth mindset, since ‘Thy word is true from the beginning: and

every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever’ (Psalm 119:160).

Addendum: would planes sink into ice?

A number of readers have contacted Creation magazine about the sensational information in this article. Recalling the common school experiment in which a wire tensioned with weights ‘sinks’ through a block of ice, some wondered whether the planes could have sunk to that depth. However, the wire sinks through the ice in the experiment only if it is done at room temperature. Do the same experiment with the whole apparatus in a freezer, which would mimic the situation with the planes, and it does not work.11 The common explanation for the wire/ice experiment that the pressure of the wire melts the ice is wrong — such a device does not generate enough pressure to melt the ice [see The wonders of water, in the section ‘Why is ice so slippery?’, for further discussion]. Heat transferred from the air in the room by the metallic wire, which is an efficient conductor of heat, melts the ice, which is a poor heat conductor, to allow the wire to ‘cut’ through.

Also, Jonathan Brombley (Paisley, UK) pointed out (Creation 20(2):5, March 1998):

It is true that the pressures involved would not cause the planes to descend through the ice but there is a simpler and more visual way to determine whether this has happened or not. To attain forward directional stability, aircraft must have their centre of mass ahead of what is termed their ‘aerodynamic center’. The centre of mass is moved forwards by siting engines and other heavy elements towards the front and adding control surfaces such as tail fins whose surface area pulls the aerodynamic centre to the rear. A simpler equivalent is the arrow (weight in the nose, flights at the rear) which attains forward directional stability by the same means.

The consequence is that, barring control mechanisms acting, an arrow or aircraft will pitch forward and fall nose-down when allowed to fall freely through a medium — whether air, water or ice. So if the aircraft had indeed moved through the ice, they would all have been found in the same nose-down position. They were not.

So the planes could not have sunk through the ice; they were buried by the accumulation of snow (which becomes ice as it is compacted).

References and notes

1. Information for this article is mostly from: ‘The Lost Squadron’ Life magazine 15(14):60–68, December 1992 and ‘Search for a Fork-Tailed Devil’ Compressed Air Magazine, pp. 30–36, March 1996. Return to text.

2. Several prominent ‘old-earth Christians’ have challenged the Bible’s account of a recent creation on the basis of such ice-core dating. However, work by creationist scientists such as DR Larry Vardiman of the Institute for Creation Research has shown that the assumptions involved are far from watertight and that the ice-core results may be understood within a young-earth framework. See his articles hyperlinked in Q&A: Ice Age. Return to text.

3. Creation 14(1):15, 1992. Return to text.

4. Creation 16(3):15, 1994. Return to text.

5. Creation 16(1):15, 1994. Return to text.

6. Creation 19(1):42–43, 1997. The GRIP ice-core (to be precise, 3028.8-m-long) is cited in W. Dansgaard et al., Nature 364(6343):218–220, 15 July 1993. Return to text.

7. Mount St Helens: Explosive evidence for catastrophe in Earth’s history, DR Steve Austin, Ph.D., CSF videos (produced by the Institute for Creation Research). Return to text.

8. Creation 17(1)14–17, 1995. Return to text

9. R. Hayatsu et al., Organic Geochemistry 6:463–471, 1984. These researchers at Argonne National Laboratories in the US combined wood, water and acidic clay, and heated in a sealed container (without oxygen, and no added pressure) at 150 oC for 2–8 months. [Ed. Note: Or to be more precise than was necessary in a family magazine, the reaction included the major wood stiffener, lignin; other reactions contained the other major wood component, cellulose. So the principle is the same. They are hydrothermal reactions, hence the explanation in the magazine that water was an ingredient — although obviously no scientific abstract would bother stating it — and an essential one. See E. Pennisi, ‘Water, water, everywhere’, Science News 143:121–5, 20 Feb. 1993]

In some of the longer runs (still far, far less than millions or even thousands of years!) obtained material which had the infrared spectra like those of ‘high rank coals’. Return to text.

10. Salt Lake Tribune, March 19, 1995 p. A12. Return to text.

11. We did this experiment. With a number 1 guitar steel string over an ice block about 40x25x25 mm in size and weighted with 4 kg of water in two plastic milk bottles at room temperature, the wire cut through in 25 minutes, the ice re-freezing behind the cut. However, with the apparatus in a chest freezer, there was absolutely no movement in 8 hours. The pressure exerted by the wire? About 400 tonnes per square metre, which is enough to reduce the melting point of ice less than 0.5 Celsius degrees. As a matter of interest, a P-38 exerts a pressure of only 0.18 tonnes per square metre, enough to decrease the melting point about one five-thousandth of a degree! Return to text.

12. New Scientist, 139(1809):15, September 11, 1993. Return to text.

Siberian Salamander Surprise

In the frozen wastes of Siberia, an amazing salamander is able to survive in suspended animation for years, deep-frozen at temperatures as low as –50 oC, only to thaw out and run off afterwards. Scientists are not yet sure of the exact mechanism, but, like some other animals, they almost certainly produce ‘anti-

freeze’ chemicals to replace water in their tissues and cells.

Some have been found buried in ice which is believed to be from the Pleistocene Age — 12,000 years ago by evolutionary reckoning. Yet they still recovered when

thawed out! Though researchers have discussed the idea of radiocarbon dating to test the idea that they could possibly be that old, they say that the creatures

‘probably fell to this depth much later, through deep cracks in the permafrost’.12

Whether so or not, the belief that ice layers only 14 metres (46 feet) down are many thousands of years old, in light of the ‘Lost Squadron’ experience, cannot be taken for granted.

===============================================================================

QUOTES FROM EXPERTS ON DATING ABOUT GIGANTIC ERRORS IN DATING METHODSExamples of where uniformitarian dating has been shown to be wrong:

1. Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

2. William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (animal breeding) (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in-The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, p. 80.-"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called 'index fossils'. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established. This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such 'living fossils' obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence." pp. 82 and 84.-"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'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..."

3. In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs. 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. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.” Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9

4. "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

5. "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... 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. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9

6. "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." Professor Brew, quoted by T. Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

DATES THAT DON’T MATCH THE THEORY OR DISCARDED7. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the

North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard

ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon." In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.

8. Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"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 discrepancies fully explained."

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES9. Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for

similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10

10. Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist, November 5, 1994 p:6 (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

11. Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167

12. Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and (f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

13. Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209

14. A metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River (Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]

15. In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around 170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607

"There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant aspreviously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomicclocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a closemay not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, andproduced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparativetest was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their errorterms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is trulyastonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... Theradiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are grossdiscrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selecteddates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon whichfunny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,No. 3, 1981 p:9

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradictthem, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]

(10) Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming outof them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,November 5, 1994 p:6  (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

Radioctive dating has now been adjusted SOO many times to compensate for the many errors like the above, that they now agree with each other better than they did in the past...but is that because they match the scientific data better or because people have set the calibrations to align more closely to support the prevailing worldview? Since we have nothing to test against that we KNOW is 5+ million years old, it has to be the latter, a biased worldview imposing it's dogma on science, something that can not in any way shape or form be called science.

16. A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61 The original article explains that C14 dating works when living things get their carbon from atmospheric sources. But, for many years, evolutionists were claiming C14 could be used for dating all sorts of things, including living things. (check this for accuracy).

17. Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634

18. Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+

19. A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+

20. A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466

21. “The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966

22. A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

23. Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

LINKS FOR FURTHER STUDY ON DATING (and Evolution) Note on these links. Some of the creationists here use uniformitarianism to prove a young earth. Just like I’m skeptical of the methods of evolutionists, I’m skeptical about how well these creationists methods can “prove the age of the earth” unless corroborated by solid and credible historical correlations. But, if evolutionists have a right to use uniformitarianism to “prove” their theory, creationists have every right to use the same principles that evolutionists do.

What is radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate? (many links and academic journal level articles here…from laymen level to quite technical)http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating

The Age of the Earth—good site with many helpful evidences from science for a young earth.http://earthage.org

Serious problems of dating techniques (last half is best and has quotes by a number of evolutionists on the problems of dating)http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/philebadcarbon.html

PATHLIGHTS—some very strong quotes from science journals about the serious inaccuracies and assumptions of dating methods.http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Another example of unwarranted assumptions being made in using radio carbon dating (and there are many others besides this one…and with time others will assuredly come up in the future).http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/solar-system-age/

7 wonders of Mt. St. Helens (showing that volcanoes and natural disasters make uniformitarian dating very very inaccurate.)http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/exper/exper.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat5.htm

Early earth atmosphere sciencehttp://www.genesispark.com/genpark/earthdis/earthdis. htm

Detailed Data on moon dust from direct talks with NASA scientist (there are 4 pages on this, so make sure to click next. The conclusion is that if the moon were 4 million + years old, it should have at least 50 times more dust than it does. Very scientific and of course analyzes the comets and such in depth). http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotesa4.html#1023996

Problems with the Big Bang (Christians and atheists both who do believe in the big bang say that it had to be extremely precise in many factors for life to develop. Even some of the atheists are saying that it must have been guided somehow)http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences15.html#1011757

Rapid burial (many fossils show that they were buried rapidly showing that uniformitarianism is not the way that all fossils were created!).http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#1029340

Speed of light changes even just in last few centuries (another evidence that uniformitarian's assumption of constant rates always is completely unjustified) and in the past possible up to a million fold faster than it is now!!!http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#1143332

major changes in rates of stalactite growth (another nail in the uniformitarian theory)http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#1012011

DNA Production DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced by only DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#1009536

out of place fossils showing that the geological column is not accuratehttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#1055073

logical and scientific impossibility of sexual reproduction evolving by evolutionhttp://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#1028968

living technology is greater than our technology which was carefully researched and planned!http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#1027893

CIA and Noah's ark http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/phileark.html

EXTRA INFORMATION (more quotes) http://earthage.org nice site with good stuff.

Evolution depends critically on long time periods of time in order for it to be rationally possible…below are many references that show that the dating methods used are testably vastly in error and extremely inaccurate. They are based on the uniformitarian methods which gives at least 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. With a theory like that, you can just pick whatever dates suit your theory best. But, the data proves that this is very inaccurate and can’t be trusted.

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error",-Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the-Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19 (2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125).-"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.".... "Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow better—both to layman and professional not versed in statistics—than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."... "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. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}"

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism",-Science, vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.-"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron (equal in duration; equal intervals of time) model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the

Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature."

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L. Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in "Strontium Isotope Geology", Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.-"These results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism (the process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances) and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), "K-Ar ages of biotites -(dark brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous and metamorphic rocks, characteristically splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment} found in igneous {formed from a molten [made liquid by heat] state} and metamorphic {formed by pressure, heat} rocks)-from tuffs-(a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel)-in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado".-Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"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 discrepancies fully explained."

M. L. Keith and G. M. Anderson (Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, USA), "Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells",-Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.-"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et al'. (16), but are also extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years."

Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, The University of Kansas), "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land",- Antarctic Journal-(Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211.-Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

(flood) "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution. Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."

Luther D. Sunderland,"Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism &

Uniformitarianism"

Evolution Says .....Sedimentary rocks are millions of years old, as they take millions of years to form. Gemstones and petrified wood also takes millions of years to form. These are all proof of the old age of the earth.

The Facts Are .....

(2) A petrified orange has been found in a creek near Gayndah (Queensland). The orange cannot bemore than about 25 years old, as the first oranges were not produced in the area until 1968. This short

period of time for an organic object to turn into rock nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis that millionsof years are required for the process to occur. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1988 p:11 [photographs included]

(3) A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in thewater that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

(7) A bowler hat was buried in the volcanic eruption of Te Wairoa village (North Island, NewZealand) on June 10, 1886. It was discovered 20 years later, and found to have turned to stone. A legof ham had also been petrified after being buried in the same catastrophe. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986p:10 [photos included]

(8) In the 1780's a Maori chief was buried by being placed in a burial cave at Cavern Head (NZ). Theremains of the chief were discovered by Walter Traill in 1877, and were found to have turned to stone.Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10

(9) Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in asshort a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created bybacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of yearsto form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

(10) Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming outof them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,November 5, 1994 p:6  (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

(4) A hammer has been found embedded in Ordovician rock in London (Texas, USA), and has beenassigned the age of 400-500 million years. The handle of the hammer is wooden, and the head is steel.An analysis of the head by Batelle Laboratories (USA) indicates that it was not prepared by anyknown modern process of steel production. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985 p:14-16 [photos included]

(5) Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an ironthimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and(f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widelyannounced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

(1) Human fossil skulls and bones have been found in anthracite coal. The assessed age of the rock ishundreds of millions of years older than the time when humans are said to have evolved. Science Frontiers,September/October, 1991 p:3

(3) The US Geological Survey has documented that as much as 90% of the radioactive elements insome granites could be removed by leaching the rock with a weak acid. They also state that as muchas 40% of the uranium in fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable. K.R. Klepper & D.G. Wyant, "Noteson the Geology of Uranium", US Geological Survey Bulletin, No. 1046-F, 1957 p:93

(4) The Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time expressed their lack of confidence inradioactive dating as far back as 1950. They said that the 'dates' were like railway timetables in thatthey are subject to change without notice. "The Penguin Dictionary of Geology", Penguin Books: Middlesex (England), 1972 p:378

(5) "There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant aspreviously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomicclocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a closemay not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

(6) "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they areclaimed to be ..... The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists andevolutionists ....." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science ofEvolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84

(7) "One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined onbasic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by manyhundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, andthere are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in theliterature." Written by Dr C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Canada) and others, in their article "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Rolein Young Continental Volcanism", in Science, Vol. 193, September 17, 1976 p:1093

(8) "Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that inmany instances the isotopic age is not necessarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to

an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists." Written by Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller in their article "Interpretationof Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" in "Time and Place in Orogeny", Geological Society of London Special Publication, No. 3, 1969 p:137

(1) Eleven distinct types of microbes have been identified in rock samples from Marble Bar (W.A.) datedat 3.5 billion years old, in evolutionary terms. This date puts the rock at forming only 400 million yearsafter the earth cooled enough for life to exist - according to evolutionary theory. The assessed age ofthese organisms is in total conflict with the current ages assigned by evolutionists to the origin of life onEarth. Time (Australia), May 10, 1993 p:15; Science, April 30, 1993 p:640-646

(2) In the 1960's, scientists took ten samples of lava from both vegetated and unvegetated sites onMount Rangitoto (Auckland), and had their ages calculated using the Potassium-Argon method. Theages of the ten samples ranged from 146,000-500,000 years. Not only did the tests produce adiscrepancy in age of the rocks, but the rock formed when the volcano erupted around 200 years ago,according to Maori legend. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 33, 1969 p:1485-1520

(3) In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argonradiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of datingrocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and itsgeology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607

(4) Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (IndianOcean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167

(5) Radiocarbon and Uranium-Thorium dates calculated by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory(New York) for samples of Caribbean coral have been found to differ by 3,500 years. These tests showhow inaccurate, and artificial, age assessments from radio-dating are. Science News, June 9, 1990 p:356

(6) Lava flows on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Grand Canyon are a most recent formation, beingonly a few thousand years old. Radiodating of this rock using Rubidium-Strontium and Lead-Leadmethods has produced ages from 1.5 - 2.6 billion years. Clearly, the age assessment techniques are vastlyinaccurate if the young lava flow is assessed as being older that the sedimentary rock on which it lies.Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1989 p:37

(7) Radiodating of minerals collected from a drill core in Northern Australia, using the Uranium-Thorium-Lead method, has produced conflicting ages. One sample was dated as 862 million years old,while three other samples were each assessed as being 0 (zero) million years old. This adds to theconfirmation that radiodating techniques are highly variable, and therefore cannot be used to accuratelydate objects. Search, Vol. 3, 1972 p:382-385; Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 11, 1976 p:133-154.

(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate ofCarbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been smallvariations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic rayintensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31

(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61 The original article explains that C14 dating works when living things get their carbon from atmospheric sources. But, for many years, evolutionists were claiming C14 could be used for dating all sorts of things, including living things. (check this for accuracy). (ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634

(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the UnitedStates, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+

(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+

(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466

(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, andproduced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparativetest was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their errorterms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10

(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly

astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... Theradiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are grossdiscrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selecteddates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon whichfunny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,No. 3, 1981 p:9

(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have trueages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "TheIllustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59

(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact providetrue ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendarages". Diggings, August, 1990 p:8

(7) "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradictthem, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]