Creation or Evolution?

Do you still believe in Evoultion?

Ancient depictions of dinosaurs have been found in many parts of the world. How could
someone who lived thousands of years ago have known what a dinosaur looked like unless they
had actually seen them?

Here is what looks amazingly
like a STEGOSAURUS. This is
from a temple in Northern
Cambodia. It was carved in the
12th century.

Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal from
approximately 3300 B.C. * the
picture on the right is a modern artist
conception of an Apatasaurus.

These carvings were found in
ruins from the ancient Inca tribe.
Some of these stones were sent
back to Spain by Spanish
explorers in 1562 -- proving they
are not of recent origin.

Job 41--The Bible

Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or
pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make
an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a
leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him?

Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?

If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing him is false; the
mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?

Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. "I will not fail to speak of his
limbs, his strength and his graceful form. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? Who
dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? His back has rows of shields tightly sealed
together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.

They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. His snorting throws out flashes of light;
his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his
nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.

Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him. The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and
immovable. His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat
before his thrashing. The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.

Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him. A
club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance.

His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. He makes the depths churn like
a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the
deep had white hair.

Nothing on earth is his equal-- a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are
proud."

From Dr William Tripp:

Probability of Evolution (abiogenesis)

CRYTOGRAPHY REQUIRES A MIRACLE TO DEFEAT

Our nation’s security depends upon the ability to safeguard classified information, preventing our adversaries from
acquiring knowledge about our intentions, methods, identities, capabilities, and many other subjects. One of the
methods employed to secure this information is cryptography, which uses the principles of mathematics in probability
in the formation of coding systems that encrypt sensitive communications. In fact, this is the domain of the world’s
largest security organization, the National Security Agency, which is responsible for the development,
implementation, and oversight of all cryptographic systems used to protect United States government sensitive and
classified communications.

The actual method in which this security is achieved is in principle quite simplistic—it is ultimately very simple
mathematics—though the numbers are quite staggering, even utilizing older cryptographic systems. Using the old
style computer “punched tape” as an example, it can be seen just how the protection can be relied on with absolute
certainty (absent obviously, human failure). One particular protocol that the old punched tape computers used had
sections of 32 columns, with 8 positions in each column, residing on one inch wide paper tape. Each “position” either
had a hole punched through or did not; to the computer, this meant either a “one” or a “zero” in binary coding as the
tape passed through the reading machine. Each position then has 2 possibilities.

Since each position has 2 possibilities, each column of 8 positions has 256 total possibilities for that column, shown
in the math function below:

Position: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 256

Since there are 32 columns, the total possibilities for each section is calculated by multiplying the 256 possibilities of
each column for the number of columns, or:

256 x 256 x 256 . . . etc., for 32 times, which equals approximately
1 x 10^76.
This is a number much too large for the human mind to understand; the total number of atoms in the entire universe
is estimated to be around 10^80. There are multiplied billions of atoms in the ink in the period at the end of this
sentence.

The communications protected in this hypothetical encoding could be analyzed by the comparison of the amount of
time it would take to randomly arrive at the correct combination for the “key” used in encrypting the data. Here an
arbitrary and incredibly high figure is developed for the number of combination “tries” for a given time period is used
to determine the relative security of the information encrypted. For example, if there were only 60 combinations
possible, and each “try” takes one minute, the relative value of one hour of “crypto-security” would be assigned.
Considering the advent of high speed computers, capable of billions of calculations per second, the arbitrary figure
of 100 trillion calculations per second would provide a wide margin of safety. Assuming that the minimum crypto-
security desired is ten years, the calculation would proceed as:

100 trillion/sec. x 60sec./min. x 60min./hr. x 24hrs/day x 365days/year x 10 years.

The total number of “tries” accomplished in the foregoing attempt is around 1.31 x 10^22, a very large number, but is
still far short of the total of 1 x 10^76. To determine just how close the attempt came over the hypothetical ten-year
attempt, the number of “tries” performed is subtracted from the total possibilities:

1 x 10^76
- 1.31 x 10^22
1 x 10^76

Notice that the result of subtracting the combination “tries” from the total results in the same number as the total;
with numbers this large, mathematics does not work in the same concepts most understand. Indeed, it is difficult to
comprehend how a number such as 10 to the 22nd power (10^17 is the state of Texas filled to two feet deep with
half-dollars) removed from anything else has no effect on the answer. It does indeed have an effect, though the first
number is actually so large that the difference between the two in this case is so small that a scientific computer,
using exponential notation, cannot calculate it. In other words, given the total of “tries” (at 100 trillion per second for
10 years) it is the same as if no try at all had occurred; there is no chance at solution.

Another way of expressing the impossibility of randomly arriving at the correct combination can be seen by dividing
the total (1 x 10^76) by the number of “tries” (1.31 x 10^22) which provides the number of cycles of the ten years
would be required before all of the combinations had been tried. This equals approximately 10^54; which means that
performing 100 trillion combinations per second for ten years would require 10 followed by 54 zero’s repetitions of
the ten-year attempt. Just 10^12 repetitions would require 10 trillion years!

It would seem obvious and perhaps gross understatement to say that a miracle would be required to randomly or
accidentally arrive at the correct combination; in our hypothetical cryptographic system, the security of our
communications is quite safe. Yet this analogy is actually quite closer to every human’s daily experience than most
would believe, and much more important than one can imagine.

LIFE REQUIRES AN EVEN BIGGER MIRACLE

Evolutionists contend that various chemicals (conveniently collocated) bonded producing complex chains of
enzymes, proteins, fats and fatty acids, among many other compounds, that eventually formed the first living cell.
These chains are very much like the previous analogy of cryptographic systems in that quite literally, these
compounds record information just as information is encoded in a cipher. In fact, this is how scientists believe DNA
actually works, calling it the “Blueprint of Life,” minor changes in the sequences having drastic results in the
organism.

The evolutionary premise is that these compounds, gathered together in a precise, ideal environment, and given
some “spark” or infusion of energy, formed the first living cell, the chains of enzymes, proteins, and DNA
“accidentally” or randomly arranged in the one particular combination to achieve life. The mathematical analogy of
the hypothetical crypto-system previously detailed can be used to illustrate the probability of this occurrence,
thereby providing a relative certainty (or uncertainty) that the evolutionary stance is “safe.”

The minimum number of enzymes for the most simple, single celled organism to live is around 250; these enzymes
exist in a sort of string, or perhaps better, a chain, each link being a particular enzyme which must appear at that
particular position. Just as in the example of cryptography, margin of safety calculations are generally performed on
an exponential order of magnitude; that is, where there could be failure, it must be on the side of security. With this
in mind, the question of the relative certainty of the mathematical position of evolution can be analyzed.

In this case, the margin of safety will be excessive; instead of 250 enzymes, only 1/5th that number [50] will be used
(this would be roughly equal to using only 7 columns instead of 32 in the previous model). Where 50 enzymes are
present, there are 3 x 10^64 possible combinations (using a factorial, which in addition, assumes that each
unsuccessful “try” is not repeated; random chance actually means that they can recur). Even though this number is
well above the “line of impossibility” (10^55) set by scientists to rule out the possibility of an occurrence, evolutionists
usually respond with essentially, “given enough time, anything is possible.”

To this then the previous method can be applied to determine if that is indeed true, though the numbers will have to
be “adjusted” to allow for the evolutionary scale of time. Scientists (evolutionary at least) believe that the earth is
around 4.5 billion years old and required about 2 billion years to cool sufficiently to support life. Owing to the
previous deference to the “margin of safety,” (and evolutionary theory needing all the help it can get) the original
figure of 4.5 billion will be rounded up to 5 billion, and then multiplied by six, for a total of 30 billion years. The
original arbitrary figure of 100 trillion tries per second will be retained, only instead of ten years, the process will
cover the 30 billion year period. This yields a number around 2.82 x 10^39; obviously still short, though the
subtraction will help understand how close the ridiculously high number of 100 trillion tries per second actually is.
Therefore:

3 x 10^64
- 2.82 x 10^39
2.999999999 x 10^64

In this case, the answer actually does change somewhat, though with numbers this large it is difficult to discern
exactly how much, and in turn, how close the 100 trillion “tries” per second for 30 billion years actually came. The
next step is to divide the total possibilities by the total “tries” in that period to determine how many times this 30
billion-year period would have to be repeated.

The number is actually quite staggering, and every bit as hard to understand as the original: 3 x 10^64 divided by
2.82 x 10^39 equals 1.06 x 10^24. What this means in actuality is that the 100 trillion tries per second for 30 billion
years would have to be repeated a trillion, trillion times, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. In other
words, the pace of 100 trillion tries per second would have to continue for
31,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years, which is 60 trillion, trillion times the estimated age of the
earth.

It should be remembered that the base used was only 1/5th of the total enzymes, calculated using a factorial, given
6 times the estimated age, and the ridiculous figure of 100 trillion tries per second. Further, not only are there 250
enzymes, there had to have been more than 2,000 proteins; the factorial alone of this number is around 3 x 10^5,
735 (notice that the exponent itself requires a comma). Indeed, Sir Fredrick Hoyle, an eminent British mathematician
and scientist, calculated the odds against the random formation of the enzymes and proteins alone at 10^40,000.
Yet, this does not even begin to address the more than 3 million “positions” of DNA, with its 24 possibilities on each;
this number is all but incalculable—most scientists believe the number would have an exponent that would have to
be expressed in exponents!
It would seem quite “safe” to say that there is very little “security” in evolution, though in this case it is not just
national security that may be in jeopardy, but rather one’s eternal security. In other words, would you trust your life
to such odds?

OUR CREATED SOLAR SYSTEM

In 1944 Newton Anderson
found this bell inside a lump
of coal that was mined near
his house in West Virginia.
When Newton dropped the
lump it broke, revealing a
bell encased inside.
What is a brass bell with an
iron clapper doing in coal
that is supposed to be
hundreds of
millions of years old?
According to Norm
Scharbough's book
Ammunition (which includes
a compilation of many such
"coal anecdotes") the bell
was extensively analyzed at
the University of Oklahoma
and it was found to contain
an unusual mixture of
metals, different from any
modern usage.

For the wisdom of this
world is foolishness in
God’s sight. As it is
written: “He catches
the wise in their
craftiness".
1 Corinthians 3:19

Evolutionist had long pointed to
the coelacanth as an example of
a transitional species. They
claimed that the long fins were in
the process of evolving into legs.
Scientists were shocked when a
live coelacanth (pronounced
SEE-la-kanth) was found off
Africa's coast in 1938. They had
believed the fish went extinct 65
million years ago. And guess
what! The fish still has long fins.
After a supposed 65 million years
they have not turned into legs.

One of the strongest
evidences against coal
formation taking thousands or
millions of years is the
presence of tree fossils in
coal beds.
All over the world, geologists
have found fossil trees
embedded in coal seams.
Sometimes these trees span
several coal layers. Because
these fossil trees cross
several layers of strata, they
are called polystrate fossils. If
coal is supposed to form
slowly, then these trees
should not be there—as the
trees should have rotted. But
the physical evidence shows
that they are there, meaning
the coal layers must have
formed rapidly. Vast amounts
of sediment must have been
deposited in a very short
period of time.
If coal takes many thousands
and millions of years to form,
then what would happen to
these trees while they were
waiting to be covered? Would
they not quickly rot? We have
a choice of what to believe.
We can either believe that this
formation took place over a
100 million year span of time
or we can believe what we
observe—the trees are there
and had to be buried rapidly
so they would not rot.

Polystrate trees

Age of the Earth

Lies in the Textbooks

DOESN'T RADIOMETRIC DATING PROVE THE EARTH IS VERY OLD?

According to the Bible, the creation week lasted seven literal days and occurred a
few thousand years ago. However, many Christians today accept the teaching of
science that life has existed on earth for millions, even billions, of years. This millions
of years time scale is based on radiometric dating of fossil-bearing layers of rock.
This teaching of long ages for life on earth has led some Christians to question and
even abandon their belief in the Bible, since a literal reading of Scripture is not
consistent with the belief that life has existed on earth for millions of years. I believe
that many educated Christians are especially doubting the Bible because of the
supposed evidence from radiometric dating that life has existed on earth for very
long periods of time.
In fact, I believe that the question of how long life has existed on earth is even more
important than the question of whether life was created or evolved. You see, the
theory of evolution has so many problems that most people find evolution hard to
accept, and I don't think many people are led to question their faith because of it. It
just doesn't seem reasonable that life could develop on its own by chance, and the
evidence that this actually happened is missing. It's also not a problem that
geologists say that the sedimentary layers of rock took millions of years to form,
since there are many evidences that the great geological formations on earth were
formed rapidly and catastropically, as in the Biblical flood or subsequent
catastrophic events. For example, there is too little erosion between the geological
layers for them to have taken millions of years to form. But it is a serious problem
when geologists say that they can measure the ages of these rocks by reliable
methods, and that these ages turn out to be in the millions and billions of years
range. So I believe that this question of radiometric, or isotopic dating, is one of the
most important questions in the creation-evolution controversy, and one which
Christians have to respond to.

In fact, I believe that the evidence does not permit the long ages given by
radiometric dates, so there must be a problem with them somewhere, even on
scientific grounds. The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long
time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have
existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away
many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are
so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have
formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of
gradual sedimentation. So what exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? How can
we explain the fact that these dating methods do, in fact, yield dates in the hundreds
of millions of years? Why is it that so many museums and textbooks confidently give
ages for fossils in the hundreds of millions of years?

This conflict has at times been difficult for me personally. It has been a struggle for
me to try to understand the evidences and to learn enough about them to find the
answers to these questions.

I was initially involved in some internet discussions where the subject of radiometric
dating was brought up, and the arguments in favor of life existing for millions of
years seemed almost overpowering. It was claimed that many different dating
methods all agree to within a few percent on the ages of the fossils, and that there is
no way to explain this except that these methods are giving the true ages.
Otherwise, why would they all agree? These different dating methods involve
different decay processes, and it is not reasonable to assume that chance or some
other process would make them all speed up or slow down by the same amount.

At the time I could find few answers to these questions. There were some creation
web pages and books that discussed radiometric dating, but most of them could not
really answer the questions of the evolutionists. I ordered one book by John
Woodmorappe which did contain some material that was helpful to me.

As a result of these discussions and a considerable amount of research that I did, I
wrote a couple of fairly long articles on radiometric dating and put them on my
creation web page. One of them was copied to another frequently-visited creation
web page. Now many people have seen and read these articles on the web and
have been strengthened in their faith in the Bible as a result. From time to time I
receive messages from them expressing their appreciation for these articles. Also,
these articles are among the most frequently visited articles on my web site.

Here are some of the books I have studied in order to learn more about this subject:
This book by Faure, written in 1986, is one of the main textbooks on radiometric
dating. This book, by Dickin, written in 1995, is another popular textbook. Here is a
book by Harland and others which gives the geological time scale, telling how many
millions of years each period is believed to have lasted, and the evidence for this.
This book by Dalrymple uses data from radiometric dating to attempt to argue that
the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. This book is the proceedings of a conference
in which geologists and others attempt to refute creationist teaching. I also have
some creationist books. This is a book by Slusher in which he criticizes radiometric
dating. This is a new book by John Woodmorappe, published this year, with many
quotations from geologists themselves about problems with radiometric dating.

What I want to do today is to present what I have learned about this subject. This
may seem like an area that is too technical for a sermon, but I think that the
importance of the area justifies it. I don't have all the answers, but I think that you will
be strengthened and reassured in your faith in the Bible as a result of what I have
learned. We need to pray that the Lord will give spirit-led scientists the knowledge
they need to deal with this subject, so that the truth will be revealed, because the
conflict is beyond human wisdom. This area is a key support for the theory of
evolution, which is undermining Christian values all over the world.

First I want to make a few comments about the geological time scale, then consider
several methods in detail, and then discuss some other issues.

The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on
less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological
layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of
thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of
these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance
of these 800 dates is.

The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are
measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to
explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we
really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we
have explained much of the geological time scale.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot,
argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time,
potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be
measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a
rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is.
The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is,
since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always
escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating
the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact,
geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that
accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages.
Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in
a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon
absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon
36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the
earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we
can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that
comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb
argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of
the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists
themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical
importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is
based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in
the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or
millions of years.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates
from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is
highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time
scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the
dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods.
Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in
it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to
lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate
of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however,
as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even
if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form,
throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel
through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a
much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given
by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons
from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method.

The next candidate dating method is fission track dating. Some minerals contain
uranium 238 which decays by fission. It splits in two, and the pieces fly apart through
the mineral, creating fission tracks. These tracks can be made visible by etching with
an acid solution, and then counted. By knowing how much uranium 238 there is in a
rock and by counting the number of fission tracks, one can measure the age of the
rock.

There are a number of problems with this method, and even geologists have had
intense disagreements about its reliability. The ages often do not agree with what
geologists expect. One problem is that certain constants involved in this method are
not known or are hard to estimate, so they are calibrated based on the "known"
ages of other rocks. If these other "known" ages are in error, then fission track dates
are in error by the same amount.

Another problem is that fission tracks fade at high temperatures. So if there are too
few tracks, the geologist can always say that most of them faded away. To get a
fission track date, one has to know something about the temperature history of a
rock.

Another problem is that uranium 238 can be removed from a rock by water. If a
sample loses 99 percent of its uranium, then the fission track date will be 100 times
too old. In fact, if a rock loses only about 1/350 of its uranium each year, then in
4000 years only one part in one hundred thousand of the uranium will remain,
meaning that the date can approach a hundred thousand times too old. Now, 1/350
of the uranium each year is not much, especially when you consider that water
occurs practically everywhere in the earth below a few hundred feet, and rocks
shallower than this also become wet due to rainfall filtering down through the soil.

Another problem is knowing what is a fission track and what is just an imperfection in
the rock. Geologists themselves suggest that imperfections are at times mistaken for
fission tracks, and admit that fission tracks are not always easy to recognize.
Textbooks have beautiful, clean pictures of fission tracks, but I doubt that these
illustrations correspond to reality.

Along this line, it is interesting to note that for every fission of uranium 238, there
are over a million decays by a process called alpha decay, in which a helium
nucleus is ejected from the nucleus of uranium. The alpha particle creates a long,
thin trail of damage, and the former uranium nucleus recoils in the other direction,
creating a short, wide track about one thousandth as long as a fission track. Not
only this, but what's left of the uranium nucleus (having lost the helium nucleus)
decays by thirteen more steps until it becomes lead, so there are over fourteen
million other decays for every fission track. Over four million of these occur within a
few days. All of these decays emit particles that damage the crystal structure. Some
of these decays emit alpha particles, and some emit beta particles, which are
energetic electrons. In addition, many millions of gamma rays are emitted, which are
high-energy electromagnetic radiation like X rays, and also damage the crystal
structure. Perhaps the damage created by all this radiation can be increased by
chemical action and be etched by acid to appear like fission tracks. Or if two alpha
particle trails are close enough together, perhaps they can damage the crystal
enough so that their combined trail will be etched away by acid like a fission track.

Minerals are also subject to alteration by water, which may contain chemicals that
react with the rock. Over long periods of time, all of these processes can damage
the crystal structure, and it may be that when the mineral is etched with acid,
track-like formations appear as a result.

Another problem is that fission tracks in some minerals, like zircons, can survive in
lava, so the fission track date can be measuring an older event than the lava flow.
Thus we cannot necessarily use this method to date the age of the fossils.

I think fission track dating has more potential than the other methods, but in view of
all of these problems, I think we'll have to discard fission track dating as a reliable
method.

There are still other methods, such as rubidium-strontium dating, which are based
on the decay of a parent substance (in this case rubidium) to its daughter product
(strontium). These methods all depend on knowing how much daughter product was
initially present, which we cannot know. So we'll have to discard rubidium-strontium
dating and similar methods as reliable dating methods

There is also the so-called "isochron" method, which is a clever way to estimate the
amount of daughter product present initially, so that one can then use
rubidium-strontium dating and other methods to get reliable dates. Unfortunately,
isochrons can also be caused by mixing processes that have nothing to do with true
dates. One study indicated that nearly all published isochrons have properties
suggesting that they result from mixings, and thus are not giving true dates. Another
study indicated that nearly all isochrons published have poor statistical quality.
Geologists often make excuses to reject isochrons, anyway, when they don't like the
dates.

So I guess we'll have to discard the isochron method as a reliable dating method.

The problem is that now there is nothing left! It's also interesting that geologists
frequently admit that these different methods usually don't agree with one another.
So the next time you see a museum exhhibit with a sign saying that some fossil is so
many tens or hundreds of millions of years old, I hope you'll take that with a large
grain of salt.

If there is real evidence that these fossils are hundreds of millions of years old, then
I want to know about it. But so far I haven't found it.

Could it be that all the old K-Ar dates for fossil bearing layers of rock are due to
argon added to the rock and not to the decay of potassium? Could it be that all the
old zircon dates are due to inherited lead or inherited zircons, and not to decay of
uranium over long time periods? Could it be that all the old fission track dates can
be explained by the leaching of most of the uranium out of a rock, or by a mistaken
calibration, or by radiation damage, and do not give a true age? Could it be that all
of these fossil-bearing rocks are very young?

From all the study I've done so far, nothing would exclude this possibility.

In addition to the fact that these methods all have problems, there are additional
problems with radiometric dating. For example, there may be choices of methods to
use for dating a rock, and choices of which minerals to date, and geologists choose
methods and rocks that give dates that tend to agree with one another. They may
treat a rock with an acid, or purify it using a magnetic separator, to get the dates to
agree. Then they use this agreement between methods as evidence that radiometric
dating is correct.

I've also been bewildered by contradictory statements by different geologists. One
source says that low uranium zircons always give dates that agree with one another,
while another source says that the amount of uranium has no effect on the fequency
with which the dates agree. One source says that zircons have little inherited lead,
and another source says that this is a common problem. One source says that
historic lava flows rarely give old K-Ar ages, and another source says that they often
do. Often I've tried to figure out how some evidence could be true, only later to find
out that it's not so.

Now, there are some cases where radiometric dating does appear to be measuring
a true age, where many methods agree, such as dating of meteorites, and certain
very old rocks on the earth. If these dates are correct, then this material would have
to originate from before the creation week. However, radiometric dating is based on
the assumption that decay rates are constant. If decay rates have varied, then all
methods can be in error, even when they agree.

Along this line, it is interesting that a number of scientists recently have suggested
that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Now, the speed of light is a
constant, so if this constant can change, maybe other constants, such as decay
constants, which measure the rate of decay, can change as well. Here is the article:

Source: University Of Toronto (http://www.utoronto.ca)
Contact: Steven De Sousa , News Services Officer
Phone: (416) 978-6949; Email: steven.desousa@utoronto.ca
Date: Posted 10/6/99

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of
20th-century science -- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong.
Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have
accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per
second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the
physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today,
he believes.

Recent theory and observations about the origins of the universe would appear to
back up his belief. For instance, theories of the origin of the universe -- the "Big
Bang"- suggest that very early in the universe's development, its edges were farther
apart than light, moving at a constant speed, could possibly have travelled in that
time. To explain this, scientists have focused on strange, unknown and
as-yet-undiscovered forms of matter that produce gravity that repulses objects.

Moffat's theory - that the speed of light at the beginning of time was much faster
than it is now - provides an answer to some of these cosmology problems. "It is
easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of
strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen." His theory could also help explain
astronomers' discovery last year that the universe's expansion is accelerating.
Moffat's paper, co-authored with former U of T researcher Michael Clayton,
appeared in a recent edition of the journal Physics Letters.

Copyright (c) 1995-99 ScienceDaily Magazine | Email: editor@sciencedaily.com

Another possibility is that decay rates were increased by some astronomical
catastrophe about the time of the flood. It is believed that a huge supernova
exploded recently about 1000 light years away from the earth. This produced the
Gum Nebula, which covers about 40 degrees in the southern hemisphere, a huge
formation. The estimated time for this is 11,000 years ago, but this could be in error,
and it could be 5,000 years ago or less, or about the time of the flood. Such a
supernova would have showered the earth with many different kinds of radiation that
could have excited the nucleii of atoms and led them to decay much faster. This
could have even caused the flood, by generating terrific quantities of heat and
causing volcanoes to erupt and water to spurt out of the earth. These excited nucleii
may have taken a while to go back to their normal states, so decay rates may have
been elevated for some time after the flood. I can imagine the terror the
antediluvians felt as they saw this huge light erupt in the southern sky, followed by a
shower of radiation, the shaking of the earth, and terrific quantities of water gushing
out of the earth.
There is a lesson for us in these past events. The Bible says that just as the earth
was destroyed by a flood in ancient times, it will be destroyed again when Jesus
returns. Then the refuge of lies will be swept away, and the truth will be known, that
God is the creator and man owes his allegiance to Him alone. And just as the Lord
provided an escape then for those who were willing to obey Him, so He provides
salvation for His people today.

Human reason is imperfect, and limited. All these books about radiometric dating
were written by men who did their best to understand nature using the scientific
method. Their conclusions are subject to change as new evidence is found. But the
Bible was inspired by One who is infinite in wisdom, power, and love, who created all
things in the beginning by His Word of power. He knows the answers to the
questions that we cannot answer, and gives us enough evidence to believe in Him.
Even more, the Bible tells us of the love of God, and how we can live better lives
here and find salvation in eternity. This book shows us how we can come to know
Jesus as our friend and Savior.

Yes, Jesus created life on this earth not too long ago. Man fell into sin, and Jesus
came to die on the cross and redeem us from our sins. To all who are willing to
believe in Him and repent and confess their sins, He offers forgiveness and eternal
life. Soon he is coming again to take us to a better home. Fast fulfilling prophecies
show that this event cannot be far distant. Let's not give up our hope because of the
uncertain conclusions of radiometric dating, especially when it has so many
problems. Now more than ever we have reason to question the long ages of
radiometric dating on fossil-bearing rocks. Errors will abound in the last days, but we
can have confidence in the Word of God. Soon we will see the Lord face to face,
and all uncertainties will be swept away. Let's hold fast our confidence, and be ready
to meet our Lord with joy when He returns. May this be the choice of each one here,
is my prayer.

Amen.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/deception.html

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

Reference Information from Kent Hovind

(Compiled and Comments by Harold M. Lind)

How old is the earth? Here is what scientists have told us through the years:

In 1770 George Buffon said the earth was 70,000 years old. (Integrated Principles of Zoology 1996, p. 151). In 1905
the age of the earth was officially 2 billion years old (Newsweek July 20, 1998 p. 50). In 1969, the year we went to the
moon, the official age of the earth and moon was 3.5 billion years. (The Minneapolis Tribune Monday, August 25,
1969). Today, students are taught that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

They say that the universe is older; about 16 billion years, give or take. But how do we know that is true?

Since we would all agree that no one was present at the beginning of the universe, nobody really knows how old it is.
Many of the attempts at giving the universe an age are rife with assumptions that have not been proven. So we really
have no way of knowing exactly how old the universe really is. With that in mind, and only counting on observations that
can actually be proven (which would be the scientific way), what are some age ranges that we can narrow it down to?
We will look at observations that can scientifically establish an upper limit. It is the overall analysis of all these events
that will give us a better idea for the age of the earth and the universe:

July 24, 1999 (star tribune, Minneapolis, Minn.) newspaper reported that the world’s population topped 6 billion. In
1985 there were 5 billion. 1977, 4 billion, 1962 3 billion, 1930 2 billion, and 1800 1 billion. At about 0 BC (Christ’s
birth), there were about 250 million. This makes the start of the population from 8 people at around 2400 BC very
possible. The world is not overcrowded. The entire worlds population would fit in Jacksonville Florida twice. There is
25 billion square feet in Jacksonville. Evolution believes that man started 3 million years ago. Doing the math for
population growth would put 150,000 people per square inch on the earth. So according to population growth statistics,
the earth is not millions of years old.

If we were to say that there was a very high mortality rate to explain why there aren’t 150,000 people per square inch,
where are all the skeletons and bones? We have not found any where near that many bones.

Spiral Galaxies: They are still spinning, and the inside is spinning faster than the outside. If they were billions of years
old, they would have lost their spiral shape.

Super Nova: They happen every 25 or 30 years. If the universe is billions of years old, then why can we find only
about 300 dead stars? Doing the math, this would make the universe from 7500 to 9000 years old. If it were even
millions of years old, there should have been more dead stars. Where are they?

Red Giants: Science says that red giants evolve into white dwarfs over billions of years. This is not true. Egyptian
hieroglyphs from 2000 BC described Sirius as red. Cicero, in 50 BCc stated that Sirius was red. Seneca described
Sirius as being redder than mars. Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 AD. Today, it is a white binary
star. This timeline for this observation was about 4000 years.

Jupiter is cooling off, loosing heat twice as fast as it receives it from the sun. If it were billions of years old, it would be
cold; it would have cooled off long ago.

Jupiter’s moon Ganymede has a strong magnetic field. “Magnetic fields are generated by the liquid motion of molten
metal inside a body.” Yet Ganymede should have cooled solid billions of years ago. (Denver Post, Dec. 13, 1996
Jupiter Probe Detects Mysterious Moon Dust. By K.C. Cole).

The rings of Saturn are moving away from Saturn. If they were billions of years old, it would not have rings, as they are
unstable.

The moon is gradually getting further away from the earth. It used to be closer. 1.2 billion years ago the moon would
be touching the earth. Long before, the tides would have swamped the land and washed everything into the sea.

Comets are losing material, which is why they appear to have a tail. They don’t last longer than 10,000 years. Why are
there still comets? They should have all disintegrated. Scientists think there is a cloud of comets called the Oort cloud
that is 50,000 au (astronomical units – 1 unit is 93 million miles, the distance from the earth to the sun). It can’t be
seen. Pluto is 39 AU away, and it can hardly be seen with the most powerful telescopes. “Oort proposed a cloud of
comets surrounding the solar system based on mathematical errors.” (Raymond Littleton, The Non-existence of the
Oort Cometary Shell. Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1974, pp. 385-401).

Earth is a big magnet, and magnets lose their strength over time. The earth has lost 6% of its magnetic strength in the
last 150 years (Astronomy and the Bible, Donald DeYoung, p. 18). 30,000 years ago the field would have been so
strong that life couldn’t have existed. This also messes up carbon 14 dating because it assumes a constant rate of C14
is entering the atmosphere. With a stronger magnetic field, less C14 would be able to get through. So carbon dating
doesn’t work. Some would say that the magnetic field reverses, and that is why it is diminishing. This is not true. It is
based on incorrect observations of cracks in the ocean floor where basalt has come up. This causes variations in the
strength of the magnetism, not reversals.

Earth spins at about 1041 mph. But it is slowing down. Every once and a while there is a leap second to adjust for the
earth slowing down. If the earth were billions of years old, it would be spinning real fast. Winds would be moving at
5000 mph, and centrifugal force would be flinging things off.

Sahara Desert: Prevailing winds mostly blow in one direction. It is growing about 4 miles a year because of winds
drying out areas and increasing it. This is known as desertification. Scientists believe that the desert is about 4000
years old. (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, July 15, 1999 Geophysical Research Letters). If
the earth is billions of years old, why is the oldest desert on earth only 4000 years old? That is also about the time of
the flood, which would have wiped out any desert that was there before it.

When drilling for oil, sometimes they hit some that is under tremendous pressure, as much as 20,000 PSI. Scientists
say that because the pressure is greater than the force exerted by the rock, that the pressure should have equalized in
about 10,000 years. Yet it hasn’t equalized. So the earth can’t be billions of years old.

Ice cores supposedly prove that the earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old due to the hundreds of
thousands of “annual rings” found in the cores. (The longest core was 10,000 feet long and had 135,000 rings). The
“lost squadron”, which had run out of gas and landed in Greenland during WW2 in 1942, disproves this. They were left
there until 1990. They had to use ground-penetrating radar to find them, because after being there for 48 years, they
were under 263 feet of ice. That would be 5.5 feet of ice falling on them per year to bury them 263 feet deep. They did
not sink, because they were found horizontal. If they sank, they would go nose down because with the engines, the
nose would be heavier than the tail. Taking the same 5.5 feet and dividing 10,000 feet by it gives 1824 years. Deeper
ice is pressed into finer layers so 4400 years to accumulate the ice at the poles is not a problem. The guys digging the
planes out of the ice also saw the “annual rings”, but in the 163 feet there were many hundreds. Since it was only 48
years old, the rings could not be annual. It turns out that the rings are not deposited in summer and winter; they are
deposited in warm and cold weather. And there could be more than 10 rings a week.

The Mississippi river deposits sediments at a rate of 80,000 tons an hour, day after day, year after year, at the point
where the river flows into the Gulf of Mexico. This is by New Orleans on a big delta that is getting larger and larger.
Scientists studying the delta say it took about 30,000 years to deposit the amount of mud that is there. If the earth is
millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud? Why is there just 30,000 years of mud?

The oldest tree in the world is a bristle cone pine tree in the white mountains of California, also known as the
Methuselah tree. It is 4300 years old. If the earth is millions of years old, why is the oldest tree in the world only 4300
years old?

During WW2, part of the Great Barrier Reef was destroyed. This is a large coral shelf out by Australia and New
Zealand. Environmentalists went out there to see how fast it grows back. They did this for 20 years. After that, they
said that the reef was 4200 years old. This is the oldest reef in the world. If the earth is millions of years old, why is the
oldest reef in the world only 4200 years old?

The rocky ledge above Niagara Falls has been eroding for nearly 9,900 years (Holt Earth Science, 1989, p. 279). All
waterfalls do this. You can observe the rocks falling off. Crest lines showing recession of Horseshoe Falls since 1764.
It has receded 865 feet in 185 years, which is about 4.7 feet per year (Niagara Falls Museum Guide). If the earth is
millions of years old, why isn’t there more erosion?

It has been calculated that Carbon 14 would reach equilibrium in about 30,000 years. Readings taken 10 years ago
are less than readings taken today. This means that the C14 is still increasing. We haven’t reached equilibrium yet, so
the earth must be less than 30,000 years old.

Oceans are 3.6% salt. This is caused by the constant runoff of minerals from rain on land. It could have taken as little
as 5000 years for this to happen. If the earth is millions of years old, why aren’t the oceans saltier?

Along with minerals deposited into the oceans when it rains, soil also erodes. At the current rate of erosion, the
continents would erode flat in 14 million years. If this is true, how can we have fossils that are 300 times older than that
above sea level? They should have washed out to sea 300 times by now.

The oldest languages in the world are only 5000 years old. “The first fully developed systems of word writing appeared
only about 5000 years ago.” (World Book Encyclopedia). “The oldest language that can be reasonably reconstructed
is already modern, sophisticated and complete from an evolutionary point of view.” (The Biological Nature of Man, G.G.
Simpson. Science Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 477).

Chinese calendar says that this is year 4700.
The Hebrew calendar says it is year 5761.

A petrified metal hammer with a wooden handle was found in a rock that also had seashells that had been dated as 400
million years old. (Dr. Carl Baugh).

Textbooks say that coal formed 250 million years ago in the Carboniferous Period. But Newton Anderson found a bell
inside a lump of coal in 1944. (Ammunition by Norm Scharbough, Communiqué Conservative Publishers).

On June 11, 1891, the Morrisonville Times reported: “A curious find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last
Tuesday morning. As she was breaking a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain about 10
inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship.” (The Hidden History of the Human Race, Michael A. Cremo, p.
113).

A Cast iron pot was found in coal in 1912 at the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, OK. Now in Creation Evidence
Museum. See http://www.creationevidence.org/.

A 4 ½ inch high zinc and silver vessel found in solid rock that was dated to “over 600 million years old” in Dorchester,
Mass. In 1851. (Readers Digest Mysteries of the Unexplained, p. 46, also Scientific American June 1851, p. 289-299).

A clay doll was found by a well driller at a depth of 430 feet near Nampa, Idaho in 1889. The rock layer was supposedly
12 million years old. The doll is at the Idaho State Historical Society in Boise. (Ammunition by Norm Sharbough, p. 177).

Workers found human bones and a well-tempered copper arrowhead in a vein of silver at the Rocky Point Mine in
Gilman, Colo. in 1865.

In 1880, J.D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in
California gold mines. The implements, including spear points, mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts,
underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, ranging from 9 to 55 million years old. (The Hidden History of the Human
Race, Michael A. Cremo p. xvii, 95). W.H. Holmes, of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal critics of the
California finds wrote: “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is
understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions, not withstanding the imposing array of
testimony with which he was confronted”. This basically means that he shouldn’t have told anyone about this, since it
contradicts evolutionary theory.

In the 1950’s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits at
Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron. The deposits were 65,000 to 125,000 years old. The director of the
museum was fired for refusing to fire the discoverer. Tons of artifacts disappeared into storage bins at the NMC. The
discovery had to be killed. “It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in the business.” (The Hidden
History of the Human Race. Michael A. Cremo, p. xviii).

A coin like object, from a well boring near Lawn Ridge, Illinois, was reportedly found at a depth of about 114 feet below
the surface. According to information supplied by the Illinois State Geological Survey, the deposits containing the coin
are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old.

As elements decay they produce helium. This helium slowly escapes through the rocks into the atmosphere. Very little
is able to escape into space. After all factors are considered the helium in the atmosphere indicates the earth is less
than two million years old. (Blowing Old Earth Belief Away, J. Sarfati, Creation 20(3) pp. 19-21, 1998).

The overall trend for the sun is that it is shrinking. It is loosing 5 million tons per second. It used to be larger. If the
universe (and the sun) were billions of years old, the gravitational pull of the sun would have drug the earth in.

Stalactites and stalagmites take millions of years to form. An example would be Carlsbad Caverns. When you go there
you will be told that it took 250 million years to form. They say that they grow at a rate of one inch in a thousand years.
This is not true. Many formations have been found that have formed in only decades:

There are 50 inch stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial which was built in 1922. They were found in 1960,
only 38 years later.

Dead bats have been found covered with flowstone making a type of stalagmite, before it even had a change to rot.

A refrigeration shed inside Fort Pickens in Pensacola Florida had 2 inch stalactites growing off of it. It was built in 1926-
1927.

A building in Indiana had a giant flowstone formation (stalactite growing to the floor), which was only 40 years old.

A mine in Australia, which had been shut down for 55 years, was reopened. They found the mine loaded with
stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, ribbons, and many other types of formations. Looked just like a natural cave would
have looked.

The basement of a building at an Air Force Base (Hurlburt Field, FL) had a 13-inch stalactite next to a water pipe. The
building was only 7 years old. It also had a 3-inch stalagmite on the floor below the stalactite.

The teepee fountain in Thermopolis, Wyoming is an incredible flowstone formation that is about 100 years old. It
started as a small pipe sticking out of the ground which water was running out of. As the years passed, minerals were
deposited on the pipe. After 100 years, it is a 20-foot high mountain that is probably 75 feet in diameter. After only 100
years.

Where did oil come from? “Oil and gas are from organisms that once lived in the sea and were changed by heat and
pressure”. (Holt General Science, 1988, p. 294) It was said that it took a long time for the transformation. “In 1996 a
$22.4 million proposal was approved in Western Australia that will build a plant to create oil from sewage sludge in 30
minutes.

They tell you that things petrify over millions of years. This is not true. Here are some examples of petrification where
we actually know that age of the artifact. Again, science says that things petrify over millions of years, but they weren’t
there to observe this:

A piece of wood was found in Arizona’s Petrified Forest that had been chopped by an axe. (World Explorer, p. 65).

A petrified piece of a pallet was found at a company in Canada.

In the early 1900’s a flour mill in Eureka Springs, AR. Was flooded. The have recently found petrified sacks of flower
that happened as a result of the flooding.

A petrified dog was found in the middle of a hollow tree. It is currently at the Southern Forest World Museum in
Wayoross.

A petrified cowboy leg found in a dry creek bed near the West Texas town of Iraan, about 1980 by Mr. Jerry Stone, an
employee of Corvette Oil Company. The bones of the partial leg and foot within the boot were revealed by an elaborate
set of C.T. Scans performed at Harris Methodist Hospital in Americus, AART. A complete set of these scans remains
with the boot at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.

An incredible fossil of an ichthyosaur, buried and fossilized while giving birth, is clear evidence of its having been buried
quickly by water-borne sediments. The fossil record is consistent with creatures having been buried suddenly,
otherwise most creatures would either rot of be devoured by scavengers.

This proves that petrification does not take millions of years, and actually can happen very quickly.

The above evidence proves that the earth and the universe cannot be “billions of years old”, let along millions. This is
what evolutionists want you to think, because they need this time to magically make evolution work. Evolution
supposedly happened over billions of years, and has either stopped, or is happening so slowly that we cannot observe
it today. But there is nothing that can be scientifically proven to be billions of years old, this means that evolution could
not have had the time to do the things it is said to have done.

Did Life come from "Primordial Soup?
Click on the watch

Evolution Exposed