Top Ten Reasons Radiometric Dates are Wrong

TOP TEN REASONS RADIOMETRIC DATES ARE WRONG

1. Decay Rate

One of the many dogmatic beliefs taught by the evolutionists is “the decay rates of radioisotopes is constant.” This is plainly an assumption, but it has been elevated to nearly the status of a “law of science” by the supporters of the Evolution Model. It is just not true.

Many things have been shown to speed up the decay rates of radioactive unstable elements. The most extreme is high-energy heating, such as in the plasma state. At this temperature, unstable atoms will decay at even trillions of times their usual rate. Evolutionists believe that the whole universe was once in the plasma state. Our sun is currently in the plasma state – so is every bolt of lightning in our atmosphere.

Other effects have been noted in other changing conditions such as underground temperature, pressure, and magnetic field. In 2010, it was discovered that every 38 days in the solar cycle, Cesium atoms here on Earth decay faster – the effect is even greater during times solar flare activity. The evolutionists’ mantra of “constant decay rates” has now been proven – by science – to be nothing but an urban myth. It is not true. It cannot be offered in evidence for an Earth older than 6000 years.

2. Original Amount of Radioisotope

In radiometric dating techniques, it is necessary to know how much of the unstable element was in the rock sample to begin with. If testing reveals very little of the isotope present, this does not necessarily mean that the rock is very old. It could mean that there was not much of the isotope in the rock at the start. So, how can we be sure? – we can’t. Many assumption-methods have been devised by the evolutionists, to try to get an estimate on how much was there at the start. But all of these methods are based upon a guess of one sort or another.

What is being done here is a simple subtraction problem – “A minus B equals C.” Simple as it is, it still just cannot be done, unless you know for sure what “A” is.

3. Original Amount of Decay Product

The problem here is similar to the problem of original amount of the unstable “parent” isotope. Radiometric tests are often run on the basis how much of the decay product is found in the sample. Unstable radioactive elements all eventually change into stable non-radioactive things, like stable Lead metal, or stable Argon gas, etc …

If there is a high content of a known decay product in a rock sample, then evolutionist researchers are likely to assume that much of the stable element or that the entire amount of it actually did come from the unstable atom decaying, and not from just being there in the rock to begin with. It is clear than many rocks do already contain elements that are decay products, without having to get them from the decay of unstable elements within the rock.

4. Closed System Assumption

One of the most highly unlikely assumptions upon which all radiometric dating methods depend, is the “closed-system” assumption. What this belief requires, is that the rock sample has remained undisturbed by anything that could have affected its decay rate or parent isotope amount or daughter isotope amount – for billions of years. This is unlikely. As a matter of fact, it would be a sure bet that something did disturb the sample, if it sat there in the rock layers, waiting three billion years to be dug up by a modern-day researcher.

Earthquakes nearby, magma chambers getting too close, ground water leaking into the layer or out of the layer, chemical changes, dissolving of isotopes, or crystallization of incoming isotopes – are all examples of things that could easily happen to a rock sample underground, in only a matter of centuries, not necessarily millennia nor eons of time. Scientific measurements are not allowed to be based upon the hopes of being extremely lucky. Radiometric dates are therefore based upon extreme wishful thinking – something very far from the objectivity of true science.

5. Helium Diffusion

Most radioactive elements are alpha-emitters. This means that they release alpha particles, in the form of alpha radiation, as they go through the decay sequence and become the product element (like Uranium turning into Lead, for example). An alpha particle is made of two neutrons and two protons stuck together. This is the same thing as the nucleus of an atom of Helium gas. Many radioactive elements release Helium into the rocks where they are found.

Helium can soak through solid rock, but not very quickly. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old however, there would have been plenty of time for most of the helium from such a long history of radioactive decay to escape from the granite rock formations where alpha-emitting Uranium is found. If the earth is 6000 years old, there would not have been enough time for all that Helium to get out. How much Helium is still in the rocks? A lot – enough to set the age of the earth at only 5680 years. This is much closer to the Biblical time frame of 6000 years, than to evolutionists’ 4.6 billion.

6. Uranium-Lead

The specific assumption made here is that the original amount of Lead in the zircon crystal alongside the Uranium was the same as in the rock outside the crystal. Now, this is not a bad assumption. But there are others that may be made that are just as good. The truth is, Lead is chemically very similar to Uranium, being another of the heavy metals. Perhaps much of the Lead in the zircon was sequestered there in the same way that all of the Uranium was. Or perhaps there was no Lead at all in the zircon to begin with. Going on the basis of either of these assumptions, would give drastically different age calculations for the granitic rocks that contain the zircons. An assumption is still and assumption, and so should not be described to the public and to students as being a fact

7. Potassium-Argon

The problem here is similar to the problem with the Uranium-Lead dating method. How much Argon was in the rock to begin with? Radioactive Potassium-40 is found naturally in fresh lava and volcanic ash. It automatically decays into Argon-40. Large amounts of Argon found in ancient volcanic rock, will cause the evolutionist to assign a large age to that rock. But it has been well-documented that fresh lava and volcanic ash can already contain significant amounts of stable Argon, right when it exits the volcanic source. Clearly then, Argon content is no reliable way to determine the age of sample. The famous “Lucy” fossil, and many other so-called human “missing link” fossils have been dated by the Potassium-Argon method.

8. Carbon-14

There are many problems with the famous Carbon-14 method. The first thing to note is – no evolutionist uses Carbon dating for their samples anyway. Even if it did work the way they think it does, it would only be good for samples up to 110,000 years old – a mere blink of an eye to the evolution-story of life on our earth.

But Carbon-14 has many other problems, too. Since it is found in the Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere, if the concentration of this gas has ever been different, it would throw off the Carbon dates. Ex Vice-president Al Gore won an Oscar for his docu-eco-drama “An Inconvenient Truth,” in which he proves to the world that Carbon Dioxide concentrations are changed every time a volcano erupts, and were drastically affected by the Ice Age. The same problem would be true if earth’s atmospheric pressure had ever been on the average, different than it is today.

One of the biggest problems is the equilibrium question. Atmospheric scientists agree, it would take between 30,000 and 90,000 years for Carbon-14 to reach equilibrium in our atmosphere. If the earth is only 6000 years old, as the Bible says, then there has only been time enough for a fraction of the equilibrium concentration to become established in the air which we breathe. If this is true, then Carbon-14 levels are still in the process of rising from the beginning of the earth’s history. This means that old bones have only small amounts of Carbon-14 because they are from an earlier time where the whole atmosphere had much less of the isotope than it does today, not because they are as old as the evolutionist would think they are. Being a matter of numbers, a calculated adjustment can be made to all Carbon dates. When this is done, the dates line up far better with the Biblical time scales than with the evolutionary ones.

Creation scientists have tested fossils, coal, and diamonds for traces of Carbon-14. It has been found in all of these, though evolutionary assumptions would say there should be none in any of them. Additionally, the amount of Carbon-14 found in all fossils in all rock layers, has been the same. This means that all of the fossilized life forms in world, must have died at the same time. The obvious answer is the Great Flood of Noah, found in the Book of Genesis, which the Bible sets at about 4350 years ago.

9. Rubidium-Strontium

The presence of additional isotopes of Strontium-86 and Strontium-87 can artificially inflate the radiometric date assigned to a rock sample, by as much as 70 million to even 3 billion years extra. This is in addition to the error inherent in the main assumptions of all radiometric dating methods from the starting point.

10. Method Disagreement

Usually only one of the radioisotope methods is used on a sample, since most of these tests are expensive and time-consuming to perform. But when more than one method is used on a single sample, the methods can often disagree, by large amounts of time. The question is which method to trust, in these cases – if any of them. The Bright Angel Shale formation of the Grand Canyon, is one of the many examples of this disagreement of methods.

The most curious thing is that when the methods do disagree, they do so in a consistent pattern of ratios between the standard isotope methods that are used. This is consistent with the creationist claim that the decay rates have all been different at some time in the past. For, if the Nuclear Force Factor had indeed been altered as a part of God’s judgment at the Fall of Man in Eden and again as a part of His second judgment on Man at the time of Noah’s Flood – this exact phenomenon would be observed among the radioactive isotopes found in the earth’s crust. It is not proof of the creationist hypothesis. But it is powerful evidence that all of the evolutionist assumptions about the decay rates and reliability of their current methods of radiometric dating – are actually incorrect. The problem is, most “science” documentaries, textbooks, and science teachers are telling the public that these methods have been long ago perfected and that they have been proven safely reliable as “clocks” for the earth’s unwritten times of pre-history.

Top Ten Reasons Darwin is Wrong

“The theory of evolution has no weaknesses.” Prof. Kenneth Miller, of Brown University, author of “Finding Darwin’s God”

www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/03/28/texas_evolution_case

1. Spontaneous Generation

“Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves.” Louis Pasteur, addressing the French Academy of Science in the 19^th century

“…the how part has everyone stumped. Nobody knows how lifeless chemicals organized themselves into the first living cell.” Paul Davies, quoted in article “Born Lucky” in New Scientist, 7/12/03, p32

“I think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here . . . We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances. It's a mystery that we're going to chip at from several different directions.” Andrew Knoll,Harvard paleobiologist, Fisher Professor of Natural History, Dept of Earth and Planetary Sciences, author of “Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life,” interviewed 5/3/2004 on PBS NOVA

“The chemical steps that led to life on Earth remain a matter of intense speculation.” An article “Geochemical Influences of Life’s Origins and Evolution,” Elements, (vol 1, June 2005), p151

In order for Darwin to be right, then the most solid law of biology would have to not be right—the Law of Biogenesis—often called “the cornerstone of modern biology.”

2. Prokaryote to Eukaryote (said like “pro-care-ee-oat” and “you-care-ee-oat”)

“Gradual accumulation of mutations is never the way eukaryotes evolve … the Cambrian Explosion was caused by symbiosis—not mutation. All symbionts are new species.” Prof. Lynn Margulis, U of Mass-Amherst, in a lecture at U of Cincinnati, 3/1/07

This is a “missing link” that is second only to the origin of life, in the nightmares of the evolution-believers. How did bacteria turn into cells hundreds of times bigger than them, which have things inside them like the nucleus and other organelles? There is a giant total blank in the evolution story right here. Evolutionists will tell you and teach you that mutations did it all—but there is no way to even imagine how mutations could ever create new and original genetic information that would be needed to make the jump from bacteria to cells like amoebas, and then on to creatures made of many such cells, like fish, lizards, and people.

3. Cambrian Explosion (said like “came-bree-in” explosion)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” Stephen Jay Gould, in his book, The Panda's Thumb (1980) p238-9

“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology.” American Scientist, May/June 1997, p244

The Creation Model says that all life forms were created during the same week. The Evolution Model says it took three and a half billion years. What do we find in the deepest layers that contain fossils?—just bacteria. What do we find in the deepest muds today?—just bacteria. What do we find in the fossils just above the bacteria? We find representatives from every one of the Phyla (said “fye-lah”; singular Phylum) of living things, even the vertebrates. The sudden boundary-line of so many living things, with no “missing links” leading up to them, only goes along with the Creation Model—and only goes against the Evolution Model. The data says Darwin is wrong.

4. Missing Links

“The number of intermediate varieties, which must have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin, “Origin on the Species” (1859)

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” Stephen J. Gould, in article “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, (1977) 86(6): p22-30

“The evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record. It’s difficult to explore a billion-year-old fossil record. Be patient!” William Provine, biology professor at Cornell University, The Washington Post, May 15, 2005, p D6

Everyone has heard the term “missing link” so many times that we tend to forget what it really says to us. Fossils that could show the evolution of any one original kind of life into any one new kind of life are—missing! Evolution requires these “missing link” fossils to be real, for the theory to have any proof from the fossils. All arguing aside—there really aren’t any that have ever been found. Darwin-followers have even quit trying to find the “missing links” for land plants and for all of the many kinds of insects.

5. Stasis of Living Things

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).” Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15
Evolution-believers don’t like to talk about this problem—so they usually don’t mention stasis. The Creation Model says that all of the kinds of living things should stay pretty much the same, up until the time when they might go extinct and then just disappear forever. The Evolution Model says that all kinds of living things should constantly be changing! That’s how worms turned into us, according to their theory. The ancient coelacanth fish (said like “see-luh-kanth”) is just one example. Its fins have small bones in them. So, evolutionists thought those might have evolved into fingers by the time the coelacanth evolved into us. Then we found coelacanths alive in the Indian Ocean—and they look exactly like their fossils do! Sad and disappointed, evolutionists picked another fish-cousin of the coelacanth, to be our great grandfather. They forgot to think about one problem though. Why and how could evolution take one fish and turn it into dinosaurs, birds, rats, elephants, seagulls, turtles, whales, horses, and hummingbirds, and leave the coelacanth totally the same all through this same period of time? There is no answer—except that Darwin is wrong. As a matter of fact, all life forms on the growing list of “living fossils” cause this same contradiction for an evolutionist. These “living fossils” have never changed —never “evolved” at all—since the beginning of the world. And they are not rare. They are “overwhelmingly prevalent” in the fossil record. They are the rule, not the exception.

6. Ancient Biomolecules

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Mary H. Schweitzer, in an article, “Dinosaur Shocker” By Helen Fields http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.phpsmithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are, and I was pretty shocked." Mary H. Schweitzer, evolutionary paleontologist at North Carolina State U, in Science, vol 307, no 5717, p1952-55, 3/25/2005 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html

“… it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course I couldn’t believe it…the bones after all are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” from article “Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, July 9, 1993, p60

“Ohio State University geologists isolated the oldest complex organic compounds found in a fossil. They found the compounds in 350-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures known as crinoids.” www.researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm 10/23/2006

Here is another big problem for Darwin-believers. Scientists have discovered preserved bits of the original flesh, blood, and bone of forms of life that the Evolution Model says went extinct—way too long ago for these things to still be around without having petrified into rock first. Such molecules have been verified in the remains of Neanderthal humans, mammoths, moa birds, dinosaurs (t-rex, triceratops, maiasaur), and even creatures that the Evolution Model says should be five times older than the dinosaurs! Biological molecules like collagen, hemoglobin, and color pigments, should have been rotted away by now if the fossils really are very much older than the time of Noah’s Flood (less than 4400 years ago). But they aren’t—they’re not millions of years old, and they’re not decayed into dust. That’s why they are still around to be discovered. Darwin is wrong about his whole time scale of things, which goes completely against the findings of science truth—and makes evolution a science-fantasy.

7. DNA fingerprinting for Adam & Eve

They “…looked at an international assortment of genes and picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single (individual) woman from whom we are all descended.” “We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor.” Michael Hammer, University of Arizona, Newsweek, 1-11-1988

“That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there.” U.S. News and World Report, 12-4-1995

“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that’s the case…” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Jan. 2, 1998, page 28.

“By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam.” Wells wrote the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Wells

Darwin said we would find millions of monkey fossils showing how they all gradually evolved into humans. That’s the Evolution Model. The Creation Model says the human race began with only two people (and hasn’t changed much since). The science of DNA has now proven—all humans come from one man and one woman. Is that really a surprise? Biblical Creation is right!

8. Four Human Gene Pools

The evolutionist book and documentary mentioned above in #7 by Darwin-believer Spencer Wells, also contains the finding that all humans come from only one of four distinct gene pools. The significance of this has slipped past the evolutionists. It has not slipped past the creationists. Think about our ancestors. There was one time in the history of mankind when everybody was killed—all except for just eight humans. These were Noah’s family—including his three sons and their wives. The Noah gene pool was on the Ark—plus the three extra family blood lines from the three wives. That makes four. DNA proves that the Biblical history of Noah’s Ark is right.

Not only human DNA, but also goat and sheep DNA—all living goats are descended from five ancient females. All sheep come from four ancestral ewes (Science News, 10/14/06, p245). But didn’t Noah take “two of every kind” on the Ark? No—not all. He took more of the “clean” animals. If all goats came from just one female, it might make the Ark history seem to be in question. If all came from twenty goats, then it could actually prove that Noah’s Ark was just a fairy tale. But science truth verifies the claims of the Creation Model time and time again. So Bible-believers need not fear the newest scientific findings. Science truth is on our side! Science truth shows Darwin-believers are wrong. “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Romans 1:28

9. Phylogerontology (said like “fye-loh-jaron-tah-loh-jee”)

The terms “geriatrics” or “gerontology” might sound familiar. They involve the study of old age. Phylogerontology is the study of the aging of family lines. In biology, this means the aging and the decaying of the DNA in any line of ancestors leading up to the living members of any kind of living thing existing today. The DNA of Adam & Eve was perfect. But since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, decay has been happening. Not only did humans gradually begin to experience sickness and death, but the DNA of the entire human race soon began to become filled up with mutations—in the form of copy-mistakes in the DNA of every new generation. Since everyone has two versions of most of their chromosomes, we’ve all got a “spare” for most of our genes. So if one becomes non-functional because of the gradual buildup of mutations in the human genome, the other one can do the whole job alone. Since people in the same families will have more of the same mutations, it is not good to marry a close relative and have children with them. This is called “inbreeding.” Until there were large numbers of bad mutations in the genome, inbreeding would not have been so much of a medical problem. In early Bible times, inbreeding was not forbidden until the time of Moses. Before that, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. All of Adam & Eve’s children married their brothers and sisters (or at least their nieces and nephews). It was not forbidden before Moses, and it would not have been medically dangerous yet, either. Now today, people cannot even marry their distant cousins without being in danger of expressing lethal mutations in their children. This would be true after only 600 generations. That’s how many there have been in the 6000 years since Adam & Eve. According to the Evolution Model, there has been 200,000 years of time for humans to buildup bad mutations in their DNA—and over three billion years of us evolving and mutating from bacteria before that! None of our DNA should still be able to work if that was true. The wear-and-tear from mutations would have ruined it all by this time—if Darwin was right.

10. Information in DNA

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.” Norbert Weiner (1894-1964), MIT mathematician and the “Father of Modern Cybernetics”

“DNA is like a computer program, but far far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Bill Gates, in the book “The Road Ahead” (Boulder: Blue Penguin, 1996), p228 http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm

Most people have heard of DNA, and many know that it is a complex molecule found in our chromosomes, deep inside the nucleus of every cell in our bodies. It was a great breakthrough in science when we finally discovered the structure of the DNA molecule. It was an even greater breakthrough when we translated the code for the information storage system in DNA. These things are amazing. But there is something hundreds of times more impressive about the DNA molecules in the chromosomes of all living things—they contain information! The molecule and its code have been used to do a job “by someone”—to carry a message. That message contains instructions on how to make protein molecules and how to coordinate their manufacture throughout the life-stages of all of the living things known to man. It is against all of the known principles of information science that these instructions might have happened all by themselves, and by accident. That is impossible. That is illogical. This is perhaps the most scientifically important proof of all of the Top Ten that—Darwin is wrong.

Click HERE to order your own tee shirt from Creation Truth Foundation.

Bird Evolution?

Dr Jackson,
I remember reading how evolutionists say that a reptile developed wings by trying to catch flying insects, and in the process their scales wore out , this being the first step to change into feathers.My question is: I thought that mutations was the only mechanism for change, that most, not all evolutions believe in.Warn out scales is not mutations, and when their offspring are born they will have normal scales.Or, 4,000 years of Jewish circumcision should by now eliminated the need to circumcise.So why should they use that story which is not using any mechanism to change the genes?
dominic.

Deep Sea Vents

The current issue of Newsweek (9/27/10) carries the story on page 50, about China's plans for mining deep sea vent for deposits of valuable metals. You'd think they were planning to yank lollipop's out of babies' mouths, with all the eco-style warnings in the article. But it's not about the environment. It's about evolution. "The vents may also be where chemistry first became biology - that is, where life on earth began - and thus be scientifically priceless." Once again, Darwin-thinking is inhibiting progress in both commerce and science. When will they ever learn? You keep thinking. DrJ

High School Student

Dr. Jackson, I am not sure if you remember me but a while back you came to my former church home. In biology recently I got all of the students and the teacher herself to second guess what the world had been feeding them. And it had been a while and I had other things on my mind, and I did not grasp what information I needed from you when you came. I had enough information to keep me on my feet but not enough to argue deeper into what I was talking about. I would really love it if you could share with me any information you can give me, and I mean anything and everything. I will handle putting it together and presenting my case....I just need a little help to get started. I understand that you are busy, but if you could get back to me as soon as possible I would greatly appreciate it. I am feeling led to do this, and I am not going to give up. Thank you for your time Dr. Jackson. Jace from TX

Jace, you could join my blogsite at

www.TheJediCreationist.blogspot.com

or the general site at

www.DrJ-PointsofOrigins.blogspot.com

and ...

just ask them one of the many essential questions that have no evo-answer. As for "all I can tell you" it would fill many books!

One such question is, what chemical process has been proven to create life from non-life?

Another is, when and who actually did create life in a test tube? (urban myth also)

And here's a good one ... what started the Big Bang and what process can make all of the matter in the universe from nothing?

These are good for starters. Jace you really oughta be on my email list.

Lemme know if you want me to add you if you're not.

I'll be speaking in the Longview area next week! I hope to get my schedule out soon.

Yours in the Savior, Dr J

Darker Matters

Well if my understanding of "dark matter" is correct, this new finding could finally prove, once and for all, that "dark matter," which can be neither observed nor quantified, DOES NOT EXIST.

Hmm, and what have CREATIONISTS been saying all along? Keep thinking? lol

Well Jason, "dark matter" kinda became a catch-all word for anything that might have mass and be undetectable (as yet). That includes neutrinos (only a few years ago) which have now finally been detected. I mean ... how do you detect wraith-like little thingees that have no mass and have no charge and can pass through anything unaltered nor hindered (like whole planets) anyway? Well, we finally did detect the little buggers and ... evo's immediately announced that, since they were found to actually have a little mass ... their estimated population of the cosmos ... solved one fourth of the "missing mass" problem for them. Yeah -- lotsa hyperbole goin' on there but ... they still hadda point, even if only a brief one. And they still have three-fourths of the matter to find ... surreptitiously goin' for the infamous "black hole" ace in the singularity there.
What's more fun is "dark energy." The recent chair of the Physics Dept at Yale proclaimed, "dark energy is code for we don't have a clue." She's one smart lady! As of now a full 97% of the entire universe is all based on explanations by stuff that we cannot see, and most of which (except for neutrinos) we must purely imagine (like gravitons and anti-gravitons and such fairies).

Top Ten Missing Link Myths

Check out the new page on this site "Top Ten Missing Link Myths!"

Vic's Questions

Creationism Jedi Master Dr. J,
Would you be so kind as to refresh my memory why the following might not be true:

1. Reptiles and amphibians continue to grow as long as they continue to live.

Well Vic, that is true. The problem with creation-believers is that they often try to say that's why the dinosaurs grew to be so large -- that they were just "big old lizards," claiming that since people lived to be in their 900's so did the animals, thus giving us the dinosaurs. There are some serious fact-problems with this idea circulating around in the church world today.

First off, dinosaurian reptiles were like no other ever in the history of the world--they were not just "big lizards." They had leg joints positioning their feet directly under the weight of their bodies--not off to the side like all other known Orders in Class Reptilia. They also had turbinates in their muzzles, alot like the nasal passages usually found in mammals like dogs. Yeah, they might have lived really long, like the pre-Flood people did but--that's not why they were so big and so different from everything else that's ever lived. Plus, some kinds of dino's were so small they could stand up in your hand--full grown. The "big lizard" thing just makes us all look naive to scientists.

2. In the antediluvian world, man lived extensively longer than in the postdiluvian world, to such ripe old recorded ages as 969 years (Genesis 5).

Well, I'll tell ya Vic -- why not? The Bible says so, it fits the chronology, and there's no medical researcher yet who's been able to figure out why we --don't-- all live to be 1000. Oh yeah, we know --what-- happens in the aging process, but secular scientists still can't tell -- why. The Bible says death is the consequence of sin -- the Bible tells why we age and die.

3. In that same antediluvian world, the same conditions which allowed for such longevity in humans might have also allowed for similar longevity in animals, including reptiles and amphibians.

That makes perfect sense Vic. Are you suggesting that it's not true? I don't see any scientific reason to doubt it, given the current state of biological knowledge and the Biblical chronology.

4. In that case, some of modern day reptiles and amphibians may be mini-dinos who simply have not and will not live long enough to grow as large as what we see in fossilized remains of dinos.

(see answer to first question)

5. As most creationists seem to agree that when God created the various species, including humans, He created them as mature, fully-grown adult specimens capable of reproduction. Therefore, many types of reptiles and amphibians may have been created as what would today be considered dinos.

Oh sure, I am certain from all of the evidence and the logic and the scriptures -- there were full-size dinosaurs walking the earth with Adam & Eve by the end of Day Six of the world.

Two New Developments

Evo's have been saying since 1981 when the father-and-son team of Walter & Luis Alvarez found the Iridium layer at the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary layers) boundary ... that a big asteroid from space killed off all of the dinosaurs. Soon after, they found the Yucatan crater (100km across) at the Gulf of Mexico and pronounced that as the evidence. It was only this summer a group of them got together to "vote" this was really true. Now, just this week, a new study argues it was a swarm of meteorites and not just one that did the dinos. Really, is it any surprise that reptiles might have been more heavily cursed at the Fall?? ... that Sanford's "genetic meltdown" might've gotten to Order Dinosauria before killing off the other Class Reptilians? Hmm ... maybe the Eden serpent was a dinosaurian ... after all ... it did have legs before it was cursed.

The other fun thing this week is the accidental discovery that solar flares have a boosting effect on --guesswhat-- the "constant" decay of radioactive elements! This isn't providing the "billions" of years the evo's talk about when really only the Biblical 6014 years has passed since Genesis 1:1 -- but it does totally crash their dogma of "constant decay" -- totally trashed!! Yours in Him, Dr J