[mugley1992]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Well, you write like a retarded, so I'm not surprised.

ha ha i write like a "retarded" not only are you politicaly incorect, but your a f**king idiot aswell. if you wish to insult my grammar, try and do so in proper english. considering you clearly have nothing to say back that is of interest to me. i give up, Dont bother responding i wont be coming back to this webpage, considering you cant form a more logical arguement than your dumb.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Dont take my silence as agreeing with you, Its just that your level of ignorence has put me into a state of stunned silence. I repeat myself i dont care what anybody thinks of my intellect.

Nonsense. You wouldn't spend so much time trying to convince people you're not stupid if you didn't care what anybody thinks of your lack of intellect.

I have raised some valid points

You have done nothing of the sort. You have, on the other hand, stormed onto our friendly forums, demanded that people be impressed with your IQ, fail to represent said IQ in any perceivable way, and then whine about not being treated like a little prince. What exactly did you expect when you came to a community of gentle and loving people and started persecuting them out of the blue? What would your menses buddies think about that?

[mugley1992]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

[QUOTE=Mary Etheldreda;996268]Nonsense. You wouldn't spend so much time trying to convince people you're not stupid if you didn't care what anybody thinks of your lack of intellect.

ok im an idiot school dropout without loving parents ive never heard of mensa and i am pretty sure my IQ is actually jello. how do you explain radio carbon dating proving the world to be older than not only 6000 but 420 million years ago that land plants exsisted and life had reached out of the ocean. when you are done calling me an idiot and telling me i can not spell of course



What exactly did you expect when you came to a community of gentle and loving people QUOTE]


do you not proudly have awards for both being beaten, and beating your children on your on this website? and the other fella has one for hitting his wife

[mugley1992]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

and couldnt gays be gods way of fixinf overpopulation B|

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

how do you explain radio carbon dating proving the world to be older than not only 6000 but 420 million years ago that land plants exsisted and life had reached out of the ocean.

Radio carbon dating is a failed hypothesis. Pastor Pastor Billy-Reuben shows how the math actually works in his Proof of a Young Earth

do you not proudly have awards for both being beaten, and beating your children on your on this website? and the other fella has one for hitting his wife

Discipline is associated with love in God's Word:

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten
Revelation 3:19

He that spareth his rod hateth his son:
but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 13:24

Discipline is associated with wisdom and understanding:

The rod and reproof give wisdom
Proverbs 29:15

but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding
Proverbs 10:13

Discipline is associated with peace and righteousness:

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous;
nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby
Hebrews 12:11

There is no scripture whatsoever that speaks poorly of discipline. Instead we see what good things the Bible come from discipline. So yes, I am very pleased with my awards.

[Adam Fag]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

My field of of science is Hydrography
This is going to be a piece of cake
The amount of water is a constant

No it's not. What happens when a comet hits the Earth?

I like to think I'm down with the science, you should be too. The Good Book has lots of science in it, things we don't know yet. Soon we will though, when we reach the stars (in 100 years).

[Basilissa]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

how do you explain radio carbon dating proving the world to be older than not only 6000 but 420 million years ago that land plants exsisted and life had reached out of the ocean.

Radiocarbon dating is a highly unreliable method of dating. Kill a deer, put the skull by a highway, and in a few years you can date it and get a few million years old date. Also, according to the so-called "specialists," C14 cannot give a reliable date for anything older than 50,000 years (http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm). Not that you could find anything that old on Earth, of course.

[Stephenh]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Radiocarbon dating is a highly unreliable method of dating. Kill a deer, put the skull by a highway, and in a few years you can date it and get a few million years old date. Also, according to the so-called "specialists," C14 cannot give a reliable date for anything older than 50,000 years (http://www.chcpublications.net/radcarbn.htm). Not that you could find anything that old on Earth, of course.

I hope you do realize that carbon dating is just one out of dozens of dating methods. Radioactive decay is stable and does not change. If this was false, nuclear power plants would be melting down all over the place.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

I hope you do realize that carbon dating is just one out of dozens of dating methods. Radioactive decay is stable and does not change. If this was false, nuclear power plants would be melting down all over the place.

We know dating methods are wrong because they disagree with the Bible's timeline. If you tally up all the genealogies in the Bible, you find the earth is about 6,000 years old. But dendrochronology goes back about 11,000 years, carbon dating goes back 50,000 years and potassium-argon dating goes back much further. Therefore they must be inaccurate. And how do you know radioactive decay has always been stable? Were you alive 6,000 years ago?

[Stephenh]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

We know dating methods are wrong because they disagree with the Bible's timeline.

A book which anyone could have wrote because they didn't know anything about the world at that certain time.

If you tally up all the genealogies in the Bible, you find the earth is about 6,000 years old.

We know the Earth isn't 6,000 years old, thus you have proven the Bible being wrong!

But dendrochronology goes back about 11,000 years, carbon dating goes back 50,000 years and potassium-argon dating goes back much further. Therefore they must be inaccurate. And how do you know radioactive decay has always been stable? Were you alive 6,000 years ago?

It doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It just means it's limited to certain time scales. Radioactive decay can vary from less than a second to billions of years. So if you want to date something in the time scale of millions of years, a radioactive compound with a half life in the thousands of years is no good, because there will be so little left that you won't get an accurate answer. But there are many radioactive substances that can be used for dating, whose half lives span many orders of magnitude.

As far as dendrochonology goes, you can only go back as far as you can piece together tree ring patterns. You don't need one tree that spans the whole time, just many overlapping trees. However, within the time-scale that it's possible to catalog tree rings, dendrochronology can be an extremely useful and accurate tool in dating.

No tool is perfect, but when applied correctly,the methods you mentioned can produce very accurate results which are in agreement with other dating methods. And that's the best scenario--when you can use multiple methods to corroborate your results.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

A book which anyone could have wrote because they didn't know anything about the world at that certain time.

But no just anyone wrote the Bible. Prophets and Apostles wrote it under the inspiration of God.

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

And God knows everything about the world because He created it (Gen 1:1). God knows the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. It's sad to see how mankind has gone backwards in the last few hundred years. 3,500 God revealed to His people that He created the earth in six days. But now people believe in the fairytale of evolution. They know less now than they did then.

We know the Earth isn't 6,000 years old, thus you have proven the Bible being wrong!

How do you know that? Were you alive 6,000 years ago?

No tool is perfect, but when applied correctly,the methods you mentioned can produce very accurate results which are in agreement with other dating methods. And that's the best scenario--when you can use multiple methods to corroborate your results.

So scientists only accept evidence that supports their view. How can they ever expect to find the truth?

[Thinks Design]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

We know the Earth isn't 6,000 years old, thus you have proven the Bible being wrong! .

You are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesign

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Tl;dr.

Why bother trying to use so called science?

The Bible tells us the Earth and everything else was created in 6 days.

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Being Christian is about trusting the Word of God(tm) not mucking about in the mud with so called scientisticalism.

YIC

[Stephenh]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

You are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesign

You are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesigYou are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesig

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

You are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesigYou are making some big assumptions from the start, mate.

Suppose you walked into a mess hall and observed a soldier pealing potatoes and you wanted to know how long he has been at work. However his Sgt. has given him orders not to speak a word to anyone. You could try to figure out how long he has been at work by seeing how long it takes him to peal one potato and then measuring how many pealed potatoes there are already. Sounds pretty straight forward right? Except for the fact that you have to make several assumptions. A) The soldier has been working at the same pace since he started. I mean you have no way of knowing if he is speeding up or slowing down. You have to assume that he started with no potatoes already pealed to begin with. C) You have to assume that at no time prior to your arrival did he have any other help. Can you see how such assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions?

An open minded Biblical view tells us a different story about the Earth's age. Even secular science agrees we find the existence of C-14 where it should never be found. C-14 dating is of course, as you are probably aware, useless when trying to date extremely old things. That’s because it has a half life of 5,730 years, which means that after 57,300 years (ten half lives) there shouldn't essentially be any C-14 left. And it for sure should be useless in dating anything over say... 100,000 years old. So something that supposedly takes millions of years to produce, like diamonds, should of course be C-14 free. A team of creation scientists joined forces recently and conducted a series of tests with regards to Radioisotopes and the age of the Earth.

The team became known as the "RATE" team. They C-14 tested numerous geological samples, substances thought to be much too old to have any remaining C-14 such as coal, and marble, and also used AMS tests (accelerator mass spectrometer) which have routinely revealed C-14 to be present. Many other tests were run to see if there was a reason to suspect possible contamination, and none was ever found.

The RATE team was sent geologic samples from every government research collected, and tested them in the RATE lab. It came as no surprise to the open minded design proponents (who does not a priori rule out a Designer) that C-14 was found in samples thought to be of great age and expected to yield zero readings. Everything from fossils of shells of invertebrate to whale bones, and yes even diamonds yielded the presence of C-14. Check it out at ask a scientist c-14 and diamonds.

Or consider human development. According to an evolutionary perspective, humans split off from their "monkey" cousins somewhere around 3 million years ago and then slowly developed more and more until we passed through our stone age, on to our bronze age, and eventually into the modern age. Most mainstream scientists will tell you that current modern big brained, thinking humans have existed for close to a million years. However one puzzling fact is, if our not so distant ancestors had the same mental capacity that we have today, then why did it take them so long before any substantial development?

Secular archeology shrieks that complex civilizations with advanced language, sophisticated culture, agricultural knowledge, impressive technological skills (in some cases equal to or more so than today), all sprang up suddenly only within say the last 10 to 20 thousand years

If we’ve been around for almost a million years with the capacity to do all these things why did we never achieve anything like this until the very last portion of our existence? Interestingly this is exactly what you would expect if we had only been around for 6 thousand years as the Bible says.

Now consider simple population growth rates. If modern man were around for one million years, at present growth rates of 2% per year, then there should be 10 to the 8600 power number of people alive today. Instead we have only around 6 billion. Why is that? Interestingly, at present population growth rates a single pair of humans could produce 6 billion people in only around 1,100 years. If we are only talking ballpark figures here, you tell me if it is closer to a recent flood survival scenario than it is to one million years of human history scenario? I know that you may be thinking that this is making an awful big assumption of a stable growth rate. But you have to realize that that growth rate is derived from the last few centuries that have seen some of history's worst famines, plagues, wars, and brutal genocides.

Along this same line of reasoning is another line of evidence for a young earth which is simply the rapid accumulation of mutational defects and disease. If you consider the current rate of accumulation of these defects, the human race as a species should have long since gone extinct had we been here for a million years.

Or consider just the pure numbers of fossils themselves. Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of all the fossil record. Algae and plant fossils make up around 4.5% of the fossil record. Other invertebrates and insects make up .2375%. Fish and some land vertebrates make up about .0125%. So as discussed earlier regarding the human growth rate of 2% per year, lets say for the sake of argument that that growth rate were a hundred times smaller and were only .002%.

In one million years at even that low growth rate, the number of people to have ever lived would have easily filled the entire volume of the earth. So where are all the bones? Why are human fossils so scarce? And we are only talking about human fossils. This same argument applies even more so for plants and animals that has supposedly existed for several millions of years.

Next consider the decaying magnetic field of the earth. The magnetic field is believed to be formed by electric currents being generated deep in the earth's core. This magnetic field has been closely monitored since 1835 and has weakened by a total of 7% since that time. Scientists have calculated a half life of 1,400 years. This means by 10,000 A.D., for all practical purposes the field will be completely gone. But if you take this in the reverse order and go back in time, the field should double every 1,400 years. Of course if that's true then that means that only 100,000 years ago the earth would have had a magnetic field with the strength of a neutron star. And that would mean the heat generated would have made life impossible.

There are some fringe scientists that believe that the magnetic field increases and decreases in cycles and every so often even shifts poles. And that's an interesting theory, but if that is true then there would be something else dramatically effected. Cosmic ray bombardment is what generates C-14. A dramatic change in the magnetic field would also decrease or increase the amount of C-14 being generated dramatically. If this has occurred regularly in earth's history, then we have just rendered all C-14 tests for dating purposes to be completely meaningless.

Or consider helium studied from rocks taken out of the Precambrian, which show that their actual age can not be older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. Until a few years ago nobody had done the experimental and theoretical studies necessary to confirm this conclusion quantitatively. There was only one (ambiguously reported) measurement of helium diffusion through zircon (Magomedov, 1970). There were no measurements of helium diffusion through biotite, the black mica surrounding the zircons.

In 2000 the RATE project (Humphreys, 2000) began experiments to measure the diffusion rates of helium in zircon and biotite specifically from the Jemez Granodiorite. The data, are consistent with data for a mica related to biotite (Lippolt & Weigel, 1988), with recently reported data for zircon (Reiners, Farley, & Hickes, 2002) and with a reasonable interpretation of the earlier zircon data Magomedov, 1970). The evidence shows that these data limit the age of these rocks to between 4,000 and 14,000 years. These results support the hypothesis of accelerated nuclear decay and represent strong scientific evidence for the young world of Scripture!

Also consider how helium amounts in the atmosphere highly suggest a young earth. Helium 3 atoms are trapped in the earths crust and escape at an average production rate (to the surface) at around 13 million helium atoms per square inch per second. The most commonly accepted theoretical helium escape rate, into outer space is a maximum of only 0.3 million helium atoms per square inch per second.

Of course a simple division of known amounts in the atmosphere, by accumulation (taking escape into consideration) yields a maximum time laps of 2 million years. Of course we are also assuming that accumulation rates have remained constant in the past. But if you consider the possibility of a geologically recent global flood, the rate of accumulation would have been much greater during that time. The turmoil of water over the entire surface would have released helium from the rocks much easier. This is also assuming that no helium already existed in the atmosphere at the time of creation.

Again I realize that 2 million years is a far cry from 6 thousand years. But it is a much further cry from the billions of years that conventional thinking holds and shows just how dishonest secular scientist are in terms of cherry picking the data they publish .

The lack of abundant helium amounts in the atmosphere, while the abundance of helium in the earth's crust, strongly points to a much younger earth. An old earth (billions of years) would have long since lost most if not all of the helium in its crust.

Many other examples could be given, but I think this is enough to point out that something is being covered up. We live in a visibly designed universe and it is only the secular a priori assumption that there could not possible be a Designer (when science claims to be tentative) and the use of the legal system (Dover Trials) that prevents the common man from uncovering the truth.

ThinksDesig

Two idiots who don't even know how to copy and paste.

"Scientists", the aspergers, like!