One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of time necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw in the previous post.
There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age of the universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of evolution postulates.
The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium lead is used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon. Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14 electrons. When it has 14, it is unstable. If you took ten pounds of Carbon-14 and came back 1,000 years later, if there was only five pounds of Carbon-14 left, and the rest was Carbon-12, that is how you would at least theoretically determine the age of the carbon. If that is over your head, just let it go; but that is how that `clock` works.
When a creature is alive it of course breathes. Even plants breathe. Thus Carbon-14 enters the creature or plant. When an animal dies, you should be able to measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the specimen and thus to determine the age of that specimen. You should be able to use a scale to determine how much Carbon-14 it should have had, and then the specimen`s age should be measurable. This dating method, incidentally, is only good for organic material, and it is only reliable for a time span of about 40,000 years. For a longer period of time, potassium argon or lead uranium dating must be used. These latter materials have half-lives (supposedly) in the millions of years. This is a pretty good theory; we shall now see how shaky its foundation is.
To make these clocks work, you have to assume that the rate of radioactive decay is the same today as it has been for the last 40,000 years. However, scientists have recently discovered that the rate of radioactive decay can be changed, not in tiny amounts, but in significant amounts. Yet we have been deceived into believing that radioactive decay is an absolutely steady process. That is not true. Another necessity for this clock is that the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere would have to have been the same for the last 40,000 years. How many of you believe that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was the same as it is today? How many of you believe that it was the same 50 years ago? It wasn`t. We`ve been measuring it for about 50 years, and it has changed in `only` 50 years. What does that tell you about the reliability of the Carbon-14 dating system?
How many of you believe that the concentration of radioactive argon or potassium is the same as it was two million years ago? That is a very shaky presumption for the theory of evolution. The point that I am trying to make is that the `facts` that we have been bombarded with are not necessarily true. We assume, since a theory comes from a `distinguished` scientist, it is a law. That is an absolute falsehood. These `clocks` are NOT as reliable as we have been led to believe. A scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting with other Nobel Prize winners, concerning radio-metric dating,
“if it corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don`t mention it at all.”
How`s that for scientific honesty? A quote from `Common Problems With Radio-Metric Dating`: “The fact that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric dating techniques has been experimentally verified.” For instance living snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method.” How many of you believe that a living snail could be 2,300 years old? Wood from living trees has been dated at being 10,000 years old. How many of you believe that a tree can live 10,000 years? Hawaiian lava flows known to be about 200 years old have been dated by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old.
These scientists would do well to consider the question put to Job by God: “Where were YOU when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
I have a total of 69 points that indicate a young earth. We will not have time to cover them all, but I will include as much information as possible in the next post.
The Theory of Evolution: This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S (Freeware)
Reading Sources: First moon walk disproved evolutionary theory | Whereâ€™s the proof for evolution? | Darwin himself said there was no proof! | Can Evolution Produce an Eye? | There are NO Fossils to Show Even One Animal Turning into Another! | Is Evolution a Theory, Fact or Law? Or None of the Above? | Thereâ€™s a Law Against Evolutionâ€“Itâ€™s Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! | Evolutionists Say Mutations are Goodâ€“are They? | What About the Human â€œTailâ€?