Bruce Malone gave his life to Christ over 20 years ago, as the Lord miraculously preserved him through a close call with death. Since that time Bruce has looked for a deeper purpose in life and realized that rejection of Biblical truth, justified by belief in evolution, is the acid which is eating away at the moral foundation of our culture. Bruce spent 27 years working as a research leader for the Dow Chemical Corporation, has a degree chemical engineering, and is responsible for key innovations which have resulted in 18 patents. But his passion is sharing the relevance and evidence for creation, so he retired early to become full time Director of Search for the Truth Ministries http: Bruce has spoken extensively at Colleges and Charities in 12 countries. Since Bruce has spoken over times to more than 20, people and over 30, books have been distributed to students and prisoners. Bruce brings science alive through stories and demonstrations, showing that Biblical creation is the most rational explanation for the world around us. The purpose of both his books and lectures is to help the non-scientific layman understand the importance of creation while motivating and equipping them to share these truths. Bruce resides in Midland, MI with his wife Robin, and they have four children who are all actively serving the Lord. Click here to contact Bruce to arrange a speaking engagement at your church or organization.
Radiometric Dating Does Work!
Creationist Geologic Time Scale: Should the scientific community continue to fight rear-guard skirmishes with creationists, or insist that “young-earthers” defend their model in toto? Introduction This manuscript proposes a new approach for science’s battle against the rising influence in America of pseudo-science and the Creationist movement. The framework of Creationist Bible-based earth history, focusing on Genesis and the Noachian flood, can be assembled into a single geologic time scale Figure 1 , enlarged by addition of many geologic facts, difficult for Creationists to explain.
Figure 1 is an abbreviated version of the time scale outlined in the following paragraph which was redrawn and published by the American Scientist. Some of the items are so absurd that all but the most dedicated fundamentalists will see the overall picture as scientific nonsense, even bordering on humor, a most rare commodity in Creationist literature.
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science The topic of radiometric dating has received some of the most vicious attacks by young earth creation science theorists. However, none of the criticisms of young earth creationists have any scientific merit.
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating Logic and science dictates that if something which is assumed to have a uniform rate is shown in a single example to not be uniform, the theory must be abandoned as unreliable. The previous section showed that it is entirely possible for the uniform rates of radiometric dating to be very easily changed through enviromental conditions most have been documented by secular scientists. This section will provide 19 specific examples of this decay-rate-change having occured.
Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in during the eruption there was dated using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method at 0. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year the dates varied from 50 million years to Five andesite lava flows from Mt.
Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. The only problem was that one was laid down , three were laid down and one in
Radiometric Dating and Creation Science
Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can’t be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the billion years claimed by secularists.
Renaissance Now, let’s look at some specific examples. One type of atom that does not normally react is Neon. See the picture to the left. It already has the correct number of electrons in it’s outside electron layer so Neon does not react. Neon, along with Helium and Argon are known as non-reacting gasses because they do not need to react to be stable. Other types of atoms such as Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen do not have the correct number of electrons to be stable by itself.
Instead they have to share electrons in molecules to get the correct number of electrons in their outside electron layer. Since we only have to look at the atom that is in the center of the molecule to find out it’s shape, we will concentrate only on Carbon and Oxygen. All the molecules illustrated on this page either have a Carbon or an Oxygen as the center atom. Carbon will especially be of interest since Carbon is the center atom for all the different Amino Acids.
Both Carbon and Oxygen have a deficiency. Neither C nor O have the proper number of electrons in their outside electron layer.
Study of the mechanism of the Creation, and discussion of arguments against the validity of evolution. Explanation of the geology of the Earth through the study of traces of the Deluge; Wernerian principles of geology; discussion of past catastrophic events that affected life on earth. Detailed study of flood deposits in the rock record; fossils; and introduction to short-range geochronology up to 10, years. Study of the first and only Ice Age as one of the major catastrophic events which produced present life forms and explained major extinctions of past life forms.
Study of important rocks and minerals and their application toward creationist research; sedimentary origin of diamonds. Detailed study of creation of life and the earth, and formal disproof of the theory of evolution.
For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible’s record of recent creation. For this reason, ICR research has long focused on the science behind these dating techniques.
This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end-product. In addition, there is “common lead, “which has no radioactive parent lead This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. Faul, an authority in the field, recognized it also: When the earth’s crust was formed, the primordial lead was frozen into rocks that also contained uranium and thorium in various ratios to lead.
When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is “daughter-product lead” that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium. The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible “common lead” content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out.
This would drastically affect the dating of the sample.
Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?
Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. The consensus is that it was built thousands of years before the time of Christ. But this dating is based on the common practice of evolutionary thinking, which is to reject records and other indications of age that don’t square with evolutionary preconceptions.
Then they get surprised that “ancient primitives” not fully evolved yet had the notions to do some intricate design work and amazing labor.
Important We believe any unbiased reader will realize that we were fair with our treatment of the two models in the table above. Yet, although the theory of evolution matches the facts in some cases, evolution is still an unproven theory. By now, you may believe it should be your first choice also. Unlike many others that preceded us, we attempted to find a clear defense of evolution for two reasons: To keep from being accused of bias.
To keep from making claims that someone could refute later. Even though there are a great number of claims in books and on the Internet, we could find no scientific, testable facts that support the theory of evolution. The best site we could find was at The University of California at Berkeley. If you are interested, click here to examine the scientific evidence recorded at UC Berkeley yourself.
It includes lots of pictures, links to other pages, and scientific names. The site is very interesting and informative. Yet, we could not find a listing of the provable, testable facts supporting evolution anywhere.
A YOUNG EARTH? – A SURVEY OF DATING METHODS
According to mainstream science, the earth is several billions of years old. It is proposed that during this time all life forms evolved and the fossil bearing layers of the earth were formed. Oftentimes, it is claimed that this is an irrefutable, proven fact. Anyone who does not believe this is labeled old-fashioned or worse.
Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates. We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed.
For brevity I will make a list of the points you both made so that we can talk about the issues all at once. I would say naturalism very much is the atheist’s religion I think this is a false dichotomy. It is certainly a naturalistic worldview. This is also a naturalistic worldview that is completely separate from the developmental view. Christianity is a supernatural worldview but the science it produces must by definition follow methodological naturalism. Science likewise cannot operate using naturalism and uniformitarianism as a basis for events in which those standards can only be assumed and not observed or tested.