The accepted method of dating rocks is to use radiometric dating. There are several problems with this approach. One is that we don't know the initial composition of the rocks. Were they formed originally with daughter atoms or formed with radioactive atoms that then decayed so that we can measure the daughter atoms and calculate an age? From the creation revolution web page I copied the following comment: "rocks observed to form on a particular date often show radioisotope age estimates far exceeding their actual ages. For example, when the fresh lava dome at Mount St. Helens was only ten years old, it showed a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years!2 Many such examples cast doubt on the entire dating method.3"
Read more: http://creationrevolution.com/2013/02/doesnt-radioisotope-dating-prove-rocks-are-millions-of-years-old/#ixzz2M8tdMEHX -
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
SHOW ON TV
I have started recording an interesting show on TV about creation.
Channel 264 KTV has the show on from 8:30-9.
It is interesting with cartoon illustrations of pre-flood conditions. I don't agree with all of his approaches but he has a lot of interesting information. One show discussed the finding of giant fossil skeletons that confirmed the Biblical stories of giants during the pre-flood time. Another argument is that the finding of man-made objects in coal deposits confirms that people lived during the time the deposits were formed rather than a carboniferous time line. I argue that the carbon 14 dating of coal also indicates it is of recent formation.
Channel 264 KTV has the show on from 8:30-9.
It is interesting with cartoon illustrations of pre-flood conditions. I don't agree with all of his approaches but he has a lot of interesting information. One show discussed the finding of giant fossil skeletons that confirmed the Biblical stories of giants during the pre-flood time. Another argument is that the finding of man-made objects in coal deposits confirms that people lived during the time the deposits were formed rather than a carboniferous time line. I argue that the carbon 14 dating of coal also indicates it is of recent formation.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE COSTS BILLIONS
I was looking at the reasons and cost for our Mars exploration program. Curiosity cost 2.5 Billion. The current plan presented to Congress is for 1.5 Billion for a similar rover but with the capability of launching samples of the soil into orbit where they could be retrieved by later missions to Mars. The primary focus of the program is for a science/human exploration plan with an initial goal of determining if life evolved beyond earth in the solar system.
We just can't believe that there isn't life "out there" because there is life here on earth. They can't believe that life was created here. It must have evolved and for years we have believed that other planets have life and that some of them must be more advanced that us because they have had a few millions of years to develop their technology.
And yet all of our science has found no signs of extra-terrestrial beings after 40 years of searching with all of our technology. However we still have cartoons of aliens in space ships looking for our leader. We love to believe in Buck Rogers and all of the Starship movies as fact.
It is costing us real dollars to support this fantasy.
I favor sending scientific experiments to the other planets to determine their composition and atmosphere. It is obvious that Venus, Jupiter and the other planets would never permit human life to survive, but we still believe that someday in the future we need to colonize the other planets. This was the theme of a science fiction story written by a woman in 1865 published in LET'S HEAR IT. Mohl wrote about a man going to sleep and waking 500 years in the future with space travel. In her story all Africans had been sent to Mars to raise cotton for us earth dwellers. We have had this belief for many years.
I do believe in creatures from outer space that will change our planet. But it will be the second coming of Christ that will make the changes.
We just can't believe that there isn't life "out there" because there is life here on earth. They can't believe that life was created here. It must have evolved and for years we have believed that other planets have life and that some of them must be more advanced that us because they have had a few millions of years to develop their technology.
And yet all of our science has found no signs of extra-terrestrial beings after 40 years of searching with all of our technology. However we still have cartoons of aliens in space ships looking for our leader. We love to believe in Buck Rogers and all of the Starship movies as fact.
It is costing us real dollars to support this fantasy.
I favor sending scientific experiments to the other planets to determine their composition and atmosphere. It is obvious that Venus, Jupiter and the other planets would never permit human life to survive, but we still believe that someday in the future we need to colonize the other planets. This was the theme of a science fiction story written by a woman in 1865 published in LET'S HEAR IT. Mohl wrote about a man going to sleep and waking 500 years in the future with space travel. In her story all Africans had been sent to Mars to raise cotton for us earth dwellers. We have had this belief for many years.
I do believe in creatures from outer space that will change our planet. But it will be the second coming of Christ that will make the changes.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
NEW THEORY ON MAMMALS
Dr. R. L. David Jolly wrote the following after examining the new story evolutions have produced about mammals coming from a rat like animal 100 million years ago:
I’ve studied biology for 50 years. Most of that time was studying the myriad of evolutionary theories that are all supposed to be fact, but which can’t all be fact by the very nature of how they differ from each other. The more I study evolutionary biology, the more convinced I am that it is 100% impossible for all of life to be the result of billions of years of random chance mutations. Every aspect of biology defies virtually every law of science – biology, information, chemistry and physics. The more I study biology, the more convinced I am that the only plausible explanation for all of life is the creator God of the Universe.
Read more: http://creationrevolution.com/2013/02/earliest-mammal-ancestor/#ixzz2KpdEz34D
I’ve studied biology for 50 years. Most of that time was studying the myriad of evolutionary theories that are all supposed to be fact, but which can’t all be fact by the very nature of how they differ from each other. The more I study evolutionary biology, the more convinced I am that it is 100% impossible for all of life to be the result of billions of years of random chance mutations. Every aspect of biology defies virtually every law of science – biology, information, chemistry and physics. The more I study biology, the more convinced I am that the only plausible explanation for all of life is the creator God of the Universe.
Read more: http://creationrevolution.com/2013/02/earliest-mammal-ancestor/#ixzz2KpdEz34D
Friday, February 8, 2013
NO EXTRATERRESTRIALS
My latest news from the AIAA:
SETI's First Directed Search Fails To Find Evidence Of Aliens.
Ian O'Neill at Discovery
News (2/8) writes, "SETI astronomers have completed their first
'directed' search" of candidate exoplanets found by the Kepler telescope using
the Green Bank radio telescope, but "turned up no evidence of transmitting
aliens." Former SETI chair Jill Tarter headed the search. While nothing was
discovered, it "represents a critical step forward in the detection of
intelligent civilizations beyond our solar system" by targeting the search more
than in the past. O'Neill believes "the next logical step would be to probe
exoplanetary atmospheres for spectroscopic traces of a biosphere, a path Kepler
has started to lead us down."
They just can not believe that we are the only people that God created.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
ASTRONOMICAL LIES
I saw this post in my AIAA newsletter. I am constantly amazed at the Buck Rogers scenarios that drive the search for extraterrestrial life just because we evolved so someone else out there must have evolved also. These are the stories that drive the funding for our NASA programs.
Closest Earth-Sized Planet May Be Around Red Dwarf Star.
The AP
(2/7, Dunn) reports, "Astronomers reported Wednesday that the nearest Earth-like
planet may be just 13 light-years away - or some 77 trillion miles. That planet
hasn't been found yet, but should be there based on the team's study of red
dwarf stars." Using data from the Kepler space telescope, researchers from the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics led by Courtney Dressing determined
that 6% of the galaxies 75 billion red dwarf stars could have Earth-like
planets. According to the article, this "should simplify the search for
extraterrestrial life."
And this story that would have a different finding if posted by a creation scientist:
And this story that would have a different finding if posted by a creation scientist:
Bacteria Found In Antarctica Could Have Implications For Astrobiology.
The New
York Times (2/7, A18, Gorman, Subscription Publication) reports, "For
the first time, scientists report, they have found bacteria living in the cold
and dark deep under the Antarctic ice, a discovery that might advance knowledge
of how life could survive on other planets or moons and that offers the first
glimpse of a vast ecosystem of microscopic life in underground lakes in
Antarctica." John Priscu of Montana State University led the team that made the
discovery in Lake Whillans, although the article notes more study is needed to
determine exactly what type of bacteria was discovered. NASA's Chris McKay "said
in an e-mail that such analysis could determine if the bacteria in Lake Whillans
have implications for the possible discovery of extraterrestrial life." He said,
"If it was using a local energy source, it would be interesting. ... If it's
just consuming organics carried in from elsewhere, it is of much less interest."
It may be that the bacteria was there from before Noah's flood caused the ice caps at the poles.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
NEANDERTHALS
My AOL news had a Huffington-Post story about a recent discovery of Neanderthals in Spain that changed the date and supposedly made them older that previously thought. What got my attention was the drawings of the "creatures" that accompanied the story. I have a couple of friends who are married and I have argued that they should sue National Geographic and the Smithsonian museums for their portrayal of neolithic people. The couple look like they stepped out of the drawings. There are people today who look just like the ones portrayed in the drawings that are always someone's idea of what the person would look like when they dig up a skull. My friends are very intelligent, one had a PhD in literature and the other is a journalist but have the facial features that looked just like the drawings.
Today I got a notice from the Creation Research Society that they are trying to fund a new project iDINO that is digging up dinosaur fossils with the purpose of identifying Dinosaur Intact Natural Osteo-tissue using their electron scanning microscope. Preliminary results of examining a Triceratops horn has found what appears to be intact osteo tissue still containing blood cells. Plus some other interesting results. This would prove that dinosaurs could not possibly be millions of years old but could only be a few thousand years old.
Personally I believe that dinosaurs existed before the flood with people and other animals and that after the flood like other animals they began to die at younger ages and become smaller in size with the larger "dragons" becoming extinct fairly recently and some still existing as horned toads and other such animals. I think we have dinosaur fossils from both eras of their existence. The ones found that seemed to eat other animals were those who died in the catastrophic floods that occurred after Noah's flood during the formation of the continents as the world was divided and subjected to large tectonic forces.
Today I got a notice from the Creation Research Society that they are trying to fund a new project iDINO that is digging up dinosaur fossils with the purpose of identifying Dinosaur Intact Natural Osteo-tissue using their electron scanning microscope. Preliminary results of examining a Triceratops horn has found what appears to be intact osteo tissue still containing blood cells. Plus some other interesting results. This would prove that dinosaurs could not possibly be millions of years old but could only be a few thousand years old.
Personally I believe that dinosaurs existed before the flood with people and other animals and that after the flood like other animals they began to die at younger ages and become smaller in size with the larger "dragons" becoming extinct fairly recently and some still existing as horned toads and other such animals. I think we have dinosaur fossils from both eras of their existence. The ones found that seemed to eat other animals were those who died in the catastrophic floods that occurred after Noah's flood during the formation of the continents as the world was divided and subjected to large tectonic forces.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION
I resolved to post to this blog every few days this year and failed until today. I don't think anyone reads this blog even though I have advertised it widely. But it is a very personal for me and I want to continue to to post my thoughts.
I have just finished reading a book that Nancy bought me that she thought supported my belief in Noah's Flood. It was David Montgomery's THE ROCKS DON'T LIE: A Geologist Looks at Noah's Flood. The book is a bashing of creation science but is a very thorough look at the history of the controvery between old ages and a young earth view. He assumes that rocks are billions of years old without questioning that assumption. He does look at the evidence of floods and finds lots of support. He argues that the evidence doesn't support Noah's flood, although he isn't sure. He claims that modern geology has a good understanding of the separation on the continents and argues for catastrophic geology as forming mountains and causing huge local floods like the one that formed the scablands in western Washington and Oregon. He then attacks the Creation Research Society for the thinking that the earth is a young earth.
I still contend that the earth could be only 6000 years old, with a period of time with the canopy. We have no idea of the landscape at that time or whether there were high mountains for the flood to cover. After the flood the atmospheric changes could have contributed to the shortened life spans of both men and animals. Then during the days of Peleg the earth was divided. I argue that could have been when the continents seperated and that in a few days or weeks the continents could have drifted to their present locations. This would have been accomplished by catastrophic geological events including floods, tsunamis, mountain creation, folding, uplifting, volcanic activity that lasted for centuries and has only settled down fairly recently. His book records that cataclysmic geology exists. We just disagree on the time line. He did read Morris and Whitcomb's book THE GENESIS FLOOD. He disagrees with it. He also visited a Creation museum in Kentucky and was amused by their thesis. The book is a good history of the conflict in thinking, but I still question the geological ages that have been created by geological folklorists. They have written an evolutionary script to agree with those who formulated the Big Bang theory out of whole cloth.
I have just finished reading a book that Nancy bought me that she thought supported my belief in Noah's Flood. It was David Montgomery's THE ROCKS DON'T LIE: A Geologist Looks at Noah's Flood. The book is a bashing of creation science but is a very thorough look at the history of the controvery between old ages and a young earth view. He assumes that rocks are billions of years old without questioning that assumption. He does look at the evidence of floods and finds lots of support. He argues that the evidence doesn't support Noah's flood, although he isn't sure. He claims that modern geology has a good understanding of the separation on the continents and argues for catastrophic geology as forming mountains and causing huge local floods like the one that formed the scablands in western Washington and Oregon. He then attacks the Creation Research Society for the thinking that the earth is a young earth.
I still contend that the earth could be only 6000 years old, with a period of time with the canopy. We have no idea of the landscape at that time or whether there were high mountains for the flood to cover. After the flood the atmospheric changes could have contributed to the shortened life spans of both men and animals. Then during the days of Peleg the earth was divided. I argue that could have been when the continents seperated and that in a few days or weeks the continents could have drifted to their present locations. This would have been accomplished by catastrophic geological events including floods, tsunamis, mountain creation, folding, uplifting, volcanic activity that lasted for centuries and has only settled down fairly recently. His book records that cataclysmic geology exists. We just disagree on the time line. He did read Morris and Whitcomb's book THE GENESIS FLOOD. He disagrees with it. He also visited a Creation museum in Kentucky and was amused by their thesis. The book is a good history of the conflict in thinking, but I still question the geological ages that have been created by geological folklorists. They have written an evolutionary script to agree with those who formulated the Big Bang theory out of whole cloth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)