Piltdown Superman

Down Arkansas way, they have an interesting state park called Crater of Diamonds . Folks might get a mental image of a hole full of sparkling diamonds, but the crater is volcanic, and people commence searching for raw, uncut diamonds. Some find them, too. Cut diamonds that go onto jewelry are mighty expensive, but you can buy a 15-carat raw diamond for about $400 USD in some places. The park has the usual old-Earth propaganda that satisfies the owners of the Darwin Ranch, but those are dead wrong. Digging at Crater of Diamonds State Park Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Doug Wertman  ( CC BY 2.0 ) The Bearded Buddha needs deep time so he and his votaries can perform their magick, but the hands at the Darwin Ranch hate diamonds because they friendly to creation science . Not only does Crater of Diamonds State Park unwittingly have evidence that fits a Genesis Flood model, but diamonds themselves were tested and found to be a hostile witness to deep time. At Crater of Diamonds State Par

Secular geologists will tell you that diamonds are several hundred millions years old, or more. However, there are certain facets of science that are conveniently ignored., showing that diamonds are nowhere near as old as believed. One of the main reasons for this is an a priori commitment to "deep time", since Darwinian evolution beliefs require huge amounts of time. Pixabay / studiopratisaad0 Diamonds form under intense heat and pressure under the earth's surface, and are one of the hardest materials (the Mohs scale of hardness gives it a 10). However, like opals , they can also be made by man. "Synthetic" diamonds have that qualifier because, although they're made of carbon like natural ones, the process itself is not from nature. (Also, don't confuse synthetic diamonds with cubic zirconia , that critter is chemically different but looks like a diamond.) The fact that they can be home grown shows that it's conditions, not time, that are t

Most of us have ideas about diamonds, how they're valuable, look mighty fine, the hardest substance on Earth, made of highly-organized carbon, have industrial uses, and are even useful in superconductors. (Maybe the lethal satellite in Diamonds Are Forever isn't so far-fetched?) The ones you see in jewellery stores or up for auction are specially cut and polished, rough (or "raw) diamonds look quite a bit different , and don't fetch quite a high price. Secular geologists assign dates of somewhere around a billion years old, but since radiocarbon exists in them, they are actually thousands of years old. They're also a bit of a mystery. So where do they come from? Image credit: Pixabay / Aenigmatis-3D Diamond deposits (and, naturally, diamond mines) are not everywhere on the planet. Also, they're unstable. They had to form way down yonder with Earth's basement rocks, and made the journey to the surface without breaking down into graphite. Creationar

morgueFile/imelenchon (modified) Another evidence for a young Earth that uses uniformitarian assumptions against evolutionists is the existence of Carbon-14 in the wrong places. According to presuppositions about an ancient Earth and the fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods , Carbon-14 should not be found in things that are allegedly millions of years old, like diamonds. This is similar to the problem of the amount of helium in rocks , discussed previously. Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at bill

Creationists will often see a fallacy called appeal to authority in discussions with atheists and evolutionists. We frequently encounter this at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interweb. While referring to an authority on a subject is legitimate, many tinhorns will refer to someone who has no qualifications in a subject, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins railing about theology. Atheists and anti-creationists get the bits in their teeth and ride hard to heavily biased atheistic storage facilities to find material on a subject, throw links at us, and essentially say, "I cited TalkOrigns! Case closed! " (Seems to me that this might qualify as confirmation bias , but I digress.) Citing those places is easier than thinking or reading creationary material, but those sites are unreliable; it is appeal to false authority in action. Recently, I made a post and said that opponents will go to the excuse mills. A furious atheopath proved me right by ignori

Secular scientists have been stunned — stunned , I tell you — when C-14 has been found in diverse items (including diamonds) that they claim are millions of years old. For a mighty long time, their presuppositions prevented them from bothering to test these things for radiocarbon. Credit: GoodFreePhotos / Thorn Yang I'll allow that there are some things we simply know and do not feel a need to check; I know that when Basement Cat goes down the steps, she will not float to the ceiling because she's not equipped to defy gravity. When it comes to the age of the earth and things in it, believers in deep time do not actually know the facts (and some question those assumptions ). It is inferred, then they presuppose that previous assumptions are correct and that oil, diamonds, and so forth cannot have radiocarbon in them. But they do. That is because the earth is not billions of years old, and the best explanation can be backtracked to the Genesis Flood. Circle the wagons!

This is the third in a three-part series on Carbon-14. Part 1 discussed the basics of Carbon-14 dating , and Part 2 pointed out a major dilemma for evolutionists : Carbon-14 is found where is should not be, according to their reckoning. This section points out that creationist models have to deal with date ranges that do not fit their  model, either. Also, there are assumptions that are made in all radiometric dating, and some greatly affect Carbon-14 dating. A Biblical creation model fitting the Noahician Flood geology is explored and offered as the best explanation. Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years? Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of onl

Blue diamond by Kathy Reed This is the second of a three-part series on Carbon-14. Previously, the basics of the process were explained . This part brings up an interesting dilemma: Why is it found in rocks that are allegedly millions of years old? Carbon-14 should have vanished after 5,730 years. Excuses are made about bad measurements and  contamination , but those do not withstand scrutiny. If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old. Many people think that scientists use radiocarbon to date fossils. After all, we should be able to estimate how long ago a creature lived based on how much radiocarbon is left in its body, right? To finish reading "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds, an Evolution Enigma", click here . 

Ancient-Earth advocates don't cotton to using carbon-14 to date fossils, coal, diamonds and such because it has an upper limit of about 60,000 years according to their reckoning. Why test things that they "know" are billions of years old, since there won't be any found anyway? Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions has hindered scientific research (such as claiming that the appendix is a "vestigial structure" leftover from our alleged evolutionary past, doing damage to people, then finding out that it's useful). What's interesting is that scientists have found carbon-14 in old materials. Some owlhoots rush to say, "Contamination!", which not only impugns the skills of the technicians, but is also very unrealistic. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research have been doing carbon-14 studies, and are continuing their work. The results are promising, supporting the Genesis Flood model and causing consternation for unifo

One of the ways that evolution hinders scientific progress is because of the multitude of assumptions made. For instance, so-called "junk DNA" was not thoroughly investigated for many years because it was presumed that since scientists did not understand all of it, it must be junk from our putative evolutionary past. Then evolutionists were embarrassed to learn that it's not junk after all . Dinosaur bones were not tested because of the presumption that they've been extinct for millions of years. Soft tissues were a real shocker ! Test diamonds for carbon-14? That's absurd, they're billions of years old and there will be none of that. Wrong, carbon-14 is in diamonds ! Carbon-14 physics/Wikimedia Commons Similarly, carbon-14 should not be in natural gas wells, so evolutionists did not bother to look. A creationist scientist had testing done, wrote up a peer-reviewed paper that was published by the prestigious Creation Research Society, and did an inter

stock.xchng/amalrik We keep seeing that evolutionary scientists are locked into their preconceptions and are unwilling to change their frameworks to fit the data. They also insist on their assumptions, including that the decay rate of the radioactive materials used in the measurements is constant . Although there is abundant evidence for a young Earth, such data are discarded as "wrong" because they do not fit. People believe the stories that the age of the Earth is "proved" by radiometric dating, but are unaware that the dating methods disagree. In fact, they disagree a great deal. And yet, it appears that many of the scientists are comfortable with the conflicting data. Even when the age of rocks are actually known, radiometric dating is amazingly inaccurate. How weird is that? When it comes to measuring the ages of things, we are told that there are a dozen different radioactive dating methods and that they all give the same answer. Do they? Fossil wood

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels  was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on. First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels  video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don

Thinking people may find this hard to believe, but there are scum-to-skeptic evolutionists who insist that Bible-believing scientists are not really scientists despite their credentials. (Reminds me of that bumper sticker I used to see here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" In their case, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!") Some of this is also related to the claim that creation science is a "science stopper" because creationists believe that "God did it", and do not investigate further. Not hardly! Creationists give God the glory, but don't stop, they want to know how God designed things to work. Ironically, "Evolution did it™" is the real science stopper. Coal, diamonds, fossils, other things were not tested for carbon-14 because they "knew" there was none in those items; they were too old. It was found in many things after reluctant testing. Scientists "knew" th

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, with research by David Harrison This is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Science supports creation and is hostile to evolution, even though Darwin's ranch hands get all het up about the facts and conjure up train loads of fact-free excuses. Some of the more recent events include: The refutation of "junk" DNA (which creationists predicted was not junk at all, and were proved right) The magnetic fields of several planets fit creationist predictions while evolutionary predictions were astronomically (heh!) wrong Uninformed remarks by C. Richard Dawkins and others about "bad design" have been refuted Carbon-14 where it "doesn't belong", such as coal, diamonds, and so forth The amazing complexity of biology, down to the cellular level Stars and galaxies convolute "deep time" cosmology Various planets, their moons (as well as our own), and other things in the solar system are not acting "old&qu