False Science vs Real Science

Ok you asked for it. I see you assume evolution and millions of years is a fact. This creates a bias against anything that does not fit your assumptions. To be honest you must consider all the evidence and not cherry pick what you want to believe. The Bible says the unbelievers are willingly ignorant of the truth. And the truth is not in them.

You do not give details on how it is determined that potassium and argon did not leak out or into the samples. You did not explain how you can determine that all the potassium and argon was not there before the rock was created. You assume evolution is a fact of science. However, they don’t tell you their definition of science is materialism, time, and naturalism. So we have a universe without a cause. And it is a fact of science that all causes that produce amazing design cannot happen by chance.

There are other dating methods that actually give reliable dates, but they only date things thousands of years old. And they are the only methods that can be checked against known dates.  Like Egyptian mummies, and things from Pompeii. And these dates fit the dates given in the Bible, archaeology, and history.

In June of 1992, Dr. Steve Austin of ICR collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other and date at millions of years. Creation scientists have dated many lava flows with similar results. Like the ones in the Grand Canyon. The flow on the bottom dated younger than the flow on top of it by millions of years! When it was only a few thousand years ago. Several lava flows dating in millions of years flowed into the canyon and many geologists know that the canyon is recent. The Pliocene Bouse Formation only has bones of mammals, no dinosaurs. It was cut when an ancient lake burst is volcanic ash damn. Lakes are a remnant of the Food that occurred 350 years before. Then the Peleg cataclysm created the canyon from Wyoming to the gulf of California.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology in the Word of God.

Above was an answer to this evolutionist's comments to me on Facebook. Jonathan Hager I've read about that famous dating at Mount St. Helens. A creationist geologist took a sample from ONE lava flow (Jeremy: Other lava flows would give the same wrong dates, and radiometric dating is expensive.) and had a lab perform potassium-argon 40 dating on it. The potassium atoms in a sample often will not decay to argon-40 at the same time (Jeremy: You did not explain how a scientist can determine this error.), so estimates (Jeremy: Guesses based on the assumption of millions of years is circular reasoning) of the amounts of each substance are often used. This is one of the reasons why scientists will write out a date as (hypothetical example, here) "12 million years B.P., +/- 3.7 million years." (Jeremy: Biased based on evolutionary assumptions.) There's also the possibility that contaminated equipment or defective instruments could have produced a bad reading (Jeremy: This is why geologist Steve Austin was careful to prevent contamination. Just like testing dinosaur bones. And these tests were repeated by evolutionists and got the same results.) . So, yes, radiometric dating methods can be inaccurate (Jeremy: Many secular scientists have stated that radiometric dating is useless in prestigious Universities and peer reviewed journals and thesis papers. I refer to these in my book Mysteries of History Revealed Part 1.). But they are a hell of a lot better than just using faith to date something (Jeremy: Faith has nothing to do with the evidence creation scientists use. However, evolution is based on the faith that God did not create. When it comes to faith creationists are better scientists, they tell people about their research with facts. Evolutionists avoid specific details that contradict them, and when they do they can be used by creationists. This is why most of this is in technical journals where the public does not see it.) This is also why these dating techniques and the hypotheses that spring from their results are often subjected to rigorous scrutiny (Jeremy: This is not true. Evolution was invented by Satan in the Garden, ye shall evolve into gods, and was carried on in ancient Egypt where they said man evolved from seaweed. All this is from an evolutionary viewpoint that can never be proven because the past is unobservable today. We have to go on traces that produce a preponderance of evidence that points to evolution or creation without ignoring negative evidence.), using the scientific method (Jeremy: Both creation and evolution use the scientific method starting with an assumption of the existence of the supernatural, or only materialism in nature.), before being accepted as infallible (Jeremy: There is no infallible science, especially in historical sciences.). IMO, the Bible's account of creation and the "great flood" do not stand up to rigorous, rational scrutiny (Jeremy: By rational you assume only physical universe exists. Man’s logic is warped by his emotions and beliefs.). And if I'm wrong in anything I just said, feel free to correct me. (Jeremy: You are wrong because you do not approach the subject from an open mind. You only listen to secular scientists, and ignore anything that does not fit your preconceived viewpoint. I have been a member of an evolutionist Paleontological Society for many years. I have discovered and seen many fossil sites and have a huge collection. Do you go to creation meetings? You need to read my books and Henry Morris’s books before you pass judgement. Many evolutionists have done this and became creationists. Most creation scientists started out as evolutionists, then became theistic evolutionists, then creation scientists. My goodness evolution is true! In my books and articles I use mostly secular sources which are biased against the evidence they discover. Instead of accepting the logical rational conclusions they spend tax payer’s money on searching for truth that does not exist. Like they expect to find life on other planets, but they never will if creation is true. Waste of tax payer money. They go nuts when they find water on the moon. Life takes a lot more than water.

The Bible says ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Then they use the NEA, CFRs, and ACLU to brainwash young people in schools and the media, etc. in evolution, socialism, atheism, Islam religion, and immorality.