User:Truthteller

I used to believe in evolution and that the earth was "billions" of years old, and that Radiometric dating was reliable.

However, 27 years ago I came "face to face" with the Creator, and made what was the wisest choice of my life: to accept Jesus Christ, the Creator, as my personal Savior. Not long after this I realized that Evolution (without a Creator-God) was almost certainly untrue simply because of the Spirit that was now residing in me. However, being the curious person that I was (and was becoming), I began checking out many of the details of the Creation vs Evolution Controversy for myself. And the more I looked into it, the more I concluded that Creationism is the ONLY view that makes sense from both a Scientific and logical perspective.

Why I Do NOT believe the Earth is Billions of Years Old
Contrary to the beliefs of some, the age of the Earth has not been scientifically proven to be "millions" or "billions" of years old.

In fact there are many other scientifically valid techniques which yield very young ages for the Earth, Solar System, and Universe. For example, there is very good evidence that the San Andreas Fault is less than 5,000 years old.

There is also very good evidence that Niagara Falls is less than 9,000 years old (max).

This suggests that the whole North American Continent is very likely quite young.

In addition, Unfossilized Trees on Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands have been said to be as much as 60 Million years old, and yet they Carbon Date as if they are young. Similar Unfossilized Trees from Siberia are only 7,000 years old (by Carbon 14 Dating).

In addition, Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones and partially mineralized Dinosaur bones have been found to still retain much of their original organic material. In fact many 1000's of them were found (in a "unfossilized" condition) on the North Slopes of the Brooks range in Alaska. Some of this material still retains its elasticity. This strongly suggests that Dinosaurs are simply Dragons of Old (but not all that "old") that lived on this earth right alongside of men within the recent past. This is also what we are told in the Book of Job, in the Old Testament (Chapters 40 and 41) -- where two different Dragons are described in Detail (as then living creatures).

Other investigations have given us strong reason to believe that there once was a worldwide flood that is responsible for depositing virtually all of the fossil-bearing strata on this planet, along with Coal Seams and Oil and Natural Gas wells.

Much More Information is contained in the Links that Follow:

Criticism of Radiometric Dating and the "Old" Age of the Earth
Not everyone agrees with what is sometimes said about Radiometric Dating methods and their supposed accuracy. For example, there are many reasons to question Radiometric Dating methods and whether or not they have any validity at all. For example, many artifacts containing Organic material found buried in supposedly "millions of years old" strata (such as carbonized wood, unfossilized or unmineralized wood -- that can be sawed with a saw or burned in a fire --, unfossilized or unmineralized Dinosaur Bones, etc) have been dated with the Carbon 14 Dating method, and, time and time again, the dates obtained are between about 7,000 years to 40,000 years. However there are many other reasons for questioning this method. For example, all of those "millions of years old" dates are obtained from Volcanic materials; however, there is no way to KNOW for CERTAIN what the original amounts present were. Then there is the problem of Mixing both mother and daughter products together while they are in a molten state. Then there is the problem of Leaching, re-crystallization, and a host of others. The Links below provide the interested reader with LOTS more information.


 * Is the Earth 4.5 Billion Years Old This article takes a closer look at how the 4.5 Billion Year age for the Earth was arrived at, and why it cannot be trusted.


 * The Case of the KBS Tuff This modified Letter, examines the well-documented Case of the KBS Tuff, and all of the Various methods that were used to "date" it, and also why the final (1.9 m.y.o.) result cannot be trusted any more than the first (220 m.y.o.) One.


 * Radiometric Dating This short paper examines the Uranium Lead Method, and provides Tables that show why Radiometric Dating cannot be trusted.


 * The Radiometric Dating Game This web site take a much closer look at Radiometric Dating and also explains in much detail why it cannot be trusted.


 * More Bad News for Radiometric Dating Just what the title says.


 * Stumping Old Age Dogma Examines One of the many instances of Carbon Dating an organic piece of wood that was found in strata that was supposed to be many "millions of years old."


 * What About Carbon 14


 * Excess Argon... Takes a closer look at Potassium Argon Dating, and why it also cannot be trusted.

--Truthteller 06:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Radiometric Dating: The Numbers Game Another close look at how the Numbers in this game are very often used to favor the Theory of Evolution over empirical science and objective reasoning.

Why Evolution is Unscientific
From a purely objective scientific perspective, Stanley Miller's experiments have not produced any more than 13 of the 20 basic (amino acid) building blocks of proteins. And yet the most basic, self Replicating (parasitic) bacterium has 40,000 proteins of 600 different types -- none of which are ever observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from being made by pre-existing biological organisms). But to function properly, living organisms also require DNA (with the correct information Blueprint imprinted on it), RNA (microscopic mobile copy machines -- which copy the information from The DNA and then transfer it to the Ribosomes), Ribosomes (i.e. Card Reader / protein factories) -- which read the information brought to them from the Ribosomes and use it so produce whatever types of homochiralic proteins that are needed by the cell.

To put this in perspective, lets assume that a modern computer running Windows XP, with a Monitor and Printer, and plugged into a source of electricity is comparable to the most basic self-replicating bacterium. Let's also assume that the Computer system consists of 20 basic materials (i.e. gold, silver, aluminum, tin, lead, silicon, plastic, etc...). Then what Miller found is equivalent to finding 13 of the 20 basic building blocks that make up a Computer. But even if we had all 20, we still need to order them ALL into the correct pieces (i.e. wire, solder, plastic frame, screws, circuit boards, Integrated Circuits, fan, Power Supply, smooth glass, etc..) --- something that simply WILL NOT happen all by itself. This is one of the many reasons why more and more people today are turning to Creationism, as the evidence clearly indicates that God (or an outside Intelligent Influence) must have intervened in the Creation/Origin of Life on this Planet.

And while some people are still hopeful that (at some time in the future) it could be demonstrated that natural chemical processes could explain the origins of life. Such notions are very unlikely to occur.

This is because (as far as we know) complex creatures, such as a (very) "basic" self-replicating bacteria, are simply TOO COMPLEX to have come about by time and chance -- NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE WANT IT TO BE SO.

See Links below for more details.


 * How Simple Can Life Be
 * Why Abiogenesis is Impossible
 * How Life Began
 * The Facts of Life

Sincerely in Christ, Randy Berg