I am just making sure you have enough reading material for the next while. I feel like writing today and there are important issues that need to be discussed without too much more delay. This post will focus on the age of rocks website. The first thing that needs to be remembered while reading the works of secular scientists and those scientists who claim to be Christian yet accept secular viewpoints over God and his word is the following:
That neither God nor Jesus gave permission to anyone to use any form of science to determine the age of the earth. In fact, no command was ever recorded telling us to determine when God created everything or how old the universe or the earth are.
The question I have posed to many different alternative and scientific believers is: Where in the Bible do both God and Jesus tell their followers to take secular science over their word? So far no one has answered that question, which I have provided in the above quote. The reason we are not to use science to answer those problems is because anything the secularist scientist claims to be a time marker is in reality NOT a time marker.
Their purpose is altogether different form what the secular scientist claims it to be. Time keeping is read into the different supposed natural time pieces and that is wrong for such items, like glaciers, caves, ice cores trees, are not calibrated to keep accurate measurement nor can they be ‘repaired’ to fix any discrepancies and keep accurate time. They also cannot take into account nuances like weird weather patterns, and other anomalies that would affect their supposed time keeping duties.
Now with that said, I am expecting the owner of the age of rocks to com eon here and challenge me at every turn and comment but I do not care. He is welcome to his opinion. I should also point out that the identification of these natural items as time keepers do not come from any authoritative voice, divine representative or document, nor is their any historical affirmation for these items to be used as time keepers.
The identification all comes from modern scientists who have rejected God and the bible and are intent on proving their alternative idea true There is no objectivity nor honesty in their identification of these but a way to do circular reasoning without looking like they are using circular reasoning. Here is a link to his website but I will provide specific links as usual with each section
What geologists have learned about the ocean floor over the past 70 years completely shifted our paradigms several times. First, decommissioned submarines discovered that the seafloor was not flat, but is covered in mountains, ridges, plateaus, valleys, and super deep troughs. This discovery was shocking in and of itself, because we expected that the calm conditions of the deep ocean might have yielded a smooth blanket of sediment over a featureless abyss, much like a vast, subaqueous desert expanse.
I doubt any Christian thought that the ocean floor was flat, we were taught at a young age that God changed geography via a variety of means during the flood thus it must be only the secular scientist who assumed that the ocean floor was flat. There was no reason to think of it as being flat for there was no information on the ocean crust except for the observations made by deep-sea divers who saw that the ocean floor was rocky, uneven and so on; thus it should have been a no-brainer to extrapolate the same scenario to the rest of the ocean.
These discoveries in oceanography, which largely fueled the modern theory of plate tectonics, also coincided with the founding and expansion of the creation science movement. Early on, therefore, it was taken for granted that the oceans might have simply been created in place, perhaps accumulating some sediments in the wake of Noah’s flood.
We have no idea of the activity of plate tectonics prior to Noah’s flood, and it is even possible we do not know its activities prior to the modern era when such activity was studied. We do not know what the ocean floor looked like prior to the flood and it makes no difference how it looked. Such appearance has nothing to do with anything biblical or vital doctrines of the scriptures. It also has no reflection on origins as there is nothing telling us to look at the ocean crust to find the keys to our origins or the age of the earth.
Any conclusion made by scientists would be mere guesses. Since we have no description of the earth’s pre-flood crust, everything about the modern appearance would be speculation and nothing concrete.
More importantly, however, the characteristic chemistry of ocean crust reveals that it could not have been formed catastrophically, especially over the course of centuries. Take a look, for example, at the difference between granite (common in continental crust) and basalt (typical of oceanic crust). In granite, the individual crystals are relatively large well formed, because they cooled over a much longer period of time while buried deeply beneath the surface.
This is a bad assumption because it ignores the fact that God pre-made the different varieties of rock when he created the earth. Just like he did with the animals and plants, he provided all the different rocks at that time. They didn’t magically pop out of the earth from nothing. Nor is a long period of time needed for the earth was given its supply of rocks in the beginning. Now if rocks are formed now from different processes then that means God created that mechanism and they are not tools to be used to mark time.
Those processes have the same origination date as everything else in this world and do not point to an evolutionary ideal. That latter idea is read into what i studied by unbelieving scientists.
Caves are among nature’s most meticulous record keepers. Every year, infiltrating rain or snowmelt dissolves the bedrock in which the cavern has formed and deposits minerals inside the cave as iconic formations—stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, and more—called speleothems. Most importantly, these formations are locked away inside underground refrigerators, so to speak, safe from the surface environment.
As I commented underneath that article, those ‘underground fridges’ are NOT immune or free from contaminants that would alter the context of that supposed time keeping. Actually they are not free from surface environments as those rain or snow waters trickling down would drag some surface bacteria or other contaminants with them. But that last comment is mere speculation similar to the speculations and assumptions made by those scientists.
There is no way to measure the information scientists claim is provided by these ‘underground fridges’ as there is NO known starting point for any of them. We do not know when those caves were actually formed nor do we know exactly when those formations were brought into existence thus to say they are accurate time measurements is ridiculous.
Any time measurement is purely speculative and a guess, which renders these items unqualified to speak on the actual age of the earth. We also cannot know if any alteration of their formation took place during their history. Scientists may assume but they cannot know for sure so this lack of vital knowledge renders their guesses untenable. Their ideas also do not exclude other alternatives sources from producing these items in less time than scientists claim.
Young-Earth Creationists frequently claim that only one “multi-stage” ice age occurred, shortly after the Flood.
Well that may be true but I do not think any ice age occurred. What I see and have learned is that the glaciers were the result of the fact that all of the water did not disappear when the flood was finished. We know this by the discovery of all the sunken cities found throughout the world. We cannot know of all the influences that are placed upon the underground formations thus their use as a time-keeper is misleading and erroneous.
#3. Grand Canyon— http://ageofrocks.org/2015/03/08/were-you-there-when-the-canyon-formed/
Up close and personal, sympathetic adventurers would learn how this icon of geology was built and carved in a span of less than 6,000 years.
Wait, only 6,000 years? For those unfamiliar with the claim, it may seem so incredibly far-fetched as to be unworthy of consideration. However, the creationists’ reinterpretation of the Grand Canyon caught on so successfully, that they were able to sell their book
The word that bothers me is the one in bold. There is no evidence that the creationists are wrong or reinterpreting anything. They merely disagree with secularists who want a long age to the earth to support their alternative ideas. Since we have no documents on how the Grand Canyon was formed we cannot really say how it was done. Since we have evidence for Noah’s flood scattered throughout the world, we can point to that event as being the source for the canyon. We do not have any evidence that the evolutionists are correct. They provide nothing observable to show that they are correct, and only speculate on their process not show that it actually took place.
Doesn’t matter where in the world they go, they can only conjecture or assume not point to real fact. I am not an expert on flood geology and nor do I really care that much about it, for we are NOT given any pre-flood geological descriptions of that world’s geography thus we cannot say exactly what the flood did or did not do. The Bible only gives us sparse information and anything Noah and his sons left behind after their lives ended is probably long destroyed or altered by unbelievers to hide the actual truth.
It is the evolutionist who is making extraordinary claims about the Canyon and how it was formed, let them prove their ideas true with real evidence not their assumptions, theories, conjectures, speculations or false ideas. There is nothing in this world that show that the rocks and geology formed as the evolutionists claim nor can they prove it did.
We believers just need to keep the evolutionary geologists honest and examine their work and allow God to point out their errors to us. We do not need the Grand Canyon to prove the flood as we have other pieces of evidence that do a far better job of doing that. Let’s not let the Grand Canyon make fools of us but use it wisely so that God can be glorified and not mocked.
#4. Radiocarbon Dating– http://ageofrocks.org/2015/03/09/a-creationists-understanding-of-radiocarbon-dating/
There are many laws that govern the peculiarities of everyday life, of which Murphy’s Law is the best known. But in my engagement with those teetering within the creationism debate, I’ve discovered a new pattern of behavior that perhaps deserves its own name. Let’s call it “Libby’s Law”. Simply put, the longer one discusses the age of the Earth, the more likely a flawed statement about radiocarbon dating will steer the conversation into futility.
Considering that Murphy’s Law is not an actual law nor does it govern any facet of life that author’s point of view is further undermined by his resorting to the old, they are wrong and do not understand _______’ argument. Radiocarbon dating is not infallible and it is not hard to manipulate the results it produces.
When they die, however, the radioactive carbon decays at a known rate. Measuring the ratio of radioactive to stable carbon, we can estimate the age of carbon-bearing samples.
I have a problem with the decay rate and I have searched for Libby’s published notes its automatic slow-down at the halfway point of the samples carbon life span. I have yet to find them or a credible explanation how these carbon brakes are applied automatically. There is nothing in the sample or the decay rate that explains how this slow down occurs and if Libby was honest then we should be able to read that Radiocarbon dating is limited to two half-lives not the multiple ones we are told take place throughout the history of the sample.
It would be a miracle for a non-thinking process to control its own behavior so I am curious to see how Libby explains this magical event. But with that said, radiocarbon dating is just part of the circular reasoning employed by evolutionists. It, and any secular dating system, is not an independent source for dating. The system was built and defined by evolutionists, re-calibrated by evolutionists, employed by evolutionists, analyzed by (for the most part) evolutionists, and on it goes. There is no independence or objectivity in the whole process.
On the other hand, the technical details of radiocarbon analysis are extremely difficult to understand.
Here the author goes to the old ‘they do not understand _____’ again. How droll. Most of us do understand radiocarbon dating and we know it is fraudulent and susceptible to corruption.
Mathematical corrections are complex, and the reliability of dates can even vary between samples. Hence geochronologists have devoted entire peer-reviewed journals to addressing the many challenges that arise.
In other words, we can make them whatever we want them to be in order for us to preserve our alternative arguments. Of course, I am being simplistic here but that is how they come across. Of course, peer review means nothing but that author’s mentioning of that easy to manipulate process means he is trying to end the discussion with some official authority to end any debate on the topic.
According to organizations like ICR, CMI, and AiG, ancient samples of coal, graphite, diamond, petrified wood, and even dinosaur bones have been dated confidently to only 30–70,000 years old, rather than the tens of millions of years assigned to them via other techniques. What a discrepancy! It’s abundantly clear why apparent contradictions involving the radiocarbon method are the preferred soundbite references for the everyday Young-Earth Creationist.
To be honest, if radiocarbon dating worked within the realm of reality, it can only be accurate to 11, 500 years approx. That is the sum total of its actual half-lives. Any other date is speculative and inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating is not accurate because it is based upon too many assumptions and developed by sinful, deceived, fallible man.
Again, there is no real authority telling us that radiocarbon dating is to be used to date any historical sample. That claim is made by modern scientists only who are not an authority nor do they have any confirmation from any independent sources that any secular dating systems are the keys to finding the age of the earth. The reason I say this is because you cannot date backwards without a real historical and verifiable starting point to mark time from.
To illustrate this comment I merely point to the signs of businesses which clearly state ‘established in 1877 (or whatever date). That sign gives us a verifiable and historical starting point to gauge the age of the business. We can only guess at the age of a business who does not include that historical starting point on their signs or business papers.
The same goes for the different samples dated by secular dating systems. Not one of the samples have any marker stating when it came into existence thus those dating systems have no indicator to help them count the years. There are just too many flaws in these systems to deem them reliable or useful.