Challenge to YECs? Part 8

Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES

  • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
  • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

  • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
  • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
  • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
  • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

  • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
  • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
  • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
  • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
  • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands. The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
  • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
  • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
  • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.
...9
FaceBook feeds

 

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

22 hours ago

Ark Encounter
The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable!

The Living Quarters on Deck Three look so comfortable! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I tried to take a nap but they wouldn’t let me

Love it when I was there in April 2019 and my 3yr old great grand son was so interested in everything he saw. Plan on returning for a family reunion. 😍

Hamm has got the best living quarters.

Loved it there when we went.

Y’all do remember they were in a flood for 40 days......Meaning not a smooth ride so that means no comfort

Hermosísimo 👏 Si aún no lo has visitado, no te demores es mejor y superior q disney para pasear con la familia y crecer en sabiduría ‼️

Beautiful ❤...just voted for Ark Encounter

Kelsi St John

Cool

One of the beautiful rooms on THE ARK.

I loved this section of the Ark!

Amy Engelbrecht Ott we've been there!!! Our little road trip was so much fun! Looking forward to 2020 Trip

Is that a true replica? Or a modern version of how it might have been?!!

They are gorgeous!

Beautiful and very edifying park! Breathtaking! And the buffet is incredible! We had the very best pot roast ever!

Comfort came when that flood stopped not because they had a cushion on board

View more comments

1 day ago

YecHeadquarters
10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac 

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvards rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft

10 million still up for grabs. No one can do it because evolution is not true. ~ Issac

Quote: Was Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ftWas Life a “Happy Chemical Accident”???
(How a careless remark by Richard Dawkins on NPR led to the largest Origin Of Life prize in history)

In 2005 I heard Richard Dawkins on NPR radio station WBUR Boston. A caller asked where life came from.

“Life was a happy chemical accident!” he replied.

Dawkins was an endowed professor of the “Public Understanding of Science” at the University of Oxford.

I was astounded that a professor in charge of “Public understanding of science” would proclaim that life is a “happy chemical accident.”

Is that even a scientific statement? What is science, anyway?

From Online Dictionary:

SCIENCE: 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If you cannot test it, reproduce it, falsify it, observe it, validate it from first principles, model it, simulate it on a computer or validate it mathematically… then it’s not science!

If life is something that happened literally accidentally, perhaps only once in the history of the entire universe… then in order to accept that theory, we have to abandon the scientific method.

Because none of our experience confirms the hypothesis that *accidental* events create nanomachines, or genetic codes, or cells, or anything similar.

I was so disappointed with these low standards of proof that I created a technology prize to find a definitive answer.

This led to the $10 million Evolution 2.0 Prize for discovering the Origin of the Genetic Code.

I announced the prize at the Royal Society in Great Britain on 31 May, with Oxford professors Denis Noble and Paul Flather.

Denis Noble is one of the professors who reviewed Dawkins’ PhD application at Oxford. He’s 83 and sits on the judging panel for the prize, along with Harvard's rock star Geneticist George Church.

Denis is a Fellow of the Royal Society and holds a Commander of the British Empire medal from Queen Elizabeth.

14 years later, I have to thank Richard Dawkins, in part - especially his flippant attitude towards the practice of empirical science - for inspiring me to create this prize.

It’s time for us to put this question on solid scientific footing.

Read the Financial Times story about the $10 million USD Evolution 2.0 Prize here:

www.evo2.org/ft
... See MoreSee Less

1 day ago

Ark Encounter

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6 ... See MoreSee Less

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross! 

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #jesusisourhope #Jesusisourvictory #JesusisGod #jesusislord

Never go back to the vomit. Never go back to wallow in the mire! May we never love the very things that nailed our Savior to the cross!

#Jesus #morethanconquerors #JesusIsOurHOPE #JesusisourVictory #JesusIsGod #JesusIsLord
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. (Romans 7:15) Edited. You will not understand until you know why you keep doing what you do not want to do. Romans will help you understand.

Amen

Amen!🙌 And don't let anyone try to convince you to go back as well. Stand your ground and stay close to Jesus, our True Deliverer.🙌❤

Great post and message. Needed that! Love yall

Amen 🙏🏽

Unfortunately that’s easier said than done sometimes, especially if it’s a habit you’ve had forever.

Amen So True.

Amen!!!

Truth bomb right there.

What a terrifying thing it would be to fall from Gods grace.

Reminds me of some songs. Jesus Lover of My Soul, Came to My Rescue, Victory in Jesus, and so many others. We praise, worship and sing because He came to our rescue so that we can spend eternity with Him. God is Great and Good! 😎

Seem this all to often sadly 😢😢😢

Amen 🙏

Praise our jesus. Isn't he fabulous.

Very True! And frightening if you do!!!

View more comments

Pro Bowl quarterback Aaron Rodgers smears the God of the Bible on a recent podcast show with Danica Patrick.

Can you be a Christian and deny that the Bible is the Word of God?
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Stephen Cates

Trick perspective, God put his son on the cross to give you the way to heaven. Anyone who goes to hell, chose it.

He has been a fake Christian for a long time now.

I have no recollection of Rodgers ever making a born again profession of faith.

Deny Jesus or His Words can't be a Christian

He isn't a Christian

The issue isn't why would a loving God choose to send people to Hell. The issue is why would people choose Hell over a loving God.

He who denies me I will deny before my father and all the angels in Heaven!

View more comments

2 days ago

YecHeadquarters
Scare tactics science. its no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac

Scare tactics science. it's no more about science truth, or even theories. But how we can scare you into paying more money for things we come up with that will save the planet.😂 Just send 99 dollars to NASA and get our nuke shield clothing today. And for an extra 50 bucks, will build an air cleaner that will stop climate. But you can have a smaller version of this for free with your donation. Send today before the earth ends,

Stayed tuned while we come up with the fix for deadly viruses. Just send more money or we will scare the pants off you. ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

But wait! .....There’s more! 😁 For just $19.95 you can purchase a cow flatulence filter now too! 🐄🎉

what is doom's day clock???

Amen to that! 

#evangelize #sharethetruth #sharethegospel #Jesussaves #JesusisGod #followJesus

Amen to that!

#Evangelize #ShareTheTruth #sharethegospel #JesusSaves #JesusIsGod #FollowJesus
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Agreed

👍🏼👍🏼‼️

Amen!

Hey Chad, been listening to your radio show...liking it,bro! 😀 😀 😀

1 week ago

Hidden History of Evolution

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

1 week ago

Science leads to God

**7 games the militant atheists play**

Learn what they are so you do not get caught up in them ~ Issac
... See MoreSee Less

2 weeks ago

Hidden History of Evolution
LOL, now thats funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac

LOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ IssacLOL, now that's funny. And for most atheists that would be worse than burning. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less