Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

Biblical Creation vs Evolution

Threads have been merged so this thread has turned into a general creation vs evolution thread. If you are interested in biblical creation or want to ask any questions or challenge creation feel free to post. For information from the creation perspective see

post 1 and 2- Age of the earth
post 21- common lies evolutionist use in textbooks to indoctrinate us into believing in their faith
post 22- Sources exposing common lies and debates between phd creationist and evolutionist doing the same
post 23- Responds to common "proofs" of evolution such as bacteria resistance, natural selection etc
post 37- Quotes from scientist about evolution you will never see the media report
post 38- why i dont have enough faith to be an evolutionist
post 39- General information about creation and science such as noahs flood, natural selection, mutations etc
post 40- predictions based on creation
post 41 and 43- the fossil record. Lies evolutionist use to claim missing links and how the fossil record supports creation.



Deep time the Creator God of the Evolutionist

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life


“Consider (1) Deep Time has characteristics and powers that belong to God alone. In fact, the parallels are truly amazing! For example, Deep Time has the power of creation. According to His followers, he has made stars, planets, and galaxies. He has made canyons, and mountains. Deep Time separated the continents and oceans. He has made all living creatures through his servant – Evolution. Indeed, Deep Time took the elements of this world, and from that dust he made man. These are all powers and actions that are rightly reserved for God alone (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 33:6, Job 38:4, Psalm 104:5-8, Genesis 1:9-10, Genesis 1:20-25, Genesis 2:7).But it doesn’t end there. Deep Time is also said to have tremendous power to direct the course of events in the universe. Deep Time creates and destroys species and civilizations at a whim. He gives life and takes it away. He continually shapes the earth as he sees fit – changing deserts to lush gardens, and gardens to deserts. Deep Time existed long before man, and will continue long after man, or so we are told. Again, these are characteristics that are rightly attributed only to God (Acts 17:26, Job 42:2, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13, Job 1:21, Isaiah 51:3, 43:19-20, Genesis 13:10, Deuteronomy 29:23, Genesis 17:1, Deuteronomy 33:27, Isaiah 43:10, Revelation 22:13).But according to his disciples, nothing is too difficult for Deep Time! He is able to do any miracle! Consider this famous quote from Dr. George Wald, “Time is the hero of the plot. … Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs the miracles.” Yes, the gradual evolution of dust into people may seem impossible. But with Deep Time, all things are possible! He is the “hero of the plot!” Compare this with the characteristics associated with the biblical God (Matthew 19:26, Jeremiah 32:17).(2) Disciples of Deep Time worship him with reverence and awe. They may deny this with their words, but their actions indicate that they do cherish this god above all others. This makes sense: if indeed Deep Time does have the powers and abilities that his disciples attribute to him, then he should be worshiped. Such worship takes place in the schools and universities, where Deep Time’s wonderful works are praised all the day long.The worship of Deep Time is found in many a science textbook too. Sandwiched in between the discussions of science will be stories about the amazing feats of Deep Time. A little science here, and an amazing story there. Although Deep Time has nothing to do with science, often the science and the stories are interleaved such that it can be difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends! The mixture makes for an entertaining, though deceptive read.Devotees take their religion very seriously. Deep Time must not be questioned. That would be sacrilege! Those who fail to worship at the altar of Deep Time are ridiculed, and face being expelled from the classroom. Textbooks that fail to acknowledge the supreme lordship of Deep Time are not likely to be used, or even published. Those who wish to work as professors must swear allegiance to Deep Time and His servant Evolution if they want to be hired.Deep Time is not the Living God. Nor is Deep Time an aspect of God, a creation of God, or an ally of God. Deep Time exists only as a concept, created by the mind of men. He has no literal existence. Although his disciples ascribe to him many of the characteristics of the biblical God, it is clear that Deep Time is fundamentally different than the God of the Bible.”
-Jason Lisle Deep time the God of our age




Radiometric Dating

"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar ages".
-Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating" Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]


What they are measuring is not ages but rather a ratio of a “parent” element to a “daughter” element, that alone cant give you a age. The parent element in the rock decays at a observable rate under normal conditions into its daughter element. Only when the evolutionist adds his assumptions does he believe he can get a “age” from the rock. These unprovabel assumptions are the downfall of radio metric dating as a claim to prove the earth is older than the biblical account. All the assumptions used have been at one time or another have been shown false. In fact evolutionist will claim that past rates such as the mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were different in the past.

Assumptions

1] That each system is a closed system. Nothing can contaminate the parent or daughter products being measured.
2] Each system most initially have contained no daughter components, which is unprovable.
3] The process rate must always be the same.
Some other assumptions. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet this could greatly effect the clocks in minerals.

Carbon dating assumptions

1] The air around us has for the past several million years, had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has.
2] The very large amount of oceanic carbon has remained constant.
3] Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now.
4] Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance.
5] The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed.
6] Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14.

“It [c-14 ]is not an infallible technique, and, as any field archaeologist knows, contamination of the sample is always a serious possibility. Trusting the method to produce an “absolute date” for a single artifact was absurd.” -Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (June, 1983), p. 307.

7] No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred.
8] The fraction of carbon 14 which the living thing possessed at death is today known.
9] Nitrogen is the precursor to C=14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant.
10 Earth's magnetic field: Earth's magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today

“A stronger magnetic field is significant because the magnetic field partly shields the earth from the influx of cosmic rays, which change nitrogen atoms into radioactive carbon-14 atoms. So a stronger magnetic field in the past would have reduced the influx of cosmic rays. This in turn would have reduced the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere. If this were the case, the biosphere in the past would have had a lower carbon-14 concentration than it does today...So if you mistakenly assume that the radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere and biosphere have always been the same as they are today, you would erroneously estimate much older dates for early human artifacts, such as post-Babel wooden statuettes in Egypt. And that is exactly what conventional archaeology has done.”
-Dr. Andrew A Snelling Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field


For more on the decay of the magnetic field see here
https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....etic-Field.pdf

Other Issues

Radiometric dating falls outside of the realm of science since science must be observable. The rocks and their decay from parent to daughter has not been observed through the samples entire supposed millions or billions of years since its formation. Radiometric dating would not work unless the evolutionist already had an earth history time line in place. When you send the sample in they ask you what layer it was found in and with which fossils. Otherwise they would not know what dates are “good” and what are “bad” since variations occur. Any date that returns in contradiction to the fossils and evolutionary time line, is than declared a “bad” date and disregarded as contaminated or some other excuse.

“No evidence contrary to the accepted framework is allowed to remain. Evolution stands, old earth ideas stand,g no matter what the true evidence revels. An individual fact is accepted or rejected as valid evidence according to its fit with evolution...observation plays second fiddle to the assumptions ”
-John Morris The Young Earth

The KBS Tuff is a great example. The KBS Tuff was originally dated 230 million years old. The evolutionist exspalined it away as excessive decay because it did not match with the fossils. Than it was given a new date of 2.6 million years dated by 3 separate methods that all confirmed and was used as a great example of the proof and accuracy of radiometric dating. But than a human fossil was found in the layer and they know redated the layer at 1.8 million years confirmed by radiometric dating yet once more. Another great example is Santo Domingo rock formation in Argentina argon/argon dated at 212 million years. This date agreed with the surrounding ages of rock the fossil wood from a extinct species of tree. However bird tracks were also found but were explained away as some bird type dinosaur and the age for the formation was published in the journal Nature in 2002. Than other evolutionist showed the tracks were from a modern sandpiper [not yet evolved] a small common bird. The rocks were redated to 37 million years old by lead/uranium dating to match the bird tracks. The former dates were explained away as faulting. The fossils decide the age not the radiometric dating. Dates are only accepted if they go along with what evolutionist already claim the age of a layer.

"‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."
-T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44].

"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ... The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read"."
-Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9]


Most samples are only tested by one method, when multiple methods are applied you often get contradictory results. If one matches the predetermined age, it is accepted and the rest are rejected. Radiometric dating would disprove the evolutionary time line of earth history if it were not for evolutionist preconceived ideas about ages and fossils and their willingness to throw out any “date” that does not conform to their beliefs. Worse still, some published and accepted dates are imaginary. Take the example of German anthropologist Reiner Von Zieten who over his 30 year career “systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age remains.” Some of the fossils he used were fake fossils, others were a few hundred years old that he claimed were as old as Neanderthals. He was unable to use the radiometric dating equipment he claimed he used to date fossils with and was only found out when he tried to sell his universities fossil collection to a U.S Museum. Added that carbon dating and radiometric dating can also be used to show the earth is young.

Some of the results from observable history


“If it doesn't work whenever it can be checked for essentially all recently formed rock date old. How dare we assume this assumption is trustworthy when no checks can be applied”
-John Morris the Young earth

Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. -W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago.
- M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.

Mortar from Oxford Castle in England was dated by radiocarbon as 7,370 years old, yet the castle itself was only built 785 years ago.
-E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.

10 years after the Mount Saint Helen explosion rocks were potassium argon dated at 350,000 years. Different methods gave different results with an average age of 2.8 million.

Mount Ngaruuhoe from 1954 was potassium argon dated at 3.5 million years old. Another sample gave “ages” of .8 million years.

A 1800-1801 Honolulu flow in Hawaii returned ages of 2.6 and 2.96 million years.

1969 lava flows in Africa were rubidium-strontium dated 773 million years old
-k bell and jlpowell 1969 strontium isotopic studies of alkalic rocks the potasium rich lavas of the biruga and toro-ankole regions east and central equatorial africa journal of petrology 10 536-572

Mt Etna was tested 24 years later and dated at .35 million

A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years.
-Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61

Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
-G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55

Wood was cut out of living, growing trees and tested. Although only a few days dead, it was dated as having existed 10,000 years ago. - B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146

Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old.
-Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210

a coal mine in Queensland Australia potassium argon dated at 39-58 million years and carbon dated at 30-45,000 years old.
-See the young earth John Morris

Other dates

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old -Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]

In a supposed 20 million year old granite received a uranium thorium lead date 97 million years and a zircon dat of 1,483 million years
- r.r parish 1990 u-pb dating of monazite and its applications to geological problems Canadian journal of earth sciences 27 1431-1450

The same sample gave a range of 343 million to 4,493 million
-a.w webb 1985 geochrondogy of the masgrate block minerals resources review south australia 155 23-27

an age of 9.588 billion older than earth was received in an argon sample
-Tim Harrison 1981 excess ar in metamorphic rock broken hill new south wales earth and planetary science letters ss 123-149

Okudaira et al. measured isochron ages of a rock called amphibolite sampled from south-east India. With the rubidium-strontium method they obtained an age of 481 million years but with samarium-neodymium the age was almost double at 824 million years -Okudaira, T., Hamamoto, T., Prasad, B.H. and Kumar, R., Sm-Nd and Rb-Sr dating of amphibolite from the Nellore-Khammam schist belt, S.E. India: constraints on the collision of the Eastern Ghats terrane and Dharwar-Bastarcraton, Geological Magazine 138(4):495–498, 2001; http://geolmag.geoscienceworld.org/c...ract/138/4/495

The same rock in the grand canyon gave dates of 6 million, 17 million and 65 million years. Another rock was dated as 1.5 billion years old and 6,000 years old.
-Institute for creation researcher rate group http://www.icr.org/rate/

the Grand Canyon's Brahma schist rock layer, ranging from 1.2 to 1.8 billion years--a 600-million-year difference
http://www.icr.org/article/radioisot...s-another-dev/

a maximum possible age of 516 million was given to what was a supposed to be 1,100 million rock layer of the grand canyon. Rocks suppose to be 100 million were samarium-neodymium dated at 1.7 billion
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p809-820 2009

a difference of 1.3 billion came from the same rock sampled in Australia
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past p823 2009

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years This was a joint event of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) Carbon-14 dated dinosaur bones - under 40,000 years old Carbon-14 dating of bones from 8 dinosaurs -
-August 15, 2012 presentation by Dr. Thomas Seiler at the AOGS-AGU (WPGM) 2012 conference in Singapore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ
http://newgeology.us/BG02-A012%20Abstract.pdf

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200.
-Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

uranium thorium lead dated 1,753 million in a sample suppose to be 21 million
-ir parrish and r tirrul 1989 u-po age of the baltoro granite northwest himalayans and implications for monazite u-pb systematicks geology 17 1076-1079

128 ages were recorded anywhere from 161 million years to 514 million
-cs pickles 1997 determination of high spatial resolution argon isotope variations in metamorfic biotipes geochemica et cosmoshimica acta 61 3809-3833
p807

The Rate Group dated zircons that gave ages of 1 billion and 6,000 by two separate methods.
A basalt in the grand canyon gave ages of k-Ar 10,000 1.17 million 3.67 million 2.63 million and 3.6 million and a rb-sr of 1.143 billion
-see John Morris the Young earth p 52

The scientists who did the Rangitoto tests dated 16 volcanoes in all. Eleven of these were able to be compared with carbon-14 dates. In every case the potassium-argon dates were clearly wrong to a huge extent. Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. Bones 30,000 years old were found lying above wood dated at 16,000 years
-Ceram, 1971, p.257-259

A survey of the 15,000 radio carbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:
"[a] Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.
"[b] Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as 'infinite.'
"[c] Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.
"[d] Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.
Six C-14 ages were determined from a core in an attempt to date the formation of the Bering land bridge. The dates ranged from 4390 to 15,500 B.P. [years Before Present].

"The first problem was that the results were so disarranged from bottom to top of the core that no two samples were in the same order. Then the oldest date was discarded because it was inconsistent with other tests elsewhere.
"Then the remaining dates were assumed to be contaminated by a fixed amount, after which the authors concluded that the delta under study had been formed 12,000 years ago. This is what happens to men who operate without an alternative.
-Erich A. von Fange, "Time Upside Down," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 17.


Wood from Jurassic rocks in the UK, said to be 190 million years old, gave an age of 24,000 years using carbon dating.
-Tas Walker http://creation.com/geological-conflict

an age of 3,500 million was given in what was supposed to be 426 million old rock
-is williams 1992 some observations on the use of zircon u-pb geochronogy in the study of granite rocks transactions of the royal society of edinburgh 447-458

The youngest rocks in grand canyon was dated 1,153 by rubiduim strontium, that is the same age as the oldest rocks in grand canyon 1,111 and 1,060 for the oldest rocks
-Dr. Andrew Snelling Earth’s Catastrophic Past 843 2009

A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
-New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466]

Thirty eight laboratories worldwide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. -Nature, September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10]

The data from one of the San Juan Basin dinosaur limb bones showed a range of "ages" from roughly 15 to 85 million years. Some of the calculated "ages," though, lined up with the already assumed age of 64 million years, and these data were hand-picked to represent the "age" of the fossil. Thus, the technique was called "the first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone"—a classic case of circular reasoning. -Fassett, J. E., L. M. Heaman and A. Simonetti. 2011.
Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico. Geology. 39 (2): 159-162.

fossil wood carbon dated at 20.7 to 28.8 thousand years old, the limestone it was in dated at 183 million
-Snelling A geological conflict young radiocarbon age for ancient fossil wood creation 22 [2] 44-47 2000

isochron ages of 481 million and 824 million years same rock
-bkudaira et al sm-nd and rb-sr dating of amphibelite from the nellore-khammam schist belt.se india constraints on the collision of the eastern gnats terrane and dharwar-bastar craton
geological magazine 138 [4] 495-498 2001

"an age of 24,600 BP for a supposed Cretaceous mosasaur humerus bone 70 million years old
-Lindgren, J. et al. 2011. Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE. 6 (4): e19445. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019445

martian rock ALH84001 originally dated at 4.5 billion years old, than re-dated at 400 million by other radiometric dates to fit the new theory.
-Kerr R.A 1996 ancient life on mars? Science 273 864-866 Lapen T J et al 2010 a younger age for ALH8001 and its geochemical link to shergottie sources in mars. Science 328;347-351


Radiometric dating in support of a young earth

That c-14 is still found fossils,diamond and various samples that are claimed to be millions and even billions of years old, indicates itself a young earth.


“Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!”
-Dr Andrew Snelling Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Pieces of fossilized wood in Oligocene, Eocene, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian rock layers supposedly 32–250 million years old all contain measurable radiocarbon, equivalent to “ages” of 20,700 to 44,700 years Similarly, carefully sampled pieces of coal from ten U.S. coal beds, ranging from Eocene to Pennsylvanian and supposedly 40–320 million years old, all contained similar radiocarbon levels equivalent to “ages” of 48,000 to 50,000 years. Even fossilized ammonite shells found alongside fossilized wood in a Cretaceous layer, supposedly 112–120 million years old, contained measurable radiocarbon equivalent to “ages” of 36,400 to 48,710 years. Yet diamonds have been tested and shown to contain radiocarbon equivalent to an “age” of 55,000 years.
-A. A. Snelling, “Radiocarbon Ages for Fossil Ammonites and Wood in Cretaceous Strata near Redding, California,” Answers Research Journal 1 (2008): 123–144. R. E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287 J. R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, D. R. Humphreys, and S. A. Austin, “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R.L. Ivey Jr. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 127–147. J. R. Baumgardner, “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 587–630 B. DeYoung, Thousands . . . Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 45–62.
10 coal samples from evolutionary dating at 40 million to 350 million years all radiocarbon dated around 50,000
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx


Excessive decay in the past?

“Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can very significant from the current accepted values- by as much as 1 billion times faster when exposed to certain environmental factors.”
-Dr Cupps PHD Nuclear Physics Clocks and Rocks

Creationist explanation for the old ages is simply that the decay rates have not been constant throughout all of history. That there was a event or multiple events that accelerated the decay rates in the “clocks” of the rocks. In lavatory experiments we have been able to produce billions of years of decay in hours. Decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions. Polonium halos prove millions of years of radioactive decay in micro seconds hours and days in earth history. One rock dated by the rate group shows that one rock decayed 1.5 billion “years” worth of decay in 6,000 years . argon age of 5 billion years can be obtained in 3 to 10.5 hours. Diamonds have been argon dated 6 billion years older than earth
-s zushu m ozima o nith 1986 k-ar isochron dating of zaire cubic dimonds nature 326 710-712


radiohalos show at least 100 million years of decay in days at most weeks minutes in some cases
heat can produce accelerated decay radioactive decay
p847
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

many mechanism can cause radioactive decay, decay rates can be changed by a factor of trillions p 848
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Publ...,6438,226.aspx

polonium halos from 3 different layers 35 million to 245 million years old had to form within months of each other
-R.L gentry wh cristie dh smith jf emery sa renalds r walker ss christy radiohalos in colified wood new evidence relating to the time of unranium introduction and colaification science 194 315-318


Fossils and Geological Column Millions of Years old?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."
—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

“And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we than turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossils record”
-Niles Eldridge the rethinking of Darwinian evolution

“The fossils date the rock, and evolution dates the fossils.... circular reasoning, instead of proceeding from observation to conclusion, the conclusion interprets the observation which “proves” the conclusion...thus the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. The unquestioned assumption of evolution provides the context for the entire process”
-John Morris The Young Earth Master Books 2007

Rocks are not dated buy their appearance, as all types are found in all layers. They are not dated by minerals, as minerals of all type can be found through the whole column. They are not dated by location, as rock formation of older ages are found on younger “ages” all the time and more often strata “ages” are missing totally. Only 4% of earth has a total of 10 layers. They are not dated buy dating method. They are dated by the index fossils but these fossils alone cant give you a date, only the preconceived assumptions of evolution can. It is all done with circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks. Without index fossils there could be no geological column.

“But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds and even thousands of different species of plant and/or animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each with fossil prints from a wide variety of ancient plants and animals that we can find in still other rock strata.What are these magical fossils that have the power to tell men finding them the DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals
-Vance Terrell Science vs Evolution

“Any rock containing fossils of one type of trilobite (Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian" rock, thus supposedly dating all the creatures in that rock to a time period 600 million years in the past. But rocks containing another type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified as "Ordovician," which is claimed to have spanned 45 million years and begun 480 million years ago The dating of each stratum—and all the fossils in it—is supposedly based on index fossils, when it is actually based on evolutionary speculations, and nothing more. "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone."
—-Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 31.

We find living index fossil these are suppose to date certain layers of rock millions of years old, yet there alive today.

“A circular argument arises interpret the fossils record in terms of a particular theory of evolution. Inspect the interpretation and note that it confirms the theory, well, it would, wouldn't it”
-Tom Kemp new scientist a fresh look at the fossil record

"The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."
—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.


Is there a geological column?

The geological column is found only one place, in government textbooks. Most all fossil bearing sea creatures are on the continents not in the ocean, fossils today are not forming on continents so the present cannot be the key to the past. Today we do not form vast sedimentary layers spread across continents, marine creatures in vast graveyards. So the present is not key to the past.

“it seems axiomatic that the harder you look at a rock the more incomplete its stenography appears to become”
-torres h.s some personal thought on stratigraphic precision in the 20th century the earth inside and out,some major contributions to geology in the 20th century geological survey London no 192 p251-272 2002

“85% of earths surface does not even have three layers in the right order we are always finding older layers on top of younger layers and all mixed up”
-Holt biology p285 1989

“if the whole column were together it would be 100 miles think”
-Holt biology

“if the layers are different ages why is there no erosion marks between layers”
-Merrill earth science 1993 p114 no evidence of aging

“if there was a column, unfortunately no such column exist”
-hbj earth science 1989 p326

a worldwide study on all strata was done by John Woodrappe's world research project it was published in creation research society quarterly. He found fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata ,instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata . 1/3 span 3 or more levels. there is not an orderly progression of strata from bottom to top higher strata . Instead they are found here and there in what approximates a chance arrangement such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are suppose to overlay. only small % of all localities of any given fossil override or are overlain by any other sigal fossil of another geological period. Thus fossils of different gemological periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other- negating all concepts of evolution geologic periods and geologic time.