> Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings
Nashville Conference 2008 - audio #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
Kat:
The Dissertations
by Kent Hovind
[Comment: Kent Hovind said he did this dissertation to get a doctors degree. Of course he gets the title of his dissertation as one thing and then when he tells people at his doctors degree is on, it a totally different subject. It starts out that someone is questioning him and they say we want to get a copy of it. He says I’ll give you a copy of the revised addition when I get it finished. This guy says, a revised addition? You don’t revise a theses for a doctors degree, either you get a degree on it or you don’t. Then it gets locked up in the university vault or on microfilm or something and no one ever changes a comma after that again. And he said when I get the new one revised… it’s unbelievable.]
Hovind said, “My 250-page dissertation dealt with the subject of the effects of teaching evolution on the students in our public school system.”
[Comment: But originally the one that the university (degree mill) has is 100 pages long. Not 250 and has a different subject. So he recanted to Evans and said;]
“My dissertation was originally about 100 pages. I continued adding material and it grew to 250 pages. Over the last 10 years I have constantly been adding material.”
[Comment: Can you believe this nonsense. This guy said, Ray your going to cover Hovind aren’t you? I’d hate to see you make a fool out of yourself, because this guy knows his stuff. Yea this guys got it down baby.]
The dissertation DOES NOT deal with the subject of "The Effects of Teaching Evolution on the Students in our Public School System". NONE of the four chapters of the Patriot University document addresses this subject, and - IT IS NOT EVEN ONE OF THE SUBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TWELVE "MISSING" CHAPTERS!!!
[comment: Btw Patriot University is a correspondent course. This is so far below anything that could be called a college.]
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
--Misspellings are rampant.
--THE THESIS HAS NO TITLE.
--There are no references or footnotes. In at least two places (pp 65-66) the citation simply notes that there is a book title to be added. [Comment: And this was turned in for a doctors degree?]
--The single illustration, the electromagnetic spectrum, is cut out of a science textbook and taped on; it does not fit the page. Additionally, there are substantial formatting errors typical of a draft, but not a final, version.
[Comment: Hovind doesn’t want to admit that his study was really on Christian things, because he trying to be something in the secular world.]
A thesis is supposed to be a body of ORIGINAL research. A thesis contains original and new data or theories that ADD to the body of existing knowledge. The first sentence is a greeting, equivalent to "Hello, my name is Barney, the Big Purple Dinosaur".
[Comment: He has a section in there on evolution how it started with Satan at the time of Adam and Eve. It’s all such unbelievable things. Then he has some funny stuff and it just shows you how juvenile this thing is. This guy here says this thing here would not even qualify for a high school book report and he claims to get a doctors degree out of it.]
One gets a real sense of deja vu when reading this chapter because large portions are EXACT, VERBATIM PARAGRAPHS from Chapter 2.
[Comment: He repeats the whole same thing over again and this is only a 100 page dissertation that he’s suppose to get a doctors degree out of it.]
He refuses to participate in long-term exchanges via the Internet or other media where these issues can be discussed in depth and where his material is easily refuted (and HAS BEEN refuted).
He attributes plate tectonics to evolutionists .... never mind that this theory surfaced a hundred years after Darwin!
No original thought is presented. This is nothing more than a rehash of long-discredited theories. It is a rambling, low-quality book report, sans the references. It is not an original, thoughtful, coherent body of knowledge. To award a Ph.D. for this is a travesty and an insult to anyone who has actually worked to achieve one.
Kent Hovind says (in his statement above) that he doesn't care whether he is addressed as "Mr." or "hey you" by the scoffers. In fact, his Ph.D. is very precious to him or he would not be listed as "Dr. Kent Hovind" in the Pensacola, FL, phone book (it is very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to do this).
[Comment: Nobody would ever put their name that way, only someone with a giant ego would do that.]
Ask yourself whether you would visit a medical doctor, an auto mechanic, a plumber, or an investment counselor with similar dubious credentials. If so, then Hovind is your science guy! Or see him for what he is, the snake-oil salesman, peddling salvation and pseudo science.
Taken from - A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
I want to demolish these peoples credibility. I don’t want to just call it into question, I want to demolish it. Because they don’t deserve to be listened to.
Kent Hovind
From Wikipedia
Legal Problems
Kent Hovind had been charged with falsely declaring bankruptcy, making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints, failing to get necessary building permits, felony assault and battery (charges later dropped), and various tax-related charges. He was convicted of federal tax offenses and related charges, for which he is currently serving a 10-year sentence.
[Comment: ‘Ray your going to cover Kent Hovind aren’t you.’ And Mr. Humphrey’s two of the five best arguments for a young earth that there is. His wife is also sentenced to one year, although she said she had nothing to do with it. They said court evidence proved otherwise.
Anyway here is a whole section of all his legal problems and everything. The government is fining him $600,000 and he is serving ten years in prison. He is a phony, a fake, a fraud, a liar, a cheat, deceiver, a heretic and whatever else there is.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATSON v HOVIND
by DAVE MATSON
GEOLOGIC COLUMN
Dr. Hovind (G1): The assumption that the geologic column is a base from which to calibrate the C-14 dates is not wise.
[Comment: The geological column has absolutely totally nothing to do with radio 14 carbon dating. Nothing at all, but he doesn’t know that. A ‘doctorate’ degree?]
Dr. Hovind (G2): The entire geologic column is based on the assumption that evolution is true.
[Comment: That has nothing to do with evolution what so ever, nothing. Yet this is one of the main people… well he’s not doing it anymore, he’s behind bars.
Some of these, I have more material on and I’ll cover them now, because they are very quick. It still is in reference to Dr. Hovind.]
Dr. Hovind (G4): Poly-strata fossils, missing layers, layers out of order, misplaced fossils, and layers in reverse order all invalidate the geologic column.
[Comment: That’s what Dr. Hovind says. Do you know what Poly-strata fossils are? They are something that young-earth advocates claim absolutely proves that the earth is not old.
A Poly-strata fossil is where you have sentiments laid down by water, lines and rows of sentiments, maybe ten to twelve feet high, with a tree going right up the middle. They say, ‘wait a minute if strata was laid down very slowly, how could you have all these layers of strata with a tree going up through all of these layers? It just laid there limp and solid for millions of years while these layers piled up along besides it?’ It’s one of those fabricated arguments, where you avoid the whole truth.
No geologist claims that every little strata requires thousands of years to be laid down. They know how these are down, it’s being done today. They list several places where rivers periodically overflow the banks. So trees are being slowly buried, you know, off the banks in the woods, they are being buried in these mud fields and so on… it’s debris that comes off the river. We can watch it happening before our eyes. No it doesn’t take millions of years, I mean that sort of thing can be done in a relative short period of time, as it ca be in swamps and bogs and so on.
But that doesn’t mean all the layers of the Grand Canyon were laid down in one year. That’s really nonsense. We’ll get into the Grand Canyon a little bit later on.]
http://www.kent-hovind.com/matson/3geocol.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Hovind: It only takes one proof of a young earth to decide between CREATION and EVOLUTION.
[Comment: That‘s all we need? One? He says, ‘One, one proof and we’ve got it.’]
If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture. Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts. Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.
[Comment: One thing does not prove everything. Unless the one thing proves all of the other proofs to be wrong.]
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/one_proof.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
In every case, in every theory and every idea that was ever presented that this earth was created 6000 years ago, in six day and that there ever was a universal flood around the whole world. In every case, every one of those things has been looked at and found false in one, two, three or more ways. All of them. There are no exceptions. Here’s fifty pages more of Kent Hovind’s nonsense. Now I’m going to skip that whole thing.
Kat:
Audio # 4
Okay we are going to get more into the Scriptures as we get going. We are going to get into the first chapter of Genesis. We are going to go through the Genesis flood and we’re going through Psalms 104 and various things we are going to go through.
But I have one other thing here in reference to Kent Hovind, because it kind of ties this whole thing together a little bit with this Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis and all of these some what independent guys like Kent Hovind. He’s only slightly connected with them, but everybody considers him as one of the greatest and so on.
Kent Hovind is so arrogant and bombastic, he just tries to make anybody who believes in evolution or whatever, just feel like a total idiot. He’s got this little thing where he says, ’well you believe we came from a rock.’ You say no, I don’t believe we came from a rock. Then he would say, ‘yea you do.’ Then he has a way of twisting it around and he would say, ‘yea you really do believe we came from a rock. I think God created us, but you think we came from a rock.’ He just really puts them down and stuff.
But Kent Hovind goes on tour all around the country and all around the world. Kind of like this Bill Wiese and his 23 Minutes is Hell, you know he’s a big speaker everywhere, spreading the word. Kent has these little picture shows and he’s got all his little jokes and everything.
But he doesn’t understand science, even though he was a science teacher in school. He has no PhDs, but we went though all that bologna with him. But he is still promoting the same young earth theories that have fallen by the wayside, last year, five years ago, ten years ago or twenty years ago… and he is still promoting them. To the point that Answers in Genesis and Dr. Wieland, Dr. Ham and Dr. Sarfati are a list of imminent people that I showed you. They had to write in their own publication and Answers in Genesis and article called Maintaining Creationist Integrity. So all these young-earthers are showing… they went back and forth with Kent Hovind, on all this stuff that he is teaching and they are saying, ‘you can’t teach that stuff any more. The scientist are laughing us to scorn.’ But Kent maintains, ‘no, they haven’t proven that wrong.’ They haven’t proven that Superman didn’t come from the planet Valcom or Krypton or whatever it was. You can’t prove a negative anyway, it‘s so stupid. So they write this thing and I’m going to go through some of it, because it’s kind of funny. Here we have one group of young-creationalist, telling another one that you’ve got to stop teaching all this young-earth nonsense. Because the scientist are laughing us to scorn.
Maintaining Creationist Integrity
by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati
Point-by-point response to Kent Hovind’s reply to our ‘Don’t Use’ page
KENT HOVIND: NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s long day and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.
CMI (Creation Ministries International—formerly Answers in Genesis): This story is an urban myth.
[Comment from Ray: It’s a myth, NASA never said that, but Hovind teaches it wherever he goes.]
KENT H: The Mammoth was not designed to be a cold weather animal.
[Comment from Ray: What he’s saying is, when we find these Mammoths buried up in Siberia and Alaska and all these places. They are foreign and they were washed there by Noah’s flood and buried and flash frozen. They never belonged up there in that cold weather.]
CMI: This ignores the definite adaptations to cold, such as woolly coat and small surface area of ears, trunk and tail, all of which would minimize heat loss.
The world’s leading creationist researcher on the Ice Age and mammoths, Michael Oard, has published powerful reasons for putting aside some of the traditional arguments about ‘snap’ freezing, based on firsthand research. For example, the undigested food in the stomach is easily explained by the fact that the elephant stomach is a holding bay, not a digestion organ. And undigested stomach contents were found in mastodon remains in unfrozen soil at a much more southern latitude.
[Comment: So they said, ‘you can’t teach that, it doesn’t work, it makes us look foolish.’]
KENT H: The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in old strata invalidate the geologic column.
CMI: These remains are not natural burials. This is a classic example of a ‘Clayton’s refutation’—i.e. the refutation you make when you’re not making a refutation, but still giving the impression that you have the higher ground.
[Comment: But the truth of the matter is, they criticize Kent Hovind for doing that. AiG does exactly the same thing.]
KENT H: The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.
CMI: Interpretative sketch and eye witness reports of the decomposing remains, the evidence collected so far overwhelming favours the basking shark identity for the Zuiyo-maru carcass.
[Comment: Not a dinosaur.]
KENT H: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.
CMI: Death began at the Fall, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
[Comment: They are both wrong.]
KENT H: If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
[Comment: Isn’t that cleaver. If we came from apes, how come there are still apes?]
CMI: Evolutionists teach that humans and apes had a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes.
KENT H: Women have one more rib than men.
[Comment: I find it hard to believe that anybody, who could talk and chew gum at the same time, would believe something as stupid as that. But he teaches it.]
CMI: Dishonest skeptics are usually the only ones who use this ridiculous argument to discredit creationists.
KENT H: Archaeopteryx is a fraud.
CMI: Archaeopteryx is a genuine fossil of an unusual bird.
KENT H: There are no beneficial mutations.
CMI: We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.
[Comment: There are advantageous mutations.]
KENT H: Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood.
CMI: There is no basis for this claim.
KENT H: I don’t think it is possible to know the truth of this one.
[Comment: He says that to everyone. ‘Well I think the jury is still out on this one.’ He won’t acknowledge any one of these as being wrong.]
[Comment from somebody: Don’t these two have the same agenda? Ray’s answer: Well yea, but one is saying that the other one is still arguing these stupid arguments, that they have been disproven for ten twenty years and it’s time to give them up. They want to move on to better ones.]
CMI: Our comment ‘there is no basis for this claim’ means exactly that: that there is no reason to believe that it was vertical. It does not mean that it can be proven that it was not. In a similar vein, it is logically possible that the core of Pluto is made of green cheese, but there is no reason to believe that it is.
KENT H: Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
CMI: Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks.
[Comment: And others are fraud, the man carbs, they have proof of that.]
KENT H: With that said, I have been to the Paluxy four times and have seen the evidence first hand.
CMI: So have several of our researchers. The evidence of genuine tracks is not in dispute. Where we urge great caution is in using this evidence as proof that they are of human origin.
KENT H: Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents.
CMI: The ‘Earth’ that was divided was the same Earth that spoke only one language, i.e. ‘Earth’ refers in this context to the people of the Earth, not Planet Earth.
KENT H: The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology.
CMI: The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, and contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 17 years after the Flood.
KENT H: The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.
[Comment: That email I got, he says the same thing, that God calls this science falsely… there is no such verse in the Bible.
1Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (KJV)
1Tim 6:20 O Timotheus, the thing entrusted guard thou, avoiding the profane vain-words and opposition of the falsely-named knowledge, (YLT)
It just means knowledge.]
CMI: The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism.
[Comment: It had nothing to do with evolution.]
KENT H: Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark
[Comment: Ron Wyatt is one of these young-earth creationist who has a lot of stuff on the internet. He has his own museum. He claims to have found Noah’s ark and he’s got all kinds of artifacts from Noah’s ark and it’s total bogus nonsense, all of it. But Kent says Ron has found Noah‘s ark.]
CMI: This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.
KENT H: Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible.
CMI: There is not the slightest substantiation for Wyatt’s claims, just excuses to explain away why the evidence is missing.
[Comment: So you see there is no honor among thieves.]
KENT H: There was no rain before the Flood.
CMI: This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there should be no dogmatism.
KENT H: Natural selection as tautology.
[Comment: Tautology is like people that are over six feet are taller than people that are five feet. Well duh. So natural selection is a tautology of the survival of the fittest… the fittest survive. Well duh, did we think the weakest survived and the fittest die?]
CMI: Maybe it is, but it’s still a fact.
[comment: You see these people can be cleaver sometimes when they are dealing with the truth. When they are dealing with the truth they can see that this Hovind guy is off his scientific rocker.]
KENT H: Gold chains have been found in coal.
[Comments: Ever heard that one before?… and bells and pots… in coal veins. So how could coal be billions of years old?]
CMI: The evidence is strictly anecdotal.
KENT H: I disagree and cover this in The Hovind Theory.
[Comment: Oh well, if it’s in The Hovind Theory then it couldn’t be false could it. Like if someone says, ‘I taught that myself.’ Oh well then I guess it’s true.]
Kent H: Only one gold chain has been found in coal to my knowledge [On June 11, 1891, The Morrisonville Times reported; “A curious find was brought to light by Mrs. S.W. Culp last Tuesday morning. As she was breaking a lump of coal apart, embedded in a circular shape a small gold chain about 10 inches in length of antique and quaint workmanship …”
CMI: This is exactly what is meant by anecdotal evidence. The word is derived from ‘anecdote’ meaning ‘story’. There is a story, but no coal sticking to a chain.
KENT H: The Hidden History of the Human Race Michael A. Cremo p.113], as well as an iron pot [found in coal in 1912 at the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, OK. Now in Creation Evidence Museum, www.creationevidence.org] …
CMI: Again, there is an iron pot (minus coal) in a museum, but no evidence apart from anecdotal that the coal contained the pot. I.e. a pot with a story about it.
KENT H: … a soul of a shoe
CMI: Presumably ‘sole’.
KENT H: Oct. 8, 1922 American Weekly section of New York Sunday American by Dr. W. H. Ballou. The stitching pattern was clearly visible including the twist of the thread. The rock was “213–248 million years old”. The Hidden History of the Human Race, Michael A. Cremo p.113–115, ph. 209-337-2200.
CMI: Again we ask, where is the artifact showing the association between it and the coal? We do not deny that there may have been such artifacts, but the reason we say one should avoid their use is precisely because they are to this point not available. Sadly, this becomes just ‘one more story’.
KENT H: A bell was found by W. V. Mr. Newton Anderson inside a lump of coal in 1944. He still has the bell. (304)-842-5556. newt@iolinc.net This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . A Carved Stone was found in Lehigh Coal Mine near Webster, Iowa, April 2, 1897 Daily News Omaha, Nebraska.
CMI: Same again, exactly. There is any number of spoons, pots, etc that are said (‘anecdotal’) to have come from coal, but how can one use these legitimately to the heathen in apologetics when there is no more association between the items and the coal?
KENT H: Plate tectonics is fallacious.
CMI: Dr John Baumgardner’s work on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics provides a good explanation of continental shifts and the Flood. See Q&A: Plate Tectonics. However, CMI recognizes that some reputable creationist scientists disagree with plate tectonics.
KENT H: This needs to be defined better. The plates are moving but this does not prove they have always been moving …
[Comment: How do you make that stuff up? How do you even talk to somebody like that. I think that is enough, that is enough of Kent Hovind.
http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat:
Back to my email…
You know people think they know things, they just know that they know. Like how long is a day, well everybody knows how long a day is. So how long is a day? [Someone answers: 24-hours.] How many believe 24-hours is a day? We are going to see some interesting things. All young-earth creationist believe a day is 24-hours and it says He did this and He did that and it was so and that was the third ‘day.’ That was the third or the forth or the fifth 24-hour ‘day.’ But this does not say a 24-hour day.
The word ‘day’ is found in the Bible about 2200 times, I would like anyone to find me a verse of Scripture where the Bible talks about a 24-hour day. Just one out of 2200, show me one verse that in context or any way you want to say it, that this means 24-hours. Show me one.
[Someone answers: The people rested on the seventh day (Ex. 16:30), I would think that would be 24.] Okay, that could be.
[Someone answers: What about when Jesus looked at the fig tree and then the next ‘day’ He wouldn’t look at it again. Would that be a normal day?] Not necessarily.
Okay let’s take that whole thing in context. Before they rested the seventh day, what did they do? [Someone answers: They worked.] For how long? Six days. So as long as they worked each day, they were to rest on the seventh day. Would that be correct? [Someone answers: Yes.] Okay how long did they work each day? [Someone answers: Not 24-hours.] Not 24-hours! If they worked six days of 24-hours, they would be damn tired by the time the Sabbath came around. But you might say, ‘but didn’t they also rest the night time of the Sabbath?’ Yes, but they also rested the night time of the six work days. Although I want fault you on that one, I mean that could be legitimately used to mean a 24-hour day, it could.
[Someone’s question: What about when Jesus fasted?] He didn’t fast for forty days. The reason… it’s very explicit how long He fasted. That’s why it doesn’t use days.
Mat 4:2 And when He had fasted for forty days and forty night…
If forty days equal forty 24-hour periods, you don’t have “and night.” No we can’t count that one. I mean not specifically, in a general sense you could. Because from the one sunset to the next sunset He did not eat. Because the Scripture themselves know the meaning of the word ‘day.’ So did you think that He didn’t fast all day and eat all night, they had to tell you He fasted for forty days AND ALSO during the night. I mean if the word day means a 24-hours lunar cycle is almost never used in the Scriptures, never. And when it is, even then it uses some buffers to be sure you understand what it says.
When it says you are to keep the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:27-32). It says from “even until even.” So that you are not confused that you go all day without eating, and then you say, ‘oh well we can eat all night.’ No, God meant it to be 24-hours, from even not until morning or from morning unto even, but from “even unto even” 24-hours. But it had to state that, because if somebody was just zeroing in on the real meaning of the word day, they would say, ‘wait a minute, alright we will fast all day and then we will go feast all night. He didn’t say we couldn’t feast at night, He said we had to go for a whole day.’
Let’s get more specific. How many hours are in a day? How many hours did Jesus Christ say are in a day? Did Jesus Christ say, are there not 24-hours in the day? Do you know a Scripture like that?
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?
A day is twelve hours of light. That a day. Twelve hours of darkness is not day, it’s night. Now we are going to get into that in more detail and you are going to learn a lot about these Creation days.
So we have these five theories presented and these are the best there are.
The earth’s magnetic field… Dr. Russell Humphreys has proven this and shown through his theory of the earth’s magnetic field that the earth can not be more than 10,000 years old. First of all this is not Humphreys’ theory. This is the theory of a man by the man of Barnes. He took twenty five measurements of the earth’s magnetic field and then he started playing with these and came up with this theory. But the experts say there are several fatal errors in Thomas Barnes’ work, then they go through them. Now this gets fairly technical and it involves formulas and stuff like that. So it is not that easy for me to try to explain this. But there is some of it in more layman’s language. Here is one problem.
Magnetic Field - Young-earth "proof"
It seems that the dipole field has gone uphill at times!
Studies of the magnetic field as recorded in dated rocks and pottery have shown that the dipole moment actually fluctuates over periods of a few thousand years and that decreases in field intensity are eventually followed by increases. For example, the archaeomagnetic data show that the dipole field was about 20% weaker than the present field 6,500 years ago and about 45% stronger than the present field about 3000 years ago (McElhinny and Senanayake, 1982).
Quite clearly, the dipole field has increased at times!
[Comment from Ray: So when you take these known facts into consideration, this theory just falls. It’s just one way of saying, wait a minute this is doing this and this is the same thing as the rain fall or the snow, you know. It’s snowing so many inches an hour and at this rate the snow will be eighteen miles deep in less than a year. But it doesn’t snow at that rate for a whole year. You see it’s all nonsense, all of these arguments.]
Point 2, by itself, is fatal to Barnes's idea in that Barnes was not actually plotting a decline in total field strength. Evidence shows that the dipole field has increased in strength at times.
[Comment: All I want to show you is that there are real scientist who have taken these thing to task and said this does not follow scientific protocol. They have taken short cuts and made diversions and done things that can not be substantiated.]
Barnes simply ignores the fact that the earth's magnetic polarity has reversed itself on numerous occasions. That fact, alone, is absolutely fatal to every fibre of Barnes's argument.
[Comment: But see when these guys, some of them with legitimate doctors degrees, present this stuff in technical terms, they bamboozled the people. They think, well this guy he’s got it all worked out.’
Somebody gave me a paper at the last conference in Mobile, because they knew I was going to talk about this at the next conference. It said, one side had worked out a mathematical formula proving the earth is only 6,000 years old. Oh really, it’s just nonsense. But they believed it, because some scientist said he had a formula. Well let twenty or thirty other scientist look at it and see what they think.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a little excerpt from a paper on this subject.
Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?
by Joe Meert
However, we have already seen that all of that his ideas regarding reversals, field intensity from archeomagnetic data (and in fact the lack of evidence for a global flood) is based on bad data, or even worse, invented data.
[Comment: Humphreys took Barnes’ idea and tried to get even more bamboozled. Now they call it Humphreys, but it wasn’t it was Barnes idea.]
Humphreys can calculate energies until the cows come home, but the archeomagnetic data that are available indicate that there were no magnetic reversals in the past 5000 years (they are simply an artificial invention of Humphreys).
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATIONISTS AND "MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY
by Lenny Flank
"Dr" Thomas Barnes (the doctorate is an honorary one), a creationist physicist who served as head of the ICR's "graduate school". Since Barnes' death, the magnetic field theory has been championed by Russell Humphreys.
Barnes then made the assumption that ALL of the non-dipole measurements constituted meaningless "noise", and asserted that only the dipole elements of the magnetic field are generated by the core. He further concluded that, because of the measured decrease in field strength, this dipole field must be decaying exponentially, with a half-life of approximately 1,400 years. Thus, Barnes calculated, by about 10,000 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have so strong that life would have been impossible. Therefore, he concluded, the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.
And how does Humphreys "know" that the magnetic field of the earth decayed slowly for exactly 1656 years, or that the earth's magnetic field was produced by atoms with their spin axes aligned at the time of creation? Not through any scientific data.
The same observatory measurements that show that the dipole moment has decreased since the early 1800's also show that this decrease has almost been completely balanced by an increase in the strength of the total observed field which has remained almost constant.
[Comment: Now that’s by a real scientist, Dalrymple, in ‘Can Earth Be Dated from its Magnetic Field?’]
Barnes also presents no evidence whatever to support his assertion that the magnetic field has been decaying exponentially, or that it becomes progressively stronger in the past.
[Comment: So these scientist take this theory apart point by point by point and it doesn’t fly.]
There is thus no justification whatever for Barnes and Humphreys to attempt to extrapolate their magnetic measurements for the last 150 years or so back to the moment of creation. It is apparent that the earth's magnetic field is not "decaying", and that it routinely fluctuates and even occasionally reverses itself completely. The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age.
[Comment: But yet this is one of the best, the top five, one of the very best.]
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Magnetic field’ by Steel Price. Same thing, he goes through it and it’s just bunk. Then we have this.
Claims relating to the age of the Earth
Rapid-decay theory
Russell Humphreys accepts a core-current based magnetic field and archaeomagnetic measurements of the magnetic field (based on measurements of human artefacts), and concludes that several reversals of the magnetic field occurred during the biblical flood. Such rapid (month long) variation contradict measurements of the conductivity of the Earth's mantle.
Such ideas are inconsistent with the basic physics of magnetism. While short term variations have been shown to be due to a variety of factors, the long-term (million year) variation in field intensity (and even reversal in polarity) are modeled as due to changes in electric currents in the liquid core of the Earth.
[Comment: So it all depends how far you want to go and how much you want to read to disprove some of these. Because some of them are a little technical.]
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7468791
Kat:
We are going to go through a little bit more of it. But then when we get through this, because we’ve got some more yet, but then we are going to go into it. You can see all these mathematical formulas going through point by point by point showing that neither Barnes or Humphreys has a clue as to what they are talking about this.
On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field
The physics of Humphreys' theory, such as it is, can be represented by a single equation [20, page 142, equation 1]:
Mc = k (m/mw) w
Plug in the MKS units, and numerically we get [20, page 142, equation 2] (MKS units work out to Joules/Tesla or J/T):
Mc = k (0.9425) m
Assume that the dipole today (M) is the result of an exponential decay since creation [20, page 143, equation 3]:
M = Mc e-t/T
where t is the time since creation, and T is a characteristic decay time that depends on the core of the planet as in [20, page 143, equation 4]:
T = ( 0 × × R2 ) / 2 seconds
[Comment: In this argument (from the email) it says, ‘he was even able to correctly predict the magnetic field of two planets, before they were even measured.’ And it says in here…]
All Humphreys has to do is come up with a dipole at creation that is about the same as Saturn's is now, and the result is going to be very nearly right.
[Comment: In other words, any scientist could have done the same thing. He didn’t come up with some great scheme on his own. Any scientist could have done that, this is not some accomplishment.]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for the magnetic field and all of that nonsense.
This might be interesting, it is a little more on that, but a little simpler.
Is the Earth Young?
Evidence 2
Direct measurements of the earths magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength.
[Comment: This is what this argument is all about.]
This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years. a) Thomas G. Barnes, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973).
Response:
The argument in general is very weak. The argument as made by Barnes is directly false. I have already written an extensive critique of Barnes' work, which is found in the talk.origins archive. Barnes' argument is tightly circular and illogical, since it directly assumes the truth of the proposition to be proved.
[Comment: That’s what they all do, they assume that what they are setting up to prove is already true. Therefore they will not really look at the evidence, except in a way that they can twist it to show this is the end results. It’s like, ‘well we know that the defendant is guilty, all we have to do is twist and lie about the evidence, until it comes out that way.’]
Barnes makes the simplistic mistake of extraplating an empirical fit to a 150 year data set over a 10,000 year range and claims the extrapolation is valid! Barnes wrongly insists that dynamo action is forbidden by Cowling's theorem, ignoring the fact that Cowling himself had already proven that this could not be true, 15 years before Barnes published his book! A very poor argument.
[Comment: Now another argument, but this will be shorter. One of the five biggies. Why the earth is got to be old.
“Helium in the atmosphere. The compelling thing about this measuring technique is that there are no unknown pathways for escape of helium, due to it’s chemical inertness all old earthers who have studied it recognize the helium issue as a big problem.” (source ?)]
Evidence 3.
The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.
[Comment: And so the earth can only be so many thousand years old. Because helium is dispersed in the atmosphere and it can’t leave the atmosphere. If this has been going on for more than 10,000 years, then it would be a lot more. If it has been going on for ten million years, then it would be a heck of a lot more ?]
Response:
Directly false. Current observation & measurement shows that the rate of helium loss from the atmosphere balances the rate of production through radioactive decay in the crust and mantle. Cook was unaware of the loss of ionized helium along polar magnetic field lines, as are more current champions of the same argument.
[Comment: There are no known ways of escape? There are several. They have actually found several more. So they are just about in equilibrium, the amount going into the atmosphere is equal to the amount that is going out. It is bogus, to think that proves that the earth is 6,000 years old, it nonsense.]
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmospheric Helium:
Melvin Cook and other YECs (young-Earth creationists) have argued that the Earth's atmosphere has too little helium to be billions of years old. However, a review of Vardiman (1990) and other YEC documents show that their arguments are largely based on selective quoting of outdated references from the 1960s and 1970s.
[Comment: That half a century ago.]
Dalrymple's report, significant portions of this 1990 document simply repeated old YEC arguments that had been refuted earlier by Dalrymple.
More recent studies (such as LieSvendsen and Rees, 1996; Shizgal and Arkos, 1996) provide additional information on helium escape mechanisms, which further undermined YEC arguments on this issue. Nevertheless, the final nail in the coffin of the YEC atmospheric helium argument occurred when NASA satellite images showed helium and other gases being swept from the Earth's atmosphere into deep space. One event occurred on September 24-25, 1998 after a solar coronal mass emission.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find these articles all through the internet, if you know what you are looking for. There are lots of scientists that have dealt with this stuff. Now will these people answer back to these scientists and show where their calculations are wrong? No. Will they get on a public forum with any of these? No. Will they publish any of their nonsense in any reputable journal for science on earth? No. Why? Because they would be laughed to scorn. First they would have to correct the mathematical errors, 3 x 6 is not 19.
How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?
Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production.
[Comment: There it is. There is no evidence at all that helium-4 either does or can escape from the atmosphere in significant amounts, is what he says. That’s in Morris’ book.]
But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:
"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m piling you up with this stuff, so that you can see that there is a plethora, a mountain of evidence against everyone, all of these young-earth theories. The earth was not created 6000 years ago in six days, nor was there a global flood.
So there is a lot of this stuff, we’ve only gone through two so far of these. Then we have helium in zircons, dendrochronology and sodium in the ocean, these are the five (5) biggies remember. We could do all five of them, because this guy says these are the best. But they are nonsense. Still they are kind of technical, but these better scientist they have all these formulas worked out, they know what’s going on. They are not bamboozled by such charlatans.
You know the question arises, why do these reputable men like Steve Austin and Baumgardner that have reputable degrees, why do they promote this stuff? Surely, I would think in the recesses of their mind they have to think, you know we haven’t got much. Why do they do that? I’ll tell you why I think they do it, they have rock star status. There are two billion Christians who look to them as the great saviors of the Scriptures. The last defenders of the Genesis one truth that God created… they have rock star status and they won‘t give it up.
I’m laying in bed one night about six months ago and I usually pray myself to sleep. I’m thinking, you’ve got all of this technical stuff ( and I’ve got more of it at home) and I thought God there has got to be a way where I can show people very simply, without getting into helium, diffusion and all of this technical stuff… and we are going to get a little bit into radiometric dating and all of that stuff. I mean that is as high as it gets in physics and quantum math and all of that stuff. Isn’t there some way to prove to just everyday folks, if the earth is billions of years old and there wasn’t a universal flood that wiped out all life on the face of the earth… If that never happened and the earth is billions of years old, is there not a way to be able to prove that without any formulas or any technical know how. Where really a ten or twelve year old child could understand it, if I had a couple of minutes to explain it to him… and boom, it hit me right between the eyes. Impact craters, wow.
There is the Barringer crater or what they call the Arizona crater.
It’s about a mile in diameter, it’s a pretty good size hole and it’s a recent one. They think this one hit 49,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the power of a hundred and fifty atomic booms. That is how much power is in that.
Here is my caption: ‘You are looking at the only proof that you will ever need that the earth is billons of years old and that there never was a global flood.’
How so? … I’ll show you and you will like it.
Then about three weeks ago I got another one, another simple proof that the earth is billions of yearsold, well let’s not say that, at least many many millions, if not billions. And there never was a global flood. The Pyramids. You say, ‘how can that prove that the earth is million and millions of years old, when He only created it a couple thousand years ago? How can that prove that the earth millions and millions of years? How can that prove that there never was a Nosh’s flood the flooded the entire earth? How can that prove that?’ It does! It’s amazing, it does, I’ve got the proof and I’ll show you.
Then I have one other in the (handout) book. Now this one you can’t prove anything about the flood. But you can prove that the earth is billions of years, not millions, but in this one you can prove, billions. Because this will show you a principle that we can apply to all parts of the sky and all parts of the galaxy. That is a supernova. I will show you how that proves how old the universe is.
Kat:
2008 Nashville Conference video #1 and audio #5
We started picking up these five (5) greatest of all proofs that the earth is young. We talked about the Earth’s magnetic field (1) and we talked about helium in the atmosphere (2). We’ve got three left; helium in zircons (3), endocrinology (4) and sodium in the ocean (5).
It’s interesting. The argument why the Earth is young is there is not enough helium in the atmosphere. If the Earth was old, there should be a lot more up there, because it supposedly goes in at a certain rate and nowhere does it come out. Well, it does come out and they found where it comes out and different ways it comes out and so forth. But the argument is, too much helium in the atmosphere.
Now another argument they have that the Earth is young and not old, is too much helium in zircons. Not enough in the atmosphere, too much in zircons. This one is still hanging around. This one has not been totally buried yet. The young Earth people still cling to this idea that there is helium in zircon stones, specifically at this one Fenton Hill location in Texas. There shouldn’t be that much helium in there if the Earth is as old as they say it is.
Just like helium in the atmosphere, I’ve got about 100 pages on that. I’ve got about 40 pages on this, but I’m not going to go through them. All I’m going to do is show you what’s wrong with the theory.
Now, from the perspective of Dr. Humphreys, he’s got all these formulas and all this stuff worked out that show a certain conclusion. But when somebody (in this case, Kevin Henke PhD) takes a look at the man’s work, he finds some problems. How many problems with Humphrey’s work? Eighty four (84). I’m not even going to go through the problems, I’m just going to come in on some of the categories.
Impure and improper biotite separations --
When legitimate scientists work on things like this or isometric radio carbon dating or any of these things, there is a very, very strict and precise protocol that you follow. Because things can go wrong if you screw up anything even a little bit.
It’s kind of like brain surgery. You don’t just cut the person’s head open, go in there and start pushing things around, cutting things off. There is a very strict protocol and you have to follow all their vital signs as you go here very selectively, very, very carefully. You see? But I get the feeling that some of these guys operate like a bull in a China shop. They think, ‘Oh, that proved that theory wrong. We proved the scientists wrong.’ They prove nothing wrong.
Unexplained 'typos' --
His very work has typographical errors throughout that have not been corrected.
Inaccurate Q0 values and Inflated Q/Q0 values --
In other words, using the wrong values.
Important Thorium Data are Missing --
The Wet Past of the Fenton Hills Rocks --
They try to show that it was a wet climate. They have no idea that it was a wet climate.
Possibility of Extraneous Helium --
They show how yes, helium does come out, but there are also methods by which it can go in.
Temperature Problems --
Pressure Problems --
When these minerals were extracted, these zircons that have the helium in them, was extracted from Fenton Hill, they were deep, very deep, which means they were under tremendous pressure. But then when they do their experimental work, Humphreys put them in a vacuum. Well what does a vacuum have in common with extreme pressure? You see? The scientists say you cannot work like that, where you just come up with this stuff off the cuff, and then think you’re going to get accurate results.
Dr. Humphreys’ Inconsistent Treatment of Samples 5 and 6 --
Here is where scientists went through his work point by point by point.
Using Improper Equations to Calculate Standard Deviations --
Inaccurate Claims about Lead Diffusion in Zircon --
Fudging the Graph --
Fudging the Graph from Magomedov 1970 is a paper that they quoted from.
Misrepresenting Arrhenius Plot --
Misrepresenting a certain plot from another man’s work. It just goes on and on and on.
Humphreys Violates the Scientific Method --
It goes all the way down to 84 problems that he has.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixd.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the things that Dr. Henke says is, "If you’re doing work of this consequence, then you need to publish it. You need to have peer review."
Does everyone know what a peer review is? In other words, when medical doctors come up with new theories about disease or this or whatever, they’ll publish an article in the American Journal of Medicine or the New England Journal of Medicine. Then other doctors and scientist will read it and study it. With all their expertise and the multitude of counselors there is safety.
Pro 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
That’s the Bible. These guys totally reject that scripture and the multitude of counselors. They don’t want anybody else as counselor except their own prejudice little group. So they claim they have peer review. You say, ‘well, who reviewed it?’ Well, it’s the other guys that agreed with me on everything. What the heck is that? It’s nonsense. All of this stuff is nonsense.
So, right there, Dr. Henke goes through eighty four problems with Humphreys’ helium in zircons. Yet this doctor said that’s one of the five best arguments in the world that this is a young Earth and a young creation. It’s nonsense. You’ve got to look at a broader perspective.
I’ll give you another scripture.
Pro 18:17 He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him.
The scripture says the first one that comes to you with a story sounds right, because he’s presenting everything from his point of view. It’s like the political debates and everything that is going on. It’s kind of interesting. Senator McCain will say something, and then you say wow. Maybe he’ll say something against Obama, let’s say, you’re like, ‘wow, he’s like that. I didn’t know he was that bad of a person. Oh yeah, he’s bad.’ The next day, Obama will come out with an answer to it and you say, ‘oh, well he didn’t say that.’ Well, of course not and it goes the other way too. Everybody fashions everything from their perspective, from their point of view, and so on.
But what I’m trying to show you here today is that I’ve got a plethora of people, I’ve got all kinds of people in all kinds of fields of study that have looked at this stuff. These people don’t have some atheistic, evolutionary axe to grind. Most of the people that I quoted today, who have given a rebuttal to some of these silly arguments, they’re all Christians. They’re not evolutionary atheists at all. So much for helium in zircons. It’s just nonsense.
DENDROCHRONOLOGY
Now here is the simple argument and what this doctor sent to my friend, who sent this email to me.
Email;
Still the most accurate dating technique, you just cannot find a dendrochronological sequence older than 20,000 years with the inherent problem of double tree and triple tree rings, this number is certainly is too large.
Excuse me? I don’t even know what the argument is. What is the argument? How does this prove that you can only go back 20,000 years using dendrochronology? You can’t go back 4.5 billion years, well duh, trees are organic, when they get old and die and they rot away. I mean they don’t stand around waiting to have their rings measured a billion years later, come on.
Now yes, some trees petrify, but that’s not the normal state. All the forests of the world did not turn into petrified forests one after the other through thousands and millions of years. That’s a very unusual thing, under certain very specific circumstances that you get a tree turned to rock.
Furthermore, it is not the most accurate known. It is pretty accurate. Ice cores are pretty accurate. Sediments in the bottoms of lakes and so on are very accurate. There are little lake sediments that settle out as thin a couple pieces of paper on an annual basis. They go back through thousands of years at the bottom of a lake bed.
They went on to say that bristlecone pine trees of California are the oldest known thing on the Earth, they live to be 5,000 years old. Well that’s not true either, actually the creosote bush lives longer. They have a creosote bush in one of the safe parks that’s 11,250 years old. Creosote bush has a big trunk, but it’s considered a bush I think, not a tree. It lived to be 11,000 years old.
But what they used then as a proof for a young Earth disproves it. Because if the flood was 2348B.C. and bristlecone pine trees live to be 5,000 years old and creosote bushes to be 11,000 years old, we wouldn’t know that they can live that long because there wouldn’t be any alive from that far back. See what I’m saying? The flood would’ve killed them. How in the world the teachers of a universal global flood can believe that salt water can be piled up for miles on top of farmland and forests and grass and peach trees, for a whole year. With currents, admittedly by all these young Earth scientists, up to 150 miles an hour, so violent that they tear up the entire strata of the Earth three miles deep. Yet somehow peach trees make it through that. It’s nonsense.
Dendrochronology doesn’t prove anything about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. Then we have this last one.
Sodium in the Ocean -- This has been studied since the time of Newton we have identified all the inlets and outlets of sodium. But even if the ocean was originally fresh water… The Earth could not be old…
Oh bull. They talk like they knew what they were talking about. I have numerous papers on this. This one says;
The Ocean Salt Argument
For A Young Earth
One argument still being used in many young Earth creationist publications and websites is the ocean salt argument.
http://67.199.69.61/origins/downloads/Origins_chap05_art12_salt.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, this has been disproven so often, so many times… yet it’s still around. This guy thinks it’s one of the five top. How many of these type arguments do young Earth people have? Hundreds. As they fall by the wayside, they come up with new ones. Most of them are just silly nonsense, just silly.
But then they come up with these helium in the zircons and helium in the atmosphere where you’ve got to get into all kinds of physics and quantum math and calculations and they lose the average layman. They don’t know what they’re talking about. They say, ‘if that’s what you’re saying, okay. If that’s what proves it, then it proves it.’ But in the multitude of counselors there is safety. They have no safety.
Those that come first with the story sound right. But what happens when the follow up comes? The proverb indicates that when the second storyteller comes along or maybe a third and a fourth, sometimes the first one doesn’t sound so right anymore.
But these people don’t publish in any quality, recognized science publication on Earth, none. Not one. Listen, these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of stupid young earth theories that these scientists come up with and write them up and then put them on Answers In Genesis and all these young Earth sites. People go, ‘oh wow, look at that.‘
Why don’t they take one of those articles, just one, not one hundred, just one, put all their great minds together, right it up as perfectly as they can and publish it in Geology Today or The Scientific American? Why don’t they? Because they are so badly written, the science is such pseudo fraudulent science to begin with, no reputable magazine or journal would ever take a second look at it. It’s nonsense to them. It’s childish foolishness. That’s why you never see this stuff published. It doesn’t qualify to go that far.
Now there are theories on different things that get published in these scientific journals that may or may not end up being a scientific law in the end. But there is enough information and proper scientific methodology behind the research that at least it’s worthy of publication. It’s worthy of other scientists saying let’s take a look at it. Maybe they reject it, maybe they accept part of it or maybe they say you’ve got something here but it needs further work.
Of all this stuff that they have and I’ve got beaucoup of stuff on this radio dating. So Gardner and all these guys came up with this thing where they’re going to disprove radio dating. What they were going to do is get samples of different minerals and different stratas and so on. Then send them to a bona fide laboratory which radio dates different minerals and find out if there is any truth to the whole system or whether it is bogus. Dr. Steven Austin was in charge of that, with about half a dozen other scientists from creation research. They got donations of I guess it was $5 million or something, because it was very expensive. Then they rigged the experiment. They rigged it!
Steven Austin had known that there were some problems with certain radio dating and so he went where they could not get consistent dates. He knew that. I’ve got it here somewhere, I could go through it, but I’m not going to take the time. So he got people, churches and laypeople to fund him for millions of dollars to get this work done. When I think in the back of his mind he already had the whole thing rigged. We have proof that he knew that certain methods did not work on certain minerals. Therefore, any reputable scientist just threw those out. In other words, we’re not concerned with things that don’t always work perfectly, but with things that do work. Not everything always works perfect and you’ve got to have the right instrument and the right system to check the right whatever it is that you’re checking.
I will give you a little analogy. Okay I have a little calendar. Let me make a point that everybody can see very simply, that you’ve got to use the right instrumentation, the right methodology for what it is that you are testing. Now we know for example that certain things… there are certain isotopes that have a half life of hours, like 48 hours. Some have it for years and some have a half life of like a billion years. In other words, whatever the element, what we call the parent product that we’re dealing with, like say uranium is the parent. That disintegrates down to what they call a daughter. So uranium will give off radiation and disintegrate into lead, that has a certain half life. They can do this on anything. They can determine anything that has radiation, what is the half life of that radiation. In other words, how long does it take until half of whatever is radiating is gone. Then whatever is left, it will disintegrate again at that same half time, whatever it is. With radio carbon dating it’s only about 1,500 years.
So in 1,500 years in any given piece of carbon, maybe a piece of firewood from an ancient Indian fireplace. In 1,500 years only half of the carbon 14 will still be in there. In another 1,500 years half of that half will only be in there. In another 1,500 years, half of that half will only be in there. So when you get up to about 40,000 or 50,000 years there is almost nothing left in there and you can’t date it much further. Although they now are getting to where they think they can radio carbon date (some things at least) up to maybe 80,000 or 90,000 years.
Now supposing we’re going to run the 100 yd dash. We want to time somebody, how long it is going take them to run the 100 yd dash. (Using the little calendar) It’s September. On your mark, get set, go. Stop. There. He started the run here (pointing to a date in September) and I figure he stopped about here (over a little on the date). You get it? Can you time a 100 yd dash on a calendar? No. Even a stopwatch isn’t good enough anymore. You’ve got to have a laser beam or something.
The 42-year-old swimmer, she lost a gold medal in China by 1/100th of a second and Phelps won a gold medal by 1/100th of a second. You don’t time that on a calendar.
So there is a problem with these people. They don’t know what they’re doing sometimes. Of course they come up with bogus dates and numbers and so on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version