'Deep Time' and 'Evolution' allegedly 'falsified' by 'Rigorous' Empirical Research

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
1

Hi All,

I have very little spare time available at present, but am aware that many participants here are under the misconception that both ‘Deep Time’ and ‘Evolution’ are established fact, when in reality belief in both of these predominantly secular concepts is contradicted by REAL evidence.

This REAL evidence is described in an interview with Dr Don Batten in this informative video titled:

Another 5 Failed Predictions of Evolution

at: https://creation.com/en/podcasts/another-5-failed-predictions-of-evolution

I will try and get back to this when I can, i.e., when I get some spare time…

God Bless,

Your brother in Jesus Christ our Creator, Lord and Saviour,

jon

1 Like
2

No rush. Please take all the time you need and more. This will be a waste anyways, with you spamming lots of links to CMI, and little to any substantial research.

Do you have anything specific you want to discuss that does not involve watching some general YEC propaganda video?

4 Likes
3

I took a peek at the Rock Folding Prediction and I had to laugh. He said if solid rock was bent under extreme pressure, which it can do, it would turn into a different kind of rock. His example being sandstone turning to quartzite. Which will happen under pressure and extreme temperatures. Doesn’t mention what happens if the rock is just subjected to pressure. Which can be determined by a study of the rock. I believe this is what Dr. Snelling was trying to find in his study of the Grand Canyon folded rocks which failed.

BTW, I wouldn’t consider this a YEC “lie”, just a failure to tell the complete story.

Needless to say the rest of the video is probably more of the same.

2 Likes
4

I. Given the quote from 1848 that I have repeated at least 4 times here, several of those sentences seem doubtful.

II. Given the track record of creation dot com, it is probably safe for me to assume that the quality of whatever the content here is is somewhere between very bad and worse than useless, without wasting the time to watch this particular instance of it.

2 Likes
5

Some participants are under the misconception that the idea of “deep time” came from science.

2 Likes
6

Dear Bill,

thanks for your comments, I wholeheartedly disagree with your dismissal of this strong evidence that both ‘Deep Time’ and ‘Evolution’ are imaginary.

The rocks don’t present false information, and it is not Dr Don Batten who is not providing all the facts here.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the enormous quantities of massively bent sedimentary rock strata occurred when the rock was fully hardened and rock solid?

Anyone with even a modecom of knowledge about sedimentary strata or even without it, using only common sense, can clearly see from what has been made, what the TRUTH is here.

The photo below tells the story far better than I can:

Hard and brittle sediment gives way to brittle deformation, that is clearly not evident in enormous quantities of folded rocks all over the Earth, thus obviously, they were folded whilst still soft sediment. Consistent with the huge tectonic forces that would have occurred during the reshaping of the planet during the year long Global Flood of Noah’s day.

image
image701×389 137 KB

I am a bit surprised that your comments do not address the glaring conundrum for deep time and hence also evolution that is the relatively consistent levels of 14C found in ALL coal deposits on Earth, when the coal is supposedly from 10 million years old up to around 300 million years old. Yet 14C is really only detectable up to about 50,000 to 60,000 years, but to be generous lets say 100,000 years.

But 14C is consistently always present at roughly the same concentration!

The fact that the 14C concentration is fairly consistent with the timeframe of deposition of mainly plant material at the time of the Global Flood of Noah’s day should give pause to some to reassess.

Again common sense eliminates the possibility of contamination in ALL samples of coal analysed to this day as having a fairly consistent level of 14C. The OBVIOUS conclusion for me at least as a Holy Bible believing Christian, is that the vegetation was laid down during the Global Flood of Noah’s day, and has turned into coal over the past four and a half thousand years, which is more than enough time for the buried vegetation to transform into coal.

Here in Australia, most of the coal seams that I have seen in the Upper Hunter valley, consist mainly of smashed Pine tree trunks and branches, but once the coal is mined, it is broken down to small pieces, the tree trunk appearance of the anthracite is completely obliterated.

Furthermore the ratio of 13C to 12C in samples shows that contamination can be ruled out, as an explanation for the presence of 14C in the coal samples tested.

Thus the14C still present and detectable in the coal samples is very sound solid evidence that the plants that were catastrophically buried to become coal recently, i.e., within the past 50,000 years at most, and because of several important relevant factors, vastly less than that period of time.

Conclusion, the dates provided by rigorous empirical measurement in reputable analytical laboratories all over the world, consistently come up with dates around 30,000 to 50,000 years at most, that’s consistent with all the coal being formed by the same geological process.

The age dates for ALL coal that are derived from 14C analysis doesn’t take into account the dilution effect of the Global Flood on the atmospheric14C to 12C ratio, nor does it take into account the apparent 14C level in the atmosphere that may have had 15 times the 14C in the atmosphere that we have now. When those two factors are taken into account, the age is more in line with the Holy Bibles genealogical timeframe of the Global Flood occurring around about four and a half thousand years ago.

God Bless,

jon

1 Like
7

Tectonic forces acting on freshly laid down sediment would be smushed together and mixed like ingredients in a mixing bowl, and none of that layering would be present. What is obvious by your comments on that picture is that geologists know what they are talking about, and you do not.

There is no detected intrinsic 14C in coal whatsoever. From my posts on the topic at Peaceful Science

Radiocarbon in Coal?

I would maintain the laboratory contamination, or more broadly, overall laboratory and instrument limitations, could in itself plausibly account for end results indicating 14C. For the moment, however, I am going put that aside to focus on in situ and sample collection contamination.

To recap the central theme, the standard narrative is that coal formed from deposits of biomass back in deep time, and therefore any 14C that was originally present should have decayed away long ago. It may seem reasonable to assume that coal, once sequestered underground, would be isolated from the outside world, but it is increasingly clear that is unlikely, as I posted here.

In light of this, let us consider the procurement of coal samples referenced in the Baumgardner study.

The coals in this bank are intended to be representative of the economically important coalfields of the United States. The original samples were collected in 180 kg quantities from recently exposed areas of active mines, where they were placed in 115 liter steel drums with high-density gaskets and purged with argon. As soon as feasible after collection, these large samples were processed to obtain representative 300 g samples with 0.85 mm particle size (20 mesh). These smaller 300 g samples were sealed under argon in foil multi-laminate bags and have since been kept in refrigerated storage at 3°C

Nothing in that statement is false, but let us take a deeper look as to the purpose of the DOE sample database. First, the above management procedure including foil bags was developed because there was found to be unacceptable deterioration under the previous regimen. While they were satisfied with the new sample preservation:

Foil laminate bags purged with argon gas and stored under refrigeration were shown to perform well in preserving the properties of the coal samples.

…performing well does not mean perfect, as the DOE testing itself demonstrates. The level of preservation, however, is good enough for purpose, so job done. And the purpose is:

to ensure the availability of well characterized, high-quality coal samples for public and private coal research.

The public and private research anticipated is characterized by the tests the DOE itself runs - ASTM procedures, proximate analysis, gieseler plastometry, and sulfur forms. What these have in common is that they are industry specific tests for concerns particular to the usage of coal. All coal, whether metallurgical or thermal, is mined to be burned to CO2 and dumped to the atmosphere we breathe. Customers are concerned with the efficiency of combustion which can vary widely with water content, amount of ash they have to contend with, keeping within sulfur pollution allowances, and these tests, sample benchmarks and preservation, revolve around those sorts of issues. Notably absent from industry concerns are implications of AMS carbon dating for Noah’s Flood.

Now if you are going to embark on this ill conceived quest to find 14C in coal, you have to obtain samples from somewhere, and the DOE bank is as good a place as any, but that demonstrates just how difficult, really, the task of preventing contamination is. While long term storage in purged argon filled bags is great for industry tests, the collection and sampling does not preclude contamination for trace amounts of 14C.

Collection was undertaken from active sections of mines in order to obtain fresh, recently exposed coal.

Note the term exposed. How exposed is seen from the following various collection reports:

It was collected from a surface mine on … in multiple cuts from an automatic sampler on an overland conveyor belt system. — It was later determined that the coal was somewhat oxidized prior to collection. — The coal had been exposed less than two days; block samples were also collected. — The coal had been exposed approximately 20 hours prior to collection of the sample. — The coal had been exposed less than two days prior to collection.

To get an idea of what a day or two of exposure in a coal mine might entail, just take a look at pictures of miners after a shift. Black lung disease has been a historic bane. Bioslime coats timbers and shaft walls, and contributes to dangerous methane build. Dust is everywhere. These factors are better controlled in modern mines, but that is comparative. Contamination of at least trace amounts of 14C is probably inevitable in these conditions. Then afterwards, when the sample drums arrive for processing, the coal is crushed down to mesh size, allowing for another full on exposure to 14C.

But even prior to exposure at the mine, it is far from likely that the only carbon present is from original plant material. Coal is not isolated from water ground flow which supports a rich biome. Sample DECS-1 contained 30% water, DECS-11 Beulah 33%, DECS-15 Lower Sunnyside 3%, DECS-25 Pust 35%, all samples had water content ranging from 2% to upper 30%. While it could be argued that water is trapped, typical hydrology suggests that aquifers are part of a cycle in contact with the surface.

Given the hydrology of coal deposits, and the handling of samples, the results of 14C analysis, in my mind, actually lend support to the antiquity of coal. If the original carbon content of the material which turned to coal is radiocarbon dead, trace amounts of contamination both prior and subsequent to mining exposure would be expected and would be consistent with old but finite carbon dates. In view of all this, I find the conclusions of the Baumgardner study unjustified, to say the least.

Reference DOE Technical Reports MAINTENANCE OF THE COAL SAMPLE BANK AND DATABASE and ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A COAL SAMPLE BANK AND DATA BASE.

3 Likes
8

Dear Ron

I must admit that I am really finding it difficult to understand how you can make such a grandiose categorical statement about an event that clearly occurred in ancient times, and still believe you maintain credibility.

How in the world do you think you actually know what occurred when the sedimentary layers were folded? Were you there? Obviously not. Yet you seem to believe that by looking at folded sedimentary strata, in the present, you can categorically rule out that still plastic sediments could not possibly be folded but in your own words “would be smushed together and mixed like ingredients in a mixing bowl, and none of that layering would be present.”

A quite striking comment by John that he concluded from the radiocarbon results from one of the worlds leading AMS Laboratories in the J.R.Baumgardner paper you referenced is:

A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all
but the very youngest fossil material in the geological record was buried
contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been
a major global cataclysm.

As for 14C in ALL coal on Earth that has remarkably similar ratios of 12C to 13C, that is not adequately addressed, it is abundantly clear that because this inconvenient REALITY contradicts the ‘deep time’ worldview it appears you hold to, you must refute the OBVIOUS reality that it’s likely that ALL coal on Earth is recent, and exists as a direct product of the catastrophic reshaping of the Earth’s surface during the Global Flood of Noah’s day, that according to the Holy Bible that is accurate and true, was around about four and a half thousand years ago.

God Bless,

jon

9

You were not there either, but did not hesitate to categorically state waterlogged layers being folded while maintaining their integrity as obvious. You are the one presenting that you know better than actual geologists despite having no competence in the field, and I am the one with delusions of grandeur? I am not at war with geology; so as far as credibility is concerned, look to yourself.

and I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy for a good price.

What are you on about here? 12C and 13C are stable, and variation in isotope ratios reflect preferential uptake equalibriums primarily reflecting both long term periods of stabilty, and changes, in climate. This is entirely consistent with geological time, and incompatible with YEC.

4 Likes
10

I havent yet looked at other responses above, however, i suspect this thread will raise the ire of a few individuals here :wink:

For me the most important fundamental mentioned in the podcast is the Biblical one. Irrespective of what anyone says to the contrary, a Christian must take the bible narrative as written beause it is Gods revelation to us.

The 4th commandment Exodus 20:8-11 is easily understood and there is no confusion in the way this text is written:

“remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy…**11 **For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

In addition to the 4th commandment:

When it comes to the lineage/family tree timelines found in the Bible, these are far too comprehensive for one to attempt to claim that the early ones are symbolic but the later ones are literal. That just isnt consistent and is full of holes in my opinion (and im not alone there).

There is a very interesting video about the biblical timeline that i have come across which is fascinating on this subject. Rather than ruin this thread with that sidebar, i shall start a new thread about it.

11

you are talking about Metamorphism, i think it a bit ridiculous to try to just state “what if its only subjected to pressure”

Consequences of deep burial:

  • Metamorphism:

    The combination of high pressure and the increasing heat with depth transforms existing rocks (igneous, sedimentary, or even other metamorphic rocks) into metamorphic rocks without melting them

  • Chemical and physical changes:

    The minerals within these rocks are chemically altered, and new textures and structures form due to the intense pressure.

  • Formation of metamorphic rocks:

    Rocks like slate, schist, and marble are formed in these high-pressure, high-temperature environments found deep within the Earth’s crust or near tectonic plate boundaries.

12

I think it’s worth reiterating here what I said in my last reply to @Burrawang on a different thread.

What we need to emphasise here is that we are setting boundaries. As I have said many times before, science has rules and honesty has rules—rules that apply both to the “operational sciences” and “historical sciences” alike.

This being the case, there are certain standards that we should expect EVERY claim about science to meet. It is only right and fair that claims that fail to meet these standards will be rejected. Anything less would also be granting a free pass to astrology, homeopathy, water divining, reading tea leaves, crystal healing, feng shui and claims by tobacco companies that smoking is good for you.

One of these standards is a commitment to accurate and honest measurement, as the Holy Bible itself demands. Accurate and honest measurement means that you MUST fully and correctly allow for all possible sources of error before drawing any conclusions from the data.

This means that claims about radiocarbon in ancient samples MUST make allowance for the possibility of contamination. They must recognise that while steps can be taken to reduce contamination, it can never be totally eliminated. They must acknowledge the existing studies that have been done to measure and quantify likely levels of contamination through different possible vectors.

These are basic, elementary rules that apply to everyone, Christians and atheists alike. They apply whether the Earth is six thousand years old or 4.5 billion years old. They apply to everyone no matter what your worldview is. They apply whether you view Genesis 1-11 as literal history or as myth.

When young earthists reject contamination as an explanation for the radiocarbon found in ancient samples, or dismiss it as a “rescuing device,” they are insisting that the basic rules and principles of accurate and honest measurement do not apply to them. I’m sorry, but they do.

5 Likes
13

Actually Ron, that is false.

There are a number of examples where Carbon 14 has been detected in Coal samples, however, the uniformitarian scientific claim is that it must have come from contamination and the reason given as to why it must be contaminated is “because its millions of years old”!

It was that same line of thinking that claimed that fossils could not contain soft tissue because they are millions of years old, so it must be from contamination! (which turned out to be false).

image
image1821×767 403 KB

14

No, Adam. The reason why it is said to be contamination is that allowing for sources of error such as contamination is a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement in every scientific study, both “operational” and “historical.” It’s simply how measurement works, period. Uniformitarianism and millions of years have nothing to do with it.

3 Likes
15

The reference states quite clearly why it must be contaminated…because the general thinking is it is millions of years old! There is no way around that…you can try to explain it away all you like but that same method is rife throughout the uniformatarian model…they do it will dating, they do it with artistic impressions.

We have clear evidence (indeed proof) and i have already cited a famous example that is irrefutable, uniformitarians making blanket unscientific claims based on “it must be contaminated because its millions of years old…

image
image1790×506 206 KB

Those idiots are still reeling from the stupidity of the above!

The real difference here is that gradually the supremacy of uniformitarianism is being eroded away, the Bible historical account is finding an ever increasing evidence and support…which is a good thing. Ark Encounter did not exist when i was young, however, it now attracts more than 1 million visitors each year and the online ministry far more than that.

image
image1799×596 145 KB

image
image1812×561 184 KB

Basically the above means that every 10 years, more than 1 billion people around the world are influenced by Answers In Genesis Ministry. With the income that number draws in, it truly is becoming a global giant in YEC ministry.

As the ministry grows, so will its scientific impact. The more scientists AIG employs, the better its results will be and the weight of its discoveries will only increase. The uniformitarian movement should be very worried, they will loose ground to this ministry…they already have lost ground to it!

16

Dear Ron,

I think that I need to say this at the start, as from the small amount of experience I have here on these forums, I know it’s vitally important we all keep our eyes firmly fixed on Jesus, as He and our relationship with Him is all that really matters. The Holy Bible is faithful, trustworthy and true and MUST ALWAYS take precedence over our feeble attempts to understand the creation.

In response to your reply post. The clear and concise radiometric lab results provide powerful evidence that ALL coal samples tested around the world, have approximately the same levels of 14C per sample. That is, the many thousands of samples tested in highly regarded analytical laboratories all around the globe ALL find roughly the same concentrations of 14C in the samples.

Yes, it is difficult to ensure samples aren’t being contaminated between field extraction and placement in an inert gas sealed container, away from oxygen and contemporary Carbon compounds, and also during sample preparation, but it can be done, and is done, and allowance is made for such contamination, and is done so, rigorously and honestly in strict accord with prescribed protocols and standard laboratory sample handling rules, all designed to minimise potential errors in the 14C measurement in each sample.

So that I can grasp why you have said what you have, are you saying the approximately similar concentrations of 14C in all the many thousands of samples tested is due to contamination?

And are you saying that it is just a coincidence that there are very similar concentrations of 14C in the many thousands of samples of coal analysed worldwide?

The Holy Bible is certainly not a science textbook, nor does it ever claim to be, but it is an accurate record of history, such as the Big events of the supernatural ‘Creation’ out of nothing, and the very first instance of death in the creation as a direct result of Adam’s disobedience to God at the fall. The wages of sin is death.
When Adam first sinned, at that point in time, Adams physical body commenced the process that would end in his physical death, and finally of course, the account of the catastrophic ‘Global Flood”.

We can all ALWAYS Trust the Holy Bible, The Holy Spirit, and well reasoned Faith, to guide us into all truth. The Holy Bible says what it means and means what it says. The truth of the Holy Bible does not need cleverly devised dogma to explain away inconvenient empirical facts or to
fit scientism or deep time or evolution into it.

The key principle is always TRUST the Holy Bible FIRST and FOREMOST.
When we do, it is wonderfully faith building to see as new discoveries are made, that the evidence fits ever so closely with the historical account of events faithfully described in Scripture.

The Gospel Salvation message is front and centre in all our Christian lives.
That I know, is the most important message here.

We should boldly expose the mass deception and grave error that ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’ represent, as they are presently being forced upon millions of adults and children worldwide as established scientific fact. A bold claim that is not at all justified.

When I was a child, it was not like it is now, evolution was looked upon as a theory right alongside supernatural creation by God as clearly described in Genesis, but today more than ever this deceptive philosophy is being reinforced over and over again, in books, on television, at museums, at National Parks on signs and unashamedly taught as fact in schools, colleges and universities, to unsuspecting students who trust their professors.

Unfortunately and very sadly, some churches too, have compromised with the secular atheist philosophical dogma and false teaching of ‘deep time’ and ‘evolution’ that’s all couched within a deep time evolutionary worldview belief system making it virtually or perhaps even completely unfalsifiable.

We all need to keep our hearts and minds unwavering and firmly fixed on Jesus.

“28 And now, little children, abide in Him; that, when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at his coming. 29 If ye know that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” 1 John 2:28-29

God Bless,

jon

17

Dear Ron,
and that would therefore mean that they would be putting their trust in ‘forensic’ science above their trust in the ever so clearly written Creation and Global Flood historical accounts written succinctly in the Holy Scriptures.

God Bless,
jon

18

Would you say more about that? Because while I recall reading that the idea of deep (or even infinite) time may have been floated as far back as some ancient Greek thinkers, didn’t it have to wait for some of the 17th century geologists to begin noticing that the then-somewhat-presumed flood narrative (and the mere few thousands of years involved) couldn’t account for what they were seeing?

And they weren’t probably thinking of an infinite universe. But they were among the advance guard of what is now recognized as modern science.

1 Like
19

There has not been thousands of coal samples dated, as coal is considered carbon dead, and those presented by YEC report varying results generally beyond the range of validity.

Did you read the link? Baumgardner did not go near any coal mines. The coal samples used were obtained from the Department of Energy, and in their technical report they themselves explicitly describe their procedure and the samples were well exposed between extraction and archiving. Besides that, coal is porous and is penetrated by surface water and microbial activity prior to mining.

As well, you are wrong that it is possible to eliminate trace contamination during sample preparation.

CONTAMINATION ON AMS SAMPLE TARGETS BY MODERN CARBON IS INEVITABLE

This is a good example of how YEC has to concoct patch upon patch without any supporting data to come up with a story to fit the data to their timeline, and then they turn around and call their fabrication evidence. We know they are wrong, because the atmospheric concentrations for the past 12,000 years are obtainable from several sources, most notably tree rings. Science is consistent - there was no disruption 4,500 years ago.

Then believe what you want and quit waging war on science.

4 Likes
20

Yes, but when it is done, rigorously and honestly in strict accord with prescribed protocols and standard laboratory sampling handling rules, the reported levels are no greater than those allowances.

Yes, but the Holy Bible demands honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. That must take precedence over adhering to any particular doctrine. Sacrificing or watering down factual accuracy, rigour or honest measurement in order to make evidence support doctrines that it quite clearly contradicts is not giving the Holy Bible precedence over anything; it is lying.

This means, among other things, that you must not claim that our attempts to understand the creation are more feeble than they actually are. You must not claim that our attempts to understand the creation are not capable of figuring out things (such as the age of the Earth, for example) when in actual fact they are. You must not claim that they make assumptions that they do not, and you must not claim that the assumptions that they do make are not testable when in fact they are.

3 Likes