i.Nearly all of the essential requirements for performing absolute dating calculations are unknown.
I.The original parent-to-daughter isotopes remain unknown.
II.Isotopic migration due to reheating events causes the amount of parent-to-daughter isotopes produced by decay to be unknowable.
III.Decay rates for long half-life isotopes are not necessarily constant and exponential but may vary as a result of…
b.the surrounding chemical environment,
d.how far we are from the start of the decay system,
f.or simply as a general phenomenon.
ii.Consequently, the essentials needed in order to perform absolute dating (ratios and decay rates) are simply not available, which renders absolute (radiometric) dating unreliable and impossible.
I.(For an illustration of the missing factors that must be assumed in order to radiometrically calculate age see Dating Procedures Figure 8.)
iii.Impact of non-constant decay rates on constructing the evolutionary timetable.
I.The discoveries in non-constant, non-exponential decay are fairly recent, ranging from 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002.
II.This means that all of the radiometric dating used to calibrate the relative evolutionary timescale throughout the twentieth century was performed without taking into account that decay rates might be non-constant and non-exponential for long-lived half lives.
III.Consequently, the support that absolute dating brought to the relative geologic timescale are shown to be premature and based upon inaccurate and unreliable assumptions.
Ultimately, the evolutionary timescale is without any empirical support.
From start to finish it is merely the product of speculation, assumption, and philosophical preference.
There remains no empirical evidence negating the creationist history of the earth 6 to 10 thousand years ago, a history that is demonstrated by physical geologic data and the historic record.
NNNNN.At this point, we have completed both our expanded commentary on creation and evolution theories and our focus on the critical evidence.
OOOOO.Below is a summary of the facts that have been established throughout this study.
i.First, our definitions for both creation and evolution theories were accurate.
I.Specifically, evolutionary theory is, by definition, the denial of any need for foresight and teleology and the assertion to the contrary that automatic, routine process that occur without foresight are capable of producing the universe we observe today, life, and all species on earth.
II.The position and status of evolutionary theory on all of these defining issues was established from the words of evolutionists themselves.
a.From such quotes we even established that when key events require extremely improbable coincidences, the result is evidence for orchestration by foresight, or teleology.
III.Indeed we found such extremely improbable coincidences admitted by evolutionists at every defining point in their theory.
a.At every defining point where evolutionary theory asserted the sufficiency of automatic, routine processes and denied the need for foresight, both on experimental and observational level as well as on the merely theoretical level, evolutionary theory ran into coincidences so highly improbable that their mere coinciding occurrence necessitated foresight.
b.We saw these improbability obstacles admitted on the defining issues of…
i.the formation of the structure of the universe,
ii.the environment in which life originated, and the origin of the cell.
c.We even saw evolutionists acknowledging that the earth’s history and historic environment were so incompatible for the origin of life that many evolutionists relocate life’s origin to the un-falsifiable and unscientific location of another planet.
IV.On the defining issue of the origin of species, evolution also lacks a working theory.
a.Speciation, or variety, among an existing type of organism doesn’t prove evolution and is agreed to wholeheartedly by creationists, as is natural selection.
b.However, natural selection doesn’t contribute to the origin of new species, since it reduces diversity and genetic variety rather than increasing them.
i.Beneficial mutation is the only mechanism that is even theoretically capable of producing new structures, organs, traits, and ultimately new types of organisms.
c.Beneficial mutations themselves require such a highly improbable series of coincidences that even their occurrence would necessitate foresight.
d.In addition, evolution also lacks a working theory in the sense that it cannot resolve whether new types of organisms emerge gradually or in punctuated bursts.
i.Ultimately, this issue itself results from another insurmountable problem, which is also admitted openly by evolutionists: the fact that the fossil record only records non-evolving, static kinds of organisms.
e.Furthermore, by its very nature, the fossils record cannot provide any evidence of the inability to interbreed, which is the defining mark of speciation.
i.This too, we saw admitted openly by evolutionists along with the admission that speciation is a process that by its nature cannot ever be directly observed at all.
f.Consequently, evolution remains without evidence and without even a working theory for the origin of new types of organisms.
ii.Second, concerning the age of the universe and the earth, we found that evolution also lacks any actual empirical evidence in its favor.
I.As we saw from mainstream scientific publications and even evolutionary scientists, starlight and redshift demonstrate that the Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of the universe (from which it expaned).
II.When the universe was less expanded, the gravity well located at the center of mass would have warped time slowing it down so that billions of years passed outside the gravity well while only days passed on earth.
a.As a result, starlight indeed has enough time to reach the earth while only six days would pass on earth rather than billions of years of history.
III.Consequently, starlight and redshift provided no evidence for the billions of years of time asserted and needed by evolutionary theory.
iii.Third, as we examined the geologic data pertaining to the age of the earth, we also found that there was no empirical evidence supporting an age of millions or billions of years for the earth.
I.We saw that uniformitarianism was the key principle to evolutionary geologic dating methods.
II.And we saw that uniformitarianism was not only self-contradictory, but it was contradicted by the geologic evidence itself.
III.We even saw that catastrophes, the alternative to uniformitarianism, were acknowledged by secular and evolutionary sources.
IV.We also saw that the evidence for the specific catastrophe of a global flood was irrefutable.
1.The geologic evidence includes the fossil record itself.
a.Since fossils must be buried quickly, the rock layers they are buried in must also have been laid down quickly, not slowly or gradually over millions of years.
b.Moreover, all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water.
2.Together these 2 facts demonstrate that the fossil record is the result of a quick depositing of sediments all over the earth by water from a global flood.
iii.In addition, the location of fossils also provides evidence for the global flood.
1.Marine fossils are located far inland and on mountain tops
2.Tropical fossils are located in arctic regions.
iv.Furthermore, the preservation of soft tissue, such as the tissue and last meals of frozen mammoths, demonstrates that the creation of these out-of-place tropical fossils was accompanied by a rapid climate shift, rather than a slow, gradual change.
b.And ultimately, we saw how even if uniformitarianists, evolutionists, or even atheists reject the possibility of a Creator, none of these worldviews have any principles, grounds, or evidence on which to reject the evidence for a global flood.
i.Thus, the global flood stands as an irrefutable reality of earth history.
iv.Fourth, we considered the various dating methods used by evolutionists to support an age of billions of years for the earth and found that all such methods to be bankrupt. None of them worked.
I.Relative dating, which is based upon the layering of rocks and the fossils in those layers, is admitted to be utterly incapable of providing actual ages or durations of time but can only indicate the order of burial.
II.Radiometric dating methods also did not work.
a.To calculate ages, radiometric dating requires certain factors to be known.
b.But, as we saw in detail, those required factors are not known.
c.Instead, idealized numeric values are assumed based on relative dating assumptions of evolutionary theory and adjusted as needed to produce ages.
d.In addition, we have also seen how the volcanic activity involved in a global flood further renders these critical factors beyond determination.
III.Concerning carbon-14 we found that…
a.the earth’s carbon-14 level is currently still below its saturation point, a point which it should have reached a long time ago if the carbon cycle had been occurring for billions of years.
i.Thus, carbon-14 itself indicates that the earth is young, so young that it has not yet reached the saturation point for carbon-14.
b.when the evidence for a global flood is taken into account, carbon-14 dating simply does not produce any ages that are not reconcilable with creationism’s age of the earth.
c.carbon-14 dating erroneously assumes that the carbon to carbon-14 ratio must always have been what it is today even though this ratio is known to significantly differ over time and location due to a number of factors.
v.Lastly concerning dating methods, we saw how none of the non-radiometric absolute dating methods worked either.
II.Most importantly, every single dating method, including relative dating and radiometric dating in general, were based entirely upon circular reasoning with one another and with circular reasoning in which evolutionary theory itself is assumed.
III.Not a single dating method worked without the others being assumed first and without evolution being assumed first, including radiometric dating.
vi.Finally, as we saw in quote after quote, the problems in all of these areas still remain unresolved.
I.The nature of many of these problems is such that they are simply unsolvable.
PPPPP.After studying the definitions of creation and evolution theory and examining how the evidence relates to those definitions we must conclude that…
i.In the end there was no working explanation and no evidence supporting evolutionary theory for…