Friday, March 26, 2021

Join the Young Earth Revolution!

John Joly (d. 1933, FRS) was an Irish physicist and Professor of Geology at the University of Dublin.  Some may say it's hypocritical for advocates of Deep Time, the beneficiaries of radiation treatments in medicine, to discard the skepticism of John Joly towards radiometric dating.[1]  Joly was a pioneer in both fields: radiation therapy and radiodating.  It would appear that many mainstream scientists are unwilling to rethink some dearly cherished ideas regarding the age of the earth.

 

How did Senator Rand Paul (KY) respond to the age-of-the-earth controversy?  In 2010 he said, “I forgot to say I was only taking easy questions. ... I’m gonna pass on the age of the Earth.  I think I’m just gonna have to pass on that one.”  If he has read my book Is a Young Earth Possible? since then, maybe he's changed his mind.

From CNN we read this enlightening prose:

 

At rocky sites across America, including Pikes Peak and the Grand Canyon, 550 million-year-old rock sits on top of rock that has existed as long as 3 billion years. But there's nothing in between. It's as though that time period between 3 billion years ago and 550 million years ago has literally been wiped from Earth.  It's called the Great Unconformity, and some researchers believe it's the result of one massive cataclysmic event in Earth's history.

 

This is exactly what we are proposing - most of the rock record was formed during one great catastrophe: a Singular Epoch of Rapid Geologic Activity (SERGA).  The Great Unconformity trumpeted the dawn of that ginormous disaster.  Thus, the traditional geologic timescale must be collapsed.

 

During this time of extreme net censorship ("why do those internets have to be so mean"), it's important to consider alternative search engines.  Both Yandex and Swiss Cows gives a fair hearing to Young Earth Theory Intelligence (YETI) when you search "young earth evidence."

 

You may have heard of the aluminum gear found in coal in Russia.[2]  Another amazing find is an iron face mask found in coal in the Appalachian region:

This seems to punch a hole in the evolutionary timeline.

 

Consider another conundrum - where did the missing 1.6B years of rock layers go in Black Canyon (CO)?

The Entrada Sandstone (mid to late Jurassic) lies flatly atop the Pre-Cambrian Painted Wall.  It appears that there is no great time gap between the deposits because there is no erosional surface with hills and gulleys.  Standard dating of the Entrada Sandstone says it's as young as 144M and the Painted Wall is supposedly 1.75B years old.  That's a difference of around 1.6B years!  What if that time never existed?  That would fit with the young earth view.

 

How can you show your support for Young Earth Science (YES)?  You could get a car wrap with a big YES:

Or ... you could get this super cool shirt and join the young earth cohort:


My site:
  TotalYouth.us

Let us know what you think:

DeepTimeSkeptic@protonmail.com

 

 

Notes:

1) Is a Young EarthPossible? by Jay Hall (Institute for Catastrophism and Tectonics - iCAT, Big Spring, TX, 2019), p. 329.

2) YES - YoungEarth Science by Jay Hall (IDEAS, Big Spring, TX, 2014), p. 164.


#Yandex #SwissCows #EntradaSandstone #PaintedWall #paraconformity #IronMaskInCoal #YoungEarth #censorship #JohnJoly #RandPaul #CNN  #Catastrophism


Monday, February 1, 2021

A Challenge to the Deep Time Paradigm

According to a paper on "Uncertainties in Age Dating" by C.S. Noble and J.J. Naughton published in Science, radiodating is not all that:

 

The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured.  Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent.  Caution is urged in applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor spreading. ...it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. [1]

 

If radiometric dating can't give us the correct answer for rocks of known age, why should we trust it for a stone allegedly billions of years old?

Way back in the 1970's, the New York Times was not afraid to oppose the Deep Time Syndicate:

 

A fundamental assumption of nuclear physics - the predictable decay rates of radioactive materials - has been opened to question on the basis of research reported here today at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society.  ... Dr. John L. Anderson, a Tennessee chemist, described experimental  observations with radioactive carbon14 that he said “just do not fit the accepted theory.” ... Dr. Willard F. Libby [who developed 14C dating], a Nobel Prizewinning chemist at the University of California at Los Angeles, said: “I must say I've racked my brain about what's going on in his data. It's a real bag of worms.” ... Dr. Anderson said that his observations indicated that the decay rates might not be as constant as  assumed.  Other forces, perhaps from adjacent atoms, could alter the process, he said.

 

One application of accelerated nuclear decay is aiding the safe and sure disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants.

 

From a more recent item in Geology in 1990, Ajoy Baksi (Geology Dept., Louisiana State Univ.) dropped the kraken on isotope dating: "Subjective and, in many instances, incorrect use of radiometric data has become endemic in the earth science literature.  Mathematical analysis of imperfect and, in many cases, highly subjective data sets leads to dubious conclusions." [2]

In contrast to the humility shown by Baksi, some researchers seem blinded by their own bias.  Think about this manifesto from the founder of the modern series of Scientific American, Gerard Piel (d. 2004):

 

A scientist has no system of absolutes to tell him whether he is right or wrong ... He can trust no authority but his own judgment. ... In biology, all of us are Darwinians; we perceive the unity of our species with all other living things and find a new reverence for life in the realization that we are the terminal point of its  evolution on our planet. ... All of us, in brief, are scientists.  With the overthrow of received  authority and the banishing of superstition, we are comprehending that it is man's destiny to make himself. [3]

 

First off, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of biologists who reject Darwinism.  The authority of Big Science tells us that the earth is old, but what if they are wrong?  An AP-GfK poll from 2014 found that 36% of Americans doubt Old Earth Fallacies (4.5B).  Are the transhumanists right?  Will humans develop into some more advanced being?  Who can fight the authority of Big Tek censorship? 

 

 

Notes:

1) "Deep Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas and Uncertainties in Age Dating" by C.S. Noble and J.J. Naughton, Science, vol. 162 (Oct. 11, 1968), p. 265.

2) quoted in Evolutionists Say the Oddest Things by Lita Cosner (Creation Book Pub., Powder Springs, GA, 2015), p. 93.

3) Science in the Cause of Man by Gerard Piel (Alfred Knopf, NYC, 1962), pp. 198-200/

#ScientificAmerican #DeepTime #YoungEarth #poll #survey #opinion #RadiometricDating #Geo #Geology #BigScience #BigTech #OldEarthFallacies  #Biology #Darwin #NewYorkTimes

Monday, December 14, 2020

Polling, Young Planets & the Decay of Radiometric Dating

During this political season have you received a call to answer some survey questions?  I have had one such call, but chose not to participate - it was Texas specific.  How does Young Earth Theory Intelligence (YETI) show up in public opinion polls?


First off, let's distinguish between various hot topics:

  How old is humanity?

  Is our home billions of years old?

  What is the age of the planet Venus?

During discussions on origins, these distinct questions may be blurred together.

We have a chapter in our book Is a Young Earth Possible? espousing a young Solar System.

 

Around the year 2000 about 47% of Americans of voting age held that humans started on this planet within the last 10K years.  That's almost half, for all my old pals in Rancho Cucamonga.  A survey in June of last year showed that 40% still held to the "young humanity" position.  I would argue the this is not only consistent with YETI but implies it.  The beginning of man and the origin of the world go together (cf. Mk. 10:6).

 

Here is my survey question that I would like to get national attention:

How old is the Earth?

A) 4,000 years

B) 6,000 years

C) 8,000 years

D) 10,000 years

E) more than 10,000 years.

 

A Harris poll found that 39% of Americans confirmed that the universe, the Earth, as well as all the plants, animals came into existence within the last 10K years.  The survey was conducted in 2009.  A superb article in the Tulsa World at least gave young-earthers' their say:

 

Rabbi Yehuda Weg, with the Chabad, an Orthodox Jewish community in Tulsa, said belief in a young Earth is widely held in the Orthodox Jewish world.Weg said Orthodox Jews believe the world is 5,775 years old [in 2015 AD] and that humans were created on the sixth day of the creation, according to the biblical record.  He said that date is not derived from adding up the years of the genealogies in Scripture but is consistent with those dates.  “It’s not like we figured out the date by adding up the genealogies. It’s the other way around. This is information we’ve (handed down) since the creation,” he said.

 

The article also highlighted the work of Jonathan Bartlett of Broken Arrow (OK), who defends a youthful world with geological evidence.  We recently took a trip to Broken Bow and picked up a "Vote for Squatch" shirt.

 

In contrast, the National Academies of Science (NAS) produced a work in 2008 which is extremely one-sided (Möbius anyone?).  Their book deals with origins, the age of the earth and related topics.  It highlights ten short comments from several scholars, social leaders, organizations and legal opinions.  Yet, not one response from the opposition to the mainstream view, biological essentialism (like begets like) and a young earth, is included.  The authors state that some, "have argued that science teachers should teach the 'controversies' surrounding evolution.   But there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred." [1]  Is that really true?  Charles Bleckmann, writing in BioScience, brings out some opposition to Darwin during the late 1920's:

 

Not all biologists accepted evolution. ... Barrington Moore [d. 1966], the first editor of Ecology and a past president of the Ecological Society of America ... said, “I have no use for evolution and do not see how any intelligent person can have.”  Moore, a founder of scientific forestry in the United States, is now honored by the Society of American Foresters with a research award named after him. [2] 

 

For more recent examples of scientists who are Darwin Doubters, I would highly recommend Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman.

 

The NAS report has a segment on radiometric dating, but it fails to bring out the fact that it was not until an endorsement by a key scientific committee in 1926 that gave radiodating its supreme status as "proof" of Deep Time.  Dating rocks via radioactive isotopes is not all that.  A paper from Science mag (AAAS) drops the Kraken on Rubidium-Strontium dating:

 

One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model [a method that avoids knowing the initial daughter product] is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years.  This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr in the literature. [3]

 

Research from the Geological Society of London exposes the radiodating skeptics: "Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that the isotopic age is not necessarily the geologic age of a rock has led to an over-skeptical attitude by some field geologists." [4]


Are there other methods of dating our wonderful world?  One technique is to look at various metals in the oceans:

 

The startling conclusion . . . is that most trace metals are at extremely low concentrations in the oceans and have rather unspectacular variations in their concentrations.  The calculated theoretical concentrations of copper, nickel, silver, gold, lead and other metals in the oceans are many orders of magnitude higher than the best currently measured values.  Why are the oceans so depleted of these trace metals?  Certainly it is not for the lack of availability from rock weathering ... [5]

 

The answer to the age-of-the-earth controversy is simple: stop the censorship and support free speech.  Our two most recent books provide evidence from history and science that favors Young Earth Theory Intelligence (YETI) and truly drops the Kraken on Deep Time:

          Is a Young Earth Possible?

          https://www.amazon.com/dp/1088860788

          YES - Young Earth Science

https://www.amazon.com/YES-WorldView-Fallacies-Collapse-Darwinism/dp/0692320075

 

Our website: https://totalyouth.us/

 

 

Notes:

1) Science, Evolution, and Creationism ed. by Francisco Ayala et al (National Academies Press, Wash. DC, 2008), p. xiii.

https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/1

2) "Evolution and Creationism in Science: 1880–2000" by Charles Bleckmann,  BioScience, Vol. 56, Issue 2, Feb. 2006, Pages 151–158,

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/56/2/151/274042

3) "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role in Young Continental Volcanism" by C. Brooks, David James and S.R. Hart, Science, vol. 193 (September 17, 1976), pp. 1086-1094, p. 1093.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6047264_Ancient_Lithosphere_Its_Role_in_Young_Continental_Volcanism

4) "Interpretation of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" by P.E. Brown and J.A. Miller, in Kent et al., "Time and Place in Orogeny," Geological Society of London Special Pub., vol. 3, (1969), p. 137.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238424166_Interpretation_of_isotopic_ages_in_orogenic_belts

5) "The Fate of Metals in the Oceans" by Karl Turekian, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, vol. 41 (August 1977), pp. 1139-1144, p. 1139.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703777901090?via%3Dihub

 

#DropTheKraken #TrueTruth #Geology #Origins #Worldview #YoungEarth #Polls #Surveys #Opinion #Science

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Is it Illegal to Push Critical Deep Time Theory?

Given our current environment of extreme net censorship and severe lockdown restrictions putting liberty itself on the edge, will the next victim be Young Earth Theory Intelligence (YETI)?  If you search "scientific and historical evidence for a young earth thousands of years" on Yandex you may get a Quora item as the fifth result as I did:


My answer is the 2nd in the Quora list:


So, as of now, it is possible to find the true truth on the web, but what about standard academic journals?  Taylor & Francis publishes more than 2,700 journals and 5K plus new books each year.  They publish a journal about proteins:


Last year they published a paper on "Proteomes of the past: the pursuit of proteins in paleontology" which had this to say:

 

Despite an extensive published literature [85 examples are documented],  skepticism over the claim of original biochemicals including proteins preserved in the fossil record persists and the issue remains controversial.  Workers using many different techniques including mass spectrometry, X-ray, electron microscopy and optical spectroscopic techniques, have attempted to verify proteinaceous or other biochemicals that appear endogenous to fossils found throughout the geologic column.

 

Let me provide some focus - proteins break down relatively fast, so we should not find them in fossils that are allegedly M's of years old.  Proteins have been found in a 150M year old Seismosaurus from the Morrison formation (New Mexico).[1]  Writing in Nature online, Ed Yong states that, “Theoretical predictions and lab experiments suggest that proteins cannot survive for more than a few million years.”[2]

 

We have written two books defending a youthful world via science and history:

  Is a Young EarthPossible?

  YES - Young EarthScience.

 

My website:  https://totalyouth.us/

Let us know what you think:  YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com

 

 

Notes:

1) YES - Young Earth Science by Jay Hall (IDEAS, Big Spring, TX, 2014), p. 18.

2) quoted in Ibid., p. 19.

Thursday, August 27, 2020

500 year old Grandpas, Bats from Rats & Net Censorship (1984 stylee mon)

In our latest book Is a Young Earth Possible?, which defends a youthful world from history and science, we looked at the Sumerian King List.  This details the reigns of several kings, which if we convert them from sexagesimal to decimal we obtain a sum of around 7,000 years.  This makes the reigns of some kings around 800 years - is that reasonable?  In a June article from the Wall Street Journal, Adam Kirsch makes this fantastic revelation:           

 

It sounds bitterly ironic now, in the midst of a global pandemic, but not long ago some of the most forward-looking people in the world believed that humanity was close to abolishing death. “If you ask me today, is it possible to live to be 500? The answer is yes,” said Bill Maris, the founder of Google Ventures, in 2015. Three years later, biomedical researcher Aubrey de Grey estimated that “people in middle age now have a fair chance” of never dying.

 

How does this relate to a young earth?  If man's early history only goes back a few thousand years, maybe humanity is young and the earth is as well.

 

"Why Bats Are One of Evolution’s Greatest Puzzles" appeared in the Smithsonian mag earlier this year.  Bats are the only flying mammals (sorry Rocky) and allegedly filled the skies for tens of millions of years.  In 2008, the bat Onychonycteris finneryi was found and dated at 52M.  We read this from the article: 

 

The 50-million-year-old bat specimens are already recognizable as bats, so where did they come from? When, where, why and how the first bats become airborne is another mystery buried by Deep Time.

 

Now there is much evidence challenging Deep Time and Molecules-to-Madonna transformation.  How should the academic elites respond?  With open dialog, discussion and debate?  No ... let's go with censorship (1984 anyone?).  A piece in March from BioEssays written by Dave Speijer, advocates just that: 

 

My favorite Thomas Paine quote: “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself,” eloquently explains why I am not a great fan of taking down websites.  Only the most egregious ones .. should be treated thus.  ...search engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content ...

 

Speijer quotes Thomas Paine, the American Patriot who wrote Common Sense,  and then flatly contradicts him.  The First Amendment enforces real Free Speech and Ben Franklin was no book burner.  Speijer should read Unfreedom of the Press which gives the nitty-gritty on self-censorship, America's journalistic heritage, group-think, bias by omission, propaganda and pseudo-events.  Free Speech anyone?

Friday, July 10, 2020

Darwin, Deep Time fallacies and Young Earth Theory Intelligence (#YETI)

Is Deep Time a thing?  Did this planet come about thousands of years ago or millions and billions of years ago?  Gerald "Jerry" Wasserburg (d. 2016) was the John D. MacArthur Professor of Geology and Geophysics at CalTech.  He received the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society and published work in the fields of Geophysics, Astronomy, Geology, Astrophysics and Chemistry.  One of his academic advisors was Harold Urey of the famous Origin-Of-Life (#OOL) experiment.  Dr. Wasserburg said, "There are no bad chronometers, only bad interpretations of them!" [1]

In some cases we don't just have bad chronometers, the radiometric methods don't give us an answer at all!  From the field guide for the geology near Townsville, Queensland, Australia we learn,

Concerning the basement volcanic rocks in the area, the guidebook says, "Their exact age remains uncertain."  About Frederick Peak, a rhyolite ring dyke in the area, it says, "Their age of emplacement is not certain."  And for Castle Hill, a prominent feature in the city of Townsville, the guidebook says, "The age of the granite is unconfirmed."

In the sixth edition of Origin of Species, Darwin himself acknowledged a relatively young earth (#YETI anyone?):

Sir W. Thompson [Lord Kelvin] concludes that the consolidation of the crust can hardly have occurred less than 20 or more than 400 million years ago, but probably not less than 98 or more than 200 million years.  These very wide limits show how doubtful the data are ... It is, however, probable, as Sir William Thompson insists, that the world at a very early period was subjected to more rapid and violent changes in its physical conditions than those now occurring; and such changes would have tended to induce changes at a corresponding rate in the organisms which then existed.

Isn't that convenient, if our world is truly young, just speed up evolution!  I have a novel idea, since the scientific and historical evidence overwhelmingly favor a young planet, how about dropping Darwinism completely?  I present the documentation for a young planet in my latest book Is a Young WorldPossible?  The tide is turning, Young Earth Science Intelligence (YETI) is gaining ground. 

The site for the famous Evolution series that was broadcast on PBS about twenty years ago says this: "Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees.  Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago."  Now if our planet is just 20M by Kelvin's reasoned guess, the time since the ape-man progenitor emerged takes up about one third of earth history!  Even 98M is nowhere near the time that Darwin's speculations require.

John Joly, Chair of Geology and Mineralogy at Trinity College – Dublin, pioneered radiation therapy as well as radiometric dating.  Due to inconsistent results he eventually came to reject finding the age of rocks via radiodating.[2]  He gave a date for the age of our planet of about 90M years based on the amount of salt in the ocean.[3]  Joly even argued that radioactive decay had proceeded faster in the past than at present.[4]

Please consider giving a copy of Is a Young Earth Possible? to your friends and family and coworkers (birthdays, Christmas etc.).  The age-of-the-earth controversy relates to a number of key issues in the public square such as climate change, homeschooling, government funding of science, bullying, depression, fake news, net censorship and free speech.  View our newly updated website here.   


Notes:
1) quoted in Evolutionists Say the Oddest Things by Lita Cosner (Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, GA, 2015), p. 91.
2) Is a Young EarthPossible? by Jay Hall (Institute for Catastrophism and Tectonics - iCAT, Big Spring, TX, 2019), p. 329.
3) YES - YoungEarth Science by Jay Hall (IDEAS, Big Spring, TX, 2014), p. 17.
4) Ibid., p. 59.

#DeepTime #Wasserburg #Evolution #Darwin #Geology #History #SixthEdition #JohnJoly #Urey #OOL #Aussie #FreeSpeech #ApeMan #Radiometric #LordKelvin #YETI #Salt #IDK #Homeschool

Friday, May 8, 2020

What is Biological Essentialism?


If you search "biological essentialism" you will run into gender issues which is not the main topic for this video.  Former co-anchor of ABC's 2020, John Stossel, did a cool video on "The Science: Male Brain vs Female Brain."

The larger academic and historical meaning of "biological essentialism" is that manatees make more manatees and that acorns give us oak trees and not pines.  Here's our latest video.  Some key terms to keep in mind:
  
  •    biological essentialism
  •    species
  •    fixity of species
  •    natural kinds
  •    Aristotle's biology
  •    typology
  •    stasis


Chapter nine of my latest book, Is a Young Earth Possible?, deals with biological essentialism.  Aristotle's Biology is highlighted on an episode of In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (BBC).  You can see the great pics of living fossils from Harun Yahya here.  If a fern has stayed the same for 300M, maybe it has always been a fern and was never derived from more primitive forms.  Gregor Mendel, the Father of Genetics, who died in 1884, actually denied evolution.

Colin Patterson was a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and the editor of  its journal.  He was at the Museum 1962 until 1993.  Although retired at the age of sixty, he continued to work daily in the Museum until his sudden death in 1998.  Patterson asks in his last book Evolution (see Steven Propp review):

Are we justified… in making the leap from small-scale changes like selection in peppered moths… to large-scale results such as the existence of elephants and oak trees?  Some evolutionists … have felt that the original appearance of birds, or land vertebrates… requires innovations that cannot be satisfactorily explained by gradual, small-scale changes.  So they have supposed that major innovations arise at one step, by large-scale… macromutations… The main reason for inventing these macromutations is that some features of plants and animals can hardly be imagined as arising in gradual steps… intermediate steps seem to be useless, or even harmful… What use are feathers unless then are ‘proper’ feathers?  What use is a lung that is half-developed, and cannot give you enough oxygen?  How can the segmentation of an … earthworm or a centipede arise bit by bit?  An animal is either segmented or it is not…

Ask a three-year-old if there are prime numbers with more than 100 digits.  To prove the point, all I need to do is give one example.  It's as easy as 1-2-3!
Likewise, for Essential Types of Life (ETL's), humans and horses (zebras, donkeys, 3-toed ...) are two examples.  Laura Franklin-Hall (Philo Prof @ NYU) said,

... these differ [variations on essentialism] on whether there are thought to be multiple, possibly cross-cutting, types of natural kinds of a particular sort, such as multiple varieties of biological species - e.g., genealogical and morphological.  Another choice-point for the realist concerns the thesis of essentialism, the view that members of a natural kind share a real essence - perhaps a locus of de re modality.  As I understand things, essentialism is not a requirement of realism itself, but rather reflects a particular way of spelling out the realist vision.

In Tom Wolfe's last book, The Kingdom of Speech, he rejected evolution.  Wolfe wrote The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968), The New Journalism (1973), The Right Stuff (1979) and From Bauhaus to Our House (1981) among many other works.  Dogmatic Darwinists cannot explain the origin of human language and abstract thought.

As we end this investigation into "bio-ess" let's deal with these probing questions: 
Are all the animals in the zoo in the same cage?
Do whales bury their dead?
What if Darwin was wrong?
Could biological essentialism truly represent the actual biological realm?

my website >>  TotalYouth.us
contact:  YoungEarthScience@yahoo.com
#biology #essentialism #species #fixity #NaturalKinds #Aristotle #typology #stasis