Paper against Darwinism. Peer-reviewed.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

one of the significant issues that evolutionists face with Jeasons research is that it supports the biblical locations and timelines for the spread of humanity across the globe. That is as problematic for the evolutionary community as was the discovery of the background radiation

Creationists are forever announcing imagined crises in evolutionary science that only other creationists consider a problem. The scientific community is in consensus on the central tenets of biological evolution, which evidence is presently unassailable. The theory is correct. Is there even a single non-creationist who claims that the tree of life didn't evolve naturalistically from a single last universal common ancestral population through the application of natural selection to naturalistic genetic variation? There is no debate. The creationist community has no standing in the argument and isn't even heard by the scientists much less answered since they stopped showing that allegedly irreducibly complex biological systems were not that.

But creationists shouldn't feel picked on by these scientists. They don't care what any lay person thinks, even those who accept the theory and happen to agree with them. They don't need that validation.

This supported the biblical account...and remains one of its strongest pieces of evidence for a Creator God who spoke everything into existence from a point of singularity.

No it doesn't and no it isn't. The biblical account of creation is myth. It is the free expression of the imagination untethered to evidence. Nobody sees evidence of a creator god anywhere in nature except the faithful, that is, one must have already chosen to believe in a creator god to see evidence of one. In critical analysis, the evaluation of evidence precedes making claims about it, and there is no evidence better understood supernaturalistically than naturalistically - not living cells and not the lives or words of prophets or messengers.

throw into the bucket the huge miscalculations of radiometric dating on the rock samples from known volcanic events such as Mt St Hellens, the problems with the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, and a number of other significant issues, and the theory is on very shakey ground.

Not in the scientific community it's not. The theory is on such firm grounding that the odds of falsifying it are vanishingly small now, and were the theory actually toppled, what would replace it would still not be the creationism of the Christian Bible, but rather, would confirm the existence of a deceptive intelligent designer who had arranged all of that evidence into morphologically and chronologically evolving fossil forms arranged in strata and nested hierarchies into the morphology, genetics, and biochemistry of the species. Who did that, Jesus? Yahweh? Are they deceivers? If not, they're already ruled out even if the theory is upended.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem with Evolution is that it starts its story quite late in the overall path of life. It starts at replicators. Once there was replicators, there is a reasonable mechanism for continuing change. However, evolution does not extrapolate well to the origin of its own arbitrary origin. This more distant origin is considered a separate area of science called Abiogenesis; detached from Evolution. Evolution is more like a cataloging method based on its own chosen origin. It is more of a catalog tool than a cradle to grave theory.

Natural selection, in the case of Abiogenesis, would be a type of natural chemical selection process at the nanoscale. Atoms and Chemicals have specific ways of reacting with some products selected most often. These will accumulate, pushing chemical reaction further in their own favor. How does this impact evolution? This original chemical selection processes should continue to operate, even at the replicators and beyond. This is where evolution separates from real science into a fancy catalog with an oracle.

In Genesis, the story of humans starts with Adam and Eve, and then evolve from there. They have their own choice for a human origin. The Bible also has its own evolutionary genealogy map of key humans after Adam and Eve; selected by God/nature, showing how humans evolve from their given chosen starting point; near the beginning of civilization.

Evolution will start humans several million years earlier; ape man, but it cannot go back to its own origins, before the replicators when there was only water and gases. It need fossils for the catalog since the theory is not exactly your normal theory; predictive value.

Both Evolution and Creation, if we stick to just humans, each have have arbitrary starting points, after which they both have catalogs of data. Common sense and the time scale difference tells me that the origin of humans in Creation is about the origins of the modern human mind; will and choice and mind over matter. This would have been needed for civilization to form, more than longer arms or less hair.

Evolution's starting point for humans is more about the physical and superficial characteristics of humanoids, walks upright, than about the neural operating system of the human brain. Very little has changed in humans via physical evolution, since Adam and Eve. All the major change has been in associated with civilization, which is about evolving knowledge; mind and brain.

Evolution also has a problem of not being useful for predicting the future. This years fashion catalog may look pretty, but it does not tell use much about what will be selected next year. It is more about cataloging the past; recycled ideas mixed with the new, than having predictive value for the future.

If we stick to the example of humans, maybe we can compare what Evolution and Creation each say about the future of humans, to see which has better predictive value. The starting point of humans in Creation, is more about the human mind; civilization, with most of the advances, from that time, about human living conditions, not about any major changes in biology. From the time we started to farm, to the modern farms, change has been more about neural information building for forward sophistication.

The Creationists looked less into humans growing a third arm of losing the baby finger and more in terms of the evolution in the operating system of the human brain. War, which is often center stage in human history, is about technology, strategy, organization and the willful overcoming of fear, with each generation building on the previous. Evolution did not predict this exponential change in behavior. Creation predicted a flaw in human nature; bug in the operating system, that would flaw human nature, leading to changes away from natural. Today very few humans have natural human instinct. Evolution was subverted from natural to a different path, as Creation predicted.

 

[Valjean]

The problem with Evolution is that it starts its story quite late in the overall path of life. It starts at replicators. Once there was replicators, there is a reasonable mechanism for continuing change. However, evolution does not extrapolate well to the origin of its own arbitrary origin. This more distant origin is considered a separate area of science called Abiogenesis; detached from Evolution. Evolution is more like a cataloging method based on its own chosen origin. It is more of a catalog tool than a cradle to grave theory.

How is this a problem? They're different disciplines, studying different phenomena. One's chemistry, the other studies the mechanisms of speciation. Scientific disciplines have subsets and specialties.

Natural selection, in the case of Abiogenesis, would be a type of natural chemical selection process at the nanoscale. Atoms and Chemicals have specific ways of reacting with some products selected most often. These will accumulate, pushing chemical reaction further in their own favor. How does this impact evolution? This original chemical selection processes should continue to operate, even at the replicators and beyond. This is where evolution separates from real science into a fancy catalog with an oracle.

This creates the organisms whose change evolution works with.
Who's claiming the original chemical mechanisms aren't still functioning? New life might be developing all the time. It's unlikely that a basic, crudely metabolizing, replicating organism would be able to compete with the finely tuned, competitive biocommunity it would find itself in. It would quickly be overwhelmed.

In Genesis, the story of humans starts with Adam and Eve, and then evolve from there. They have their own choice for a human origin. The Bible also has its own evolutionary genealogy map of key humans after Adam and Eve; selected by God/nature, showing how humans evolve from their given chosen starting point; near the beginning of civilization.

Genesis is a magical myth, with creatures popping into existence fully formed, fully adapted, fully socialized. It makes no more sense than any other creation myth.

Evolution will start humans several million years earlier; ape man, but it cannot go back to its own origins, before the replicators when there was only water and gases. It need fossils for the catalog since the theory is not exactly your normal theory; predictive value.

Earlier than what? I'm not sure what you're saying, here.
Are you aware of how fossils evidence evolution? Do you think the ToE rests entirely on fossil evidence? Do you find flaws in any of the mechanisms proposed?

Both Evolution and Creation, if we stick to just humans, each have have arbitrary starting points, after which they both have catalogs of data. Common sense and the time scale difference tells me that the origin of humans in Creation is about the origins of the modern human mind; will and choice and mind over matter. This would have been needed for civilization to form, more than longer arms or less hair.

Again, not following. Are you reïterating the old brains first controversy?
Bipedal apes were walking around for millions of years before anyone thought to settle into permanent dwellings. It doesn't take intelligence to survive and thrive, as all of nature attests. Human civilization is only a few thousand years old and, at this point, appears to be a dysfunctional, catastrophic development.

Evolution's starting point for humans is more about the physical and superficial characteristics of humanoids, walks upright, than about the neural operating system of the human brain. Very little has changed in humans via physical evolution, since Adam and Eve. All the major change has been in associated with civilization, which is about evolving knowledge; mind and brain.

Sorry, you're starting your argument with a mythical presupposition and trying to fit the modern world into this. Adam and Eve is an unsupported and fantastical premise, that doesn't fit any observable evidence, from any discipline.

Evolution also has a problem of not being useful for predicting the future. This years fashion catalog may look pretty, but it does not tell use much about what will be selected next year. It is more about cataloging the past; recycled ideas mixed with the new, than having predictive value for the future.

Medicine, chemical engineering and agriculture would collapse without evolution. It's used in industry and agriculture every day. It can be observed and worked with.
Have you had your flu and covid jabs lately, eaten any food?

If we stick to the example of humans, maybe we can compare what Evolution and Creation each say about the future of humans, to see which has better predictive value. The starting point of humans in Creation, is more about the human mind; civilization, with most of the advances, from that time, about human living conditions, not about any major changes in biology. From the time we started to farm, to the modern farms, change has been more about neural information building for forward sophistication.

The starting point for humans is an arbitrary point on a spectrum of gradual change. We are one species out of thousands of primates that evolved over tens of millions of years.
The 'intelligent' human mind is a new thing. Primates were doing fine before any apes came along, and the apes were doing fine before one, particular ape, became sophisticated.

The Creationists looked less into humans growing a third arm of losing the baby finger and more in terms of the evolution in the operating system of the human brain. War, which is often center stage in human history, is about technology, strategy, organization and the willful overcoming of fear, with each generation building on the previous. Evolution did not predict this exponential change in behavior. Creation predicted a flaw in human nature; bug in the operating system, that would flaw human nature, leading to changes away from natural. Today very few humans have natural human instinct. Evolution was subverted from natural to a different path, as Creation predicted.

Creation didn't happen, it predicts nothing and proposes no actual mechanisms for anything.
Human aggression and tribal conflict are explainable scientifically. Take some psychology, sociology or anthropology courses.

 

[Jose Fly]

oh I would be careful with that blanket statement...in fact it is now being shown by authors such as Behee, Myer, Jeanson, Kurt Wise and many others within the YEC scientific community that the opposite is increasingly being found to be true (particularly the research by the first 3 in the above list).

LOL...there's so much wrong in that sentence alone.

Behe isn't a young-earth creationist, and actually agrees with universal common ancestry, including human/primate common ancestry. As he noted in his book The Edge of Evolution, he just believes a god stepped in now and then to facilitate the process.

Meyer has no degrees or experience in genetics.

And Kurt Wise (a paleontoogist, not a geneticist) is widely thought of as "the honest creationist" because he freely acknowledges there is very good evidence for common descent, but he cannot accept it specifically because of how he reads the Bible.

"Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series,the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc., the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."

Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms​

 

[wellwisher]

Again, not following. Are you reïterating the old brains first controversy?
Bipedal apes were walking around for millions of years before anyone thought to settle into permanent dwellings. It doesn't take intelligence to survive and thrive, as all of nature attests. Human civilization is only a few thousand years old and, at this point, appears to be a dysfunctional, catastrophic development.

Civilization and the advancement of civilization is not based on natural selection. Therefore, this chapter of life is not exactly based on Darwin's theory of evolution. Humans, along the line of evolution and natural selection acquired will and choice, and can now choose to be unnatural, even ignoring natural selection.

Social Darwinism, for example, is discouraged, since what humans do, is not always natural and their selections are not always natural selections. This is apple and oranges. Creation better addresses the changes connected to civilization. The change is less genetic based and more based on the brain, knowledge, and learning.

The change was less biological and more about a change in the human brain's operating system, starting about 6000 years ago. A new path of change appears; tree of knowledge of good and evil, with humans shaping the natural world with unnatural things, hunting animals to extinction.

The theory of natural selection and evolution no longer fully applied to humans when they started to alter the earth due to will and choice. Evolution does not predict or accommodate this change away from natural selection. Evolution is more like a theory for the natural past and present, but it falls short in terms of what Creationism attempts to explore; the impact of human consciousness apart from natural man.

When Adam is made from the dust of the earth, the originalists went to great lengths to avoid connecting Adam to biology; sexual reproduction. People 6000 years ago knew about sexual reproduction; herders, farmers and breeders. Adam does not follow that natural bio-path, because he signified something new; made from dust. Eve from Adam's rib is an example of cloning using stem cells in rib bone marrow. This is almost possible today, and is also a product of the human mind and will; science. Stem cells and clones are not part of natural selection. This is a human innovation. Altering sex assigned at birth, now in vogue, is not natural to humans, but is made possible by the mind of science.

I am not a literalist when it comes to the themes in Genesis. Rather I look at it as being about the earliest modern humans, who start to develop civilization, losing touch with their natural instincts, and then losing touch with natural selection. They try to explain their new world, with Genesis possibility the first published article. Written language was invented in this very time scale. Adam becomes enlightened in the dust, as he wrote on stone tablets; mind expanding.

For some reason Atheism does not wish to see a symbolic or consciousness connection, but prefers to assume literal biology, instead of figurative and symbolic associations connected to the mind. The latter is how it these symbols connects to the brain; new form of human consciousness.

If you look at the story, there were two trees on paradise; tree of life and the tree knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life is connected to nature, natural selection and evolution. The other or the forbidden tree is more connected to human knowledge of right and wrong; law, which is often self serving and subjective. This is what makes knowledge of good and evil, unnatural. Nature could not be so integrated on such subjective standards. Adam and Eve chose the detour and advanced humans began to detach from evolution and natural selection. We now evolve based on science and technology. As the Bible story goes, once humans departed paradise and nature, the tree of life was taken away. Evolution and natural selection is bottlenecked.

Nature for example, does not put as much resources into caring for its sick, as do humans. The sick become food for the predators, who also need to evolve. This natural choice is why animals get stronger over time; select for fitness. Humans do the opposite, and will care for the sick, hoping science and the dignity of life; in the head, can make up the difference.

Human selection, today in the West, often involves money, which is not how nature does it. How would Evolution explain how Elan Musk, by being one of the richest people on earth, gives him natural selective advantages? Money does not give him natural selective advantages, however, he can compensate by using his money to buy the best science to compensate; best drugs.

I like Creation because it dares to address the change in human nature away from natural selection and evolution, starting about 6000 years ago. This type of research is not as easy to do, as biological change, which often leave residues in fossils. The former has to deal with old operating systems that may have used retro coding; symbols. Luckily. these are preserved in the world's great religions; IT of the evolving human mind.

 

[HonestJoe]

The problem with Evolution is that it starts its story quite late in the overall path of life.

That isn't a problem, it's just a fact. It only becomes a problem if you're trying to present Creationism as an alternative to evolutionary theories, which it isn't. Abiogenesis isn't a requirement for evolution. Pretty much any manner in which life initially came to exist could be consistent with evolutionary processes subsequently taking effect, even creation of life by some divine being.

Theories about how matter changes state from gas, liquid and solid don't require any specific source for the matter and energy involved, theories about gravity don't require any specific source for the masses involved and theories about imperfections in human logical reasoning don't require any specific origin of the modern human brain.

In Genesis, the story of humans starts with Adam and Eve, and then evolve from there.

Again, Creationism and evolution aren't opposites, and the Biblical stories aren't even the be-all and end-all of Creationism. It specifically also has many more of it's own problems, not least also having a "late starting point" (with no explanation of where God came from), Adam, Eve and their one surviving son somehow leading to an entire species (which is moot given the flood story killing all but one small family off anyway) and the implied idea that there can be "micro-evolution" but no "macro-evolution" despite there being literally zero fundamental different between the two concepts beyond scale.

The whole idea of a fundamental conflict between evolutionary theories and Creationism (or Biblical Creationism specifically) is false division, manufactured by various people to attack ideas or beliefs that happen to conflict with whatever they want to believe. They don't belong in the same conversation and it is always a bad sign when they end up in one.

 

[gnostic]

Civilization and the advancement of civilization is not based on natural selection.

Of course it isn’t, and no one even remotely suggest they were.

Civilization is purely man-made construct.

A civilization can not be passed down genetically to your children and descendants; civilizattion cannot be encoded in anyone's DNA.

The theory of Evolution is purely biology.

And you forgetting that Evolution aren’t just about humans, it is also about all other life forms on Earth, from microorganisms like those of Bacteria & Archaea, to multicellular organisms of Animalia, Plantae and Fungi.

Evolution isn’t about the history of human civilizations or human cultures.

To think that biologists are talking about civilizations and Natural Selection, is simply strawman argument.

 

[gnostic]

When Adam is made from the dust of the earth, the originalists went to great lengths to avoid connecting Adam to biology; sexual reproduction. People 6000 years ago knew about sexual reproduction; herders, farmers and breeders. Adam does not follow that natural bio-path, because he signified something new; made from dust. Eve from Adam's rib is an example of cloning using stem cells in rib bone marrow. This is almost possible today, and is also a product of the human mind and will; science. Stem cells and clones are not part of natural selection. This is a human innovation. Altering sex assigned at birth, now in vogue, is not natural to humans, but is made possible by the mind of science.

Humans cannot be magically from the dust of the ground, which I would assume they are talking about soils.

The most basic molecules of these soils, are silicates, whether the soil types are -

• clay - origin: mica minerals, more specifically mica are type of silicates, known as phyllosilicate
• silt - origin: feldspar or quartz minerals
• sand - origin: quartz minerals

They are derived from weathering of rocks, broken down by wind, rain, flow of water, glaciers, etc, then these settled as sediment deposits.

Soils only have organic materials introduced, organisms died and decomposed, or when animals leave wastes behind (eg feces, urine, shedding of skin or scales, etc).

No inorganic silicates exist in the human body. To claim or to suggest that humans are made from soils are simply ludicrous.

Plus. To believe that human male - fully grown - can be transformed from some types of soil, is to believe in magic.

Magic isn’t real and it isn’t natural.

From early human history, humans have always being reproduced as most mammals have always done, fertilization of egg & sperm, cell division, formation of fetus, then birth.

Humans were never created from any soil type, those are just myths, created by people who have no understanding of soil or biology.

And you don’t understand what cloning is.

Cloning is making a copy of the source. So if you believe that Eve was created like cloning, then you have no idea what cloning is.

Because if you did understand cloning, then what would be created in Genesis, would be another “man”.

So if you could clone a man, then the clone should be another man, not a woman. In cloning, you are not changing the sex of the cloned person.

 

[Astrophile]

oh I would be careful with that blanket statement...in fact it is now being shown by authors such as Behee, Myer, Jeanson, Kurt Wise and many others within the YEC scientific community that the opposite is increasingly being found to be true (particularly the research by the first 3 in the above list). Jeansons human genome research is highlighting some massive issues for evolutionary theories...his evidence shows that the interpretations fed to the world in the past on this topic is fundamentally at odds with the very science presented to us previously. one of the significant issues that evolutionists face with Jeasons research is that it supports the biblical locations and timelines for the spread of humanity across the globe.

Michael Behe's surname is spelt with two e's, not three. Stephen Meyer's surname is spelt with two e's, not one. Nathaniel Jeanson 'serves as a research biologist, author and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institution for Creation Research' - Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson .

 

[Yerda]

To add, this article talks about some of the developments I'm referencing for those who are interested: The study of evolution is fracturing – and that may be a good thing. I find it very exciting!

I've read a few bits and bobs about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and I think it's fascinating.

Bringing epigenetics, niche construction and horizontal gene transfer into evolutionary biology sounds long overdue to my layman ears.

 

[SkepticThinker]

oh I would be careful with that blanket statement...in fact it is now being shown by authors such as Behee, Myer, Jeanson, Kurt Wise and many others within the YEC scientific community that the opposite is increasingly being found to be true (particularly the research by the first 3 in the above list). Jeansons human genome research is highlighting some massive issues for evolutionary theories...his evidence shows that the interpretations fed to the world in the past on this topic is fundamentally at odds with the very science presented to us previously. one of the significant issues that evolutionists face with Jeasons research is that it supports the biblical locations and timelines for the spread of humanity across the globe. That is as problematic for the evolutionary community as was the discovery of the background radiation by Wilson and Penzias on 20th May 1964. This supported the biblical account...and remains one of its strongest pieces of evidence for a Creator God who spoke everything into existence from a point of singularity.

throw into the bucket the huge miscalculations of radiometric dating on the rock samples from known volcanic events such as Mt St Hellens, the problems with the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, and a number of other significant issues, and the theory is on very shakey ground. That is the real reason why I suspect the term "Darwinian" has faded from view in the scientific community!

Oh dear, so many PRATTs ...

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[GardenLady]

Nathaniel Jeanson 'serves as a research biologist, author and speaker with Answers in Genesis and formerly conducted research with the Institution for Creation Research' -

The idea that there is an actual "research biologist" with organizations that have requirements of a priori acceptance of biblical literalism is laughable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that there is an actual "research biologist" with organizations that have requirements of a priori acceptance of biblical literalism is laughable.

The creationist organizations want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to insist that their beliefs are scientific while having a requirement that their "scientists" have to not follow the scientific method.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please read and comment:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | New Scientist

read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong." Not so shiny in Darwinian world today?

Wonderful example of quote mining.
And you even managed to do it with just the title.
I don't think I've ever seen someone edit out words from just the title of an article to engage in that dishonest tactic.

So I guess you deserve one of these at least:

Also: magazines =/= journals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not so shiny in Darwinian world today?

read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong."

Just FYI, in case you managed to miss it: the title has more words in it then just those two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

oh I would be careful with that blanket statement...in fact it is now being shown by authors such as Behee, Myer, Jeanson, Kurt Wise and many others within the YEC scientific community that the opposite is increasingly being found to be true (particularly the research by the first 3 in the above list).

What research?
Where are their results published?

Jeansons human genome research is highlighting some massive issues for evolutionary theories...his evidence shows that the interpretations fed to the world in the past on this topic is fundamentally at odds with the very science presented to us previously. one of the significant issues that evolutionists face with Jeasons research is that it supports the biblical locations and timelines for the spread of humanity across the globe. That is as problematic for the evolutionary community as was the discovery of the background radiation by Wilson and Penzias on 20th May 1964. This supported the biblical account...and remains one of its strongest pieces of evidence for a Creator God who spoke everything into existence from a point of singularity.

throw into the bucket the huge miscalculations of radiometric dating on the rock samples from known volcanic events such as Mt St Hellens, the problems with the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record, and a number of other significant issues, and the theory is on very shakey ground. That is the real reason why I suspect the term "Darwinian" has faded from view in the scientific community!

You should stop getting your intel on science from christian apologists, most of whom are exposed liars and have had that status for a really long time already.

Why people still listen to these cdesign proponentsists is a mystery to me

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

then lets talk facts shall we...

Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.

In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old.

Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens (from Austin1).
Sample Age / millions of years
1 Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05
2 Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3 Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4 Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5 Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6

Radio-Dating in Rubble

Might i also add, Mt St Hellens Volcano is not the only test site where these kinds of wrong results have been found...there are other Volcanoes around the world which erupted at very precisely known dates that have also been tested producing the same kinds of dating errors.

Now one can crow all they like, the fact is, attempting to date anything using methods that have zero means of actually proving that the variables surrounding the samples have remained stable and or predictable over millions of years is nothing short of a lie. Also, might i add at this point, does anyone ever question the problem surrounding the big bang...any answer to the question "where did the energy and matter come from that was the big bang? How did it start...did someone poke it?

when millions of years in inserted into the orgin of the big bang issue, where the known answer even from Stephen Hawking was, we dont know...im think the naives ones here are not the creationists!

Irrespective of whether or not the radioactive decay rate is accurate, here are at least three problems:
1. no one has been alive long enough and or conclusively documented what the historical ratios of the parent isotopes actually were even 6,000 let alone 4.54 billion years ago

2. when looking at the hour glass analogy, one must assume that the quantity of daughter isotopes is actually what the predetermined assumption claims. This is in itself a massive massive problem, as has been shown by the errant results in dating of a number of relatively recent volcanic eruptions

3. We know that it doess not take much variation in environmental conditions to change the assumptions and therefore resultant calculations by a huge margin.
​

Radiometric dating is only reliable when it is done correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What research?
Where are their results published?

I have just come up with a new argument when such people are mentioned. I call it "The Bus Driver Argument":

My friend Jimmy is a bus driver. He has a CDL and everything.

Cool, which bus company does he work for?

Oh, he doesn't work for any bus company. They are all corrupt. Right now he is washing dishes at a Denny's.

Is Jimmy's friend a bus driver?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please read and comment:
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | New Scientist

read the name of Journal. It is respected journal. The best journal.
Read the title: "Darwin wrong." Not so shiny in Darwinian world today?

Is this another case of yours where you saw a title, but did not bother to observe the content before posting? And quote mining it too. Kudos on following the established creationist debating paradigms.

The full title, as I am sure that those following this thread are already aware, is "Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life". Not just the sweeping claim of "Darwin wrong".

Do you expect, with the knowledge that we have accumulated since, that a scientist that carried out his work 150 years ago would have gotten everything perfectly correct or had the information to do so?

Darwin is widely recognized and highly regarded within science for his contributions to our knowledge, but it is creationists that have canonized him and elevated him to sainthood so that they can attack a dead person while science has moved on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Titles are only to grab the attention.

I misread that initially.