Modernist Error is WORSE than Imagined

When someone does not fundamentally understand the insufficiency of a theory going “origin”, what level of delusion have they embraced? And having swallowed whole that delusion, what else could they have mistaken?

There are vast incongruities in the Charles Lyell[1] lawyerly version of “geology” that really don’t make sense. And there are geologists who believe in the Bible and have shown these errors with respect to Noah’s world-wide deluge far better than can be presented here. But in passing, let us consider the discovery of soft dinosaur tissue all over the planet, the one near or in the center of the Cosmos.

Dinosaur bones are often found where they do not belong. Large sea Dinosaurs are found in the Sahara where there is no other evidence of oceans, and in Europe every single large land dinosaur bone is encrusted in OCEAN sediment! In a recent sample, a horn was discovered in the muck in Hell’s Creek Montana, not totally encrusted in rock, yet one could find the soft tissue and even cells when sawing into it. And now of late, a dinosaur has been found in Canada with a substantial amount of skin left on it!

Chemically, that shouldn’t happen if the bone was millions of years old, or even tens of thousands of years old. Organic chemicals have half-lives. The idea that these things are 66 million years old is now completely ludicrous on the face of it. Things decay. Dinosaur soft tissue was found not stored in pristine conditions, or in a nitrogen freezer, nor were they preserved like Lenin[2] by gangs of scientists. It is remarkable that DNA/RNA fragments and soft tissue in general was found in these samples after 6000 years, the idea of 66 million years stretches credulity beyond limits. However, the “science” of academics is answerable to no one.

First, in radiometric dating, a sample is taken and one dates the sample using an assumed initial radiometric concentration and a very well known, near exactly known, radioactive decay constant. The assumptions that go into dating include the concentration of parent isotopes, the state of the sample found, the concentration of daughter products, and these are often traced back to volcanic magma chambers no one has ever visited, and assumed for ancient volcanoes and speculation on chemistry. With mass spectroscopy, a near exact concentration of parent and daughter product isotopes can be measured. But not those of the past directly, nor does one reckon the distinct possibility the material a sample is buried in may be significantly older than the sample itself, particularly when a massive global flood seems to be involved.

Each of the unknowns is equally significant in determining date as the well-known and establish decay constant. Like measuring the volume of a valley using a laser beam to attain an exact length, and eye-balling the height and width to attain a volume of a misty valley, a measurement is only as good as the weakest variable. And as it is for valleys, so it is for radiometric dating – substantial chemical assumptions have been made to establish a “standard” for the initial parent isotopic concentration. And there are wild assumptions that went into this inconsistent “science” that hinges its credibility on the fact that decay constants and present isotopic concentrations are near absolutely measurable.

There are considerable chances of error in such radiometric dating. On the other hand, one knows an animal is of finite size, one knows that tissue decays on average at a measurable rate established all over the globe and contemporarily, and one can make a logical conclusion using the actual animal itself and its decay state as it is found, rather than make assumptions about distant volcanic ash and its age that the creature is buried in. Further, one may be as old as dirt, but usually they are not as old as the dirt they are buried in! This is serious.

If we assumed an approximate chemical half-life[3] for biological decay of material at some juncture, and that seems reasonable, we can compute how much material would be identifiable after a long period of time. We know from all sorts of creatures buried that decay happens relatively quickly and exponentially. And in general, the biological half-life of DNA/RNA is less than 500 years from observation.

Let us pretend though, that the biological half-life is 1 million years! After 66 million years, how much of the original material would one find with a one million year chemical decay half-life? One part in about 1020 (or 1/266). That is like finding one particular grain of sand in all of the sand on the Earth! There are less than 1020 grains of sand on the Earth. That is the tyranny, not of Tyrannosaurus Rex, but of mathematical and physical reality. Consider where a 1,000,000 year half life occurs on a bell curve where the average is 500 years!

Yet on the other hand in the other direction, if soft tissue had a 1 million year half-life, after 10,000 years over 99% of the creature’s tissue would be in tact! After 100 years, over 99.99% and one would not be able to tell that something died for many centuries except that it was not moving and cold!

Now “scientists” will point out that chemical decay interval constants vary greatly. That does not mean there is not an average that fits the data. In fact, those experienced with decay curves understand this. Consider a straight average of decay constants varying wildly over intervals, and the decay interval decay – and see how basically it converges over time to the average one would expect:

The blue curve has wildly varying interval decay constants over unit time, while the control curve just uses the average, not even the least squares function fit average. The notion that decay time interval constants varying wildly does not mean one cannot use the mean decay constant and draw conclusions. A 1 million year chemical decay constant is ludicrous on the face of it. Rob a grave or even look at a relatively preserved Saint’s relics to see what a high end chemical tissue decay value would be. It does not attain to extremely high values except in a nitrogen freezer or by Divine providence.

Consider, Soviets replaced a third of Lenin’s skin in the 1930s. He’s nothing but a wax figure now. Does one really believe that dinosaurs all over the planet in various conditions have their soft tissue preserved against a decay time on an established average of less than 500 year half-life? A 100,000 year half-life is a factor of 200 greater than a long 500 year half-life. A 1,000,000 year chemical half-life is 2000 times greater than the observed average and is still insufficient to account for 66 million year old dinosaur tissue. The scientists who have failed to revisit the considerable assumptions that went into radiometric dating, have lost all credibility. Those assumptions were from the 1920s and 1930s. They were crummy then and are ludicrous now on the face of real evidence.

Obviously, something is wrong. People are finding soft dinosaur tissue regularly and relatively speaking a good deal of it per creature though usually within horns or bones. They have even found fossilized skin outside of bones. Now the scientists tried to explain it away by certain chemical reactions studied over 2 years, extrapolated to 66 million. Again, Comrade Lenin was well embalmed and preserved yet they could not, with all their art and money, avoid decay. At some point reality has to enter in, and an admission that the “science” surrounding the age of these things is frankly lousy.

But what do you expect? A scientist who wants vainglorious recognition is not going to put their reputations on the line for something like truth. Are they? They’d be fired from their “university.” Such has happened recently.[4]

Soft dinosaur tissue makes sense with a flood about 6000 years ago, but it doesn’t make sense with 66 million year old dinosaurs, or 1 million year old, or even 100,000 years old. At 100,000 years with a 500 year half-life, there is 1/2200 left or 1 part in 1060. Now there are only 1.2×1056 atoms in the entire solar system, so hide and seek with an atom in nearly 10,000 solar systems doesn’t cut it. But with a 6000 year old flood, 1 part in 4096 is possible to find and far more like what we actually observe.  

We see huge stress patterns in the geological record associated with earthquakes far beyond anything experienced in our times. If vast quantities of waters beneath the earth’s crust were released as the fountains of the deep were opened, perhaps after a huge asteroid strike – the one that seems to have wiped out the dinosaurs – tsunami waves would cover the planet in layers of material with all sorts of ancient ages – for the Earth is of old both in the waters and out of the waters. And a recently well preserved dinosaur was found in a massive mound of sand and is assumed to be 77 million years old. Where did the sand come from? The ocean bottom? And where the date come from?

On the other hand, a skeptic might rightly ask of the flood, where did all the water come from? It is well known that most of the planet’s water are under ground, even in the muck of the mantle is an ocean. In fact the mass of water underground is still greater than that above ground. And the Scriptures said of the flood, that God opened the “fountains of the deep.” Far more water could have been stored there in ancient times and it has been redistributed.

With each new discovery, the Charles Lyell big lie looks more silly by the day, and the Scriptures look more real and truthful.

But could our science really be this bad? Mass delusion ought to be acceptable after the 20th Century. The German people were educated, cultured, intelligent, and ended up following a madman to hell on Earth. The Russian people were also educated, cultured, intelligent and ended up following Leninist and Soviet “Economic” theory down a rat hole. They mostly had print media, sparse academia and radio to delude the masses. We have TV, internet and everyone hopped up on academic vainglorious “education”, or rather trillion dollar indoctrination.

When people believe what they wish to believe, rather than diligently seeking truth, they will find delusion. They will pay big money for delusion. Delusion is a narcotic of lies. With radio, television and internet, people find mass delusion, wallow in it, are comfortable in it, and die in it. People walk after their own lusts and bury their conscience in delusion. Then upon death we meet reality face to face.

But God is Love and if one does not love, when God is all there is, what will happen to those who refused to become like the flame of love who is God? If one loves this life, they will lose it for it is a life filled with death, far from true love. But if one loses this life for Christ and the Holy Gospels, they will surely find it, for Christ died and Christ is Risen from the dead! 

[1] An early 19th Century lawyer, who wrote a book on Geology that became all the rage. According to creation geologists who have read it and others, his methodology was not rigorous, but his arguments were persuasive.  Ii Peter 3-8: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

[2] About one third of Lenin’s skin was supposedly replaced in the 1930s, how much of the poor ghoul is just a wax figure?

[3] A half life is the time it takes half a sample of a given material to change or to decay. If one posits an approximate constant decay, then the decay occurs exponentially. Biological decay tends to follow this curve but the conditions determine the rate that decay occurs. For example, freezing samples tends to preserve them.

[4] See the Movie by Ben Stein, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, and observe the world of the intolerant establishment left.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s