Evolution’s Great Ages – Making Them Work

As identified in the last post, it is such a remarkable thing that the long ages, which even now are still virtually unchallenged, were established long before there could be any real scientific ability to verify them.  Their beginnings came long before radioactivity had entered the picture, long before Mendel’s ground-breaking work on genetics was published and then finally accepted, long before there was any awareness of just how complex a radical change in animal morphology would be.

But it is interesting how this theory framework is unquestionably maintained.  Once the long ages have been inserted and the proper fossils have been placed, now any rock strata can be dated.  Byron C Nelson put it this way:

Fossils, regarded under the arbitrary assumptions that all life evolved from simple to complex forms, enables one, it is said, to tell the age of any rock or stratum in which fossils or organic remains occur.  All one needs, in order to tell the supposed age of a stratum, is to be told what fossils it contains.  One does not need to go out and see the stratum in its actual position in the earth.  One merely needs to be told in his study what fossils that stratum has, and, if he knows how organic life supposedly has evolved, he can tell in his study the exact age of that stratum.


The mineral composition of a stratum has no value in determining the age…Whether a stratum is soft or hard, sandstone or shale, black or white, loose or solid makes no difference.  Some coal strata in the world are said to be very “young.” Others are said to to be very “old.”  What determines the matter in the minds of evolutionary geologists is the kinds of plants the coal strata contains, whether they are simple or complex in structure.  Age is determined only by organic remains. [Byron C Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1931) p 141].

But then he also cynically adds:

Of course, mammals will never be found in “Paleozoic” strata – nor for very long.  Of that we are absolutely positive for this reason: Mammals did not live in the “Paleozoic” time (i.e., when fishes are supposed to have been the most advanced form of life) according to the evolutionists.  Mammals evolved later.  If, therefore, remains of any mammal should be found in a layer that had previously been called “Paleozoic,” the evolutionists would say a mistake had been made, and the name would be changed.  Such renaming of the strata has been done again and again in the last seventy-five years… The evolutionary labelers…simply will not let things get out of order for their theory…


… Modern historical geology is built on the assumption of evolution.  The earth has been compelled by evolutionists to testify the way their theory requires. [Byron C Nelson, After Its Kind (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1930)  p 68,80-89]

What an enviable situation!  One can’t lose!  If something doesn’t quite fit, then just change the label, and now it fits.  Suddenly a whole strata of rock has been moved from one epoch to another, even despite whatever lies above and below it out in the “real world” has nothing to do with that new “age.”  There will never be a contradiction to evolution from geology, even if one has to literally turn mountains upside down to fit!

Although there is no sure way of determining the authenticity, the blood circulation support might actually help. Intensity in this role play will tadalafil 5mg act overly in the events of stress and related disorder. These psychological factors can make chronic prostatitis complex, difficult to treat or easy to relapse in turn. In many instances adult men is maintained extended whenever they get to know about they should immediately consult their doctor about their symptoms. But doesn’t radioactive dating confirm these dates?  Well, there are a couple of problems.  On one hand, when a rock sample has gone through the dating process, it doesn’t turn up “a date.”  Actually, a number of tests are taken which turn up a spread of dates.  One date that may indicate the last century is obviously wrong, so it gets thrown out.  So also the one that is from 25 billion years ago because that exceeds the theorized beginning of the universe.  The dates that are “inappropriate” are eliminated – but where does one stop?   This is where the theory determines which is acceptable data and which data is to be discarded or explained away, so that there is little surprise that the acceptable data then ultimately confirms the theory.

Another problem is that to identify how many “half-lives” of a radioactive substance have passed, thereby indicating the age, one needs to know the original amount of the substance, since each “half-life” changes half of that element into “daughter” elements, for instance, in a series of steps, Uranium(U)-238 decays to Lead(Pb)-206.  Is it reasonable to assume that the amounts of the “daughter” elements will provide an accurate assessment of the original amount of the “mother” element?  No, not if the evolution of the universe is true!

The evolution of the universe theorizes that after “the Big Bang,” the basic elements, Hydrogen and Helium, were formed.  Once a cloud of these gases formed a star, in its furnace they were pressed together into the heavier elements.  There is the possibility that a second stage of star was needed to create the really heavy elements.  Still, no star can specialize in a certain element, therefore not just U-238 but also all of its daughters would be formed before the star explodes and spews its creations into space.  In the ensuing millennia before these various elements finally settled in the cloud that became earth, there was radioactive decay.  More and more of the U-238 and its daughters headed toward Pb-206.  This unknown mix, which itself likely was not evenly distributed, was what ended up in the rocks of this earth.  And since some of the elements in the decay process can migrate in and out of the rock they find themselves, due to a gaseous nature or because of water-leeching, there just is no way to guarantee what were the original proportions of the elements in a given sample of rock.

Well, there is a way, but it will not be appreciated: a special creation by God would fix the proportions.  Actually it would be the only way that sense might be made, whether it is the Uranium-Lead decay or the Potassium-Argon decay or any other.  Yet, ironically, the results would be used to “disprove” creation

Finally, which rock is being tested?  Fossils are generally found in sedimentary strata, which means that the sand or silt is the breakdown of some original rock.  Was radioactive decay suspended for that original rock during the time of its creation and decomposition?  Are there not daughter elements found there as well?  And can we guarantee that the sand or silt is all from the same formation?  Since sand and silt can go through sifting and sorting, either by wind or water, can we guarantee that the proportion even reflects the original rock’s mix?  At best it would seem that whatever date is determined would reflect the original rock and not the date of the fossil in the sediment.  Of course, that fact would have interesting results in regard to evolution if one must date the original rock to such a comparatively recent date.

The long dates were established before Darwin, and before there was any scientific backing to the numbers.  Rock strata ages are determined solely by these dates.  Acceptable radiometric test results are determined by the theory.  The evolution of the universe prevents any ability to know what were the original proportions of mother and daughter elements, in order to exclude from the test what had preexisted.  The likelihood is that one is actually testing the original rock’s date and not the fossil.  Despite the increasing sophistication of scientific equipment, we are still bound to evolution’s conjectures that have no real grounding in concrete scientific fact.



Leave a Reply