Search This Blog

Monday, August 23, 2010

Real Science - Taking a closer look at Granite from a non-Darwinist perspective with a splash of Yardbirds for good measure

About halfway through this blog post I will present some amazing evidence for the premise that the Earth was formed by a Creator God and did not develop over millions of years.   First please allow me to remind you of two earlier blog posts concerning the matter of the age of the Earth and of mankind?  Thanks!

!) Regular readers will remember a post from back in October of last year:  Rock Cores trump Ice Cores!

Allow me to share an excerpt with pictures:

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Rock cores trump ice cores

Granite aka granitic rock
Ice cores are terrible for determining the age of the earth or even of the ice within the core. As I have posted previously, several layers of ice can be laid down in less than a year. Substances within ice layers travel. Lower layers will compress and become hard to distinguish. With all these variables ice cores become a favorite of evolutionists because they can make subjective claims that cannot be substantiated about age based upon their evaluation of ice cores.

Here on my back recovering from pneumonia and feeling really sick, not even able to take my grandsons to the movies. Not supposed to work until Monday to beat the illness and be strong enough to go forward. But I can cut and paste and add some additional information concerning a much better method of determining age. Rock cores, and especially granite.

The first RATE initiative - The RATE Team discovered:

• Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.

• Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.

• Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.

• Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.

pdf book about the RATE initiative.

More RATE studies are being done and published in technical journals and presented at technical conferences. Allow me to give a for instance.

One scientist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, decided that he believed that God created the Universe and that the Bible is true. He then proposed that the rocks cannot be much older than six thousand years old. But how could this be tested?

He found that scientists had done deep drilling at Los Alamos, down into granite to obtain rock cores. Deep cores drilled into the foundation of the rock of our continent would reveal granitic rock that had supposedly been in place for millions of years. Now granitic rock contains biotite or mica which contain zircon crystals. Zircon crystals buried deep in the earth would leak or diffuse helium atoms, which are relatively "slippery" and can be expected to diffuse in an orderly and predictable manner. He tells this better than I:

New RATE Data Support a Young World

by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Download New RATE Data Support a Young World PDF

New experiments done this year for the RATE project 1 strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year 2 and documented at a technical conference last summer. 3 Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments. 4 The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian 5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture. Here are some details:

Radioactive crystals make and lose Helium

These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, form adjacent to the biotite.

The Uranium and Thorium atoms inside a zircon decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become atoms of Lead. Many of the inter-mediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of Helium atoms. For zircons of the sizes we are considering, most of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become Helium atoms. Thus a Uranium 238 atom produces eight Helium atoms as it becomes a Lead 206 atom. (See diagram.)

Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials...


There is much more information if you read the entire post.  The findings of the study are as follows:  The rate of escape of helium atoms from zircons contained in granitic rock (the supposed bedrock of the planet) give us a creation date for that granitic rock of 6,000 years, with plus/minus range of around 2,000 years.  Therefore by studying these rocks an age for the Earth can be estimated at between 4,000 to 8,000 years.  

Now, another post I did fairly recently showed that according to the Earth's population and the expected sigmoidal curve specific to populations would estimate that mankind began just a bit over 4,000 years ago.  This does not take into account the Noahic Flood but it does bolster the Genesis account.   If you carefully count the years of the history of existence as presented in Genesis, the Earth is a bit over 6,000 years old but man had to repopulate beginning with the family of Noah about 4,300 years ago.  

2) The link to that particular post concerning population is here.

Here is the beginning portion of that post:

Friday, March 27, 2009

Quick post on population and human genetics

In Six Days

Why 50 Scientists Choose
to Believe in Creation

The above is the title of a publication in which fifty (out of several hundreds associated with the site) presented evidence to explain their belief in a literal six days of creation and a young earth. I will present excerpts from one of those fifty quickly.

James S. Allan, genetics

Dr. Allan is a former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa. He holds a B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal, an M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He currently serves as an international consultant in the field of dairy cattle breeding.

"As a biologist in the field of population and quantitative genetics, I had believed in the theory of evolution for nearly 40 years. During that period of my life, the long-time requirements of the theory did not really concern me. Chance (genetic drift) and natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change seemed to be logically acceptable mechanisms for the assumed extent of adaptive radiation.
My research involved using biometrical methods of analysis. I was concerned to predict rates of genetic change as a result of applying artificial selection procedures of varying intensities, based on different kinds and amounts of information. The accuracy of prediction of the rate of genetic change can be assessed theoretically and the results can, in many cases and in the short-term, be checked empirically. The change in genetic merit (and associated phenotypic merit) from one generation to the next is due to changes in the relative frequencies of the underlying genes.

Over all those years, because I accepted the “fact” of evolution, I saw no reason to differentiate in principle between changes in relative gene frequency as a consequence of either short-term or long-term natural selection. To me, these forms of selection resulted in just the one simple principle of change in relative gene frequency, and the essence of the theory of evolution is change in relative gene frequency as a result of genetic drift and of natural selection in response to gene mutation and/or environmental change.

When, at a fairly advanced stage of my career, I became a Christian I began to read the Bible reverently and as intelligently as I was able. At that time most of my reading was focused in the New Testament and, as my main concern was to know more of Christ as my Savior, my opinion concerning the theory of evolution remained unchallenged. I did not, in fact, give it much thought.

One day, after I had been expounding on the universality of DNA as evidence for the theory of evolution, my wife, who had been a Christian much longer than I, asked me whether there was any reason for God to have used other genetic systems. Just one simple question, but it stimulated me to ask myself many more.
Was there any reason for God to have created life-forms on the basis of ABC … PQR … and XYZ as well as DNA? Were that so, would it have influenced my belief in the theory of evolution, or would I have interpreted it as a number of independent origins of life?

Was there any reason why God should not have created all forms of life as “variations on themes” and so have provided the observed orderly degrees of genetic and phenotypic resemblance as evidenced in taxonomic classification? Relatives tend to resemble one another in physical, functional and behavioral characteristics. This is a phenomenon which is basic to the science of genetics. The resemblance is due to the fact that relatives, sharing in the common gene pool of a reproducing population, have genes in common. The closer the relationship, the greater is the proportion of genes in common and, therefore, the greater is the degree of resemblance. The theory of evolution assumes a common origin for all forms of life and, therefore, infers that species, genera, families, orders, etc. are genetically related. They all do carry some genes with similar structure and function, yes, but did this imply genetic relationship in the normal, within-species sense, and was one at liberty to assume a common origin for all forms of life? Was there any reason why God should have created different species, genera, etc. in completely different ways and with completely different genes?"

Why, indeed? Dr. Allan goes into depth in the article, which I hope you do read. He presents evidence that requires millions of years for a prehuman chimp-like ancestor to evolve into a human, if indeed something like that ever happened. But allow me to present his portion of population analysis in which he extrapolates the human population back to a beginning point using both genetic and mathmatical training in the process:

"According to the 23rd General Population Conference in Beijing in 1997, the total human population of the earth in that year was assessed to be in the region of 6,000 million, showing that there has been a remarkable increase over the past 200 years. Estimates of the population numbers back to the year 1500 and a prediction for the year 2080 are given in the following table.
Year 1500 1650 1800 1900 1950 1997 2080
No. (millions) 300 550 1,000 1,700 2,500 6,000 10,000
Extrapolation further into the past gives the following approximate numbers:
Year –2000 –1000 0 1000
No. (millions) 1 50 100 250
I find these figures to be in close agreement with what one would expect from the biblical specification after the Flood in 2344 B.C. The assumed existence of thousands of millions of “prehumans” is both physically and scripturally unrealistic."


So now that brings us to another subject of the RATE studies, polonium radiohalo analysis.   To briefly summarize, polonium is a very transitory element which occurs for a a moment in the decay cycle of Uranium 238 to Lead.  Scientists have calculated the time that such decay must take and right now the process is quite uniform.  Whenever you hear a narrator explain to you that such and such animal lived 500 million years ago, often that date is entirely suppositional.  But there are times and places where Darwinists have used radiometric dating to try to pinpoint ages of fossils.  It has hopefully been pointed out to you that wild variances in the results of such dating methods make them pretty useless.

But Polonium Radiohalos have been known to exist and their existence within granitic rock has been understood for more than 25 years.  Geologists have been presented evidence in peer-reviewed journals and conferences and they know what this means.  They simply don't want you to know.   However, if you will take just 28 minutes to watch this film clip, you will know what they know and hopefully understand the implications.  Just as helium atoms in zircons tell us that granitic rock is thousands, not millions, of years old,  Polonium has also asserted this same evidence as fact.  Beyond that, the radiohalos also are evidence that granite was made either precisely or almost instantaneously!

The film clip.

Earth Science Associates presents an overview and a challenge for you to consider if you have passed the film clip by:

"An Overview

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Replies to Objections

Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

In the Exchanges section of our website we've posted our letter to Dr. K. R. Walker, requesting the references to successful granite synthesis experiments that UT's Dr. Larry Taylor had referred to. We also have posted two letters from Dr. Brent Dalrymple that refer to the unrefuted Polonium evidence for the creation of granite.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.


Our published reports date back to the 1960's. Twenty of these reports can be downloaded free of charge from this web site. A number of these also appear in the appendix to our book, Creation's Tiny Mystery.
Every question regarding the validity or implications of the polonium-halo evidence for creation has been systematically dealt with in our published reports. Every proposal for an evolutionary origin of polonium radiohalos has been systematically and experimentally falsified. No hypothetical, naturalistic scenario has yet been suggested that can account for Creation's "tiny mystery" of the polonium halo.

Of course, you can find claims to the contrary on the internet and elsewhere. But if these claims had any real substance, they would have passed peer review and been published in the open scientific literature. The fact that they have not been, or have themselves been experimentally falsified, demonstrates the fact that this unique evidence for Creation still stands unrefuted.

Some of our newest research concerns astronomy and cosmology. Our findings provide a radically new model of the cosmos while also showing why the Big Bang Theory is fatally flawed. For more on this topic, please see our sister site,

Tax-Funded arXiv Engaged in Religious Discrimination

Our sister site,, has an entire section on this topic. Basically, what happened is that we posted ten papers outlining fatal flaws in the Big Bang theory on the arXiv, an internet service hosted at the time by Los Alamos National Laboratory. The arXiv distributes physics papers worldwide, and we had previously posted papers there with no problem. This time, when those in charge of the arXiv discovered that our papers very clearly outlined the fallacies of the Big Bang, and were supportive of a model of the universe that harmonizes with Genesis, the papers were removed. After we posted them again, they were removed a second time, and our password was revoked.

You can read the subsequent letters that were exchanged by clicking the links on the page "Documentation of Censorship by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv Staff", a page on our sister site.
The arXiv is funded by tax funds. It is therefore inappropriate for the arXiv to discriminate on the basis of religion against scientists who do not ascribe to evolution..."


As usual, Darwinists run away when cornered and then claim victory.  Geologists just try to close their eyes to radiohalos despite their significance.  They ignore helium in zircons.  Population experts close their eyes at the beginning date for human populations as presented by their own formulations.  Paleontologists sit around making up stories for imaginary evolutionary steps never identified in the fossil record and obfuscate when specific layers and fossils are examined in context.  Biologists are faced every day with the complex design and intricacy and monumental amounts of information in the cell and yet they must soldier on, trying not to think about it. 

That a child would believe in Darwinism (as he might believe in a Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus) is not surprising.  That grown men and women and entire organizations like NAS and NCSE would continue to adhere to a preposterous string of broken hypotheses held together by little but vast quantities of verbiage...?  It reminds me of a Yardbirds song.

You may or may not know that the Yardbirds at one time featured Eric Clapton and then Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page as members and that Led Zeppelin was at first known as the New Yardbirds?   But consider the juvenile and reprobate philosophy of this song by the youthful and inexperienced musicians back in 1966:

A rare live performance!   The words:

Over Under Sideways Down (Chris Dreja / Jim McCarty / Jeff Beck / Keith Relf / Paul Samwell-Smith)

Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!
Cars and girls are easy come by in this day and age,
Laughing, joking, drinking, smoking,
Till I've spent my wage.
When I was young people spoke of immorality,
All the things they said were wrong,
Are what I want to be.

Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
When will it end, when will it end,
When will it end, when will it end.
Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

I find comment 'bout my looks irrelativity,
Think I'll go and have some fun,
'Cos it's all for free.
I'm not searching for a reason to enjoy myself,
Seems it's better done,
Than argued with somebody else.

Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
Over under sideways down,
Backwards forwards square and round.
When will it end, when will it end,
When will it end, when will it end.
Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey!

Over under sideways down...


Foolish and talented young musicians may feel themselves immortal.   Until they or someone they love dies.  Perspective and experience help lead some people to wisdom. Danger and foolishness leads some to death. Celebrities seem particularly vulnerable to drug-related deaths.
Eric Clapton watched his son plunge to his death from a balcony.  Only then did he apparently begin to take some stock of his life.  I have no idea where that may have led him, personally, but there are indeed no tears in Heaven.  You would think that Clapton had everything he wanted in life - great fame, success, money, adulation, one of the world's more beautiful women as his wife...why did he need drugs and cocaine and thoughtless adulteries and wild parties?  I would say that no one stands firmly on a shadowy and meaningless foundation.

John Bonham (Led Zeppelin drummer) choked to death on his own vomit while hopelessly drunk.  They say Jimi Hendrix died the same way.  "Johnny Rotten" OD'd.  Someone I knew personally who had turned his life away from God and was dead of an overdose within a year's time.  I understand these things.  I was a young and foolish "immortal" once, one who partied hearty and stuck needles in his arms and legs and feet and ankles and anyplace he could get a good vein.  I took any kind of LSD or mushroom or speed or downers I could get my hands on, smoked entire fields of marijuana during my early years, drank barrels of booze and beer.  What did it get me?  All I can say is that I am thankful I lived long enough to change my foolish ways before I became the lost musician of the Needle and The Damage Done.

You don't think young people don't know intellectually that drinking and driving is dangerous or that taking a trip on LSD might not have a return ticket?  Don't you imagine that crackheads knew crack was addictive before they tried it the first time?  Don't you suppose that most Darwinists who are truly scientists realize they are applauding the nonexistent new wardrobe of a foolish ruler?   It is not too late to come to wisdom until it is too late to take a breath.  While you live, I have hopes all that are Darwinists, that you will begin to think critically and examine evidence and begin your journey of discovery much as I did some 32 years ago...

Psalms 4 reads as follows.  I hope any of you who are Darwinists will consider the question that is asked of you?

1 Answer me when I call to you,
       O my righteous God.
       Give me relief from my distress;
       be merciful to me and hear my prayer.

 2 How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame  ?
       How long will you love delusions and seek false gods  ?


 3 Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
       the LORD will hear when I call to him.

 4 In your anger do not sin;
       when you are on your beds,
       search your hearts and be silent.


 5 Offer right sacrifices
       and trust in the LORD.

 6 Many are asking, "Who can show us any good?"
       Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.

 7 You have filled my heart with greater joy
       than when their grain and new wine abound.

 8 I will lie down and sleep in peace,
       for you alone, O LORD,
       make me dwell in safety.

1 comment:

Jon Woolf said...

A day may come when a YEC devises an argument for a young Earth that I haven't seen a dozen times before.

A day may come when a YEC finds a piece of evidence for which the best, simplest explanation really is a young Earth.

A day may come when YECs construct a consistent young-Earth theory that adequately accounts for all known evidence better than any rival theory.

But not this day.

Gentry's polonium-halo claims don't even warrant a critique from me, since a previous post by Radar quoted two YECs who themselves said Gentry was wrong in his claims. If even other YECs think Gentry's claims are all wet, well, any comment I could add would be superfluous.

For me to critique the population argument, a.k.a. the Bunny Blunder, would be a waste of my time since it's already been done quite well.

Which brings us to the claims made by RATE. And once again, I see little reason to spend my own time and energy answering when it's already been done quite well.

I do, however, want to note one thing. The mention of uranium isotopes at the latter link triggered a random neural cross-connection, and I remembered the fascinating case of the Oklo natural fission reactors. These reactors provide a very nice way to test conventional theory against the YEC pipedreams of "a burst of accelerated radioactive decay" during Creation Week and again during Flood Year.

The Oklo reactors consist of uranium ore bodies intruded into Proterozoic sandstones. These ore bodies show clear evidence that they once generated a natural fission reaction. Today, the ore is still there, with normal amounts of U238 and sharply reduced amounts of U235.

Conventional geology can, of course, explain this fairly easily (note: PDF link). Can YECs?