Gray Fossil Museum

IMG_6304

Visited the Fossil Museum in Gray TN this afternoon. There is a dig on site from which students and paleontologists are pulling out some amazing fossils. I want to preface this article by stating that I am very proud of the community for honoring the scientific find by dedicating resources to the site, as well as moving the direction of the highway in order to accommodate the dig. There are a plethora of fossil samples being pulled from the ground, two of which have been classified as new species. The exhibits are classy looking, and beautiful, and the facility, labs included, appear to be top notch.

This unfortunately is where my admiration for the project ends, as the whole site is absolutely dedicated to forcing evolutionary propaganda down each guest’s throat at every turn, and on every wall. It was egregious how prevalent the indoctrination was. Granted, I was expecting to encounter the millions-of-years mantra several times, but from the beginning 15 ft 4.5 billion year time line on the wall  at step one, to the ode to Charles Darwin hallway at the end, it dripped with the insatiable need to reinforce the religion of humanism, naturalism, and evolution.

It was never presented exactly how the dates were determined for the dig (between 4 million and 7 million years ago), but it could be deduced by both typical evolutionary presupposition and normal modus operandi that pre-determined index fossils dated the rocks, and of course the rocks date the fossils (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

In a 1979 interview with *Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist for New York, Luther Sunderland, asked him: “How do you date fossils?” His reply: “By the Cambrian rocks in which they were found.” Sunderland then asked him if this were not circular reasoning, and *Fisher replied, “Of course, how else are you going to do it?” (Bible Science Newsletter, December 1986, p. 6.)

“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”—*J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of science, January 1976.

“The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity.”—*David M. Raup, “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.

“It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.”—*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

 

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.”—*J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

Furthermore, if you will notice the picture I took of one of their displays IMG_6303(sorry about the glare), it states another hard-nosed take on how evolutionists practice science. Let me paraphrase the sign for the laypeople that pass by it. “We here at the Gray Fossil Museum already know that these fossils are as old as we were taught in school, therefore we know we don’t have to use a test that may prove it wrong, despite the fact that C-14 has been found in everything from dinosaurs, to coal, to diamonds (see link here on Carbon dating), and may in fact be found here, which would ruin all of our predetermined expensive exhibits. We would not be able to handle reaching conclusions such as a fossil known to be 4.5 million years old with a C-14 result of 12,000 years for example, and if these conclusions were determined, we would of course throw them out based on the obvious reasoning of either contaminated specimens, leaching, our faulty testing, without once considering a change in our presuppositional position that was determined without any observable, demonstrable, repeatable testing whatsoever.”

This type of “science” has unfortunately become more normal, but is intellectually dishonest. I would be willing to bet C-14 was quite prevalent in these fossils, if one of the local scientists had the integrity and courage to test for it. But as you can see from the picture, they have already informed the public that it is wholly unnecessary.

A final note about the Gray Museum is in regards to the story they present about how these fossils got here. According to their “experts”, water leaked into a cavern under the surface, creating a sinkhole which eventually became deep, and then was filled with trapped wild life from tapirs to snakes to bear, and was then fossilized slowly over time. This conjecture makes me want to take everyone involved and set them on the rim of a sinkhole, toss in hundreds of animal carcasses, and make them camp and watch how quickly nature recycles dead flesh. (Don’t mind the smell, that’s just the rotting away of all your theories). I reiterate what science knows already, which is that fossil formation today is exceedingly rare. Is this sinkhole trap an anomaly that explains the possible thousands of trapped animals? What about the billions of other fossils all over the earth? Perhaps the earth was covered with sink holes? Ridiculous. Fossils are made when organisms are buried quickly by mud and water, and the world is filled with organisms that have been buried quickly by mud and water. Sorry Gray Fossil Museum, but it’s time to take Darwin the racist, incestuous philosopher off your wall, and start to practice real science.

Advertisements

35 years or 2.6 million years?

There is an intimidating section of science for believers known as radiometric dating. The presumption of an old Earth came long before this discovery, invented by those who wished to ‘save the sciences from Moses.’ Radiometric dating has since been utilized to support this presupposition. By definition it is a method of dating geological or archaeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample. In layman’s terms, this simply means measuring how fast something has decayed in order to determine how old it is. I have debated many evolutionists, and in the end, many will never be able to get past this idea that the world is billions of years old. To suggest otherwise would be anathema. It is as true to them as stating water is wet, and has been beaten into their psyche from early on, from the first kids books that say millions and millions of years ago…

I remember the shocking freedom of letting that assumption go, and how the facts we observe so easily fell in line with biblical truth after that. It was truly like waking from an oppressive dream, where nothing fit, but the ‘authorities’ of science and education and television and magazines were all telling you it was so.

This is what those authorities won’t tell you. Science is filled with limiting factors that exempt creation from being old. Most dating methods point to a young earth. Only the ones that can be shown to align with our evolutionary understanding of the geologic column are kept and published, and taught. These methods are ripe with assumptions, and results are cherry picked to align with what the observer ‘knows’ already. I could write for days on dating methods, and it is such an interesting topic, that I am sure more articles will follow. But I owe you the reader more than just my opinion and conjecture. So let’s get a little more specific.

Today we will examine potassium-argon dating. Again, I want this to be understandable to as many readers as possible, so very briefly, radioactive potassium usually from igneous rock (cooled lava) decays, and argon is a byproduct of this reaction. This method is widely used as a dating method all over the Earth. Now, without getting into overly complicated chemistry, or methodology, we can simply use common sense to ascertain whether or not this is a viable method for determining specific dates.

Below is a chart from samples taken and tested from the eruption of the 1980 Mount Saint Helen’s volcano. These are samples carefully tested from a volcano we saw happen with our own eyes on May 18th of that year. Using our ‘trusty’ potassium argon dating method, used the world over for proving that fossil layers fall within geologic parameters, we arrived at the following dates:

AGE-RadioDate-Fig13-HelensChart-400x300

 

This study indicated that, barring tolerances, the rock formed from that 1980 explosion was between 300,000 years old and 3,400,000 million years old. We saw it form 35 years ago!

This error is extraordinary, but what is beyond comprehension is that rather than call in to question the methodology, science has instead thrown out the results, and continued to utilize the method. I could ask a 5 year old, “what do these results tell you, considering a large part of science as we know it consists of observation?” It would be clear to anyone being intellectually honest that though still valuable in determining composition and how geological events relate to each other, the method’s ability to determine geological time was an abysmal failure.

There are results like this from other events as well; Hawaii, the Philippines. This means that we assume the results are bad when they do not correlate with what we know, but when we do not know, the results are accepted, based on our assumptions. I would ask you, is that science? is that an observable, demonstrable, repeatable result? Should they teach the geologic column, index fossils, dating accuracy based on these results?

But they do. And they start young. And by the time you are in college you have heard the mantra of millions of years so often that you have become indoctrinated. And if someone then comes along and tells you, the bible is accurate in its chronology, you might scoff in derision at the implication.

What does our bible say about this possibility? That the prevailing opinion would state things have continued on the same way all along, i.e. uniformitarianism. That there was no evidence of God’s hand upon the earth?  I would point to this warning.

2 Peter 3:3-4 “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.” 

____________

UPDATE:  – Rock collected for radiometric dating was pulled from Mt. Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, from cooled magma flow from the years 1949, 1954, and 1975. This was tested and an age of 3,908,000,000 years was observed. Actual date of fifty years vs 3.9 billion. This is a discrepancy of 7.8 billion percent.