Richard Milton and a rational investigation into the Religion of Darwin and Evolution.
Are you ready Neo to go down into another rabbit hole? Or afraid of being labelled 'anti-science'? Is the Earth actually quite young? Using the Darwinian religion's own dating technique says so.
Richard Miltion: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism: A rational criticism of evolution theory
This is a very good book to read, especially for the religious devotees of Darwinism. The author Richard Milton, is a British writer, journalist and broadcaster. He currently freelances for The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers. He is not a Creationist (another ridiculous pejorative used by $cientism as a smear based on ignorance and fear of being challenged with facts), nor from what I gather a practicing Christian. Like many in the world at large, Milton was a happy acolyte of the religion of Darwin, faithful, able to sing the requisite hymns and recite the standard gospel. That changed when following a well-worn trail forged by countless others, he tried to find evidence and science, to support this religious litany. The trail led to the inevitable destination of disappointment.
Unable to find any real empirical or even common-sensical facts, Milton questions the religion of Darwin, following Antony Flew, Thomas Nagel and many other atheists. Milton’s detailed research is simply an inquiry into the religious artifacts, relics and idols of Darwinism – its endlessly long ages (millions, billions, soon undoubtedly trillions), the regurgitated and unsupported claims of uniformitarianism and ‘slow build up’ of this and that, the endless ‘mutations’ and ‘evolving’ life forms which cannot be seen anywhere, the impossibility of code changing by itself, the design, structure and all-or-nothing-formation of all life and individuals, and the inability of random chance to produce much of anything except disorder and chaos (see the 2nd law of thermodynamics) among a very long list of objections.
The Darwinian Religion is of course a massive industry, fully funded, primed, ready to attack any who may oppose it. Its philosophy is anti-Christian, anti-deist and its objective is to demand obeisance to the Church of materialism, where everything is simply energy, material structure and chance. It is a part of $cientism’s Holy Trinity along with Climate Worship and Corona or Health Fascism through Drugs or ‘vaccines’ (from a virus, health and safety, ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’), with its apogee in the new WHO pandemic treaty, which is simply a treatise for World Government to be enforced slowly over time (fascists always slice the salami for you to eat, they never make you eat it whole).
One chapter in this very good book, extremely well researched, including interviews, first hand accounts and a massive amount of primary research, was the inquiry into ‘long ages’. Milton states baldly that no-one has a clue how old the Earth might be. This is vital, if one views the religious pillars of Darwin’s cult.
The Religion of Darwin is based on 3 main suppositions, none of which have any empirical and scientific support:
1-Endless time will allow metamorphoses of species, with one species able to acquire the functionality to transform into another. The ‘ancestor’ of all life on Earth for instance, is alleged to have ‘mutated’ into the 1 million or more forms of fauna we have today, and the millions which have gone extinct.
2-Geology and layers are uniform, laid down over endless time. The key to the past is the present intoned the fathers of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell et al. Fossils are found in these layers and can be dated based on the layer. The layers are subject to extremely long and subtle processes, there is no ‘catastrophic’ causation for the world’s geological features. Endless time provides the only mechanism to explain geology, the fossilisation of fauna in the deep past, and our own current landscape.
3-Mutations, or changes to the genomic structure of cells, will lead to new functional forms. These beneficial mutations will provide ‘advantage’ or competitive prowess, leading to that creature being ‘selected’ by mates for reproduction, carrying these ‘winning traits’ to the next generation, where more mutations further elaborate the same process.
These main premises of Darwinism are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. In fact, they are anti-science, in that the opposites are true. Catastrophism is indeed the normal fact in the creation of our geology and landscape. Mutations are negative or at best neutral, not positive and given the billions of mutations necessary to change a shrew into a human, a remarkably ridiculous mechanism or belief, of improvement. Fossils disprove evolution given there are no missing ‘links’, no path from simple to complex fauna, and no evidence to support new functionality.
What of the long-ages? Milton takes an axe to the Darwinian gospel.
Radiocarbon dating
Contrary to belief, radiocarbon dating is entirely inaccurate. It provides no evidence for long-ages, indeed if we use the techniques on the Earth itself, we come to an age of 10.000 years. Much of it is tautological and illogical:
(Milton) No other scientific discipline would be permitted even to consider such procedures, but when palaeontologists date rocks by means of fossils, they do so with the authority of Charles Darwin himself. (he means that the supposed layers which don’t exist in reality are mapped to fossil finds, which are then dated from the layers, but no evidence for the long ages of the layers exist, just hand-waving from Charles Lyell et al).
Milton on the ‘discovery’ of radiocarbon datnig:
“(after World War II) Libby's discovery was the now-famous radiocarbon method of determining the age of organic remains, which gave archaeologists their first practical tool for routinely dating the past. At the time of its discovery and its first application to archaeological sites around the world in 1949, the radiocarbon method appeared to confirm that humankind's past was indeed of great antiquity and that geologists and evolutionists had been perfectly justified in continually pushing further back in time the dawn of humanity.
What is it?
Radiocarbon - radioactive carbon 14 - is a form of carbon created in the upper atmosphere by the bombardment of cosmic particles from space. As radioactive carbon dioxide it permeates the atmosphere and passes into the bodies of plants and animals through the food chain. To any plant or animal, carbon 14 is indistinguishable from the common carbon (carbon 12) which occurs naturally on Earth. Radiocarbon is relatively rare, so of the total amount of carbon in the body of a plant or animal only a minute fraction is radiocarbon. What makes this tiny fraction useful for dating, argued Libby, is that the proportion of radiocarbon is the same for all living animals and plants the world over, and something that can readily be measured.
Radiocarbon begins to decay as soon as it is formed. When a quantity of radiocarbon is produced in the atmosphere, half of that amount will have decayed away (becoming nitrogen gas) in some 5,700 years. Half the remainder will decay in a further 5,700 years, and so on, until an immeasurably small residue remains.
Radiocarbon applied to a tree:
5,700 years after a tree dies, it contains only half the proportion of radiocarbon to common carbon that exists in a living tree, and in the living world in general. After a total of 11,400 years, or two half-lives, it will contain only one quarter the proportion in the outside world, and so on.
To date an organic find (the test only works, of course, on the remains of once-living things, such as bones in a neolithic burial, or Roman fence posts) it is only necessary to measure the amount of remnant radioactive carbon with a suitable counter and hence deduce when the specimen ceased to take in radiocarbon - when it died.
What is the base or comparison foundation for this technique?
(The) technique rests, therefore, on knowing with some precision the ratio of radiocarbon to common carbon in the terrestrial reservoir today, and it was for making these measurements as well as developing the dating technique that Libby was awarded the Nobel prize.
There is just one further factor of some importance for the test to work properly: the standard mix of radiocarbon to ordinary carbon in the terrestrial reservoir must always have been the same throughout the lifetime of the test subject and in the years since its death.
The premise of radiocarbon dating is thus completely made up:
Radiocarbon dating's inventor Willard Libby did not at first think that large deviations were possible. 'When we developed the radiocarbon dating method,' he said, 'we had no choice than to assume that the cosmic rays had remained constant, though obviously we hadn't the slightest evidence that this was so. But now we know what the variations were.'
Libby made measurements of both the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon. He found a considerable discrepancy in his measurements; that, apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25 per cent faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this result was inexplicable by any conventional scientific means, Libby put the discrepancy down to experimental error.
So, the founder of radiocarbon dating knew it was fraudulent, but when does that stop the cult of $cience? Cosmic rays are never constant. When Armstrong and the Actor-Nauts landed in an air-force hanger movie set in Nevada in 1969, there were 30 cosmic and solar events every single day in July 1969 which would have radiated them to death in deep dark space. There are solar and cosmic events Every. Single. Day. Why then would ‘radioactive carbon’ in our upper atmosphere remain in steady state for millions, billions, trillions of years? Maybe in 1949, this may have been a plausible assumption, but today? After 74 years of ‘science’ we are still using Libby’s basic and incorrect assumption? Why?
Steady state is an assumption with no proof.
The new experiments, though, revealed that the discrepancy observed by Libby was not merely experimental error - it did exist. It was found by Richard Lingenfelter that 'There is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. It appears that equilibrium in the production and decay of carbon 14 may not be maintained in detail.'
Melvin Cook, Professor of Metallurgy at Utah University, has reviewed the data of Suess and Lingenfelter and has reached the conclusion that the present rate of formation of carbon 14 is 18.4 atoms per gram per minute and the rate of decay 13.3 atoms per gram per minute, a ratio indicating that formation exceeds decay by some 38 per cent.
Apply this technique to the atmosphere and lo!
Cook has gone one step further by taking the latest measured figures on radiocarbon formation and decay and calculating from them back to the point at which there would have been zero radiocarbon. In doing so, he is in effect using the radiocarbon technique to date the Earth's own atmosphere. And the resulting calculation shows that, using Libby's own data, the age of the atmosphere is around 10,000 years!
Uranium and potassium dating are just as bad:
The most widely used methods, such as uranium-lead and potassium- argon had been found to be seriously flawed, not merely in practice but in principle. In addition, the methods yielded dates so discordant as to make them unreliable. Cook showed for example that if you used the uranium-decay method on the rocks of the crust you got the conventionally accepted age of over 4 thousand million years. But if you used the selfsame method on the atmosphere, you got an age of only a few hundred thousand years. He also showed that the entire amount of 'radiogenic' lead in the world's two largest uranium deposits could be entirely modern. Clearly something was wrong.
Funkhouser and Naughton at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics used the potassium-argon method to date volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea and got ages of up to 3 thousand million years - when the rocks are known to have been formed in a modern eruption in 1801.
McDougall at the Australian National University found ages of up to 465,000 years for lava in New Zealand that is independently known to be less than 1,000 years old. I Eventually came to the alarming realization that although radioactive decay is the most stable source of chronometry we have today, it is badly compromised as a historical timekeeper, because it is not the rate of decay that is being measured, but the amount of decay products left. For this reason, all radioactive methods of geochronometry are deeply flawed and cannot be relied on with any real confidence in this application.”
Milton provides a lot more proof and analysis than the above which are just examples of the issues with dating. There are many instances where Darwinian true-believers have sent samples from the same artifact to many different labs and received wildly different and grossly exaggerated claims of time. If the technique was ‘perfect’ all the labs would agree and the time dating would be ‘reasonable’. The fact that many assumptions riddle the formulae of dating should give anyone pause. Who controls the assumptions, calculations and output? And why are any measurements which disagree with the ‘standard’ approaches, ignored or debased as claims? Is that ‘scientific’?
The cult of Darwin will defend long-ages until the death. The reason is obvious, no long-ages, no chance for the religious tenets of Darwinism to have any chance at being realised. The cult of Darwin needs millions, billions and soon indeed trillions of years. Follow the money and the power, and you will find the $cience.
Some other good reads on Chuckie’s religion:
Importantly Milton quotes from the much hated Russian philosopher Velikovsky and his unrivalled detail on Earth and catastrophism (read all of his books if you can)
Michael Denton, The Miracle of Man
Scientist Russell Humphrey and why he left the cult of Darwin
Devil’s Delusion by the atheist David Berlinksi
Jerry Bergman and the Three Pillars of Evolution
Matt Lesiola and The Heretic One Scientist’s journey from Darwinism to Design
Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves
Hoyle, Crick and Gitt on Information and Mathematical improbability