Dating Methods That Conflict With Observations

Dating methods rely solely on hand-picked assumptions that cannot be independently verified.  But often times, evolutionary dating assumptions conflict with real-time observations. In the 90’s the Hubble telescope looked out into the deepest parts of space to observe distribution of galaxies expecting to see simple to complex stages predicted by the big bang theory. As one peers deeper into space one expects to find younger looking stars. But this is not what was observed by Hubble, instead the telescope discovered an array of mature galaxies in deep space.

More recently,  a planetary system that evolutionary scientists believe that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than previously assumed. The falsification of the number of the planets being missed counted is not the story, it’s where they discovered this planetary system! Dated 13 million years old, where do you think it was located? 13 million light years away? Try, 375 light years away! The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion years old as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years light years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago!

Evolutionary dating methods do not always go goofy with observational data in space, but here on earth as well. For instance, the  remarkable artwork discovered on the walls in the Chauvet Cave! Like expectations in space to observe simple to more complex, so are the expectations for human cognitive abilities over a course of many years if you believe in evolutionary thought.

A new paper reaffirms that the remarkable artwork on the walls in the Chauvet Cave are the oldest discovered so far and superior to better-known artworks of Lascaux which is dated much later.

“Chauvet cave, in Vallon Pont d’Arc, Ardèche, France, is a site of exceptional scientific interest for a number of reasons: (i) the variety of its majestic parietal; (ii) very good conservation of the floor and wall ornamentations, exhibiting human and animal imprints; (iii) revelations of unknown techniques in Palaeolithic rock art (such as stump drawing); (iv) predominance of rare themes such as felines and rhinoceroses; and (v) unequalled aesthetic delivery.

“Remarkably agreeing with the radiocarbon dates of the human and animal occupancy, this study confirms that the Chauvet cave paintings are the oldest and the most elaborate ever discovered, challenging our current knowledge of human cognitive evolution.

Even using another dating method, cosmic ray exposure, confirmed the paintings to be older. Lascaux paintings have been dated at 12,000 to 17,000 years, while evolutionary scientists estimate the Chauvet paintings date from 28,000 to 40,000 years ago,  of course the evolutionary assumption of how many years is way off in both cases.

We observe Cave art that began as  wonderful and then degenerated.  Very ancient humans were capable of expressing themselves artistically on cave walls did so with such expertise and “unexcelled aesthetic delivery” as to make Leonardo Da Vinci blush.  Over and over again, their predictions are falsified.  This story matches a Biblical account of the creation of man, not a Darwinian picture.  Let’s follow the evidence rather than a human invented story on where it may lead!

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Dating Methods That Conflict With Observations

  1. Michael: ” But this is not what was observed by Hubble, instead the telescope discovered an array of mature galaxies in deep space.”

    No, it did not. This is absolute nonsense.

    Most of this piece is nonsense. You really have no idea what you are talking about …

  2. Dating methods rely solely on hand-picked assumptions that cannot be independently verified.

    No. Only those dating methods based upon the Bible use hand-picked assumptions that cannot be independently verified.

    If you disagree, cite an external method for dating events according to the Bible..

    I thought not.

  3. Hey Eelco,

    Back in the days when information was hard to come by, you may have gotten away with such a ridiculous reply. But as people become more educated, so does the skepticism of all the different types of evolution. I said, “But this is not what was observed by Hubble, instead the telescope discovered an array of mature galaxies in deep space.” And you reply, “No, it did not. This is absolute nonsense.”

    Hubble also discovered more in 2004, as stated by NASA

    “Looking back in time nearly 9 billion years, an international team of astronomers found mature galaxies in a young universe.”

    NASA viewed that discovery (another falsified expectation) as pushing back the time of when galaxies supposedly evolved. However, this would not make any sense using that explanation for a planetary system dated 13 million years old only 375 light years from a much older Earth which is dated over 4 billion years old. So older galaxies are being discovered in the younger parts of the universe by the evolutionary timeline while you have younger planetary systems being discovered in the older parts of the universe by the evolutionary timeline. You have no idea on what your story involves as far as faith in it.

  4. But often times, evolutionary dating assumptions conflict with real-time observations. In the 90′s the Hubble telescope looked out into the deepest parts of space to observe distribution of galaxies expecting to see simple to complex stages predicted by the big bang theory. As one peers deeper into space one expects to find younger looking stars. But this is not what was observed by Hubble, instead the telescope discovered an array of mature galaxies in deep space.

    So, Michael, which dating method “conflicts” with observation in this example? You should look o\up the word “conflict” in a dictionary some time.

    (Sorry—Conservapedia doesn’t count.)

  5. Oh dear, Michael gets arrogant too.

    I’m afraid that 13.7 Gyr – 9 Gyr = 4.7 Gyr. Pretty mature. Lots of time to grow up for a galaxy.

    Michael, you still haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Read the actual paper on this. I’ve actually talked to some of the people involved, as this is what I do for a living: distant galaxies. And this is not a problem at all.

    Oh, and it seems you have a hard time keeping your millions and billions apart.

    You are really making a fool of yourself here.

  6. Back in the days when information was hard to come by, you may have gotten away with such a ridiculous reply. But as people become more educated, so does the skepticism of all the different types of evolution.

    Now we have it! Some so ignorant of science that he doesn’t know a WIMP from a NACHO[1] is telling a professional astronomer with decades of experience that he’s wrong! We need a new definition of Chutzpah.

    Or, as Charles Darwin put it[2]—

    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

    ================

    [1] Sic.

    [2] The Descent of man, introduction, p. 4.

  7. Dated 13 million [sic] years old, where do you think it was located? 13 million light years away? Try, 375 light years away! The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion years old as well as [sic] the rest of our solar system by evolutionists [sic] now only 375 years light years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago!

    Michael is also amazed that a neighbor of his is 84 years old. How can he be so much older than I am? He lives just right next door!?!

    Duh.

  8. A new paper reaffirms that the remarkable artwork on the walls in the Chauvet Cave are the oldest discovered so far and superior to better-known artworks of Lascaux which is dated much later.

    Michael, if you don’t believe the dating methods, how can you say that Chauvet is older than Lascaux? Does the Bible say so?

    You can’t have it both ways, Michael. If you don’t believe the dates are accurate, then you can’t proclaim that any predictions were falsified.

    Got it now?

  9. Dating methods rely solely on hand-picked assumptions that cannot be independently verified.

    Yet, later on, Michael declaims—

    “Remarkably agreeing with the radiocarbon dates of the human and animal occupancy,,,,

    TWO DATING METHODS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED>

    Even using another dating method, cosmic ray exposure, ….

    THREE DATING METHODS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED.

    As Eelco noted, most of this piece is arrant nonsense. It’s not even consistent with itself.

    How many more examples does anyone need?

    .

    Have the gentle readers noticed that the number of “likes” for Michael’s posts have suddenly increased from nothing to—well—something? They all seem to be the same couple of people, but that’s a lot more than the desert of the previous few months.

    Funny thing, though. I have started to receive e-mail invitations to subscribe to comments on this blog. All of them say that if I ignore the message “we’ll never bother you again.” But they keep coming anyway. Half a dozen thus far.

    So apparently Michael is getting desperate, and is trolling the internet for fellow acolytes. All of whom, so far, seem to know even less than Michael does about science. If that’s possible.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s