News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

--What is the True Age of the Earth?

Many Earth clocks indicate recent creation. Measuring the rate at which worldwide processes function provides a "clock" by which the age of the earth may be calculated. Many of these processes yield thousands of years, rather than billions.

-Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE)

Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.

For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief.
However, the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth. Learn about their discoveries and explore the scientific evidence that supports biblical truth.
-----
--Check it out!

This is from the Institute for Creation Research:

True Age of the Earth (http://www.icr.org/age-of-the-earth/)

-Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation~

Orion is one of the most wellknown and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion's belt seem to draw our attention instantly. Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.

Let's Check it Out!

Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation (http://www.icr.org/article/6943/)

--OBSERVING CREATION

--Revelation is the true key to the past!

-Observing Creation
-By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Creation and evolution studies are limited to observations in the present, but both speculate about unseen events of the long ago past. Mainstream scientists typically use the principle of uniformitarianism to guide their study, assuming that past processes were the same as those possible today and that “the present is the key to the past.” Creation scientists unapologetically employ the Word of the Creator, the Bible, to guide their investigation into the past. Scripture doesn’t give us all the details, and so there is much room for research. But revelation is the true key to the past.

Here is an article from the Institute for Creation Research:
Observing Creation (http://www.icr.org/article/6941/)

---
--HOW OLD IS OUR PLANET?
--Henry M Morris III,D.MIN.

--Conclusion:
All of these key biblical elements are foundational to the inerrancy and authority of the text. To reject or interpret them to fit something that the Bible does not describe is essentially a rejection of the inspired Word of God. If one allows science, philosophy, archaeology, or theology to overrule Scripture, the effect is to place the understanding and expectation of man over the revealed Word of God and subjugate God to man’s scholarship.

Although Scripture is never intended to be a textbook on the processes of science or technology, the omniscient Creator records His work accurately whenever He speaks of the processes of creation. To suggest that the corrupt intellect of man should override or overrule the inerrant Word of God is more than this writer or any Christian should presume to do.

The Bible is clear. Our planet is young. God spoke everything into being during the creation week. “For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9).
--Check it out~~
<http://www.icr.org/article/7904/
---------

--YOUNG AGE FOR THE MOON AND EARTH
--By: Thomas G Barnes /ICR
-
-The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied to observed large scale phenomena such as:

1) The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit.
2) The faster earth spin rate in the past.
3) The rate of lunar dust build-up.
4) The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
5) The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.
REFERENCES:<www.icr.org>

[Check it out...]
<http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/>

-------------------

--- Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable
--By: Brian Thomas, M.S. *

For about a century, radioactive decay rates have been heralded as steady and stable processes that can be reliably used to help measure how old rocks are. They helped underpin belief in vast ages and had largely gone unchallenged. But certain decay rates apparently aren’t as stable as some would hope.

Several decades ago, strange fluctuations were observed in several radioactive decay systems. These systems have unstable nuclei that emit various particles and radiation until they stabilize. It was finally established that these seasonal fluctuations corresponded to the distance between the earth and the sun. When the earth is closest to the sun, solar neutrinos evidently accelerate nuclear decay.1

Now, Italian research shows evidence that a process called “cavitation” accelerated the nuclear decay of thorium (Th228). In particular, it seems that cavitation caused radioactive thorium decay to accelerate by a factor of 10,000 times during a 90-minute experiment.2 Cavitation can occur when water flows so fast that vapor bubbles are produced. These bubbles collapse to produce shock waves—very powerful on tiny scales—that have been known to rapidly destroy boat propellers and pump parts, catastrophically erode water tunnels, and create light sparks. Cavitation may also affect the nuclei of atoms in heavily resonating solutions.

The mutability of decay rates is not a surprise to some scientists. Creation researchers had found clear evidence that radioactive decay was accelerated dramatically in the recent past. For example, some radioactive decay acceleration event must have been the cause of the profusion of helium atoms that exist in zircon crystals associated with radioactive uranium.3

Whether cavitation, neutrinos, or something else had a part in the accelerated nuclear decay of earth’s past is not yet known. What is known, however, is that the stability of radioactive decay is open to question. Likewise, the vast age assigned to the earth based on radioactive measurements is by no means set in stone.

References

Mullins, J. 2009. Solar ghosts may haunt Earth's radioactive atoms. New Scientist. 2714: 42-45.
Cardone, F., R. Mignani R. and A. Petrucci. 2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A. 373 (22): 1956-1958.
Humphreys, D. R. Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. In Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (eds.). Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society: 25.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

--Earth's Oldest Rock Has the Wrong Date
--By: Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Scientists put an age on what they believe is earth’s oldest rock, but their figure doesn’t match other geologic or historical facts.

McGill University researchers recently published the new age for the “faux-amphibolite,” an igneous rock that was found in northern Quebec. They measured neodymium isotope ratios (142Nd/144Nd) and came up with a count of about 4.28 billion years.1

The Institute for Creation Research has, for more than three decades, studied uniquely young interpretations of the ages of rocks and the earth. Creation science research begins with the data recorded in Genesis, from which can be calculated a roughly 6,000-year age for the earth and cosmos.2 ICR scientists have made brilliant strides in unraveling the discrepancy between this young age for the earth and the dramatically older, ever-changing “standard” age, currently noted as 4.567 billion years.3

Following are four of a host of revelations that have emerged from relevant creation science research. First, the many assumptions scientists use for dating rocks—including rate of change, starting parent/daughter amounts, and isolation from external factors affecting the earth’s clock system—are not typically admitted or taught, thus perpetuating an over-inflated aura of objectivity to old earth dates.4

Second, the few earth processes commonly used as clocks are selectively tested according to evolutionary precepts, and then the results are manipulated to form a contrived agreement, as one evolutionary scientist unwittingly admitted: “Geologic time scales are the result of iterative processes, and as new definitive data becomes available, either geochronometric, biostratigraphic, or magnetostratigraphic adjustments will have to be made.”5 However, these adjustments are constrained to the old earth paradigm and systematically exclude contradicting data. In fact, contradicting data are banned from publication prior to evaluation, hence the necessity for alternative publishing outlets.6

Third, totally different dates are typically obtained for the same rock by measuring different elements, different parts of the rock, and using different techniques—or even the same techniques at different times.7 Therefore, a date is often chosen from a wide-range of options based on the assumed reality of “geologic ages.”8

Fourth, there are many earth processes that scientifically contradict the standard assigned ages.9 If the earth formed over four billion years ago, all helium should have escaped from zircons, yet the crystals are loaded with this element.10 The atmosphere should be full of helium atoms, the byproducts of millions of years of radioisotope decay, but it isn’t. Similarly, there shouldn’t be any carbon-14 in diamonds after 60,000, let alone a million, years, but every diamond, coal, and oil sample tested in one study had plenty.11

Is this faux-amphibolite really as old as the Mcgill researchers claim? In light of the dramatically plastic and ephemeral status of published ages, the investigators were wise to express a measure of insecurity regarding these “oldest, most brutally battered terrains”:2 “Obviously, other corroborative data would help resolve whether the 4.28-Gy age dates the rocks themselves or an older component involved in their genesis.”1

Considering what would have happened to the earth’s crust if it really was shattered, re-formed, and then warped by a cataclysmic, globe-inundating flood as the Bible and other ancient documents testify, it is entirely justifiable to reject these billion-year dates. The catastrophic forces that shaped the earth are written in stone, a rock record that cannot be easily explained by evolutionary processes.
The geological evidence of worldwide catastrophe affirms the accuracy of the biblical account, revealing earth’s young age to those who are not “willfully ignorant.”
--Check it out: <www.icr.org> [Type in title]

--Is There Geological Evidence for the Young Earth?
--By: John D. Morris, Ph.D.

Undoubtedly, the concept of a young earth poses a stumbling block to many Christians. Many do not find it hard to reject evolution, particularly with the fossil record showing distinct categories of plants and animals with no hint of any basic category changing into another. God surely created, they say, "but couldn't He have done it over millions and billions of years?"

Consider, in passing, the fact that the Bible specifically teaches a young earth, making it Biblically and theologically impossible for the earth to be "old." But if the earth is young, the geologic deposits of the earth's crust should show that, or at least be compatible with the truth. And, indeed, there is such evidence.

One of my favorite lines of reasoning is that of "soft sediment deformation." Most geologic rock layers started out as muddy sediments laid down under water, and hardened into rock as the water was squeezed out and the individual grains or molecules pressed together. Frequently, several thousand feet of these compressed rock layers are found stacked on top of one another, such as at the Grand Canyon, where about 5000 feet of horizontally bedded strata can be seen.

According to the old-earth idea, the Tapeats sandstone on the bottom of the Grand Canyon is about 550 million years old, while the Kalbab Limestone at the top is only 200 million years old. These sediments were uplifted to their present high elevation (some 7000 feet at the rim) about seventy million years ago, meaning the Tapeats was already 480 million years old at the time of uplift and "deformation".

The young-earth creationist interprets these Grand Canyon rocks as having been laid down by the Flood, the Tapeats early in the Flood, and the KaIbab within the next few months. The area was uplifted late in the Flood year, with trapped flood waters carving out the canyon itself while draining off the uplifted continents.

In Grand Canyon Park, most of these sediments, which were laid down horizontally under water, remained horizontal after uplift. But the uplift Beverly deformed these same sediments along the flanks of the plateau, in some areas leaving them in a vertical orientation. In my favorite spot, the Tapeats, which today is an extremely hard rock, was bent from horizontal to vertical in a space of 100 feet or so. The nature of this deformation shows that the sediments were almost certainly still soft when bent. They had not yet had time to turn hard. But it only takes a few hundred years at best for sandy sediments to turn to sandstone in the presence of high overburden pressure and adequate cement. Therefore, we are justified in concluding that the Tapeats was not 480 million years old at the time of uplift. It all happened in a short period of time, while the sediments were still soft.

The old-earth advocates can propose an unlikely scenario of flowage under high confining pressure, but clearly, the evidence better fits the young-earth idea, wiping out 480 million years of supposed earth history.

The best part is, the world is full of such examples, producing much geologic evidence for a young earth.

*Dr. John Morris is the President of ICR.

---Exocomets: Evidence of Recent Creation
--By: Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Astronomers recently detected evidence of possible comets orbiting a faraway star system named &#946; Pictoris.1 They compared what they saw to what our solar system may have looked like billions of years ago when the earth and moon were supposedly forming out of a chaotic debris cloud.
But details from their report easily refute this imagined "planetary-system formation," and instead illustrate how God recently and uniquely created space objects.
---hmmmm...check it out!
-----
<http://www.icr.org/article/8387/>