The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

Here is an excerpt from an article I found to be rather interesting:

The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) recently spent eight years on a project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The RATE team claims the results have yielded convincing and irrefutable scientific evidence of a young earth.

Diamond
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.

Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.

Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.

If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”

The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.

Read the complete article: RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?

 

[grannymh]

Here is an excerpt from an article I found to be rather interesting:

The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) recently spent eight years on a project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The RATE team claims the results have yielded convincing and irrefutable scientific evidence of a young earth.

Diamond
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.

Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.

Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.

If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”

The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.

Read the complete article: RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?

From my personal point of view, I found the information about contamination and background very interesting.

Questions:

1. From your personal point of view, what interested you the most in reference to the age of the earth?
2. Was a suggested age for the earth given? I may have missed that statement.

Thank you.

Easter Blessings to All,
granny

 

[rossum]

Uhm! Did they radiocarbon date wood that may have been entrapped in the lava fields?

There is no wood in the Amitsoq gneiss.

They might have gotten closer to the real date had they done so. Checking for C-14 content of dinosaur bones is emperical, testable, datable, repeatable, and I predict ages of 23,000 up to about 45,000 C-14 years which are the same C-14 ages as some Eurasian and US mammoths.

All you are doing is repeating your already refuted point about how your kitchen scales tells you that anything over 10 kg weighs 10 kg. Carbon dating old rocks tells you about the limits of accuracy of the equipment you are using, it tells you nothing about the age of the rocks. Try using Rb-Sr dating or U-Pb dating on the Amitsoq gneiss instead.

Much more experimental research needs to be done, however, such as evaluating the dispute on the effects of cavitation on increasing the half life of Thorium 228 10,000 times and of course other isotopes.

I have already told you that the unmodified half life of Thorium 228 is two years. I am perfectly prepared to reduce my estimate for the age of the Amitsoq gneiss by two years. What you need to do is to show a change in the half life of one of the longer lived radioisotopes.

rossum

 

[Farsight001]

They might have gotten closer to the real date had they done so. Checking for C-14 content of dinosaur bones is emperical, testable, datable, repeatable, and I predict ages of 23,000 up to about 45,000 C-14 years which are the same C-14 ages as some Eurasian and US mammoths.

C-14 dating and radiometric dating are not interchangeable. C-14 it a type of radiometric dating - one that works only on organic material, with some further restrictions after even that. The point is - you can’t use C-14 dating on bone that has fossilized, such as that of a dinosaur, because there isn’t actually any organic material left to test in that way. Hence, your prediction is de facto not testable.

 

[buffalo]

C-14 dating and radiometric dating are not interchangeable. C-14 it a type of radiometric dating - one that works only on organic material, with some further restrictions after even that. The point is - you can’t use C-14 dating on bone that has fossilized, such as that of a dinosaur, because there isn’t actually any organic material left to test in that way. Hence, your prediction is de facto not testable.

Except on the intact dinosaur soft tissue that was found.

 

[larkin31]

Uhm! Did they radiocarbon date wood that may have been entrapped in the lava fields?

They might have gotten closer to the real date had they done so. Checking for C-14 content of dinosaur bones is emperical, testable, datable, repeatable…

But it has NOT been repeated, nor even published in a reputable scientific publication.

When it is repeated, and becomes verified, it will win the Nobel Prize.

Shall we take any bets?

 

[larkin31]

I’ve already given a comprehensive answer a few posts back.

I never liked interrogations.

You also prefer obfuscation around the key point. I keep repeating the question because your “comprehensive” answer is anything but complete or even to the point of my question. I am simply asking you WHY (specifically) you reject decades of evidence that continues to mount on this point of the age of the earth.

I will try for you: “My faith in a more literal interpretation of Genesis depends upon my rejecting the idea of an old earth.”

Is that close to the truth?

 

[Philipp]

C-14 dating and radiometric dating are not interchangeable. C-14 it a type of radiometric dating - one that works only on organic material, with some further restrictions after even that. The point is - you can’t use C-14 dating on bone that has fossilized, such as that of a dinosaur, because there isn’t actually any organic material left to test in that way. Hence, your prediction is de facto not testable.

You are a bit behind the times as are most folks are as it is impossible to keep up with all that is going on in the world of science. Carbon dating of fossils and even rocks containing carbon are testable for the presence of C-14. Labs have been doing it for years and have been finding C-14. Dinosaur bones even contain kerogenous materials in their veins and the surface of bones appear are black when dug up. As the famous paleontologist, Robet Baaker wrote: the surface of the bones contain carbon powder of the internal parts of the dinosaurs or something to that effect. Want the reference?

The point is: Soft, flexible tissue and bone collagen have been discovered in dinosaur bones in both a T-Rex and an Hadrosaur by scientists of the old earth variety, Drs. Horner and Schweitzer. Their report can be found in Science Magazine of March, 2005 I think it was. I have a copy of that paper and that of the 20 pages of details and photographs of their research from “on line.” They used a mild organic acid, EDTA to remove the minerals around the soft tissue. As a research chemist for many years I have used EDTA as it is a mild agent for dissolving minerals such as calcium carbonate. Other scientists have confirmed the organic nature of the specimens.

After their paper was published the above scientists were challenged to C-14 date the organic material but have so far refused to do so. This is a very serious lack of curiosity and understanding on how science works. Good science requires that you prove your discovery fits the existing paradigm; this they did NOT do as the age is in question. Why? It is common knowledge that organic molecules can NOT last but a maximum of 30,000 to perhaps 100,000 years so they needed to C-14 date the samples on the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) that can date milligram (mg) samples [One mg = 1/1000 of a gram]. Since they didn’t complete their research others have done so for them the hard way.

In the summer of 2005 after reading the Science article a team of scientists and volunteers met in Glendive MT and “sawed open” large femur bones of a Triceratops and an Hadrosaur. They took samples of the hard outer bone structure and the inner bone samples which were dried-up, easily crushable Haversian structures and sent them to a C-14 lab for extraction of bone collagen and the Calcium fraction of the bone bioapatite. They obtained concordant ages between the collagen and the CaCO3 which cinched the fact that there was NO contamination. Visit www.dinosaurc14ages.com for actual photos and the C-14 dates in the range of 23,000 to 31,000 C-14 years. The paper was part of a book containing the scientific proceedings of a conference held at the CNR (National Research Council) entitled, “Evolution: The decline of an hypothesis” and published under the auspicious of the National Research Council of Italy. If you are Catholic I suggest you go to www.kolbecenter.org where you will find a 50 some articles that will help guide you in understanding your faith and origins including one that challenges the long age dating methods.

Hopefully the above paper will be someday be in English on the Internet and you can obtain the details such as methods, procedures, and the many references. Since this is Easter I need to get ready to attend Holy Mass.

 

[Philipp]

But it has NOT been repeated, nor even published in a reputable scientific publication.

When it is repeated, and becomes verified, it will win the Nobel Prize.

Shall we take any bets?

I still have not figured out how those papers from sedimentology to C-14 dating of dinosasur bones got published by the National Research Council of Italy. It’s a very reputable outfit and they CNR} work hand in hand with the US and British equivalents. Afterall the censorship in academia has been so complete world-wide that maybe they know something you don’t know.

Oh yes, early efforts to C-14 dinosaur bones first appeared at a creation conference in 1990 but no collagen was reported. Of course all one has to do is to mention the word creation and some of you guys on this thread move into your ridicule mode.

Nobel prize? Yes, that will happen when all Nobel committee members believe that Christ truly raised form the dead. Happy Easter everyone.

 

[larkin31]

I still have not figured out how those papers from sedimentology to C-14 dating of dinosasur bones got published by the National Research Council of Italy.

Because the Pope asked them to.

And the NRC stated that they did not support the findings of the group. We have been over all this already. I have quoted the relevant passages, including the distancing of the NRC from the report.

Again, when the results are repeated and validated, the original researchers (who, interestingly, remain anonymous on the C14 dino page) will win the Nobel Prize. I look forward to that event, although I will not hold my breath.

 

[Farsight001]

Except on the intact dinosaur soft tissue that was found.

If it is soft tissue, then it is by definition, not a fossil.

In addition, this soft tissue was sealed in what was essentially rock - preventing any C-14 from “leaking” out as it would naturally do, resulting in false dates. This was precisely one of the other exceptions I mentioned. C-14 dating also does not work on aquatic creatures.

 

[Farsight001]

You are a bit behind the times as are most folks are as it is impossible to keep up with all that is going on in the world of science. Carbon dating of fossils and even rocks containing carbon are testable for the presence of C-14. Labs have been doing it for years and have been finding C-14.

So? You’re going to find C-14 in pretty much any organic material. The question is not is it there or not, but has it been contaminated, sealed and preserved, decayed naturally, etc. Testing for the presence of C-14 and using C-14 to date an object are two extremely different things. As such, I don’t need to see the resources - they are irrelevant.

The point is: Soft, flexible tissue and bone collagen have been discovered in dinosaur bones in both a T-Rex and an Hadrosaur by scientists of the old earth variety, Drs. Horner and Schweitzer. Their report can be found in Science Magazine of March, 2005 I think it was. I have a copy of that paper and that of the 20 pages of details and photographs of their research from “on line.” They used a mild organic acid, EDTA to remove the minerals around the soft tissue. As a research chemist for many years I have used EDTA as it is a mild agent for dissolving minerals such as calcium carbonate. Other scientists have confirmed the organic nature of the specimens.

I know the paper of which you speak and you are overstating the nature of the tissue greatly. It was not soft and flexible. It was hard and flaky, but still not mineralized. And being that it was not fossilized, it is not a fossil, and so my statement stands.

I find it odd that you would use this as evidence of your position when it actually shows that, if anything, many fossils are OLDER than scientists first thought. Organic material sealed in a fossil just shows that fossilization can happen slower than previously thought, making many fossils older than previously thought, not younger.

After their paper was published the above scientists were challenged to C-14 date the organic material but have so far refused to do so. This is a very serious lack of curiosity and understanding on how science works.

I would refuse to do so too. It would be a silly waste of what precious little organic dino material that we have. C-14 dating not only works only on some organic material, but also only works on objects between 5k and 60k years old. A millions of years old dinosaur, even preserved this well, is not going to be able to be accurately dated with C-14. And since in the process of dating the material, one must destroy it, it would simply be a waste. So the lack of understanding on how science works is on the part of those who have demanded they waste precious material on a fruitless endeavor.

It is common knowledge that organic molecules can NOT last but a maximum of 30,000 to perhaps 100,000 years so they needed to C-14 date the samples on the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) that can date milligram (mg) samples [One mg = 1/1000 of a gram].

You mean it WAS common knowledge. Why is it that you assume that this knowledge remains accurate, while the age of the fossils - the one thing that helps your position - you call into question? Why can it not be that organic material can, under the right conditions, last much longer than previously thought?

In the summer of 2005 after reading the Science article a team of scientists and volunteers met in Glendive MT and “sawed open” large femur bones of a Triceratops and an Hadrosaur. They took samples of the hard outer bone structure and the inner bone samples which were dried-up, easily crushable Haversian structures and sent them to a C-14 lab for extraction of bone collagen and the Calcium fraction of the bone bioapatite. They obtained concordant ages between the collagen and the CaCO3 which cinched the fact that there was NO contamination. Visit www.dinosaurc14ages.com for actual photos and the C-14 dates in the range of 23,000 to 31,000 C-14 years.

And still living marine-life can be dated to 45000 years old. Again, if the object is not between 5 and 60k years old, it cannot be accurately dated. And we know, by the rock strata these fossils were found in, among many, many other reasons, that they do not fall into that range, and so using C-14 dating is a waste and those dates are easily known to be innacurate.

And even if those “scientists” that you agree with are right in the end, this is only an anomaly among literally billions of contrary points of data. What makes you think this one little outlier should reasonably topple the literally warehouses full of contradictory evidence?

 

[Philipp]

So? You’re going to find C-14 in pretty much any organic material. The question is not is it there or not, but has it been contaminated, sealed and preserved, decayed naturally, etc. Testing for the presence of C-14 and using C-14 to date an object are two extremely different things. As such, I don’t need to see the resources - they are irrelevant.

And even if those “scientists” that you agree with are right in the end, this is only an anomaly among literally billions of contrary points of data. What makes you think this one little outlier should reasonably topple the literally warehouses full of contradictory evidence?

It is your commentary that is mostly irrelevant and I see no value in discussing anything with you regarding scientific matters other than to point out that the warehouses that you speak about are full of assumptions and contradictory evidences for your “Sacred Cow.”

Any normal person would assume that it takes far more faith to believe in the fairy tale of macroevolution - descent from a common ancestor perhaps from cyannobacteria over billions of years than it does in believing in the miracles of Creation as our Church fathers have written. Furthermore, Darwinism was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be an engine of atheism. Darwin fizzles while our church fathers sizzle.

Perhaps you should go to www.kolbecenter.org and catch up a bit on your reading.

I suggest you view www.kolbecenter.org and go to FEATURES and then to ARTICLES. Here a few of 50 some titles of articles that you need to review in light before making such arrogant statements.

Evolution and the Culture of Death

The Negative Impact of Evolutionary Hypothesis on Scientific Research

A Tale of Two Scientists & World Population

Are the Ica Stones Authentic?

Evolution’s Well-Oiled Propaganda

Is the Vatican’s Astronomer a Deist?

Radio Dating: Specious Creativity

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith

Biology Eliminates Evolution

Did Woman Evolve from the Beasts?

The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis

A Summary of Theistic Evolution

An Objective Ancestry Test for Fossil Bones

Why Faithful Catholics Should Oppose Evolution

 

[larkin31]

…Any normal person would assume that it takes far more faith to believe in the fairy tale of macroevolution - descent from a common ancestor perhaps from cyannobacteria over billions of years than it does in believing in the miracles of Creation as our Church fathers have written…

“Any NORMAL person…” ??

And we are supposed to take what follows this seriously? When you base your commentary on a premise based on the word “normal”? This reminds me of some of my students who say that “normal” kids don’t read poetry.

Well, well.

Jesus and his first followers weren’t particularly “normal,” either, were they?

 

[larkin31]

So? You’re going to find C-14 in pretty much any organic material. The question is not is it there or not, but has it been contaminated, sealed and preserved, decayed naturally, etc. Testing for the presence of C-14 and using C-14 to date an object are two extremely different things. As such, I don’t need to see the resources - they are irrelevant.

I know the paper of which you speak and you are overstating the nature of the tissue greatly. It was not soft and flexible. It was hard and flaky, but still not mineralized. And being that it was not fossilized, it is not a fossil, and so my statement stands.

I find it odd that you would use this as evidence of your position when it actually shows that, if anything, many fossils are OLDER than scientists first thought. Organic material sealed in a fossil just shows that fossilization can happen slower than previously thought, making many fossils older than previously thought, not younger.

I would refuse to do so too. It would be a silly waste of what precious little organic dino material that we have. C-14 dating not only works only on some organic material, but also only works on objects between 5k and 60k years old. A millions of years old dinosaur, even preserved this well, is not going to be able to be accurately dated with C-14. And since in the process of dating the material, one must destroy it, it would simply be a waste. So the lack of understanding on how science works is on the part of those who have demanded they waste precious material on a fruitless endeavor.

You mean it WAS common knowledge. Why is it that you assume that this knowledge remains accurate, while the age of the fossils - the one thing that helps your position - you call into question? Why can it not be that organic material can, under the right conditions, last much longer than previously thought?

And still living marine-life can be dated to 45000 years old. Again, if the object is not between 5 and 60k years old, it cannot be accurately dated. And we know, by the rock strata these fossils were found in, among many, many other reasons, that they do not fall into that range, and so using C-14 dating is a waste and those dates are easily known to be innacurate.

And even if those “scientists” that you agree with are right in the end, this is only an anomaly among literally billions of contrary points of data. What makes you think this one little outlier should reasonably topple the literally warehouses full of contradictory evidence?

you’re right, but these folks are working from the premise that nothing on the planet–nor the planet itself–is that old. What do they care that C14 dating does not go back further? That just confirms their religious premise!

 

[edwest2]

Mary Schweitzer’s discovery:

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[larkin31]

Mary Schweitzer’s discovery:

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Thanks.

The specimen is 68 million years old.

And here is a paragraph in the middle of the article:

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Read more: smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=3#ixzz0kBwp6DqA

I bet these misrepresentations of her findings by fellow Christians would indeed drive a religious scientist such as herself quite upset at times.

 

[itinerant1]

From my personal point of view, I found the information about contamination and background very interesting.

Questions:

1. From your personal point of view, what interested you the most in reference to the age of the earth?
2. Was a suggested age for the earth given? I may have missed that statement.

Thank you.

Easter Blessings to All,
granny

My interest was generally in the analysis of the problematic nature of RATE’s contentions.

The age of the earth question interests, or rather concerns me in this thread because the YEC idea of a young earth is pure, unadulterated nonsense that it throws discredit on Genesis and Christianity in general.

Someday, new discoveries may require us to radically overhaul our thinking about biological evolution. That would not bother me or necessarily surprise me one bit. After all, it’s all about getting closer to the truth. In contrast, the understanding that the earth is ancient is rock solid.

The YEC idea of a young earth, or the idea of a young universe created to appear old, will never ever be proven simply because these ideas are utterly false, and are based on the most spurious of premisses.

 

[StAnastasia]

Uhm! Did they radiocarbon date wood that may have been entrapped in the lava fields?)

Philipp, this link provides the strongest argument I’ve ever encountered for a 6,000 year-old earth:

youtube.com/watch?v=xDks8FUyD0I&feature=related

 

[itinerant1]

It is your commentary that is mostly irrelevant and I see no value in discussing anything with you regarding scientific matters other than to point out that the warehouses that you speak about are full of assumptions and contradictory evidences for your “Sacred Cow.”

Any normal person would assume that it takes far more faith to believe in the fairy tale of macroevolution - descent from a common ancestor perhaps from cyannobacteria over billions of years than it does in believing in the miracles of Creation as our Church fathers have written. Furthermore, Darwinism was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be an engine of atheism. Darwin fizzles while our church fathers sizzle.

Perhaps you should go to www.kolbecenter.org and catch up a bit on your reading.

I suggest you view www.kolbecenter.org and go to FEATURES and then to ARTICLES. Here a few of 50 some titles of articles that you need to review in light before making such arrogant statements.

Evolution and the Culture of Death

The Negative Impact of Evolutionary Hypothesis on Scientific Research

A Tale of Two Scientists & World Population

Are the Ica Stones Authentic?

Evolution’s Well-Oiled Propaganda

Is the Vatican’s Astronomer a Deist?

Radio Dating: Specious Creativity

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Crisis of Faith

Biology Eliminates Evolution

Did Woman Evolve from the Beasts?

The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis

A Summary of Theistic Evolution

An Objective Ancestry Test for Fossil Bones

Why Faithful Catholics Should Oppose Evolution

I read some of the articles at Kolbe Center and was I shocked at what I found: illogical statements, ungrounded assumptions, misrepresentations of Church teachings and miraculous apparitions, and so on. Scary stuff at Kolbe Center!