Here is a transcript of a portion near the end of this video. There is more
material immediately following this that covers the topic of mutation and
genetic variation, with the overriding observation that in no studies or
experiments anywhere in the world has it been found that new genetic
material can be formed. All mutations are either neutral or harmful.
But evolutionists rely on the theory that new genetic material results
from mutations.
This fantasy is destroyed by two observable facts, which the evolutionists
conveniently ignore or in some cases, attempt to deny by saying that it
isn't true. But they have no evidence for their insincere claims, only
attitude and pretension of confidence.
The first one is, as above, mutations have never yet produced any
positive results nor any new genetic material. And the second one is,
that all living cells actively work to CORRECT mutations in the genes
and to return the repaired genetic material into the cell's operations
which include procreation of new cells. Therefore, the false claim of
evolutionists that mutant genes accuмulate in cells until some kind of
'breakout' of a new genetic structure occurs is exposed as nonsense.
There is no coordination between cells and no organization for any
objective 'new' offspring that could result in a new species.
Here is the transcript:
50:25 (Pierre Julien speaking)
Evolutionary theory is based upon the belief that a succession of fossil species in a
scale of geological time demonstrates that evolutionary progress has taken place.
As we have seen, however, and as we have shown in a laboratory, layers of incoming
sediment have been wrongly identified as being strata. The scale of geological time
and chronological succession of fossils have been calculated on this mistaken
belief that strata are successive layers of sediment.
A single layer of sediment can sort itself out into parts of many strata. So the
position of fossils in the rock strata could simply indicate the ecological zones
of marine species. Stratigraphy as interpreted by observable facts and experimental
data challenges a geological time scale, and therefore, evolutionary theory.
How old is the earth? Is it millions of years? Or just a few thousand years?
And what does radiometric dating tell us about the age of rocks? The science of
physical chemistry can shed some light on these questions. And Professor
Edward Bordreaux is a physical inorganic chemist who teaches at a university
in New Orleans in Louisiana, and he's studied these matters. So he should
be able to help us.
Professor Bordreaux, it is explained elsewhere in the program that the strata
and the fossils in the rock can give no indication of the age of those rocks.
Can you tell us if there are any other methods that the rocks of the strata
could be dated, for example, by carbon 14 dating?
Let us get one thing clear about carbon 14. It is an unstable radioactive
form of the element carbon, which occurs in all living matter. A living
organism, when it is alive is absorbing and expelling carbon, and a
small amount of which is carbon 14. And at some point in time when
that organism dies, the carbon 14 that was present and remaining at the
point of death is what would be detected, radioactively. A piece of
wood, for example, or a bone, would contain a small amount of carbon
14. When the tree which bore the wood or the animal which bore the
bone died, that carbon 14 that remained is decaying. It takes thousands
of years for that decaying process to occur, about 5,760 years, for about
half of the original amount of carbon 14 to decay. So by measuring
how much of it has decayed, an indication of how long ago the
organism was alive can be obtained. As rocks were never alive, they
contain no carbon 14. Even fossils in the rocks cannot be dated by
this method, because the original living matter in them has turned
into stone.
Does this mean that the fossils can't be dated by radioisotopes?
Well, certainly not by carbon 14 with any degree of reliability. As
you know, virtually all the fossils are found in sedimentary rocks,
and because this type of rock rarely contains radioactive elements,
the fossils have had to be dated by rock strata in which they are
found. And as you know, the latest expriments have shown that
rock strata give no indication of age.
Other types of rocks, such as crystalline rocks, which do not
contain fossils, and lava which do sometimes contain radioactive
elements, and these isotopes are used to date them.
Can you tell us, in simple terms, how you date a fossil or a
rock with a radioisotope?
Yes. Let us take a radioactive element such as uranium. This element
decays very slowly into a non-radioactive element, which is lead. Now
the rate of decay can be measured in the laboratory. So by comparing
what's left of the uranium element in the rock with the amount of the
decayed lead element that was formed, and knowing the rate of decay,
an idea can be had of how long it has taken for the lead to form.
So, if half of the uranium has decayed into lead, and knowing how long
it takes for uranium to decay into lead, you can tell the age of the rock.
That's the theory!
Why do you say "theory?" Surely if there's a process you can observe, and
measure, it must be a fact!
Not at all. Look again at the diagram. You can see that there are a number
of uranium particles, the orange ones, and a number of lead particles, the
blue ones. Here we have to make three major assumptions: the first is,
that all of the lead particles were originally uranium particles. But there
is no reason to believe that there were not some lead particles in the
rock when it was formed. You see, there is lots of natural lead particles
in rocks that doesn't come from uranium at all.
Really?
Yes! Let us take the extreme case. If this rock contained radioactive
uranium and no lead, then the lead that would appear as a consequence
to the uranium decay would be a fairly accurate measurement of the
age of that rock. Or to take a more likely situation, that at least some
of the lead was in the rock when it was formed, then the age of the
rock is much less than we are led to believe. Then there's the matter
of leaking out, due to solublility.
Could that happen?
Most definitely! Salts of uranium and other radioactive elements are
quite capable of dissolving in water and therefore will be removed
from the sample. So if the rock had been exposed to water for
some period of time, such as during a flood, some of the uranium
could have been washed out. This would mean that the age
ascribed to the rock would be much too great.
But surely, there must be other radioactive material and elements
which are more reliable than uranium.
Well, there's radioactive thorium, and there is strontium and
ribidium, and there's potassium, but these are no more reliable
than uranium. The salts of these latter elements are even more
soluble in water than uranium salts.
So, a worldwide flood would have made all these methods useless!!
Most definitely! Let me give you an example of how water can
affect radioactive dating. Less than 200 years ago, the Hawaiian
volcano, Kia Luai erupted, and the lava which emerged from that
eruption was submerged in water. It was subsequently dated by
the potassium-argon method. Clearly, it should have shown the
age of the lava to be only 200 years. The date recorded,
however, was 22 millions years. Obviously, the highly soluble
potassium salt had leaked out of the sample and left it looking
very old. Other samples, taken from Halua-eii volcano lava,
from 1801, were dated between 160 million and 3,000 million
years old.
The situation gets worse and worse!
Also, another assumption in radiometric dating, and that is
that the rate of decay has remained constant and has not been
influenced in the past. There are a number of things that could
have influenced rates of decay.
Such as?
Well, the ah, production of neutrinos from cosmic radiation could
have been enhanced by a reversal of the earth's magnetic field or
an explosion of a supernova in a nearby star! Science has proclaimed
that these kind of events have occurred in the past. And they could
have a substantial effect therefore, on the radioactive decay rate.
So, if radiometric dating is no guide, what other methods are
available?
There are a great many natural processes that will date the earth to
be relatively young. For example, if the compelling evidence
that the earth's magnetic feild has been decreasing with time is
a fact, then we would find that the earth would be rather young,
than old.
One final question, Professor Bordreaux, in your opinion, how long
ago did the big-bang take place?
The whole big-bang hypothesis was constructed to support evolution
theory. Without evolution theory, there is no big-bang! 59:55
It's difficult to believe that all those biologists, zoologists and other
scientists could be wrong, after all, they've been trained in the world's
leading universities. Perhaps Professor Machi Giertych from the Polish
Academy of Science Institute of Dendrology, who lectures in
population genetics at Taurin University in Poland can help us.
The good scientist is one who bases his conclusions on experimental
data and observation. The genetics, psychology, anatomy or any other
field of experimental sciences, is good and reliable, regardless of what
he thinks of evolution. Science works everywhere this way. Where
things do go wrong, is where someone claims to be an expert in
evolution.
Why do you say that?
Because evolution is not a science!! It is a philosophy.
Since scientists trust each other, they often accept the claim
of evolutionists that evolution is a science. But it is not. It is
the opinion of theoretical biologists and philosophers that
evolution is a science.
But is there no scientific evidence for evolution?
What is claimed to be the evidence for evolution is the
universally observable fact that every organism has parents,
at least one parent. This coupled with the knowledge that
there was a time when there was no ants, no frogs, no men,
leads to the unscientific postulate that the first frog was
born of a non-frog, the first ant of a non-ant, the first human
of a non-human, and so on.
Why do you say this idea is unscientific?
Because available evidence does not support it. The
science of genetics clearly shows that such change is not
possible.
The evolutionists goes even further. They claim that living
things evolved from non-living matter.
But if there is no scientific data to support the evolutionist
claims how can they manage to convince so many other
scientists that evolution is a scientific fact?
Their main argument is that there are small, positive, or
beneficial mutations that occur in the reproduction cells
and are retained by natural selection. These mutations
they say, accuмulate, and cause a species to gradually
change into another species. 1:02:50
Now, I'm a geneticist, and I can confirm that in all these
studies, in all laboratories around the world, where many
generations of organisms have been produced, no where
have positive mutations have ever been observed. And
also, in the most studied population of all, the human
population, all the mutations are either neutral or
harmful. They are never an improvement. In fact, nature
has programmed to protect genes from mutations, and to
correct errors that have occurred.
... no new genetic material has yet to result from life processes ...
Topic: Evolution is not science, but (bad) philosophy (Read 2995 times)