Friday, 26 May 2023

How Creationists Lie to Us - Ken Ham's Top 10 'Evidences' [sic] (For the Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Creationism)

How Creationists Lie to Us

Ken Ham's Top 10 'Evidences' [sic] (For the Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Creationism)

Ken Ham, Creationist
Net worth (2023) $55 million
10 Best Evidences That Confirm a Young Earth | Answers in Genesis

I've just been shown an article from Ken Ham's deception site,, which the posted claimed proved the Bible contains accurate science.

Evidently the dupe hadn't got the courage or the ability to check the claimed '10 Best Evidences [sic] from Science That Confirm a Young Earth.

The article starts of in typical Creationist style with circular reasoning arguing that the Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible. He then launches into an attack on dating methods which he claims can't be proven because no-one was there to witness it (apart from his God, obviously.

This has the same intellectual merit as arguing that you can't be sure your great grandparents met and has sex, because no-one recorded seeing them doing it, so their children being born by magic is at least as good an explanation as that they had them the normal way.

Or, more subtly, it you met a friend in one town one day then in a different town a month later, you can't prove he/she travelled from the first town to the second in the intervening month unless you saw them on the journey, so a rational explanation is that he/she magically teleports from one place to another.
Despite this wealth of evidence, it is important to understand that, from the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young (or old) the universe is. Only one dating method is absolutely reliable—a witness who doesn’t lie, who has all evidence, and who can reveal to us when the universe began! And we do have such a witness—the God of the Bible! He has given us a specific history, beginning with the six days of Creation and followed by detailed genealogies that allow us to determine when the universe began. Based on this history, the beginning was only about six thousand years ago (about four thousand years from Creation to Christ).
And Ham doesn't even understand the science he's attacking: The evidence is that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, not the 3 billion he's attacking. But this is only a minor aspect of his profound ignorance and/or intellectual bankruptcy, as we will see. There then follow several Bible references which are supposed to prove that the Bible is the word of God - because it says so in the Bible. And believe it or not, this site appears to be aimed at adults, although Ham shows his contempt for his dupes by treating them like toddlers and being incapable of basic logic. But let's move swiftly on to the 10 evidences [sic]:
  1. Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor.

    Ham informs his dupes that there should be about 6 miles of sediment on the sea floor if Earth is 3 billion years old. Evidently Ham knows his target fools may have heard of plate tectonics and subduction of one plate under another which effectively recycles the sea floor, so he cites a couple of papers which, he claims, show that more sediment is deposited than is removed, neglecting to point out that the authors, marine geologists and geophysicists, saw no problem with their findings.

    But needless to say, true to form, he carefully quote-mines to mislead his dupes, claiming that his first reference says 20 million tons of sediment is deposited per annum. In fact, the authors say:
    Before the proliferation of dam construction in the latter half of this century, rivers probably discharged about 20 billion tons of sediment annually to the ocean. Prior to widespread farming and deforestation (beginning 2000-2500 yr ago), however, sediment discharge probably was less than half the present level.

    And this paper only deals with current rates of deposition, not those from many millions of years ago, and certainly not over the last 3 billion years [sic]. Naturally, Ham's dupes are not expected to know that the ocean floors have only existed since the single continent, Pangea, began to break up 175 million years ago. So far as I can tell, no geologist outside Ham's Creationist cult has ever claimed the ocean floor is 3 billion years old. That figure only appears in Ham's lie.
    The age of the Earth is estimated to be around 4.54 billion years, based on various scientific methods such as radiometric dating of rocks and minerals. However, your question seems to be referring to the relatively thin sediment layer found on the ocean floor.

    It's important to note that the sediment accumulation rate can vary greatly depending on the location within the ocean, the proximity to landmasses, and other factors. While the Earth is billions of years old, the sediment layer on the ocean floor is not expected to be as thick as one might imagine due to various geological processes.

    One reason for the relatively thin sediment layer is the process of subduction, where tectonic plates collide and one plate sinks beneath another, forming subduction zones. In subduction zones, the oceanic crust, including the sediments on its surface, is recycled back into the Earth's mantle. This process helps to remove older sediments from the ocean floor and prevents them from accumulating over extremely long periods.

    Another factor is the presence of spreading ridges in the ocean, where new crust is continuously formed as tectonic plates separate. These areas have relatively little sediment due to the volcanic activity and constant creation of new crust, which does not allow sufficient time for sediment to accumulate.

    Additionally, ocean currents and wave action contribute to the transportation and redistribution of sediment. Coarser sediments tend to settle closer to the shore, while finer sediments can be transported over long distances before settling. This dynamic nature of sediment movement limits the accumulation of sediment in specific regions.

    For more detailed information on sediment accumulation on the ocean floor. Some recommended sources include: These references should provide you with in-depth information on the processes affecting sediment accumulation on the ocean floor.

    ChatGPT3 "If Earth is 3 billion years old, why is the so little sediment on the ocean floor?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    And believe it or not, that is Ham's top evidence of his 10 evidences [sic]

  2. Bent Rock Layers

    Ham claims that sedimentary rocks can only be bent when wet and cites the example of trying to bend a paving stone - easy before the cement sets, impossible after. He even cites two science papers for that claim (R.E. Goodman, Introduction to Rock Mechanics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980), and Sam Boggs, Jr., Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy), neglecting to tell his readers that the first reference, in Chapter 6, explains how sedimentary rocks are deformed over time, with no suggestion that it can only be done before they solidify, and the second makes no mention of that alleged fact.

    In the best creationist tradition, safe in the knowledge that his dupes either won't read the references, or won't understand them if they do, he cites references that don't say what he claims they say. With his usual arrogant contempt for his readers, Ham assumes they'll just take his word for it and won't check

    Of course, mainstream geology has no difficulty with deformation of sedimentary rocks over geological time.
    Sedimentary rocks can become bent and buckled through a geological process known as tectonic deformation. This deformation occurs due to the forces and movements within the Earth's crust. There are two main types of tectonic deformation: compressional and extensional.

    Compressional Deformation:

    Folding: Folding involves the bending of rock layers due to compressional forces. The rocks are subjected to horizontal compression, causing them to fold and create wavelike structures. The folds can be gentle, like broad arches, or tightly folded, forming tight anticlines (upward folds) and synclines (downward folds). The formation of folds occurs over long periods of time.

    Thrusting: Thrusting occurs when intense compression causes rocks to fracture and slide along a fault plane. The overlying rock layers are pushed up and over the lower layers, resulting in the formation of large-scale thrust faults. Sedimentary rocks may be folded and stacked, with younger rocks appearing on top of older ones.

    Extensional Deformation:

    Normal Faulting: In extensional environments, such as divergent plate boundaries, tensional forces cause the Earth's crust to stretch and thin. This leads to the formation of normal faults, where one block of rock is displaced downward relative to the other block. Sedimentary rocks situated near these faults can become tilted and tilted.

    Rift Zones: Rift zones are regions where the Earth's lithosphere is being pulled apart. Sedimentary rocks located in rift zones experience extensional forces that can lead to faulting, tilting, and the development of grabens (down-dropped fault blocks) and horsts (uplifted fault blocks).

    These processes of tectonic deformation are well-documented in the field of geology. Here are a few references that can provide you with more in-depth information and examples:
    1. Press, F., & Siever, R. (1982). Earth. W. H. Freeman. (Chapter 10: Deformation of Rocks)
    2. Twiss, R. J., & Moores, E. M. (1992). Structural Geology. W. H. Freeman. (Chapter 11: Folds and Folding)
    3. Davis, G. H., & Reynolds, S. J. (1996). Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions. John Wiley & Sons. (Chapter 6: Folds, Faults, and Other Records of Rock Deformation)
    4. Prothero, D. R., & Schwab, F. (2003). Sedimentary Geology: An Introduction to Sedimentary Rocks and Stratigraphy. W. H. Freeman. (Chapter 11: Deformation of Sedimentary Rocks)
    These resources should provide you with comprehensive explanations, illustrations, and examples of how sedimentary rocks can become bent and buckled through tectonic deformation.

    ChatGPT3 "How do sedimentary rocks get bent and buckled?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    After that abysmal start, let's hope the Hamster can do a little better. Don't hold your best, though; they were his best two evidences [sic]!

  3. Soft Tissue in Fossils

    Alas, not. This is simply a repetition of a lie that's been circulating ever since Dr Mary Schweitzer reported recovering evidence of fossilised soft tissue from a dinosaur fossil. Note, fossilised soft tissue is not the same as soft tissue. It means soft body-parts have become mineralised like hard body-parts such as bone, teeth and horn do. For example, what some YEC's claim were actual red blood cells, were in fact small globules of iron oxide.

    For an excellent analysis of the significance of Schweitzer’s research for palaeontology, see Letters to Creationists, found with a simple Google search. It cites Mary Schweitzer, a devout Christian, as saying:
    I think that parents need to tell their kids that there are a lot of REASONS scientists say what they do, and virtually NONE of those reasons are to disprove God’s existence. That doesn’t enter in. I’ve had lots of students come into my office in tears over the years, saying, “I don’t understand…

    One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.
    Needless to say, Ham neglects to tell his readers that the (2010) review article he cites by Dr Mary Schweitzer in Scientific American , which he falsely titles "Blood from Stone" (its full title is "Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue", starts off with:

    • The conventional view of fossilization holds that over time all of the organic compounds disappear, leaving behind only inert, mineralized remains.
    • But a growing body of evidence indicates that under certain conditions organic substances, such as remains of blood, bone cells and claws, may persist in fossils for millions of years. [My emphasis]
    • These ancient substances could help answer such questions as how dinosaurs adapted to changing environmental conditions and how quickly they evolved.
    And of course, Ham's deception neglects to point out that Schweitzer was part of a team that, in 2013, showed how soft tissue could indeed be preserved for millions of years in the presence of iron (Schweitzer MH, Zheng W, Cleland TP, Goodwin MB, Boatman E, Theil E, Marcus MA, Fakra SC. 2014 A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20132741.

    Creationist attitudes towards Dr Schweitzer have become practically schizophrenic. On the one hand, she is hailed as a brilliant scientist who have proved dinosaurs lived recently. Then, when she denies this claim and explains how these tissues can be preserved for millions of years, she is castigated as a godless scientists trying to disprove God.
    The discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil by Dr. Mary Higby Schweitzer is a groundbreaking scientific finding that challenged long-held assumptions about the preservation of ancient organic materials. In 2005, Dr. Schweitzer and her team made an extraordinary discovery while studying the leg bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex specimen excavated from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA.

    Upon examining the fossil under a microscope, Dr. Schweitzer noticed what appeared to be the presence of soft, pliable tissue within the bone. This was an unexpected finding because it was previously believed that all organic material would have decayed and degraded over the millions of years since the dinosaur's extinction. Soft tissues, such as blood vessels, cells, and even fragments of proteins, were preserved in the fossil.

    The discovery was initially met with skepticism and sparked intense scientific debate. The prevailing view had been that organic materials could not persist for such long periods of time. However, Dr. Schweitzer and her team meticulously conducted additional analyses and repeated their experiments to confirm and validate their findings.

    One of the significant challenges in studying soft tissue preservation in fossils is preventing contamination. Dr. Schweitzer and her team took extensive precautions to ensure that the observed soft tissue was not the result of contamination from modern sources. They used multiple analytical techniques, including immunohistochemistry and mass spectrometry, to verify the presence of original organic material.

    Subsequent research by Dr. Schweitzer and other scientists has revealed the presence of soft tissue in several other dinosaur fossils and even older specimens, further supporting the initial discovery. The preservation of soft tissues in these fossils has provided scientists with valuable insights into the physiology, biochemistry, and evolutionary relationships of dinosaurs and other extinct organisms.

    The discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer has had a profound impact on paleontology and our understanding of fossil preservation. It has opened up new avenues of research and highlighted the potential for the preservation of ancient biomolecules. The study of soft tissues in dinosaur fossils continues to be an active area of scientific investigation, offering exciting possibilities for further discoveries and advancements in our knowledge of ancient life.

    Please note that since my knowledge cutoff is in September 2021, there may have been additional developments in this field since then.

    ChatGPT3 "Tell me about Mary Schweitzer’s discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil." [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    The preservation of soft tissue in ancient fossils is a complex and remarkable phenomenon that can occur through several different processes. While the exact mechanisms are still being studied, scientists have proposed several hypotheses to explain the preservation of soft tissues over millions of years. Here are some of the main theories:
    1. Permineralization: Permineralization is a process in which minerals, such as silica or calcium carbonate, infiltrate and replace the original organic material. This can occur when minerals in groundwater or sediment gradually precipitate and fill the pore spaces within the tissues, effectively preserving their structure. The minerals act as a sort of "hardening" agent, providing a framework for the preservation of delicate soft tissues.
    2. Recrystallization: Recrystallization involves the rearrangement of the mineral structure within the tissues. Over time, the original minerals may dissolve and recrystallize, preserving the overall structure of the soft tissues. Recrystallization can help maintain the shape and general appearance of the tissues, even if the original organic material has decayed.
    3. Carbonization: Carbonization occurs when an organism or its soft tissues are subjected to high heat and pressure, leading to the removal of volatile elements (such as oxygen and hydrogen) and leaving behind a carbon-rich residue. This process can preserve delicate structures, such as leaves or feathers, as a thin carbon film. While carbonization is more commonly associated with plant fossils, it can also contribute to the preservation of certain soft tissues.
    4. Exceptional Preservation Environments: Certain environments, such as anaerobic (low-oxygen) conditions or those with high levels of acidity or alkalinity, can create conditions that inhibit the decay and degradation of organic material. In these rare cases, soft tissues may be preserved with their cellular and molecular structures intact. Examples of exceptional preservation include the preservation of DNA fragments in some ancient specimens.
    It's important to note that soft tissue preservation is relatively rare and occurs under specific circumstances. The exact conditions required for soft tissue preservation are still the subject of ongoing research and investigation. Scientists continue to explore the factors that contribute to the exceptional preservation of soft tissues in order to gain a better understanding of the processes involved. Please keep in mind that while the preservation of soft tissues in ancient fossils has been documented, it remains a relatively rare occurrence. The majority of fossils do not preserve soft tissues, and our knowledge in this field is still developing as new discoveries and research shed light on the mechanisms involved.

    ChatGPT3 "How is soft tissue preserved in ancient fossils?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    So far then, the Hamster's three top evidence [sic] are three blatant misrepresentations of science combined with citing articles that don't say what he claims they say, and in fact, flatly contradict his claims, safe in the knowledge that his target dupes will never check.

    Do things improve? What do you think?

  4. Faint Sun Paradox

    This depends on the evidence-free bizarre claim that as the sun converts hydrogen into helium in the fusion reaction that is the origin of the sun's heat, the sun should be getting hotter. So, it must once have been cooler. The claim, again unsupported by evidence, is that the sun would have been so cool 3.5 billion years ago that Earth would have been frozen, so it would have been impossible for life to evolve. (Incidentally, note that Earth is now at least 3.5 billion years old, not the 3 billion years old it was at the start of these evidences [sic]. Doesn't time flow when you're having fun!)

    But the claim is bizarre. Why would the sun get hotter when the same fusion reaction - hydrogen into helium - does not depend on how much helium is present but on whether hydrogen is present under pressure - which isn't affected by the presence of helium.

    No, the Sun does not gradually get hotter as more helium is created by the fusion of hydrogen in its core. In fact, the Sun's core temperature remains relatively stable over long periods of time due to a delicate balance between gravitational forces and the energy generated by nuclear fusion.

    The Sun's core is where nuclear fusion occurs, specifically the fusion of hydrogen nuclei (protons) into helium. This process, known as the proton-proton chain, releases a tremendous amount of energy in the form of light and heat. The energy generated by fusion creates an outward pressure that counteracts the inward pull of gravity, maintaining the Sun's equilibrium.

    As the Sun fuses hydrogen into helium, it gradually converts a small fraction of its mass into energy. However, this conversion is relatively slow and occurs over an enormous timescale. The Sun has been burning hydrogen for about 4.6 billion years, and it is estimated to have sufficient fuel to continue for another 5 billion years.

    While the Sun's core temperature remains stable, other factors can affect the Sun's overall behavior. For example, changes in the Sun's magnetic activity can influence the amount of energy emitted, leading to variations in solar output and affecting Earth's climate. However, these variations are relatively small and occur over shorter timescales compared to the gradual hydrogen-to-helium conversion.

    In summary, the Sun's core temperature remains relatively constant as it fuses hydrogen into helium, and the gradual conversion of hydrogen to helium does not cause a significant increase in the Sun's overall temperature over time.

    ChatGPT3 "Does the sun gradually get hotter as more helium is created by fusion of hydrogen?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    So, just a blatant lie then. There is no 'faint sun paradox' to be explained. The score so far? Three blatant misrepresentations and a lie.

  5. Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

    This claim combines the finding that Earth's magnetic field has been slowly decreasing for some time with an arbitrary starting value that makes it look like Earth is just a few thousand years old. It is simply a case of starting with the age you want earth to be, projecting the current rate of magnetic decay back to that date and concluding that that must have been the starting point.

    As though that wasn't bad enough, there is no evidence that the rate of decay is constant or irreversible. Ham's dupes are just expected to accept what his 'expert' in this case the notoriously dishonest Andrew Snelling, says, despite the fact that Snelling is selective in his citations and doesn't offer any evidence to support a constant decay rate or show that it isn't reversible or cyclic in nature.

    For a detailed analysis of the credentials and reliability of Dr Andrew Snelling as a serious geologist, see Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up? by the geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie, (The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15).

    Earth's magnetic field has had multiple reversals in the past. In fact, the evidence of them locked in magnetic particles in rocks either side of the mid-ocean ridges, are unarguable evidence of an old earth.
    Yes, Earth's magnetic field is gradually weakening, particularly in certain regions. This phenomenon is known as geomagnetic field decay. Over the past few centuries, scientists have been studying and monitoring Earth's magnetic field, and their observations indicate a gradual decline in its strength.

    One way scientists track the changes in Earth's magnetic field is through measurements of the magnetic field intensity, which is typically expressed in units of nanoteslas (nT). Long-term monitoring has revealed that the overall magnetic field strength has been decreasing at a rate of about 5% per century.

    Furthermore, there are specific regions on Earth where the magnetic field is weaker than in other areas. For example, the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is a region over South America and the South Atlantic Ocean where the magnetic field strength is significantly lower than expected. This anomaly has been expanding and moving westward over the past few decades.

    The exact causes of the weakening magnetic field are still being studied, but they are thought to be related to processes occurring within Earth's outer core, where the magnetic field is generated. The outer core consists of molten iron and nickel, and its motion generates Earth's magnetic field through a process called geodynamo.

    It's important to note that the weakening of Earth's magnetic field does not mean that the field will disappear entirely or that a complete reversal is imminent. The magnetic field has undergone numerous reversals throughout Earth's history, with the north and south magnetic poles switching places. However, the timescale for these reversals is on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and it is not directly linked to the current weakening of the field.

    Scientists continue to study Earth's magnetic field and its changes to better understand the underlying processes and potential implications. Monitoring and research in this area contribute to our understanding of Earth's geology, navigation systems, and the impact of the magnetic field on the planet and its inhabitants.

    ChatGPT3 “Is Earth's magnetic field decreasing?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    No, the weakening of Earth's magnetic field is not evidence for a young Earth. The gradual decline in the strength of Earth's magnetic field is a well-documented phenomenon that has been observed and studied for many years. The scientific understanding of Earth's magnetic field and its changes is based on extensive research and evidence from a variety of sources, including paleomagnetic data, satellite measurements, and geological records.

    The rate of decay of Earth's magnetic field is consistent with the processes occurring within the planet's core, where the magnetic field is generated. It is not indicative of a young Earth. In fact, the evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines, including geology, astronomy, biology, and physics, overwhelmingly supports an age for the Earth of around 4.6 billion years.

    Numerous independent lines of evidence, such as radiometric dating of rocks, the study of fossils and sedimentary layers, and the measurement of cosmic background radiation, all converge to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Earth's age and the processes that have shaped it over billions of years.

    It's important to approach scientific evidence and theories with an understanding of the broader scientific consensus and the rigorous methodologies used to arrive at these conclusions. The gradual weakening of Earth's magnetic field is just one piece of a much larger puzzle that supports an ancient Earth.

    ChatGPT3 "Is this evidence for a young earth? [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    So just an evidence-free claim based on circular reasoning and calculations starting from the required answer by notoriously unreliable employee of the Creation Industry, who earned his credentials doing research which he now tries to disprove whilst still being paid for his Old Earth-supporting publications. The score? Three blatant misrepresentations, a lie, and an evidence free-claim by a notoriously duplicitous Creationist employee.
    (Half-time score: Science: 5 Creationism 0).

  6. Helium in Radioactive Rocks

    Another article from the pen of the author of the previous evidence-free claim, Dr Andrew Snelling.

    In this he cites an old-long-refuted claim that the presence of 'radiohaloes' in rocks, caused by the decay of radioactive uranium, thorium (and other radioactive isotopes), leaving a residue of helium from the emitted alpha particles (helium nuclei) are evidence of a young earth.

    Of course, Ham doesn't inform his dupes that this claim was rejected long ago by mainstream geologists:
    'Radioactive halos,' also known as radiohalos or pleochroic halos, are small spherical discolorations or zones of radiation damage that can be found in certain minerals within rocks. These halos are associated with the decay of radioactive isotopes, particularly uranium, thorium, and their decay products, such as lead. Radioactive halos are formed when a radioactive isotope decays and emits alpha particles. These alpha particles travel through the mineral lattice, leaving trails of radiation damage in their path. Over time, these damaged areas can become visible under certain conditions, creating the distinct halo-like patterns. The presence of radioactive halos within rocks has been cited by some proponents of young Earth creationism as evidence for a young Earth. They argue that the short half-lives of the radioactive isotopes involved (e.g., polonium-218, polonium-214) would not allow sufficient time for the halos to form if the rocks were millions or billions of years old. However, the claim that radioactive halos are evidence for a young Earth is not supported by mainstream scientific consensus. There are several reasons for this:
    1. Diffusion: One key factor is the process of diffusion. Over long periods of time, the diffusion of radioactive isotopes within minerals can lead to the formation of halos even if the isotopes themselves have short half-lives. This means that the isotopes can diffuse from their original source and become concentrated in small areas, creating halos over extended periods.
    2. Multiple Isotopes: Radioactive halos are not limited to a single isotope but are often associated with a combination of isotopes and their decay products. This broader range of isotopes and their different half-lives can contribute to the formation of halos over longer timescales.
    3. Radioactive Decay Rates: The claim made by proponents of young Earth creationism is that the short half-lives of certain radioactive isotopes would not allow sufficient time for the formation of radiohalos in rocks if the Earth were millions or billions of years old. However, extensive research has shown that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have remained remarkably constant over time. The observed decay rates have been measured and confirmed through numerous independent methods, including direct laboratory experiments and the comparison of isotopic ratios in natural samples of known ages. These measurements and observations provide robust evidence that radioactive decay rates have not significantly changed over geological timescales.
    4. Multiple Isotopes and Halo Types: Radioactive halos are not limited to a single isotope, but rather involve a combination of isotopes and their decay products. Different isotopes with varying half-lives can contribute to the formation of different types of halos within the same rock. This indicates that multiple isotopes and their associated halos have been involved in the geological processes over extended periods of time.
    5. Geological Context and Dating Methods: The age of rocks hosting radioactive halos is determined through multiple dating methods, such as radiometric dating, which provide consistent and well-established estimates for the age of the Earth and its geological features. These dating methods consider a range of isotopic systems with different decay rates and utilize various techniques to cross-check and verify the results. The ages obtained from these methods are supported by a wealth of additional evidence, including the study of sedimentary layers, fossils, and other geological phenomena.
    6. Natural Explanations: Mainstream science offers natural explanations for the formation of radiohalos over long periods. For example, the diffusion of isotopes within minerals and the redistribution of radioactive elements can occur over time, leading to the accumulation and concentration of these isotopes in specific areas, thereby forming halos. Such processes can account for the presence of radiohalos within rocks without requiring a young Earth interpretation.
    In conclusion, while radioactive halos are an intriguing geological phenomenon, they do not provide evidence for a young Earth. The formation of these halos can be explained within the framework of long geological timescales, considering processes like diffusion and the involvement of multiple isotopes. The broader scientific consensus, based on a wide range of evidence, firmly supports an age for the Earth of around 4.6 billion years.

    ChatGPT 3 "What are 'Radioactive halos' in rocks and are they evidence for a young earth? If not, why not? [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    What Snelling has done here, typical of the confirmation bias of creationism, is to hypothecate the reason for these radiohaloes, then stick with that hypothesis as a proven facts because it agrees with his pre-required conclusion, and then proclaim claim it as evidence of a young earth without further investigation, confident that his claim will be accepted by his dupes without checking. Of course, mainstream rejection of his claims is dismissed because it isn't consistent with his required conclusion, and, having signed up to the Creationist Oath to never publish anything that isn't in full accord with a literal interpretation of the Bible, he is contractually bound to reach that conclusion - something no serious scientists would ever sign up to.

    Science 6; creationism 0.

  7. Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

    Firstly, Carbon-14 is not used to date fossils because, during the mineralisation process, any organic carbon from the original material is replaced by mineral carbon from the surrounding strata. Besides with an upper age-limit of about 50,000 years beyond which, with a half-life of about 5,700 years, any Carbon-14 initially present will have decayed to a level which is almost indistinguishable from background radiation.

    Similarly, diamonds are generally too old to contain significant amounts of Carbon-14. Besides, there is no evidence that diamonds were produced when Earth was first formed, so they are not used as evidence for the age of Earth.

    And, like the radiohaloes 'evidence' in the previous example, the Carbon-14 in coal may well be due to contamination from the surrounding strata, especially when overlain by limestone of other sedimentary rock, as most of the coal-seams are, so any Carbon-14 dating of coal is meaningless.

    It almost goes without saying that this is again the work of Andrew Snelling. What he has done here is misused Carbon-14 dating, in full knowledge that it would produce false results, to try to convince creationists that 'scientific evidence' supports them. Carbon-14 dating, which creationists normally dismiss along with science in general, as inaccurate, suddenly becomes scientific evidence for their childish superstition. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is simply evidence of the dishonesty of creationists and the lengths their cult leaders go to to fool scientifically-illiterate fools into joining their lucrative cult.
    The presence of carbon-14 in fossils, coal, and diamonds is not considered evidence for a young Earth. Carbon-14 (C-14) is an isotope of carbon with a relatively short half-life of about 5,730 years. It is primarily used for dating organic materials up to approximately 50,000 years old through a process called radiocarbon dating.

    Here's why the presence of carbon-14 in fossils, coal, and diamonds does not support a young Earth:
    1. Fossils: Fossils are the remains or traces of ancient organisms preserved in rocks. Fossils are typically much older than the 50,000-year limit for radiocarbon dating. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not applicable for dating most fossils. Instead, other dating methods, such as radioactive decay schemes and stratigraphic analysis, are used to determine their ages, and these methods consistently support an ancient Earth.
    2. Coal: Coal is formed from ancient plant material that underwent burial and transformation over millions of years. While coal may contain traces of carbon-14, the presence of this isotope does not indicate a young age. The carbon-14 detected in coal is likely due to contamination from more recent organic material or from processes that involve the exchange of carbon with the surrounding environment.
    3. Diamonds: Diamonds are formed deep within the Earth's mantle under high pressure and temperature conditions. The carbon in diamonds is typically very old, often billions of years old. Carbon-14 dating is not applicable to diamonds due to their extreme age and the fact that carbon-14 is not present in sufficient quantities to be detected in most diamonds. Other isotopic dating methods, such as the uranium-lead dating of associated minerals, are used to determine the ages of diamonds.
    It's important to note that radiocarbon dating is a powerful tool for dating organic materials within its applicable range. However, it has limitations beyond the 50,000-year mark. The use of other dating methods, such as radiometric dating techniques and the study of geological context, provides a comprehensive understanding of the age of Earth's materials, including fossils, coal, and diamonds. These methods consistently support an ancient Earth of approximately 4.6 billion years.

    ChatGPT3 "Is carbon-14 in fossils, coal and diamonds, evidence for a young earth? If not, why not? [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    Just another abuse of science to fool scientifically illiterate dupes into believing their childish superstation has some scientific merit, that you need to be a creationist to understand. Playing to that desperate need for support from the science they so despise/ Science 7; creationism 0.

    Be of good cheer - only three more of these tawdry 'evidences' [sic] to go. Guess how many of them provide actual scientific evidence for a young Earth?

  8. Short-Lived Comets Mercifully, this isn't another of Andrew Snelling's insulting contributions. It's the work of another creationist lacky who will have signed up to the Creationist Oath, so can be dismissed as lacking any scientific credibility, Dr. Danny Faulkner.

    Basically, it argues that the Universe must be young because comets have a relatively short life and there are still comets.

    Of course, it ignores the evidence for the origin of comets and assumes they were all created in their present solar orbits at the formation of the Universe.

    The truth is that comets originate in the Kuiper Belt - a cluster of ice and rock debris that lies beyond Pluto. These are in chaotic orbits around the sun, and occasional collisions within it will knock a comet out of its orbit and into an elliptical path that takes it towards the sun, and back out again to become a period comet like Halley's Comet. It is only at that point that they begin to lose mass as they evaporate under solar radiation.

    Faulkner deals with this well-understood explanation for the origin of comets by simply dismissing it, confident that his target dupes will treat his dismissal as authoritative.
    The Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud are two regions in our solar system that are believed to contain remnants of icy bodies left over from the early formation of the solar system. While they are both part of the same general concept of the outer solar system's icy reservoirs, they have distinct characteristics and evidence supporting their existence. Kuiper Belt: The Kuiper Belt is a region in the outer solar system beyond the orbit of Neptune, extending from about 30 to 50 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun (1 AU is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun). It is named after Dutch-American astronomer Gerard Kuiper, who first proposed the existence of such a region in 1951. The Kuiper Belt is composed of a large number of small icy bodies, including dwarf planets such as Pluto, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake, as well as thousands of smaller objects called Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs). The discovery of several KBOs in the 1990s, including the dwarf planet Pluto, provided initial evidence for the existence of the Kuiper Belt. The subsequent identification of numerous additional KBOs through telescopic surveys and observations further confirmed its existence. Reference for the Kuiper Belt:
    Jewitt, D. (1999). "Trans-Neptunian Objects and Comets: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 35." Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy.
    Oort Cloud: The Oort Cloud is a theoretical cloud of icy objects thought to surround the solar system at a much greater distance than the Kuiper Belt. It is named after Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, who postulated its existence in 1950.

    The Oort Cloud is believed to extend from about 2,000 to 100,000 astronomical units from the Sun, forming a vast and mostly spherical shell around the solar system. Unlike the Kuiper Belt, which is relatively closer to the Sun and contains primarily icy bodies in relatively stable orbits, the Oort Cloud is thought to contain a more diverse range of objects, including icy planetesimals and comets in more eccentric and inclined orbits.

    It's important to note that while the existence of the Kuiper Belt is well-established based on direct observations and the discovery of numerous objects within it, the Oort Cloud is more speculative due to its vast distance and lack of direct observational evidence. The Oort Cloud is inferred based on mathematical models, dynamical simulations, and the origin of long-period comets, which are believed to originate from this distant region.

    ChatGPT3 "What is the Kuiper Belt and what evidence is the for the Oort Cloud?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    Only by ignoring the evidence can this creationist construct a seemingly science-based argument for a young Earth and claim to his ignorant audience that comets provide that evidence.
    Science 8; creationism 0.

  9. Very Little Salt in the Sea

    Here is Andrew Snelling again, ignoring any evidence that contradicts Young Earth Creationism and pretending to his dupes that science supports them. It's hard to believe a serious professional geologist isn't aware of the science and is as ignorant of it as he assumes his readership will be.

    In this 'evidence' we are back again to a 3-billion-year-old Earth! I wish Hambone would make his mind up what he's attacking here!

    The amount of salt in the Earth's oceans is not evidence against the Earth's age as determined by scientists. The salt in the oceans has accumulated over billions of years through various processes, including weathering of rocks, volcanic activity, and the cycling of water through the hydrological system. The Earth's oceans have been continuously accumulating salt throughout its history.

    It is important to note that the salt concentration in seawater is relatively stable over long periods. While water continuously cycles through the hydrological system, with some water evaporating from the oceans and then returning as precipitation, the overall salt content remains relatively constant. This is because the amount of salt added to the oceans through various processes is roughly balanced by the removal of salt through sedimentation, chemical reactions, and other geological processes.

    The accumulation of salt in the oceans is a complex process influenced by numerous factors, including the composition of rocks, the amount of rainfall, the rate of evaporation, and the interaction of seawater with the Earth's crust. The estimated age of the Earth, around 4.6 billion years, allows ample time for the accumulation of salt in the oceans to reach its current level.

    In summary, the observed amount of salt in the Earth's oceans is consistent with the geological timescale and the age of the Earth as determined by scientific research. The accumulation of salt in the oceans is a result of long-term geological processes and does not pose a challenge to the Earth's age as estimated by scientists.
    ChatGPT3 "Where is all the salt that should be in the oceans if Earth is as old as scientists claim?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    There are several mechanisms by which salt is removed from the Earth's oceans. These processes help maintain the relatively stable salt concentration in seawater over long periods. Here are some key mechanisms:
    1. Sedimentation: When ocean water evaporates, the dissolved salts are left behind, eventually leading to the formation of sedimentary rocks. These rocks can contain salt minerals, such as halite (rock salt) or gypsum, which effectively remove salt from the oceans. Over time, the deposition and compaction of these sedimentary rocks contribute to the removal of salt from the oceanic system.
    2. Subduction: Subduction occurs when one tectonic plate moves beneath another, causing the oceanic crust to sink into the Earth's mantle. Along with the sinking crust, seawater and its dissolved salts are also transported into the mantle. This process acts as a sink for salt, effectively removing it from the oceanic system over geologic timescales.
    3. Chemical Reactions: Various chemical reactions occurring within the Earth's crust can also remove salt from seawater. For instance, when seawater interacts with certain types of rocks, such as basalts or carbonates, chemical reactions can take place, resulting in the precipitation or absorption of dissolved ions, including salts.
    4. Volcanic Activity: Volcanic eruptions release gases and materials from the Earth's mantle, including water vapor and other volatile compounds. Some of these volcanic emissions, such as volcanic ash and aerosols, contain salt particles that may be removed from the atmosphere through precipitation, eventually making their way back to the Earth's surface and potentially contributing to the removal of salt from the oceans.
    It's important to note that while these mechanisms remove some amount of salt from the oceans, they are balanced by the addition of salts through weathering of rocks, hydrothermal activity, and other geological processes. The overall salt concentration in seawater remains relatively stable over time. Here are a few references that discuss these mechanisms and the cycling of salt in the oceans:
    1. Derry, L. A., & Jacobsen, S. B. (1990). "The chemical evolution of Precambrian seawater: Evidence from REEs in banded iron formations." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54(11), 2965-2977.
    2. Morse, J. W., & Mackenzie, F. T. (1990). "Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates." Developments in Sedimentology, 48, Elsevier.
    3. National Research Council. (2010). "Origin and Evolution of Earth: Research Questions for a Changing Planet." The National Academies Press.
    These references provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms involved in the removal of salt from the oceans and the cycling of salts through geological processes.
    ChatGPT3 "What are the mechanisms by which salt is removed from the oceans?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from

    Science 9; creationism 0.

  10. DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

    Last in this list of failures is the 'evidence ' of DNA in a 250-million-year-old bacterial spore recovered from a salt Chrystal. The discovery in 2000 by Russell H. Vreeland & William D. Rosenzweig the Department of Biology, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA, together with consultant geologist, Dennis W. Powers, was reported in Nature, sadly behind a paywall.

    Another Creation Industry hack, see Encyclopedia of American Loons, Dr Georgina Purdom, delivers the misrepresentation of science this time.

    Having explain that, under normal circumstances, DNA would be expected to have decayed long before it was 250 million years old, then projects that to the exceptional conditions in which this was preserved in brine trapped within a salt crystal, where the environment might be expected to be someone different to 'normal'.

    Of course, she neglects to point this out. Instead of doing what a real scientist would do and treat this exception as interesting and pointing to additional research to find out why those conditions preserved DNA for so long, she concludes, without evidence, that the sample must be very young, and so confirms what she 'knows' - the Earth is young too.

    And of course, any YEC reading the opinions of a microbiologist with a doctorate is not going to question it.
    In fact, of course, the 2000 paper is not evidence of a young Earth, but evidence that, under very exceptional and rare circumstances, DNA can indeed be preserved for 250 million years.
    The recovery of intact DNA from a 250-million-year-old bacterial spore found in a salt crystal, as reported by Vreeland, Rosenzweig, and Powers in 2000, is an intriguing scientific finding. However, it is important to note that this discovery does not provide evidence for a young Earth. Here's why: Preservation under exceptional conditions: The exceptional preservation of DNA in this particular case can be attributed to the highly unusual and extreme conditions of the salt crystal environment. The high salt concentration and low water content of the crystal could have played a significant role in preserving the DNA. Such extreme preservation conditions are not representative of the typical environments where organic material and DNA decay over time. Exception rather than the norm: While the recovery of DNA from such an old sample is fascinating, it is considered an exceptional case. The preservation of DNA for millions of years is extremely rare, and in most cases, DNA degrades and becomes fragmented over time due to various physical, chemical, and biological processes. Multiple lines of evidence: The age of the Earth is not solely determined based on the preservation of DNA in specific instances. Instead, it is supported by a vast array of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, including geology, paleontology, radiometric dating, and astrophysics. These lines of evidence converge to provide a consistent and robust understanding of the Earth's age, which is estimated to be around 4.6 billion years. Dating methods: The age of the salt crystal itself and the bacterial spore within it would need to be independently confirmed through multiple dating methods to establish their true ages. Radiometric dating techniques and other geochronological methods are typically employed to determine the ages of geological materials. These methods rely on the decay of isotopes and other measurable parameters, providing reliable estimates for the age of Earth's rocks and minerals. In summary, while the recovery of intact DNA from an ancient bacterial spore is a remarkable scientific finding, it does not provide evidence for a young Earth. The age of the Earth is supported by a wealth of diverse scientific evidence and dating methods that indicate an age of approximately 4.6 billion years. Exceptional cases of DNA preservation should be examined within the broader context of geological and paleontological data to establish a comprehensive understanding of the Earth's history.

    ChatGPT3 "In 2000, Russell H. Vreeland, William D. Rosenzweig & Dennis W. Powers reported recovering intact DNA from a 250-million-year-old bacterial spore found in a salt crystal. Why is this not evidence for a young earth?" [Response to user question]
    Retrieved from
    Only a scientifically illiterate fool would believe that a vast body of science, pointing inexorably to the conclusion that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, can be overthrown by a biased misrepresentation of an actual piece of research, but Ken Ham and his cult know their target marks well. These are the idiots who will stump up good money to be fed this confirmation of their infantile bias and arrogant belief that they alone have the one true faith and have a close personal relationship with the creator of the Universe who created everything with them in mind.

    Final score: Science 10; creationism 0.

And so we end our tour of the excruciatingly bad science with which frauds fleece their willing dupes and stuff this putrid garbage into their open and willing throats.

It's becoming increasingly hard to believe that there are grown adults, especially but not exclusively in America, who fall for these blatant falsehoods, misrepresentations, and downright lies.

These 10 'evidences' [sic] are not evidence of a young Earth, but evidence of the moral, intellectual, and scientific bankruptcy of American creationism and fundamentalist Christianity today.
When you show the world you need to lie for your faith, you show the world you know your faith needs fools to believe falsehoods.

Thank you for sharing!

submit to reddit


  1. I recognize ChatGPT. But I have a question, can I subscribe by email to your Blog?

    1. Yes. If you scroll down you'll find a subscribe box in the right hand pannel. Your email claient need to be able to receive an RSS feed


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics