WHY AREN’T WE TOLD? Radiometric dating problems

by Jonathan Gray • March 9, 2014 • 0 Comments — 29 views

“Radiometric dating?” snorted Ray. “It’s useless in dating the past!”
“What do you mean… useless?” I asked.
“Look,” said Ray. “I’ll give you an example. Human remains found deep in the delta deposit near New Orleans, Louisiana, were dated at 57,000 years – but when wood from the gunwhale of a Kentucky flatboat was found deeper, the 57,000 years shrank to 200 or less.
“You’re kidding!” I exclaimed.
“No, that was true. And do you know, C-14 dating of Egyptian pharaohs’ tombs have registered mummies 500 years ‘older’ than their sarcophagi! And grains older than the containers in which they were found.”

A field archaeologist must not take anything for granted. This was something I had to check out. During many years of living in Australia, I made several visits to the island state of Tasmania. I know of a farmer near the town of Burnie who was removing some fence posts on his property. These had been set in the ground less than 100 years earlier. He discovered that the in-ground portion of each post had actually opalised. [PP: Converted into a substance resembling opal ; converted into opal by the … Hence “opalised wood,” or wood petrified by silica]

The farmer mischievously sent samples of the petrified wood to two Australian institutions, asking them to date the wood. The institutions were La Trobe University in Melbourne and the National University in Canberra.

The two labs dated the two specimens at two vastly different ages – one insisting that the wood was 100,000 years old. When the farmer protested that this was definitely not so, he was assured that this HAD to be the age of the wood!

These kind of things began to get me worried. What was going on here? Can you see? Something is wrong – drastically wrong. This kind of evidence should be enough to discredit the system.

WHO IS BEHIND THIS DECEPTION?

I won’t bore you with how dating systems are worked out. But I can tell you these. Most ages obtained by one method DISAGREE with the ages obtained by other methods. For example, most radiometric “ages” don’t match fossil “ages”.

But what about carbon dating? You ask. Carbon dating is used to determine how long ago something died. A series of measurements of samples of known age, extending back about 3,800 years, has shown fairly good agreement. But something dramatic occurred on earth about 4,300 years ago to upset this. And beyond that time, dating figures run wild.

COVER-UP

This may shock you, but a cover-up is in full swing. The carbon-14 technique, during its development, uncovered some startling, publicly undisclosed, evidence of an earth far younger than you and I have been told.

There is a group of men with a philosophical mindset that needs to bolster the evolution theory at all costs. And this includes deceiving you and me, covering up evidence, and even dumping a boat load of evidence in the Caribbean Sea! They are playing you and me for suckers. And many of us have been swallowing it.

Just get this, will you?

• The same piece of basalt rock from Nigeria gave ages (by different methods) from 2 to 750 million years. (Nature Physical Science, vol.232, pp.60-61)
• In eight separate tests, scientists dated samples of rock – and arrived at ages of 160 million to 3 billion years.  These specimens, from Kaupelehu, Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, were later found to have formed in a lava flow only 168 years earlier, in 1801. (Science, vol.162, p.265. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol.73, p.4601. American Journal of Science, vol.262, p.154)
• Rock samples from twelve volcanoes in Russia and ten samples from other parts of the world (all known to be less than 200 years old), gave ages by the uranium-thorium-to lead method varying from millions to billions of years.

Suppose you were admitted to hospital. And after tests were made, the doctors each gave you a different, contradictory diagnosis… would you trust them to operate on you? You’ve got to be kidding.

Now I’m worried.  These dating tests… have we been too trusting? Think about it. If rocks of KNOWN ages yield such unrealistic dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by rocks of UNKNOWN age?

What bothers me is this. We have otherwise cautious scientists gulping down these datings about as avidly as the most gullible amateurs. Something is wrong here – drastically wrong – with our dating systems.  If a construction engineer came up with contradictory calculations like that, he would be dismissed from the construction job.

Henry Faul, writing in Nuclear Geology, says: “MOST of the ages obtained by the lead: thorium method DISAGREE with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods.” (Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295)

“TRUST us”, they say. “Our DATING is fine.”
The naivety of that claim is so breathtaking, I need a glass of water.

And if you introduce a catastrophe (such as a global Deluge), then the present state of the earth’s crust has not resulted from long aeons of uniformity, but largely by natural processes acting on a mega scale during the Deluge.

The truth is, every dating method we operate today is invalid as a scientific test for the past. So when you’re told a certain date has been proved, you’re hearing someone who either doesn’t understand the scientific test, or who (hopefully not) is deliberately lying to you.
Discordant dates (and that’s most of the tests) are not publicised.

How do you feel when you discover you’ve been cheated? Here is information that is known to a few at the top – but not told to us.  Is this because these dear, lovable elite persons have an agenda? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In my best selling book “Dead Men’s Secrets” you have more than a thousand forgotten wonders of past human knowledge.