Posted by: conservativecritic | April 12, 2012

The Failure of Modern Science – and its Financial Sellout

Recent history has revealed as a minimum three major sellouts of modern science to the almighty dollar.

(1) Evolution – and its false premise of man’s origin

Have you ever wondered how evolutionists arrive at their numbers for the age of the earth and the beginning of life on it? The evolutionist may present you with these numbers as if those figures have been arrived at by sound, unshakable scientific means. In truth, these incredible dates are for the most part arbitrary.

Evolutionists emphatically state that the world originated from a cosmic explosion 4.6 billion years ago. They will also say that a clearly distinct ancestor of man appeared on the evolutionary scale about 4.5 million years ago. In fact, there are no scientific measures, equations, or accurate dating methods that can tell one how old the earth really is, or when man first appeared.

One will see from the analysis below that he can dismiss any thoughts that the study of evolution is an exact science by looking no further than their dating methods.

Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14)

Willard F. Libby, a physical chemist, developed this technique in 1949. Radiocarbon dating was formulated upon the understanding that neutrons are produced by cosmic radiation. These neutrons enter the earth’s atmosphere and react with nitrogen. This reaction results in carbon 14. Carbon 14 is a “heavy” carbon isotope because it contains fourteen neutrons in its nucleus instead of the more common load of twelve. The two additional neutrons make carbon 14 unstable and causes it to decay at a gradual rate. As the carbon 14 decays, neutrons leave the nucleus and emit a radioactive particle which theoretically can be measured to determine the rate of decay.

How does one apply this to an artifact he wishes to date? Plants and animals digest carbon (CO2) while they are living. When plants and animals die they no longer take in carbon. The carbon that is present begins to decay supposedly at a steady rate when an animal or plant dies. By measuring the rate of carbon decay through neutron emissions, one can theoretically determine how long ago death occurred.16

How Reliable is Radiocarbon Dating for Determining the Age of Ancient Fossils?

Radiocarbon dating was developed on the basis of two assumptions (not established facts). In the first place, Libby assumed that the carbon 14 content is consistent in the carbon dioxide which is absorbed by the organism while it is living. In the second place, Libby believed that cosmic rays which produce carbon 14 have remained constant in our atmosphere. Dr. David Hurst Thomas of the American Museum of Natural History addressed the problems of these assumptions when he wrote:

“Radiocarbon dating relies on a number of key assumptions, perhaps the most important being that the radiocarbon level — that is, the ratio between carbon 12 and carbon 14 — has remained constant in the earth’s atmosphere. Libby assumed this when developing the method, but we now know that this assumption is not valid. That is, levels of atmospheric carbon 14 have shifted somewhat over the past millennia.”

Shortly after Libby developed his carbon 14 dating method, Egyptologists, who applied his method to well-established historical material, said that “his dates did not square with the historically derived dynastic chronology.” Dr. Stuart Piggott, a British archaeologist, excavating near Durington Walls in England, received a radiocarbon date for his site. The radiocarbon test on a piece of charcoal suggested that Piggott’s site was 1000 years older than it actually was. Conclusive data from the site proved that the radiocarbon test was grossly in error. Piggott said of radiocarbon dating that it was “archaeologically unacceptable.”

In June of 1985 the Twelfth International Radiocarbon Conference met in Trondheim, Norway to discuss the flaws in radiocarbon dating. From this conference a correction curve was developed for carbon 14 dates based upon the fairly exact dating method of dendrochronology (tree ring dating). Unfortunately, there are a limited number of tree types that are suitable for providing an accurate correction curve for carbon 14 dates. The ideal tree is the Bristle Cone Pine which is only found in the buildings of ancient North American Indian sites.

The oldest of the Bristle Cone Pines found are only 4600 years old. Using living samples and ancient trunks, scientists were able to develop a correction curve for radiocarbon dates going back 8200 years.20 In other words, radiocarbon dates can only be corrected as far back as 6200 B.C. Any samples that date further back than 6200 B.C. cannot be corrected, and therefore their age cannot be accurately determined.

One might wonder why corrected carbon 14 dates only go back as far as 6200 B.C. One might also question the reason there are no Bristle Cone Pines older than 4600 years. The reason may simply be that the flood occurred approximately 4600 years ago. Why can carbon 14 dates only be corrected as far back as 8200 years ago? Is it because the earth did not exist much more than 8200 years ago?

Paleontologists are reluctantly beginning to realize the limitations of radiocarbon dating. David Hurst Thomas grudgingly proclaims that radiocarbon dating is accurate when it reveals a date for an object which is within a range of just over 75,000 years ago.21 Unfortunately, he is still in denial of the facts. However, he at least recognizes that radiocarbon dating cannot be used to prove that ancient “primitive man” goes back 4 million, or even 100,000 years ago.

(2) Genetically Modified Organisms(GMO) – and how man can become God in the garden

(for an introduction to this controversial topic, go to http://www.aquatechnology.net/GMO.html)

(3) Global Warming and a national and global move toward socialism and wealth distribution

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA are attacking the space agency’s stance that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change.

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

The letter begins: “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

“With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

The signees charge NASA with advocating an “extreme position” on climate change “prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers.”

They conclude: “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

For more information, go to http://www.aquatechnology.net/globalwarming.html.

******************

These three horsemen of the modern Apocalypse have painted America and the world into a false scientific corner with the US and international governments actively encouraging and financially supporting these false sciences.

Science, if one really wants to call it such, and  as illustrated by the three categories above, has been promoting false theories which have created not only strife and confusion but also a continued and disastrous breakdown of conventional business, family and agricultural structures.

(to be continued)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: