Creation Studies Institute
The Cosmos

The Cosmos: Let the Brainwashing Continue (Part 7)
By Steven Rowitt, Ph.D.

No one should be shocked by the title of this article. From the first episode, the Cosmos series has employed the major tactics of evolutionary indoctrination, e.g. brainwashing, censorship and deception. As this episode begins, we can see that the real aim of this series is to instruct all who are watching to reject the biblical view of the age of the earth and accept the magic ingredient in the rocks-to-Rowitt theory of evolution, deep time. I like to note that the billions and billions of years, mentioned five times in the previous episode, is really hammered home so that people can swallow the concept that, given enough time, frogs really can turn into princes. It has been said before, that if a frog turns into a prince overnight, well that’s a fairytale. But if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that’s evolution. Hence, evolution is rightly described as a “fairytale for grownups.”

So does my brainwashing characterization hold up? This episode opens with our narrator, Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, telling us, “Once there was a man who went searching for the true age of the earth. In his struggles to discover it, he stumbled on a grave threat.” Through the wonders of animation, Dr. Tyson continues his story, and we are introduced to geophysicist Clair “Pat” Patterson (1922-1995). Because I know who this is, and the role he will play in field of radiometric dating, I realize why Dr. Tyson is introducing us to him. But the rest of the audience will have to wait, because we are immediately removed from the scene Dr. Tyson has described as “a beautiful spring day in Pasadena, California, where business is booming and life if good.”

Now Dr. Tyson tells us, “You can’t tell Pat Patterson’s story without going back to the time before the earth was built.” Interesting that evolutionists have to search for alternative words for create or created. I guess the best they could do was built, but it still begs the question, who built it? I know that they don’t believe anyone created or really built anything, but I like to call them on the inconsistencies of their worldview, especially when it’s that obvious. Now Dr. Tyson begins a chapter in the “just so” story of cosmic evolution entitled our solar system. This is how Dr. Tyson describes it, “going back to the time before the earth was built, when the stars brought forth its substance, iron for the planet’s molten core, oxygen for the rocks, water and air, carbon for diamonds and life.”

A star is born- Ours

I admit, it has a poetic flow, especially when Dr. Tyson tells us, “A star is born.” In keeping with the censorship aspects of evolutionary theory, what Dr. Tyson is not telling you that there are enormous problems with stellar evolution. Chief among them is the fact that a star cannot form without the influence of another star. Regardless of the numerous evolutionary cosmologists that say they have solved this and other problems, these difficulties remain unresolved. Evolutionists always have secondary explanations for why the facts don’t seem to support what they say.

A perfect example of this is the fossil record. For years, those who believed Darwin’s theory would make the following excuse for the lack of transitional fossils found in nature. They told us that evolution takes place so slowly that the changes are not easily captured in the fossil record. This was supposed to explain why, in virtually every category, the transitional precursors to the modern animals are missing. As time past, these evolutionary scientists did not find the transitional fossils Darwin’s theory predicted. When it became evident that not only the transitional fossils were missing, but most of the alleged common ancestors were also missing, the devotees of Darwin came up with a new explanation. This was the theory of Punctuated Equilibria (or Equilibrium). This model, proposed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge, speculated that evolutionary changes were taking place in short time spans tied to speciation events. They speculated that significant evolutionary changes would be restricted to rare and rapid events where speciation would account for major changes in evolutionary biology. [Eldredge, Niles & Gould, S. J. (1972). “Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism.” In T.J.M. Schopf, ed., Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. pp. 82-115.]  

Now, ubiquitous gaps in the fossil record could be deemed evidence of evolution. Gaps or no gaps, fast or slow, evolutionists seem to be able to have their cake and eat it too.   Because many of those who are dedicated to Darwin’s theory are so devoted to their materialistic worldview, they simply cannot allow any real criticism or dissent from within their ranks. We have already mentioned the documentary Expelled. There are numerous examples of the dangers that face those who do not support all things Darwin. Some of professors were being refused tenure; some lost their teaching positions. While evolutionists claim these professors did not deserve tenure or to remain in their teaching positions, an examination of the facts seem to point to their failure to agree with the devotees of Darwin. Either you swear to the idol of godless materialism or you pay the price.

Do stars evolve?
Stellar evolution, according to the current theory, has progressed in three stages. Creation Ministries International writer, Rod Bernitt, explains:

Stellar evolution theory considers three populations of stars—Population I, II, and III.  Population III stars are the most significant to the development of the universe, followed by multiple generations of Population I stars. The idea of stellar populations dates back to research in WWII by Walter Baade at Mount Wilson observatory. He categorized Population II and Population I stars (in terms of their metalicity, distribution and motion) and incorporated them into an evolutionary paradigm. In this paradigm, Population II stars are considered to be the older generation of stars. Thus they lack O and B stars (which burn ‘quickly’) and have a higher proportion of red giants. Population I stars are considered young, and have all spectral classes including the O and B, hot blue stars. The idea of Population III stars is a later addition to the Baade paradigm resulting from the development of big bang cosmology.

He continues:

In big bang cosmology, Population III stars are the first generation of stars. As such, Population III stars would contain no metals (elements heavier than helium) with the possible exception of some primordial Li. This distinctive composition means that their spectra would stand out as sharply different from Population II and I stars—that is, if they could be observed today. Unlike the spectra of Population II or I stars, the C/H and Fe/H ratios in Population III stars would not be detectable. In addition, the stellar spectra of Population III stars would reflect the supposed primordial H/He abundance with possible exception of some primordial Li. Because they were first, Population III stars would not have formed by the same mechanisms that evolutionists use to explain the origin of Population I stars, which are observed today. There are a number of significant differences. First, evolutionists cannot invoke a supernova to trigger the gas cloud collapse. Supernovae did not occur until after Population III stars had formed and burned all their nuclear fuel. Second, there were no dust grains or heavy molecules in the primordial gas to assist with cloud condensation and cooling, and form the first stars. (Evolutionists now believe that molecular hydrogen may have played a role, in spite of the fact that molecular H almost certainly requires a surface—i.e. dust grains—to form.) Thus, the story of star formation in stellar evolution theory begins with a process that astronomers cannot observe operating in nature today (emphasis added).

Included in these stellar formation models is the introduction of dark matter that is used to alter calculations or the minimum Jeans mass. The minimum Jeans mass, defined by density, temperature, pressure, and gravitational potential, is critical in stellar evolution theory. Bernitt noted the problem with these models has to do with the fact that no population III stars have been discovered. Most evolutionary cosmologists believe they should still exist and hope that better telescopes will discover soon discover them. The conclusions of Bernitt’s article are striking.

They include:

No one has observed or can observe the primordial star forming gas clouds that evolutionists believe existed in the early universe, shortly after the big bang. Their existence remains a matter of conjecture, not fact.
The formation of Population III stars in big bang cosmology is very dependent upon assumptions of dark matter used in the equations of state to define the minimum Jeans mass. This again is conjecture, not fact.

The existence of Population III stars remains untested. 

Star formation in stellar evolution theory is a topic that needs to be critically examined. Some of the mechanisms invoked by evolutionists to explain star formation appear plausible when extrapolated over millions and billions of years. However, current theory based upon observations of molecular gas clouds like M42 breaks down when applied to the origin of Population III stars. Other components of the theory, such as the minimum Jeans mass and stellar mass distribution, indicate that, contrary to the impression we are given, evolutionists are far from solving the origin of the myriad stars we do observe. [Bernitt, Rod (2009). “Stellar evolution and the problem of the ‘first’ stars.” Journal of Creation 16(1):12–14, April 2002.]

What about our Sun

When you examine the information available from evolutionary sources concerning the formation of our solar system, the Nebular Hypothesis is the foremost model. Creationist Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. (chemistry) in his article entitled, “Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis,” explains:

This (the Nebular Hypothesis) proposes that the sun, the earth and the rest of the solar system formed from a nebula, or cloud of dust and gas. The best known pioneer of this was French atheistic mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827). [Laplace, P., Exposition du Système du Monde (Exposition of the System of the World), 1796.] However, despite the dogmatic support by evolutionary astronomers, it has a number of serious problems.
Concerning the origin of stars Sarfati notes:
First of all, if the collapsing cloud theory can’t even explain the sun alone, then it is doomed from the start. To form the sun, or any star, a cloud must be dense enough to collapse and compress the interior so that it becomes hot enough for nuclear fusion to start. But most gas clouds have a tendency to expand rather than contract. But according to the big bang theory, at the time the first stars were formed, the temperature was so high that the required Jeans Mass would be about 100,000 suns. [According to big bang theory, the temperature was about 3,000 and density about 6,000, therefore MJ ≈ 105 M☉.] This is about the same mass as a globular cluster, i.e. no cloud less massive than this could have collapsed into a star, thus no star could have formed this way. [Sarfati, Jonathan (2010).Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis,” Creation 32(3):34–35, July 2010.] Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” (Emphasis added). [Quoted by Marcus Chown, Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998; see also Stars could not have come from the big bang, Creation 20(3):42–43, 1998.]

Now as we return to the Cosmos, we will have a better understanding of just how Dr. Tyson’s “just so” stories developed. Our narrator explains, “For the first few millions of years, things ran smoothly as the dust grains snowballed into progressively larger objects.” He continues, “Once these objects became large enough to have sufficient gravity, they began pulling each other into crossing orbits.” Now Dr. Tyson tells us, “This is how our world looked when it was new,” and through the magic of animation, we see a surface of molten rock being bombarded by flaming meteors. He tells us that this erased all evidence of its birth or its childhood records.

Evolutionary speculation vs. The Word of God

The series is going head to head with the Bible. Dr. Tyson tells us, because of the violent nature of the birth, “no one can know with any certainty the true age of our world.” He notes, “People have been wondering about it from antiquity.” This is the perfect time to introduce us to Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656). Dr. Tyson tells us that in 1650, Ussher was able to find a biblical landmark, the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 562 BC. He calculated his way back through the “begats” (the biblical series of genealogies) to what he thought was the exact date of creation, Oct. 22, 4004 BC. We are told by Dr. Tyson, “This was the accepted date until we turned to another book to find the age of the earth, the one that was written in the rocks themselves.”

Now I don’t mind Dr. Tyson’s comparison of what a man says about the Bible. What concerns me is the way Dr. Tyson presents Ussher’s interpretation of God’s Word as being inaccurate, so he can contrast it with the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon. First, the Grand Canyon is not a book of sacred writings. It is the result of a catastrophic event described in the Bible more commonly referred to as Noah’s flood. Secondly, I noted an air of conceit in Dr. Tyson is telling us Bishop Ussher’s conclusion. Finally, I don’t think that Bishop Ussher was that far off. What Dr. Tyson did not tell you was that the ancient Hebrew sages had their own calculations and they were very close to Bishop Ussher’s computations.  

Here we are given insight into the initial understanding of the Israelites concerning their view of the Genesisaccount. Their literature and subsequent commentaries all hold to the view that each day enumerated in the creation week of Genesisrefers to a literal 24-hour day. 

Ancient Judaism was inexorably linked to God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah. They held these views in conjunction with a literal interpretation of the Scriptures unless the context clearly indicated otherwise. According to this ancient tradition, a belief still held by many Orthodox Jews today. The Orthodox view is that all   of history is divided into three, 2,000-year segments of time. It is derived from a rabbinical sage from the School of Elijah. The following passage is an excerpt from the School of Elijah.

“The world will exist for 6,000 years, for 2,000 there will be desolation, for 2,000 Torah, and for 2,000 the Days of the Messiah” (Sanh. 97a-b). After this, the 7,000th year will be a year of renewal (Sanh. 97b). This Great Sabbath Week of 7,000 years is patterned after the six days of creation (6 = 6,000 years) and the rest on the seventh day (the last day = the last 1,000 years). God is said to hide behind the ‘olam ha-zeh (this present world of the 6,000 years), for the three Hebrew root letters that make up the word “world” – ayin, lamed, mem – indicate a vanishing, though not of God, but of God from the world. In the last 1,000 years, the olam ha-ba (the world to come), He will not be in the background, but will appear and transform the natural order into one that is spiritual. It is in this context that the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the restored natural order (Isaiah 11:6-9, ‘The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the goat,’ etc. and Isaiah 65:20-25, ‘Never again will there be an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not live out his years’) will be fulfilled, Couch 1996).

So God’s ancient covenant people Israel were clearly young earth creationists. Even their understanding of prophetical passages, sometimes written centuries before they were fulfilled, had a literal interpretation of the creation week in mind. 

Dr. Tyson, and all who follow his agnostic or atheistic worldview, conveniently overlooks the fact that God’s ancient covenant people were taking God at His Word, long before Bishop Ussher attempted to compute the age of the earth.

Reading the rocks like a book
Through the wonders of special effects, Dr. Tyson can make the layers of the Grand Canyon separate. He reminds us that these layers of sediment were laid down long ago when this entire area was a sea. We are told, “Over eons the sediments were compressed into rock under the weight of succeeding layers.” “The oldest ones” he continues, “are at the bottom.” As we shall see Now Dr. Tyson chooses one of the layers and tells us “there must have been shallow water here, back in the pre-Cambrian period about a billion years ago.” He continues, “There was only one kind of life, these blue green bacteria were busy harvesting sunlight and making oxygen.” Dr. Tyson continues, “To them (the bacteria) it (the O2) was just a waste product, but for the animals that would evolve later, including us, it was the breath of life.” No matter how poetic these “just so” stories are, they are still without substance, because any evolution of organic life from inorganic sources is just one more miracle of evolution. In addition to this, bacteria are not simple life forms at all.

Even what evolution would call the most primitive microbes are still irreducibly complex heterotrophic anaerobes. They surmise that these had to be the first to evolve, because, in their “just so” story of early earth, there was virtually no oxygen in the atmosphere. They are said to be heterotrophs, literally “other feeders,” deemed simple because they cannot make their own food. If this isn’t an excellent example of an evolutionary “just so” story, I don’t know what is.”

OK, pick another layer
Not a moment after Dr. Tyson finished his poetic “just so” story of the first living microorganisms, he is telling us to “pick another layer.” Well really, we are not picking anything, He is doing all the choosing, making certain that he can tie it all back to the evolutionary paradigm. What is next on the agenda, Bright Angel Shale. This, we are told, formed 530 million years ago. Then we see animal tracks in the shale and we are told they are 250 million years old. Now Dr. Tyson tells us, “If you want to know the age of the earth, just figure out how long it took to deposit each layer.” Then, in a manner meant to belittle the biblical timeline, he says, “Instead of counting the begats, add up the all the layers.” “Easy right.” Then Dr. Tyson tells us the problem. He notes, “We know from observing this process, because it still happens today in the oceans and lakes all around the world.”  He explains that “sediments can be laid down at wildly different rates.” He then tells us that usually, “it happens very slowly, about one foot of sediment per thousand years.” “But, he adds, when there’s a rare catastrophic flood, it can happen much faster, as much as a few feet in just a few days.”

What our narrator is not telling us
This is what Dr. Tyson is not telling us. He is not only minimizing the ability for catastrophic floods to transform the geology of the earth, he is not telling us the difference between uniformitarian model and catastrophic model as they pertain to the topography of our planet. Was the Grand Canyon the result of a little water and eons of time (uniformitarian model), or was it the result of a huge amount of water and a small amount of time (catastrophic model). What Dr. Tyson did not tell the audience is that we have a very good example of the latter. It was observed following the Mount St. Helen’s eruption in 1980.

In keeping with the censorship techniques used by the proponents of evolution, Dr. Tyson did not tell us the entire truth concerning the evidence for a rapid catastrophic origin for the Grand Canyon. In the five months following the eruption of Mount St. Helens two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater. According to geologist Steve Austin, Ph.D. (geology) the 1980, Mt. St. Helens erupted, leaving behind a path of destruction. A six-hundred foot layer of debris, consisting of 200 million cubic yards of volcanic ash and fragments of rock, was formed at the base of the mountain. In 1982, a small eruption of water provided enough force to carve a 150-feet long canyon in these sedimentary layers. The same flat contacts in-between the layers were observed, similar to those found in the Grand Canyon. The Mount St. Helens canyon is measured to be 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. It was formed in a single day, showing that the power of water is much greater than expected, and that it does not take millions of years to form a canyon. [For more information about the Mt. St. Helens eruption, watch this video from Creation Today; and this one from Geologist Steve Austin.]

What our narrator did tell us is “they tried to ascertain the age of the earth using the sediments (in the Grand Canyon) and they got anywhere from 3 million to 15 billion (years old).” If the sediments represent specific evolutionary epochs, how did they get it so wrong? Let’s just remind ourselves that this episode opened with an introduction to “Pat” Patterson. He is going to develop what we will discover is another not so trustworthy way of ascertaining age. However, with this method, they can throw out the ages they don’t like and keep the ones they do. Which dates are thrown out, the ones that do not conform to their predetermined timeline.

It is time to share with you another of evolution’s dirty little secrets. You see, the timeline of billions and billions of years has been changing over time, sometimes by leaps and bounds. Not only do the estimates change, evolutionists have always dated their fossils by using the evolutionary timeline. Tas Walker, Ph.D. (mechanical engineering) writes: It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.[Walker, Tas (2002).The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.” Creation 24(4):20–23, September 2002.]

This same practice is true of evolutionary paleontologists, biologists and every other devotee of Darwin. They only accept dates that correspond to their previously held belief concerning the age of the fossil in question. Consider the following quotes on this subject.

Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” (Emphasis added) [Agar, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.] “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the Geologic Column had not been erected first.” [O’Rourke, J. E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54.]

The layers of sedimentary rock that do exist in the ground are not found in the youngest to oldest order that they are shown in secular science textbooks. Nowhere does such a column of layers exist except in the textbook. Honest evolutionists agree with this statement.

“If there were a column of sediments … Unfortunately no such column exists.” (Emphasis added) [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Earth Science, 1989, p. 326.]

Prior to radiometric dating, the way fossils and rocks were dated was by using a false dichotomy between certain fossils labeled “index fossils” and the corresponding layers wherein these fossils are found. This is a clear case of circular reasoning. Consider the following statements.

Evolutionists rearrange the layers, found all around the world, into a column that would support their view if it were true. Such a column does not exist in nature. It only exists in the textbooks and in the minds of those who believe it.(Emphasis added) “Scientists use index fossils to determine the age of rock layers.” [You date the rocks by using the fossils. Glenco, Earth Science, 1999, p. 331.]

“The geologic time scale is divided up into subunits based on geologic events and the appearance and disappearance of types of organisms.” [You date the fossils by using the rocks.] Glenco, Earth Science, 1999, p. 358.]

“Scientists use index fossils to determine the age of rock layers.” [You date the rocks by using the fossils. Glenco, Earth Science, 1999, p. 331.]

“Fossils in the lower layers of sedimentary rock are older than those found in the upper layers. Often, the layers of rock can be dated by types of fossils they contain.” (Emphasis added) [You date the rocks by knowing the age of the fossils that they contain. Glenco, Biology, 1994, p. 306.]          
“Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the locations of their fossils in sedimentary rock layers.” [You date the fossils by knowing the ages of the rocks that they are found in. Glenco, Biology, 1994, p. 307.]

“It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle.(Emphasis added) The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain. [Rastall, R. H., “Geology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 10 (1949), p. 168.]    

You can see from the above noted quotes that Dr. Tyson, and the writers of the Cosmos miniseries, are not giving you all the information concerning their 15.8 billion year timeline for the universe.

Here comes another “just so” story
Dr. Tyson is back on his spacecraft. He is flying into the asteroid belt that orbits between Mars and Jupiter. The reason for this excursion is so he can tell us the wonderful story behind the world’s best-preserved meteorite impact site just minutes from Interstate 40 Arizona near Winslow, Arizona. What is problematic with this particular “just so” story isn’t that is didn’t happen. The problem that exists with this, and many other evolutionary scenarios, is that it is purely hypothetical. They are really guessing about much of what they are saying. Case in point, they show us that the meteor that caused this crater (allegedly 50,000 years ago) was jostled loose from that aforementioned asteroid belt. Do they know that to be true? No, they do not, but it fits well into this particular segment of the propaganda piece.

You see, they are going to take samples from this meteor. They are assuming it was formed at the same time as our own solar system. Based on this assumption, they will try to ascertain a date. Are we certain that this meteor wasn’t a rogue missile from outside of our solar system? Well no, we are not, but we can’t have anything that might hinder the storyline. More embellishment must have been needed. Therefore, Dr. Tyson tells us that this meteor was so powerful, “It must have shattered the peaks of the Grand Canyon as it sailed overhead to blast out this crater in what would one day be Arizona.” How does Dr. Tyson know that, once upon a time, the Grand Canyon had peaks like a mountain chain? He doesn’t, but it does make for some nice special effects and, after all, seeing is believing.

Dr. Tyson tells us, concerning the iron from this meteor, “If we knew when that iron was forged we’d know the age of the solar system, including earth.” Then Dr. Tyson asks, “But how could we know that?” He continues, “Pick a rock, any rock.” This reminded me of his “pick a layer, any layer” routine. Then, as he chose the layer before, he chooses the rock and with the aid of special effects, we get to see the atoms that make up the substance of that rock.

Now we are told that some atoms in that rock could be radioactive. He explains that radioactive elements spontaneously disintegrate to become other elements. After explaining that uranium atoms will eventually go through a process that ends with it degrading into lead, a stable element, Dr. Tyson tells us this is, “the last stop on the decay chain.” And that, Dr. Tyson tells us, “will remain for eternity.” He lets us know, in the 20th century, a massive effort was undertaken to catalog the process whereby radioactive elements transmute into other elements. They discovered that each radioactive element decayed at a certain rate that appeared to be constant. Dr. Tyson tells us, “The nucleus of an atom is a kind of sanctuary immune to the shocks and evils of its environment.” That is true, but what Dr. Tyson and evolutionary scientists don’t want you to know is the amount of the element in a sample may not remain constant.

What evolutionists won’t tell you about radiometric dating
True to the censorship that evolutionary scientists employ, they will not tell you the entire truth concerning radiometric dating. Here are just some of the problems inherent in all radiometric dating methods. The following information is excerpted from an article by a Creation Ministries International scientist, Ralph Matthews, Ph.D. (in radiation chemistry).

  • All radiometric dating methods are flawed.

  • Some elements are more reliable than others.

  • Certain mechanisms can alter daughter to parent radios.

  • A truly closed system does not exist in nature.

  • Primordial concentrations of isotopes cannot be truly known.

  • If the decay constant is known with great accuracy, an extrapolation over one or two thousand years may be regarded as quite reasonable. An extrapolation over 5 billion years is quite a different story. 

hour glass

One of the best ways of understanding the problems inherent in these dating methods is the sand in the hourglass analogy. The geological time scale and an age for the Earth of 4.5 billion years rely heavily on the uranium/thorium/lead radiometric dating methods. Because it is not generally appreciated that the assumptions on which the radiometric estimates are based are a virtually impossible sequence of events, let us refresh our minds on the fundamentals of the method by turning to the hourglass analogy (Fig. 1). This system of measuring time works well providing that:

  • The hole does not clog up.

  • The sand always flows at a known and reproducible rate.

  • We know how much sand is in the bottom at the beginning.

  • No sand is added or subtracted during the timing run. In other words, it has to be a closed system.


[For an in depth analysis of radiometric dating see Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.  Creation 5(1):41–44, December 1982]

In addition to the hourglass analogy, radiometric dating has yielded some completely erroneous results. Usually, evolutionary scientists will discard results that do not match their preconceived timeline. Still these results indicate that the entire premise upon which this methodology was based is badly flawed.

I would say the most problematic issue for radiometric dating is that it is based upon assumptions of the past. Rocks do not contain a date stamp. While Carbon-14 (14C) has a much shorter half-life than other radioactive elements, it has its own set of problems. Here is a short list of erroneous 14C results.

  • Charcoal from Kyrgyzstan supposedly 330 million years old, dated at 1,680 years. But numerous instances of carbon-14 in coal have been reliably recorded. [Giem, P., “Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon,” Origins 51:6–30, 2001; Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C-free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117–120, 1989.]

  • Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively)—should have been 50 to 135 million years old. 14C  gave dates of 30,000 and 34,000, respectively.

  • Bones of a sabretooth tiger from the LaBrea tar pits, supposedly 100,000 years old, gave a date of 28,000.

  • A block of wood from the Cretaceous (supposedly more than 70 million years old) found encased in a block of Cambrian rock (hundreds of millions of years earlier), gave a date of 4,000 years.

Additionally, there are many other erroneous 14C dating results. Here is a sample of them

  • Dinosaur Bone (Ilium bone of an Acrocanthosarus) Radio carbon dated at 19,000 years old.

  • Wood embedded in 110 million year old limestone radiocarbon dated at 890 years old.

  • Carbonized stick embedded in 110 million year old limestone radiocarbon dated at 12,900 years old.

  • The new lava dome (dacite) from the Mount St. Helens eruption was formed in 1986. In 1997, five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock.

The 14C dating is not the evolutionist’s best friend. The half life of 14C is 5,730 ±40 years. This means that there should be no detectable 14C in anything older than 70,000 years; however some experts in the field say it can be extended up to 100,000 years. With this in mind, there have been some cases of 14C being present in analytes thought to be hundreds of millions of years old. R. H. Brown’s article on the subject is entitled, “The Upper Limit of C-14 Age?” In this article, infinite age samples were deemed to be outside of the upper limits of 14C dating range.  He reported, “Infinite age” samples such as anthracite coal from deep mines in Carboniferous geologic formations (270-350 millions years conventional age assignment) have yielded AMS C-14 ages in the 40,000-year range at laboratories in Europe, Canada, and the U.S.A. [Brown et al. 1983; Jull et al. 1986; Beukens, Gurfinkel, and Lee 1986; Grootes et al. 1986; Nelson et al. 1986; and Bonani et al. 1986]

T. Rex blood and tissue remnants survive 70 million years
The discovery of T. Rex decomposing tissue inside a partially fossilized T. Rex femur has proven to be what evolutionists characterize as “a miracle of preservation.” In my opinion, this is an enormous understatement. Other finds have confirmed that this is not a one-time phenomenon, so what should we believe concerning the evolutionary timeline attributed to the dinosaurs? The obvious answer would be that they are wrong. One of the ironies of this story is that the discoverer and head researcher of this find is herself a professing Christian. Mary Higby Schweitzer has been continuing her research, so far everything initially reported as blood, and tissue has thus far been confirmed. [Schweitzer, Mary H.; Wittmeyer, Jennifer L.; Horner, John R. (2007). “Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present.” Proc Biol Sci 274 (1607): 183–97.] To show you how intransient some adherents to the deep time of millions and billions of years really are, they absolutely refuse to test their samples for the presence of 14C. After a group of creationists offered to foot the bill for the testing of the T. Rex blood and tissue remnants, Jack Horner said he would contact Mary Schweitzer with the offer. He noted that they probably would decline the offer. One of the reasons for turning down a request to test was that the creationists would use it as evidence against the evolutionary timeline. Horner said, “I can’t afford to have this turn into a circus.” He is referring to the fact that the presence of tissue, blood vessels with intact nucleated red blood cells that are similar to those of a modern ostrich would be very strong evidence in favor of a 6,000 year-old T. Rex, but not a 70 million-year-old dinosaur. [Rowitt, Steven (2012). “No C-14 Test for the T. Rex Tissue: The Emperor of Evolution Has No Clothes.” Creation Studies Institute.]

We don’t need to limit our discussion to T. Rex blood when other examples of recovered 14C present in diamonds alleged to be 300 million years old samples dating from the carboniferous period. The evolutionists point to possible contamination in the testing process, but they regularly throw our discordant dates in their laboratories blaming them on contamination. There are reasonable explanations for many of the discordant results, but the evidence concerning the flaws inherent in radiometric dating remain a serious problem with the validity of those dating methods. Dr. Tyson begins to tell us, “If you could measure the amount of uranium that turned to lead (the end of the decay chain), you could calculate how much time had passed since the rock had formed.” As he is speaking, a clock is running on screen beginning with 0.1 and ending with 2.6 billion years. Dr. Tyson notes the problem. He tells us, “The rocks that were present on the earth when it was formed are not more.” This is yet another assumption linked to the formation of the planets in our solar system. They are still working with the Big Bang model. They assume that something exploded 13.8 billion years ago and everything else coalesced into stars, galaxies, planets and everything else in the cosmos.” How many times have evolutionary cosmologists waxed poetic by telling us that we are made of stardust? Now we are going back to the assumptions concerning our Arizona crater. Our first assumption was that it came as a result of being “nudged” out of its orbit. The other basic assumptions of radiometric dating apply. He does not know how much of the parent element was present at the asteroid came into existence. We know how to leach out uranium. In a process known as “milking,” scientists use concentrated acid, alkaline, or peroxide solutions to leach out uranium. If this can be done in the laboratory, it is probable that it could occur naturally.

The return of Clair “Pat” Patterson
The series takes us back to Clair Patterson who, the narrator tells us, is the son of a letter carrier. Young Patterson was not a very good student and was somewhat rebellious. Yet, we are told, “He was a natural born scientist.” Dr. Patterson is painstakingly attempting to find out the real age of the earth. Early on, his is efforts are frustrated due to contamination. He solves the problem by creating the world’s first clean room, a laboratory that is protected from any possible contamination. Now, our narrator has Dr. Patterson thanking his predecessors for their contributions to science. He mentions all geologists, Charles Lyell (a lifelong creationist, but believed the earth was older than the biblical timeline), Michael Faraday (a lifelong creationist) and J.J. Thompson (like many of his collogues, he was reserved about his religious beliefs. His biographers noted, he regularly attended Sunday evening college chapel service, and as Master, the morning service. With respect to his private devotional life, J. J. would invariably practice kneeling for daily prayer, and read his Bible before retiring each night. Our animated scientist continues his thanksgiving for those who preceded him naming Ernest Rutherford (known for singing “Onward Christian Soldiers” while working in his laboratory) and Harrison Brown (nothing could be found about his religious beliefs or lack thereof).

Once again I am reminded that evolutionary scientists often ridicule other scientists who are creationists. They claim that they are not “real” scientists, because they doubt Darwin’s Theory. That does not stop the writers of the Cosmos miniseries from continuing their brainwashing efforts. This time, there are dangerous men lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce on our hero, Clair Patterson.

Back in the spaceship, Dr. Tyson is on the move. This time he is on his way to Saturn. He tells us about the ancient Romans and their belief that Saturn was “not a real place, not a world, but a god king, the result of the marriage of heaven and earth.” Then we learn that the oldest temple to the Roman god Saturn dates back to 2,500 years ago. Once again, Dr. Tyson looks to pagans so he can show everyone how foolish religion really is. In truth, this is a willful deception intended to denigrate all people of faith by lumping them into the same category as these Roman pagans. The difference between biblical faith, and what Dr. Tyson is attempting to present as a faith-based worldview of the ancients, is stunning.

First, the Romans rose to power centuries after God established His covenant with Abraham. The Bible clearly presents the God of Israel as the uncreated Creator of everything seen and unseen. He created the universe; He is separate and stands apart from what He has created. As we can see from Dr. Tyson’s view of things, he thinks that he is better, more informed than those ancient Roman pagans are. Nevertheless, the reality is something far different. All who reject the Creator will end up worshipping the creation. Whether they are ancient pagans in Rome or modern pagans producing the Cosmos miniseries, they are both pagans, Rom. 1:22-23.

Now we find Dr. Tyson explaining the origin of Christmas. He is correct in telling us that Christmas supplanted other winter solstice holidays such as Saturnalia. It is true that, after the last of the Apostles died, Gentile leaders began to dominant the body of believers. They brought with them an anti-Semitic mindset, some of which has been recorded for posterity. They saw the Jews who rejected Jesus as apostates of the worst sort. These same church fathers purposely seem to ignore the Scriptures that indicated it was God’s plan that the leadership of the Jewish nation would initially reject their own Messiah, Is. 53:3-6.  None of the church fathers ever referred to Acts 5:27-28 where Luke explains that all who participated in the death of Jesus of Nazareth were doing so as part of God’s divine plan. It seems that they had no interest in the Apostle Paul’s teaching concerning God’s prophetic plan for the Jewish people either, Rom. 11:25-32. They claimed that the Jewish people were no longer God’s chosen people. This scurrilous lie has continued to our present time, but the damage done by the loss of the Hebrew influence to stand firm against idolatry Acts 15:29. While the apostles lived, paganism was not tolerated. In fact, Paul’s plea at Mars Hill is a reminder of how the Holy Spirit was attempting to reach those who were steeped in paganism, Acts 17:30-31.

When Christianity became the dominant religion of Rome, the religious leaders would often tell conquered pagans they can continue their rituals and customs, but they now had to do them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. By the 4th century AD, idolatry had become rampant in the official Church of Rome. The Hellenist influence extended to many churches and synagogues during the time when the Byzantine Empire was dominant (circa 330-1453 AD).

I say this in order to give some background to what we are being spoon fed by Dr. Tyson. Soon Dr. Tyson is telling us about the darker side of the god Saturn. He continues to tell us that Saturn and lead poisoning were related. He goes to great lengths pondering why these ancient cultures, who obviously knew about the connection between lead and the poisoning that lead ingestion would cause, continued to use it in their plates, eating utensils right down to the plumbing system of ancient Rome.

Soon we are brought back to the 20th century where our narrator tells us about the nefarious use of lead in our gasoline. This is another area where Dr. Patterson’s work was going to benefit mankind. The big money gas and oil producers were very vocal in their defense of the use of lead. We are treated to a lesson in how greed can cause problems with the health of people. This seemed to me to be exactly what happened when research began linking smoking to cancer and other diseases. Lots of money was spent to qualm the fears of the public. Just as it was with smoking, it took years for Dr. Patterson’s work to be widely accepted. The battle between Pat Patterson and big money gas and oil had a touch of irony. You see, the original research that Patterson had done on lead pollution due to gasoline emissions was originally funded by big gas and oil. After his initial research was published, those same big wigs attempted to buy Patterson off if he would move his interest away from the toxic effects of lead in the environment. Thankfully, he refused to be bought off.

In 1966, the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Ed Muskie of Maine, held hearings on the subject of lead pollution. Once again, Patterson comes to the rescue. He had been working in Antarctica; therefore, most people thought he would not testify. After five days of uninterrupted testimony from the leading advocate of leaded gasoline, Dr. Patterson arrives to testify before the committee. The back and forth between the two camps lasted 20 years. Finally, the evidence was able to outweigh the gas company’s protestations and regulations were set in place to protect society from the toxic effects of lead.

As the Cosmos series continues, I am certain that the brainwashing efforts will persist. As  those who trust in God and His Word, we are thankful for the efforts of men like Clair Patterson to keep us safe from harm. It is a biblical mandate that human beings should be good stewards concerning God’s creation, Gen. 2:15. Our concerns about this program lie elsewhere. Most of the information being shared is for one purpose. It is intended to deceive people. To tell them they are not created by a loving and compassionate God in His own image, Gen. 1:27, but rather they are just the result of a series of cosmic accidents. Never mind that there are serious problems with the Big Bang model. We shouldn’t be too concerned that no scientist, past or present, has been able to reproduce what evolutionists say occurred for our planet and solar system to come into existence. The two major theories of cosmic evolution are the Core Accretion theory, with regard to planets, and the Nebular Hypothesis, with regard to galaxies and stars. Both of these models are seriously flawed, but I am convinced we will hear all about them in future episodes.

I know that we are going to go “deeper and deeper into the wonder.” But after six episodes of evolutionary propaganda, I am wondering whether or not I can handle any more of these “just so” stories masquerading in the guise of science. Only time will tell. For more information about the T. Rex blood see: No C-14 Test for the T. Rex Tissue: The Emperor of Evolution Has No Clothes.

Dig Deeper