It has long been obvious that hard-core creationists live in their own universe — one that makes no sense to the rest of us. You can judge for yourself whether that’s true of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Do Diamonds Take Millions of Years to Form? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
A recent editorial [link omitted] on diamond prices might seem unrelated to our ministry. But, when I saw the headline — “Lab-Grown Diamond Production Rises, but Prices Fall” — and read through the short article, it reminded me of the secular claim that diamonds take billions of years to form. If you search “how long it takes a natural diamond to form” on Google, the preferred answer pops up as “between 1 billion and 3.3 billion years, which is approximately 25% to 75% of our earth’s [supposed] age.” Is that true?
That’s the question for today, dear reader: Is it true? Hambo says:
Well, the editorial mentions that labs now grow diamonds so, obviously, it does not necessarily take long ages to form a diamond. All it takes is the right conditions, which we can simulate in a lab and produce diamonds relatively quickly.
Aha — the plot thickens! After that he tells us:
The idea that diamonds take millions of years to form is an assumption based on a naturalistic worldview [Gasp!] that assumes slow and gradual processes. Even some secular sources (such as this article [Diamonds Unearthed] from Smithsonian.com) admit we don’t actually know how long it takes to form a diamond.
A wee bit of quote mining there. Yes, the Smithsonian article says that, but then it also says:
All diamonds, as far as we know, are quite old in the Earth … At least hundreds of millions of years old, but in most cases billions of years old, anywhere from one to three billion years old, a time when the earth was probably hotter than it is today and so conditions were perhaps more appropriate for diamond growth.
Oblivious to that, Hambo continues:
But there’s great evidence that diamonds are actually young. Diamonds are the hardest substance on earth, so nothing gets in to contaminate them.
Not true. The same Smithsonian article says:
The way they date diamonds is typically looking at inclusions of other minerals in the diamond that can be radioactively dated. The diamonds themselves can’t be dated. But if the mineral inclusions contain certain elements like potassium and things that can be used in a radioactive dating scheme, then by dating the inclusion in the diamond you get some sense of the age of the diamond itself. And those dates always suggest the diamonds are quite old.
So far, Hambo’s not doing very well, but let’s read on:
Yet testing has shown that diamonds contain carbon-14. [Link to an AIG article omitted.] This is an important discovery, because, in the conventional paradigm, C-14 is only detectable up to 80,000 years — so they can’t be older than that. And yet these diamonds are considered billions of years old!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We can’t find any reports of carbon 14 in diamonds, other than from creationist sources — see, for example: Rev. David Rives — Carbon-14 in Diamonds. Back to Hambo:
Diamonds aren’t billions of years old. They’re young, just like our earth, likely formed deep in the earth during the global flood of Noah’s day. You can learn more about diamonds in this article by [creationist] geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling: [link omitted].
Okay, that’s it. The only thing Hambo left out was that Darwin gave Lady Hope a newly-formed diamond during his deathbed confession.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.