[_ Old Earth _] Positive evidence for a young earth?

[John]

Anywho, is there anyone with open mind going to join in this fun :

So you admit defeat. You cannot give one scientific article. Not one. Your hypothesis has no scientific backing, which was pretty much the point of this thread.

I would die for this stuff, defeat, hardly.

No, the point of this thread was about debating young earth claims. not who can slap each other with the most peer reviewed articles. besides if an evolutionist reviewed a Creationist article, what good is that? the reviewer is already biased, because of his belief system.

anyway i am tired of debating about debating, its like tax on tax...pointless. debate the counter claims i posted or i will just ignore you, your useless here for debate if you don't stop getting mad over authors, cover etc

 

[Scott1]

besides if an evolutionist reviewed a Creationist article, what good is that? the reviewer is already biased, because of his belief system.

No... that's the difference... a scientist looks for truth and the ability to prove things with verifiable evidence.... creationists, on the other hand, have to defend their entire belief system and defend "God and the Bible" no matter what the cost.

From someone on the outside of the debate... I would trust a scientist 1st every time.... if they are proven wrong, they just move on to the next topic.... a creationist would be destroyed.

Hope my perspective on the topic is not met with too many flames! :-D

 

[jmm9683]

Anywho, is there anyone with open mind going to join in this fun :

So you admit defeat. You cannot give one scientific article. Not one. Your hypothesis has no scientific backing, which was pretty much the point of this thread.

I would die for this stuff, defeat, hardly.

No, the point of this thread was about debating young earth claims. not who can slap each other with the most peer reviewed articles. besides if an evolutionist reviewed a Creationist article, what good is that? the reviewer is already biased, because of his belief system.

anyway i am tired of debating about debating, its like tax on tax...pointless. debate the counter claims i posted or i will just ignore you, your useless here for debate if you don't stop getting mad over authors, cover etc

Oh so it's a conspiracy now, if someone presented a legitimate scientific claim supporting a young earth, it would be covered up by the thousands of evil scientists... give me a break.

 

[John]

No... that's the difference... a scientist looks for truth and the ability to prove things with verifiable evidence.... creationists, on the other hand, have to defend their entire belief system and defend "God and the Bible" no matter what the cost.

From someone on the outside of the debate... I would trust a scientist 1st every time.... if they are proven wrong, they just move on to the next topic.... a creationist would be destroyed.

Hope my perspective on the topic is not met with too many flames! :-D

Nope, the problem is that evolutionists defend their position based on bad science and assumptions, they follow the evidence as long as it does not contradict their foundation.

I would trust a scientist 1st every time

what about a creation scientist ?

The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people and well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?

Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.


Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:

1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.

2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.

Some other considerations include:

1. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.

2. Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.

3. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.

4. Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.

5. Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.

 

[jmm9683]

Nope, the problem is that creationists defend their position based on bad science and assumptions, they follow the evidence as long as it does not contradict their foundation.

There I fixed it.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, thanks for the submission to FSTDT.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Please only cite examples that atheist darwinists agree with.

No peer reviewed results if those peers are Christians -- especially in the area of the Discovery Institute or AIG -- we want atheists who admit to these flaws before Christians on this board can believe them.

Certainly we can disbelieve anything that is said in the movie "EXPELLED" about both scientists and journalists being censured for allowing anything critical of atheist darwinism to "exist" AND we can also reject any "peer reviews" not done by believers in atheist darwinism.

The result? NO science data will be TOLERATED that does not agree with atheist darwinism -- now get with the program and stop presenting inconvenient data. The children "must be carefully taught" not to question this dogma.

You sir -- are opening up the whole thing to "questioning".

Not allowed.

 

[Deep Thought]

I can certainly understand the creationist position to some degree. It must be quite frightening to find your whole belief/comfort system disintegrating with the weight of logic and evidence.

It's very interesting to read the journey of fundamentalist Christians who over number of years have come to the realisation that they have been brainwashed and duped into believing the whole religious propaganda they have been fed over the years.

It takes a very brave person to open their eyes, and not be afraid of the beautiful view of the world they see before them.

 

[jmm9683]

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Too few supernova remnants.
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
8. Biological material decays too fast.
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages†to a few years.
10. Too much helium in minerals.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
14. History is too short.
Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Please only cite examples that atheist darwinists agree with.

No peer reviewed results if those peers are Christians -- especially in the area of the Discovery Institute or AIG -- we want atheists who admit to these flaws before Christians on this board can believe them.

Certainly we can disbelieve anything that is said in the movie "EXPELLED" about both scientists and journalists being censured for allowing anything critical of atheist darwinism to "exist" AND we can also reject any "peer reviews" not done by believers in atheist darwinism.

The result? NO science data will be TOLERATED that does not agree with atheist darwinism -- now get with the program and stop presenting inconvenient data. The children "must be carefully taught" not to question this dogma.

You sir -- are opening up the whole thing to "questioning".

Not allowed.

There is no conspiracy among the scientific community. You are making yourself look paranoid. And unless you cite some serious evidence you won't be taken seriously. Also, throwing around pointless words like "atheist darwinism" and "high priest of darwinism" does not help your cause.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Anywho, is there anyone with open mind going to join in this fun :

Dudes,

I have so much MSc/PhD evidence that Darwinist dating methods are drivel .. :crazyeyes:

it'll maybe take 3 posts to fit it in :lying:

so I'll edit the 1st bit here:- :infinity:

Inaccurate Dating Methods

Why the non-historical Dating Techniques are not Reliable

This chapter is based on pp. 183-221 of Origin of the Universe (Volume One of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series).

Not included in this chapter are at least 62 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: http://www.evolution-facts.org - click Handbook & scroll down to IDM title, OK?

Several methods for dating ancient materials have been developed.

This is an important topic; for evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages, in the hope that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely.

Therefore we shall devote an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method, used by scientists today, to date ancient substances.

1 - RADIODATING

MAJOR DATING METHODSâ€â€Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are:

(1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.

(2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium.

(3) Potassium-argon dating, based on the disintegration of potassium into argon and calcium.

In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods.

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances.

In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances.

This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity.

In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product.

Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating.

It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope.

We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter, so standby for part 2, y'all...

Ian :wink:

 

[MrVersatile48]

Inaccurate Dating Methods (part 2)


There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances.

In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances.

This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity.

In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product.

Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating.

It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope.

We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONSâ€â€At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact:

Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested.


Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:


(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay processâ€â€or the dating will be thrown off.

Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!

But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system!

One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it.

If it did, this would give a false date reading.

But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral.

Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in?

We do not know; we cannot know.

Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do!

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages..



Thankfully, I'll have time to post part 3 as my bath runs 8-)

 

[MrVersatile48]

Inaccurate Dating Methods - part 3

Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors.

These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions.

Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influencesâ€â€now and forever in the past.

But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur.

Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen.

Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered:-

[1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.);
[2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation;
[3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or
[4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

Note
(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances.

In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

"His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."

â€â€*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually.

These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light.

Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths.

The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead.

If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major changeâ€â€from the present rate,â€â€in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals.

Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.


(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive.

According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals.

But we know next to nothing about this beltâ€â€what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959.

Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.

For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else.

But if either Creationâ€â€or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."

By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature


I must be mature enough to turn off das hot water in da bath in @ 90 seconds

Then cooling time will let me edit in an adlib from the vast research shown in my 4 new threads in the past few hours..

OK..

my highly honed experiments say I have @ 20 mins till the water is comfy to enter, so..

onto more positive evidence for a young Earth..

C20 Georgia USA had 4 successive severe winters that killed off all insects

Inc bees

Evo-loopies postulate millions of years between plant life & the inscects vital to pollenate it

But after only 4 years, so much GA plant life had died, they were forced to import insects

How @ positive evidence for 6x24 hours "& God said, 'Let there be...'

& there was...

& God saw that it was good"

OK

Take translucent rocks with perfect rainbow pattern of impurities right inside the rocks

Darwinist dopes drivel @ aeons for molten liquids to solidify into rocks

But that would disperse those impurities into random scattering, like when drops fall into a bucket, those lovely perfect circular ripples soon vanish into a smooth surface

The only way those translucent rocks can have such perfect patterns of impurities inside them is instant Genesis 1:9 - see http://www.BibleGateway.org

Those who just can't believe a 6-day creation need to read how the perfect, permanent new world & cosmos of Revelation 21 is INSTANTLY spoken into being

Almighty = "Nothing is too difficult for You, Lord"

"HE does ALL things WELL"

I best bath well in case my lift to http://www.FlameCCR.org.uk comes early

But I should be able to come back in @ 30 mins

Maybe for @ 60 mins

So do see those 4 new threads here that also demolish Darwin drivel & say what ya think, OK?

We all like a good laugh @ the weekend!

WOW: World In Focus @ http://www.Genesis.TV - (Sky 772) - is @ the Transfiguration

As I bathe, I'll pray for a spiritual transformation for 'ye of little faith'

Why not google my IDM title - Do see the many learned articles, magazines, books, DVDs, CDs, & MP3s @:-

http://www.CreationOnTheWeb.org

https://store.creationontheweb.com/uk/i ... 866d8687f7

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/...



http://www.discovery.org/csc

http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialRe...

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestion...

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechE...



http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/



http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resourc...


http://www.creationism.org

http://www.creationism.org/articles/inde...

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.ht...

http://www.creationism.org/mp3/index.htm

http://www.creationism.org/videos/index....

http://www.creationism.org/books/index.h...

http://www.creationism.org/library/index... - inc audio cassettes & DVDs etc




http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org

http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersm...



Later, 'Gators!


Enjoy!

Ian

 

[jmm9683]

Seriously this stuff has been proven false many times. The creationist arguments that the dating methods are faulty are not accurate. Once again, if you are going to post something refuting major aspects of science, you are going to have to do better than creationist psuedoscience web sites. Non of what you have posted is backed by any scientific journals. Therefore it does not belong in the science area of this forum.

 

[jwu]

Just wondering John, did you actually read what is written in these CW articleds?

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Galax ... s_of_years

Just assertions, no references in regards to the praised windup model. And at best it'd be inconclusive and doesn't indicate an age either way. And the age of other galaxies has little to do with the age of the earth as well.

2. Too few supernova remnants.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/There ... d_universe

This one begs the question by rejecting most of astronomy without giving any evidence why one should do so, as it doesn't allow for the standard model of star formation etc.

Moreover, it gets special relativity ridiculously wrong. We can discuss this in detail if you like.

And when i read the name "Humphrey", then i'm inclined to stop reading anyway - he is a proven liar and has zero credibility. I'll get to that later.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Comet ... d_universe

This one is incredibly weak as well. For its line of reasoning to work there would have to be evidence that the oort cloud does not exist. Without any such evidence and the very real possibility of the oort cloud it is inconclusive.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Amoun ... _in_oceans

...and the same line of reasoning, when applied to aluminium, would prove the earth to be no more than 100 years old. Oops! I guess last-thursdayism must be true then.
It doesn't take into account the error of measurement, nor does it contain evidence that the rate of influx always has been that high, nor does it even cite a source for the supposed current rate of influx.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Earth ... oung_earth

I love this one, as it highlights Humphreys outright dishonesty.

From an ICR article:

How one could justify an exponential extrapolation for thousands of years from this graph is totally lost on me.

This is what Humphrey claims the earth's magnetic field to have been like in the past:

What the data really says about the past few thousand years:

THis is basically a mirrorized version of humphreys graph! When called upon this discrepancy he referred to some mysterious additional data which no-one but him knows about. In other words, he made it up. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity would have either made the additional data accessible to those who asked for it or withdrawn the initial claim. Humphreys did neither. Pathetic.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/%28Ta ... ve_decayed

That's an argument against abiogenesis, it has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Not_e ... _old_earth

Long since discredited - they measured the supposedly expected amount of helium without properly accounting for cracks in the crystals which get closed by pressure when they are buried deep underground.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Quant ... _skeletons

That one doesn't even claim to be conclusive.

 

[John]

See thats what i am talking about, jwu actually refutes them on his own, lol

 

[BobRyan]

There is no conspiracy among the scientific community. You are making yourself look paranoid. And unless you cite some serious evidence you won't be taken seriously. Also, throwing around pointless words like "atheist darwinism" and "high priest of darwinism" does not help your cause.

This is a blind faith statement when you consider that those who ARE being censored have proof of it - give public interviews and show it -- and still "the faithful" refuse to believe it is happening.

How sad.

How stransparent for the objective unbiased reader -- comparing a wild claim above to the actual eye witness accounts of those being censored as available for all to see in the movie "Expelled".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Excellent posts Ian!!

Thank you for sharing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

There is no conspiracy among the scientific community. You are making yourself look paranoid. And unless you cite some serious evidence you won't be taken seriously. Also, throwing around pointless words like "atheist darwinism" and "high priest of darwinism" does not help your cause.

This is a blind faith statement when you consider that those who ARE being censored have proof of it - give public interviews and show it -- and still "the faithful" refuse to believe it is happening.

How sad.

How stransparent for the objective unbiased reader -- comparing a wild claim above to the actual eye witness accounts of those being censored as available for all to see in the movie "Expelled".

in Christ,

Bob

Again, if you want to be taken seriously, post some scientific evidence. So far what has been posted has long been debunked. Creationists aren't being censored, they are being left behind because they don't follow the scientific method. I guess the people who believe in astrology are being censored too.