Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[james bond]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.

And then the moon just happened to fall into the right place. The Antibiblists cannot even explain how the Earth looked like Saturn. Here is a graph of Darwin's timeline. They do not want to associate it with Darwin anymore as he's been proven to be wrong about all his theses. It is called "Important events in the history of life" now.

Graph:

Important events in the history of life

Text (shows Darwin's timeline of billions of years):
Important events in the history of life

ETA: I've asked several times how the Earth was covered with 3/4 water now and still no answers. The answer is supposed to be in Darwin's timeline. See text timeline.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality. We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is. That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not. Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years? And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating. Dr Austin is right. And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that. So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon. They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts. Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs. Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions. That's a fact. It just is. If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science. It's your opinion creating a result.

The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.



CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
   
   
2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​

Great. So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.

Go outside, and pick up a rock. How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?

Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years? What are you going to do... radio date it?

Countering the Critics

Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano

The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts. Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.

One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.

A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.

Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.

Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination. The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:

1. Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
2. Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
3. Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
4. Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
5. Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
6. Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
7. Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.

Everything was done to scientific standards or better.

The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.

The problem you won’t address is that the charlatans from the ICR refuse to submit their work for peer review. They announce their bias toward a predefined outcome so it is not surprising that their methods support that outcome.

There’s a reason why peer review is critical: it allows a non-biased examination of the data.

You apparently have a vested interest in uncritically accepting the statements of charlatans. Not everyone accepts such fraud.

Your statement: “Everything was done to scientific standards or better.”, is nonsense. There was no peer review and having a predefined bias that requires an outcome match a predefined conclusion does not meet a scientific standard.

Can you prove that claim?

 

[Andylusion]

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...

Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.

You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.

So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.

My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.

Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline. Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago. The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.

And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this. That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:

As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,

‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’

In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth

Geophysical Research Letters
Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80
​

So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.

Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.

And others as well:

Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,

‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’

J. Geophysical Research 68:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.
​

So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred. Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.

Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.

Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.

So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.

Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document. What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.

“My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”

Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend.


“Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.”

Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth.

Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.

It's always funny that even though I posted non-christian scientists on this post, you still claim that I ignored facts. So even when I quote your own people, that's still not facts. So basically anyone anywhere that disagrees with your bigotry, is therefore ignoring facts.

Back to your point.... Then you end up destroying your own position.

If you claim that known empirical constants are now variable, then you have to question all the fundamentals of historical science.

For example, there is no more, or less, reason to assume that the moons orbital decay changed in the passed without any known empirical cause... than we could assume the decay rate of Potassium 40K may have been different in the past.

There are scientists who have even claimed, that perhaps the radioactive decay of Potassium may have been much higher in the past, than today.

And correctly on the other side, scientists have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

I agree.

Yet here you are, making just as unsupportable a claim, that because the moons orbital decay doesn't fit with your dogma, that perhaps the rate of recession was lower in the past.

Well... there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

Doesn't that make you no better than the religious zealots you claim to be against?

 

[Andylusion]

You are arguing against something,

I answered your questions. An appropriate response would be, "thank you", if you were asking the questions honestly. Of course, you weren't. As evidenced by the fact that you completely ignored the answers.

we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. It's not constant. As such, I didn't read the rest of your nonsense, which was predicated on your false claim.

Well thanks for stopping by. If you it makes your ego feel better to claim victory while ignoring everything you dismiss out of hand, then more power to you.

 

[Andylusion]

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?

Kevin R. Henke is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​

Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it. It's not scientific; it's opinion. If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.

Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

Best atheist model. Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review. Put them back in.

Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.

Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.

It's too bad we're all throughout the sciences. I personally know of two scientists who work for the Federal government right now. I've met one of them first hand.

But whatever makes you feel better about your position. Who am I to steal away your happy illusion?

After posting that, I remember a 3rd guy I know with 4 Ph.Ds, working for the Federal Government on instant blood tests. Avowed Creationist. Multimillionaire too. And possibly a 4th guy, at a major university.

 

[Andylusion]

use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

I've been studying the evidence all my life and find the scientific evidence for creationism to be lacking. it is just as simple as that. You, yourself has failed to bring forward any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

So you tell me... which came first.... RNA, or DNA?

 

[DOTR]

So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
This should be in the conspiracy section

Your denying the world was flooded billions of years before “biblical humans”?

 

[Hollie]

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...

Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.

You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.

So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.

My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.

Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline. Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago. The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.

And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this. That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:

As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,

‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’

In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth

Geophysical Research Letters
Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80
​

So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.

Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.

And others as well:

Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,

‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’

J. Geophysical Research 68:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.
​

So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred. Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.

Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.

Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.

So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.

Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document. What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.

“My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”

Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend.


“Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.”

Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth.

Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.

It's always funny that even though I posted non-christian scientists on this post, you still claim that I ignored facts. So even when I quote your own people, that's still not facts. So basically anyone anywhere that disagrees with your bigotry, is therefore ignoring facts.

Back to your point.... Then you end up destroying your own position.

If you claim that known empirical constants are now variable, then you have to question all the fundamentals of historical science.

For example, there is no more, or less, reason to assume that the moons orbital decay changed in the passed without any known empirical cause... than we could assume the decay rate of Potassium 40K may have been different in the past.

There are scientists who have even claimed, that perhaps the radioactive decay of Potassium may have been much higher in the past, than today.

And correctly on the other side, scientists have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

I agree.

Yet here you are, making just as unsupportable a claim, that because the moons orbital decay doesn't fit with your dogma, that perhaps the rate of recession was lower in the past.

Well... there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

Doesn't that make you no better than the religious zealots you claim to be against?

YEC'ers tend to rail against challenges to their specious opinions. It was your claim that the constant separation rate of the earth and moon required that the moon was within the earth's atmospher at a point in the past. That is totally unsupported and nothng you offered would suggest that was ever the case.

 

[DOTR]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

 

[DOTR]

Do you believe time is constant?

That my be your best argument. Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?

Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.

I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.

And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.

Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering. Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period. Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.

Of course you could always ask a geologist.

Here’s one you could email.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/07/christian-geologist-wins-battle-to-study-grand-canyon-rocks/

 

[Hollie]

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?

Kevin R. Henke is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​

Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it. It's not scientific; it's opinion. If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.

Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

Best atheist model. Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review. Put them back in.

Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.

Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.

It's too bad we're all throughout the sciences. I personally know of two scientists who work for the Federal government right now. I've met one of them first hand.

But whatever makes you feel better about your position. Who am I to steal away your happy illusion?

After posting that, I remember a 3rd guy I know with 4 Ph.Ds, working for the Federal Government on instant blood tests. Avowed Creationist. Multimillionaire too. And possibly a 4th guy, at a major university.

I have no way of knowing if any of the above is true. I do know that the more excitable of the religious extremists tend to be relegated to the few fundamentalist Christian ministries where they spend their time populating fundamentalist websites will lots of silly pointless claims that appeal to fear and superstition.

 

[DOTR]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

Earth. Water comes up from wells and, just as mysterious to them, from above in rain.

 

[DOTR]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

Your views on the Bible are opinion.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That my be your best argument. Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?

Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.

I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.

And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.

Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering. Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period. Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.

Of course you could always ask a geologist.

Here’s one you could email.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/07/christian-geologist-wins-battle-to-study-grand-canyon-rocks/

Now why would the government be concerned with 30 pounds of rocks being removed from the Grand Canyon for scientific study? We know why.

 

[james bond]

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

At least you try to answer my questions. I'll give you mucho credit for that. I can accept your evolutionist beliefs and have no need nor motive to try to disprove it in order to believe in the Bible theory. Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.

I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God although they do not know they have accepted a "god of the world and prince of the power of the air." Their use of lower case 'god' and 'sky fairy' is such a coincidence.

 

[alang1216]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

Right where, in the KJV? That was not the language of the NT. I think you are blissfully ignorant.

 

[alang1216]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

Your views on the Bible are opinion.

Some are, some are not but nothing I wrote in this post is opinion

 

[alang1216]

I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God

I like to think I'm skeptical and will believe my eyes before I believe what I'm told. Do you believe in the Koran or the Vedas? Are you rebellious in nature and personality?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God

I like to think I'm skeptical and will believe my eyes before I believe what I'm told. Do you believe in the Koran or the Vedas? Are you rebellious in nature and personality?

My story is I saw something that I could not explain that pointed directly to a God. But who’s God? Most of the planet feels they are certain of that answer so I spent years investigating them all until I was able to draw a conclusion.

 

[DOTR]

We have an NT from 300AD.
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.

I'd appreciate a link if you would. What I know:

Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​

No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.

Right where, in the KJV? That was not the language of the NT. I think you are blissfully ignorant.

Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.