Creationists

[konradv]

No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.

Now you're just playing with words. Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond? Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years. The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Link to the science being "wildly innaccurate"?


And like with YWC I remind you a link to a Bible blog is a waste of time.

Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.

You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.

But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?

Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website. Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.

Anything but biased Bible blogs. You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.

Now you're just playing with words. Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond? Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years. The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.

When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.

 

[konradv]

No, you don't know EXACTLY how old it was. You know APPROXIMATELY how old it was.

And rock and earth aren't trees. The accuracy becomes less and less accurate the older things are.

Now you're just playing with words. Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond? Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years. The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.

When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.

You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off. The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however. If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Just admit it you are willing to listen to the educated on your side but you're not willing to listen to the educated on the other side.

You guy's keep trying to argue how accurate your dating methods are and I am a loon for not trusting them. I offer you an explanation why and a site that points out the problems with them and you won't address the problems that are presented so you just close your eyes to the truth, it only hurts you.

But don't try and tell me how accurate the dating methods are it's been documented many times how inaccurate they are and why ?

Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website. Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.

Anything but biased Bible blogs. You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.

I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.

But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now you're just playing with words. Did you expect the age down to the nanosecond? Sure, when things get older the spread of readings may get larger, but in that case you're usually concerned with how many millions of years, not how many years. The percentage error doesn't vary that much, so within the constraints of a particular test they ARE very accurate.

When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.

You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off. The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however. If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.

If you say so, but I posted a site that covers all the dating methods and the problems with the dating methods used.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nope I'm not picky, you can pick any scientific website. Doesn't have to be one of my choosing.

Anything but biased Bible blogs. You can give me a link to a science website, a link to a college's science department, your choice.

I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.

But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.

Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.

So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.

So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do. So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.

To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.

 

[konradv]

When you are off you are off period. It's like firing a projectile the further the projectile travels the further it is off by the time it reaches the target area. And to say you're close and just off a little is baloney you have no idea how far off you're if the age is wrong.

You don't know exactly, but you should have a spread of data that clusters around a mean from which you can determine a standard deviation, giving you an estimate of how far you could be off. The absolute numbers aren't as important as the precentage, however. If you're talking billions of years +/- a million or two doesn't mean much.

If you say so, but I posted a site that covers all the dating methods and the problems with the dating methods used.

That's right, ONE SIDE. Upon reading it and without going into detail, it would only impress the scientifically unsophisticated or uninitiated. It's full of more holes than the tests you're bashing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.

But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.

Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.

So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.

So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do. So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.

To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.

So no science link?

Alright, I'll stop waiting for one. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[koshergrl]

E Theo Agard, medical physics (In Six Days)

"
Dr. Agard is a former director of medical physics at Flower Hospital Oncology Center, Ohio. He holds a B.S. (Hons) first class in physics from the University of London, an M.S. in physics from the Middlesex Hospital Medical School at the University of London, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Toronto. In 1993 Dr. Agard was elected to the national board of directors of the Health Physics Society."

"
My belief in the supernatural creation of this world in six days is summarized largely in the following points: the theory of evolution is not as scientifically sound as many people believe. In particular, the problem of the origin of life is well stated by the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Every egg anyone has ever seen was laid by a chicken and every chicken was hatched from an egg. Hence, the first chicken or first egg which appeared on the scene in any other way would be unnatural, to say the least. The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate to explain its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture.
From my reading I understand that the fossil record has failed to produce the intermediate forms of life required by evolution as transitions between the species.
Another problem, as I see it, for the noncreationist is the first law of thermodynamics which affirms the natural process of energy conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes, but can only be converted from one form to another. Since matter is a form of energy (E=mc2 as stated by Einstein), natural sciences cannot account for the total energy, including matter, in the universe. This law consequently implies a role for the supernatural in the origin of the total energy in the universe.
Furthermore, any effort to validate evolution scientifically must involve extrapolation, since current observations must be used to deduce the course of events which occurred several millennia ago (even thousands or millions of millennia). While extrapolation is a valid scientific procedure, it is pertinent to be aware of its limitations. Where there is a sound scientific basis for its use, confidence in the accuracy of an extrapolated result is dependent on the proximity of the point or region of interest to the region of observations."

 

[koshergrl]

Jumping ship

"
We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. He said:

‘I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.’
​

Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, ‘Why bring that nonsense to me?—it’s not science.’
But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are ‘unproven and unprovable.’ ‘Science,’ he says:

‘becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.’
​

 

[koshergrl]

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.

Creationist Geology Professor (USA)

Education

• B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
• M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
• Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Dr Steven A Austin

"
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed&#8217 is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?"

Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano

 

[Dr.Drock]

Jumping ship

"
We asked him how he now viewed the supposed evidence for evolution. He said:

‘I began to look more critically at the assumptions underlying some of those things that seemed so logical. For example, I came to see that resemblances between taxonomic families, orders, classes, etc. are due to the work of a creator, not common ancestry.’
​

Jim Allan says that previously, when people brought up creationist interpretations of the evidence he would say, ‘Why bring that nonsense to me?—it’s not science.’
But in the last decade or so, as he has considered a number of these, he has found that they are perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable. He now finds it sad that anyone should insist on evolutionary interpretations, which are ‘unproven and unprovable.’ ‘Science,’ he says:

‘becomes much more meaningful and satisfying in the light of Scripture, rather than in rejecting it. And I certainly believe it is only as we consider together with legitimate science, the truth learned from Scripture, that we can ever really understand and appreciate the physical universe in which we live.’
​

As you see in the article, no scientific observation or experiment caused him to change what he thinks. A preacher reading a book to him did.

So sure dogma and superstition can cause someone to change their view of scientific facts, but the scientific facts themselves don't change.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.

 

[LOki]

I can understand why you'd wave the white flag.

But don't worry I'm not holding you to a certain time or date, anytime you can provide a science website to back your claims I'll be ready to read and react.

Any scientist that argues again'st your side is considered is shunned and even are threatened with their job for going again'st the establishment. That is a fact.

It sure is, but it's not a fact of reality.

So not too many on your side will speak out about the problems because of the shunning and threats of losing their job.

This is certainly true in the realm of superstition where faith, rather than reason, is the basis of beliefs.

So well educated creationist do speak out because it is the right thing to do.

You mean the "well indoctrinated creationist do speak out because spreading creationist disinformation is the destructive thing to do."

There, fixed.

So if you don't mind being lead astray go ahead and continue believing the unbelievable.

Whatever you say Mr. Ravioli.

To say creationist views are not based in science just shows your ignorance on the subject.

When a creationists say their views are based in science, they're lying--every single time. Creationist views are based on a stoic denial of reality, and that denial of reality is manifested in their obtuse denial of verifiable evidence, valid logic and scientific method. That is an actual, and verifiable, fact of reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Creationist views are faith, not science, based, and should be discussed in liberal arts, humantities, philosophy, and comparitive religion classes.

Never in a science class room.

 

[koshergrl]

The "science" that the idiots in these threads jabber about is not science, it's faith as well....

 

[Dr.Drock]

Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.

My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "science" that the idiots in these threads jabber about is not science, it's faith as well....

That is why ignorance such as the above is not permitted in the science classroom.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, you're just painfully, wincingly, stupid.

My apologies again I must have missed it in the article, what experiment did he conduct or scientific evidence did he examine to come to his new conclusion?

What scientific evidence did you examine? What experiment did you conduct?

Again. Wince.