Notices
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 819
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: radio isotope dating question.

  1. #1 radio isotope dating question. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi, im new to this website, im not a science expert, but i have a question. I have recently been doing a study on creation vs evolution. And i recently read something about if a rock is dated by radiometric dating method one can get a date. Well if the rock has water flood over it, the uranium element can wash out, making the rock apear older then what it really is. However, my question is this. Does the water wash away the uranium from the surface of the rock, or does the water go THROUGH the rock some how? And if it does go through the rock, hence bringing out some uranium element, can water go through marble? Someone recently gave me that point, so i said i would look into it, and i cant find anything from websites, so i thought i would come on here and ask someone. If their is enough pressure below the sea, can the water go through marble and wash away any uranium?(im asuming uranium also is in marble, as i said im no science expert). Could someone be so kind as to help me out on this question. Im not looking for opinions, assumptions, or views or beliefes, only facts for this question.(allthough if you do offer your opinions, assumptions or beliefes, im open to hear them, but please state explicitly if its a asumption, since im not a science expert and i dont want to be misled by anything. Thank you.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman solidsquid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Marcos, Texas
    Posts
    15
    There are many radiometric dating techniques. And often, a combination of relative and absolute techniques are utilized to determine age of formations and items within them.

    Do you happen to have a reference to what you read or where that claim comes from, because it sounds a bit fishy to me. Water simply running over rock won't change the radioactive decay rate.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Hello 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi, thanks for your reply. Yes, i read that that if the rock was in a flood, doesent matter if it was worldwide, or local flood, if it was in a flood, it could wash away some of the uranium from the rock, making it look older then what it really is. The source i read this from is from a credible website, because its a .org website, i hear they are the most credible. However here is the website source i got it from, you tell me what you think. Its a little ways down within the article, under the green heading "but is it a good date?". Website is " http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...24/i3/kids.asp "

    Tell me what you think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The answer on its validity is in the name: answersingenesis. So it is a creationist website, so it is NOT an objective viewpoint. Remember also, that radiometric dating looks at the proportions between two isotopes of an element to determine its age. So even if some of the material was washed away, the little that is left would still reflect the proportions between the isotopes. Only when very little is left, does it become more difficult to get an accurate date, in which case the data cannot and does not get taken as accurate.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Hello 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Right, its a creationist website. So, it is trying to disprove evolution and show that dating methods they use are not relieble. So, ive read other parts on the website and they have talked about if rocks are in a flood and the flood subsides, the water filters through the rocks and does whats called "leaching by fluids". So the parent and daughter isotopes can be removed by the water filtering through the rocks. Also it talks about their is much evedence showing that the rocks have a "open system". meaning parent and daughter isotopes can get into the rock from other sources, and can be removed, hence making the dates unreliable. Yes their would still be a decay rate of the isotopes, but more of the same type of isotope can be added by outside the rock, and removed from the rock by other means, like water.

    But my next question is, can water PENETRATE marble? Can it wash uranium or other adoms out of marble? I gaus i should also ask, is uranium in marble in the first place? Or some other element within marble? And can it get washed out? Is marble an open system? Im trying to find information on this to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    I assume you are talking about dating rocks by comparing the ratio of uranium-238 to lead-206. Why would water "wash out" the uranium? Is there any evidence that this actually happens, or is it just something that someone on your creationist web page made up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It is worth restating Kastler's point, because it is a vital one: the age is determined by measuring the ratios of original and daughter isotopes. While there might be some preferential difference of removal of parent daughter isotopes I cannot readily see this effecting U-Pb.
    Most age determinations now are not based on whole rock analysis, but on individual mineral analysis. No significant 'washing out' will occur from individual minerals.
    Marble has zero porosity and so water would not readily penetrate it. Fractured marble at shallow depth might permit some water movement, but for the reasons noted above this would not be relevant to age determinations.
    The creationists, in fairly typical fashion, are grasping at straws.
    umbradiago likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Hello 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Right, its a creationist website. So, it is trying to disprove evolution and show that dating methods they use are not relieble. So, ive read other parts on the website and they have talked about if rocks are in a flood and the flood subsides, the water filters through the rocks and does whats called "leaching by fluids". So the parent and daughter isotopes can be removed by the water filtering through the rocks. Also it talks about their is much evedence showing that the rocks have a "open system". meaning parent and daughter isotopes can get into the rock from other sources, and can be removed, hence making the dates unreliable. Yes their would still be a decay rate of the isotopes, but more of the same type of isotope can be added by outside the rock, and removed from the rock by other means, like water.

    But my next question is, can water PENETRATE marble? Can it wash uranium or other adoms out of marble? I gaus i should also ask, is uranium in marble in the first place? Or some other element within marble? And can it get washed out? Is marble an open system? Im trying to find information on this to.
    LMAO!! - What gets to me, what REALLY tickles me is that in todays modern society religion is on its deathbed. I love websites like that because they try and use every single truth there is and twist it around to suit their own needs. Their argument is weak and their sight is blind.

    And erm the fact that you have been looking at religious websites coupled with the fact that you seem to want to get your hands on a highly radioactive metal concerns me a little! :?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi scifor. Well, no one on the creationist web page is making up anything. Its a respected creationist website. I am not blind to the fact that their can be corrupt ones out their, but then again, their is corrupt evolution groups out their just the same then. What their doing is, presenting data, interpreting it, and exposing some stuff from evolution too. Thats basickly what evolution does, they present data, interprete it, offer assumptions and try to expose creation evedence. Both sides do the same thing. Some are honest, some are not. However the ones that are honest, are not all correct, but their honest. This webpage i gave you is a respected webpage. But yes, they say their is evedence that the parent element in the rock can wash out by water or floods. Not all of it, but some of it. Plus its said their is evedence that doughter isotopes like argon can stay captured in the rock if the lava cools under water because its a gass form. So as long as the rock is under water, it will apear older then what it really is, because the water keeps the argon in. This is whats said. Again, im not a scientest, its not like i go out their, digging in the ground as a geologist, or search under water, or go to volcanic locations. I just dont do it, nor can i at this time. So i have to do research and put some trust in OTHERS discoveries in the field of science. Is that not what you all do as well? Im sure it is. Im sure not everyone on this site is a scientest, but im sure they are on here as well. So whoever is not a scientest on here, i dont doupt you dont know your stuff, but again, you have to trust in others research and discoveries. Its like if you go to the grocery store, you trust the food is good, so you buy it. You did not grow the food, but someone else did, and you just trust they did not poisen it.

    Also ophiolite, you said "no significant washing out will accur from individual minerals." Are you talking about just the marble or the rock? Allot of water or flooding can leach parent isotopes out of the rock and keep doughter isotopes from escaping. But from what you said, it sorta is like you admit the elements can wash out. Because you said "no significant" which means, atleast some can wash out. Now supose their is a world wide flood, that lasts a whole year, that can wash out more then just a significant amount then. That would make rocks apear older then they really are then.

    Also leo, relegion in todays society is absolutely not on its deathbed, allthough i would wish the false relegions would be, but their not, nor the true ones for that matter. Relegion is huge in todays world. Im not saying allot of people are true to their relegion, thats rare, but relegion is still big. macro Evolution is even a relegion. Definition of relegion is belief system, which macro evolution is. Its not a fact system. Also leo, from all the stuff i have read, not just from creation webpages, but from evolution pages as well, they also twist some stuff around to suit their ideas and assumptions. Keep that in mind. Also why would it consern you a little by me wanting to get my hands on a radioactive metal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also ophiolite, you said "no significant washing out will accur from individual minerals." Are you talking about just the marble or the rock? Allot of water or flooding can leach parent isotopes out of the rock and keep doughter isotopes from escaping. But from what you said, it sorta is like you admit the elements can wash out. Because you said "no significant" which means, atleast some can wash out. Now supose their is a world wide flood, that lasts a whole year, that can wash out more then just a significant amount then. That would make rocks apear older then they really are then.
    Dear Jollybear

    It seems to me that you'd like an unambiguous response: "there is no way this can happen and here's why", or else an admission that 'answersingenesis' has a point and that the theory of evolution through natural selection is crucially flawed. Here, however, are some things to think about:

    1. The heavier metals are not usually more prone (one than the other) to leaching out and dissolving in water. That's what Ophiolite meant: there's no mechanism whereby this could be expected.

    2. As Ophiolite pointed out, they're now testing using individual mineral samples, not whole rocks. If significant leaching had occured, then the sample would not be the same mineral - it's chemical structure would have changed.

    3. We can easily choose (as scientists do) non-porous minerals to test.

    4. If the porosity/leaching/diluvian theory is to have any credibility, mineral scientists (from within 'answersingenesis' if necessary) should simply test minerals within water at sufficient pressure and speed for a period of time, and demonstrate preferential leaching of initial isotopes. It's not rocket science but it could be good science.

    For all these reasons, and more (but I don't know enough about radio-isotope dating to go into them) scientists are quite confident that their notions, predictions and dating are robust. Being scientists they do not go for the unambiguous absolute response, as unfortunately some in 'answersingenesis' tend to, but will qualify their statements in the knowledge that science is a genuinely progressive enterprise and there will always be more to learn.

    Of course, this may not be satisfactory to you, but it might at least spur you on to learning more about radio-isotopes and dating using them, in an academic sense and with more rigour than just searching the internet, good though it can be as a starting point.

    cheer

    shanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    jollybear, don't forget that we're not talking about a few samples here - we're talking about worldwide sampling of rocks, and often dated through a variety of radioactive decay methods (there's others than just U-Pb), ALL OF WHICH are in general agreement with one another that the earth is vastly older than the 6000 years of young earth creationists

    even if the occasional sample is eroded or leached in some way, it's the comparison with a large body of comparable samples that will highlight these random few as anomalous samples
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Firstly, considering that I actually know something about petrology and mineralogy (been collecting them for 6 years...) please give me time to get a few things straight.

    Regarding Ophiolite's statement of ''water would not readily penetrate it'' I'm certain he means that FLOODWATER would not penetrate it, i.e. water at a low temperature. Most if not all rocks can be permeated by hydrothermal fluids (very, very hot steam). Simple water cannot permeate rocks by flowing through them. I'm sure the more of you can explain simple physics and viscosity that when you get down to very microscopic levels (and if you are talking about washing out atoms we are at a quantum level. Then the surface tension of water is extremely high in comparison and indeed its viscosity so it will not flow through a rock unless under extremely high pressures (beit direct, i.e. a mountain sitting on top of it or indirect, high temperature/energy steam). It's cappillary action that stops fluids from moving around it rocks (the bane of many mineral collectors might I add!).

    Also, to add to marnixR's point about the location of the rocks. These rocks can often come from drillcores from miles beneath the earth. How can you claim floodwaters permeated that depth of rock?

    Also, the earth is clearly older than 6000 years because the first settlers in Ireland arrive around 9000 years ago in Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland.
    So that sort of definitively trumps your theory.

    To summarise, water cannot simply flow over or through rock and leach out selected minerals unless there is a chemical action going on which there is not. What you are saying effectively is if you put water in a glass the water is washing glass atoms out of the glass...stupidity.

    Barry

    P.S. I don't see the logic in a .org website being more reputable than any other. It means nothing. I can make a website called www.barryflannery.org in 5 minutes, so I must be reputable. Maybe I should tell people to send me money and they will receive salvation...? That's an idea!
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Whatever could "wash" uranium (not a likely event under no circunstance), would "wash" too the lighter decayed isothopes (whose chemical properties are similar to uranium's). Actually, it would wash more of the lighter elements than of the heavier, thus by removing more of the lighter decay elements it would make the rock appear younger than it actually would be... not the opposite.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi sunshine. Thanks for your responce. I will check more into mineral dating as you proposed. You proposed also that i should learn radioisotope dating more on a academic level rather then a internet level. From my understanding, i can find the same information on the internet as i can in a library, or from buying a book or from going to college. It just takes digging and searching.

    Hi barry. I have a question, and its a very good question. How do you know the first settlers in ereland arrived their around 9 thousand years ago in mt sandel? Whats the evedence that that is the time period they arrived? Not to mention that creationists say its about 6 to 10 thousand years old, the earth. But even though thats whats said, i still would like a answer to my question. If you dont mind. Please. Will greately apreciate it.

    Also you made the point that steam or hot or warm water would make the elements in the rock leach or run out or become mobile going in, ect ect. Well, here is my theory, when noah's flood came on the scene, tons of volcanoes would come about because of this, making the water warmer then usual, pretty much all over. This would caus allot of the elements in the rock to leach, by heating up. PLUS, ive read that if lava flows in water, it holds in the argon, well thats what would be happaning on a grand scale with noah's flood. So that would make the rocks apear older then they really are. Also lucifer you said that the water would wash out the daughter elements rather then the parent ones? making it apear younger then it really is. How so? How do you figure this?

    Also barry im not saying this is like putting water in a glass and the water leaches out atoms in the glass. Im saying its sorta like a water filter, it keeps out the lead, and flows the water through it. But after awhile, the filter is going to get weak, and the lead is going to leach out of the filter with the water. Now rock is like the filter, but its a tough thick filter to get through, but cant some get in, under the sircumstances you mentioned, with hot water?

    Also as for .org websites, i only heard that by hearsay that they are more credible then html ones. I did not really check up on it. I got too many other things to research then to check that out. Thats not to say a html one is not credible, because it can be as well.

    Hi marnix. I read something a rebuttle to what you said. It said and i past the qwote and its a big one, some of it i dont yet fully understand, but thats because if i actually went to a laberatory, i would see hands on how it all works; i learn better that way and through pictures, but anyhow, here is the qwote. "Let us consider the question of how much different dating methods agree on the geologic column, and how many measurements are anomalous, since these points are often mentioned as evidences of the reliability of radiometric dating. It takes a long time to penetrate the confusion and find out what is the hard evidence in this area.
    In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later age.
    Now, several factors need to be considered when evaluating how often methods give expected ages on the geologic column. Some of these are taken from John Woodmoreappe’s article on the subject, but only when I have reason to believe the statements are also generally believed. First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions. In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered. Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature. Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method. (And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock.) Thus the agreement found between many dates does not necessarily reflect an agreement between different methods, but rather the agreement of the K-Ar method with itself. For example, if 80 percent of the measurements were done using K-Ar dating, and the other 20 percent gave random results, we still might be able to say that most of the measurements on a given strata agree with one another reasonably well. So to me it seems quite conceivable that there is no correlation at all between the results of different methods on the geologic column, and that they have a purely random relationship to each other.
    Let us consider again the claim that radiometric dates for a given geologic period agree with each other. I would like to know what is the exact (or approximate) information content of this assertion, and whether it could be (or has been) tested statistically. It’s not as easy as it might sound.
    Let’s suppose that we have geologic periods G1 ... Gn. Let’s only include rocks whose membership in the geologic period can be discerned independent of radiometric dating methods. Let’s also only include rocks which are considered datable by at least one method, since some rocks (I believe limestone) are considered not to hold argon, for example.
    Now, we can take a random rock from Gi. We will have to restrict ourselves to places where Gi is exposed, to avoid having to dig deep within the earth. Let’s apply all known dating methods to Gi that are thought to apply to this kind of rock, and obtain ages from each one. Then we can average them to get an average age for this rock. We can also compute how much they differ from one another.
    Now we have to be careful about lava flows -- which geologic period do they belong to? What about rocks that are thought not to have their clock reset, or to have undergone later heating episodes? Just to make the test unbiased, we will assign altitude limits to each geologic period at each point on the earth’s surface (at least in principle) and include all rocks within these altitude limits within Gi, subject to the condition that they are datable.
    The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure lack of unconscious bias.
    For each geologic period and each dating method, we will get a distribution of values. We will also get a distribution of averaged values for samples in each period. Now, some claim is being made about these distributions. It is undoubtedly being claimed that the mean values ascend as one goes up the geologic column. It is also being claimed that the standard deviations are not too large. It is also being claimed that the different methods have distributions that are similar to one another on a given geologic period.
    The only correlation I know about that has been studied is between K-Ar and Rb-Sr dating on precambrian rock. And even for this one, the results were not very good. This was a reference by Hurley and Rand, cited in Woodmorappe’s paper. As far as I know, no study has been done to determine how different methods correlate on the geologic column (excluding precambrian rock).
    The reason for my request is that a correlation is not implied by the fact that there are only 10 percent anomalies, or whatever. I showed that the fact that the great majority of dates come from one method (K-Ar) and the fact that many igneous bodies have very wide biostratigraphic limits, where many dates are acceptable, makes the percentage of anomalies irrelevant to the question I am asking. And since this agreement is the strongest argument for the reliability of radiometric dating, such an assumption of agreement appears to be without support so far.
    The question of whether different methods correlate on the geologic column is not an easy one to answer for additional reasons. Since the bulk of K-Ar dates are generally accepted as correct, one may say that certain minerals are reliable if they tend to give similar dates, and unreliable otherwise. We can also say that certain formations tend to give reliable dates and others do not, depending on whether the dates agree with K-Ar dates. Thus we can get an apparent correlation of different methods without much of a real correlation in nature. It’s also possible for other matter to be incorporated into lava as it rises, without being thoroughly melted, and this matter may inherit all of its old correlated radiometric dates. Coffin mentions that fission tracks can survive transport through lava, for example. It may also be that lava is produced by melting the bottom of continents and successively different layers are melted with time, or there could be a tendency for lighter isotopes to come to the top of magma chambers, making the lava there appear older. But anyway, I think it is important really to know what patterns appear in the data to try to understand if there is a correlation and what could be causing it. Not knowing if anomalies are always published makes this harder.
    It is often mentioned that different methods agree on the K-T boundary, dated at about 65 million years ago. This is when the dinosaurs are assumed to have become extinct. This agreement of different methods is taken as evidence for a correlation between methods on the geologic column. One study found some correlated dates from bentonite that are used to estimate the date of the K-T boundary. I looked up some information on bentonite. It is composed of little glass beads that come from volcanic ash. This is formed when lava is sticky and bubbles of gas in it explode. So these small particles of lava cool very fast. The rapid cooling might mean that any enclosed argon is retained, but if not, the fact that this cooling occurs near the volcano, with a lot of argon coming out, should guarantee that these beads would have excess argon. As the gas bubble explodes, its enclosed argon will be rushing outward along with these tiny bubbles as they cool. This will cause them to retain argon and appear too old. In addition, the rapid cooling and the process of formation means that these beads would have Rb, Sr, U, and Pb concentrations the same as the lava they came from, since there is no chance for crystals to form with such rapid cooling. So to assume that the K-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and U-Pb dates all reflect the age of the lava, one would have to assume that this lava had no Sr, no Pb, and that all the argon escaped when the beads formed. Since the magma generally has old radiometric ages, I don’t see how we could have magma without Pb or Sr. In fact, I doubt that there is fresh uncrystallized lava anywhere on earth today that has zero U/Pb and Rb/Sr ages, as would be required if bentonite gave an accurate date for the K-T boundary. So to me it seems to be certain that these ages must be in error.
    Furthermore, the question arises whether bentonite always gives correlated ages, and whether these ages always agree with the accepted ages for their geologic period. I believe that bentonite occurs in a number of formations of different geologic periods, so this could be checked. If bentonite does not always give correlate and correct ages, this calls into question its use for dating the K-T boundary."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    so many statements, and so many of them false or half-truths

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later age.
    now why should you want to separate the precambrian from the phanerozoic rocks ? the laws of radioactive decay did not all of a sudden change at about 500 million years ago

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    First, many igneous formations span many periods, and so have little constraint on what period they could belong to. The same applies to intrusions.
    even during periods of extended volcanic activity such as the Siberian or the Deccan traps, the activity is never continuous + discrete ash or lava layers can be perceived + measured

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    In addition, some kinds of rocks are not considered as suitable for radiometric dating, so these are typically not considered.
    this conveniently ignores the method that existed in geology prior to radiometric dating, which is based on the principle of superposition (the fact that, when undisturbed, younger layers lie ono top of older layers) - if i find 2 ash layers with sedimentary rock inbetween, then i can be pretty sure that that this layer will be intermediary in age between the 2 datable ash layers

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    Furthermore, it is at least possible that anomalies are under-reported in the literature.
    you wouldn't say that if you saw the argument between Leakey and Donaldson where the original date of the ash layer contradicted the age obtained from faunal correlation - the disagreement was highly public, but ultimately resolved through resampling on better samples

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    Finally, the overwhelming majority of measurements on the fossil bearing geologic column are all done using one method, the K-Ar method.
    the only reason the K-Ar method is predominant is its ease of use and its suitability for the age range involving the phanerozoic - it does not mean that other methods can't be used for independent confirmation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    And let me recall that both potassium and argon are water soluble, and argon is mobile in rock
    so we're coming back to your original statement that plain water running over rock leaches out selected elements from that rock - surely you're aware that many of the elements that you claim are water soluble are present in the rock as oxides or silicates, the solubility of which is several orders of magnitude less than the element itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    The measurements should be done in a double-blind manner to insure lack of unconscious bias.
    Several geologists farm their samples out to specialist laboratories, so in a way there's your double blind test - no rock comes with a label attached "240 million years old", the best the geologist can say at the time is that based on faunal correlation and/or superposition in the geologic column he suspects his samples to be of Triassic age

    btw, why is this thread in the Astronomy section ? shouldn't it come under Earth Sciences ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    Regarding Ophiolite's statement of ''water would not readily penetrate it'' I'm certain he means that FLOODWATER would not penetrate it, i.e. water at a low temperature.
    Actually Barry I meant water. The key was in my use of the modifier 'readily'. The processes of hydrothermal activity you have rightly discussed, and associated mechanisms such as metasomatism, granitisation and migmatisation are related (as you pointed out) to extreme conditions associated with high pressures/temperatures, which in turn indicate substantial (many kilometres or ten of kilometres) depth of burial. [I accept the caveat that pure hydrothermal activity is low pressure, but high temperature.]
    This is incidental to the main topic, but I just want to clarify my own post, since you clearly know something of this topic and have given it some thought.
    While I am rambling off topic I was amused, as you were, by jollybear's belief that a .org website had some aura of reliability associated with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    btw, why is this thread in the Astronomy section ? shouldn't it come under Earth Sciences ?
    Excellent point. I've moved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    While I am rambling off topic I was amused, as you were, by jollybear's belief that a .org website had some aura of reliability associated with it.
    guess what ? Philosophorum is an .org site - feeling totally smug now with my aura of reliability
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Ophiolite, I highlighted floodwater to better make my point on the water being low temperature so I could discuss hydrothermal activity. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    Jelly, I have several questions to ask you. Where do dinosaurs come into all of this? If you say the earth is only ca. 10,000 years old, then how come we don't have any reports of ancient tribesmen killing 70 foot dinosaurs ?bronntasaurus (I know little on the names) and eating them? There is no record at all that I am aware of, of such beasts...

    Secondly, I most certainly did NOT say that hydrothermal waters could wash out uranium. You have misinterpreted my post, I was clarifying the conditions under which a liquid could permeate a rock showing you how difficult that was even to begin with let alone selectively washing out a mineral.

    You have effectively spat on the many lives of scientists who posess far greater intellects than you or I who have dedicated their lives to this complex and difficult subject and claimed everything they have done is wrong even though they can correlate precise data you believe it must be false because it says so in a book created in a time when the concensus was that the world was flat... I'm sure they definitely knew more back then than we know now...

    Also you fail to see the K-Ar dating purpose. It is used for the rocks you have specified because it is the only one possible. There is no uranium in them! Uranium will only be found in rocks which have been deep within the crust. Most of the younger rocks you talk of are sedimentary and therefore they won't have uranium in them.

    If you even considered buying the most elementary geography book with a few pages on geology you may understand something instead of consulting your all knowing .org websites who clearly are providing a biased view.

    I am sorry if this is somewhat aggressive or offensive, it's just that I do not like to see people with absolutely no clue about a subject bashing it and claiming it's not true because you read on a website about some stupid claim that ignores all known science.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    Code:
    guess what ? Philosophorum is an .org site - feeling totally smug now with my aura of reliability
    To be honest, we've always depended on you (and some brilliant others) to separate the fact from fiction. Savor that smug feeling. They usually don't last long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    ''You'' as in scientists or do I have my first fan ...! Joke.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    I have read that potasium and argon are water soluble, do you agree with this, yes or no?

    Also hot water(as you mentioned), can caus to migrate other parent-doughter elements within a rock, yes or no? Also high pressures can migrate them. Agree? Yes or no? Also lets keep things and terms simple, since im not a science expert here, im here to learn. If you want to convert me to your belief system, im open to hear it, but i must understand it. Im not into bashing stuff i dont understand. I simply presently make the stand that i believe in the bible and its acount in genesis 1 of 6 literal day creation, and then a history of no more then ten thousand years. Again, i dont claim to have exhustive knoghledge of science as i assume many on here do, but i do have exhustive knoghledge of the word of God which i believe to be the bible. As for science i have some knoghledge. But im here to learn. But, lets keep things and terms simple.

    Also you said i was basickly insulting the intelegance of those who have studied evolutionary geology and dating methods all their life. Well, keep in mind, their also is creation scientests out their as well and creation geologists as well, they too have a intelegance who have studied this stuff all their lives just the same. So, in short, SOMEONE is stuped, and its not both groups, its ONE of them. I presently make the stand that the evolutionary group is the stuped one, while the creation scientests are the more predomently smarter one. Now thats not saying that everything about the evolutionary group is compleetly stuped now, not at all. Just the assumptions are. This is the stand i make. I believe if you dont make a stand for something, you will fall for anything. So this is my stand, im open to you trying to convert me. Im here to learn.

    Also about the dinosours. Heres how they come into all of this, noah's flood fossolized many of them in sedements after the flood subsided. However i believe that some dinasours still exist today, and are alive as we speak. Their has been sightings of some in canada, newfandland, and another sighting in the usa, and the famous lockness(which is disputed i know), and another one, i cant remember off the top of my head, but its also over seas somewhere. The one for the usa, has a picture, clear one, it was washed up on the shor with skin fully on it. Now it was dead, but it was fresh. But the two in canada were claimed to be alive when sighted. Also another thing about the dinasours is this, they carbon dated a few dinasour bones, and also a saber tooth tiger, and sent samples of bones to three laberatories, and all of the samples had carbon within them. That means the jarasic layer or any other layer in the so called geologic colem which basickly does not compleetly exist anywhere on earth(except in textbooks), is not millions of years old, but only 50 thousand years based on the fact carbon was in the samples. And carbon lasts about 50 thousand years. This means the earth has to be 50 thousand years old(but since i dont believe the decay rate and the production of carbon to be constant in the past, its less then 50 thousand, more like ten thousand). Also If the earths megnetic field is decaying, then it was stronger way back, which means less carbon would get into the atmashpher, hence making things apear older then they really are. Now their is more carbon today, hence making things apear younger then they really are.

    Also even if their is no record of man attacking and eating dinosours, that does not mean anything. Because just think, dinosours are very big and scary, why would man want to even attempt to try to kill them? But on top of it, their is stories of dragons and such like this in many cultures all over the world, yet evolutionists claim man and dinasours did not live together. Their is stories in the bible of "liviathon" and gives a discription, it apears to be a dinosour.

    Also, i have a question, how do you know the settlers who came to ereland that it was 9 thousand years ago? Its a valid question. I went on a website that said it was debatable what time they actually arrived. So how do you conclude it was 9 thousand?

    Also all due respect, but your statement here > "it says so in a book created in a time when the concensus was that the world was flat... I'm sure they definitely knew more back then than we know now" < is ignorant of what the bible truely says on this. The bible does NOT say the world is flat, and even though the bible is a big book, i can say that with compleet confedence. The bible actually says the world is round, i can back that up, i will give you a verse. "Isaiah 40:22 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
    He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

    Not to mention, logic could tell you back then that the world was round because the sun rises up one end, and sets down the other end, then returns and rises back the other end. Like if it rises from the east side, and goes down the west side, then rises back to the east, hmmm, perhaps the earth is round. Or the sun rises from the east, but notice it dont go down the east side, hmmm, earth must be round. So, two things, logic, and a devine revelation of creation. Not to mention, if the sun is round, and the moon is round, hmmm, maby the earth is too. You get the point, its not that hard. I dont believe everyone back then believed the earth was flat, because the bible sure doesent say that.

    Also im confused about what you said "most of the younger rocks you talk of are sedimentary and therefore they wont have uranium in them." I thought that the uranium was the parent element, so if the younger rocks dont have uranium in them, then that would not make them young, but old. <? Uranium is a parent element.(acording to my understanding of reading anyway.)

    Now since you apear to be mocking the ".org" reasoning i gave, let me restate, i simply went by hersay on that, i did not bother to find out of its vilidity(i simply just had too much other things on my mind and just was not interested to look that up and read on it). So, if you happen to know that .org websites are not nessesarily credible, then i'll take your word for it. But, one has to trust something dont they? Again, when you go to the grocery store, you trust the food is not going to be poisened, right? Or do you send the food in for testing before you cook it and eat it? I doupt it. Now their is credible websites from a evolutionary viewpoint, i reconize this, but they make sure they state the data correctly and state their assumptions correctly, nothing is fraud. But their belief, i believe is wrong. Now just because i believe its wrong, does not mean their fraudelent, the same goes for creation websites. Then again, their can be creation websites that are fraudelent as well as evolutionary websites. But, you got to read and trust something. Sift through it.

    Also the creation websites are not ignoring all known science, their taking the same methods and data science uses, and just reinterpreting it correctly.(i believe correctly anyhow, thus far atleast).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I have read that potasium and argon are water soluble, do you agree with this, yes or no?
    will you stop talking about the element potassium as if it can be found in the rocks in that state - the relevant question is : what is the solubillity of potassium OXIDE or SILICATE in water ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Right, now I've just lost all hope in this debate because you have been so mislead this is becoming futile so I will be brief.

    I have read that potasium and argon are water soluble, do you agree with this, yes or no?
    Yes, the element of potassium is water soluble. But potassium does NOT exist in rocks in its element form!!! It is one of the most highly reactive metals known to man. It is always the first to form oxides and silicates, the latter (i.e. silicates) are generally always completely insoluble to water and indeed every other acid apart from concentrated Hydrofluoric Acid. The elements have nothing to do with it becuase they don't exist in the rocks, only compounds of that element do. And if you're claiming that floodwaters are washing compounds out of the crystals lattice of a mineral I will not participate any further in this discussion because it clearly highlights that you nor your source have ANY concept whatsoever of both chemical reactions nor physics.

    Also hot water(as you mentioned), can caus to migrate other parent-doughter elements within a rock, yes or no? Also high pressures can migrate them. Agree? Yes or no? Also lets keep things and terms simple, since im not a science expert here, im here to learn. If you want to convert me to your belief system, im open to hear it, but i must understand it. Im not into bashing stuff i dont understand. I simply presently make the stand that i believe in the bible and its acount in genesis 1 of 6 literal day creation, and then a history of no more then ten thousand years. Again, i dont claim to have exhustive knoghledge of science as i assume many on here do, but i do have exhustive knoghledge of the word of God which i believe to be the bible. As for science i have some knoghledge. But im here to learn. But, lets keep things and terms simple.
    No it cannot. You fail to understand what permeation is. Just because it is going through the rock it does not mean it has to wash things out along the water. It is travelling through micropores in the wrong under high pressure. It will NOT selectively wash out the elements in the rocks.

    Also you said i was basickly insulting the intelegance of those who have studied evolutionary geology and dating methods all their life. Well, keep in mind, their also is creation scientests out their as well and creation geologists as well, they too have a intelegance who have studied this stuff all their lives just the same. So, in short, SOMEONE is stuped, and its not both groups, its ONE of them. I presently make the stand that the evolutionary group is the stuped one, while the creation scientests are the more predomently smarter one. Now thats not saying that everything about the evolutionary group is compleetly stuped now, not at all. Just the assumptions are. This is the stand i make. I believe if you dont make a stand for something, you will fall for anything. So this is my stand, im open to you trying to convert me. Im here to learn.
    There is no such thing as a creation geologist. If you have a geologist he will be aware of all the forces involved in the creation of the Earth and know it is a perfectly plausible chain of events that led to its creation. If you all you creationists around the world even had an inkling of scientific knowledge or studied science through school you would know that you are effectively calling things you don't understand ''the work of god''.

    All creation scientists are making completely fundamentally incorrect statements which fail to abide the ANY of the known laws of chemistry or physics and therefore I find it highly amusing how you can claim that they are the smarter ones.



    Also about the dinosours. Heres how they come into all of this, noah's flood fossolized many of them in sedements after the flood subsided. However i believe that some dinasours still exist today, and are alive as we speak. Their has been sightings of some in canada, newfandland, and another sighting in the usa, and the famous lockness(which is disputed i know), and another one, i cant remember off the top of my head, but its also over seas somewhere. The one for the usa, has a picture, clear one, it was washed up on the shor with skin fully on it. Now it was dead, but it was fresh. But the two in canada were claimed to be alive when sighted. Also another thing about the dinasours is this, they carbon dated a few dinasour bones, and also a saber tooth tiger, and sent samples of bones to three laberatories, and all of the samples had carbon within them. That means the jarasic layer or any other layer in the so called geologic colem which basickly does not compleetly exist anywhere on earth(except in textbooks), is not millions of years old, but only 50 thousand years based on the fact carbon was in the samples. And carbon lasts about 50 thousand years. This means the earth has to be 50 thousand years old(but since i dont believe the decay rate and the production of carbon to be constant in the past, its less then 50 thousand, more like ten thousand). Also If the earths megnetic field is decaying, then it was stronger way back, which means less carbon would get into the atmashpher, hence making things apear older then they really are. Now their is more carbon today, hence making things apear younger then they really are.
    Absolute codswallop, every line of it. Give me the names of these laboratories and we will see how reputable they are. Considering you are effectively calling the major institutions who have done they research on this from thousands and thousands of different samples from all over the world with millions of field examples to verify it.

    You cannot wash uranium out of rocks. You just cannot. There is absolutely no possible way to do it. If you wash the uranium out you must wash the lead out and everything else. I don't give a flying f**k about your theory's from creationism with absolutely no understanding of anything. Evolution has been verifiably proven with scientific experiments. Yours is based on a theory.

    Mount Sandel settlers have been dated from the carbonised wood from their fires which dates from over 9000 years ago. But of course your flood must have conveniently wash carbon out it....

    If you want to continue your debate I suggest you post on www.mindat.org, the worlds leading mineralogy database with many of the world's experts in the one place.
    They are exponentially smarter and more informed on the subject than I.

    Barry [/quote]
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also even if their is no record of man attacking and eating dinosours, that does not mean anything. Because just think, dinosours are very big and scary, why would man want to even attempt to try to kill them? But on top of it, their is stories of dragons and such like this in many cultures all over the world, yet evolutionists claim man and dinasours did not live together. Their is stories in the bible of "liviathon" and gives a discription, it apears to be a dinosour.
    JB, films such as 1 Million years BC were just stories, they did not really happen. My 13 year old grandson has just asked me "Is this guy serious?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    ''Dinosaurs are very big and scary''. Are you saying that an alpha male lion, king of the pack is not? African men have been known to hunt lions also as a test of courage. Why not dinosaurs.

    For every question I ask, I seem to be finding more and more flaws with your logic...

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    ... is not millions of years old, but only 50 thousand years based on the fact carbon was in the samples. And carbon lasts about 50 thousand years.
    if you're going to get your facts THIS wrong then there's no point talking any further to you : stable elements such as carbon-12 remain carbon-12 ad infinitum under earthly conditions

    you just seem to half-remember that items can be carbon dated using radio-active carbon-14 and the current limit of detection for carbon-14 is about 50,000 years

    do you know any science at all ? or does all your knowledge come from "reputable" creationist.org sites ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Marnix I'm glad you feel the same sentiment as myself, I felt that I was being unfair but now I just feel that this guy is trying to irritate us...

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    That means the jarasic layer or any other layer in the so called geologic colem which basickly does not compleetly exist anywhere on earth(except in textbooks),
    This is almost an exact quote from Kent Hovind's lectures. Immediate dismissal of anything you have said follows. I know you also want to understand what is going on, but first try and get as much information as you can from more than 1 source and try to look at it with as much objectivity as you can. Then after weighing the accepted facts against creationist claims, please come back and ask anything you want. Some of the creationist calims can be instantly dismissed by you after a proper analysis and some might have to be explained by actual geologists. But be sure that EVERY claim by creationists can be successfully refuted.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Ok, potassium does not exist in rock. I think i understand that. So does potasium in its parent isotope exist in the rock? Or is that the same thing as the element? From what i read potasium is in the rock, and it decays to other things and then aventually to orgon, in the rock. I know i was not seeing things when i read that. Perhaps im being lied too? But i read it on more then one website as well. Also you said the potasium forms silicates and they are insoluble to water. My question now is if water cannot contiminate the rock, what can? Since to my knoghledge the rock is a "open system". Some of you think i am not being objective, may i ask you the same thing, are you being objective, believing evolution and all? Also, i dont know if "my source" knows stuff about chemical reactions and physics. But im sure they proubly do. But as for me, I clearly admit i dont. I even stated obove i dont know much about science, just a little bit. Im here to learn. BUT, i have made a stand as well. Now, im still studying this topic of creationism vrs evolution and hearing and learning both sides. Im still learning and studying. Mind you i have not studied this specific topic all my life, its only been about a year since i have studied this specific topic and all the science that seriounds it. Which is taking time. I find it funny how some of you would think the creation websites are not objective, i sorta feel that evolutionists are doing the same thing, not being objective. A true scientest from what i heard supose to basickly say they dont know what the truth is, but are seeking to find it, but have found some truth in part, and then what is theory, they admit is theory.

    How can you ignorantly say their is no creation geologists? Of course their is. Their is geologists that believe in evolution and their is geologists that believe in creationism, and some in intelegent desighn(sorta like creationism, but not exactly). I can admit when i am ignorant on something, can you?

    How are creation scientests making fundamentally incorrect statements which fail to abide the laws of chemistry or physics? Give me a narrowed down example?

    I wont give you the name of the laboratories, i'll give you the webpage article, and it has in it the names of each of the laboratories. And the article is not overly long incase you wonder. Here is the webpage " http://www.worldbydesign.org/researc...dinosaurs.html " Take a look at it and tell me what you think. I am interested in what you have to say, i truely am.

    If the elements cant be washed out of the rock, then its a "closed system"? What about under high pressures, or warming? Do you know that for sure that it cant wash out under sertain presures and heat? And if yes, how do you know? Again, im here to learn.

    Also you dont have to get disrespectfull with the cursing, im not cursing at you, so dont do so with me. Also evolution has NOT been verifiably PROVEN with scientific experiements. Their experements has not produced a transitional form of any kind for example. Nothing. Evolution is well known to be called a theory. Theory means belief. Me believing in creationism also is a belief which is theory, but its a belief i believe is the correct belief and theory, obviously otherwise i would not believe it. If i can admit mine is a theory, why cant you admit yours is? My theory is the right one though, i believe. And all due respects to you as a person.

    Ok, the carbonized wood that dated 9 thousand years proves the settlers came to ireland at that period? Not really, again the website i went on said its debated. Plus on top of that, my two cents is that the magnetic field which i read has decayed 5 % since the 18 hundreds(cant remember exact year) has brought in more carbon into the atmashpher. So if you truely went back in time 9 thousand years ago, less carbon would be in the wood(making it older then 9 thousand), while traveling to the future at present, more carbon would be in it(making it younger, like 9 thousand). Plus before noah's flood, the magnetic field would be greatly more stronger, hence making less carbon come in. PLUS on top of it, after noah's flood came, yes leaching of carbon would contaminate fossils and wood. So things would apear older then they are. But since this date is too old for my theory(allthough not really, because its 6 to 10 thousand years that my belief fits into) the wood does not have enough carbon in it, because it apears too old for my timescale. So where did it go? Well going back in time, the field is stronger, plus in our time they have don nucleor testings which produced more carbon 14. So the field was too strong, so their was not enough carbon for the wood to get it at its correct age(it supose to be younger), plus their could have been a local small flood too. But even if their wasent, the field would play a part. So basickly, the age through history, would go up and down, the dating clock would swing back and forth, its not constant, its not a reliable way of dating. Yes it gave a gist close, but not exact. The true age is proubly around 3 thousand years ago. Allthough i dont know exactly, but perhaps around their. Im thinking noah's flood was not responsible for the leaching of the wood, that they settled their after the flood, but then again, it could have been responsible for the leaching of the wood, and so have less carbon. Im not sure, i dont have a dogmatic opinion one way or the other on this one. But i dont believe the date is compleetly correct, allthough its sertainly not billions of years old thats for sure, thats the main thing.


    I tried clicking on the website .mindat.org. But the page wont be displayed?

    megabrain, your grandson must be indoctrinated by you for him to say that?(no disprespect or anything meant by that). How do you know that those stories are not true?

    Also berry, their is no flaw in my logic here, i will answer all your questions, and if i dont have an answer, i'll research to find one. dinasours are bigger then lions. Just think, it would take less courage to fight a lion then a dinasour. So, most people would go with the lion as their option. Now even IF some did fight dinasours, that doesent nesesarily mean it would get written down. Like theirs lots of things i do in my life that are not written down, but i did them. I dont know how you cant see the logic in this?

    Hi marnix, i understand carbon 12 is stable, but explain to me more about carbon 12 adding infinitum under earthly conditions. What is infinitum and what does it do, and what are the earthly conditions for it? And where are you going with that point? Again, im here to learn, i freely admit i dont know everything about science. I have simply taken a stand for creationism belief, and im still studying.

    Also berry, im not trying to erritate you, thats not my purpose. Im here to learn and at the same time i want you to know where i stand, and thats it. Some on here it apears needs some patience.

    Also kalster, i am still in process of reading from more then one source, i plan on doing even more so and i agree with you on that. However im sure creation scientests can sucessfully refute any arguments the evolutionists have as well. Ive listened to some debates on this and seen it. Actually from debates i have listened too, it seamed in most cases the creationist representetive was woopen the evolutionist, and this is not from a creationist website i got it. Nor a evolution website, i just got it by clicking in creation vrs evolution debate on youtube.com .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Hi marnix, i understand carbon 12 is stable, but explain to me more about carbon 12 adding infinitum under earthly conditions. What is infinitum and what does it do, and what are the earthly conditions for it?
    oh. my. god.

    are you for real or are you taking the mickey ? 'ad infinitum' is latin for 'into infinity' - nothing to do with adding anything at all !!!!

    i qualified my statement with 'earthly conditions' because carbon does take part in nuclear fusion reactions in stars larger than the sun prior to going supernova, but these are nuclear reactions, not normal chemistry as on earth
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I have read that potasium and argon are water soluble, do you agree with this, yes or no?
    Elementary potassium does not dissolve in water, it readily reacts with it and forms hydrogen and potassiumhydroxide. And yes, alkali and alkaline earth metals-compounds are in general soluble in water to varying extents. So if you are looking for Na, K, Mg, Ba etc. you will find them as Kations in various minarals (Feldspar[s], Pyroxenes, Amphiboles) in combination with other Ions like Aluminum-, Iron, etc. And gasses dissolve in water depending on the pressure and temperature, yes. But this is more physical, not chemical.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also hot water(as you mentioned), can caus to migrate other parent-doughter elements within a rock, yes or no?
    Yes, if the water can permeate the rocks. Depending on porosity, density, temperature, pH-Value and a couple more factors.



    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also high pressures can migrate them. Agree? Yes or no?
    High pressure alone causes high-pressure metamorphosis e.g. converting let's say clay deposits to schist (Spelling? In german it's Schiefer...anyway). It does per se not cause migration of any kind.



    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also lets keep things and terms simple, since im not a science expert here, im here to learn. If you want to convert me to your belief system, im open to hear it, but i must understand it. Im not into bashing stuff i dont understand.
    Science is no belief-system. Period.
    But I agree: KISS..... Keep It Simple, Stupid!
    You do not have to take a graduate class in geology, minaralogy or the like, but a minimum knowledge in chemistry would be actually helpful.

    I simply presently make the stand that i believe in the bible and its acount in genesis 1 of 6 literal day creation, and then a history of no more then ten thousand years. Again, i dont claim to have exhustive knoghledge of science as i assume many on here do, but i do have exhustive knoghledge of the word of God which i believe to be the bible
    .

    And this is actually where all the trouble starts. The bible is a collection of writings that have been changed, re-told, altered, corrected, changed again and it is arbitrary to begin with, so I have a problem with taking this collection of stories as the word of a devine entity. Oh, and could you please watch your spelling. It is really annoying and tedious. I do not expect your posts to be on the same level as in SciAm or NewScientist but a K12-level can be expected, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also you said i was basickly insulting the intelegance of those who have studied evolutionary geology and dating methods all their life. Well, keep in mind, their also is creation scientests out their as well and creation geologists as well, they too have a intelegance who have studied this stuff all their lives just the same.
    Takes deep breath.......................................c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-t s-c-i-e-n-t-i-s-t..........twitches and squirms...........c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-t g-e-o-l-o-g-i-s-t.........................shudders, takes another deep breath.

    O.K., where to start? First of all, those cr.....scientists or geologists do not work scientifically. You know, there are certain rules within the scientist community which all scientists follow. One of them is that you take the data first and then you derive a theory from it. Like plate tectonics (if you want to stay within the earth sciences field), from the shape of the continents and other data like ancient fluvial deposits and former expansion of glaciers Wegener found that e.g Africa and South America were connected some 80 million years in the past. This alone does not constitute scientific evidence, but from his findings he made testable predictions . And lo and behold, his predictions turned out to be true!

    Those ummm...people you mentioned have a firm believe i.e. a devine entity created everything and from there on out they are hell bent to prove their assumption ignoring all other data and concentrate on the gaps other theories have yet to explain. So it's like .......HAHA, we found one or two things your theories have no explanation for thus the bible is right. This is called science of the gaps. You take some blind spots of a certain theory, blow them waaaaayyyy out of proportion and deduce from that that your explanation that seems to have an explanation for this gap and thus is the only correct one. NOT.



    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also about the dinosours. Heres how they come into all of this, noah's flood fossolized many of them in sedements after the flood subsided. However i believe that some dinasours still exist today, and are alive as we speak. Their has been sightings of some in canada, newfandland, and another sighting in the usa, and the famous lockness(which is disputed i know), and another one, i cant remember off the top of my head, but its also over seas somewhere. The one for the usa, has a picture, clear one, it was washed up on the shor with skin fully on it.
    Now if this is true, why don't we have some gun-nut go out there and trying to shoot one or two. Imagine the trophy! A Triceratops skull hanging in some idiot's living room. The bragging rights alone!!!!!
    And don't tell me: there are only a few left and thus we do not find them. Well, if there are only so little of them left this creates a problem: a species needs a minimum number of individuals to survive over longer periods of time i.e. longer than 100 years. Otherwise inbreeding and other factors will cause such a species to go extinct. This threshhold seems to be around 2000 individuals, give or take.




    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now it was dead, but it was fresh. But the two in canada were claimed to be alive when sighted. Also another thing about the dinasours is this, they carbon dated a few dinasour bones, and also a saber tooth tiger, and sent samples of bones to three laberatories, and all of the samples had carbon within them. That means the jarasic layer or any other layer in the so called geologic colem which basickly does not compleetly exist anywhere on earth(except in textbooks), is not millions of years old, but only 50 thousand years based on the fact carbon was in the samples. And carbon lasts about 50 thousand years. This means the earth has to be 50 thousand years old(but since i dont believe the decay rate and the production of carbon to be constant in the past, its less then 50 thousand, more like ten thousand). Also If the earths megnetic field is decaying, then it was stronger way back, which means less carbon would get into the atmashpher, hence making things apear older then they really are. Now their is more carbon today, hence making things apear younger then they really are.
    If you say that carbon dating of certain fossilized dinosaur-remains gave a result of a couple of thousand years, I'll absolutely agree with you. Why? Contamination, plain and simple. If some dickwad lab-tech did not pay close attention to what he was doing this is absolutely possible. Or those bones were uncovered by erosion and then burried in ordinary soil then you most likely WILL have contamination with fresh C-14.





    [quote"jollybear"]Also im confused about what you said "most of the younger rocks you talk of are sedimentary and therefore they wont have uranium in them." I thought that the uranium was the parent element, so if the younger rocks dont have uranium in them, then that would not make them young, but old. <? Uranium is a parent element.(acording to my understanding of reading anyway.)[/quote]

    Well actually this is not totally correct. a.) There are Sandstones that are some 1.5 billion years old, and the oldest sedimentary rock (to my knowledge) is actually more than 3 billion years old. Ophiolite correct me if I am wrong.
    b.) Most sedimentary rocks actually contain Uranium. But there's a problem with the concentration of the elements usefull for dating the rocks. Thus in sediments you often use (micro)fossils to date them. Yes, I know, you have to calibrate the fossil scale too, but this is not too hard to do. Just imagine some sedimentary layers are covered with igneous rocks which in turn you can date quite easily.

    And as Ophiolite stated above, you do not use all of the rock, just certain really stable minarals. Zirconia comes to mind or Quartz. Those are not only exceptionally stable but they also tend to have fluid inclusions in them so you basically have little test tubes with highly saturated liquids built into the minerals. Like This (forth picture from top)


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    the latter (i.e. silicates) are generally always completely insoluble to water and indeed every other acid apart from concentrated Hydrofluoric Acid
    That's an interesting one. How do you then explain the formation of let's say Kaolinite from Feldspar?? And what about Eudialyte?
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Twaaannnggg,

    You are most certainly correct regarding the chemistry of potassium but in my defence I was trying to keep it in the same language as Jollybear due to his obviously limited skills in science to avoid further confusion.

    That's an interesting one. How do you then explain the formation of let's say Kaolinite from Feldspar?? And what about Eudialyte?
    Please note the ''generally'' in my statement. I am aware of exception but again I am trying to simplify things.

    I am unsure regarding the uranium dating, I will assume you are correct. I am just going on what a university professor said and have extended it. I had asked how would you date a sedimentary rock such as limestone and she said that you couldn't (?easily at least) and therefore you would have to use a different radioactive element scale. Again trying (in futile I concede) to make this a thing of absolutes to simplify everything down due to the calibre of JB's knowledge of Geology.
    Please note I am not claiming to know a great deal but I am claiming to know more than JB on the subject.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    marnix, what is potassium oxide or sicicate? Is that the same thing as potasium-argon? Or is that another form of potasium, or is their just one type of plain potasium? And what is the diffrences between them? Again, i not much of a scientest. But yes, what is the solubility of potassium oxide or silicate in water may i ask?

    Hi berry. So, the potassium IS water soluble. Ok, so potassium does not exist in rocks IN ITS element form, well in what form does it exist in the rock? I thought it was all the same thing, like its in the rock then its in the rock. So what form is it in, within the rock?

    So If it forms oxides and hydrofluoric acid, then its soluble in water? But not soluble if its in silicates and other acids, i understand correctly? So what gets the rocks in the conditions to where the compounts of the element potassium become soluble in water? Also im not claiming dogmatickly that flood waters can wash potassium out, because i dont know how it works compleetly. Allthough i do believe in noah's worldwide flood. But, perhaps theirs more conditions for the elements apearing older, or other ways for the water to do it. You see i dont know all the ins and outs of the elements and how it all works, i dont know too much on science, im reading and here to learn. But, i still have made a stand non the less. As for my "source" im pretty sure it knows chemical reactions and physics qwite well, but i on the other hand, dont. Actually, if my "source" did not know about those things and they claim to have lots of articles on their written by scientests, i would defenately not go on that website anymore, thats for sure, even if it was a creationist website. Because then they are just making statements and not being able to expose anything or explain anything, or if they did, it would be making stuff up, which i dont respect, nor im sure no one else would.

    Ok, you said that under high temparatures and pressures the water can go into micropores within the rock, but it wont wash out the elements within the rock. I have to ask, how do scientests know this? Im sure it cant leach out ALL of the elements, but can it leach out a little bit? If not, how do you know it cant? Or how do scientests know?

    Also when you say their is no such a thing as a creation geologist, this is ignorance. I dont know if their is labeled creation geologists, but i know for a fact their is scientests and geologists that do go with the creationist view of 10 thousand years. I know this from research. This is a obvious fact. And this is comming from people who are geologists and scientests. So, not all geologists and scientests believe evolution and a 4 billion year old earth. And as far as i can see from many websites ive gon on, their is labeled creation scientests. Allthough the label for geologists i dont know, but i do know, their is geologists that are believers in my view.

    Creation scietests believing the earth is 10 thousand years old does not defy the laws of chemistry or physics. How do you figure?

    Marnix i am for real, i have not taken the mickey(whatever the mickey happens to be ) . So "ad infinitum" is latin for into infinity. Cool, i learnt my latin languege lesson for the day. Also you do agree that they measure carbon 14 to date some things, yes, no? If yes, well they dated those dinasours i had mentioned and they had significant carbon in them.

    Hi twang. So elementary potassium does not dissolve in water, but its compounds do and so can leach out of the rock, to some extent, do i understand correctly?

    So under high pressure, temparature, and porosity, density and ph value(whats that?) and a couple more factors(what are more factors?) the water can enter through the rock and caus to migrate the compounds of the elements? Yes, no?

    Also i would agree that true science is not a belief system, its facts and partial truths progressing to find out more truths and facts. However, evolution is not science, its a belief system mixed in with science. I would be stuped to desegree with true science, since its observable and factual. So, im not desegreing with true science. Im desegreing with evolution, both cosmic evolution and earth and life and anamal and human evolution. I do happen to believe in only micro evolution, but not macro. Macro is not observed, micro is true science.

    Ok, now for your statements about the bible. Their is some ignorance here. You are correct when you say the bible is a collection of writings. Your incorrect when you say it has been changed, re-told, altered, corrected, and changed again. Yes, some minor misspells would have been corrected, a age, a name, ect, but the overall message was not. Let me explain this a little better. Way back when the first bible was written, that is the old testement scroll, the authors of the book wrote their parts, because it was a number of diffrent writters obviously. However to keep the copies preserved their was scribes that made copies, then when the old ones got too old, they were thrown out. Now since their were no photocopeing mashins back then, the scribe had to do it, that was his job, so he had lots of time to do this and do it right, it was his job to do it right, thats what he got paid for. Now, since he is a scribe and not a photo copier, after copying a huge book like the old testement of course he will make a few minor mistakes, like a misspell, a name, a age, a word, maby leaving out the odd word, like the word "is" Or "it" or "place" or "dirt" ect. But thats expected from a scribe, not everyone is perfect, but it was his job to copy and make sure the message of that book, was preserved and stayed unscathed. So, each copy would get old, he made another one, then it kept going in this cycle down histories road. Now, i have another support, not only did the scribes have this job, which implies they would most likely wanna do it well, but the discovery of the dead sea scrolls that are dated way back to where a original copy would exist, was found. They compared the dead sea scrolls to a modern old testement bible of today and as i stated above, it was confirmed that NOTHING was changed or altered in its stories, history or message, except a few minor mistakes with words or human ages or names, or misspells, or a replaced word. But it was so minor. However the book of esther was not in the dead sea scrolls as it is in the modern day old testement, but that was the only book that was not in it, all other ones were. The book of esther only has 10 chapters anyways, a very small amount in comparison to the big scope of the old testement as a whole. So, THIS is PROVE that it was NOT changed, altered, re told ect, only the tiny mistakes were corrected. Their you go. Now its true the next step is, you still have to either trust the bible or not, but whatever your choice is, get the facts strait and realize it was not changed, altered and re told. The bible is the best seller in the world and has stood the test of time, and has tons of archeologic evedence backing it up as well, unlike the karan or mormon book or any other historic book to my knoghledge. Nor has it ever changed like your science books of today do. It dont need updating like that, because its PERFECT TRUTH. And that which is perfect dont need updating because its allready perfect. Even the karan says the bible is reliable, and the muslims are the second biggest relegion in the world, just below christanity. All this is strong support for the bible. Plus all those geologic sedements within the earth is not your evedence for evolution and billions of years, its OUR evedence for noah's flood. So true science data interpreted through a biblical sence is also evedence for the bible. Not interpreted by evolution sence. Both sides are a belief, but mine is correct believe, yours is not.

    Also i apologize for the bad spelling, i dont allways pay attention to it. I'll scan over what i type before i send it, hows that?

    You said the scientests take the data and then formulate a theory. Well, they need a new theory, because evolution dont work and doesent happen, macro that is. They got the data right, but the interpretation wrong.

    As for the contenents breaking apart through millions of years, i dont believe it. I believe it was through noah's flood. Now i dont want to debate that just yet, because i only read scratches about how noah's flood can fit into that. I plan on reading more up on that, but for now, im still learning radiometric dating stuff. But just to throw out a tid bit, noah's flood would caus volcanos on a grand scale, allong with earthquakes. These earthquakes could break the contenents apart at a faster rate, not at a slow rate of millions of years. However, i still need to do some more reading on this.

    So the only best way you can explain away evolutions gaps is by saying, their still working on it, haha! Thats a good acountability for ya, NOT. Mind you, those gaps, theirs pretty big ones, you cant just explain away those big gaps by saying their still working on it. Yes, we can give em grace time, but either 1 they will adjust their theory of evolution and say they were wrong, but this is how the true way of evolution works now(which still blows a hole in the theory). Or 2, they will say they are still correct in how the evolution works, but will twist the gaps to peaces, or 3 they will except the biblical view. Number 3 i predict they will not do. Which they should.

    Now for the dinasour point you made. The sighting of the dinasour in canada has been offered a award to anybody that can catch it. So, im sure lots of people are trying with their guns. Now i have not kept tabs on how thats going, but i listened to a adio on it. Also the locness, lots of people are researching and looking for that too. And the one about the dinasour in america, was found, picture takened and people were around it. I have not taken up tabs on this one either, but i listened also to this one on adio. So its real cases im presenting here. How do you acount for these if the dinasours are suposedly millions of years and man was not around when they were? Also i heard of another case where a weman found a dinasour with some of its blood dna still in it. I dont remember much about the case, but i do remember that. Surely after millions of years all that blood would be gon. How do you acount for that? Also some dinasour bones were found on the surface of the earth, not in deep sedements. Someone at work who is deep into science told me that case and he himself even believes in evolution and he told me that. How do you acount for these?

    Also if their is not many dinasours how could they survive all this time if their is not many around in order to find a mate? Well, do scientests know how their nose works? They could posibly easily be able to sniff out through their sences a mate for themselves.

    Now as for your point about the carbon contamination on dinasours, i will past you something from two sources. The first source is from the source that did get the dinasour carbon dated, they have answered the argument for contamination.
    Here is what they said "THE SOURCE OF CARBON IN DINOSAUR BONES AND POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION WITH YOUNG CARBON:
    . We detected 2 to 7 percent carbon in 12 separate dinosaurs (fragments). There was no shellac on any of the bone fragments we studied; some were freshly excavated in the 80's; some were from the early 20th century and, five of course, as noted above, were dated between 9,890 and 25,750 years B.P.

    Dinosaur Bone is not totally replaced, it still has the actual material remains. Of the once living tissue other paleontologists have noted that dinosaur bones as a rule are "carbonized on the surface and throughout the lamellar outer layers" (12). "Kerogenous hydrocarbons" are often present in the central pores and Haversian canals according to the same source. When a cross section of an Acrocanthosaurus bone fragment was sectioned and mounted metallographically in 1989 we also noted that the pores were black, which we assumed to be carbonized material. Although there is little or no collagen in the bones as observed by radiocarbon dating labs the organic matter present in the bones are obviously biogenic in nature; that is: the source of the carbon is the dinosaur tissue and other organic matter buried with it.

    Hashed up plant material is often buried with dinosaurs so perhaps we should arrange more excavations where we can acquire our own samples of both bone and vegetation.

    Since four of the dinosaur dates were less than 17,000 B.P. we saw no reason at this time to repeat the experiments on the more sensitive and more expensive AMS. These dinosaur bone fragments for four separate dinosaurs came from the Colorado-Utah region and include the Allosaurus and the Camarasaurus. All the bone fragments dated have contained carbon-14.

    Indeed, the bones of dinosaurs buried and compressed in a fresh state and encased in their rocky tombs gives mute testimony to a catastrophic demise and burial. The Acrocanthosaurus was smashed to a thickness of 15-20 cm and the spiral fracture of some of the bone indicts a fresh state when broken and buried. Some portions of others dinosaurs were also found here. The presence of carbon in the surfaces and pores of many dinosaurs is therefore not surprising. However, could large quantities of carbonates containing modern C-14 migrate through the clay to the dinosaur bones to give false readings? Our laboratory studies of clay samples from adjacent to and above the dinosaur burial site along the Paluxy River say no.

    The carbon content of the surrounding clays decreases with increasing distance from the bones, confirming that the dinosaur is the source of the carbon present in the bones. Samples were taken to two different labs in 1991, which confirmed earlier data obtained from one lab in 1990. Also clay is well known for preventing seepage of ground water through to underlying surfaces. Furthermore the carbon content in the clay was so low (0.5% adjacent to the bones reducing to 0.1% three feet away) that it can be said that the clay also prevented the carbon of the dinosaur from migrating very far from the bones; or, put another way - carbon migration proceeds away from the bones. This seem to indicate that carbonate containing water could not have pass though the layer since even the organic decay products of the dinosaur have remain largely undisturbed

    Another possible C-14 contamination is from the samples themselves due to modern bush or three rootlets however the field examination of the excavation area shows no rootlet reached that far because of layers of limestone and sandstones The labs assure us that "contamination is unlikely". The pretreatment procedures are designed to remove rootlets, carbonates, and alkali-soluble humic material, all of which could add modern or old carbon to the sample; carbonized wood in this case.

    The dating procedure used on the bones was a bio-apatite method, which was our only option at the time because of the lack of large amounts of bone protein or more reliable material. Bones were washed with dilute acetic acid, and crushed to less than 1 mm in size. The bone powder is then digested in cold dilute acetic acid with constant agitation for 24 hours to remove normal carbonates. The sample is then hydrolyzed under vacuum with HCL to dissolve bone appetite and evolve its carbon dioxide for analysis. Of course all of the above is being done primarily for specimens buried in dirt not in rock strata protected by compacted clay (volcanic?) that would tend to prevent even water percolating through the cretaceous rock strata. That the clay has indeed offered such great protection is evident from the fact that the underlying fossil ichnites (dinosaur footprints and other tracks and raindrop depressions) are so beautifully preserved. When exposed to air without the protective clay layer they erode rapidly, sometimes in weeks of months.

    The scientists who learned from reporters that we used their facilities to date cretaceous fossils directly, or, obtained fossil bone fragments from their museum commented harshly in news articles at the time .The museum curator said "Carbon dating dinosaur bones is ludicrous, and the fact they yielded numbers is meaningless."

    "While paleontologists use several methods in dating, part of the disparity rests in the need for researchers to make some assumptions about the gross age of bones so the appropriate test method can be used. Carbon-14 dating and mass spectroscopy dating are best for specimens up to 50,000 years or so," said another.

    "If a scientist believes the bones are millions of years older, the usual procedure is to date the age of the surrounding rock strata using potassium argon dating, all of which measure the amount of decay of those elements." These are some of the more kind remarks noted in major AP releases.

    In other words to date a fossil you need to know how "old" it is first. How is that for objectivity! The selective use of dating methods and the underlying circular reasoning of evolutionary geology speaks for itself. Meanwhile the carbon dating of fossils seems to indicate a recent flood catastrophe is a viable working hypothesis for the formation of many of the Earth's features. Further research is still needed but it appears global patterns of young C14 dates will continue to be a thorn in the paw of evolutionary geology."

    Here is another qwote conserning another case with fossilized stump of wood with carbon in it, found in the layer called "upper permian" which uniformitarian geologists assighn the age of 250 million years. Here is how they answer to anyone saying the stump was contaminated.

    "The most obvious objection that might be raised against these radiocarbon results by sceptics uncomfortable with the implications is that the minute quantity of radiocarbon detected in this fossilised tree stump is due to contamination. Such a criticism is unjustified, and by implication casts a slur on the radiocarbon laboratory’s Ph.D. scientific staff. As qualified routine practitioners, they understand the problem with contamination, and how to avoid it in sample preparation. Yet they reported these analyses as genuine in situ radiocarbon (14C). Furthermore, the last column of Table 1 lists the d13CPDB results, which are consistent with the analysed carbon in the fossilised tree stump representing organic carbon from wood, not from contamination. Another objection is that acceptance of these results as genuine 14C ‘ages’ is based on bias, incompetence or ignorance. However, those who would make such accusations in reality reject these results primarily because such 14C ‘ages’ ‘cannot possibly’ be obtained from a fossilised tree stump sitting in a layer of ‘250 million years old’ Upper Permian mudstone. Of course, such pronouncements are based solely on a rock-and-fossil dating scheme derived from evolutionary and uniformitarian beliefs, not from some independent, objective scientific standard."
    table 1 for you scientests that know how to read this stuff, is this "Sample Type Lab Code 14C “Age” (years BP) δ13CPDB coalified bark GX-21867
    33,000 ± 400 -27.2‰ silicified wood GX-22613
    >48,000 -26.7‰ Table 1. Radiocarbon (14C) analyses of samples from the fossilised tree stump"

    Here is another qwote in defence of no contamination for the case of the stump of wood. "Professor R. Hedges, Director of the Radiocarbon Unit, Oxford University, England, when shown a copy of my previous article, ‘Radioactive “dating” in conflict! Fossil wood in "ancient" lava flow yields radiocarbon’, Creation 20(1):24–27, 1997, wrote in a letter dated January 22, 1998 to Mr Jack Lewis of Isleham, Ely (England):
    ‘In radiocarbon dating the date depends on the amount of radiocarbon left in a sample. If only 1% is left the date corresponds to an age of about 37,000 years; if only 0.5% remains, to about 42,000 years; if only 0.1%, to about 51,000. Therefore labs which quote ages of 37–42 thousand years are finding between 1% and 0.1% of C-14. This is approximately consistent with finding none at all, given that some error is inevitably involved. That is why some of the dates are quoted as being greater than some particular age. Where “finite” ages are obtained and quoted, it is probably because a minute amount of contamination, say at the 0.2% level, by modern substances — dust, fungal spores, etc.—has happened and could not be removed. Anyone working in the field understands this. For more recent dates the effect of 0.2% contamination is negligible, but it is in fact the limitation to measuring older dates than about 30–40 thousand years.’
    It is worth noting that according to this expert testimony, Professor Hedges would thus have to accept that this fossilised tree stump with a 14C ‘age’ of 33,700 ± 400 years BP has greater than 1% radiocarbon left, so that the effect of even 0.2% contamination would be ‘negligible’. It is thus an acceptable 14C ‘age’, confirmed by Oxford University’s radiocarbon expert!
    Note that with the previous study also, precautions were taken to exclude 14C due to contamination."
    So in short, your wrong, their was no contamination for the dinasour case, nor the tree stump case, and their is more cases too.

    Ok, now for the point about the uranium in the rocks. I had stated that if theirs lots of uranium the rock is young, if theirs non, the rock is old. This is how it supose to be. You said most of the YOUNGER rocks that are sedementary wont have uranium in them. Well, umm, how are they young then? Since their not old and dont have uranium in them, how are they young? Next you said "most sedimentary rocks actually contain uranium". First you say "most of the younger rocks are sedimentary and therefor wont have uranium in them" then you say "most sedimentary rocks actually contain aranium". Umm, im not the smartest man on the planet, but that sounds like a clear contridiction to me. So anyways you said with some rocks you date them by the micro fossils. How does the micro fossil date the rocks to be billions of years old? It sorta sounds like you pick and choose what rocks are old and what rocks arrent?

    Next thing you said, which was not adressed to me but to barry is qwite interesting. A science fellow desegreeing with another science fellow, and they both believe in evolution. Fascinating. So barry says silicates are generally allways completely insoluble to waterand indeed every other acid apart from concentrated hydrofluoric acid. Then wang said in objection "How do you then explain the formation of lets say Kaolinite feldspar and eudialyte?". Now even though i dont know what that stuff is, it sounds like theirs a desegrement going on with you two. So which is it, the elements or its compounds ARE soluble in water, or are NOT soluble in water?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    I have not the time to reply anymore becuase you are just disregarding my statements and misinterpreting them. You have completely proven Twaaannngggs point by blowing discrepencies completely out of proportion.
    If you reread my statements you would clearly see that I said ''GENERALLY'' they are insoluble, there are hundreds of silicates, of course 1 or 2 won't follow the general pack, that is the nature of science.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    So generally they are insoluble, which means SOMETIMES, but rarely they are soluble?

    Plus, how do you know they are generally insoluble?

    I have a BIG question for you. IF radiometric dating is all that its cracked up to be, why was mt st hellens volcano dated incorrectly and other samples from other volcanos? Here is something i want to past to you, and you acount for this, otherwise you lost the debate and are full of pride.

    "The scientists who interpret these amounts of A(parent isotope) and B(daughter) to conclude that millions of years have passed must first assume three main things about the rock:

    How much A and B was in the rock when it hardened.

    A has decayed into B at the same rate over the years.

    The amount of A or B in the rock has not increased or decreased in any other way.

    But because we haven’t been able to study all the rocks everywhere all the time, it’s impossible for us to know:

    If B was in the rock before it hardened.

    If A has always decayed at the same rate.

    If water, for instance, has removed some A, or carried some B into the rock from elsewhere.

    All of these factors will affect how ‘old’ the rock appears—in practice, usually making it appear a lot older than it really is.

    To test this method, some scientists gathered samples from hardened lava at Mount St Helens, which erupted most recently in the early 1980s. The samples, which came from rocks that formed between 1980 and 1986, were sent to a lab and were ‘dated’ using the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. The test results ranged from between 340,000 to 2.8 million years old!
    Other scientists collected samples from cooled lava flows from Mt Ngauruhoe, in New Zealand. These rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, because people observed the volcano erupting in 1949, 1954 and 1975. But the lab results indicated that the rocks were up to 3.5 million years old!


    If this method doesn’t work on rocks the ages of which we know, how can we trust it to work on rocks of unknown age?

    After examining the assumptions behind this ‘dating method’, and doing scientific experiments to see if this method works on rocks of an already known age, we find that ‘radiometric dating’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. (Actually, any process used to find ages for things is based on assumptions, and so is not reliable.)"

    How do you acount for this mr evolutionist? It doesent take great faith to believe the bible, it takes great faith and amagination to believe in evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    It doesent take great faith to believe the bible, it takes great faith and amagination to believe in evolution.
    Jollybear, i'm afraid that your utter ignorance of science leaves you in no position to judge any scientific statement at its merit - all you do is rely on the acceptance of "authorities" and their statements which are parotted without understanding of the real issues involved

    i think a mod should put this thread out of its misery and close it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Guest
    Let's put it to the vote shall we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I am no geologist, but jolly, take the time to at least find out what silicate is. It is a VERY basic term and if you do not even know or care to find out what it is before you post all sorts of nonsense that you obviously have no concept of, I for one vote for trash.
    what is potassium oxide or sicicate? Is that the same thing as potasium-argon?
    Holy shit man, make an effort. :|
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Marnix, lets get something strait here. Im not judging science one ioda, im judging evolution. Ok, lets get that strait. As for my ecceptance of "authorities" that you say dont have understanding of real issues at hand. Your the one that is ignorant their. Ive gon on creationist websites where their is tons of articles written by scientists with the view of creationism and not evolution. Some of the things even on creationist websites i cant understand because of the depth of math and things they talk about. Which to be blunt honest with you, i research and read about 4 to 5 hours A day. Yes, i got to do more, but one cant know everything in the world at once you know, give a guy a chance. I allready told you i dont know allot about science with its elements ect, and laboratories and all that stuff. But i sure do know logic and reason thats for sure. And if mt st helens is potasium argon dated and the date is way off by millions, logic tells me their method is not trustworthy. You have not acounted for this at all, just called me ignorant. Why not try adressing the "REAL ISSUE" and acount for the date on mt st helens sampled rocks?

    Kaster i do care to find out what oxide and silicate is and the diffrences between these things and how they work and how they interact with other stuff. But give me a break, i read about 5 hours a day, more some days. And im still learning. I even admited from scratch i dont know allot about science, but i am willing to learn. So how can you tell me "make an effort". I am making a big effort. The fact i am on here, taking up my time to type, is making an effort, on top of that, lots of reading.

    Here is my plan, i have read some evolutionist websites, but i freely admit i have read more creationist websites. And the reason for this is because i first want to know how the creation scientists fit into the bible geology and dating methods and diffrent stuff, list goes on. Then after i understand the general idea of how they fit it into science then i plan on reading just pure science terms, knoghledge, how things work, ect. Like i want a website that does not go with one view or the other. It does not care about creationist views, nor evolutions views, just science views and how things work, how the elements work, interact ect, just pure unbiased science, has no view one way or the other. Then after i read all that and understand stuff like silicates and diffrent gassis and what have you, then i plan on reading more evolutionist websites and their views and see their arguments. So, dont say i am not making an effort. I am too. A great effort at that. A guy only has so much time to learn so much stuff.

    Why dont any of you adress the points i am making about mt st hellens by the way? Its an honest point, qwite realistic. Yet you all call it trash. Maby you call it trash because it threatens your believe in evolution. And you can't adress it, so in your pride you call it trash. Why not rather adresss it?

    Heres the verdict, if you dont adress it, you lost this debate. If you adress it, you have not won it, because i will have to make the next determination of what i shall say in response. So, adress it. Why was mt st helens dated obviously so wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ive gon on creationist websites where their is tons of articles written by scientists with the view of creationism and not evolution.
    do you happen to know how many of these so-called scientist have an actual degree in any of the biological or earth sciences ? i suspect that, with the odd exception (Bede springs to mind), hardly any of them do
    as such their claim to be authorities in the field of biology or geology are suspect from the start - and that's even before they open their mouth and start spouting utter drivel of wrong and outdated scientific "facts"
    the only thing they prove is that a fool can raise more questions than a wise man can answer

    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    ... i research and read about 4 to 5 hours A day.
    what a waste of time
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Jollybear, did you happen to run across this site?
    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au..._dacite_kh.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    nice find, Harold

    so Austin mucks up the sampling and the attempted separation of the various fractions, applies the K-Ar method outside the age range where it can give sensible results, and then has the nerve to say the fault lies with the K-Ar dating method, not his own inadeqacies

    m'lud, i rest my case
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Kaster i do care to find out what oxide and silicate is and the diffrences between these things and how they work and how they interact with other stuff. But give me a break, i read about 5 hours a day, more some days. And im still learning. I even admited from scratch i dont know allot about science, but i am willing to learn. So how can you tell me "make an effort". I am making a big effort. The fact i am on here, taking up my time to type, is making an effort, on top of that, lots of reading.
    The thing is, jolly, you can't come on a science forum and proclaim creationism to be correct and evolution (a pure unbiased field of science by the way) to be wrong, without understanding basic concepts in the various fields covered. And you don't have to go study it, just read the actual science first. Harold has provided an excellent website for you to browze through. Remember that evolutionists are mostly defending themselves against rediculous claims by quack creationist scientists. You are a believer in God and follow creationist views. What will you do when the bubble bursts and you find out for yourself that they have been misleading you all these years? Would you even concider that a possibility?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Why not try adressing the "REAL ISSUE" and acount for the date on mt st helens sampled rocks?
    To add to Harold's link, here is a quick summary from another site:

    This misconception is based on a common misconception about how radiometric dating works. It is not the amount of daughter element that determines the date, but the ratio of parent to daughter that determines the age. Lava samples will usually have some Argon contamination. When the sample is very young, the ratio of contamination Argon to decay Argon (daughter Argon) can be fairly high. This will make the ratio of daughter to parent appear to be too large, giving an apparent old age date. Once the sample has had time (i.e. is old enough) for true daughter Argon to accumulate, the contamination, unless it was extreme, becomes insignificant and has only a small effect on dating. This is why very young samples should not be dated using K-Ar. Remember, there is practically ZERO true daughter when the sample is formed, therefore even a small amount of contamination will be significant compared to the true daughter. Once enough time has passed, then there is enough true daughter Argon so that small amounts of contamination Argon do not greatly affect the ratio of parent to daughter. Remember, it's the ratio, not the amount that counts.

    A common source of Argon contamination is xenoliths that are trapped in the lava. These are bits of older rocks that contain Argon and will cause a false old age date as described above. When geologists are collecting samples, they will watch for these sources of contamination. Dr. Austin mentions in his other papers that he detected xenoliths in the samples. Once those were detected, he should have known that K-Ar was not an appropriate dating technique. This obvious source of contamination pretty much guaranteed that he was going to get a false old age date with such a young sample. Yet he did it anyway. Again, remember the cell phone. To be fair, he does claim he tried to remove the contamination. But this is an extremely difficult task and isn't likely that he got it all. Knowing that the sample was contaminated, it simply shouldn't have been used for K-Ar dating.
    http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_...dating_comment

    see also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ok, now for the point about the uranium in the rocks. I had stated that if theirs lots of uranium the rock is young, if theirs non, the rock is old. This is how it supose to be. You said most of the YOUNGER rocks that are sedementary wont have uranium in them. Well, umm, how are they young then? Since their not old and dont have uranium in them, how are they young? Next you said "most sedimentary rocks actually contain uranium". First you say "most of the younger rocks are sedimentary and therefor wont have uranium in them" then you say "most sedimentary rocks actually contain aranium".
    Actually Jolly, you are mixing things up here. "I" as in "The mild mannered and always cheerful Twaaannnggg" made the second statement. To make things perfectly clear here. With a sufficiently sophisticated equipment you will detect almost all elements in almost all kinds of rock (well, maybe except for the somewhat elusive ones like Astatium, Technetium and Plutonium). The question is: Can you use them for geochronological dating? And so there ain't no contradiction here boyzzzz.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Umm, im not the smartest man on the planet, but that sounds like a clear contridiction to me. So anyways you said with some rocks you date them by the micro fossils. How does the micro fossil date the rocks to be billions of years old? It sorta sounds like you pick and choose what rocks are old and what rocks arrent?
    Of course you will not take a ruler to measure the distance between Miami and Fairbanks or the distance between two ions in the lattice of sodiumchloride. It's a question of how suited a measurement system is for the task. But to begin with, if I were you I'd take a textbook on Chemistry 101 level for non-chemists. If you have understood this then we can talk again. This is not the place to discuss basic chemistry. I guess a lot of people will answer questions you have after working through said textbook but for the time beeing it simply does not make sense. It's like talking to someone from the 18th century about the latest Corvette Z1.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Jollybear,

    We have not heard from you in a while? Have your views changed?
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello everyone. No my views have not changed, i am simply taking more time to read and digest that website that harold gave me. A website that a man named kevin wrote as a rebuttle ageanst austin rediculing the K ar method on the mt st helens sampled rocks. Im preparing to and gathering my thoughts to poke holes in his rebuttle. I shall reply as soon as i gather my thoughts and digest the rebuttle. Plus i also am going to read austins article which he is rebutting, that way i get a thourel examination of what he is rebutting explicitly. Allthough i have an idea, but its good to know exactly.

    Also on a side note. I think im going to take up on the challenge of doing that chimistry 101 that someone reffered to me. I think it might help. Im finding it qwite a challenge to figure out what their talking about when it comes to all the elements. Or maby i just got to do some research on each element, or maby their is something on the website, how things work ect. I can capture somewhat of what their saying but not allways. Even when creationist websites talk of it, its still a challenge. So i think i might have to delve into the area of just learning the elements and all that stuff first. But, i do have some good thoughts about the website thus far. Once im don gathering my thoughts, i will reply. It might be a few days, but i will defenately reply with a rebuttle on top of his rebuttle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    Jollybear,

    We have not heard from you in a while? Have your views changed?
    Barry, you should have known better after JB's final statement :

    Quote Originally Posted by Jollybear
    Heres the verdict, if you dont adress it, you lost this debate. If you adress it, you have not won it, because i will have to make the next determination of what i shall say in response.
    looks like this is a kind of "heads i win, tails you lose" type of debate
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello everyone. Sorry i took awhile. I just wanted to analize and disect that website that harold gave me and gather some thoughts.

    Well, from what "kevin" wrote in this article in defence of potasium-argon dating i have some points or rebuttles ageanst his arguments that he has ageanst "austin" the man who sent the mt st helens sampled rocks into the lab.

    What im going to do is past a qwote or a point that kevin says, then i will present my argument in defence of where i stand for young earth creationism. I will rebuttle his argument to the best of my ability.

    MOD EDIT 45Kbytes of text deleted, a copy being sent to the author.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Holy shit man, are you crazy? You can't make such a HUGE post and expect people to read it all. I am sure some of it will be deleted.

    Also kalster what would i do if i found out the creation scientists were misleading me all these years. If that was truelly a fact that they were misleading. I would basickly call them the biggest hypocrites on the planet, since the bible they say they believe in, teaches and commands honesty. However, what would you do if you found out that evolutionists in authority were misleading you? Lets throw this same question to you now.
    The difference is evolution theory is built up from a very large body of evidence independently accumulated around the world over a long period of time. And everything fits. By contrast, your creationist sources base ALL their claims from a very small selection of texts that probably differ from the texts they are in turn based on. There are very little claims by creationists that do not demonstrate selective highlighting in research papers, flat out lies, flights of complete fancy and intentional creation of evidence. So, none of them have the credibility to convince me of anything. Some new guy with incontrovertible evidence would have to step forward, which is extremely unlikely.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    No, im not crazzy. I read a very big article that was sent to me by harold and so i was open enough to read it, digest it and address each point, i took the hard time and effort to do that. Whoever wants to truely get at the truth, will read my big reply, and if they want to win the debate, they will read it and address what i said. If they want to lose the debate, all they have to do is not read it and not adress it.

    You said the diffrence between my young earth creation view and evolution is that evolution is built up from very large body of evidence independently accumulated around the world over a long period of time.

    Umm, no their is no great body of evedence, all your evedence for evolution is not proof, and the evedence you say supports evolution, actualy in all reality supports the bible. For instence the layered sedements is not evedence of a earth forming over billions of years, but by a catestrophic flood, noah's flood. Its our evedence, not yours. All your other evedence is disputed. Their are even some people that believe in evolution that say their is problems with their belief, allthough they still believe it. Now not all will say that, but some do. That should tell you something that your so called body of evedence is discrepent. Also yes i will agree with you that this evedence was accumulated over a long period of time, from diffrent places. I will agree here. However you fail to realize that the bible is also circulated all over the world(not in every single place literally, but in most countries and places its circulated). Also it has been standing strong for a long period of time as well, christanity has a long history, just as long as your evolution history, actually, longer going right back to adam and eve, not pormordiel soup from a rock. Not only that, but christainity the biggest relegion in the world also has the muslim koran supporting the bibles old testement, allong with the jewish relegion suporting the bibles old testement. And the old testement supports a young earth. So christainity is not allone in supporting a young earth of supernatural making. The koran, muslims and jews all support it the same. However they differ when it comes to Jesus(which is another issue for now). So, christanity and the bible and its suporters have a long history and allot of backup. Not just evolution. Actually the full compleet idea or concept of evolution did not start to make head way untill darwin showed up on the scene. I do realize that the idea originated with the greeks, but the full idea was not developed untill darwin and after him. So to be tecnical, christainity has a longer history in its compleet idea and form and development then evolution does. Think of that.

    Also by you saying that the creationists sources base all their claims from a very small selection of texts that probably differ from the texts they are in turn based on. You are ignorant in this statement. I had allready adressed this statement in this forum earlyer, however i will mention it again briefly. The dead sea scrolls that were found, which were dated very old, back when a original copy would be, was compared to our modern bible of today and was shown that nothing was changed in its message, doctrins, stories ect, except a few miner misspells, a number of a age, a name, ect. And the book of esther was not in the dead sea scrolls which had only 11 chapters in it. Esher is in our modern old testement of today. That is the only diffrences. So in comparison to the huge scope of the rest of the old testement, the scribes(the old time copyers of new scrolls) did a very very good job at preserving the biblical texts and keeping it pure. So if you dont believe or trust in the biblical account, dont say its because it was changed through time, come up with another reason, because that reason dont exist. Not to mention the koran supports the old testement as well. Keep that in mind too. Not to mention you have other writtings about the bible from past history, going way back to rome and in the middle east that were circulated. I havent read all those, but i mention them as support. True science fits with the bible, not with evolution.

    When you say their are creationists that came up with flat out lies, i dont deny this can happen, however their are cases with those that believed in evolution in authority and they did some flat out lies too. Of course theirs going to be some hypocrites on both ends, but their are also honest people on BOTH ends. I reconize the fact that their are honest evolutionist believers, but also to deny the fact that their are honest creationist scientests would be utter ignorance. For their is honest creationist websites and scientests. Now thats not even addressing who's right and who's wrong now, thats just realizing some are honest and some are not. Some can have a honest belief, but still be wrong. Thats another issue all together. But do realize their are allot of true creationists out their. Now when you said the word "fancy" i assume you mean fantacy? If so, i would have to turn the table and say, i believe evolution to be that fantacy. You see, evolution does not have proof, its a belief based on many assumptions. With descrepent evedence.

    Not to mention did you realize that the rates of those that believe in young earth creationism are higher then those that believe in evolution. I can show you the rates if you wish. Its from a website from "relegious tolorance". And trust me on this, that website is compleetly unbiased because it does not state its opinions, its work is purely to show all sides, and all belief systems that exist and represent them well with all arguments and rebuttles. So when it gives a survay, it gives it honesty. However i'll only past it if you reqwest it, because i have to search for it, and this message now is taking time as it is. But if you want it, i will past it, just tell me one way or the other.

    I could also say that evolutionists have intentional evedence as well. So the argument can go both ways. Its not evedence its interpretation on the data. I see the evedence through the lense of the bible, you see it through the lense of evolutionist scientists. Now, which one has a better argument, thats the next step in the discussion.

    But i would advise everyone read my long post, i know its long, but its worth it. If you dont read it, i will proubly just keep making the same points in patches in days ahead anyhow. If i took the time to read kevins article and cared enough to look at something that is important to you, surely you can do the same for me so this discussion can go further. If not, I WON.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Guest
    Jollybear,

    PLease make sure in future you keep a copy of any long replies you intend to post here, you may find your posts severely shortened, not edited or reviewed just cropped. I would hate for you to lose all that work.
    If you have your own personal website you might like to post there and give a link.


    I will glance over your vewrsion of 'war and peace' above and may shorten it, I will email you a copy of anything I crop on this occasion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi mega. Fortanately i have kept a copy of the long reply i gave. However i dont have my own website.

    Is it posible if i can past a piece of the reply, then post another piece, and then post another piece, press submit, then another, press submit, and so on? Would that work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Jollybear, I think a better plan would be to boil down your arguments into a couple of short paragraphs. I read your whole reply and I think you made some good points, but you could have done it in a lot less space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Hi mega. Fortanately i have kept a copy of the long reply i gave. However i dont have my own website.

    Is it posible if i can past a piece of the reply, then post another piece, and then post another piece, press submit, then another, press submit, and so on? Would that work?
    No that is multiposting and even worse.

    People generally will read posts up to about 12-20 lines anything over that they skip parts maybe important parts, take Harold's advice,
    break down your subject into manageable chunks then past a small part, debate that, then move on, remember the longer you post the more chance of finding errors once a serious error is found the reader may ignore the rest, you have then just wasted your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Suggest thread is shut down.
    Jollybear refuses any form of rational thought, he is merely wasting hours of peoples lives that they will never get back.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    Suggest thread is shut down.
    Jollybear refuses any form of rational thought, he is merely wasting hours of peoples lives that they will never get back.

    Barry
    Barry, why did you click on this thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    To stop others from wasting their time and to get the thread closed because it is becoming pointless. There is no outcome to this. Even if pro-evolution people provide a perfect argument it will just boil down to a childish ''goddidit'' from the religious side. It is futile to try and convince Jollybear.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Guest
    All while you guys click on this thread........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Ok, i will take your advice and revise my post and make it shorter. It might take a few days maby, maby less, depends. But i will get back to you all.

    As a side note, barry, when it boils down to it, it wont end in just a "God did it", it will boil down to "scientists BELIEVE evolution DID IT". Also barry if you choose to shut down this forum, you lost the debate, and that will make you apear not able to give an answer to adress any of my points. So, dont let yourself look non able to address the hard points that trap you in a corner now. Also part of what i am doing is not just debating our believes here, but part of it is just trying to show you that yours IS a belief and is not proven. Apart from trying to poke holes in your believe and elivate mine in the hopes you turn to the right faith, i am just trying to show you the logic of the fact that yours is a belief, just as well as mine. But one of ours is a reality which is more then a belief. However nither side is undisputably prooven. I just hope you realize that. Then we can go further as well, which is poke holes in eachothers belief system. And see which belief system makes most sence when everything is don. And all due respect to you as a person.

    However, i will get back to you with my revised and shorter version and we can go from their. whoever is willing that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello everyone. Sorry i took awhile. I just wanted to analize and disect that website that harold gave me and gather some thoughts.

    Well, from what "kevin" wrote in this article in defence of potasium-argon dating i have some points or rebuttles ageanst his arguments that he has ageanst "austin" the man who sent the mt st helens sampled rocks into the lab.

    What im going to do is past a qwote or a point that kevin says, then i will present my argument in defence of where i stand for young earth creationism. I will rebuttle his argument to the best of my ability.

    Also i pretty much took out most of what i wrote, however kevin made three assumptions of where he thinks austin could have went wrong, then hangs arguments on each three assumptions. I pretty much made my points and arguments ageanst his three assumptions to keep it short as posible. I hope this is short enough. If not, just tell me and i'll try to make it more shorter.


    kevin says "the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old". He also says here " Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old".

    Basickly, the most expensive equipment can date rocks atleast six thousand years or over, but not under. But this lab that austin sent his rock to, could not date a rock under 2 million years old. So it had to be atleast 2 million or over. In otherwords, what this footnote is saying, to find out the age of the rock, you first have to roughly know the age of the rock. < that defies logic right their. In otherwords to find out the age of the rock, you cannot use the dating method FIRST to find out, you FIRST have to make an ASSUMPTION of how old the rock is. That means, a belief, which = relegion, not science. Plus if the earth is no more then ten thousand years of age, then in essence no rock on the entire planet could be dated acording to that footnote, or even by the most expensive equipment for that matter either. So, the earth being ten thousand years old, every rock they date, is a wrong date, its still going to measure long ages. So the argon thats in them, surely is excess argon, not just decayed argon. Yet kevin makes the argument that austin got it wrong from geko because he did not pay attention to the footnote before sending a sample, hence this is kevins way of defending the argon dating method. What a weak argument based on my reasonings just stated.

    Even if the earth was billions of years old, potasium-argon dating is not reliable to tell you so based on mt st helens testing of the rocks. And if the earth is ten thousand years old, then no rocks can be dated by this method, because the footnote says it wont work. So, either way you look at this, weather the earth is billions or thousands, this potasium-argon dating method is bad both ways. Either way you look at it, this looks bad for you. Your cought either way. If your going to still believe the earth is billions of years old, come up with new ways of trying to prove it, because this method dont work.

    Here is another point i gathered from kevins arguments. He states that swenson(the worker with austin) answers one of austins critics saying "Swenson comments on one of the many criticisms of Austin's 'research':
    '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?'
    This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony."

    Kevin fails to realize that forensic science works BEST in RECENT cases. How much less with 6 to ten thousand year old cases as the earth. And if you want to assume a billion year old earth, then it gets worse for forensic science in that case because thats just way to old. So by kevin using forensic science to back up his stand, this actually goes ageanst his stand, espeasally if he takes the stand of a billion year old earth. Also kevin saying that the young earth creationists resorting to the eye witness is a scam. I say, no its not a scam, its a honest and legit point. The only reason he calls it a scam is based on his belief in a billion year old earth. Which is just that, a belief.

    Another point kevin says is this "In contrast to Austin et al.'s juvenile attacks on K-Ar dating, geochronologists confirm the reality of radiometric dates by using multiple methods"

    If multiple methods really do confirm radiometric dating, why does each method give diffrent dates? How is that confirmation? Its not. And if he means confirm in the sence that all the dating methods on any given rock will result in the same range, but not exact date. Like for instence a rock can be dated by one method as being one million years old, while another method might say one million 500, or 2 million. Well its all still in the millions, now if it was in the thousands or billions then it would not be a confirmation, but since its in the same range, it confirms. Now if this is what kevin means, then i say still, no its not a true confirmation if the diffrent dating methods dont give the EXACT same date. Plus in some cases, the dates are WAY OFF. Which are usually "anamolous" cases. I call it, misleading cases! Wanting to keep people in the dark. Their too embaressed by their pride.

    another point by kevin " Of course, some YECs might argue that God, for whatever reason, simply zapped some 40Ar into the various minerals during the 'Creation Week' about 6,000 years ago. Obviously, this suggestion has absolutely no scientific support or merit. "

    Kevin again fails to realize that if the creation story in genesis actually is true, then that means our origins were caused supernaturally, and that means YES God would ZAP argon into the rocks. Simply put. If the story is true, then yes that statement is very feasable. Also he says this has no scientific suport or merit, NITHER DOES EVOLUTION have true scientific suport or merit, because its a belief, just like the genesis story is a belief. TRUE science goes by whats seen and observable, and the genesis acount or evolution is or was not observed. Yes some corrupt, dishonest people in authority will mingle their believes into science, and it makes it impure science, that is not true science anymore. Evolution leaves the realm of science. Also their is some science that works and envistigates in the field of the supernatural as well. Keep that in mind.

    Plus God zaping the rocks with more argon, is ONLY ONE solution AMONGS OTHERS. Mt St helens is a example of a NATURAL solution for excess argon within a rock, not just through God zaping more in. Keep that also in mind.

    Next point kevin states is "Using science, there are at least three hypotheses that may be purposed to explain why Austin obtained 'dates' of 340,000 to 2.8 million years from his samples:
    Argon gas ('excess' argon) was incorporated into the glass and minerals in the dacite as they formed in the parent melt. The argon failed to degas from the minerals before the dacite solidified. "

    How do we not know that MOST rock could have recieved excess argon failing to degass? If their was a worldwide flood, tons of volcanos would be going on inside the water, hence the water traping in the gass. Also in mt st helens case it was not a flood that caused the argon to refuse to degass, so perhaps thats another natural solution to explain allot of apearingly old rocks in the world. So all the seamingly old rocks in the world could all have excess argon. The excess argon could outweigh the decayed argon and so how then could scientists differentiate between the decayed argon aposed to the excess, espeasally if the excess is ten times more within a rock aposed to the decayed argon? Think of it. Dont call it garbage, its honest points. Im not the only one that makes these points, every young earth creationist believer, and scientist has made these points. Their honest points. You might call them wrong points, but alteast see their honest ones.

    Kevins next point "Because all but one of the dates in the above table are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories. The 2.8 million year old date also may have largely or entirely resulted from contamination."

    If the mass spectrometer caused contamination within the samples, that would cast a big slur of disrespect for the lab that is highly regarded and looked up to, to do its job correctly. So if the lab loses its credibility in doing its job right, then you lose all links to find out dates on things correctly. Hence how then can you truelly know if a method works, if their is a slur on a lab? You cant. Then again, if the lab has no slur on it and the spectrometer was clean, that means no contamination, hence the dating method is not trustworthy. So either way you look at it, if the lab did not do its job, we cant rely on the lab, hence cant rely on the method, and if the lab did do its job, we still cant rely on the method because it gave a wrong date with no contamination. So either way you look at it, your cought, its looking very bad for you.

    Also if the contamination was resulted from something else, how do you know that not ALL or MOST rocks in the world that apear old are resulted from contamination? Like if the mt st helens rock samples were resulted from contamination from old rock mixing with the new lava flow, how do you not know that ALL rock has old rock mixed in with it? And if thats the case, you might say well the old rock is still old once you keep tracing backwords. So all the apearingly old rocks are not old at all then, they would be contaminated by other old rocks mixing in, or migrating argon through heat. However tracing back to the OLDEST rock, would be looking old only by excess argon, either through a natural caus, or God "zaping" it. Whatever way you wanna look at it. Either way, this earth is young folks, world history, not just biblical history makes that claim. And if you wanna look at it the other way, if austin was very carefull as he claimed he was in removing the contaminats, then your method still dates the rock too old, then the method still looks bad.

    Next one of kevins pointers "IF the Geochron mass spectrometer was exceptionally clean on the day that Austin's samples were run (that is, IF hypothesis #2 is not a factor), the dates may be approximately accurate. Even if the absolute values of the dates are highly erroneous, the relative order of the fractions' dates from oldest to youngest may be roughly correct. That is, the various minerals (phenocrysts) in the dacite may have grown in the parent melt at different times and the entire crystallization process may have taken as much as a few million years. Additionally, somewhat older xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals, for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250) from the surrounding rocks may have been incorporated into the melt as it rose to the Earth's surface. "

    This sorta goes inline with what i said above. But i will put another slant on it here. The sertain crystals he assumes to grow through a process of millions of years old. This is purely assumption. Was he or anyone else down below the earth swimming in lava with a microscope observing phenocrystals grow? How do they know they grow? And how do they know the rates they grow? And if they do grow and know the rates, they are assuming the rates are the same in the past. Again in the past God could have "zaped" it fully grown. Let me elustrate what i mean. Again, IF the genesis acount is true(which i believe it is) then God creating everything in six days would make everything look older then it is. For instence, the trees he made, some would have about thirty tree rings, yet the tree is one day old. Adam and eve were fully grown and matured in body, they looked as if they were about 25 years of age, yet they were one day old. I apply this logic also to the rocks, the land and the rocks would have LOOKED older then they were based on the phenocrystals made fully grown supernaturally by God. Again, if the earth is ten thousand years old, genesis is true and the supernatural is real. You cant throw out the supernatural, it does HOLD merit. Again their is some branches of science that deal and work in the area of the supernatural. Not to mention, if genesis story is true, then the rest of the bible also holds true. Which means, ALL the supernatural stories in that book are true, not just the genesis one. If their is a God, then their is a supernatural realm and power within him. That means, its EASY for him to grow something fast. Thats what GOD is and can do by true definition. He is not a weak idol or image cast by mans hands sorta speak that cant do much. Creation is not stronger then him, he is stronger then it, if he exists, which he does. Also dont confuse supernatural with magic either, its diffrent. Supernatural is just special and or more quickly don. Some flowers grow faster then others, yet some grow to the same hight. Think of it that way. God who made the laws in nature, can apply that law of fast growth to everything at this given time in the creation week. I dont know who is a athiest on here and who is not, but regardless, if you dont believe in God, i think it should be obvious to you their is. But if you do believe their is a God, i think also it should be even MORE obvious to you that he has power over his creation, and not the reverse. Which means, he can do the "zaping" as kevin terms it.

    And here is i think the best thing so far that kevin has said "Certainly, there are times when scientists obtain anomalous results and they can only say 'we don't know why we got these results'. These mysteries then provide new avenues for further research. Nevertheless, the bogus K-Ar results from Austin's dacite are obvious and Austin et al. and not the K-Ar method are to blame."

    What a buitifull confession he made here, its music to my ears when he said this. He confesses that their is basickly a problem with his own belief that was plastered all over his article. Haha!, i love it. Then all the scientists can say is "we dont know why we got these results" < honest ones that is, the ones with pride try to cover it up and hope no one finds out about it. Austins case can be inline with these anomolous cases as well, and i say that because kevins arguments ageanst austins case are all hung on assumptions and gauses. Why is it that kevin reconizes other anomalous cases that go ageanst his old earth theory belief, but dont reconize austins case? Odd isent it. Perhaps because austin used his case to debunk old earth belief.

    Now i will reply to you marnix. You said their is no young earth creationist scientists with ph d's. Let me give you a list here, i'll past it.

    "Are There Any Young-Earth Ph.D. Paleontologists?
    Published by Creation Museum October 11th, 2007 in Museum Updates
    Actually, there are and the numbers are increasing. Last Friday, 2 such paleontologists visited the Creation Museum.
    Dr. Marcus Ross, a professor at Liberty University was here with a reporter from a popular national magazine that is doing a feature article on Dr. Ross. They were intrigued by the article that the New York Times did on Dr. Ross back on Feb. 12, 2007. The reporter spent three days with him and Dr David DeWitt at Liberty University and now wants to do a walk through at the Creation Museum to get Dr. Ross’ description and opinions on the various exhibits. Dr. Ross was one of the scientists that AiG used when writing the scripts for some of the videos and signs in the Creation Museum.

    Dr. Ross, a vertebrate paleontologist, received his B.S. from Penn State University, his M.S. from the South Dakota School of Mines and his Ph.D. from the University of Rhode Island. Many people in the secular world claim that no one can be a young-earth creationist and do good science, but Dr. Ross’ dissertation advisor, Dr. David Fastovsky, told the New York Times that his work was impeccable and that, “He was working within a strictly scientific framework and a conventional scientific framework.”
    Dr. Kurt Wise, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, also visited the Creation Museum on Friday to evaluate a collection of Mazon Creek fossils that had been donated to the museum. Dr. Wise serves as AiG’s adjunct curator of the museum’s collections. He was also heavily involved in the writing of scripts for many of the videos and displays throughout the museum.
    Dr. Wise, an invertebrate paleontologist, received his B.A. (Honors) at the University of Chicago, his M.A. and Ph.D. at Harvard University, where he studied under the famous evolutionist, Dr Stephen J. Gould. Before accepting a position at S.B.T.S. this past year, Dr. Wise was the director of the Origins program at Bryan College in Dayton, TN.
    These men are part of a growing number of well trained scientists that also believe in God’s Word and that He created the Earth and universe less than 10,000 years ago."

    Here is an actual list from answersingenesis website.

    "Dear AiG,
    After reading through some of the information in your Web site, I am very concerned that AiG is attempting to address scientific matters related to geology and paleontology without having a post-doctorate level professor of geology or paleontology on staff.
    After reading through your letter, I am very concerned at yet another argument from authority without the slightest demonstration of actual error. Your statement is wrong anyway—we have had a number of post-graduate level geologists and paleontologists writing or reviewing articles for us, e.g. Dr. Andrew Snelling (who worked for us for years and now works for our friends the Institute for Creation Research), Dr. Steven Austin, Dr. Tas Walker, John Woodmorappe. It’s also interesting many evolutionists who complain about creationists supposedly speaking outside their fields have no qualms about speaking outside their own fields! For example, see More nonsense from Professor Plimer and The ‘Indoctrinator’.
    There does not appear to be anyone who is Ph.D. professional research scientist who is reviewing your publications for scientific accuracy.
    You’re wrong there, as a cursory glance of our Creation magazine and TJ would have shown. There are several Ph.D. scientists with considerable research experience between them. As well as Dr. Walker, the AiG staff include Drs. Don Batten, Pierre Jerlström, David Catchpoole and myself. As well, we have astronomy professor Dr. Danny Faulkner writing/advising on astronomy, and nuclear physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys doing the same with physics. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list either.

    Their is another list on answersingenesis that i had seen and was looking for, but i just could not find it again. However this should sufice and proof my point that creation scientests with PH.D's do exist. Its qwite obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now i will reply to you marnix. You said their is no young earth creationist scientists with ph d's.
    here's a list that i found elsewhere :

    # Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
    # Dr James Allan, Geneticist
    # Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
    # Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
    # Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
    # Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
    # Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
    # Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
    # Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
    # Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
    # Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
    # Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
    # Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
    # Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
    # Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
    # Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
    # Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
    # Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
    # Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
    # Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
    # Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
    # Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
    # Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
    # Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    # Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
    # Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
    # Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
    # Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
    # Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
    # Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
    # Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
    # Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
    # Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
    # Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
    # Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
    # Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
    # Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
    # Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
    # Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
    # Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
    # Dr George F. Howe, Botany
    # Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
    # Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
    # George T. Javor, Biochemistry
    # Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
    # Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
    # Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
    # Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
    # Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
    # Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
    # Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
    # Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
    # Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
    # Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
    # Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
    # Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
    # Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
    # Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
    # Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
    # Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
    # Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
    # Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
    # Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
    # Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
    # Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
    # Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
    # Dr David Menton, Anatomist
    # Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
    # Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
    # Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
    # Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
    # Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
    # Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
    # Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
    # Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
    # Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
    # Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
    # Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
    # Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
    # Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
    # Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
    # Dr Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
    # Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
    # Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
    # Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
    # Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
    # Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
    # Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
    # Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
    # Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
    # Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
    # Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
    # Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
    # Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
    # Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
    # Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
    # Dr Alexander Williams, Botanist
    # Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
    # Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
    # Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
    # Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

    maybe my original statement was too sweeping, but while it's true that quite a few scientists disagree with evolution in favor of creationism, that number drops significantly when you consider only those who study nature or life, and is almost non-existent when you consider only those with expertise in fields like biology, paleontology, geology or astronomy

    the above list may seem impressive, but it is out of well over a hundred thousand PhD scientists alive today - about 99.85% of earth and life scientists do not support creationism as a valid alternative to evolution

    e.g. in the case of Kurt Wise, who studied under S.J.Gould : he has been quoted to say that if it came to choosing between scientific evidence and the bible, he would always choose the bible if the two contradicted each other - not because the bible's evidence is better, just because it's the bible, of which he accepts the inerrancy
    at this stage you leave the field of science and enter the absolutism of religion

    in producing work that supports creationism, the likes of Wise and Austin cloak themselves in the respectability of their original degrees because it suits their purposes, but in truth do no longer practise in their self-proclaimed field of expertise (as is evidenced by Austin's use of methods that he should have known would produce irrelevant results)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    It would be interesting to further divide the list into those that believe in YEC and those that believe in OEC.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Firstly from your ''own'' people.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
    http://www.answersincreation.org/floodlist.htm

    Secondly, I am sick of having to reply to your incoherent arguments and always being on the defensive, now it's time to go on the offensive.

    Noah's Flood

    A family of 8 looking after millions of seasick animals for a year?
    How did they survive diseases?
    Did Noah keep little phials of smallpox, polio etc. in the fridge?
    What did the lions eat after they'd finished devouring the wildebeast and antelope?
    How did they manage to get species from all around the world? How Noah manage to collect them MILLIONS of different insect varieties.
    Why does Egyptian history carry on uninterrupted through the flood?
    I want a proper logical answer to these not some stupid Goddidit excuse hiding behind your bible.

    General Flood Idea

    Where did the water go? All of the polar ice caps are only going to raise the sealevels by what, 50 meters max? How do you explain things like highlands which are something like 10,000 meters above sea level?
    Why are varves (cyclic lake bed sediments) uninterrupted?
    Creationists say the ocean basin opening up and mountains were thrust up.
    Have you any idea of the amount of energy this would involve? The Atlantic opening up, Australia rushing of, and all in a few centuries? The friction would melt the earth's crust!
    How did complex ecosystems like the Amazon jungle recover so fast?

    Direct quote from a colleague of mine, a pHD chemist with hundreds of published articles on mineralogy and a lifelong career in this field.

    In his last posting he repeats the crap about recent lava flows giving old dates but quite dishonestly ignores the fact that K-Ar dating is not accurate for young (ie. last million or so years) material as such material is within the error margins of the method. It is like trying to analyse for a few ppm of something using a method that only detects % levels! It is a completely inappropriate method. Only a creationist would be so stupid as to try it.
    This should provide you with plenty to ''debunk''.

    P.S. I find it very intriguing how the general concensus regarding the basis of your YEC ''scientist's'' work is that they were fundamentally flawed to produce a biased result.
    What about the Big Bang? This is probably the best proved theory of all time with background radiation. If the universe is proven to be several something billion years old how YEC's cannot be so ignorant and small minded to consider the earth being on a reletivistic scale?

    PP.S Don't you think god is going to awfully long lengths to make the flood appear it happened? If he set up the laws of nature as you say he did, don't you think that he would be great enough and powerful enough to make the world be that old? Why would he deliberately make such minute changes to his flawless master plan just for the sake of proving the deranged fantasy of a speck of humans?
    People have been coming up with theories since the dawn of man, whose to say that yours is the correct one (you are just going to say who is to say that mine is correct, well 100,000 pHD scientists, the last however many thousand years of accumalated scientific knowledge, irrefutable evidence...shall I go on?

    And your evidence is the book of genesis? Whose to say that the people who wrote that are right? Why should we believe that god spoke to those few lucky individuals?
    Why won't god speak to me?
    If I say that I am the son of god why won't you believe me?

    Your theory has more holes than a sponge Jollybear, please just think for a second. Just one miniscule second, use rational thought, use that incredible machine created by evolution use to see that you cannot possibly be right!


    Jollybear, YOU CAN'T WIN
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Hey Barry,
    let go of it. This takes us nowhere and this very fast. If someone has trouble understanding the absolute basic concept behind the geochronological clocks and keeps pounding on the same old tired shit overandoverandoverandoverandoveradinifinitum leave him/her alone. Those people will find some "arguments" to "show" the world they are right and the have god on their sides. Makes me yawn.

    I do not believe in god and this is why he hates me

    I tried to explain to him befor that there are different methods and they are not all suited for the specific purpose at hand. No use. As he says: heads, I win, tails you lose.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Twaaannnggg,

    Yea I guess you're right, this is pointless.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello marnix, barry and twang. I read your replies and barry i read your challenging questions. Give me some time to research, and put some thought into it, and i will account for the questions you gave me. Plus twang, this is not pointless. This is a challenging discussion and takes patience and addresssing points for it to move forward. Do you have those qualities? Every point you have given me so far i have addressed without saying "this is pointless" Or "you guys are stuped". I have not attacked any of you as a person, or said this is pointless. I believe in a thing called patience, and open discussion and debate. However, open eared is diffrent then open hearted. Im not open hearted to your belief system, but i am open eared and minded to it. If i take it to heart, that means i believe it, which i dont. However the moment you say its pointless, YOU LOST the debate.

    However, i am taking marnix and barry on their challenging last points they made and i am going to come back with a answer. Might be a day, might be a week, or a month, but i will be back.

    While i am here, i addressed kevins article and showed the holes in his reasonings. No one has addressed my arguments for that, all you say is its pointless. Ya, that makes allot of sence now.

    Also marnix, i will address your points now. I have given you a list of young earth creationists that are paleontologists and biologists and they have ph'ds. Even though the number is small, their is a number. Perhaps the reason for such a small number is because the rest of them are indoctrinated and dont think for themselves like the young earth scientists, they realize the old earth creationists or evolutionists base this on many assumptions. Also, just because the number is small for my side, numbers dont nesesarily mean a wrong view or a right view.

    However i am glad you realize their is a list, non the less.

    Also twang, i realize their is other methods they use to date rocks with. And i also plan on getting into those and debunking them too, just like i did the potasium-argon one that kevin in his article tried to defend. However, we need to do one thing at a time. "patience".

    Barry, i dont have an answer for your questions yet, they are very good questions and do deserve honest good answers, i personally would like answers for them, and i have been exposed to this question before, fairly recently actually, so i think its best that i look into this now. So, i will find out, do lots of reading, and thinking, and i will get back to you on this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 Noah's flood and sedimentary layers. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear's post Sat 19th:
    “For instence the layered sedements is not evedence of a earth forming over billions of years, but by a catestrophic flood, noah's flood.”

    An astonishing statement when one considers that those layers contain fossil forests with upright treet trunks, often many such layers, one above another as successive forests grew and died and were buried one after the other. How can forests grow during a flood? They also contain entire fossil coral reefs. Again, how does a reef grow in just one year in muddy, turbulent water? Great thicknesses of chalk formed by the gradual accumulation of the microscopic skeletons of countless trillions of marine organisms in clear, tropical waters – during a one year catastrophic flood! They contain thick rock salt beds left by the evaporation of ancient seas. Seas drying up during a flood! Layers containing dinosaurs' nests complete with eggs, with fossil bearing strata below and above. Dinosaurs nesting during a flood?! Fossil sand dunes formed in deserts, desiccation cracks from drying mud, raindrop imprints etc., ect. - all in the middle of sequences of layers supposedly laid down by a huge flood! Varves (cyclic lake bed deposits) containing millions of annual layers, ancient desert sand dunes, worm burrows, footprints .... the list goes on and on. In each and every case they occur in the middle of great sequences of other fossil bearing strata and so must have been formed in the middle of Noah's flood according to creationists. No wonder there are so few creationist geologists!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    If I may add to Stephen's post - excellent first post by the way. Here is the problem that geologists have with creationists.

    We can observe in detail the processes of sedimentation in a vast variety of environments (flood plains, estuaries, lakes, deserts, glacial outflows, rift valleys, coral reefs, beaches, to name but a few.). We can determine the detailed character of the sediments that are deposited in these environments. This character relates to such aspects as mineralogy, cementation, porosity, grain size, grain shape, sorting, grain angularity, bedding character, etc. Thousands of such studies have confirmed that these characteristics reflect accurately the environments of deposition. Moreover we have been able to carry out these observations over time periods that now approach two centuries.

    So we have an absolutely clear cut relationship between the environment of deposition and the mineralogical, lithological, chemical and structural character of the sediment.

    We then examine the sedimentary rocks and behold, we same these same ranges of character. Beyond that we find the different rock types to lie in relation to each other in the same way we find them currently being deposited today.

    The clear, the absolute, one is so tempted to say the only conclusion possible is that these sediments - which have these very specific characteristics - were deposited in the same environments as their present day counterparts.

    I do not wish to be rude jollybear, but I recognise I am in danger of becoming so, when I say to ignore this vast volume of clear evidence requires either a profound ability at self deception, or a stunning absence of intellect. I suspect it is perhaps a third - pure ignorance: you simply are unaware, in detail, of the nature and volume of this mass of evidence. Trust me. It is there.

    God does not speak any more clearly than in the record of the rocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Excuse the double post. i just noticed this.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    And i also plan on getting into those and debunking them too, just like i did the potasium-argon one that kevin in his article tried to defend. However, we need to do one thing at a time. "patience".
    That was not a debunking. Stating things with assurance because you do not understand them does not constitute a debunking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72 Radioisotope dating 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear's post Sun 20th, 8:10 pm
    Only a sense of duty could make one plough through this rambling, turgid, dyslexic gibberish. Jollybear manages to say in hundreds of words things that could be said in dozens, and which are not worth saying anyway. Jollybear, if you are reading this, please do something about your spelling. We all make mistakes, but you seem to make them in nearly every sentence. It makes your efforts difficult to read or understand. Now for his “rebuttles”:

    “In otherwords, what this footnote is saying, to find out the age of the rock, you first have to roughly know the age of the rock. < that defies logic right their. In otherwords to find out the age of the rock, you cannot use the dating method FIRST to find out, you FIRST have to make an ASSUMPTION of how old the rock is.”
    No Jollybear no assumptions are necessary. You just have to be aware that this particular method is unreliable for very young (ie. a couple of million years or so) ages. So if you get such a young age for a rock then you know it is not reliable. Likewise if you already happen to know that the material is young (eg. because it erupted in 1986) then again you know there is no point using the K-Ar method because it will not give meaningful results. Where are the assumptions? There are none.

    “Kevin fails to realize that forensic science works BEST in RECENT cases.”
    This is Jollybear's response to the point: “This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony."
    Jollybear misses the point. The point being that one does not have to actually witness an event to know what happened. It is possible to work it out from the remaining evidence. It is often easier when the evidence is fresh, but that does not mean one can never work it out in older cases, and it does not change the fact that for K-Ar dating it actually helps to be older for reasons already patiently explained in this thread, and in the article Jollybear imagines he is “rebutting”. Like a good whisky, sometimes it helps to let things age a little to get the best result.

    “If multiple methods really do confirm radiometric dating, why does each method give diffrent dates?”
    That is just plain false. Go to anti-creationist websites (eg. talkorigins.org and evowiki) for examples of the same sample being dated by different methods and giving the same result each time. The few examples of discordant results cited by creationists are also rebutted on anti-creationist sites.

    “Kevin again fails to realize that if the creation story in genesis actually is true, then that means our origins were caused supernaturally, and that means YES God would ZAP argon into the rocks.”
    With this sophistry it does not matter how overwhelming the evidence is against creationism. It was made that way by God. Jollybear has abandoned any pretence at being scientific with this argument as the whole enterprise that is science is based on finding natural, not supernatural, explanations. Besides, it suggests God is deliberately being deceitful, trying to mislead us with “evidence” that He has fabricated to trick us into thinking that the earth is billions of years old etc. Of course, one should, perhaps, not be too surprised that a brutal monster who killed the first-born son of every Egyptian family, ordered the extermination of whole races of people so that the Israelites could steal their land and created Hell to roast all non-Christians for eternity, should stoop to telling lies in the rocks. Even His son Jesus deliberately tried to confuse and mislead people by telling parables in order to reduce the numbers who would be saved (Matthew 13:11-15) so I guess that dishonesty, like mass murder and sadism, is part of the divine nature.

    “TRUE science goes by whats seen and observable, and the genesis acount or evolution is or was not observed.”
    Has anyone observed a neutron? Or even an atom? Was atomic theory wrong because until very very recently atoms could not be directly observed, only inferred by indirect means? For a long time Neptune was not observed, but astronomers knew it was there from irregularities in the orbit of Uranus. As has been patiently explained before – and even quoted by Jollybear - “This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam.” one does not actually have to see something directly to be able to work out what happened. To repeat the line Jollybear himself quotes (and fails to appreciate) Jollybear “like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them”

    “ Also their is some science that works and envistigates in the field of the supernatural as well”
    Oh yeah? Name it! And tell us what advances it has ever made, what useful theories it has generated, and how many Nobel prizes it has led to. Then we can assess the quality of this “science”. If, like “parapsychology”, it has failed to prove a thing after over a century of trying, has failed to produce results that can be replicated reliably, or generates “results” in inverse proportion to how stringent the test conditions are then I will not be impressed.

    “How do we not know that MOST rock could have recieved excess argon failing to degass?”
    That's one of the reasons one should only date older rock by K-Ar. That way, as the rock gets older, the proportion of Ar that was trapped at formation becomes less and less, so the date gets more and more accurate. The problem disappears when other radioisotope methods (eg. U-Pb, Sr-Rb) are applied.

    “ If the mass spectrometer caused contamination within the samples, that would cast a big slur of disrespect for the lab that is highly regarded and looked up to, to do its job correctly.”
    Jollybear has not even paid attention to what was said. The lab openly stated that it could not guarantee accuracy for young samples (less than 2 Ma). One reason for this, as Kevin Henke pointed out, may be due to traces of Ar carrying over from previous samples. In most cases this would not matter because the carry over is so small. When measuring something that's 200 Ma old, then what's an extra million or two? But when measuring something recent even a small carry over becomes a significant % of the total Ar measured. Another reason for the inappropriateness of the K-Ar method for such recent samples. This is not a slur on the lab. Purging mass spectrometers is not always quick and easy, the labs know this, they know the limitations of their insturment and they make this clear when they specify that samples younger than 2 Ma should not be tested on their equipment. The labs state that they can't date anything below 2 Ma, yet a creationist submits something he knows is less than 2 Ma and whines when he gets a nonsense answer. This is churlish, and downright dishonest. It is the creationists who are casting a slur – and a false and slanderous one at that – on the innocent labs.

    “Also if the contamination was resulted from something else, how do you know that not ALL or MOST rocks in the world that apear old are resulted from contamination? Like if the mt st helens rock samples were resulted from contamination from old rock mixing with the new lava flow, how do you not know that ALL rock has old rock mixed in with it?”
    Boy is this getting tedious. If the greater age is due to contamination by older rock then that rock must be millions of years old to give a date of millions of years to fresh rock. How can that millions of years old rock exist on a 6000 year old planet? And Jollybear has still to explain why other dating methods that do not even use Ar give great ages, ages that agree well with K-Ar dates. One can also point out that these ages agree perfectly with relative ages worked out by classical stratigraphy. Intense folding and faulting excepted, young rocks overlie older ones. Similarly igneous intrusions cut through older strata. It is trivially easy to work out the order of a sequence of rocks and intrusions, without knowing their exact ages. If radioisotope dates were all wrong, as creationists claim, why do they consistently agree with the relative ages determined by classical stratigraphy? They even correlate with magnetic polarity (look up geomagnestism). Rocks of the same radioisotope age have the same orientation of magnetic particles, whether thay come from ocean floor or continents. This, in fact, formed part of the clinching evidence for continental drift. Why also do radioisotope dates for lunar rocks correlate with crater density? One would expect the oldest regions to be the most heavily cratered. This is confirmed by radioisotope dates. Odd, if these dates were all wrong. Give up Jollybear!

    “The sertain crystals he assumes to grow through a process of millions of years old. This is purely assumption. Was he or anyone else down below the earth swimming in lava with a microscope observing phenocrystals grow?”
    Back to the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam.

    “Again in the past God could have "zaped" it fully grown ... God creating everything in six days would make everything look older then it is”
    Undisprovable non-science as explained earlier. Any refuting evidence can be explained by saying “God made it like that”. This is NOT science! Jollybear even has the effrontery to call it “logic”! As it seems Jollybear will dismiss any contrary evidence as having been made that way by God it begs the question, “Just what will Jollybear accept as proof that he is wrong?” If the answer is “Nothing, because any contrary evidence is simply the result of God making it appear so” then we have ourselves a closed-minded bigot, for the definition of closed-minded bigotry is refusal to accept contrary evidence. I am reminded of the Pastafarians, who say that everything was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If there is any evidence to the contrary it is because the FSM made it so with His noodly appendage. Brilliant! I love the Pastafarians.

    “if genesis story is true, then the rest of the bible also holds true. Which means, ALL the supernatural stories in that book are true, not just the genesis one.”
    A non-sequitur if ever there was one. However, if Genesis is false then it certainly undermines the credibility of the rest of the Bible. Even Jesus referred to the Genesis myths as if he believed them to be literally true. Perhaps Darwin recognised this for, as his evolutionary ideas developed, his religious beliefs waned (although the loss of his daughter also affected him). Ultimately he became an agnostic. A position he held till the day he died.

    “What a buitifull confession he made here, its music to my ears when he said this.”
    This is referring to a comment of Kevin Henke's in which he acknowledges that sometimes scientists get anomalous results. What Jollybear seems not to understand is that Austin's wonky K-Ar dates are not just anomalous, they are entirely bogus!

    I am not sure if I should find it sad, or amusing, that someone like Jollybear with zero scientific knowledge or credentials should presume to lecture us on a technical subject like radioisotope dating. The creationists' objections to radioisotope dating are well known to those who actually do these tests and are debunked in great detail on anti-creationist websites. If the creationists' arguments actually stood up we would know by now. A mere handful of spurious results, from using inappropriate methods, or contaminated samples, in no way undermines the thousands of dates that are consistent with each other, consistent with relative ages from classical stratigraphy and which even tie in with such unrelated phenomena as geomagnestism and lunar cratering. Would one dismiss all diagnoses of an illness just because occasionally doctors get them wrong? Would one acquit all convicts just because a few convictions turn out to be wrong? Would one reject all apples just because a few were rotten? It seems Jollybear would.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Truly epic. Ta. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Here here!
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75 Creationists' credentials 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear's post Sun. 20th 8:10 pm
    On the topic of young earth creationist scientists with PhDs, Jollybear cites only a few. Creationists like to brag about the credentials of their scientists and they cite some who sport PhDs. There does, however, seem to be something of an inverse correlation between the relevance of the PhD and the numbers of creationists who have it. Thus there are engineers a plenty, far fewer life scientists and almost no earth scientists. Odd that the more relevant the subject is to young earth creationism the fewer young earth creationists there are with qualifications in that topic. Young earth geologists (like the tiny number Jollybear cites) are especially scarce, yet of all the branches of science it is geology that is most relevant to young earth creationism.

    As for those very few who have actually managed to get an earth science PhD, I am reminded of Dr Gerardus Bouw. He is head of the geocentrists – a significant subset of young earth creationists - who (because the Bible says so) believe the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe with sun, stars and planets orbiting it. He has a PhD in – wait for it – ASTRONOMY!

    What is, perhaps, even more revealing, is the quality of those scientists. PhDs are not terribly rare. Nobel prizes are. How many creationist Nobelists are there? In 1986, 72 Nobel laureates filed a brief with the Louisiana supreme court protesting against a law requiring equal time for creationism in schools. Since then other Nobelists have spoken out against creationism, or affirmed evolution. Can the creationists manage even one Nobelist? It gets worse (for the creationists). A study published in Nature (1998, vol. 394, p. 313) found that over 90 % of America's top scientists are atheist or agnostic. I think we can fairly say that they are NOT creationists! This is astonishing in a country where 90 % of the general population believes in God, but perhaps not so surprising when one considers the dozens of studies that have consistently found an inverse correlation between intelligence and education on the one hand, and religiosity on the other. The cleverer and better educated a person is, the less likely that person is to be religious. By any standard, the creationists are backing a loser when they try to boast about their academic credentials. The evolutionists win hands down.

    The National Center for Science Education in America, in response to lists of creationist scientists, set up the “Steves list” in memory of the late Stephen Jay Gould, palaeontologist and scourge of creationists. You can find it on their website. To be eligible to go on the list one has to have a PhD in a science subject, one has to agree with evolution, and one has to be called “Steve” (or Stefan, Stephanie etc.). Naturally I'm on it! At last count they had well over 800 Steves (Stefans, Stephanies etc.). Now as Steves make up only about 1 % of the general (western) population it follows that every PhD Steve on that list represents about 100 PhD scientists in all. This list is therefore the equivalent of over 80,000 PhD scientists who reject creationism and accept evolution. So, next time a creationist brags about the numbers of PhD scientists on his side, ask how many of them are called “Steve.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76 Re: Creationists' credentials 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Two excellent posts and this.......
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen
    The National Center for Science Education in America, in response to lists of creationist scientists, set up the “Steves list” in memory of the late Stephen Jay Gould, palaeontologist and scourge of creationists. You can find it on their website. To be eligible to go on the list one has to have a PhD in a science subject, one has to agree with evolution, and one has to be called “Steve” (or Stefan, Stephanie etc.). Naturally I'm on it! At last count they had well over 800 Steves (Stefans, Stephanies etc.). Now as Steves make up only about 1 % of the general (western) population it follows that every PhD Steve on that list represents about 100 PhD scientists in all. This list is therefore the equivalent of over 80,000 PhD scientists who reject creationism and accept evolution. So, next time a creationist brags about the numbers of PhD scientists on his side, ask how many of them are called “Steve.”
    .... this is pure genius.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Looks like you lose Jollybear...still no reply? This means that we won the debate I guess.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Yes, these loons actually believe that the Earth was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago, and they have launched an academic journal - the Answers Research Journal - to publish research proving they are right.

    A professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.
    Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of "created kinds," and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.
    It's hard to know where to begin, but I suppose you do have to credit them for their honesty. There aren't many journals that will admit to such a severe form of publication bias.

    Here's some more of what you can expect:

    Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. Rather than merely pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory, papers should aim to assist the development of the Creation and Flood model of origins.
    Answers in Genesis hopes that the online publication of its Answers Research Journal will encourage Christians globally with the results of the latest creationist research, providing them with new resources for use in their research and education, and in their witnessing to the truth and authority of God's Word.
    If you were hoping to have the honour of writing Answers Research Journal's inaugural article I'm afraid you were beaten to the pitch by Prof Alan Gillen at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia - a fundamentalist baptist institution. His paper is a musing on "Microbes and the days of creation". It deals with the thorny topic of when bacteria, viruses and the like were created by the big man upstairs.

    Where do microbes fit into the creation account? Were they created along with the rest of the plants and animals in the first week of creation, or were they created later, after the Fall?
    It's an agonising question. And this time Genesis does not have the answer. Scripture strangely doesn't mention bacteria or viruses (could that be because the people who wrote the Bible didn't know anything about them?).

    Some creationists apparently think microbes popped into existence on day 3 along with "plants and seed-bearing life" - because they are a bit like seeds.

    Gillen's contribution is to point out that because microbes almost always exist in symbiosis with other species, that presents a problem. He's got a point. If gut bacteria were plonked in Eden on day 3 before God had got around to "creeping things, land animals and humans" on day 6 they would have been at something of a loose end.

    We postulate that microbes were created as "biological systems" with plants, animals, and humans on multiple days, as supporting systems in mature plants, animals, and humans.
    My favourite bit though is when he gets on to nasty things like the "corrupted retrovirus" HIV. He seems to be suggesting that HIV turned nasty because of Eve munching on the apple and humankind being banished from the Garden of Eden.

    Since the corruption of creation, the corrupted retrovirus, HIV, and various leukemia viruses turn off the entire immune system, leaving the body open to devastating infections. These examples may provide clues to the origin of viruses and how some may have been created during Creation Week by design and how some have been corrupted as a result of the Fall.
    It's a neat way of getting round the age old question: If God is such a loving bloke how come he allows AIDS, malaria and cholera to kill so many of us?

    This deformed imitation of a scientific journal would be easy to laugh off except for the unfortunate fact that lots of people take the deluded weirdos at Answers in Genesis seriously. They are the guys behind a creationism museum that opened in Kentucky last year.

    Everyone, religious and non-religious, should counter this brazen stupidity with all their might.

    A peer reviewed "scientific" Journal trying to prove YEC!!!!!!

    DA BOMB!!!!!!!!

    So Jollybear can discuss the debunking of scientific evidence with his own ilk.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you know where this comes from don't you ?
    creationists have always been stung by the criticism that none of their publications were peer reviewed, and hence not of the same level of authority as other scientific publications

    this is their way to pervert the meaning of peer review, and their aim is to be able to claim that they DO have papers published in peer reviewed publications - their own
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Scripture strangely doesn't mention bacteria or viruses (could that be because the people who wrote the Bible didn't know anything about them?).
    This isn't the creationist talking, is it? That would be quite a self-defeating and ridiculous statement to make (from his own perspective).That would mean that they knew everything about stuff mentioned in the bible and nothing about the omissions. No room for anything in between, like maybe they made a few mistakes.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    The "Microbes" paper is the article I mentioned in Trash a few days ago.

    I noticed that the article has typos. This is not too surprising. Typos in an actual journal are surprising, the rare times that they occur.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Scripture strangely doesn't mention bacteria or viruses (could that be because the people who wrote the Bible didn't know anything about them?).
    This isn't the creationist talking, is it? That would be quite a self-defeating and ridiculous statement to make (from his own perspective).That would mean that they knew everything about stuff mentioned in the bible and nothing about the omissions. No room for anything in between, like maybe they made a few mistakes.
    Some of the passages above are quotes of the original "Answers in Genesis" web-junk and I was too lazy to highlight those passages.

    And about the peer review....how much credibility does it add to your reputation if only morons think what you are publishing is a valid thesis and relevant conclusions? This is like some painter beeing appraised by a bunch of blind people
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello all. No, you did not win the debate yet, i am still reading and researching and building my article on "word perfect"(has a good spell check ) ....Keep in mind, i do have a job too, and a wife, and all the time looking and then reading, and then gathering my thoughts and then writting them down, takes a bit of time. Plus the fresh points a few people have given me is allot of challeging things to combat. But, i asure you, i am building my responce to address all of these new points. And i am excited to further this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    i do have a job too, and a wife, .
    As verbose as you are, I was thinking you might be a woman. Well, try to do a better job of editing your next efford down to a couple of short paragraphs, as I suggested before. I look forward to your response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi Barry. The two website’s you gave me saying "from your own people". First i want to say those "christians" from those website’s that believe in a billion year old earth, are compromiser’s. What they have don is put their intelligence on the shelf and placed a twisted interpretation on the origins within the bible, just out of their fear of scientific intelligence. Their intelligence they had put on the shelf back in history was a better intelligence then what science offered them. Actually what they should have don was gon all the way and thrown out the bible altogether, because that’s better then twisting it. Although the best is to keep and trust the bible with its literal interpretation, which its CONTEXTS calls for. Basically one either believes the bible or they don’t, but they should not twist it. Barry, you directly not believing the bible, i could respect your stand more then theirs, because their stand is twisted, yours is at least more honest. Twisted interpretations of the bible is not a honest interpretation in my view, and they are among’s my "own people". But, not really among’s my own, when it comes down to real truth. So, even though i respect your stand more then theirs, that does not mean i agree or believe your stand. I just respect it more, because i believe its more honest, that’s all.

    For me, if i were to believe in a old earth, or believe in evolution, i would have to kick the bible out the door. Because the two do not fit.

    Now there is also a thing called the "gap theory" as well. Some christians don’t believe in evolution, but they do believe in the billion year old earth, which is the gap theory, you might have heard of it, i don’t know. However what they do is say that the genesis chapter 1 account is a literal 6 day RESTORATION of the FORMER creation. It’s the former creation that lasted billions of years, then lucifer the angel sinned, came down and messed up everything, so God sent a flood(not Noah's) then the earth "became" deluted with water. Then God fixed it all within 6 literal days and started over with Adam and eve. So, they basically say the earth is 4 billion 10 thousand years old. If you want to add the young earth creationist’s years to the 4 billion. So, in genesis chapter 1 verse 1, there is that GAP. And so they place the old earth in that gap. Now the reason they don’t believe in the evolution, is because it contradicts Gods plan for immortal eternal life, and contradicts him knowing everything already. A God of evolution would be a God of experimentation, which implies he cannot see into the future so as to make something perfect already. He don’t need to do trial and error. So they don’t believe in evolution. However even though they make this compromise, still there is problems with it. Problems are

    1 When God made the "restoration earth from the former" he called it "very good". Why would a bunch of fossils and dead humans and dinosaurs underneath the old earth when berried under the restored earth be "very good"? Then Satan is still around as well, why would that be very good? Non of that would be good. The fact is Satan rebelled shortly after Adam and eve were created. Not billions of years before, this is my view on it.

    Also there are some that don’t believe the gap theory, but believe the word "day" in genesis does not mean "day" but means "eons of time". However the two problems with this is, 1 day means day, not eons of time. Plus contexts talks about evening and morning, the first day. Sounds like a literal day. second problem with this is plants and trees were created on a day before the sun. So if day was eons, how could plant life survive without the sun for lets say a Billion years being one day for instance? Unless they invoke the supernatural. But if they do that, why not just invoke the supernatural based on its context, of a 6 to ten thousand year old earth? You see, too many problems with it. That’s why for me, i believe in HONEST interpretations, not twisted ones. So for me, the bible is either right completely fully within its true context, or its 100% wrong and should be burned at the stake. Its either one or the other.

    So in short, anything don in fear, is not honest. However anything don in courage, is not necessarily right either. Also, sorry for my rambling on and on. I just want to be there”ll in my explanations so there is no possible way of misunderstanding.

    To your questions now. 8 people looking after all those animals. This is very possible to accomplish. First I realize there are millions of species of animals in the world. However, lets establish the difference between species of animals and KINDS of animals. There is more species then there is kinds. For example a “KIND” of animal is “DOG”. Species of dogs are Pomeranians, german shepherds, dovorment pinchers, labs and the list goes on. I read a article and if Noah had about 16 thousand animals on the ark(and that’s a generous number) of just KINDS, he could fit them all on their according to the calculations, with lots of food storage room and walk around room as well. The ark boat was 500 feet long, 50 feet high and 80 feet wide, it had three decks as well. With rooms in the ark for the animals. The boat was plastered with pitch(which is not water soluble, so water cannot get through it). As for the grand size of some animal KINDS, this problem is taken care of if young animals are taken on board. Even a young or baby dinosaur is fairly small when a baby. Same with elephants etc. As for the waste clean up, each animal could have had slated floors in their cages so when they pooped it would slide down and dump into a pit. From their, their could have been a plumping system to remove it into the ocean. OR after it goes into the pit, their can be worm composting. The worms eat the waste. As for lighting, the bible says their was a window opening at the top of the ark(not wide open of course). And most likely they probably had lamps. Also their can be a ventilation system for airflow. But the window can be even sufficient for that. As for diseases, this is not a problem because keep in mind before and during the flood people lived to a age of 800 to 900 years old. Now stories of ages like this are not just in the bible, but are in many old cultures around world history. Now if they lived ages like this, surely diseases back then were not as much of a problem as they were after the flood and in our day. Because its noted in the bible that ages started to become shorter after the flood, to 400, then 300, then 200 then 100. So if life before the flood was that strong, the immune system had enough power to withstand diseases. Not to mention the way they survived diseases would be the same way they did before they got on the boat. Also they did not eat chemically grown crap like we do today. The best of organic grown foods they eat, which can help them withstand allot. Also even if some had diseases, some diseases can die right after they manifest, some things you don’t need medication for. Also some diseases are symptomless. Also some organisms only cause disease when there is a lack of “beneficial germs”. Again before the flood their was likely much beneficial germs around. After the destructive flood, much of the germs were destroyed as allot of things were. Also some plants that were part of the diet could have gon extinct during the flood. Those plants probably played a big part of some form of nutrient that our bodies might be lacking today.

    Now you asked a question about what did the lions eat after they eat the wilde beast. That’s assuming lions were on the ark now. Remember lions more then likely have not been the original KIND, but branched from the original cat like kind. So, their was probably a different cat like animal on the ark. Also the bible does not mention any person or animal eating meat before the flood, it does mention eating vegetables. However it does not say they did not eat meat either. But before Adam sinned, no one eat meat. Now after he sinned did they? Its questionable. However after the flood there is mention of meat eating. This is just a clue, perhaps no one eat meat on the ark, just vegetables, fruits, all that stuff. And more then likely it was dried food, so as to preserve it. However if you want to assume they eat meat, I’ll be generous and say Noah stored dried meat. So after the cat like animal eat the dried meat, Noah just gave him more dried meat.

    As you have probably noticed I have been making some assumptions here. Although some things are made dogmatically. The reason for this is because the bible does not give every single detail on the subject of Noah’s ark. That would go the same for anything in the bible or any book in the world. Now if the whole bible was just on Noah’s ark itself, then yes, it would mention all these details. Like it does say some things on how he built the boat, but it does not give every single detail. So keep in mind the bible is not a ship ology book, it’s a spiritual book. Nor is it a history book(although it has history in it, its original intent was not for that purpose). So this is why it does not mention all the details, so I have to make some assumptions based on articles I have read and young earth scientists research and experiments. Which are logical assumptions. And you asked for logical answers and not just “God did it” answer.

    Now, how did they manage to get species from all around the world. Again, all they needed was KINDS. And the bible DOES say it WAS KINDS. Also before the flood the continents were joined together in one super continent. So, all the kinds did not have to swim over the Atlantic or pacific ocean to get to the ark. Now if the bible did not say God sent the animals to the ark, I would say well Noah had 120 years to build the ark from the time God warned him, so during that time he could gather the animals slowly. However I don’t need to give that support because the bible says God sent the animals to Noah. So this was a supernatural event when the animals actually came to Noah and boarded the ark. Now I have not said EVERYTHING in this whole event was supernatural. Some things were Noah’s responsibility, and some things were Gods. Also it would not be millions of animals, but only in the thousands. About 16 thousand or so animal KINDS on board. Each original kind would have all the information within it to branch off variations of species, but each of those species would remain in its parent kind. This is not evolution, but variation.

    Now why does Egyptian history carry on uninterrupted through the flood? Egyptian history begins after 3000 BC. Noah’s flood happens around 2500 BC. Now Egyptian PRE history, then, is probably very short, again substantiating little time since the great flood. Also the first dynasty of pharaohs, after 3000 BC, apparently corresponds to the arrival of a group of people from Mesopotamia who in a short time established a complete civilization. Possibly in less than a hundred years appeared all over Egypt. Was this from Mesopotamia? Many scholars think so. And the Mesopotamia itself has a flood legend.

    Now where did all the water go? Into the oceans. Before the flood, most of the landmass was flatter with no high mountains. This way the flood can cover all the landmass. During the flood, the landmass gets broken up, transported, packed down, and then it stops raining, and the “flood gates of the deep” are closed up as well. Then some water evaporates, and so sea levels drop; also since during the flood some mass was redeposited, making certain parts now more higher land, PLUS as you mentioned, land uplift, or land thrust. This would cause the water to come off the land and go into the ocean. Yes it would take allot of energy. But it would not melt the earths crust as you suppose. During the flood their would be allot of volcanic activity which creates more landmass. Also the continental break up would make mountain uplift and continents rise higher and the water rush off into the ocean. This would not melt the earths crust. Also in support of this. Mt Everest has layers that form the uppermost parts of the mt and are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water deposited layers. So with the sediment being deposited, and the upthrust of the mountain, fossils get caught in all this and so fossilize.

    Next how could the jungle and everything else recover after the flood? Well very easily, and very quickly at that. Look at mt st Helens eruption. After three years things grew beyond the expectation of many peoples theories. Trees, animals returned to it, plants etc. And it was 90% of all the plants started to grow back. That’s allot just within three years. Just think what could happen after few hundred years after the flood. Things would be growing, flourishing within that span greatly. Plus animals reproducing after their own kind and dropping their dung for fertilizer.

    As for the big bang theory now. I have not don research on this YET. But I will. But lets remain within the earth for a little bit first, then we can go to the cosmos later. Lets deal with one thing at a time. You said the big bang theory is proven. No, its not. But, I am going to look further into this and give you also an answer on this.

    Now about the laws of nature God made. Yes God made the laws of nature, but he is not subject to those laws, those laws are subject to him. If he was subject to the laws, the laws would thus be God and not him. And yes his plan is a master plan. And he did not make a mistake. Why then did he have to send a flood? Its because in his master plan he gave free will to man, and man used it to sin and God warned of the consequences of sin. Well why would he give free will if he new man would sin? Well because he knew some WOULD NOT. And he wanted to know who they would be. Why did he do this? Because he, like us, seek love. Although the diffrence with him and us is we NEED love, he WANTS love. The absence of free will, cannot love. Only with free will, does one have the potential to choose to love, or choose to hate. Robots cannot love because they cannot choose. God is not a tyrant that takes away choice.

    Also you said who is to say that my belief is right, when at the dawn of man they have come up with tons of theories and ideas. Then you said I would say to you who is to say yours is right? Then you said tons or the highest percentage of scientists backing you up and believing as you do makes yours sound more feasible. Well what I actually say to this is; Just because majority says thus and thus, does not mean thus and thus is true. Just because majority is small, does not mean its wrong. That goes not just with our topic, but with any topic. Also in support of this, back in history a guy named Antonio a creationist was the first to come up with the fact that the continents were once one land mass, then broke apart by Noah’s flood. Now what he said in his book went unnoticed, then a guy named Alfred wagoner, a German meteorologist and a group of scientists with him looked more into the continental break up. Mostly all the scientists of that day to the highest percent rejected this theory and said it defied basic physics. And it was rejected for 50 years. But today, the highest percent except the continental break up. Its like completely normal to believe that now. Its funny, a creationist first came up with it and said it was caused by the flood. So evolutionists believe in it today, why don’t they go all the way and believe the rest of what Antonio said on how it happened? So you get my point, majority does not rule, majority was wrong back then, and you even agree with this. Now today they have changed the physics to meet the demand of the continental break. Theirs trustworthy science for ya. Notice science text books change again and again and again every year after year after year. But the bible never changes. Which one sounds more trustworthy by logic to you? One that changes all the time, or one that does not? I go for the one that does not.

    Also you said “your evidence is the book of genesis, why should we believe God spoke to those few lucky individuals who wrote it down?” Well first what is more credible, documented history written down, or modern day science and thought and methods to figure out the long past? Documented history is more credible and reliable. Although yes there is hoaxes, im not nieve to this fact. But even though there are hoaxes, there are legitimate documents too. Now how do we know what they said is true? Look at the prophesies written and fulfilled later. Look at the miracles and experiences today that are don in the name of Christ. Claims of dead people being raised, cripples walking, blind seeing. However I have not seen these personally. But my mom told me she saw an angel appear to her once. She was serious when she told me. I don’t think my mom was lying to me either. I got that hunch she wasn’t. What did she have to gain by lying. Also a pastor I knew for 5 years closely told me he went on a Indian reserve and he came across a case of a demon possessed boy whom he cast the demon out in Jesus name, the demon came out of the boy and went into another man that happen to be in the room with my pastor and FLEW him against the wall and he was stuck ON THE WALL as floating their, feet off the ground. My pastor witnessed it with his own eyes. Again, what does he have to gain by telling me this story to me personally? Also he told me of a angel that appeared to him at another period. Also here is a personal experience of mine with the “Holy Spirit”. I felt this warm heat flow from the top of my head to my stomach and I started to speak another language EFFORTLESSLY as if I was under a strong influence, not pressure by other people. A very strong astatic experience. Very real to me and spectacular to me, although would not be to someone outside myself, unless it was floating, or an angelic appearance. It was phenomenal and filled with allot of unusual energy. Although I cant prove it to you, it is obviously a claim, but a claim does not necessarily mean untrue. Now is my mom lying to me? Is my pastor lying to me? Am I lying to you? Well I believe my mom, I believe my pastor, but do I believe me? NO, I don’t believe me, I KNOW I am telling the truth because after all, it was MY experience and its ME telling it. But its up to you to believe me or not. However im not lying. You can say they were hallucinating, or I was hallucinating in my emotions or something, but please don’t say im lying, because I believe in honesty and hate lies. On top of this, there is huge numbers of claims of much supernatural things in this world. Enormous amounts of claims. Too many to discount and not consider. What about all those near death experience claims? So many of them. How do you discount these? If they have a spirit as they claim, this would fall into the realm of the spirit world or supernatural realm. The physical world is only one dimension out of many that there is.

    Also why wont God speak to you? He is speaking to you. Your just not paying attention. Now if you want him to speak to you on a “higher level” if it were, like audibly lets say or through the psychic or intuition side, then that will take a slightly more work on spiritual ear tuning.(another subject for now).

    Also if you tell me you’re the son of God, I will believe you, God created your body, so therefor your body is a son of his. Now if you call yourself the incarnation of God in the flesh, I wont believe you because the ODDS of you being God in the flesh are slim to non. As would be the same for me and so many of the billions and billions of people now and through histories time frame. Jesus fulfilled every one of the old testament prophesies about himself. So the odds of him not being God in the flesh, are slim to non. Not to mention the many miracles don in his name that are claimed. And the list I gave you above, is not exhaustive, I know more people who made claims then my mom, me and my pastor. This is just to keep this article short, which im failing at.

    Stephen I am going to post this, and then let others reply to it, then I will reply to your post, then theirs so I can organize this and keep it short as possible. I have not ignored your post, I am going to do another article combating your points. This one was for Barry though. Yours is coming soon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I think you left a [/wall of text OFF] somewhere out of your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    wall of text off out of my post? What do you mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Jollybear,

    I will keep it brief because I don't have much time.

    You claim Noah kept kinds of animals on the ark. This implies that evolution must have taken place after the flood which is massively hypocritical.

    Regarding diseases, you haven't given any evidence.

    Regarding ages, this defies all logic. Go open a history book and you will see that life expectancy has been increasing minutely not dropping by 1000's in the recent years so why say something so outlandish.

    You just brushed off the melting crust/friction issue without any evidence you merely said it wouldn't because you say so.

    With regard to creationism and you saying science is just the latest theory. I personally find it interesting how creationism has been around for 1000's of years and we still don't believe it.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Well, try to do a better job of editing your next effort down to a couple of short paragraphs, as I suggested before.
    Good advice. Unfortunately jollybear responded with almost thirty paragraphs, some of them inordinately long. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    methinks Jollybear suffers from verbal diarrhoea
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    For me, if i were to believe in a old earth, or believe in evolution, i would have to kick the bible out the door. Because the two do not fit.
    As a devout agnostic raised as a Protestant I find this singularily shortsighted. The ancient Hebrews made extensive use of metaphor in their writings. The creation account in Genesis can readily be seen as a metaphor for the actual process. The Bible and the scientific view of orgins are wholly (and holy) compatible with each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    For example a “KIND” of animal is “DOG”. Species of dogs are Pomeranians, german shepherds, dovorment pinchers, labs and the list goes on.
    Nonsense. You don't understand what a species is. You need some serious education before you pontificate in this manner.
    Dogs are members of a single species. The rest are just varieties.
    This fundamental misunderstanding is nothing to be ashamed of, but it calls into question anything else you may say on the topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    During the flood their would be a lot of volcanic activity which creates more landmass.
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So evolutionists believe in it today, why don’t they go all the way and believe the rest of what Antonio said on how it happened? (Continental drift/plate tectonics)
    Because there is zero evidence to demonstrate that the rest of what Antonio said has any basis whatsoever, whereas there is abundant evidence from palaeobotany, paleozoology, palaeoclimatolgy, geophysics, geochronology, geodesy, stratigraphy, sedimentology, vulcanology, geochemistry and further disicplines I am too bored to list, that continental movement is a slow process occuring over millions of years. This conclusion is backed up by the detailed scientific work of thousands of scientists, publishing tends of thousands of research papers, based upon millions of hours of research.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    But the bible never changes.
    Rubbish. You don't even know your own field very well. There are three relevant ways in which the Bible changes.
    1. Translation is a form of interpretation.
    2. Transcription errors occur.
    3. The books assigned to the Bible have not been (and even now are not) constant.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Well first what is more credible, documented history written down, or modern day science and thought and methods to figure out the long past?
    Without doubt the science is vastly more reliable. Of course this is without even addressing the fact that the Bible is not documented history. (You seriously need a reality check.)
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    But my mom told me she saw an angel appear to her once. She was serious when she told me. I don’t think my mom was lying to me either.
    I am absolutely confident that your mother was not lying to you. I am wholly convinced that she believed she saw an angel. However, if she and the entire population of Milton Keynes saw an entire choir of angels it would not be in any remote way supportive of the validity of the Bible. Hallucinations (which is what your mother undoubtedly experienced) are a part of nature - I've seen ghosts on two occassions and I assure you I do not believe in ghosts.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    NO, I don’t believe me, I KNOW I am telling the truth because after all, it was MY experience and its ME telling it.
    You don't understand the scientific method. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I gave an example a few days ago, possibly on this forum. At a recent international football match I was sitting a few metres from the edge of the field, and a few metres down field from the goal line. I was therefore in an excellent position to see the goal scored by the Scotland forward. I commented to my son how calm and confident he had been as he noved forward with the ball, looking up for a moment to check the position of goal and goalkeeper before making his strike. that evening I watched a replay of the match on TV. The goal scorer did not look up. I would have happily stood in a court of law and said I saw him look up. The TV recording showed clearly I was mistaken. So your eyewitness testimony means little or nothing to me, and once you add in your interpretation of what you think was seen it means less than nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    What about all those near death experience claims? So many of them. How do you discount these?
    I don't discount them. They have been satisfactorily explained as a reaction of the brain in near death conditions. It is a biochemical/physiological response.
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    The physical world is only one dimension out of many that there is.
    Prove it.

    jollybear, I acknowledge and respect your sincerity, but I have to tell you that from where I sit you are seriously delusional and this delusion is predicated upon your overwhelming ignorance. Do not be offended by such observations, they are well intentioned. I applaud your efforts to become better informed, however, you have a major challenge in that regard - an open mind is a prerequisite for true understanding. Yours seems to be closed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    ... that continental movement is a slow process occuring over millions of years.
    despite the process of plate tectonics being slow, it has been measured using satellites - definitely more than just a theory ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    despite the process of plate tectonics being slow, it has been measured using satellites - definitely more than just a theory ...
    Absolutely true. Movement is about the same as the rate at which our fingernails grow. What makes it a theory is that we still do not understand precisely the mechanisms involved. We believe that convection cells in the mantle are involved, but the relative importance of push from mid-ocean ridges, versus drag from cold slab plate pull in subduction zones is still debated, for example.
    A bit like evolution really. We know it occurs, but many of the details have still to be ironed out. (Punnish reference to the core of the problem was quite accidental.) That's what makes it all such fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Ophiolite,

    You especially considering your background in geology will know the story about continental drift and the fact that it is extremely well proven i.e. go to South America's East Coast and get a rock and then go to Africa's West Coast and they're identical rocks. So it's pointless trying to refute science just because of your belief.
    The single greatest thing that debunks religion is the fact that it is not universal, everybody has their own ideas and different plans (Muslim, Christian...whatever your belief) whereas science is one ''belief'' and it is not based on ideas but facts. Solid evidence that can be proven.
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery
    The single greatest thing that debunks religion is the fact that it is not universal,
    It is neither my desire, nor my intent to debunk religion. It is my intent to pore scorn upon such unsophisticated, gullible, ignorant, close-minded, dogmatic beliefs as are being promoted by jollybear. If there is a God (and I am decidedly undecided on this point) then the world revealed by science is very much richer, grander, more majestic in every detail than the simplistic vision jollybear promotes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96 Flood nonsense 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    After checking with Barry (whose post Jollybear was responding to) I have produced the following rebuttal to Jollybear. I note that Ophiolite has also made similar points in some cases. As these posts are getting HUGE, I suggest we all try to stick to the topic. This is an earth science section. Some deviation into other sciences (eg. taxonomy and ecology are touched on here) may be relevant, but Jollybear's excursions into personal religious experiences, and his pontifications on the Bible are really well off topic. There are other sections where these matters could be discussed, let's try to keep this to earth science and related matters. Now for Jollybear's nonsense:

    8 people looking after all those animals.
    “For example a “KIND” of animal is “DOG”. Species of dogs are Pomeranians, german shepherds, dovorment pinchers, labs and the list goes on.”
    Now the entire Linnean classification system is thrown out because it does not suit the creationists. Pomeranians, German shepherds etc., are all dogs. They are not seperate species as they can (and do) readily interbreed. Even if we allow this argument, the creationists must accept some limited evolution from “kinds” into non-interbreeding species. Like the lions (and presumably tigers, leopards, jaguars, pumas, lynxes, domestic cats etc.) which he later mentions as coming from an original “cat like kind”. If he allows that much evolution, why not allow more? I might also point out that a single pair would not contain the genetic variation needed to produce so much diversification. There would still need to be fresh mutations in subsequent generations that would then be acted on by natural selection – i.e. Evolution.
    This business of “kinds” is a strained interpretation of the Bible. Geneses 1:21-25 talks about God making EVERY living thing “according to its kind”. The word “every” would imply just that – lions, tigers, pumas etc., already separate “kinds”. Genesis 1:25 talks about “cattle according to their kinds”. Now cattle are but one species, so the Biblical concept of “kinds” is clearly narrower even than “species”, perhaps even as narrow as individual breeds. Jollybear's “kinds” would seem closer to “genus”, even “family”.
    Do not forget that even aquatic species will need to have been cared for. Corals are especially sensitive. The slightest purturbations in temperature, salinity, turbidity etc. would be fatal. The violent, muddy waters of the flood would have thoroughly trashed the marine environment. Noah would have needed many tanks to support to both fresh and salt-water species. Then there are plants – their seeds would soon perish submerged in brackish water, or buried deep under the deluge sediments. A huge seed bank would have needed to be prepared. Then they would need to be sown and allowed to become established before the animals could be released. The logistics are a nightmare!
    Even if we allow his ridiculous underestimate of 16,000 “kinds” (that’s a hell of a lot of rapid evolution that would be needed just after the flood to get the millions of species we have now!) it is still a hopeless impossibility. Jollybear simply has no conception of how much work is involved. He ought to go work in a zoo. Chester Zoo, in England, has 4562 specimens representing 487 species. A tiny fraction of what Noah's family had to care for. The zoo employs 185 permanent, and 74 temporary staff. Even if we assume half of them are concerned with administration, managing visitors etc., that's still a lot of people needed to care for a relatively small number of animals. The idea that a family of 8 can look after a floating menagerie of even just thousands of sea-sick, stressed-out animals is just absurd.

    “As for diseases, this is not a problem because keep in mind before and during the flood people lived to a age of 800 to 900 years old.... Now if they lived ages like this, surely diseases back then were not as much of a problem as they were after the flood and in our day.”

    Jollybear is assuming that the Genesis account is correct and that people really did live that long. But he is also trying to prove the Genesis account to be correct. To assume beforehand the very thing you are trying to prove is about as circular as an argument can get. He will have to do better than citing the Bible to support the Bible.
    He still has not answered the question, which is how diseases survived the flood? Smallpox, polio, leprosy, etc. survived. How? Did each of Noah's family carry in their bodies every disease known to man? If so, and their immune systems were as strong as Jollybear contends, then why did their super strong immune systems not just wipe these disease out? Similar considerations apply to animal diseases, and also to parasites. Those that have complex life cycles, passing through several hosts, must pose especially tricky problems.
    It gets worse for Jollybear. Fossil bones showing evidence of disease are well known. Leishmaniasis, tyrpanosome and malarial parasite remains have been found in mosquitoes perserved in amber, and there is evidence for parastic infestations in dinosaur coprolites www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1784. Disease was very much a fact of life (and death) before the flood.

    “Now you asked a question about what did the lions eat after they eat the wilde beast”
    Whether lions or some ancestral cat “kind” were present on board the problem remains. Carnivores eat other animals. Food chains would rapidly break down as soon as the single pairs of prey animals were consumed. Even if one assumed that Noah could somehow persuade carnivores to eat dried meat (has Jollybear ever had a pet cat?) the problem would arise the moment the animals were released after the flood, were left to their own devices and began eating each other. Noah also has the problem of keeping the meat dry during the wettest event in history. At the near 100 % humidity that would result from a global deluge, things do not stay dry for long!
    The Biblical assertion that the animals were all vegetarian prior to the flood is demonstrable nonsense. Apart from the physiological difficulties of carnivores subsisting on a vegetable diet, the fossil evidence is clear enough. Those fangs of T. rex were quite inappropriate for nibbling the grass! Fossil dinos with the crunched up remains of their last meal in their stomachs, coprolites (fossil poo) full of crunched up bones, and bones showing bite marks (like a Triceratops with teeth marks in its frill, which had partially healed, showing it was alive when the attack occurred and it survived) make it clear that steak was very much on the menu before the flood.

    “As you have probably noticed I have been making some assumptions here.”
    “Special pleading” might be a better description.

    “So keep in mind the bible is not a ship ology book, it’s a spiritual book.”
    It is not a science book either but Jollybear treats it as such.

    “And you asked for logical answers“
    Am still waiting for them.

    “ God sent the animals to Noah”
    How convenient. God did it. So God himself personally transported pairs of each “kind” and materialised them at the Ark. Certainly they could not have made it across a giant continent under their own steam. And did God disperse them afterwards, making sure that the penguins all went to the south pole, while polar bears headed north, the marsupials mostly to Australia (and a few to S. America), the dodoes only to Mauritius and the pandas only to China? Did he do the same with plants? How come cacti come only from the Americas? Indeed, how did they even survive the flood? They and their seeds will not survive prolonged immersion. Once again, expect the universal cop out “God did it” answer.

    “Each original kind would have all the information within it to branch off variations of species, but each of those species would remain in its parent kind. This is not evolution, but variation.”
    Sounds like evolution to me but with a very confused concept of “species” and “kinds”. How muddled creationists get when forced to fit everything to the Bible. And as I said before, a single pair could NOT carry all the genetic information necessary.

    “Egyptian history begins after 3000 BC. Noah’s flood happens around 2500 BC.”
    So the Egyptians were busily laying the foundations of their civilisation up to 500 years BEFORE the flood. That there is no break at the time of the flood shows there was no flood. I might add that the Indus civilisation also neatly straddles the flood period (3300 – 1700 BC) and seemed to manage just fine. Doubtless there are many other examples around the world. Expect Jollybear to claim that the arachaeologists are all wrong.

    “And the Mesopotamia itself has a flood legend.”
    Yes, it's in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and it predates the Bible. Its hero rescues animals on a raft. No prizes for guessing where the compilers of Genesis got their inspiration.

    “Now where did all the water go?”
    Landmasses thrusting up or rushing off to form widely separated continents WOULD melt the earth's crust. Creationists just have no conception of the amount of energy involved. Note that the deep ocean floor rock (ie. away from the continental shelf) is basalt 7 kilometres thick, a once molten rock which melts at about 1000 deg C. If this was all formed in just a few years, rather than millions, as it would have to have been in the creationist fantasy, then indeed it seems the crust was melted! How odd the oceans did not boil with another ocean of 1000 deg C, 7 km deep molten basalt under them! Jollybear please explain.

    “Yes it would take allot of energy.”
    And where did all that energy come from?

    “Next how could the jungle and everything else recover after the flood? Well very easily, and very quickly at that. Look at mt st Helens eruption. After three years things grew beyond the expectation of many peoples theories....”
    Mt St Helens did not recover that fast and has still not recovered. The forests will take decades to recover, not 3 years. Mt St Helens also has the huge advantage of being surrounded by undamaged forests etc. which could act as a source of seeds and animals. There is no such reservoir of life in a world emerging from a devasting global flood where all the land surface will just be one vast mudflat. The problem is worse with tropical rain forests (or any other complex interacting community like a coral reef). Everything in these communities depends on everything else. Pollinating insects depending on the flowering of particular trees would have to wait years until the trees have grown and matured and begun flowering. Some insects, like fig wasps, rely on specific trees and will accept no alternatives. Whatever eats those insects, in turn must wait. Animals that eat the fruit must wait. Animals that eat the animals that eat the fruit must wait. Many seeds will not even germinate until they have passed through the gut of an animal, but those animals have no fruit to eat. Beetles whose grubs eat rotting wood must wait until trees have grown, died and fallen. Parasitic wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpilars must wait. Anteaters starve as they wait for ant and termite colonies to become established. But they, in turn, must wait for the forest to grow and provide the cover and leaf litter etc. they need. And so on, and on, and on. Complex life cycles depending on everything being in place and doing the right thing at the right time just fall apart. There is no way the earth could have recovered so swiftly after the greatest mass extinction of all time. Unless, of course, God did it.

    Re Jollybear's ramblings about God, free will and love. If God is so powerful He can gives us free will WITHOUT it all then going wrong. Also, drowning the entire planet is hardly the action of a loving being, and nor is it likely to encourage his human playthings to love him back. Fear him yes, but love him? Anyway, what is this subject doing in an earth science thread?

    “back in history a guy named Antonio a creationist was the first to come up with the fact that the continents were once one land mass, then broke apart by Noah’s flood”
    Presumably Antonio Snider-Pelligrini in 1858, although there were others even earlier who speculated about the fit between the coastlines of west Africa and S. America. Wegener developed it further and put it on a firmer scientific footing (without the flood bit). That the theory was slow to be taken up only reflects the lack of evidence at the time. Once the evidence was found acceptance followed swiftly. That science changes while Biblical creationism does not only goes to show that science accepts the evidence and goes with it, whilst the creationists stubbornly stick to the same old discredited Biblical myths regardless of the evidence (in fact they twist the evidence to try and fit it to the Bible). Science eventually accepted continental drift and plate tectonics because the evidence became overwhelming. It rejects young earth creationism and accepts evolution for the same reason. The evidence is overwhelming. Creationists are just a bunch of die-hard bigots who put their Bible before science.

    “Well first what is more credible, documented history written down, or modern day science and thought and methods to figure out the long past? Documented history is more credible and reliable.”
    What an astonishing statement! Science is based on verifiable experiment and observation. If you don't believe it you can repeat the experiments and observations yourself. Documented history is not and is dependant on taking the author's word for it.

    So Jollybear's mum saw an angel? Even more have seen the risen Elvis Presley at their local supermarket, or report being abducted by aliens. Jollybear is getting seriously off-topic here. His ramblings about miracles, babbling in tongues, personal experiences, God talking etc. are all well covered and explained in psychological literature and are quite out of place in an earth science thread.

    “Jesus fulfilled every one of the old testament prophesies about himself.”
    Again well off-topic, but for the record it should be noted that the Gospel writers were steeped in the Old Testament and will have read the prophesies and cooked up stories in which Jesus fulfilled them. This is well covered in sites dealing with Biblical scholarship and well known to anyone who has read the Bible with an open mind. If Jollybear wants to discuss it then he should do so on a more appropriate forum. This one is about earth science. Multiplying the topics only leads to bigger and bigger posts, as is happening here.

    Jollybear has not answered Barry's query about varves. These are cyclical lake bed sediments. Their layers can be counted back, like the rings of a tree, uninterrupted for 12,000 years (to the end of the last ice age). They can even be used to calibrate C-14 dating, which in turn also correlates with tree rings, providing independent verification. Fossil varves contain 100s of 1000s of layers. Creationists HATE them and go into all sorts of mental contortions to evade them. I await Jollybear's response with eager anticipation.

    “Stephen I am going to post this ... then I will reply to your post”
    Can hardly wait!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi everyone. I know I said I would respond to your response on kevins rebuttal to austins rock samples after I replied to Barry. However this makes two huge conversations on the same forum. And it takes allot of time and makes it long and unorganized and the discussion going all over the place. Its hard to keep up with it. So I will reply to the latest replies. And perhaps we will get back to the Kevin Austin discussion later. Keep in mind, im not ignoring that, im just trying to organize the discussion and my thoughts and keep the momentum going on one flow of discussion. But I do want to be courteous and address every point everyone is making too.

    Ok, some points have been repeated, so I am just going to digest them all, see all the statements, questions and then find some answers to the repeated questions and to the new questions. And I’ll type them out and I’ll be back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    jollybear, you might want to follow Stephen's sound advice to restrict this to discussions related to Earth Science. I might try to break the thread into two, with one portion remaining here focused on that aspect and the others moved to religion, or philosophy as seems appropriate. Would this be OK with you?
    If it is I'm likely to be offline until Tuesday of next week, so it won't happen instantly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    hi Ophiolite. If you wish to split it up, thats ok with me. But wouldent that make it more complicated at the same time, because then we would have to go to two forums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Jollybear - please either split it up or stick to the topic. Multiplying the topics only means bigger and bigger posts which take time to write. The only reason I have the time right now is that I am off work with a broken leg. Even so it can take an hour or two to go through your posts and then reply - and I have the advantage of being a scientist with a mixed chemistry/earth science background so can draw on my own knowledge and experience without needing to look up evowiki, talkorigins etc. all the time. I have also debated creationists in the past so am familiar with their usual lies and rubbish, sadly you are no different, you seem too quick to believe the nonsense on creationist websites. Most creationist arguments follow the same patterns. Selectivity with the evidence (picking the data that fits, ignoring that which does not - sometimes called "cherry picking") is perhaps the most common, followed closely by straw men arguments (misrepresenting your opponents' views - the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy is one of the most common). I have also seen circular arguments, ad hominem arguments, false premises, indeed all the usual logical fallacies, even outright lies. I guess this is to be expected as what inevitably happens when one starts with a false premise (the Bible is inerrant) and then tries to fit everything to that premise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •