Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Being a Christian I take the charge of lying and deception very seriously.
I will not have any part of a ministry or group that is proven to be
lying and deceptive.
The accusation has been made that YECs scientists are liars and
deceivers. I would like you to prove this is the case.
Pretent this is a court of law. I want direct source materials and
links if possible. Referring me to talkorgins isn't good enough.
They've already made their position clear "Creation science
is 100% ****"..(a direct quote, see last part of: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html).
I want to read exactly what the Creation Scientist says in the context of the
original paper/document.
I'm only interested in examining scientists associated with ICR and AIG.
Being a Christian I take the charge of lying and deception very seriously.
I will not have any part of a ministry or group that is proven to be
lying and deceptive.
You'll notice no one ever said that Christians lie. The point is that those big name Creationists like Hovind lie.
__________________ “Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless
Since these points that even aig says are not true are still repeated everyday by some creationest somewhere
either they lie or are intellectually dishonest.
Since these points that even aig says are not true are still repeated everyday by some creationest somewhere
either they lie or are intellectually dishonest.
I asked for specific proof of AIG or ICR scientists lying. The link you
posted shows me AIG is concerned about being upfront and honest
with the information they are using.
A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. Conventionally, sedimentary laminae and beds are assumed to represent longer seasonal variations, or annual changes, as the layers accumulated very slowly. Mount St. Helens teaches us that the stratified layers commonly characterizing geological formations can form very rapidly by flow processes.
Lie #1 - the appearance of thin sedimentary laminations are not automatically assumed to represent annual deposits like varves. Varves are concluded to be annual deposits (not assumed) because of their composition, not appearance. A darker layer usually composed of organic material (algae, diatoms, etc.) and a lighter layer usually rich in freshwater evaporates. Each couplet represents the climate change associated with a one year period. In colder weather, the algae dies and sinks to the bottom of the lake. In warmer weather conducive to evaporation, dissolved materials in the lake precipitate out of solution at the bottom of the lake combined with an influx of sediments corresponding to melting.
What is found at Mt. St. Helens is essentially mud and ash. This is nothing like what is found at varves as Austin wants his audience to believe.
Such features have been formed quickly underwater in laboratory sedimentation tanks, and it should not surprise us to see that they have formed in a natural catastrophe.
Lie #2 - the features formed in the lab are neither anything like Mt. St. Helens nor varves, so he is lying when he even compares such catastrophic explanations to one another. He is evidently referring to experiments by Berthault (on AiG) that involved silica dust and larger sand-sized particles, not especially representative of reality that were fed by humans into a running stream of water periodically. It's another false analogy and ignores the composition differences.
As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon.
Lie #3 - the canyon at Mt. St. Helens was formed by human activity when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers drained Spirit Lake to prevent catastrophic flooding. The formation of the canyon was rapid, but was not completely natural either.
Lie #4 - the canyon at Mt. St. Helens is nothing like the real Grand Canyon. Noticeable differences are that the Grand Canyon is far more complex and contains features that attest to a long period of formation and carving: marine fossils, trace fossils, sharp meanders in the canyon, large scale limestone deposits, paleosols, cross-bedded sandstones characteristic of a desert environment, igneous intrusions, and one of the most famous angular unconformities in the world. At Mt. St. Helens, all you have is a bunch of interbedded ash and mud typical of a lahar--and geologists know what lahars are and what they look like--nothing at all like the Grand Canyon. His comparison is laughable.
John Baumgardner:
He claims to be young earth creationist but apparently attaches his name to published articles that deal with a millions-of-years timescale. Simply by publishing one thing but claiming to not actually believe it is a lie.
Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in Geodynamic Earth Models
Hans-Peter Bunge, * Mark A. Richards, Carolina Lithgow-Bertelloni, John R. Baumgardner, Stephen P. Grand, Barbara A. Romanowicz Science 1998 April 3; 280: 91-95
Abstract:
Computer models of mantle convection constrained by the history of Cenozoic and Mesozoic plate motions explain some deep-mantle structural heterogeneity imaged by seismic tomography, especially those related to subduction. They also reveal a 150-million-year time scale for generating thermal heterogeneity in the mantle, comparable to the record of plate motion reconstructions, so that the problem of unknown initial conditions can be overcome. The pattern of lowermost mantle structure at the core-mantle boundary is controlled by subduction history, although seismic tomography reveals intense large-scale hot (low-velocity) upwelling features not explicitly predicted by the models.
Andrew Snelling:
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating...
His dating of young lava from New Zealand was deceptive because he sent the samples to Geochron Laboratories that explicitly stated that they are unable to date anything younger than 2 million years using K-Ar dating. He failed to tell his audience this (lie by omission). He wanted dates of whole rock samples but he also fails to tell the reader that the proper technique is to have the xenoliths removed (another lie by omission). He doesn't even appear to want to mention the fact that his samples were contaminated by these older rocks in the AiG article (and downplays them in longer versions). Obviously older rocks that were not melted are a source for radiogenic argon.
He used a method that he knew would not work via a laboratory that he knew could not date his samples reliably, and got back results one should expect because the method is low accuracy for young samples and results will be skewed for whole rock samples that include older rocks. It's just plain shoddy and dishonest work and any trained geologist (without a ridiculous agenda like Snelling) would agree. It's easy to see the deception. Snelling assumes that his audience is uneducated and lies by omission primarily.
The reality is that the only people who fail to realize that people at organizations like AiG and ICR lie are young earth creationists themselves, and from my experience, this is usually because they do not know why the articles are wrong (or are unwilling to admit that they are error ridden). It's basically self-evident which is why the question of motivation is brought up in the other thread.
Last edited by Mechanical Bliss; 29th October 2004 at 09:05 PM.
It says Heme was found. It also says "evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues".
I don't understand the difference between Heme and Hemoglobin and "derived hemoglobin compounds". Would you expect Heme to be preserved for
65 million years?
I agree right off the bat that "red blood cells" were not found and
should not be reported to have been found. Dr. Wielands basis for
repeating this (yes..it's also in Dr. Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise" book )
is some lab techs initial comments "you got red blood cells". That's pretty
pathetic..I'm afraid. Good grief.
Lie #1 - the appearance of thin sedimentary laminations are not automatically assumed to represent annual deposits like varves. Varves are concluded to be annual deposits (not assumed) because of their composition, not appearance. A darker layer usually composed of organic material (algae, diatoms, etc.) and a lighter layer usually rich in freshwater evaporates. Each couplet represents the climate change associated with a one year period. In colder weather, the algae dies and sinks to the bottom of the lake. In warmer weather conducive to evaporation, dissolved materials in the lake precipitate out of solution at the bottom of the lake combined with an influx of sediments corresponding to melting.
What is found at Mt. St. Helens is essentially mud and ash. This is nothing like what is found at varves as Austin wants his audience to believe.
Lie #2 - the features formed in the lab are neither anything like Mt. St. Helens nor varves, so he is lying when he even compares such catastrophic explanations to one another. He is evidently referring to experiments by Berthault (on AiG) that involved silica dust and larger sand-sized particles, not especially representative of reality that were fed by humans into a running stream of water periodically. It's another false analogy and ignores the composition differences.
I wouldn't characterize these as lies. Dr. Austin is stating that layering can occur very quickly (Mt. St. Helens example) and can occur under water.
Is this not true?
Just because you have layering doesn't mean you have a long period of
time...I think is his point.
Obviously he understands no geologist would think the mud/ash layers were "seasonal " varves. He's trying to lay the foundation for further research into
ICR's catastrophism models.
I can't remember exactly off hand, so enter this as heresay, but I'm fairly certain that Dwayne Gish has lied, been caught, and continued to lie.
__________________ If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."
Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
Lie #3 - the canyon at Mt. St. Helens was formed by human activity when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers drained Spirit Lake to prevent catastrophic flooding. The formation of the canyon was rapid, but was not completely natural either.
Lie #4 - the canyon at Mt. St. Helens is nothing like the real Grand Canyon. Noticeable differences are that the Grand Canyon is far more complex and contains features that attest to a long period of formation and carving: marine fossils, trace fossils, sharp meanders in the canyon, large scale limestone deposits, paleosols, cross-bedded sandstones characteristic of a desert environment, igneous intrusions, and one of the most famous angular unconformities in the world. At Mt. St. Helens, all you have is a bunch of interbedded ash and mud typical of a lahar--and geologists know what lahars are and what they look like--nothing at all like the Grand Canyon. His comparison is laughable.
From the article, which you didn't quote..but I find more telling:
The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere.
Based upon your above comments, I'd assume you consider this a false statement? If Geologists didn't know the history behind Mt. St. Helens,
and saw the canyon..would they be "lead to obvious error"?
The reason I ask is..I heard a presentation by a fellow from ICR a number of years ago and he presented that evidence (the canyon). My first thought was..."huh...looks like it was cut out of mud...nobody's going to think a canyon cut out of mud takes a long time".
)
Linear Mode
