Young-Earth Creationist input only, please...

[Numenor]

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video

Download the videos watch them. they're free

I think think the random quote I got when I visited that page says it all about Hovind:

GRRR Dr. Hovind, me is a mad athest, darn you for disproving mine theory. I be so angwy, that insted uf opining my mind, i am gunna continue to lye about...

 

[shernren]

Does he said there's no other result? remember you're accusing YEC of liars, which breaks law(libel) if you can't prove it.

I've shown you my scholarly source. You show me yours. An actual paper would be nice.

Fallacious claim. where does it say scientist didn't date the lava? they dated both, can't they? Before you accusing YEC are liars make sure you have prove to back up your claim.

Do you like go to court? Stop making "liar" charges unless you can prove it from legal perspective!

From don lindsay site quoted (emphasis mine) :

The article reports that the theory was correct. K/Ar dating should not be used on xenoliths. But, the article clearly states (on page 4603) that the surrounding lava was dated correctly. This article casts no doubts whatsoever on the dating of lava.

Until you can quote to me an actual passage from the article that states that the surrounding lava was dated at 22 million years old, your claim is not as authoritative as mine.

1. Remember it's dated by a professional dating agency, they know a lot more about what method to use than talkorigin.org. to assume they don't know the most basic precedures of radiometric dating is absurd.

They knew the procedures ... they didn't know that what Snelling was going to give them, he'd later call "wood". Quoting verbatim from a letter written by them: (emphasis added)

From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:ACHERKINSKY@GEOCHRONLABS.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions

Dear Joe

I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.

Best regards.

Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab Manager

If Snelling or the creationists have anything to counter this letter why don't they produce it?

2. typical conspiracy theory that can't be falsified. blaming inaccurate result of radiometric dating on polution is like saying the inside of pineapple is green before you cut it open. and it's an old trick scientifically rejected long ago.

The site from which I quoted the letter, http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who , also talks about that. It's not just unsubstantiated.

3. when a method is unreliable, do you believe anything it produces?

Any measurement method is inherently unreliable outside its accuracy range.

A ruler is unreliable if I want to use it to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper.
An alcohol thermometer is unreliable if I want to use it to measure the temperature of an industrial furnace.
A voltmeter is unreliable if I want to use it to measure the potential difference across a lightning bolt.
A postal scale is unreliable if I want to use it to measure the mass of a bacterium.

See what I mean? When physical quantities are outside the scale of a measuring instrument measurements of those physical quantities are fundamentally unusable unless the physical quantities are somehow amplified to within the scale of measurement (say, by measuring the height of a ream of paper instead of the thickness of one sheet). Why should it be any different for carbon dating?

Besides, rocks aren't carbon dated to give the age of the earth.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I've shown you my scholarly source...

All your reasoning that the fact I'm claiming doesn't exist is you can't find it. such argument is valid only when you're omniscience.

What's the credibility of an article when it first said lava wasn't dated then said lava was dated correctly? I seriously doubt anyone would write articles this way.

Professional don't know it's a wood or not, are you kidding me? how many wood have they dated?

Do you think an error of 600000% is reliable?

 

[Biliskner]

How can the hominids be explained when holding to a literal, 6-day creation? I'm not attacking...I am genuinely seeking others' input and explanations.

Sorry I don't understand your question...
What exactly is it about hominids that we need to explain?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut12.htm

Might help... though I could have possibly just made things more confusing

 

[shernren]

All your reasoning that the fact I'm claiming doesn't exist is you can't find it. such argument is valid only when you're omniscience.

It's reasonable, isn't it? If you can't show me where you've found something then why should I have to assume that you've found it? Christian charity?

What's the credibility of an article when it first said lava wasn't dated then said lava was dated correctly? I seriously doubt anyone would write articles this way.

No, the main point of the article wasn't to date the lava, but on the side the lava was dated and found to be dated correctly.

Professional don't know it's a wood or not, are you kidding me? how many wood have they dated?

Did you read the letter? The pros said it certainly wasn't wood. At the most it was wood that had its minerals replaced (not wood per se), and research had already known before dating the mineral-replaced wood that such dating was useless.

Do you think an error of 600000% is reliable?

Let's say I use a ruler to measure the diameter of a speck of dust. The smallest accurate measurement a ruler can make is 0.5mm = 5*10^-4m. The speck of dust's actual diameter is 1 micrometer = 1*10^-6m. Error of measurement = 5*10^-4/1*10^-6 = 50,000%. Why on earth should we still use rulers when they have such a huge margin of error?

 

[nolidad]

OK, regardless of whether these skulls are in the right order or not, they still exist and are found at a greater depth than human fossils. They are bipedal creatures. They are human-like, but not human. Is the non-evolutionist point of view that these are simply separate creations just like a kangaroo, panda, and a mosquito? If so, props to God for confusing me and causing me faith-endangering doubt for years.

Well I am joining this thread fairly late and can only say do ot be fooled by "sciience falsely so called".

The line of ascent to man is a hoax loaded with hoaxes

piltdown man, peking man, java man, neanderthal man (alive today and found buried in armor BTW), austrolopithecus is an extinct ape. the missing loinks are still missing!!! On papaer evolution looks compelling-- until you hamer it out and find out it is not practical or feasible in the wolrd.

For the record I am a former evolutionist who became a theistic evolutionist who became a YEC based on scinece and the bible.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Well I am joining this thread fairly late and can only say do ot be fooled by "sciience falsely so called".

The line of ascent to man is a hoax loaded with hoaxes

piltdown man, peking man, java man, neanderthal man (alive today and found buried in armor BTW), austrolopithecus is an extinct ape. the missing loinks are still missing!!! On papaer evolution looks compelling-- until you hamer it out and find out it is not practical or feasible in the wolrd.

For the record I am a former evolutionist who became a theistic evolutionist who became a YEC based on scinece and the bible.

Well said!

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It's reasonable, isn't it? If you can't show me where you've found something then why should I have to assume that you've found it? Christian charity?

nothing related to Christian, everything about science. you said you have 100000 hairs on your head. you can't find any book to describe that. does it automatically make it right? does it automatically make it wrong?

No, the main point of the article wasn't to date the lava, but on the side the lava was dated and found to be dated correctly.

You said they didn't date the lava previously now you said they dated it and the result is right?

Did you read the letter? The pros said it certainly wasn't wood. At the most it was wood that had its minerals replaced (not wood per se), and research had already known before dating the mineral-replaced wood that such dating was useless.

Why did they still date it then?
Are they dumb?

Let's say I use a ruler to measure the diameter of a speck of dust. The smallest accurate measurement a ruler can make is 0.5mm = 5*10^-4m. The speck of dust's actual diameter is 1 micrometer = 1*10^-6m. Error of measurement = 5*10^-4/1*10^-6 = 50,000%. Why on earth should we still use rulers when they have such a huge margin of error?

your example only shows you should use a ruler to measure a dust. that's my point. and you're accusing professionals are using the wrong method which is using a ruler to measure a dust in nature.

 

[The Lady Kate]

All your reasoning that the fact I'm claiming doesn't exist is you can't find it. such argument is valid only when you're omniscience.

Fine. Show us your source and we can put this all behind us and move on.

You do have a source, don't you?

 

[The Lady Kate]

nothing related to Christian, everything about science. you said you have 100000 hairs on your head. you can't find any book to describe that. does it automatically make it right? does it automatically make it wrong?

Of course we can find a book to describe that... several books, actually.

Knowing that, a refusal to list any such book would be mighty suspicious, wouldn't you agree?

your example only shows you should use a ruler to measure a dust. that's my point. and you're accusing professionals are using the wrong method which is using a ruler to measure a dust in nature.

The example shows that one needs to use the right tool for the right job. In this case, a ruler isn't it.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Of course we can find a book to describe that... several books, actually.

Knowing that, a refusal to list any such book would be mighty suspicious, wouldn't you agree?




The example shows that one needs to use the right tool for the right job. In this case, a ruler isn't it.

Sources for moon rock is listed in the radiocarbon dating thread.I'll find the source for lava now. shernren refuses to reconcile his contradicting claim on the lava. that's truely suspicious.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sources for moon rock is listed in the radiocarbon dating thread.I'll find the source for lava now. shernren refuses to reconcile his contradicting claim on the lava. that's truely suspicious.

The claim he made or the claim you say he made?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

The claim he made or the claim you say he made?

you should ask shernren. and don't forget to let him explain why.

 

[shernren]

You said they didn't date the lava previously now you said they dated it and the result is right?

Show me where I said they didn't date the lava.

Why did they still date it then?
Are they dumb?

They were doing their duty and fulfilling business obligations in providing service to a paying client.

your example only shows you should use a ruler to measure a dust. that's my point. and you're accusing professionals are using the wrong method which is using a ruler to measure a dust in nature.

Let's say I set up a ruler measurement service. People take things to me to have their length measured, and pay me a small fee. As a service business once I am paid I do my duty and measure as best as I can. I run the business for fully 50 years and measure tens of thousands of items. And every once in a while somebody goes to some other place which uses a different method to measure length and finds that their measurements accord well with mine within the inherent inaccuracy of measurement.
One day somebody comes in and asks me to measure the diameter of a grain of dust. A single grain. I tell them that a ruler isn't made for this. They insist anyway and pay me. Because I am being paid I am obliged to offer my services, and go on to measure the dust and tell them that my best measurement is 0.5mm, whatever they want such a measurement for.
The next day this person goes to the newspapers and tells them that contextual evidence shows that the grain of dust's maximum diameter is 10 microns and that this huge lack of accuracy shows that rulers are fundamentally unsuitable for measuring distance. The accusation completely ignores the thousands of other items I have dated over the past 50 years and is silent about every time my measurement has been corroborated by independent methods.

Am I wrong to have done my job? Does this prove anything about the inaccuracy of my ruler? Or does this prove more about the dishonesty of my accuser?

[parable ends]

If this goes on radiometric labs should just stop servicing known creationists. It would be the most rational thing to do, except that the creationists would cry foul and start making up more conspiracy-censorship theories - when they were the ones crying wolf all this while.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Show me where I said they didn't date the lava.

a few pages ago.

They were doing their duty and fulfilling business obligations in providing service to a paying client.

you call this science or fraud?

Let's say I set up a ruler measurement service. People take things to me to have their length measured, and pay me a small fee. As a service business once I am paid I do my duty and measure as best as I can. I run the business for fully 50 years and measure tens of thousands of items. And every once in a while somebody goes to some other place which uses a different method to measure length and finds that their measurements accord well with mine within the inherent inaccuracy of measurement.
One day somebody comes in and asks me to measure the diameter of a grain of dust. A single grain. I tell them that a ruler isn't made for this. They insist anyway and pay me. Because I am being paid I am obliged to offer my services, and go on to measure the dust and tell them that my best measurement is 0.5mm, whatever they want such a measurement for.
The next day this person goes to the newspapers and tells them that contextual evidence shows that the grain of dust's maximum diameter is 10 microns and that this huge lack of accuracy shows that rulers are fundamentally unsuitable for measuring distance. The accusation completely ignores the thousands of other items I have dated over the past 50 years and is silent about every time my measurement has been corroborated by independent methods.
Am I wrong to have done my job? Does this prove anything about the inaccuracy of my ruler? Or does this prove more about the dishonesty of my accuser?
[parable ends]

If you do that for your client, then you're the at fault not your client. nobody hold you at gunpoint to measure something. you can reject the money. even if you don't reject the money. you should say it's less than 0.5mm instead of IS 0.5mm. also dating shell of a new killed snail as 20000 years is hardly equivalent to 0.5mm in your example.

If this goes on radiometric labs should just stop servicing known creationists. It would be the most rational thing to do, except that the creationists would cry foul and start making up more conspiracy-censorship theories - when they were the ones crying wolf all this while.

How can they resist? One went there bringing a snail shell and said "date it". they don't even know it's less than 1000 years old.

So you've successfully proved radiocarbon dating is for evolutionists only. God's will be done.