Who's spreading falsehoods?

[RealityCheck]

Zeus had a wife. GOD does not. If Zeus had a wife that means that there is more than just him and he didn't create everything which exists. CHRIST created everything and without HIM there was nothing. He didn't need a wife.

That's not proof that's merely a counter-claim.

But in fact you're wrong - according to Christian belief, God DOES have a wife - it's called the church.

"that means that there is more than just him"

Isn't there more than just God already?

 

[Valkhorn]

Calling people liars never built anyone's character either....

And being a liar helped?

 

[LittleNipper]

That's not proof that's merely a counter-claim.

But in fact you're wrong - according to Christian belief, God DOES have a wife - it's called the church.

"that means that there is more than just him"

Isn't there more than just God already?

The CHURCH is the bride of CHRIST and the position is figurative to demonstrate relationship. The CHURCH in any case is clearly the/a creation of CHRIST and has produced no children.....

 

[LittleNipper]

And being a liar helped?

Are you speaking of evolution and for evolutionists, or are you just speaking for yourself?

 

[LittleNipper]

Your lack of logic in your assumptions is astounding, as is your strange interpretation that Jesus created -anything- when in your own mythos Jesus said he did not; he only said he was there to witness YHWH the father-god of Jewish mythos do it.

Oh, and the Jewish god is at least partially-based on Amen-Ra, who did have a wife at one time in the earliest versions of those myths.

You accept myth and ignore biblical truth.....
Colossians 1:14-18

In whom we have redemption through HIS blood, the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn of every creature: for by HIM were all things created, that are in heaven , and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by HIM: and HE is before all things, and by HIM all things consist. And HE is the head of the body, the church......

 

[Aron-Ra]

Are you speaking of evolution and for evolutionists, or are you just speaking for yourself?

Let me guess; you can't answer the challenge of the OP either, right?

 

[Aron-Ra]

You accept myth and ignore biblical truth......

No, I don't ignore anything. I accept the truth that what you believe are myths like many others. Otherwise, it wouldn't require faith to believe it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Let me guess; you can't answer the challenge of the OP either, right?

Three proofs for young earth:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf025/sf025p10.htm

 

[RealityCheck]

Three proofs for young earth:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf025/sf025p10.htm

Those are not proofs, Nipp. Those are references to oddities found in radioactive dating methods that appear to question the validity of those dating methods. In the 25 years since this was written, however, these questions have been addressed. Take for example this claim:

Diffusion calculations insist that Pb in zircon crystals found in deep granite cores at 313°C should diffuse out of the crystals at the rate of 1% in 300,000 years. No loss of Pb can be detected at all. Therefore, the granite must be younger than 300,000 years.

First off, it's not lead that diffuses out of the crystal, but helium.

Uranium and thorium in zircons produce helium as a by-product of their radioactive decay. This helium seeps out of the the zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures.

The actual creationist claim is

If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age that conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6,000 +/- 2,000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.

This claim was made by D.R. Humphreys and others. However, here's what's wrong with it:

• Subsurface pressure and temperature conditions affect how quickly the helium diffuses out of zircons. D. R. Humphreys et al. selected a rock core sample from the Fenton Hill site, which Los Alamos National Laboratory evaluated in the 1970s for geothermal energy production. The area is within a few kilometers of the Valles Caldera, which has gone through several periods of faulting and volcanism. The rocks of the Fenton Hill core have been fractured, brecciated, and intruded by hydrothermal veins. Excess helium is present in the rocks of the Valles Caldera (Goff and Gardner 1994). The helium may have contaminated the gneiss that Humphreys et al. studied. In short, the entire region has had a very complex thermal history. Based on oil industry experience, it is essentially impossible to make accurate statements about the helium-diffusion history of such a system.
• Scientific studies, especially those with radical implications, do not mean much until the results have been replicated by others. Many scientific claims have disappeared entirely when others could not get the same results. Confidence in this particular paper is reduced by certain points:
• Most measurement errors and variabilities are not reported. Therefore, we do not know how accurate the results are.
• Humphreys et al. claimed that they studied zircons and biotites from depths of 750 and 1,490 meters in the Jemez Granodiorite. However, Sasada (1989) showed that at those depths, the samples came from a gneiss, an entirely different rock type.
• Because of math errors, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained), used by Humphreys et al. to derive their dates, are too high.
• Humphreys et al. (2003) failed properly to total their data in Appendix C, which means that they grossly underestimated the total amount of helium released by their 750-meter-deep zircons. The amount of helium in the zircons greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from the radioactive decay of uranium over 1.5 billion years. The high helium concentration may be due to samples that were abnormally high in uranium and/or to the presence of excess helium.
• Much is made of the fact that samples five and six retained the same amount of helium, even though the amounts are probably at the limit of what could be measured. The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned.
• If one discounts sample five, which is likely at the limit of measurable precision, the conclusions of Humphreys et al. (2004) rest on just three samples. Such a small data set may be the basis for further research, but not for drawing firm conclusions.
• Humphreys et al. (2003, note 9) referred to correcting "apparent typographical errors" in the raw data, casting suspicion on the validity of all the data.

The helium results could easily be due to an aberrant sample. They could be an artifact of the experimental or collecting method (e.g., defects in the zircons caused by rapid cooling) or from just plain sloppiness. We cannot know for sure until others have looked at the issue, too.

1. Producing a billion years of radioactive decay in a "Creation week" or year-long flood would have produced a billion years worth of heat from radioactive decay as well. This would pretty much vaporize the earth. Since the earth apparently has not been vaporized recently, we can be confident that the accelerated decay did not occur. (Humphreys recognizes this "heat problem" but is currently unable to provide a solution.)
2. If helium concentrations stay high around the rocks, it is possible for helium to diffuse into voids and fractures in the zircons, or at least high helium pressures could reduce the rate at which helium diffuses out. Either of these scenarios would invalidate the helium diffusion calculations in Humphreys et al. (2003, 2004). Helium concentrations within the earth become high enough for commercial mining. The sample measured by Humphreys et al. came from an area that is probably helium enriched. Helium deposits are common in New Mexico, and excess helium has been found just a few miles from where the sample was taken (Goff and Gardner 1994). To test for the presence of excess helium in their zircons, Humphreys et al. should look for 3He.
3. Uranium does not decay directly to lead; rather, it proceeds through a series of multiple intermediate radioactive elements (Faure 1986, 284-287). It takes about ten half-lives of the longest lived intermediate to achieve secular equilibrium (i.e., each intermediate having the same activity). The uranium decay series contains elements with half-lives well over 10,000 years. If the decay rates changed suddenly, we would not expect the various elements to be in a secular equilibrium. Humphreys et al. should test for this in their zircons. Other uranium ores are at secular equilibrium, indicating a constant decay rate for at least the last two million years.

 

[Molal]

Three proofs for young earth:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf025/sf025p10.htm

"Polonium halos indicate granite-producing magma cooled suddenly, not over millions of years.

Gentry's work is of particular importance because it involves actual field and laboratory work followed up by papers appearing in refereed scientific journals, offering some credibility to the field of "creation research."
There is, however, a serious weakness in Gentry's work. It has been devoted almost entirely to the physics of the polonium halos, thereby neglecting the geological setting of the samples in which the halos are found. Because of this neglect, Gentry makes unwarranted generalizations about the nature of the world's Precambrian rocks."

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium

Coalified Wood and Gentry

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Enjoy LittleNipper.

 

[thaumaturgy]

(deleted as addressed better by others here...)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Three proofs for young earth:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf025/sf025p10.htm

You may notice this was listed in the C&E thread archive as the 23rd item on the second page of a list of PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). The first time I refuted this claim myself was on Talk.Origins in the summer of 2001.

 

[Dal M.]

Sense you can only judge yourself and try to project that out on others. Are you then admiting that Evolutionists can only survive by spreading falsehoods?

John, you're an adult. "I'm like rubber, you're like glue" is no longer an acceptable debate tactic.

 

[thaumaturgy]

John, you're an adult. "I'm like rubber, you're like glue" is no longer an acceptable debate tactic.

Dal, I think JohnR's argument is a bit more subtle than that. I think it runs more along the lines of :

"Sense I am not unlike rubber and you are not unlike glue, what bounces off of me sticks to you so that ye may be judged by your own evil actions! Ye have judged thineself and found to be lacking! You will soon be written out of the Lamb's Book of Life!"

And of course the corollary of:

"Neener neener neener."

I believe it is said somewhere in 1 Timothy:

"Your mama's so fat that..."

 

[Sleeker]

the Bible remains faithful and evolution changes again and again and again.....

Which Bible?

 

[DrkSdBls]

but the Bible remains faithful and evolution changes again and again and again.....

Correction. Evolution never changes, Only one's own understanding of it does.....

But, Even if Evolution did change, that only proves that it "Evolves".

Constant Change isn't a Bad thing as long as it's an "Up-ward" progression. The sooner you realize this, the better off you'll become.

 

[RichardT]

They also still complain about Piltdown man and Ernst Haeckel's exaggurated embryo drawings from a century ago, even though it has always been the evolutionists themselves who route and expose every fraud in their own ranks;

I brought up Haeckel's drawings because that's what I guessed he was talking about. I find it sad that you will still find his drawings in some textbooks today.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I brought up Haeckel's drawings because that's what I guessed he was talking about. I find it sad that you will still find his drawings in some textbooks today.

Ignoring the fact that school textbooks in any subject are woefully inaccurate, which texts were you referring to?

 

[RichardT]

Ignoring the fact that school textbooks in any subject are woefully inaccurate,

Who's fault is that?

which texts were you referring to?

I don't remember.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Some people will never understand that repeating a false claim a gazillion times doesn't make it true...

While I agree with you and applaud you for saying so, I must add, with deep foreboding, that Hitler said something different...