Since most of these were proposed by theists who thought God did it, you've already messed up.
And that's wrong. It was first proposed by a scientist who happened to be a Catholic priest, and was vigorously attacked by an atheist, who found the idea of a created universe offensive.
In fact, two scientists from Bell Labs accidentally verified it, when they found the predicted microwave background radiation from the initial expansion.
That is old news you have done.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...L1aeoWcqX-nLyv0O2U73Dvw2Kz6ccEKBsVHxpmbt7blPq
Chimps are not 92-98% identical to man! they are between 75-85% identical. Not only has ICR proven this by so didn't encode.
Fortunately, we can determine the strength of the Earth's magnetic field well into the past; it leaves traces in minerals that were melted and solidified at the time. Turns out, it fluctuates a lot over time; sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker. The guys who fed you that one were just profoundly ignorant of the way it works.
This only happens were there is both nitrogen and radioactive materials in the area. Nitrogen, when struck by ionizing radiation, will form carbon-14. So not surprising. Diamonds, for example, often have nitrogen atoms in their crystal lattices, and kimberlite, in which diamonds form, contains uranium and thorium isotopes.
Yes but not deep below the surface. Diamonds are most often found in coal seams (for it is just coal)
Thorium and uranium do not add carbon 14 to a former organic form.
Carbon 14 starts emitting when the organic form dies!
Because the iron/nickel core of the Earth is still liquid, and therefore moves by convection, which produces a magnetic field. Mars once had a magnetic field, but when the core solidified, it stopped.
Because carbon-14 is produced when nitrogen is impacted by ionizing radiation, both of which are present in the Earth.
Since the date of the eruption that buried Pompeii was accurately dated by argon/argon methods, we know they work.
You've been misled about this, as well.
One of the main objections to radiometric dating (on the part of young earth creationists) is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless. In fact, the claim is partially true. Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated. Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods. In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods. Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate. But is this the case? Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption that each system has a different half-life (derived from the decay 'constant' which is simply the length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter). In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*). There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc). If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another. Here are a few examples in the recent literature of radiometric age determinations on the same rocks (using different isotopic methodsa).
One of the main objections to radiometric dating
Read the data and learn.
One of their common practices, is to take a very recent sample of hardened lava, which contains xenochrysts (material that remained unmelted in the eruption). This then would give an ancient date for the eruption, and creationist would do a victory lap.
Because it doesn't often give incorrect dates. (assuming one isn't ignorant of how to sample, or trying to deliberately get a bad result)
That requires finding the source of the error. Such as Gentry's inclusion of xenochrysts in dacite taken from Mt. St. Helens. In his case, it appears to have been intentional, not an error.
For The First Time, Scientists Have Made Synthetic DNA
22 FEB 2019
Earth might have a dizzying array of life forms, but our biology ultimately remains a solitary data point - we simply don't have a reference for life based on DNA different from our own. Now, scientists have taken matters into their hands to push the boundaries on what life could be like.
In fact, you share most of your genes with earthworms. And if you look at all the phyla, you find that you get the same family tree with genetics that Linnaeus got with phenotypes over a hundred years ago. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
No, that's false. Even your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, admits:
Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated equilibrium theory. Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
If so, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. Each step, as Wise notes, appears as a slightly different kind; when they are all lined up, we see completely different kinds at the beginnings and ends of the series.
The statement says much about the lack of integrity on the person who wrote that misrepresentation. In fact, there are often disagreements about details, but as genetic data accumulates, we see general agreement on major forms.
6. Changes to Bacteria and Virus DNA Show Evolution in Action
In fact, Barry Hall discovered that a culture of E. coli evolved an new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a few months. A population of Italian lizards evolved a new digestive organ as well as other new features in a matter of years. Would you like to learn about those?
See no. 6, above. You've been misled, once again.
It doesn't. Natural selection causes it to evolve. Engineers now copy evolutionary processes, when they can't design a system as they'd like. Would you like to learn about those?
See above.
It doesn't.
See no. 6. It causes the evolution of new features. Would you like to learn about some more of them?
8. Whale Fossils Show Evolution
They lied to you about that. The reason Pakicetus was considered a whale ancestor was it had the skull of a whale. It was somewhat surprising that a whale would have legs, but since then, more fossil species of whales with legs have been found, showing the evolution of these animals. Would you like to see some examples that show how various features evolved over time?
You were misled again. Basilosaurus, for example had hip bones and vestigial leg bones. And since we occasionally see vestigial legs on dolphins or whales, (in neither case are they needed for mating) your belief is demonstrably wrong.
It is a whale. But to become modern whale,the nostrils would have to move backwards to the top of the head.
Legs would first have to become flipper-like, and then give way to flukes for swimming. Would you like some more evidence for the changes?
Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, etc. all were like that, and did very well.
Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.
New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose, but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.
Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips
They are "vestigial", because they no longer have their original function. But as Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs are often evolved to a new purpose. And that's what happened in whales.
Occasionally, vestigial legs still appear on whales or dolphins.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310010/pdf/janatphys00156-0001.pdf
You were lied to on this one. In fact, apes have very curved digits. We have only slightly curved digits. Australpithecines like Lucy had digits transitional between apes and humans.
They are transitional in many other ways as well. Would you like me to show you some more of them?
Australopithecines. Interestingly enough, it's much harder to get creationists to all agree on which of these fossils are humans and which are apes. Would you like to take the challenge yourself?
10. Humans and Chimps Share 98% Genetic Identity
Depending on how you do the analysis, our genes line up between 98 and 92%. If you use non-coding DNA (which creationsits call "junk DNA"), it's more like 85%. But what ever way you do it, humans and chimpanzees are genetically more alike than either is related to any other ape.
