ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

But...I'm waiting for you to show how decay constants are "garbage." All you have shown here are minor fluctuations in short-lived isotopes (and therefore are species which are not even used in radiometric dating) and/or using non-natural mechanisms like lasers and near absolute zero temperatures; Noah would have had to REALLY bundle up under those conditions.

You're going to have to try harder than that.

Well let us see:

1. a .3th of 1%/annum over 100 years = a 33% increase over time. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

2 a 10,000% increase in decay rates in 90 minutes using a pail, a trolling motor and water is something. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

3. The evidence from the multi year RATE also showed many ways decay rates can be accelerated. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

4. apogee and perigee of earths orbit accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

5. Neutrino bombardment accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants!


Given that this was an infallible dogma of evolutionism- it is a new field of research. More and more are they finding ways that decay rates can be accelerated by more and more methodologies.

You can trust tehm if you wish- but given more and more ways are showing how decay rates can be accelerated and how more and more ways daughter and parent elements can migrate in and out of samples- no thanks!

 

[pitabread]

3. The evidence from the multi year RATE also showed many ways decay rates can be accelerated. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

You know what else RATE found? That if the decay rates accelerated to produce the necessary radioactive byproducts during the flood (which is what ICR argues for), then Noah and his family would have been cooked.

Unless they invoke supernaturalism to save Noah their own ideas are invalidated by basic physics. And by invoking supernaturalism they aren't doing science in the first place. Makes you wonder what the point of the RATE project was.

 

[Speedwell]

Well let us see:

1. a .3th of 1%/annum over 100 years = a 33% increase over time. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

2 a 10,000% increase in decay rates in 90 minutes using a pail, a trolling motor and water is something. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

3. The evidence from the multi year RATE also showed many ways decay rates can be accelerated. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

4. apogee and perigee of earths orbit accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

5. Neutrino bombardment accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants!


Given that this was an infallible dogma of evolutionism- it is a new field of research. More and more are they finding ways that decay rates can be accelerated by more and more methodologies.

You can trust tehm if you wish- but given more and more ways are showing how decay rates can be accelerated and how more and more ways daughter and parent elements can migrate in and out of samples- no thanks!

And you, of course, are certain that scientists are unaware of any of these findings which you think are the first to have discovered.

Now what you need to do is show us how these various possible variations in decay rates can collapse the 14 billion year apparent history of the universe into 6000 years without leaving the evidence that scientists who understand radioactive decay would expect as a consequence of such extreme variation. The RATE group had to give up. Maybe you are smarter than they are.

 

[lasthero]

Well let us see:

1. a .3th of 1%/annum over 100 years = a 33% increase over time. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

2 a 10,000% increase in decay rates in 90 minutes using a pail, a trolling motor and water is something. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

3. The evidence from the multi year RATE also showed many ways decay rates can be accelerated. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

4. apogee and perigee of earths orbit accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

5. Neutrino bombardment accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants!


Given that this was an infallible dogma of evolutionism- it is a new field of research. More and more are they finding ways that decay rates can be accelerated by more and more methodologies.

You can trust tehm if you wish- but given more and more ways are showing how decay rates can be accelerated and how more and more ways daughter and parent elements can migrate in and out of samples- no thanks!

Can you explain this?

 

[nolidad]

How many times do I have to explain that there are not deep liquid oceans in the Earth's mantle that can burst out at the Earth's surface; the 'water' in the Earth's mantle is in the form of hydroxyl ions that are chemically combined with silicate minerals. Your link - Are Oceans of Water Hiding Beneath Earth’s Surface? – Science World (which, by the way, is not a peer-reviewed publication) led me to a paper in Nature , Hydrous mantle transition zone indicated by ringwoodite included within diamond . The abstract of this paper makes the matter perfectly clear. It says,

Then take it up with the authors of the research and peer reviewed papers they had published! I am quoting from the m.

And one pair said there is a water ocean the size of the arctic under Asia! If you disagree take it up with them. I am only pasting their words. I am not making stuff up so you can have a snit! It is theeir words not mine. How many times do I have to say that.

I understand it is ringwoodite! I also understand they said this can redo how water developed on the surface. And they also said that water may have been forced down by subduction and became trapped in ringwoodite. so pleaswe you can tell me how wrong they are all day long! But I cannot change their article for them.

 

[46AND2]

Well let us see:

1. a .3th of 1%/annum over 100 years = a 33% increase over time. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

2 a 10,000% increase in decay rates in 90 minutes using a pail, a trolling motor and water is something. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

3. The evidence from the multi year RATE also showed many ways decay rates can be accelerated. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

4. apogee and perigee of earths orbit accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants.

5. Neutrino bombardment accelerates decay constants. Nothing is supposed to vary decay constants!


Given that this was an infallible dogma of evolutionism- it is a new field of research. More and more are they finding ways that decay rates can be accelerated by more and more methodologies.

You can trust tehm if you wish- but given more and more ways are showing how decay rates can be accelerated and how more and more ways daughter and parent elements can migrate in and out of samples- no thanks!

Again, nothing to do with radiometric dating. Besides, it isn't enough to show that there are ways we can manipulate the decay constants through artificial means. You've got to show that NATURE ACTUALLY DID change the constants, because you need some way to account for all that radioactive decay byproduct in light of the young earth model.

But I know you can't do this, because we know that the constant for radiocarbon hasn't changed in at least 12k years, because it would be OBVIOUS when we test tree rings. At some point, if there was a massive acceleration of decay, we would find a tree where the inner rings would have NO RADIOCARBON, and the outer rings would be consistent with today's rates. But we don't see that. We have multiple sets of tree rings that go back over 10k years without discontinuity.

And we know that it has been consistent for at least 40,000 years due to varves in multiple lakes. If any acceleration had occurred during that time frame, the deepest varves would contain NO RADIOCARBON, and the most shallow would be consistent with today's rate. Yet we find ALL varves consistent with current decay constants.

Then there are ice cores which push the date back even further.

And more, and more. There are dozens upon dozens of tests like these that are perfectly consistent with decay rates being constant. So much so, that it's ridiculous to even suggest accelerated decay. You're really better off trying something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So their PHD's, awards won in their fields, papers published, chairing science depts. in colleges, are all out of ignorance?

Who do you think Jesus is?

They can do real science when their false beliefs are not challenged. It is when they run into a conflict that they compartmentalize. The problem is that their ability to reason is extremely limited when they do this. So much so that their ICR works are often refutable by high school students. They do no real work in the sciences that support creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then take it up with the authors of the research and peer reviewed papers they had published! I am quoting from the m.

And one pair said there is a water ocean the size of the arctic under Asia! If you disagree take it up with them. I am only pasting their words. I am not making stuff up so you can have a snit! It is theeir words not mine. How many times do I have to say that.

I understand it is ringwoodite! I also understand they said this can redo how water developed on the surface. And they also said that water may have been forced down by subduction and became trapped in ringwoodite. so pleaswe you can tell me how wrong they are all day long! But I cannot change their article for them.

RATE was never peer reviewed and is thought to be garbage by real scientists.

And in case you did not know, real scientists do not swear not to follow the scientific method.

 

[nolidad]

RATE was never peer reviewed and is thought to be garbage by real scientists.

And in case you did not know, real scientists do not swear not to follow the scientific method.

Ah! the standard bigoted line emerges once again. YEC Scientists are not real scientists!

Rate was peer reviewed by real scientists. Many of their findings have now been validated by evolutionary scientists.

And YEC scientists absolutely believe in the scientific method- that is why they are punching aircraft carrier size holes in the dogmas of evolution.

Maybe you should reread the little blurb you have for your name at the bottom.
And in case you forgot here is the scientific method in a nutshell: from Wiki

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductionsdrawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises

 

[nolidad]

They can do real science when their false beliefs are not challenged. It is when they run into a conflict that they compartmentalize. The problem is that their ability to reason is extremely limited when they do this. So much so that their ICR works are often refutable by high school students. They do no real work in the sciences that support creationism.

So given this response I take it your field of specialization is mind reading or ESP?

As for your allegation they do no real work that supports creationism. PROVE IT!

 

[nolidad]

Again, nothing to do with radiometric dating. Besides, it isn't enough to show that there are ways we can manipulate the decay constants through artificial means. You've got to show that NATURE ACTUALLY DID change the constants, because you need some way to account for all that radioactive decay byproduct in light of the young earth model.

But I know you can't do this, because we know that the constant for radiocarbon hasn't changed in at least 12k years, because it would be OBVIOUS when we test tree rings. At some point, if there was a massive acceleration of decay, we would find a tree where the inner rings would have NO RADIOCARBON, and the outer rings would be consistent with today's rates. But we don't see that. We have multiple sets of tree rings that go back over 10k years without discontinuity.

And we know that it has been consistent for at least 40,000 years due to varves in multiple lakes. If any acceleration had occurred during that time frame, the deepest varves would contain NO RADIOCARBON, and the most shallow would be consistent with today's rate. Yet we find ALL varves consistent with current decay constants.

Then there are ice cores which push the date back even further.

And more, and more. There are dozens upon dozens of tests like these that are perfectly consistent with decay rates being constant. So much so, that it's ridiculous to even suggest accelerated decay. You're really better off trying something else.

Artificail means? so then trying to make a scale a feather is useless? fruit fly experimentation to speed up evolution is useless?

But neutrino bombardment and the apogee and perigee of the earths orbit is not artificial means. Hydraulic cavitation is not an artificial means.

Besides the consensus still remains that NOTHING can alter the decay constant and that has been now empirically proven to be false- so those who still hold to it are lying!

If it has been constant for so long- why do they find rocks with known ages of less than two centuries to date at several million years?

Why do they find C-14 in diamonds?

Why do they find C-14 in hundreds of millions of year old coal beds?

Why do different methods produce discordant ages many of the time?

 

[Speedwell]

Besides the consensus still remains that NOTHING can alter the decay constant and that has been now empirically proven to be false- so those who still hold to it are lying!

That has never been the consensus. The consensus is and has been that decay constants cannot vary without leaving evidence. Even the RATE group acknowledges this.

If it has been constant for so long- why do they find rocks with known ages of less than two centuries to date at several million years?

Why do they find C-14 in diamonds?

Why do they find C-14 in hundreds of millions of year old coal beds?

Why do different methods produce discordant ages many of the time?

Not a problem or a mystery for those who actually understand radiometric dating.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why do they find C-14 in diamonds?

Why do they find C-14 in hundreds of millions of year old coal beds?

Why do different methods produce discordant ages many of the time?

C-14 Found in Diamonds?

It's not a mystery to anyone, except you obviously.

You aren't one of these people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old are you?

 

[Jimmy D]

he scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises

Note the bolded text.

Please read through point 6 of creation.com's "about us".....

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

(Similar statements are found on AIG and the other YEC "science" sites.)

Can you see a contradiction here?

YECs will not eliminate or refine their hypotheses based on experimental finding. Their hypotheses, that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a global flood etc, is set in stone. Instead they are forced to reject any and all evidence that conflicts with their hypothesis. That is not following the scientific method.

 

[Jimmy D]

And YEC scientists absolutely believe in the scientific method- that is why they are punching aircraft carrier size holes in the dogmas of evolution.

Yet you have abjectly failed, throughout the thread, to provide any examples.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yet you have abjectly failed, throughout the thread to provide any examples.

There is a readiness among many YECs to accept the bland assertions of the YEC chorus masters. I have the impression they often get these assertions third or fourth hand, so that items long disregarded by the thoughtful YECs are still being paraded as the latest in refutation of evolution.
It's rather sad. The universe is a marvellous place and their compulsion to reduce it to a simplistic Seven Day Wonder diminishes that rich complexity by several orders of magnitude.

 

[nolidad]

Yet you have abjectly failed, throughout the thread, to provide any examples

The Institute for Creation Research

Here are research papers. Knock yourself out! I am sure you will find a quark of data you can use to say they don't follow the scientific method in their research however! After all most of you on the evolution side here don't believe they are real scientists anyway!

 

[nolidad]

the impression they often get these assertions third or fourth hand, so that items long disregarded by the thoughtful YECs are still being paraded as the latest in refutation of evolution.
It's rather sad. The universe is a marvellous place and their compulsion to reduce it to a simplistic Seven Day Wonder diminishes that rich complexity by several orders of magnitude.

Well your impression and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McD's!

Marvelous is to small a word to describe what we who know God created it in 6 days describe it!

Maybe you can marvel at pentillion X pentillion cosmic mistakes to make a universe- I view it much higher!

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and thefirmament sheweth his handywork.

Psalm 97:6
The heavens declare his righteousness, and all thepeople see his glory.

 

[Speedwell]

The Institute for Creation Research

Here are research papers. Knock yourself out! I am sure you will find a quark of data you can use to say they don't follow the scientific method in their research however! After all most of you on the evolution side here don't believe they are real scientists anyway!

Some them used to be, but a person who subscribes to the principle that "no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." cannot be considered a scientist.

 

[pitabread]

And YEC scientists absolutely believe in the scientific method- that is why they are punching aircraft carrier size holes in the dogmas of evolution.

There is zero truth to this statement. It's pure creationist propaganda.