ICR Acts and Facts

[lasthero]

then both sides have abandoned the scientific method- if it is an unwritten (secret) dogma.

But when you look at their videos, look at their technical papers you see strict adherence to the scientific method.

Just like you cannot get a YEC sciewntist to reject approx 6,000 years, so you will not get an evolutionist to believe in nearly 14 billion years.

Hi.

Can you explain this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

It is not bigoted. The very source, ICR, that you posted requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method. YEC's simply cannot pass peer review because all of their work tends to be wrong on an idiotic level. Massive dishonest is often involved too.

Nice cut and paste on the scientific method. It also support my claim. To do science one must form scientific hypotheses. I have yet to see a creationist do this. One important characteristic of a hypothesis is it must be falsifiable based upon its own merit. That means no appeals "if the 'evolutionists' prove this I am wrong" sort of test.

But go ahead. Find a proper hypothesis with a proper test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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!

One does not need to be a mind reader when faced with massive ignorance or dishonesty. What specific claims do you need to be proven? I see that you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I made a claim that there is no real science done by YEC's. All you need to do is to find a peer reviewed article in a well respected professional journal (unfortunately that eliminates all creationist false 'peer review').

You linked to a flawed study that was roundly laughed at.

By the way, various formations alone prove the Earth is old the Green River formation alone has a record of continuous deposition six million years long:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

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!

Sorry, not research papers. Nonsense from a site where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method is of no value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi.

Can you explain this?

Magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And evolutionists will not refine nor eliminate their belief that all life started from a simple whatever and through random, undirected, unplanned mutations life bloomed to its present biodiversity. Instead they are forced to reject any and all evidence that conflicts with their presuppositional bias and indoctrinated belief system

I do not think that you understand the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss the topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

One can change nuclear decay rates, but not by using techniques found in the crust of the Earth. There was one amazing example, I could probably dig it up for you if you needed to see it. But a heavier element that was stripped of all of its electrons underwent very rapid electron capture decay (if I recall correctly). The problem is that such heat does not exist even within the Sun itself.

As to C-14 in diamonds there are inherent errors in measurements, and C-14 can also be made within the Earth by a method similar to how it is made in the atmosphere. Irradiate N-14 strongly enough and it will occur. Though the most likely cause is simply contamination from one of several sources. When measuring the amount of C-14 in a very very dilute sample any contamination at all will give a false "young" date. When one accounts for the various sources of possible contamination most of the so called dates "disappear".

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?

 

[tas8831]

Most puzzling thing to me is that these amazing creation scientists, rather than try to support their hypotheses of creation, instead direct ALL of their energies in trying desperately to find fault with some aspect of evolution.

It is almost as if they are afraid to test their own creation story scientifically. One has to wonder why...

 

[Speedwell]

Most puzzling thing to me is that these amazing creation scientists, rather than try to support their hypotheses of creation, instead direct ALL of their energies in trying desperately to find fault with some aspect of evolution.

It is almost as if they are afraid to test their own creation story scientifically. One has to wonder why...

Of course it has to be taken into account that they think that the ONLY reason not to believe in the absolute truth of a literal Genesis is the theory of evolution. They don't think they have anything to prove on their own account. The only reason they need creation scientists is to disprove evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it has to be taken into account that they think that the ONLY reason not to believe in the absolute truth of a literal Genesis is the theory of evolution. They don't think they have anything to prove on their own account. The only reason they need creation scientists is to disprove evolution.

I have found that when explaining how an idea must be testable that I have had to add the obvious. That the concept must pass or fail that test on its own. One cannot test it by saying "when evolution is proven my concept fails". Science of course does not work that way. Concepts are never proven to be true. Gravity is not proven to be true. But One can test the concept of gravity. One can design tests that allow it to fail as a concept.

Creationists have been burned too many times. Their ideas regularly fail. That is why one does not see a hypothesis of creation.

 

[nolidad]

As to C-14 in diamonds there are inherent errors in measurements, and C-14 can also be made within the Earth by a method similar to how it is made in the atmosphere. Irradiate N-14 strongly enough and it will occur. Though the most likely cause is simply contamination from one of several sources. When measuring the amount of C-14 in a very very dilute sample any contamination at all will give a false "young" date. When one accounts for the various sources of possible contamination most of the so called dates "disappear".

Well your problem is that you forget how C-14 disseminates. Once a critter dies it no longer takes in Carbon but starts emitting it! Diamonds are hardened coal which is remains of trees etc. They no longer intake C but emit it. If fossil remnants (and diamonds are just a fossil rock) can still intake C-14, then C-14 should be ejected as totally inaccurate.

But you also seem to forget that diamonds with C-14 in them is nigh impossible. C-14 has a supposed max life of 100k years. Diamonds supposedly over 200 million years should have n o C-14 in them.

 

[nolidad]

It is not bigoted. The very source, ICR, that you posted requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method. YEC's simply cannot pass peer review because all of their work tends to be wrong on an idiotic level. Massive dishonest is often involved too.

that is an outright lie!

Maybe you should check before you open you rmouth and insert your foot! YEC led the way in discovering multiple methods of accelerating radio decay. they rejected constancy and endured the ridicule for decades- and now many universities are discovering more and more ways radio decay can be accelerated. They are considered idiotic because of blatant crass religious bigotry.

Nice cut and paste on the scientific method. It also support my claim. To do science one must form scientific hypotheses. I have yet to see a creationist do this. One important characteristic of a hypothesis is it must be falsifiable based upon its own merit. That means no appeals "if the 'evolutionists' prove this I am wrong" sort of test.

Well remove your blinders and see the real world instead of through those bigoted glasses.

One does not need to be a mind reader when faced with massive ignorance or dishonesty. What specific claims do you need to be proven? I see that you are trying to shift the burden of proof. I made a claim that there is no real science done by YEC's. All you need to do is to find a peer reviewed article in a well respected professional journal (unfortunately that eliminates all creationist false 'peer review').

And there is the catch -22 ! the only "well respected journals" are those that promote evolution controlled by evolutionists. The odds of a young earth or evidence that refutes biological evolution has about as much of a chance as a drop of water surviving on the sun!

 

[nolidad]

Hi.

Can you explain this?

All those ages are flawed because they rely on the radiometric dating forms.

They have tested rocks in hawaii of known ages of 150 years and they tested in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

 

[lasthero]

All those ages are flawed because they rely on the radiometric dating forms.

They have tested rocks in hawaii of known ages of 150 years and they tested in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

If the techniques are flawed, why do they all increase the further they get from the hotspot? If the islands were all created around the same time and radiometric dating is flawed, there’s no reason for it to be like that.

Furthermore, why do all the islands show a different amount of decay, also in accordance from how far they are from the hotspot? Again, if they were all made around the same time, there’s no reason for it to be like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well your problem is that you forget how C-14 disseminates. Once a critter dies it no longer takes in Carbon but starts emitting it! Diamonds are hardened coal which is remains of trees etc. They no longer intake C but emit it. If fossil remnants (and diamonds are just a fossil rock) can still intake C-14, then C-14 should be ejected as totally inaccurate.

But you also seem to forget that diamonds with C-14 in them is nigh impossible. C-14 has a supposed max life of 100k years. Diamonds supposedly over 200 million years should have n o C-14 in them.

Wrong. My article explained that. You are wrong about where C-14 comes from. It is not made only in the upper atmosphere. It can be made by exposing N-14 to radiation underground as well. But that probably was not the source. It was most likely contamination from several possible sources. It is merely a reasonable glitch.

Why didn't you read the article?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All those ages are flawed because they rely on the radiometric dating forms.

They have tested rocks in hawaii of known ages of 150 years and they tested in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

Time to get into a shorter river.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is an outright lie!

I don't have to lie. I am not a YEC.

Maybe you should check before you open you rmouth and insert your foot! YEC led the way in discovering multiple methods of accelerating radio decay. they rejected constancy and endured the ridicule for decades- and now many universities are discovering more and more ways radio decay can be accelerated. They are considered idiotic because of blatant crass religious bigotry.

Really? Where? You need peer reviewed science from well respected professional journals. Not garbage from creationist (rhymes with journals, sort of). Please support your claim with valid sources. How much do you want to bet that you can't?

Well remove your blinders and see the real world instead of through those bigoted glasses.

Oh my, now that is some world class projection.

And there is the catch -22 ! the only "well respected journals" are those that promote evolution controlled by evolutionists. The odds of a young earth or evidence that refutes biological evolution has about as much of a chance as a drop of water surviving on the sun!

No, those well respected journals are controlled by scientists. You appear to be making false claims about others. That is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. Think about it. The ignorant creationists that you follow would actually have a case if they could show that an article was improperly rejected.

 

[46AND2]

They have tested rocks in hawaii of known ages of 150 years and they tested in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

No they didn't. This has been refuted for at least a decade. You should really stop using the claim.

They were testing xenoliths, which are inclusions in the lava that were not fully melted, and therefore didn't have their "clocks reset." They EXPECTED the old dates on the inclusion.

When they tested the actual lava, they got results consistent with its young age.

All of that information is readily available in the paper that the apologists used as their source. One just has to actually read it....and understand it, I guess.

I mean, why would they publish such ridiculous numbers if it really was as you claim? First, you claim that they lie about results, now you claim that they published results that they SHOULD have lied about?

Make up your mind.

 

[46AND2]

Well your problem is that you forget how C-14 disseminates. Once a critter dies it no longer takes in Carbon but starts emitting it! Diamonds are hardened coal which is remains of trees etc. They no longer intake C but emit it. If fossil remnants (and diamonds are just a fossil rock) can still intake C-14, then C-14 should be ejected as totally inaccurate.

But you also seem to forget that diamonds with C-14 in them is nigh impossible. C-14 has a supposed max life of 100k years. Diamonds supposedly over 200 million years should have n o C-14 in them.

And they don't have C-14 in them. Diamonds are actually used as blanks in the AMS system. They measure them to find out how much background C-14 is in the system and/or preparation methods.

The radiocarbon was not from the diamonds, but from the machine and sample preparation.

 

[tas8831]

First, you claim that they lie about results, now you claim that they published results that they SHOULD have lied about?

Make up your mind.

Reminds me of a creationist that cited a paper on mtGenome phylogeny of Canids favorably, claiming it showed that there was no precursor to Canids, but when I showed him a paper also using mtGenomes re: primate phylogeny, he dismissed it because he didn't like the results.