ICR Acts and Facts

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I seriously think he does not understand this. Nor does he want to understand. Ignorance is the creationist's ally since many of them don't want to be dishonest. As the saying goes there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. Dr. Steve Austin is a prime example of a creationist that is willing to lie to advance his beliefs. He has a real PhD in geology yet in his creationist work he makes errors that a geology undergrad would not make. The only explanation, he is lying and he knows it. He has some credentials so his fellow creationists believe his lies.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

So he supported the first one with dogged determination, but would have nothing to do with monkey business!

 

[46AND2]

So he supported the first one with dogged determination, but would have nothing to do with monkey business!

Groan.

 

[nolidad]

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.

That would be incorrect. If you are saying there is C-14 in the machjine and sample preps then all samples are subject to contamination and how can you trust any reading.

 

[nolidad]

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.

That is not what the reports I read said. YEC geologists know the difference between new lava and xenoliths. Though you see conspiracy around every YEC corner!

 

[lasthero]

That is not what the reports I read said. YEC geologists know the difference between new lava and xenoliths. Though you see conspiracy around every YEC corner!

Can you give a link to the report you read? Not the ICR interpretation of it - the actual source?

 

[nolidad]

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

so yuo are a prevaricating evolutionist. Prove that they reject the scientific method! It is easy to slander and defame people in writing- but all on your side have hard a nearly impossible time proving it.

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

You need to take it up with the person whom I paraphrased that line from.

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.

so if a sample can be contaminated by underground C-14 that makes it a useless methodology as natural factors apart from normal decay can add C-14 to a decaying thing.

Probably, most likely, reasonable? Not very convincing proofs.

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.

Then you better get in touch with all them physicists that keep saying nothing can alter decay rates.

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.

Well given that nothing of macro evolution has been proven true everyone is in good shape. I have asked for just one that has been declared a fact! scales evolving to feathers and everyone has failed!

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 your bigotry! You and I both know that what you call "well respected professional journals" are all controlled by evolutionists. They will not countenance any proof of a young earth to ever make their pages. You know it and I know it and all YEC professional scientists know it as well. YEC scientists have had thousands of papers published in those "well respected professional journals" but that is because it had nothing to do with YEC or evolution.

That is just like it was way back in the south long time ago, when only approved people could do certain things. Same bigotry- just for different reasons.

 

[nolidad]

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.

I could give you maybes and could bes. But I can get you the address of several PHD geologists who can give far more accurate answers to that.

 

[lasthero]

That is just like it was way back in the south long time ago, when only approved people could do certain things. Same bigotry- just for different reasons.

Okay, you’re going way too far now. You need to shut up and think before you write.

 

[lasthero]

I could give you maybes and could bes. But I can get you the address of several PHD geologists who can give far more accurate answers to that.

I’m not asking them. I’m asking you.

There is no reasons for the results to be like this on a young earth. If dating techniques are flawed, they shouldn’t be giving consistent results like this. If the islands were made at around the same time, they should all have about the same level of erosion.

And I could bring up further examples. For instance, if ice core dating and radioactive dating are both flawed, why do we find material in the ice that dates to the layer it’s supposed to be in?

You need to address this evidence. Not run away from it.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you better get in touch with all them physicists that keep saying nothing can alter decay rates.

How can we get in touch with all these imaginary physicists of yours?

 

[Speedwell]

so yuo are a prevaricating evolutionist. Prove that they reject the scientific method! It is easy to slander and defame people in writing- but all on your side have hard a nearly impossible time proving it.

We have proven it, with statements from the creationist ministries themselves.

 

[nolidad]

How can we get in touch with all these imaginary physicists of yours?

Google decay constants and look at all the papers written saying nothing can alter decay constants! Then pick and choose which evolutionary physicists you wish to write to

 

[nolidad]

We have proven it, with statements from the creationist ministries themselves.

that is a lie! You will not find any statement from ICR, AIG, or CRS or any other reputable YEC organization that says they reject the scientific method or requires the scientists who associate themseves to reject teh scientific method. quite the opposite in fact.

Slander and defamation demeans you!

 

[nolidad]

I’m not asking them. I’m asking you.

There is no reasons for the results to be like this on a young earth. If dating techniques are flawed, they shouldn’t be giving consistent results like this. If the islands were made at around the same time, they should all have about the same level of erosion.

And I could bring up further examples. For instance, if ice core dating and radioactive dating are both flawed, why do we find material in the ice that dates to the layer it’s supposed to be in?

You need to address this evidence. Not run away from it.

those are all maybes! But what about when they give vastly discordant dates from differing testing methods.

Y(Ou can ask me all you want. All I can do is research the answers from those who know why!

 

[pitabread]

You will not find any statement from ICR, AIG, or CRS or any other reputable YEC organization that says they reject the scientific method

Of course you can. Those organizations have faith statements they require their members to adhere to that requires rejecting anything (including scientific findings) that contradict their religious beliefs. It's right there in black and white.

They are not scientific organizations and they are not performing honest scientific research.

 

[lasthero]

those are all maybes! But what about when they give vastly discordant dates from differing testing methods.

If what you say is true, they should ALWAYS give vastly discordant dates. The chances of two completely different, faulty methods reaching the exact same result is vanishingly small. If ice core dating is wrong and radioactive dating are wrong, we should NEVER expect to find, say, material that dates to 10,000 years in 10,000 annual layers, where is should be. But we do.

Why does it keep happening? Why is there consilience?

 

[nolidad]

Of course you can. Those organizations have faith statements they require their members to adhere to that requires rejecting anything (including scientific findings) that contradict their religious beliefs. It's right there in black and white.

They are not scientific organizations and they are not performing honest scientific research.

That is your opinion- and it is wrong!

You will not find any statement rejecting the scientific method of discovery. They reject evolution and long ages based on science and research and faith just as you reject YEC based on science and research and faith.

You are just more arrogant in your slander of those who would dare disagree with you!

 

[nolidad]

If what you say is true, they should ALWAYS give vastly discordant dates. The chances of two completely different, faulty methods reaching the exact same result is vanishingly small. If ice core dating is wrong and radioactive dating are wrong, we should NEVER expect to find, say, material that dates to 10,000 years in 10,000 annual layers, where is should be. But we do.

Do you want all the known assumptions that go into radio and ice core and dendochronological dating that all have been proven wrong?

I can't answer why every radiop test ever done produce every result it ever did!

 

[lasthero]

Do you want all the known assumptions that go into radio and ice core and dendochronological dating that all have been proven wrong?

If they’re all wrong, they shouldn’t agree like they do.

There are dozens and dozens of methods to determining the age of the Earth. Not one of them brings back an age that YEC’s agree. That alone is damning enough, but to top it off, most of them back each other up, which shouldn’t happen if they’re all faulty.

I can't answer why every radiop test ever done produce every result it ever did!

You can’t even answer simple questions.

Let’s take a step back, forget about dating methods for a second. If what you say is true, the Hawaiian islands would’ve had to be made around the same time. But they all showed different levels of erosion. This makes sense if they were made over a thousands and thousands of years by the hotspot. It does not make sense if they were made during a relatively short amount of time.

Why is that?