ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

This isn't a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact.

Organizations like AiG and CMI require their members to adhere to faith statements. Those faith statements include the rejection of any findings that contradict their religious beliefs. AiG also states in their journal submissions that they may reject submissions not in line with their faith statement. Which again, includes that anything that disagrees with their religious beliefs is not valid.

Likewise ICR has a statement of core principles that includes allowing for miraculous intervention by God. As I quoted from their RATE project previously, they are not shy about appealing to miracles when their ideas run afoul of scientific investigation. That's not science.

well Sorry that people who know god do not conform to your secularist atheistic philosophy of science.

But still waiting from any of you to validate the claim they reject teh scientific method in their research.

You all seem to love to dance arund it- but not cite one time they reject it.

I can say the same with all evolutionary scientists. They reject any claim that interferes with their evolutionary belief system.

Creationist organizations do not reject evolution on the basis of science. They reject it on the basis of it contradicting their religious beliefs. This is directly written into their faith statements.

Are you not familiar with those organization's faith statements? You're the one trying to defend them, but you don't seem that familiar with what they stand for.

Actually they reject it on the basis of faith and science! the two are not mutually contradictory.

I know full well their faith statements and I also know full well their research that has empirically shown that goo to you by way of the zoo just cannot happen given 10 trillion years!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well before i invest time- define what you mean by reliable!

It should be based at least on information from well respected professional journals. No fake journals allowed. Here is a hint, if a site requires someone not to use the scientific method it is not reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cite?

Here is a very quick source for you:
CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

 

[Subduction Zone]

well Sorry that people who know god do not conform to your secularist atheistic philosophy of science.

But still waiting from any of you to validate the claim they reject teh scientific method in their research.

You all seem to love to dance arund it- but not cite one time they reject it.

I can say the same with all evolutionary scientists. They reject any claim that interferes with their evolutionary belief system.

It is improper to use the term "atheistic" as you used it since countless Christians use the same methodology. Yes, the existence of God is not used in the sciences. The sciences do not try to confirm or refute the existence of God. The problem arises when people with incorrect beliefs think that their personal beliefs being shown to be wrong is a "refutation of God".

As to proving that creationist sites require their workers not to use the scientific method you first must understand the concept. I will gladly provide the evidence that they do this but first you must understand their error. In the sciences concepts must be falsifiable. Tell me can a scientist state that no matter what one observes that the theory of evolution is correct and still claim to be following the scientific method?

Actually they reject it on the basis of faith and science! the two are not mutually contradictory.

I know full well their faith statements and I also know full well their research that has empirically shown that goo to you by way of the zoo just cannot happen given 10 trillion years!

If that were the case they could support their beliefs in scientific journals. And no, there is no evidence at all that evolution is impossible. Or at least no creationist has ever shown any here. Creationists do not even tend to understand the nature of evidence. We can discuss that too.

 

[nolidad]

It is improper to use the term "atheistic" as you used it since countless Christians use the same methodology. Yes, the existence of God is not used in the sciences. The sciences do not try to confirm or refute the existence of God. The problem arises when people with incorrect beliefs think that their personal beliefs being shown to be wrong is a "refutation of God".

Yes YEC use the scientific method

And the YEC research is not trying to prove the existence of god- but that the events in the bible have a real basis on planet earth. They are spoken of as being on earth so they should have evidence if they are true. I think you would agree with that premise.

As to proving that creationist sites require their workers not to use the scientific method you first must understand the concept. I will gladly provide the evidence that they do this but first you must understand their error. In the sciences concepts must be falsifiable. Tell me can a scientist state that no matter what one observes that the theory of evolution is correct and still claim to be following the scientific method?

False question- for hundreds of thousands of scientists declare evolution a fact ! But the imp[ortant fact you ignore, is this- that if a person has been indoctrinated all their life to view things a certain way and reach certain conclusions based on the work of others- they will do tgheir research with that in mind- that is true on both sides of the aisle!

 

[nolidad]

Here is a very quick source for you:
CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

that does nothing to validate your allegation. It shows one sample that dated to 2.8 my. Also it says nothing if xenocrysts actually were in the sample, but simply stated a generic statement without saying if they were or were not in the sample!

Allegation without substantiation!

 

[nolidad]

It should be based at least on information from well respected professional journals. No fake journals allowed. Here is a hint, if a site requires someone not to use the scientific method it is not reliable.

So then YEC sites are acceptable- they all require their members to use the scientific method in their research.

Ok then.

See you are trying to set up the argument so that you will only allow evolutionary journals to have any say in this!
Which we all know they will disagree- sometimes without even verifying the data from other evolutionists that show radio decay constants are not constant!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes YEC use the scientific method

And the YEC research is not trying to prove the existence of god- but that the events in the bible have a real basis on planet earth. They are spoken of as being on earth so they should have evidence if they are true. I think you would agree with that premise.

Sorry, but the evidence disagrees with this claim. Simpy repeating an error does not mean that you were not in error. Let's forget the parts of the Bible that have been shown to be wrong if one makes the error of interpreting it literally and focus on the scientific method first.

False question- for hundreds of thousands of scientists declare evolution a fact ! But the imp[ortant fact you ignore, is this- that if a person has been indoctrinated all their life to view things a certain way and reach certain conclusions based on the work of others- they will do tgheir research with that in mind- that is true on both sides of the aisle!

No, it is not a false question. Scientists claim that evolution is a fact since it has more than surpassed the legal level of "proof" of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". There is an extremely small chance that evolution could be shown to be wrong. But just as gravity is taken to be a fact by scientists so it gravity. And you should not make false claims. People are not indoctrinated in regards to evolution. Accepting that is evidence based. You are the victim of indoctrination. We are trying to address that.

So once again, if a scientist said that no matter what the theory of evolution is true would he be following the scientific method. Your dodge of this indicates that you know that those at ICR and other such sites are not following the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then YEC sites are acceptable- they all require their members to use the scientific method in their research.

Ok then.

See you are trying to set up the argument so that you will only allow evolutionary journals to have any say in this!
Which we all know they will disagree- sometimes without even verifying the data from other evolutionists that show radio decay constants are not constant!

Nope, they swear not to follow the scientific method. They take themselves out of the debate by doing so. Neither are they well respected. They are the laughing stock of the scientific community.

You can do better than this.

And yes, I am setting up the argument so that only science based sources can be used in a scientific debate. Funny how that works.

 

[nolidad]

If the decay rates have changed to account for a young earth, you would expect your examples to have ZERO C-14. You need it to speed up, not slow down.

Well that would be horse manure in a pile!

We expect to find C-14 in things evolutionist shave dated out to tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years! and Voila we do!

over 41 dino samples in situ were dated and shown to be between 21k-50k+ years.

Diamonds that are over 200 million years old should have no C-14 in them but they do IN them!

From Live science:

Radiocarbon dating involves determining the age of an ancient fossil or specimen by measuring its carbon-14 content. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope that forms when cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere strike nitrogen molecules, which then oxidize to become carbon dioxide. Green plants absorb the carbon dioxide, so the population of carbon-14 molecules is continually replenished until the plant dies. Carbon-14 is also passed onto the animals that eat those plants. After death the amount of carbon-14 in the organic specimen decreases very regularly as the molecules decay. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years, meaning that every 5,700 years or so the object loses half its carbon-14.

Samples from the past 70,000 years made of wood, charcoal, peat, bone, antler or one of many other carbonates may be dated using this technique.

So when a thing dies it no longer takes in but emits C-14 at a regular rate

 

[nolidad]

Still waiting for you to support your claim that decay constants are garbage. Here is my last post on the topic, which you ignored.

I don't think I ignored as much as got to. I get over 20 alerts daily- it all takes time- practice a little patience.

 

[nolidad]

The statements have been posted several times, I personally posted a snippet cut directly from their site.

It’s right there in black and white.

If you can’t even bring yourself to accept this simple and obvious fact I hold little hope that there is anything to be gained from any discussion with you.

It’s still amusing though I suppose.

No you haven't. You will not find one statement on ICR,AIG, or CRS that says they forbid anyone from using the scientific method. The opposite is true!

I stand by my statemetn that you are posting a full blown untruth!

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes YEC use the scientific method

IT has been clearly demonstrated by their own words that this is not the case. The scientific method does not require attention be paid to scripture. Your refusal to acknowledge this indicates you are just trolling. (The alternative explanation is less flattering.)

 

[Ophiolite]

I stand by my statemetn that you are posting a full blown untruth!

Reported for lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you haven't. You will not find one statement on ICR,AIG, or CRS that says they forbid anyone from using the scientific method. The opposite is true!

I stand by my statemetn that you are posting a full blown untruth!

Yet you refuse to discuss why we know that they require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.

Once again, if a scientist claimed that no matter what the evidence says that the theory of evolution is true would he be following the scientific method?

 

[nolidad]

I don't believe you.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Your anti YEC scientist bias is glaring.

Have you ever zeroed a scale before?

I find it amusing that you are so vastly ignorant of the process that you don't even know that there resides residual C-14 in the machine, yet have the hubris to tell me I'm incorrect.

Many times.

So you are also saying labs suck at prepping machines and all dates gathered are off by a factor of X.

 

[nolidad]

There requirements and agenda are on record. No opinion is involved. Faith and Scripture take precedence for the YEC over science. That, automatically, means they cannot perform unbiased science.

and you are hopelessly naive if you think evolutionists are capable of performing unbiased science. Though they may not have to sign a statement - they beieve just as much in evolution as YEC believe in Divine 6 day creation.

Evolutionists have been indoctrinated to think that way towards science, scientists may tweak here and there- but macro evolution is untouchable though unprovable! So they begin their scientific careers just as well with a presuppositional bias that guides their research.

Same as YEC scientists. They have their presuppositional bias (6 day creation) and their research can and does tweak the edges of info.

 

[nolidad]

Well, you certainly have me there. I reject a literal reading of Genesis as the only possible reading consistent with Christian doctrine, and I do so on the basis of my religious faith. I would continue to do so even if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow.

well "Christian Doctrine" is all over the map on many things! There are those who reject the physical resurrection of Jesus and are considered mainstream!

I accept Bible Doctrine and then validate "Christian Doctrine" by the bible. Paul praised teh Bereans for doing this, and that is why I was asked to leave a denomination or face a dominican tribunal for rejecting their "Christian Doctrine".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that would be horse manure in a pile!

We expect to find C-14 in things evolutionist shave dated out to tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years! and Voila we do!

over 41 dino samples in situ were dated and shown to be between 21k-50k+ years.

Diamonds that are over 200 million years old should have no C-14 in them but they do IN them!

From Live science:

Radiocarbon dating involves determining the age of an ancient fossil or specimen by measuring its carbon-14 content. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope that forms when cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere strike nitrogen molecules, which then oxidize to become carbon dioxide. Green plants absorb the carbon dioxide, so the population of carbon-14 molecules is continually replenished until the plant dies. Carbon-14 is also passed onto the animals that eat those plants. After death the amount of carbon-14 in the organic specimen decreases very regularly as the molecules decay. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years, meaning that every 5,700 years or so the object loses half its carbon-14.

Samples from the past 70,000 years made of wood, charcoal, peat, bone, antler or one of many other carbonates may be dated using this technique.

So when a thing dies it no longer takes in but emits C-14 at a regular rate

Yes, and diamonds very likely have no C-14 in them. The older an object is the more care must be applied to guarantee that there is no contamination in them. Contamination can come from several sources. Sites that carbon date objects warn potential customers of this:

"One of the basic assumptions in carbon-14 dating is that the sample being analyzed has undergone only radioactive decay and has remained unaltered by any other process over the years since it ceased interaction with the biosphere."

"The occurrence of contamination can be natural or artificial. Natural contamination pertains to the introduction of contaminants to the sample by its surrounding material. For example, bone samples can be contaminated by the presence of limestone or organic acids in the soil (like humic or fulvic acids) where the bones were found. Another example of a natural contaminant is plant root penetration on wood, charcoal, or soil.

Artificial contamination refers to the introduction of contaminants by man during the collection, field conservation, or packaging of the samples. Labeling of bone samples with animal glue is an example of artificial contamination. Other contaminants that may be introduced during sample collection and packaging are biocides, conservation chemicals like polyvinyl acetate and polyethylene glycol, cigarette ash, and labels and wrappers that are made of paper.

This assumption, however, is rarely true. The archaeological artifacts and geological specimens sent to labs for radiocarbon dating are usually found embedded or buried with other materials that may have affected their radiocarbon content. Any carbon-containing material that affects the carbon 14 content of any given sample is therefore a contaminant.

Important Note on Pretreatment – It is important to understand the pretreatments which are going to be applied to samples since they directly affect the final result. You are welcome to contact us to discuss the pretreatment or request that we contact you after the pretreatment (and prior to dating).

AMS Carbon-14 Dating Lab Pretreatment Protocols"

Your source that dated fossils lied to the dating corporation. Some contaminants can be removed, but by lying they made even that impossible. They like to claim that the fossils came from the flood, but the dates obtained argue against that. It the fossils all were deposited at the same time they would have a very similar date. If the C-14 was due to contamination it would give false young dates that varied all of over the place. The latter was what was observed. The C-14 dates of fossils supports the claim that it was due to contamination and not due to a catastrophic event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

and you are hopelessly naive if you think evolutionists are capable of performing unbiased science. Though they may not have to sign a statement - they beieve just as much in evolution as YEC believe in Divine 6 day creation.

Evolutionists have been indoctrinated to think that way towards science, scientists may tweak here and there- but macro evolution is untouchable though unprovable! So they begin their scientific careers just as well with a presuppositional bias that guides their research.

Same as YEC scientists. They have their presuppositional bias (6 day creation) and their research can and does tweak the edges of info.

Actually they accept the theory of evolution since that is the only concept supported by scientific evidence. Again, it is false to claim "indoctrination" in fact you take on a huge burden of proof by claiming that.

It is wrong of you to claim that scientist have the same sins as creationists when you cannot find one whit of evidence for that claim.