ICR Acts and Facts

[nolidad]

I'd like to apologize for being particularly rude in my previous posts yesterday. I realize I'm not sweet as a petunia on the best of days, but the attitude behind those posts was a little over the top. Wasn't having a good day, and should have just stayed off the board. So, sorry for that.

Forgiven and forgotten. Comes with the territory. We debate and the debate can get intense and we can get over the top. I use sarcasm often in my humor so I can come off as being very rude as well! I pray often that God will help me not use my style of humor as a hide for being spiteful.

 

[nolidad]

Okay, there's clearly a disconnect here.

First of all, I don't consider myself a strict atheist. Look at my profile description and don't make that mistake again.

Second, this isn't about people's belief in miracles. It's about the fact that supernatural miracles are not subject to scientific testing.

That's the issue with claiming that YECs are following the scientific method but at the same time invoking supernaturalism when their ideas run afoul of the very same science. That's why YECs aren't doing real science. And why YEC organizations are religious ministries, not scientific organizations.

Do we need to go further with this? Perhaps explore what the scientific method entails and why it can't be used to test supernaturalism?

So you are agnostic- as many have defined that- a more polite atheist! You just have no knowledge of whether there is a God or not! Well I have good news for you! There is! His name is Jesus and He is madly in love with you.


I fully agree that miracles cannot be validated by the scientific method. And seeing as most evolutionists just then discard the miraculous that has been recorded in the book that contains many miracles- handicaps them.

Well they follow the scientific method when they can show the causes of natural events or point to the validation of a supernatural event(remember miracles occurred on this planet so their would be evidence of them occurring if they involved nature).

Once again teh scientific method cannot be used to test supernaturalism. Iagree! But it can be used to test teh results of many supernatural events- say like a global flood, or all people groups sprang from three genetic lines, or languages had a start somewhere specific or that the earth is very young and not very old! It most likely will never explain the hows but the whens are very open to the scientific method!

YEC miracles for life is god did it
Evolutionary miracles for life is massive mistakes! Both are unprovable, fall outside of the scientific method and both are belief systems.

I can admit it, most evolutionsts cannot admit theirs is just as much a belief system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you are agnostic- as many have defined that- a more polite atheist! You just have no knowledge of whether there is a God or not! Well I have good news for you! There is! His name is Jesus and He is madly in love with you.


I fully agree that miracles cannot be validated by the scientific method. And seeing as most evolutionists just then discard the miraculous that has been recorded in the book that contains many miracles- handicaps them.

Well they follow the scientific method when they can show the causes of natural events or point to the validation of a supernatural event(remember miracles occurred on this planet so their would be evidence of them occurring if they involved nature).

Once again teh scientific method cannot be used to test supernaturalism. Iagree! But it can be used to test teh results of many supernatural events- say like a global flood, or all people groups sprang from three genetic lines, or languages had a start somewhere specific or that the earth is very young and not very old! It most likely will never explain the hows but the whens are very open to the scientific method!

YEC miracles for life is god did it
Evolutionary miracles for life is massive mistakes! Both are unprovable, fall outside of the scientific method and both are belief systems.

I can admit it, most evolutionsts cannot admit theirs is just as much a belief system.

There is more than adequate "proof" (the correct term is evidence by the way) for "endless mistakes".

Meanwhile there is endless scientific evidence that refutes a global flood. And there is no scientific evidence that I know of for a flood. All there is is terrible creationist misinterpretation of observations.

For some reason creationists tend to avoid even learning what is and what is not evidence. Do you think that you can do better than your peers?

 

[nolidad]

But you forget that mutations are undesigned, unplanned and random in all creatures! Given that over 99.9% of mutations do not help with preservation and added complexity- where is the vast beds of that couldn't cut the mustard? Where are all teh raptor to bird transitions that weren't suited? remember for every supposed one "good" mutation that advanced critters along the evolutionary tree there are 9,996 that do not advance them or decline them!...

DNA? All Dna shows is that common purposes in different kinds share similar genetic codes. IOS and Windows are two different os but they share common traits!...

I will admit that morphologically- evolution has at least one leg to stand on- but genetically- it fails!


.... What a difference a month makes.

Is there a point to your posting something I still agree with a month later?

 

[nolidad]

There is more than adequate "proof" (the correct term is evidence by the way) for "endless mistakes".

Meanwhile there is endless scientific evidence that refutes a global flood. And there is no scientific evidence that I know of for a flood. All there is is terrible creationist misinterpretation of observations.

For some reason creationists tend to avoid even learning what is and what is not evidence. Do you think that you can do better than your peers?

So why don't some of you demonstrate that more than "adequate proof" and reveal the mutations that occurred in the DNa to take a theropod to a bird?

 

[nolidad]

And from a creationist - Austin is Nevins

This is from Walter Brown - a creationist mechanical engineer:

My first attempt toward that end was in the summer of 1976. I flew to ICR in San Diego, in part to meet a “Stuart E. Nevins.” At the time, I did not know that Austin had been writing under that fictitious name to conceal his identity as a creationist. At lunch with Henry Morris, I said that I would like to meet “Stuart Nevins.” Morris, hiding the true situation, simply said that “Nevins” was out of town.
And the grandaddy of YECism, Morris, covers for him....

And the problem? Austin used Nevins. Maybe he was out of town.

Seems like you are sniffing some conspiracy where none may exist. Did Austin lie about something using xenoliths while writing as Nevins? this was what we were discussing when you piped in that Austin didn't hink people knew about Nevins.

Are you just ticked because He used a pseudonym for a time for whatever reason He chose to do so?

 

[nolidad]

When a carbon-14 nucleus decays, it emits an electron, so one of its neutrons turns into a proton and the C-14 nucleus becomes a nitrogen-14 nucleus, which escapes into the atmosphere. Carbonaceous material does not emit carbon-14.

So off with my head! They still measure the remaining C-14 by the rest of teh stuff they use to measure the decay rate! But all your higher technical knowledge still can't account for why dinos that supposedly went extinct 65 million years ago c-14 date at 25-45K years.

Beat me up for my failures to get all the data sets right- but that only hides the fact that something is wrong with C-14 when dino bones can have supposedly half the C-14 it died with or whatever it is technically called.

 

[nolidad]

You know what's silly about this whole thing?

Even if any of this held any water - and there's no reason to think it does - it still wouldn't explain why all the other methods of dating the Earth also bring back ages that exceed the 10,000 year limit. There are plenty of dating methods that don't rely on radiometric dating at all, and not a single one agrees with YEC.

Does that really not bother you? Not even a little?

Well there are scores of dating methods that do yield ages from single millions to tens of thousands of years. I know not one that yields 6-10k years except for the research for mt-Eve just using human mitochondrial DNA which shows 6,500 years.

And no it dsoes not bother me- because all dating methods rely on untestable assumptions of the unobserved unrecorded past that are based on uniformitarian assumptions.

 

[nolidad]

If you don't understand the technical details (and there is no shame in that--most people don't) then why are you trying to argue the technical details? What you seem to be doing here is trying to argue that what you think (wrongly) one group of scientists says is inconsistent with what you think (wrongly) another group of scientists says in order to discredit them. It's bootless. I suppose that you are a credit to your religion, trying to argue against the science which would turn it into Traditional Christianity, but you are not doing a very good job.

So I can't argue that dinos tested for C-14 and they found some in them?

I keep falling for the taunt to get into all the technical details which are irrelavent in arguing that dating methods are invalid. They have found the methods that accelerate and in the case of C-14 slow down the decay process by magnitudes!

I know that C-14 is formed in teh atmosphere and then joins oxygen and becomes co2. It is consumned by plants and we consume the plants and plant eating animals and we have c-14.

I accept this as true. It is simple and true.

How Carbon-14 Dating Works

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why don't some of you demonstrate that more than "adequate proof" and reveal the mutations that occurred in the DNa to take a theropod to a bird?

You do not understand the nature of evidence. That is demonstrated by your irrational question. You need to learn that first. Would you like to learn? It will make you a better debater. Then once you understand the scientific method you will be able to ask rational questions.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well there are scores of dating methods that do yield ages from single millions to tens of thousands of years. I know not one that yields 6-10k years except for the research for mt-Eve just using human mitochondrial DNA which shows 6,500 years.

And no it dsoes not bother me- because all dating methods rely on untestable assumptions of the unobserved unrecorded past that are based on uniformitarian assumptions.

In science assumptions get tested. Then they are no longer assumptions. They are either supported observations, or they are discarded possibilities.

 

[nolidad]

I don't care that decay constants can be manipulated. I already know that. I'm waiting for you to tell me why it matters. I'm also waiting for you to demonstrate that ALL constants actually have changed. Or even a single one that we use for radiometric dating. Maybe, possibly, perhaps doesn't cut it because I have given you evidence that they havent... and I have tons more.

Well I don't know if they have researched every radiometric form of dating to see if it can be altered!

But given that decay constants for decades were declared absolutely that they could not be altered and now they are- should cause you to think.

 

[nolidad]

Then, maybe it is better than not admitting it and getting all in a lather when others point out your errors... Not sure which tactic is worse.

Actually I don't get in a lather at all!

I am always willing for people to point out wehen I screw up- I do it enough!

What I do mind is all the subtle and not so subtle little ad-homs hurled by many on your side! When those start I go into sarcastic mode! Not mad- not lathered, but just decide to fight fire with fire.

YOu do realize that for the last 15 or so pages we have not talked science but it has been focused on my lack of technical expertise, with some telling me I shouldn't be here cuz I is dumb compared to you guys .

If you want to get into the nuances of radio dating- I will get lost and you can best me. But that doesn't change that they have been shown to be subject to acceleration which they aren't which is the last issue we were discussing before many of you got into a lather over my lack of expert technical minutae.

 

[nolidad]

Making a typo once is one thing. You kept doing it repeatedly which suggested it was less a typo and more of a deliberate error. Just like the C-14 claim above.

These sorts of repeated patterns of basic errors creates the impression you have no understanding of the subject at hand.

Not deliberate. Boy could I build a case for conspiracy theory with that!

I can confuse things like asteroids and meteors, and even when speaking generally put rna when I meant dna. If my lack of remembering all these things that I have studied in general but do nto use in day to day life just irritates you to no end- then ignore me! I am not here to blow your lid over my lack of remembering corre3ct terms all th etime.

Hoiwever I think that is a dodge to sidetrack the fact that evolution and massive ages just can't be proved by your side. Only accepted by consensus based on interpretation and opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I don't know if they have researched every radiometric form of dating to see if it can be altered!

But given that decay constants for decades were declared absolutely that they could not be altered and now they are- should cause you to think.

You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. More than reasonable tests demonstrate that under near surface, and by that I mean anywhere within the Earth's crust, that decay rates do not vary. It is up to those that claim there is a change to prove their case.

If I claim that there is no evidence that the Sun rose 2,045 years ago on the 28th of June and therefore it did not unless someone finds evidence that the happened. Since we have more than adequate evidence that the Sun rises every day it would be up to me to prove that the Sun did not rise on that day. In the same way since radiometric dating has been tested multiple times and found to be reliable the burden of proof is now upon those that claim otherwise.

Unfortunately the people that you follow have been shown to be dishonest in their attempts to refute the science that they deny. That is because honest attempts to refute what the science that they deny always fail. That should tell you something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hoiwever I think that is a dodge to sidetrack the fact that evolution and massive ages just can't be proved by your side. Only accepted by consensus based on interpretation and opinion.

Let's use the legal definition of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". By that standard scientists have made their case. There is no scientific evidence for creationism and mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. You are supporting a side that has no scientific evidence that supports it. That is not a rational act.

 

[46AND2]

I keep falling for the taunt to get into all the technical details which are irrelavent in arguing that dating methods are invalid. They have found the methods that accelerate and in the case of C-14 slow down the decay process by magnitudes!

If the C-14 has slowed down, then that would mean things are OLDER than what they test, which obviously doesn't help your case for a young earth. The reason you get "taunted" into the technical details, is because you clearly don't understand how the process works, and therefore can't see why your apologists are wrong.

 

[46AND2]

Well I don't know if they have researched every radiometric form of dating to see if it can be altered!

But given that decay constants for decades were declared absolutely that they could not be altered and now they are- should cause you to think.

Nope. Cause we can observe in many different ways that decay rates have not (even if they can be) changed in a very long time.

 

[Speedwell]

But given that decay constants for decades were declared absolutely that they could not be altered and now they are- should cause you to think.

Do you have any citation for that assertion?

 

[46AND2]

Do you have any citation for that assertion?

Of course not, cause it isn't true. Scientists have been TRYING to manipulate the decay rate for decades because they wanted to determine how robust they were...cause they weren't "absolutely certain."