ICR Acts and Facts

[lasthero]

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 you’ll, of course, ignore that mt-Eve is absolutely not the same thing as the Eve from the Bible.

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.

Really?

All of them are wrong?

Okay. Here’s two questions for you.

1) If creationists believe none of them work, why don’t they invest time into making them work, or coming up with a dating method that they trust?

2) Why do the dating methods agree with each? For instance, we can look in varve layers and find ash from a volcanic eruption of which we know the exact date, and they’re in the right layer. And we can date that layer, and it’ll show the right date. Why do things like that happen at all?

 

[lasthero]

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.

You know, if I tried to hold my own in a theological debate and made mistakes that a ten year old Sunday school wouldn’t make - like saying that Noah parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus was a zombie, or that Adam and Eve ate an apple - I imagine most people wouldn’t take any of my arguments too seriously, and rightfully so.

If you’re getting even basic stuff wrong, it’s a strong indication that you’re just parroting what you’ve heard on creationist websites. You know the arguments, but the problem is, you don’t actually understand any of it, so when you’re dealing with people who actually know what they’re talking about and are bringing up things you can’t find, you just flail about. All you have is regurgitated points. You might as well be a bot, just responding to key words with stock phrases.

 

[46AND2]

You know, if I tried to hold my own in a theological debate and made mistakes that a ten year old Sunday school wouldn’t make - like saying that Noah parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus was a zombie, or that Adam and Eve ate an apple - I imagine most people wouldn’t take any of my arguments too seriously, and rightfully so.

If you’re getting even basic stuff wrong, it’s a strong indication that you’re just parroting what you’ve heard on creationist websites. You know the arguments, but the problem is, you don’t actually understand any of it, so when you’re dealing with people who actually know what they’re talking about and are bringing up things you can’t find, you just flail about. All you have is regurgitated points. You might as well be a bot, just responding to key words with stock phrases.

Agreed. Which is why I try to come up with arguments that haven't been addressed by creationist apologists. It's why I focused on decay rate acceleration, and the inconsistencies that arise when they try to apply it. When I pointed out that if the decay rates had accelerated it would mean that dinosaurs SHOULD have zero C-14, it debunks their own claim that the earth is young because they DO contain radiocarbon. You can't have BOTH accelerated decay, and leftover radiocarbon in dinosaur fossils.

His response was simply to REPEAT the only argument that he has heard on the topic: that if dinosaur fossils (or other old objects) have radiocarbon, then they aren't millions of years old (which would be true if they actually had radiocarbon remaining). Unfortunately, because he didn't understand the argument, he just flatly asserted that remaining carbon in dinosaur fossils is evidence for "changed" decay constants. Which it clearly isn't.

However, I did get through to him a bit. It seems that he tacitly admitted that my argument made sense, and was forced to claim, ad hoc, that C-14 was an exception to the accelerated decay phenomenon. Sadly, because he doesn't understand the process, he claimed that C-14 slowed down. Had he understood what he was talking about, he'd have claimed that C-14 had accelerated, but not by the same magnitude as the other decay series.

 

[nolidad]

You know, if I tried to hold my own in a theological debate and made mistakes that a ten year old Sunday school wouldn’t make - like saying that Noah parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus was a zombie, or that Adam and Eve ate an apple - I imagine most people wouldn’t take any of my arguments too seriously, and rightfully so.

If you’re getting even basic stuff wrong, it’s a strong indication that you’re just parroting what you’ve heard on creationist websites. You know the arguments, but the problem is, you don’t actually understand any of it, so when you’re dealing with people who actually know what they’re talking about and are bringing up things you can’t find, you just flail about. All you have is regurgitated points. You might as well be a bot, just responding to key words with stock phrases.

Well what I am not getting wrong is that the dating methods are fatally flawed. It has been shown that they can be accelerated when for decades that was considered impossible.

That C-14 is completely unreliable if supposed 65my dinos are found to have C-14 in them or 200,000,000 old diamonds have C-14 in them! Diamonds are coal which are dead trees and such and once that tree dies- it no longer absorbs C-14.

Why should I take you seriously when you make these glaring errors.!

Why should I take you seriously when you cannot demonstrate by physical evidence that constantly accumulated mutations passed on by natural selection caused the massive biodiversity we see.

 

[Speedwell]

Well what I am not getting wrong is that the dating methods are fatally flawed. It has been shown that they can be accelerated when for decades that was considered impossible.

You are going to have to back up that assertion in some way if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Since it isn't true, I don't think you can do it.

That C-14 is completely unreliable if supposed 65my dinos are found to have C-14 in them or 200,000,000 old diamonds have C-14 in them! Diamonds are coal which are dead trees and such and once that tree dies- it no longer absorbs C-14.

That C-14 is sometimes found in these objects is no surprise to science. The reasons for it are well understood and well documented.

Why should I take you seriously when you make these glaring errors.!

Why should we not say the same thing to you?

Why should I take you seriously when you cannot demonstrate by physical evidence that constantly accumulated mutations passed on by natural selection caused the massive biodiversity we see.

Why should we take that complaint seriously when you do not know what physical evidence is or how it supports the theory of evolution?

 

[nolidad]

And you’ll, of course, ignore that mt-Eve is absolutely not the same thing as the Eve from the Bible.

Well the evolutionists are looking for a population of women, so they would never approach biblical eve. But it is amazing that just measuring human mtDNA and the rate of nucleotide changes we get 6,500 years as the date for the first human!

1) If creationists believe none of them work, why don’t they invest time into making them work, or coming up with a dating method that they trust?

They are! the problem is that they don't get to suck govt. money like the evolutionists do! Whenever they try, the ACLU and People for the American Way and Americans for Separation of Church and state are there to file lawsuits.

2) Why do the dating methods agree with each? For instance, we can look in varve layers and find ash from a volcanic eruption of which we know the exact date, and they’re in the right layer. And we can date that layer, and it’ll show the right date. Why do things like that happen at all?

But they routinely don't! that is one of the things not routinely published. But the nearer the date the less the error can be. Dating methods found Vesuvius to be accurate in 79AD

But given that different methods produce different ages and even the same method can yield discordant ages is established.

YOu can contact ICR directly @ 800.337.0375

They can help you find the right literature to show this reality.

 

[nolidad]

Do you have any citation for that assertion?

Are you questioning that physicists have routinely that radioactive decay rates werew not considered constant? I know something you so much smarter than me doesn't know???

https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969804317303822

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

Rate of Radioactive Decay | Introduction to Chemistry

17.5: Natural Radioactivity and Half-Life

This has been considered infallible dogma for a long long time!

 

[nolidad]

You are going to have to back up that assertion in some way if you want your argument to be taken seriously. Since it isn't true, I don't think you can do it.

I have multiple times!

diamonds with C-14 in them.
Coal with C-14 in it that is supposedly hundreds of millions of years old.
Recent lava dating only to several million years and only unfounded accusations that ICR geologists measured rocks with xenocrysts in them. Then launching into a pointless tirade that Austin once used a pseudonym (as to imply this made his work invalids)

Multiple ways decay ratges have been accelerated by as much as an order of 9 magnitudes!

 

[Jimmy D]

But it is amazing that just measuring human mtDNA and the rate of nucleotide changes we get 6,500 years as the date for the first human!

First human? Says who?

 

[nolidad]

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.

But if you cannot validate that many of the untestable assumptions that go into dating the rock have held true over the millions and billions of years actually did or did not take place.

 

[nolidad]

First human? Says who?

The research that went into testing mitochondrial DNA

 

[nolidad]

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.

Well I do not believe C-14 has slowed down. But that radiometric dating gives very false old ages.

Remember no dinosaur fossil should yield any C-14 as they have been extinct according to evolutionism for over 65 million years!

So the only two conclusions are that C-14 is wildly inaccurate and itcan possibly be slowed way way way way down or that dinos are a lot younger than what evolutionists say.

I know the latter is true!

 

[Speedwell]

Are you questioning that physicists have routinely that radioactive decay rates werew not considered constant? I know something you so much smarter than me doesn't know???

https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html

Is decay constant? - ScienceDirect

Old textbook knowledge reconfirmed: Decay rates of radioactive substances are constant

Rate of Radioactive Decay | Introduction to Chemistry

17.5: Natural Radioactivity and Half-Life

This has been considered infallible dogma for a long long time!

None of those papers supports your assertion that the constancy of decay rates is "infallible dogma." The first and second papers are investigating claims that decay rates can vary under specific conditions. If invariance was "infallible dogma" why would they bother? The third paper is the same as the first (careless of you) and the last two do not address the subject at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

The research that went into testing mitochondrial DNA

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

[nolidad]

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.

Yeah yeah yeah-- they are as dishonest as teh summer day is long- but no one here has demonstrated their allegations!

But i have posted ad-nauseum the research from both creationist and evolutionists showing that decay rates are alterable.

 

[VirOptimus]

The research that went into testing mitochondrial DNA

....

Really? You completely misunderstand what mitochondrial eve is all about.

 

[nolidad]

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Like a geneticisty? No! but as one who can read and see what is written and look up things I do not fully understand? yes I do!

And given the change reported- mamma eve is 6500 years old!

Destroying me is easy- you all do it- but why don't you focus on the science and try to rebut that for a refreshing change!

 

[VirOptimus]

Like a geneticisty? No! but as one who can read and see what is written and look up things I do not fully understand? yes I do!

And given the change reported- mamma eve is 6500 years old!

Destroying me is easy- you all do it- but why don't you focus on the science and try to rebut that for a refreshing change!

mitochondrial eve is not the first human.

 

[Speedwell]

Yeah yeah yeah-- they are as dishonest as teh summer day is long- but no one here has demonstrated their allegations!

But i have posted ad-nauseum the research from both creationist and evolutionists showing that decay rates are alterable.

And so they are, under certain extreme conditions. So what? You are the only one claiming that the absolute invariability of decay rates is infallible scientific dogma.

 

[Jimmy D]

Like a geneticisty? No! but as one who can read and see what is written and look up things I do not fully understand? yes I do!

And given the change reported- mamma eve is 6500 years old!

Destroying me is easy- you all do it- but why don't you focus on the science and try to rebut that for a refreshing change!

mitochondrial eve is not the first human..... echo... echo ....echo