Creationists - Christ's worst enemies

notto said:

Your accusations are baseless without evidence.

Click to expand...

But...but...but.... they're in ALL CAPS! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT WHEN YOU TYPE IN CAPS, IT MUST BE TRUE AND IMPORTANT!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

The Lady Kate said:

1111ONEONEONE

Click to expand...

And don't forget:

ELEVENTY!1!

tocis said:

Providing the evidence he asks for in the very same posting...
Okay, that does it. Friendly or not, enjoy your stay in my ignore list.

Click to expand...

Hmm, it never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists respond when they come up against a creationist. They ignore the evidence and attack character like tocis did here. For one, the first statement is warped beyond imagination. I stated the following:

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from?

Just how, exactly, did I provide evidence for what I asked? I didn't think that, according to members here, that life from lifeless chemicals was apart of "evolution". In other words, you evolutionists yourselves struggle with defining "evolution".

Also, I don't mind being put on peoples "ignore list", just one less evolutionary extremist that I have to worry about. Instead of getting swamped by four different people, it's now only three. Kind of reminds me of how antibiotics kills bacteria, but then again, I'm just a Creationist and wouldn't know anything about science and biology in general... What a silly argument. It's as they say, "Chalk up another one", i.e. one more untrue accusation debunked.

I should probably add that many of you people aren't overly kind, nor do you properly read (comprehend) what I am saying. IMPO, many evolutionists are that eager to jump to the defence of their religious belief in evolution that they misread and misunderstand my posts. I don't know whether or not I'll continue to stay on here as it is obvious that you are evolutionary extremists who are 100% blinded by your religious belief in evolution such that no amount of reasoning can convince you other wise! I find it weird and somewhat disturbing that evolutionists and atheists pay out Creationists for having faith and being "fundamentalists", when the evolutionists themsevles are so dogmatic that they jump straight away to "defend" their faith with much aggression. lol, you guys should really take a step back and take off your evolutionary glasses and just see how militant and extremist you are all really acting.

I honestly don't know why evolutionists are so aggressive when answering simple questions and statements. Perhaps many of you should calm down and remember that we are all humans and as such, we should treat each other with dignity and respect - something which IMO is in short supply in this forum.

*evolutionist spots Creationist*
"Get him boys!"
*evolutionists move in guns blazing, Creationist ducks for cover*

In fact, the way that you all respond is strong evidence that it is much like a religious belief. Why can't we just have a good discussion on the evidence without baseless accusations (e.g. "Creationists are against science" and all the other unfounded rehtoric), without mean and aggressive words like tocis' above and without purposeful misinterpretations?

Also, why use "PRATT"? As I explained earlier, it's just the evolutionist equivalent to "God did it". It doesn't prove anything and is quite silly, IMPO. Just provide a quick description of why it is wrong, and/or a link.

The Lady Kate said:

But...but...but.... they're in ALL CAPS! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT WHEN YOU TYPE IN CAPS, IT MUST BE TRUE AND IMPORTANT!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

Click to expand...

Forgive me but I can't tell whether or not you're joking around. When people right in capital letters it usually only means that they are raising their voice or shouting. Other times, when I post, I may use capital letters for bringing out main points, similar in effect to italics.

nvxplorer said:

I have an idea for a creationist diet plan.

"Go ahead. Hop on that scale. It's not accurate anyway."

Click to expand...

How about a better one that promises to remove 100% of your weight?

Jump out of a plane (a flying plane incase some want to purposefully misinterpret my post)...

Or if it's only a little bit of weight that you want taken off:

Go down on a lift; or or the further you go up from the ground, the lighter you weigh. Oops, I'm a Creationist who doesn't know science, hmm, I must be wrong. Anyone want to try and disprove the scientific things that I've said?

Upsilon said:

Hmm, it never ceases to amaze me how evolutionists respond when they come up against a creationist. They ignore the evidence and attack character like tocis did here. For one, the first statement is warped beyond imagination. I stated the following:

Evolution is a theory designed to for all practical purposes detail and explain the origin of the evidence of the present. For example, where did the first life come from?

Just how, exactly, did I provide evidence for what I asked? I didn't think that, according to members here, that life from lifeless chemicals was apart of "evolution". In other words, you evolutionists yourselves struggle with defining "evolution".

Click to expand...

The above doesn't even make sense. You made a false statement about evolution, and then you state that "life from lifeless chemicals" isn't part of evolution. So you contradict yourself.

And no, 'evolutionists' (read 'scientists') don't struggle with defining evolution.

Upsilon said:

I'm just a Creationist and wouldn't know anything about science and biology in general... What a silly argument. It's as they say, "Chalk up another one", i.e. one more untrue accusation debunked.

Click to expand...

Except that your posts have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know anything about what you're attempting to discuss.

Upsilon said:

I should probably add that many of you people aren't overly kind, nor do you properly read (comprehend) what I am saying. IMPO, many evolutionists are that eager to jump to the defence of their religious belief in evolution that they misread and misunderstand my posts.

Click to expand...

There is no 'religious belief' in evolution. Please point out where anyone has misread or misunderstood your posts.

Upsilon said:

I don't know whether or not I'll continue to stay on here as it is obvious that you are evolutionary extremists who are 100% blinded by your religious belief in evolution such that no amount of reasoning can convince you other wise!

Click to expand...

There is no 'religious belief' in evolution, nor are there 'evolutionary extremists'. But we didn't expect you to stay long...creationists often don't when they're confronted with people who actually know something about the subject.

Upsilon said:

I find it weird and somewhat disturbing that evolutionists and atheists pay out Creationists for having faith and being "fundamentalists", when the evolutionists themsevles are so dogmatic that they jump straight away to "defend" their faith with much aggression. lol, you guys should really take a step back and take off your evolutionary glasses and just see how militant and extremist you are all really acting.

Click to expand...

There is no 'faith', nor is their dogma. There are merely facts of which you are apparently ignorant.

Upsilon said:

I honestly don't know why evolutionists are so aggressive when answering simple questions and statements.

Click to expand...

Perhaps when they're not framed around ignorant and blatantly false statements, we're not. Who knows?

Upsilon said:

In fact, the way that you all respond is strong evidence that it is much like a religious belief.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Upsilon said:

Why can't we just have a good discussion on the evidence without baseless accusations (e.g. "Creationists are against science" and all the other unfounded rehtoric), without mean and aggressive words like tocis' above and without purposeful misinterpretations?

Click to expand...

Because creationists - including you - demonstrate by their position that they are not interested in a discussion on the evidence. You jump in, with your ignorance of the theory and science in general and expect us to all accept your falsehoods and discuss them? No, we'll jsut identify them as falsehoods - as any high school biology student could do - and move on.

Upsilon said:

Also, why use "PRATT"? As I explained earlier, it's just the evolutionist equivalent to "God did it". It doesn't prove anything and is quite silly, IMPO. Just provide a quick description of why it is wrong, and/or a link.

Click to expand...

It's not supposed to prove anything. It's just a notation that the point you are bringing up has been refuted any number of times, and that if you were even remotely honest about the subject, you'd have investigated it and discovered that yourself. Accordingly, it's hard for us to be bothered repeating a refutation that already exists in any number of places. Why should we, wehn you'll just ignore it again?

gluadys said:

Pretty easy. I read what you wrote.

Click to expand...

Wow, what a great response (sarcastic). See, this is what I am talking about with people (namely evolutionists) purposefully misinterpreting my quotes. To put it in simple language that cannot be purposefully taken any other way - dear God, I can't believe I have to do this! - what did I write that lead you to the conclusion that you came to?

gluadys said:

Case in point. The theory of evolution deals only with biology, and within biology it deals with the history of life on earth, not with how life originated.

Click to expand...

Not according to tocis' post up a little bit further (if my understanding is correct of it)...

Although I don't agree with you, I won't be around much longer as it is pointless trying to have reasonable discussion with extremeists, the above quote I answered for example.

gluadys said:

So nothing in the paragraph above touches on the theory of evolution. A person who is unaware of this fact is correctly described as knowing nothing about the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

Then why did evolutionists waste so much time and money trying to create life in the test tube if it were not of some use to evolutionary theory? Obviously, since we have different opinions and views on evolution, then we'll never agree - so let's just move on.

gluadys said:

Ever learn in math class how to estimate the answer to a problem?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between purposefully changing the calculations (i.e. evidence) to make it conform to the big bang and estimating. The estimations were the original calculations; Clark and Caswell, upon noting that this didn't fit in with big bang assumptions arbitarily changed the calculations such that they fit with the big bang assumptions. That is dishonesty.

gluadys said:

Do you understand how NASA figures out when a satellite or space probe needs a course correction and by how much?

Click to expand...

As a guess, computers and not estimations. If they were to "estimate" then they are playing with fire and one day they'll get their fingers burned.

gluadys said:

I don't see anything embarrassing about that. Why do you?

Click to expand...

About purposefully changing the data such that it conforms to big bang - yes I do. Not only does it show their alliegence to the theory over the evidence, it is also dishonest. Your comparison with a scientist's investigation and this one is silly as the scientist can readily test and observe and repeat things - with 3rd stage SNRs and so forth you can't.

gluadys said:

I wasn't referring to the content of the quote so much as the fact you are laying the groundwork for eliminating all evidence of age. Typical creationist evasion of the fact that scientists have no interest in using dating methods that don't work. And by "work" I don't mean "agree with their agenda" I mean "agree with the evidence".

Click to expand...

To the first statement: my bad then. Sorry.

By work you mean "agree with the evidence". Just how exactly does one do that? The evidence can't speak for itself, remember? Rocks don't come with a tag attached as to how old they are! One has to make guesses as to whether or not the decay rate has been constant, how much daughter element there was originally, whether or not any element has been subtracted or added since solidification, and so on. All of these are unprovable guesses that cannot be proven. In fact, this is very circular reasoning. You're long age assumptions to prove the long age. In many other cases, rocks ages are based on how old the fossil of a particular animal or plant is believed to be. That is circular reasoning as well.

Also, all the different dating methods give different dates when applied to the same rock with different error measurements - how does the scientist decide which one is right and why, and which ones are wrong and why? Also, your last sentence is illogical as explained above in previous sentences/paragraphs.

gluadys said:

If radiometry (or dendrochronolgy, or ice cores, or any other measure) consistently gave unpredictable and unreliable dates, it would not be used in scientific work.

Click to expand...

Once again, for you to say "unreliable dates" implies that you initially believe the age of the rock to be "X". Thus you'll use assumptions that produce an age of "X". The only way to accurately see just how well dating methods and their assumptions work is to test them on rocks of known ages. When these is done, we see that they give some of the most stupid ages with 99.99% error in some cases! If they have been shown not to work on rocks of known ages, why should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages? That's illogical!

gluadys said:

For you to assume that scientists are not concerned about the accuracy of the tools they use again shows that you do not know what you are talking about. And that you are willing to give creedance to baseless slurs against scientists on the basis of your own ignorance.

Click to expand...

For starters, please quote me where I have said any of the things you accuse me of? My question remains: how do you know what "accurate" is? If you refer to the straight line received from graphing the results that supposedly mean there is no contemination, then you should have no problem in believing that the Grand Canyon formed up-side-down as it were - as rocks at the bottom of the Canyon were found to be younger than rocks at the top of it! This alone proves that there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the assumptions that the radiometric dating methods work off.

As to the last sentence, no offence, but what a hypocrite! You and many other evolutionists are more than happy to pay out Creation scientists out of ignorance! I have asked for examples, yet I have received none! And FYI, it wasn't a "slur against scientists on the basis of my ignorance". If you could show me how, then I would be appreciative and withdraw my statements.

I won't bother with your other replies because I can already tell that it will be a waste of my time. I will reply to one last post then I'm gone because of the baseless accusations, purposeful misinterpretation of my posts, and plain illogicalness of many people here - including yourself as shown above.

Elduran said:

I actually asked him to elaborate on those example, stating why he thought that apemen and peppered moths were fakes, and why he thinks that modern embryology is at all dependent on Haekel's drawings (the faking of which scientists are well aware of), but no answer...

Click to expand...

Besides the fact that you'll just ignore what I say or call it "lies", human beings need something called "sleep". Also, unlike you probably (fallible assumption), I have a life that doesn't revolve around the religious topic of our origin and essentialy trying to blow anyone who doesn't agree with my religious views out of the sky by any means possible including purposefully misrepresenting them as this post shows... [Yes, I was referring to you.]

Let's just clear up something first, I never said that embryology is dependent on Haekel's drawings. If I did, please list it. No, I mean, really, really, really list it.Quote me word for word where I said anything of the sort. I was bringing that up as an example of evolutionary fraud (a purposeful fraud, btw). Did you know that this same fruad that has been known about since the 1960s to be false is still in biology textbooks today? THAT is dishonest. In fact, it's still shown in the Natural History Museum of Sydney in Australia with no reference about it's falseness.

Apemen. Now, firstly, I don't refut the existence of the actual fossils, just the evolutionary "just-so" story of them, including how the Lucy type skeleton is supposedly one of our ancestors, then Homo Hablis, Erectus, and so on.

Since we were talking about frauds, I feel like that is what I should respond to. Consider the various apemen frauds throughout history, including the Minnesota Iceman, Piltdown man and Nabraska man - just to name a few.

Donald Johanson, the discoverer of ‘Lucy,’ places A. africanus on a side-branch not leading to man. Anatomist Charles Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bones of A. africanus and concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and was more distinct from both humans and chimpanzees than these are from each other. More recently, Oxnard made the following comments about the australopithecines, including ‘Lucy’:
Oxnard, an evolutionist, is one of several experts who do not believe that any of the australopithecines were on the human line. From Humans: advanced apes or made in the IOG? Perhaps more interesting apart from the fact that Hablis is a "wastebin" of at least two or more different creatures that don't belong together, is that the Lucy type skeleton is more bipedal than the "more human like" Hablis! Isn't that devolution? It's not exactly what one would expect if Hablis were really our ancestor...



Now, let me defend my position on peppered moths:



Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones—in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

Upsilon,

Frauds don't disprove scientific theories any more than Enron disproves capitalism. In any competitive venture, there are bound to be unscrupulous people who attempt to gain an advantage.

Upsilon said:

Forgive me but I can't tell whether or not you're joking around. When people right in capital letters it usually only means that they are raising their voice or shouting. Other times, when I post, I may use capital letters for bringing out main points, similar in effect to italics.

Click to expand...

I see you haven't posted a lot here so perhaps you're a bit new to all of this. I still have a great deal to learn about online etiquette myself, but from what I've seen so far, the use of upper-case to try to emphasize a point tends to look good when you write it, but when reading, it seems to suggest yelling and gives the appearance of allowing emotion to override reason. How you post is, of course, exclusively up to you. But as a general rule, based only on my observations, such use of upper-case tends to be poorly received.

For whatever that may be worth.

Beastt said:

I see you haven't posted a lot here so perhaps you're a bit new to all of this. I still have a great deal to learn about online etiquette myself, but from what I've seen so far, the use of upper-case to try to emphasize a point tends to look good when you write it, but when reading, it seems to suggest yelling and gives the appearance of allowing emotion to override reason. How you post is, of course, exclusively up to you. But as a general rule, based only on my observations, such use of upper-case tends to be poorly received.

For whatever that may be worth.

Click to expand...

Also to take into account is the following. When in a normal conversation, our speech is usually fairly 'flat', meaning that we don't overemphasize much. People who do so very early, are usually frowned upon.

Same with writing on forums. It is usually best to not use many ways of emphasizing, because just as in speech, it tends to annoy. Furhtermore, bolding, coloring, italics, when used often can get very annoying, because the post becomes a chaos. Writing in a forum is just like speaking. Structure your posts, write coherent sentences and don't emphasize too much.

Upsilon said:

The Bible itself predicts that because of the Great Flood that there should be many, many fossils burried in sedimentary rock all over the Earth - and that is what we find.

Click to expand...

the problem though is that we find alot of stuff that we should not find in the rocks if there were a giant flood, such as bioturbidity, animal footprints, fossilized raindrops, particular fossil ordering in everything from pollen to animals, particular material layers such as the iridium layer in the KT boundary, strcutures that cannot form underwater, termite mounds and so on. the list is long.

Upsilon said:

Also, all the different dating methods give different dates when applied to the same rock with different error measurements - how does the scientist decide which one is right and why, and which ones are wrong and why? Also, your last sentence is illogical as explained above in previous sentences/paragraphs.

Click to expand...

the incorrect dates are the "out of bounds" dates. for example, C14 dating is accurate between about 150 years ago and less than 50,000 years ago. so if anything returns a date of 50,000 years, then it is false. the reason being that at that point the radiation due to the C14 decay is drowned out by background radiation. look into the different dating techniques and you will see the various issues presented.

Upsilon said:

Scientists use assumptions based on faith in their radiometric dating methods as well. These assumptions (e.g. constant decay rate, how much daughter element was initally there and how much of the elements have been subtracted or added to the system) are based on their underlying beliefs. That must be setting off some alarm bells in your head as to their validity. Radiometric dating methods are a classic example of the good old circular reasoning, i.e. using old age assumptions to prove that the Earth is billions of years old.

Click to expand...

no no, these things are not derived from assumptions. Lets take dating. well what are we actually looking at? first and foremost the rate that certain unstable elements decay. what is this dependent on? well this is dependent upon the fundamental physical constants of the universe (something that the creationists are, with alot of question begging, very fond indeed of telling us are finely tuned) anyway, how can we change decay rates. One possibility might be something like the environment, however this has been tested, and with a few very rare exceptions found to be false, no amount of pressure or heat or whatever can change decay rates. Onto those exceptions, well these involve things like electron capture. say you strip most of the electrons from an unstable atom, and then hit the atom with an electron, then you can speed up the reaction rates. now this only works for a couple of elements, and would present massive problems if you tried to do it in bulk, namely the electromagnetic forces required to do this on even a tiny scale, like a couple of grams of material, would destroy large areas of land. try to do it on a planetary scale, and I kid you not, you would obliterate the planet and probably knock a few adjacent planets out of orbit. EM forces are not to be toyed with, so that plan doesn't work either. well what else can we try? how about altering those fundamental constants that I mentioned earlier. again problems ensue, altering those constants would alter a whole bunch of stuff, such as the strength of the interactions between the atoms. these sort of changes would destroy all life for one thing, and would be extremely observable in the chemical record. there is no sign of this ever having happened. Furthermore it would also result in a change in fusion rates, which would be observable looking at the night sky, and we see simply no such problems. from nearby objects to objects such as SN1987A, we see that the nuclear fusion and fission rates are precisely as we would expect. SN1987A is a beautiful example of this. It is a supernova some 167,000 years distant, that we observed exploding in 1987. We can trigonometrically locate SN1987A since we know the difference in arrival time between the direct light, and the light reflected from the outer shells of the dying star. Now in a supernova there are a whole bunch of elements created, many of which are short lived isotopes. We can identify these isotopes because of their characteristic spectral pattern, which is if you like, a fingerprint for the elements. Cobalt56 is one of those elements observed, and we see that both the spectral pattern of the material, and also the decay rate of the material is precisely what we measure it to be here on Earth, right now. if there had been any change in any of the fundamental constants, from the fine structure constant through the speed of light, it would be very observable, since it would result in clear changes in decay rates and also the spectroscopic signatures of those elements. note that we can also observe the formation of other well known elements like Carbon monoxise and so on around SN1987A, and even these have the same spectral characteristics that we would expect. No such changes are observed, all the chemistry and physics is exactly the same around SN1987A, an object 167,000 light years away, as it is right in your living room. Other evidence that the decay rates have not changed comes from the organisation of the different luminosities and colours of the stars. The colour of a star is dependent upon its surface temperature, which is a function of its mass. an increased mass results in increased nuclear fusion in the core of the star, and the star becomes progressively bluer, until that is, it runs out of fuel, swells and dies in a variety of interesting ways*. Adjusting the fundamental constants over time would result in a distortion of the colours of the stars, since fusion rates would change, temperatures and masses would change and those sorts of things. We can see from the organisation of the Herzprung Russel Diagram that this simply is not the case. the stars are exactly where we would expect them to be based on physics right here right now, depending on their temperatures and mass.

Hopefully you can see now that this problem of "constant decay rate" isn't really, it's not even an assumption, but backed up by masses of evidence from labs right here on earth, right out to the most distant corners of the cosmos.


*unless you happen to be nearby, in which case they are lethal.

Upsilon said:

Wow, what a great response (sarcastic). See, this is what I am talking about with people (namely evolutionists) purposefully misinterpreting my quotes. To put it in simple language that cannot be purposefully taken any other way - dear God, I can't believe I have to do this! - what did I write that lead you to the conclusion that you came to?

Click to expand...

Since you have decided to leave, I don’t know if you will read this, but I’ll reply anyway.

Now I could be facetious and simply copy what you wrote. Ordinarily I would do that. But obviously that still doesn’t answer your question. So I will copy it with annotations:

You said:

Need I bring up all of the frauds that has been committed in the name of evolution to prove it?

Click to expand...

Shows ignorance of the relevance of frauds.

Ernst Haeckal,

Click to expand...

Shows ignorance of the nature of Haeckel’s fraud. Haeckel did not produce fraudulent evidence. He tampered with some drawings of embryos. The embryos were real evidence. We understand embryology differently than Haeckel did; so even his thesis has been updated---but his thesis was not entirely wrong. Even his drawings were not entirely wrong, --it’s not as if he was imagining embryological resemblances--but they were more wrong than acceptable in an honest presentation of his facts. We might have gotten further in good embryological research sooner if he had not poisoned that well with his “slight exaggerations”. What Haeckel did was very harmful to ongoing research, but it did not require any significant change to the theory of evolution.

various so-called ape men,

Click to expand...

Since you did not name them, I can only guess which specific finds you are referring to, but I assume they include Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Java Man.

Of these only Piltdown Man was a genuine fraud.

Nebraska Man was not a fraud. It was a mistaken identification that was blown up into a cause celebre by a journalist looking for a dramatic story. The very first scientific examination of the “Nebraska Man” tooth identified it as coming from a peccary. It was never scientifically identified as anything other than a peccary.

(Journalists looking for a scoop are responsible for more “frauds” than scientists have been. Even a normally responsible magazine like National Geographic can succumb to the temptation to publish before the scientific review of a find is complete, as happened in the case of Archeoraptor, much to the embarrassment of NG.

The journalistic history of Moab Man is even more disgusting, as it appears the journalist who broke the story suppressed the testimony of the scientist who conducted the examination in favour of a more exciting story.)

Java Man was neither a fraud, nor a figment of journalistic imagination. It was and is a legitimate Homo erectus find.

peppered moths,

Click to expand...

You dealt extensively with the measures taken to capture and photograph the moths. What you did not allude to was whether this falsified their results. The thesis they were testing was whether bird predation was a significant factor in the increase of melanism in the moth population. Did any of the techniques used change the pattern of bird predation? If so, how? If not, what is the relevance of the capture & photography techniques to their results?

Not according to tocis' post up a little bit further (if my understanding is correct of it)...

Click to expand...

Could you give the post # you are referring to?

Although I don't agree with you, I won't be around much longer as it is pointless trying to have reasonable discussion with extremeists, the above quote I answered for example.

Click to expand...

Again a post # would be helpful in tracking the reference.

Then why did evolutionists waste so much time and money trying to create life in the test tube if it were not of some use to evolutionary theory? Obviously, since we have different opinions and views on evolution, then we'll never agree - so let's just move on.

Click to expand...

I take it you mean “biologists”. Abiogenesis is part of biology, just as evolution is. It’s just not the same part.

There is a difference between purposefully changing the calculations (i.e. evidence) to make it conform to the big bang and estimating. The estimations were the original calculations; Clark and Caswell, upon noting that this didn't fit in with big bang assumptions arbitarily changed the calculations such that they fit with the big bang assumptions. That is dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Measurements are evidence. Calculations are not. Estimated parameters are definitely not evidence. Estimates and calculations relevant to a model are tested for their accuracy against measurements in nature. It is standard scientific procedure in developing a model to estimate unknown parameters, calculate the result based on those parameters, and check the calculated results against actual measurements. Now what do you think scientists ought to do if the calculated measurements disagree with actual measurements? Which measurements should they keep to work with---the ones based on their own estimates or the ones derived from nature?

It seems obvious to me, that to continue working with calculated results that did not match natural observations, is an exercise in futility.

But one still needs a model to explain why the observed measurements are what they are. Science, after all, is in the business of explaining facts, not just observing them. So the scientists have to come up with a new model. That is why they redo the model with a new set of estimated parameters, that will yield results closer to the observed results.

That is not in any way, shape or form dishonest. It is an honest recognition that the original estimates were off the mark and substituting new estimates that are, hopefully, closer to the mark. It is letting the observed evidence steer the research toward a more accurate model of nature.

As a guess, computers and not estimations. If they were to "estimate" then they are playing with fire and one day they'll get their fingers burned.

Click to expand...

Now you are being facetious. What information do they look for using the computers?

About purposefully changing the data such that it conforms to big bang - yes I do. Not only does it show their alliegence to the theory over the evidence, it is also dishonest. Your comparison with a scientist's investigation and this one is silly as the scientist can readily test and observe and repeat things - with 3rd stage SNRs and so forth you can't.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between changing estimates and fudging data. Are you sure the figures you are referring to are actual data?

By work you mean "agree with the evidence". Just how exactly does one do that?

Click to expand...

This is where you need to learn actual science. I can’t give you full details. You need to go to the scientific sources where the techniques for confirming that scientific conclusions are supported by the evidence are explained.

Rocks don't come with a tag attached as to how old they are!

Click to expand...

To some extent they do. Remember the antiquity of the earth had been established long before radiometry was developed. Geologists used relative dating and known rates of rock formation. E.g. direct observation can tell you how limestone forms and how long the process takes. So when a geologist comes upon a formation of limestone, an estimate can be made of how long it took to form.

One has to make guesses as to whether or not the decay rate has been constant,

Click to expand...

No one doesn’t. That was established in prior testing. We know the decay rate is not affected by any terrestrial conditions, because scientists spent many years trying to find out whether and how the decay rate could be changed. Nothing they tried changed the decay rate. So we know that it is constant under any relevant conditions.

how much daughter element there was originally, whether or not any element has been subtracted or added since solidification, and so on

Click to expand...

And scientists have developed ways to test for all of these. They are not unknown quantities and any source that has told you otherwise is (knowingly or unknowingly) lying to you.

All of these are unprovable guesses that cannot be proven.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a lie. (Not accusing you of being the liar—no doubt you believed what you read/were told. Nevertheless, anyone saying this is passing on a lie, even if they do not know it is a lie.)

In many other cases, rocks ages are based on how old the fossil of a particular animal or plant is believed to be. That is circular reasoning as well.

Click to expand...

Did you know that faunal succession was established by a Christian engineer in 1831? Please show me in what way William Smith’s reasoning is circular?

Also, all the different dating methods give different dates when applied to the same rock with different error measurements - how does the scientist decide which one is right and why, and which ones are wrong and why?

Click to expand...

Actually, they don’t, normally. That is one reason scientists have confidence in them.

Once again, for you to say "unreliable dates" implies that you initially believe the age of the rock to be "X".

Click to expand...

No, I don’t need to have any prior assumption about the age of the rock. Any measuring tool which gives inconsistent results about rock samples is, by definition, unreliable. If the results of dating tests still leave a scientist in the dark about the age of the sample, it is useless.

This does not mean that every test will be accurate. That is why scientists do not put much confidence in a date which relies on only one test. But if a preponderance of results from several tests yields dates in the same range, the confidence in the accuracy of the date increases. After all, there are many ways to get an incorrect date, but very few that will give a correct one.

When these is done, we see that they give some of the most stupid ages with 99.99% error in some cases! If they have been shown not to work on rocks of known ages, why should we trust them on rocks of unknown ages? That's illogical!

Click to expand...

I expect that you are referring to some well-publicized examples in which incorrect dates were derived by deliberating using an incorrect dating method for the sample e.g. using a K-Ar test on recently formed rocks. Or deliberately using a contaminated sample. When you use a dating system unsuited to the sample, or a contaminated sample, you must expect to get an inaccurate result.

For starters, please quote me where I have said any of the things you accuse me of?

Click to expand...

You are questioning the reliability of scientific dating methods right? You are questioning the constancy of decay rates. You are questioning whether one can do any more that guess how much parent material was in a rock to begin with.

Why do you question these? It sounds like you are assuming that scientists jumped into playing with a new toy without ever asking the same questions themselves. Even minimal research into the history and practice of radiometry would show that assumption to be baseless. So all this shows is that you have not done your homework. Yet without educating yourself on radiometry at all, you are willing to assume that scientists are using it irresponsibly.

My question remains: how do you know what "accurate" is? If you refer to the straight line received from graphing the results that supposedly mean there is no contemination, then you should have no problem in believing that the Grand Canyon formed up-side-down as it were - as rocks at the bottom of the Canyon were found to be younger than rocks at the top of it! This alone proves that there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the assumptions that the radiometric dating methods work off.

Click to expand...

What you have to remember is that groups like ICR have a vested interest in casting doubt on radiometry and any other measurement that affirms the antiquity of the earth. This means they have a vested interest in hiding or distorting the data. Look for what they are not telling you before you conclude they are right. btw lava flows are generally younger than the rock around them. That is expected. The description of Strontium-Rubidium dating is --to put it as kindly as possible--very misleading.

Also note that the age of the rocks in the Grand Canyon is indisputably much more than a young earth framework could allow even without radiometry.

As to the last sentence, no offence, but what a hypocrite! You and many other evolutionists are more than happy to pay out Creation scientists out of ignorance! I have asked for examples, yet I have received none!

Click to expand...

Examples of what?

And FYI, it wasn't a "slur against scientists on the basis of my ignorance". If you could show me how, then I would be appreciative and withdraw my statements.

Click to expand...

I believe what I said above answers this.

Upsilon said:

I won't bother with your other replies because I can already tell that it will be a waste of my time.

Click to expand...

In other words, you got more substance than you thought you'd get from us, and now that you've been confronted with evidences you can't explain (including evidences you asked for), you're going to run away without addressing them.

Your posts are long, but generally don't say much. They are burdened with vitriolic rhetoric and mudslinging, which is especially unseemly from a newbie and from someone who knows little about the sciences and evidences relevant to this discussion. And what's not vitriol consists of PRATT arguments that are nothing relevatory (e.g., He in the atmosphere, misguided complaints about the peppered moth photos, etc.). You complain about not receiving evidences, and when you receive them, you still complain. That type of posting style does not facilitate any serious discussion on this forum. Hopefully you will actually learn something about science rather than blindly arguing against things you don't understand.

Many scientists must be ignorant of the 'law of biogenesis' since so much of the top biologist works count on abiogenesis...Actually, biogenesis is the number one creationist lie. It got me very scared when I typed it in, and the first thing I saw was a creationist site and no scientifically credible links other than about two with this being on of them...

"Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."

Anything else? (Sigh. I disproved this one twice within the last 24 hours... How many more times must I suffer?) I'll give links if I need to to anyone who wants them...

I must say I've spent some time reading the messages in this thread and it's a tad shocking...Christians and non-Christians alike spraying around the word "hate" like it's nothing. I have spent a very long time studying the Creation/Evolution debate and there are alot of things you come to discover that basically illustrate that God is the Way, Truth, and Life. Evolution strives to do one thing...put man in the top seat of the universe...it has done so since it was created. Darwin himself stated that he did not mean to produce such an Atheist work. He himself believed in God but he was baffled at the amount of suffering in the world saying that a loving God would never allow pain and suffering. One thing people have VASTLY overlooked in these present times is the definition of love...and of hate. Love is now what's on TV. Love is what the INDIVIDUAL wants. Jesus himself illustrated the true meaning of this word saying love is characteristic of a man willing to lay down his life for his friends. He then demonstarted it, becoming our friend through His love. We choose to accept it. The only time I fire off the Creationist cannon is when an Atheist Evolutionist singles me out to try and disprove God...THIS is what this information should be used for, not in a display of wits and knowledge of who is right and wrong, but in love for a person who displays no want or desire to befriend you in any way. THIS is where the results come from...the heart, not the head. As long as we sit and argue this topic over and over, it's going to stay this way...you can't take Satan out of this world by firing him up. You have to do it by LOVE and this is when the creation starts to make sense...folks, the Bible is the True Living Word...66 books written by several different people in different parts of the world, over thousands of years, that come together in perfect chronological harmony with a singular message of hope and love...the Earth was made in 6 literal 24 hour days...all of the beasts of the Earth were named by Adam....there WAS a flood...the Earth CANNOT be billions of years old, because man brought death into the world...Evolution says death brought man into the world...you can't smash the two together...it is one or the other...but God's word says eternal life...evolution says worm food...which sounds better to you? Love is what this world is constructed by...but you have to look at the whole picture...not just what YOU think love is....yes there is hate...but think... Hate---->wrongdoing---->suffering---->love....hate causes suffering, suffering displays love....love is why we are here...not to do what we want when we want. This world is constructed by God and it is plain to see once you take off the blindfold that Satan has placed upon you...telling you that God couldn't make you the way you are the first time, so your ancestors had to keep dying off until he got it right...I"m sorry, if your God is the same as mine...he does it perfectly the FIRST time...so there is no doubt in my mind that the God of this world had the capacity to be perfect and make man into the perfectly functioning wonderful machine he is today. That is my take on this debate...if you are an Atheistic Evolutionist...why are you chosing a path that blatantly says you are going to die and be eaten alive by worms, saying you mean nothing to this planet and are worthless. If you are a Christian Evolutionist - Why is your God retarded? Couldn't he have made man in his own image to BEGIN with? Christian Creationists- What is your motive for your debate? To show God's love or stand on your stool acting smart? Might this be why you aren't saving any souls? I am a Christian and I believe my God made this world in 6 days...no matter what anyone says there is evidence that backs this theory 110%, while Evolution is conceivable, it is not as believable when you look at the evidence, but the only way anyone will ever understand is out of love, not this "I hate Creationists I hate Evolutionists" ****, you guys will never get anywhere. Let's stop digging holes and start saving souls shall we?