Dr. Dino, a look at an article...

[CoHehir]

Immediately after the flood, as the Bible states, 17 sons were born to Noah's sons. These are just sons. Likely there were an equal number of daughters. Just 17 sons, however, comes out to 25 people total. Already a jump of 312%! From just a few people, in a non-competitive environment, you have a population explosion. Then, in the next generation there are no fewer than 40 sons born, again, not including daughters. This is a 160% jump from the previous generation.

When we are working with this small, uncontested group of humans, a gradual .33% growth rate is not reliable. It takes massive cities and great nations to slow down the population growth with war, disease, and famine.

 

[Arikay]

So you are making assumptions and are saying that the data that the source you provided is unreliable.

Im not sure I understand the point.

Today at 05:20 PM CoHehir said this in Post #41

Immediately after the flood, as the Bible states, 17 sons were born to Noah's sons. These are just sons. Likely there were an equal number of daughters. Just 17 sons, however, comes out to 25 people total. Already a jump of 312%! From just a few people, in a non-competitive environment, you have a population explosion. Then, in the next generation there are no fewer than 40 sons born, again, not including daughters. This is a 160% jump from the previous generation.

When we are working with this small, uncontested group of humans, a gradual .33% growth rate is not reliable. It takes massive cities and great nations to slow down the population growth with war, disease, and famine.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 08:15 PM mjiracek said this in Post #37

K-aR was not being tested outside of its limits. 

Yes, it was. Again, the article caters to readers who do not read the scientific literature on the method.

The K-Ar method works only for samples as young as 10,000 years, and in some cases 5,000 years depending on the measurement techniques.

Potassium-40 decays into both Calcium-40 and Argon-40. Only about 10% of the K-40 in a sample decays to Argon-40 whereas the other ~90% decays to Ca-40. Thus, this method is not accurate for young ages. This is a known limitation. Dating a rock formed ~50 years ago is outside the known limitations of the method.

So again: how does using the method outside of its known limitations invalidate it?

 

[Justme]

Hi mjiracek,

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

I just popped by here because I saw the Dr Dino name. Let's see how can I say this nicely. Some coins know more than Hovind about the age of earth.

I have to tell you that as I read thru this, these guys are making you look kinda bad, naive, unscholarly and such.

I left a link up top that takes you to stuff stored at the University of Hawaii.
The hawaii example is the easy way to come to an understanding of the age of earth.
I'd take a look anyway. Good luck.

Take care,

Justme

 

[mjiracek]

i read your link arikay. are you talking about the recycling of the earths crust? because if you are that doesnt make sense. ingeous is new rock. granted it takes existing materials to make rock but it in and of itself is new. in somecases it mixes other rocks to make new rocks so to say that you are using old rocks is bad...but maybe i readthe link wrong

 

[CoHehir]

The previous response was to a gradual system of population growth. In more recent history the gradual population growth is feasible, since nearly billion people live on earth, many who are competing for food sources. Population has simply slowed down. At the time immediately following the flood, and any time with humans (as we tend to be able to reason things out and within a matter of hours configure a 'technology' that will do the trick) we have been able to move farther from our origin point and make a life easily. Noah's grandchildren moved great distances to find land with plenty of resources. Nothing held them back from exploding into hundreds and thousands within a few generations. A small population can easily double within one generation.

 

[mjiracek]

holy buckets... fine forget it your all right im wrong...radiometric dating is perfect. i see it now. of course its just all guesses anyway since noone here was alive when any of this stuff happened millions of years ago right? if you were tell me and ill stop believing in a youngearth and that will save us a lot of trouble. if not, dont say that your dating methoda are correct since noone was around to confirm them.
now i am not saying i was there at the beginning of the earth to confirm a young earth. what i am saying is we have all the same evidence and i think your interpretation of it is wrong and i have given scholarly support for it other than kent hovind and if you want to check ICR's credentials go to their website and look and their list of scientists.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

No one has said that radiometric dating is perfect. We said that they are well established methods based upon sound principles in chemistry.

Whether or not anyone was "there" or not is irrelevant because decay constants are just that: constants. It might be good to read up on the method, the principles behind it, and why it works.

The problem with places like ICR and AiG is that they make factual errors: the radiometric dating situation is one example--they completely ignore the fact that the method has known limitations. They also omit evidence: the recent thread on varves is a prime example.

Quite frankly, you've shown absolutely no basis to show that modern geology is wrong at all, nor have you shown any real basis for young earth geology. Young earth geology is based upon misconceptions and factual omissions. There is another thread devoted to features that ARE a part of the evidence that YECists have yet to explain to fit their model. Apparently we don't all have the same evidence because places like ICR and AiG simply omit whatever they don't like.

 

[Arikay]

Im with Mech Bliss.

It has been shown time and time again the AIG and ICR and DrDino use false evidence, or ignore some of the evidence or only give half the information to support their claims. This example of the poorly used K/Ar dating is one example of how they try to misslead people.

No one has said that its perfect, however we have found that it works.

Carefull saying that since we werent there we cant know anything. As that also can hurt the bible. Since no one was there during creation.
The difference is that, we werent there, but we do have evidence from things there were there, and things that did evolve.

creationism isnt science. (well, current creationism isnt science. older creationism was and was falsified.)

Today at 05:34 PM mjiracek said this in Post #47

holy buckets... fine forget it your all right im wrong...radiometric dating is perfect. i see it now. of course its just all guesses anyway since noone here was alive when any of this stuff happened millions of years ago right? if you were tell me and ill stop believing in a youngearth and that will save us a lot of trouble. if not, dont say that your dating methoda are correct since noone was around to confirm them.
now i am not saying i was there at the beginning of the earth to confirm a young earth. what i am saying is we have all the same evidence and i think your interpretation of it is wrong and i have given scholarly support for it other than kent hovind and if you want to check ICR's credentials go to their website and look and their list of scientists.

 

[mjiracek]

Whether or not anyone was "there" or not is irrelevant because decay constants are just that: constants. It might be good to read up on the method, the principles behind it, and why it works.

you say its constant and they you yell at kent hovind for assumingthere are constants. and evolutionists omit evidence too. and im not going to look up any more websites for you. if you dont agree with me look it up your self. and catastophic events screw up radiometric dating.

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

maybe i havent proven anything to you about a young earth but you certainly havent done it for me either

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 08:17 PM mjiracek said this in Post #38

so there fore harcoff we should be able to breed quicker since we do not have to worry about our carrying capacity right? i mean if the food is growing in the field how about me and the wife procreate?

No, we still have to worry about carrying capacity. If it weren't for certain technological advances, we would not be able to sustain some of the populations we currently do. But we certainly wouldn't be up to 2x10^89 people. The Earth cannot sustain such a large population of humans.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 08:54 PM mjiracek said this in Post #50

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

Actually, there have been plenty of laboratory tests on evolution, as well as observations of evolution in action in the wild. Why do you think the theory is even around?

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

What are you saying? That people that don't accept the YEC interpretation of the Bible are not Christians or are not saved?

 

[troodon]

Today at 05:54 PM mjiracek said this in Post #50

you say its constant and they you yell at kent hovind for assumingthere are constants. and evolutionists omit evidence too. and im not going to look up any more websites for you. if you dont agree with me look it up your self. and catastophic events screw up radiometric dating.

The decay rates of many isotopes have been known since WWI and they've yet to change. Exactly what attribute of radioactive elements made their decay rates change for 5922 years and then suddenly stop in the last 1.5% of the universe's existance?

 

[CoHehir]

That's the point, starting from 41,000 years BC introduces this problem.

Carrying capacity will only begin to emerge in human populations when large populations are amassed in regions that will not support it. 8 people in a region won't push anything to its limits, but after say 20 generations of at least doubling generations, there would be problems. Yet the Bible records most of the 3rd generation (Noah is 1st, Jephtah, Ham, Shem 2nd, etc.) as moving to places hundreds of miles from their origin. No problem with carrying capacity as of yet.

 

[Zadok001]

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither [sic] of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

Let's go over that paragraph one bit at a time.

"if it was it would be observed"

It is. We see new species form regularly. We see replication with modification.

"tested"

Done. Again, we see new species form. Beyond this, what testing do you recommend?

"and repeatable"

Sure. Also done. Again, we see new species form. We see descent with modification. We've even seen it repeatedly. (And btw - How is "Goddidit" observable, testable, and repeatable?)

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

Actually, this forum is for Christians AND non-Christians. It says so under the primary link to the forum from the main page.

And your statement is a clear example of false dichotomy. You want to say that either we believe the YEC story or we believe the Bible is false. This is incorrect. Several people on this board believe that the Genesis stories are METAPHORICAL (big word, I know), and that the Bible is true. One need not believe in a literal flood to believe the Bible.

 

[Arikay]

you say its constant and they you yell at kent hovind for assumingthere are constants. and evolutionists omit evidence too. and im not going to look up any more websites for you. if you dont agree with me look it up your self. and catastophic events screw up radiometric dating.

There is a difference. Mr. Hovind looks at one piece of data, and then assumes that everything happens like that data suggests (like, the sun is shrinking example). However, scientists look at multiple amounts of data and after plenty of research and testing, they conclude that radiometric dating is constant.
The difference is one group does research, the other doesnt.

Really? catastophic events screw up radiometric dating. Which type of radiometric dating, can you provide evidence for this claim?

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

Well, if observation is needed, then guess what, evolution has observations. Both Micro and Macro evolution has been observed.
Then there is the other evidence, like fossils.

maybe i havent proven anything to you about a young earth but you certainly havent done it for me either

So, you mean, even after being shown they lied to you when they said that they had shown K/Ar dating to be false, you still believe them?

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

So, tell me, how does not believing a literal interpretation of genesis effect your salvation?
Can you tell me how a a non literal genesis, falsifies Jesus?

Um, im not a christian, I am in the correct place. If you read the forum description you will see this is for both christian and non christian people.

Im sorry you seem to have gotten mad. I hope you will reconsider your possition isntead of just getting mad and closing your ears to the world god supposably created.

Today at 05:54 PM mjiracek said this in Post #50

Whether or not anyone was "there" or not is irrelevant because decay constants are just that: constants. It might be good to read up on the method, the principles behind it, and why it works.

you say its constant and they you yell at kent hovind for assumingthere are constants. and evolutionists omit evidence too. and im not going to look up any more websites for you. if you dont agree with me look it up your self. and catastophic events screw up radiometric dating.

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

maybe i havent proven anything to you about a young earth but you certainly havent done it for me either

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

 

[mjiracek]

give me an example of a new species of animal...please please tell me master. i want to know but i have never seen one. and i want to clarify...your in the wrong thread not the wrong forum. i am saying you need to be converted and if it can be done here fine but i do not see it happening we all but two of the people in this thread as far as i can tell are not christians. thats all i was saying about that.

and the genesis account was not written as a metaphor. if it was jesus would not have quoted it as history. and i have spoken with hebrew scholars who studied the dead sea scrolls which are the oldest hebrew texts we have.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 09:03 PM CoHehir said this in Post #54

That's the point, starting from 41,000 years BC introduces this problem.

Carrying capacity will only begin to emerge in human populations when large populations are amassed in regions that will not support it. 8 people in a region won't push anything to its limits, but after say 20 generations of at least doubling generations, there would be problems. Yet the Bible records most of the 3rd generation (Noah is 1st, Jephtah, Ham, Shem 2nd, etc.) as moving to places hundreds of miles from their origin. No problem with carrying capacity as of yet.

Carrying capacity would be a problem throughout human history. The only reason we can sustain such large populations now is because of technology. This would not have been the case in the past. For example, agriculture has only been around for 10000 years or so.

This whole idea of starting a human population 41000 years ago and having them run into the problem of hitting 2x10^89 people now is completely ludicrous since it assumes the population never hit the carrying capacity of the environment along the way. Technological advances along the way would allow populations to continue to grow to certain points, but certainly not exponentially.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 08:54 PM mjiracek said this in Post #50

you say its constant and they you yell at kent hovind for assumingthere are constants.

No, I don't. I accuse him of making errors, which have been clearly shown.

Decay constants are experimentally determined. They are essentially constants of proportionality for the differential equation expressing the number of parent atoms per unit time: dN/dt=-AN. the relationship between half life and decay constant can simply be determined by solving the differential equation and considering that at the half life half of the initial number of atoms has decayed.

and evolutionists omit evidence too.

Such as...? I've provided concrete examples of YECs ignoring evidence.

and im not going to look up any more websites for you.

Good. I hope you take that time to start looking at science textbooks, for starters, instead of non-scientific websites.

if you dont agree with me look it up your self. and catastophic events screw up radiometric dating.

Nope, this has not been shown. In fact, it has been shown that radiometric decay is constant, observed experimentally, and unaffected by changes in pressure, temperature, and the surroundings.

evlotion is not science...if it was it would be observed, tested, and repeatable...neither of which can be done in the case of evolution. all that it is is making a hypothosis

I can't tell you how many times this has been addressed on this very forum in the past twelve hours, even. You are just showing your misunderstanding of the scientific method.

maybe i havent proven anything to you about a young earth but you certainly havent done it for me either

This isn't about proof. This is about evidence and the logically deduced theory that best explains that evidence.

The only reason you refuse to accept my refutation is because it disagrees with your interpretation of your religious book, which has not been demonstrated to be factual in the first place. You have not shown any factual basis for your beliefs whatsoever. You simply hand-wave away what I say and/or put your hands over your eyes. Furthermore, it is clear that you haven't truly explored many of these topics and instead prefer to rely only on what non-scientists tell you who have a bias for your interpretation. They tell you what you want to hear.

finally if you are christians then you have to believe the Bible is true. if you dont then salvation means nothing to you. if you arent christian then you are on the wrong thread in the first place.

The majority of Christians do not share your interpretation of the Bible--most accept an old Earth, and even evolution. I guess it's up to you to decide whether your holy book is a book addressing spirituality or if it somehow also manages to address scientific concepts when it was actually written long before the development of the scientific method. It's clear that scientifically speaking, with your interpretation, it's unreliable.

And no, I'm not on the wrong thread simply for not being Christian. This forum is open to Christians and non-Christians. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that a fair number of people responding here are in fact Christians who are pointing out your errors.

 

[mjiracek]

and they say that the author wrote it as if it happened. we can study the word day if you want and see how in every instance it was a literal day, not a period of time. but then you would say i was being lied to by a hebrew scholar too right?