Help Me Understand!

[LewisWildermuth]

One of the more recent evidences was discovered by the RATE group (a group of scientists from various creationist organizations). Following is a quote.

"There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows:
• When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock.
• Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
• By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
• There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
• Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years."

TheAman_1

Here they fail to tell you a few things and again they hope you won't do the research that will expose their bad science...



Did you know the area that he got his sample from is known for it's underground reservoirs of helium? That there are actually helium "mines" in that part of the country? That this helium contaminates the area, giving rocks taken from this area a higher than normal helium content?



No? I wonder why he would not tell you about such things that cast doubt on his results and honesty…







Again, lying is never a good move when you claim to be spreading Gods truth…

 

[lucaspa]

The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth.

Sorry, but the age here is essentially background. 50,000 years is "background", because the amount of C14 left after 10 half lives (50,000 years) is so small that current techniques cannot measure it above the background radiation present on the earth from cosmic rays and other isotopes present. So the measurement was not C14. Sorry, but you have been misled. You were misled more below:

This article also lists new information about carbon 14 dating.

"Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.
This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.

They didn't tell you that C14 dating is only accurate on biological samples. That is, the premise behind the technique is that the organism takes in C14 from the atmosphere and that, upon its death, that input stops.

Therefore, Baungardner was wrong to start with in trying to date a mineral -- diamonds -- with C14 dating.

And yes, any C14 containing compounds in the surrounding soil -- such as humic acid, would exchange carbon atoms with those in the diamond lattice. The lattice is strong, and the bonds are strong, but the individual molecules can exchange.

C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown.

Nice attempt to ward off criticism, but the simple assertion doesn't work. "Background" here means the radiation that surrounds us all, and there is no way around that. C14 labs simply don't have sensitive enough techniques to get an accurate 58,000 year age. And they really didn't address contamination at the website. This can be tested during the procedure by looking at the C14 present in the washes prior to testing. They didn't do that. IOW, the very test that would have shown them whether they had contamination or not, they didn't do! See the thread "C14 dating" for the website that will tell you all the techniques to remove contamination.

 

[TheAmanOne]

Did you know the area that he got his sample from is known for it's underground reservoirs of helium? That there are actually helium "mines" in that part of the country? That this helium contaminates the area, giving rocks taken from this area a higher than normal helium content?

Forgive me for being skeptical, but where is a source confirming your statement.

Again, lying is never a good move when you claim to be spreading Gods truth…

And compromise is? Should we believe that God is so limited that he cannot even preserve the Bible effectively? I should think not.

TheAman_1

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I see no reason why God requires you to write His agenda for Him, Aman_1

 

[Mike Flynn]

And compromise is? Should we believe that God is so limited that he cannot even preserve the Bible effectively? I should think not.

TheAman_1

Science does not compromise the Bible TheAmanOne. If it does, then please show us how it does.

 

[Sinai]

Again, lying is never a good move when you claim to be spreading Gods truth…

And compromise is? Should we believe that God is so limited that he cannot even preserve the Bible effectively? I should think not.

Excuse me, Aman, but what compromise are you referring to? Also, I got a bit lost on your next statement: Although I have been reading the discussin between you, LewisWildermuth and lucaspa, I failed to find the part where someone claimed the Bible had not been effectively preserved. If you would be so kind as to point out where that reference is (or what you were referring to), I would appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[TheAmanOne]

[/font]
Excuse me, Aman, but what compromise are you referring to? Also, I got a bit lost on your next statement: Although I have been reading the discussin between you, LewisWildermuth and lucaspa, I failed to find the part where someone claimed the Bible had not been effectively preserved. If you would be so kind as to point out where that reference is (or what you were referring to), I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Not a problem Sinai. Here are some examples.

Karl, please put that in the thread "Consequences of creationism". It is one of the consequences that falsifies creationism. If creationism were true, that data should not exist.

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

In other words, AiG is lying to you and hopes that you will not call them on it. Do you believe that lying about God and God's creation is a good way to convert people?

The inevitable conclusion is that the Bible must be interpreted by man-made evolutionary beliefs despite the fact that there is no mention of evolutionary processes in the Bible. The conclusion, the Bible must be looked upon as incomplete. What about the race of ape-like ancestors before Adam? Genesis does not say anything about them, so it must be the Bible that is at fault, not man’s limited thinking. Let’s move on to more pertinent details.

Science does not compromise the Bible TheAmanOne. If it does, then please show us how it does.

I would be more than willing to discuss this in another thread. To do so here would not only be off topic, but would detract from the current discussion. Moving on to Lucas's statement regarding helium defusing into the granite:

“The experimenter also accurately measured the total amounts of Helium in both the zircons and in the surrounding flakes of biotite. This ties up some loose ends for our case: (1) The total amount of Helium in the zircons confirms Gentry's retention measurements very well. (2) Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons than in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. (3) The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost.”
H t t p : / / w w w .icr.org / pubs/ imp /imp-366. h t m

This supposed 'bad science' has already been explained.

Regarding Lucas’s statements about C14, he said that the upper limit is 50,000 years. First the limit can be extended to 100,000 years if accelerator techniques are used. While Lucas is correct that the resulting dates from such samples are probably not reliable, but the point is that they found C14 in a Precambrian diamond which would not easily allow any carbon to enter. As far as contamination is concerned, I wonder how you could contaminate the inside of a diamond with C14. Surely the diffusion rate cannot be that high. If anyone has any sources regarding diffusion of C14 into diamonds I would be very interested in reading it. Also, if anyone would like to discuss the reliability of C14 dating I would be more than happy to do so here.

TheAman_1

 

[aziel92]

Meteorites are estimated to hit the earth in the amount of 60 tons per day. In the geologic layers there is no presence of the these meteors. If the earth has been around as long as it is said where are the meteors?

W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of sedimentation (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1950) second edition, p. 144

Also there is an abundance of "short period" comets which are comets that only survive for 1500-10000 yrs. If the world is as old as its supposed to be then why are these still around?

John Maddox, "Halley's Comet is Quite Young," Nature, vol. 339(May 11, 1989).

 

[TheAmanOne]

I'm going to counter right now because I know this discussion is going to revert to the oort cloud.

"Is the Hubble telescope able to give us real proof of the Oort cloud?

No, it is not. Hubble and many large telescopes on the ground have recently been used to discover and track objects in the Kuiper Belt, which is about 100 astronomical units from the Sun. It is very challenging to observe these objects, since they small, black, and very far away, so they are 25th magnitude and dimmer! Objects in the Oort Cloud, believed to be 100,000 AU from the Sun, would be impossible to observe even with the best telescopes today. So the Oort Cloud can still only be inferred from the orbits of long-period comets."
h t t p : / / curious.astro.cornell. e d u /question. p h p? number=216

What we have here is a very strong case of evolutionary faith. After all, you can't see it, but it must be there because evolution is true.

TheAman_1

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm going to counter right now because I know this discussion is going to revert to the oort cloud.

"Is the Hubble telescope able to give us real proof of the Oort cloud?

No, it is not. Hubble and many large telescopes on the ground have recently been used to discover and track objects in the Kuiper Belt, which is about 100 astronomical units from the Sun. It is very challenging to observe these objects, since they small, black, and very far away, so they are 25th magnitude and dimmer! Objects in the Oort Cloud, believed to be 100,000 AU from the Sun, would be impossible to observe even with the best telescopes today. So the Oort Cloud can still only be inferred from the orbits of long-period comets."
h t t p : / / curious.astro.cornell. e d u /question. p h p? number=216

Problem is, until the Kuiper Belt was actually observed the creationists were saying exactly the same thing about it as they are now saying about the Oort cloud. The thing is that inference works.

What we have here is a very strong case of evolutionary faith.

Wrong. We have a very good example of inference. And the fact that the Kuiper Belt was inferred the same way and then observed shows that such inference works.

After all, you can't see it, but it must be there because evolution is true.

And what exactly do short period comets and the Oort cloud have to do with descent with modification? Absolutely nothing. When will creationists desist from ignorantly labelling everything they don't like in science as "evolution"?


TheAman_1[/QUOTE]

 

[lucaspa]

And compromise is? Should we believe that God is so limited that he cannot even preserve the Bible effectively? I should think not.

The theological statements were preserved. The theological ideas in Genesis 1-3 are just as valid in the science of today as they were in the Babylonian science in which they are set. The science was going to change. The theology -- which is what you really care about, isn't it? -- did not.

 

[lucaspa]

The inevitable conclusion is that the Bible must be interpreted by man-made evolutionary beliefs despite the fact that there is no mention of evolutionary processes in the Bible.

Please read the quotes again. The Bible must be interpreted by reference to God and His Creation. God wrote two books. If God really created, then Creation is the second book of God. Why do you ignore that book and thus ignore God?

Also, a literal interpretation is a man-made interpretation.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary beliefs". If you think so, what are they?

Finally, the Bible doesn't mention a lot of things. Such as electrons at the basis of the electronics we are using to communicate. Not being mentioned in the Bible is no reason to exclude something from reality.

Regarding Lucas’s statements about C14, he said that the upper limit is 50,000 years. First the limit can be extended to 100,000 years if accelerator techniques are used.

I'm afraid that is not true.

"Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. " http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html

I'm afraid they've given you a possibility as though it were fact. So, 58,000 years is background radiation. Which means it isn't an age. What they have told you is that the minimum age is 58,000 years. It can be infinitely older than that, but not younger. Hmmm. Doesn't that in itself pose a problem for a 6,000 year old earth?

While Lucas is correct that the resulting dates from such samples are probably not reliable, but the point is that they found C14 in a Precambrian diamond which would not easily allow any carbon to enter. As far as contamination is concerned, I wonder how you could contaminate the inside of a diamond with C14.

They didn't shave off the exterior.

Also, if anyone would like to discuss the reliability of C14 dating I would be more than happy to do so here.

You might want to do that in the C14 dating thread. However, we are already discussing the reliability and how the method can be screwed up.

For instance, you never addressed the problem that C14 dating on diamonds is illegitimate to begin with. You simply don't date diamonds. Like you don't date mollusc shells.

 

[lucaspa]

Meteorites are estimated to hit the earth in the amount of 60 tons per day. In the geologic layers there is no presence of the these meteors. If the earth has been around as long as it is said where are the meteors?

W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of sedimentation (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1950) second edition, p. 144

They've been subducted and incorporated into new rocks, for the most part. However, notice that one meteor that hit 65 million years ago has left evidence in the iridium boundary at K-T boundary. Also, there is that huge meteor crator at Chicxulub in Mexico. Recent papers are dicussing finding meteor fragments at the Permian-Triassic boundary 230 million years ago. So, there is "presence of these meteors", contrary to your statement. The fact that there are some meteor remains from those time periods falsifies YEC while there are mechanisms to eliminate most meteor fragments.

Also there is an abundance of "short period" comets which are comets that only survive for 1500-10000 yrs. If the world is as old as its supposed to be then why are these still around?

John Maddox, "Halley's Comet is Quite Young," Nature, vol. 339(May 11, 1989).

As you noted, the comets can be replenished from both the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud. In fact, it is thought that comets in the Oort Cloud came from the Kuiper Belt by being thrown out by gravitational interaction with the planets.

In another thread on this forum, Aman, I've posted a recent paper that also describes dormant comets. That is, comets that have repeatedly passed thru the inner solar system and lost their volatiles. We've had a close flyby of one of our interplanetary probes to one. Now, in a young solar system, why are there dormant comets? The solar system isn't old enough for so many comets to have gone thrus so many orbits such that they are exhausted of all volatiles.

 

[BabbleOn8806]

this is a BS thread. sorry but it is everything evenually takes faith if you weren't there to witness it happen. it's no use arguing over it because both sides are stubborn and won't give in hehe *takes deeo breath*

this will be my only post here because i take enough heat at school for being a Christian young earth creationist. with my average science grade being a 98.7% i would say that i understand it pretty well for a 15 year old. so i stick to debating those on my level lol- and u r ALL smarter than i am!

i'm leavin now, but just had to get that out. God bless you all!
your lil high school friend, Babble

 

[Bushido216]

W-e h-a-v-e o-b-s-e-r-v-e-d e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n.

 

[Myfairlady]

Is God a cosmic magician, controlling the actions of humans? Preservation of His words depends on the integrity of those doing the "preserving"

 

[lucaspa]

this is a BS thread. sorry but it is everything evenually takes faith if you weren't there to witness it happen.

Sorry, but that isn't true. What you are doing is denying cause and effect. The present is the way it is because the past is the way it was.

As long as an event leaves evidence that persists to the present, then we can say it happened without faith. I suggest you watch the various CSI series on TV and see what forensic science can, and does, do.

this will be my only post here because i take enough heat at school for being a Christian young earth creationist. with my average science grade being a 98.7% i would say that i understand it pretty well for a 15 year old. so i stick to debating those on my level lol- and u r ALL smarter than i am!

So you think that debate settles truth? That if you can overawe your contemporaries then that makes your position true? And you won't discuss here because we know more about the subject than you do and you don't want to "lose" the debate? How sad.

 

[lucaspa]

Is God a cosmic magician, controlling the actions of humans? Preservation of His words depends on the integrity of those doing the "preserving"

Good point. If God controls these actions down to what words the authors use, then God is a cosmic puppeteer. Also, who picked the texts we call "scripture" and why did they pick those and not some other texts?

 

[scott61525]

If anyone is interested in a non-religious presentation for a new earth then you should visit world wide web dot creationscience dot com
For me to try and present the data here that is presented on this website would take too much space.
One thing for any evolutionists and theistic evolutionists, the website contains a 25 year standing challenge to anyone who would wish to have a debate with the author that would be published by an unbiased publisher. No use of religious materials can be allowed into the discussion and no relying on religious argumentation either atheistic or theistic can be allowed. In order to be a qualified debator, you need to have a degree in a science field, that's it.
So now is your chance to prove you're right or wrong.
P.S. The man gives an excellent presentation of the facts without introducing the Bible to support his theories and presentations. But he does show where science facts prove the Bible to be correct and this is exceptable in his debate. If something proves the Bible right or wrong and the facts are hard data and not speculation such as the OORT CLOUD, then they can be presented. As I said, he has had this challenge for 25 years and no one to date has been able to debate him because of their insisting on using religious materials and discussions while he avoids any use to prove their is a God and that the Earth is young. Only the facts can be used.

 

[scott61525]

Sorry, but that isn't true. What you are doing is denying cause and effect. The present is the way it is because the past is the way it was.

As long as an event leaves evidence that persists to the present, then we can say it happened without faith. I suggest you watch the various CSI series on TV and see what forensic science can, and does, do.


So you think that debate settles truth? That if you can overawe your contemporaries then that makes your position true? And you won't discuss here because we know more about the subject than you do and you don't want to "lose" the debate? How sad.

Denying cause and effect. Now that's almost laughable coming from an atheist. You practically admit that there must be a God in that statement but you can't even see the woods because of the row of toothpicks in front of your eyeball. And the whole time you're going.."I wonder what these toothpicks are made of?"
Cause . God. Effect . You.
Cause is not equal to chance.
A fool hath said in His heart there is no God.
You knwo why it feel like banging your head upon a rock, because you are banging your head upon the Rock. He is a rock of offense. You hate him and that's why you can't see. You are an enemy of God and you'll do whatever it takes to dis-prove his existence. then you'll die. I always wonder what that first moment of Hell must be like when you and others like you first die. The fear. The cold realization you where utterly wrong and no you can't go back because your body has been burned up in a plane wreck or car wreck. Or you've been shot...or cancer and you die horribly, only to find out there is a God of Holiness that cannot allow you to be with Him in eternity because of your lies and sins, and instead of it being better it now just got horribly worse for you.
You know whats even sadder is this. If you're right...whoopdee doo. I die and it all goes black, but when you die and if the Bible is right....you go into a Lake of Fire that burns forever. The hope of unjust men perisheth. You know what that means. No Hope. Think of it. No escape. No rescue. No Way out. Never ending. Your little intellectual brain can't get the truth of God because it is spiritually discerned. You are blind because you think you can see. If anything you are already without hope and can't even see it because you're so smug. Truly the heart of man is wicked above all things.
Oh, but you'll be with your friends in Hell huh? No, you'll never see another person again..ever. So go on Oh wise one, surely wisdom will be buried with you. Surely God must be trembling in His throne at the wisdom of the foolish hearts of men like you. But one things is certain, it appointed unto you once to die, and after this the judgement. You have an appoinment. It is scheduled and sure. Your day of death will come as everyone who reads this will have their day. You may be athiest, or theist....the question is are you sure what you believe is the Truth? Because if you're wrong you'll have Hell to pay.