ICR Acts and Facts

[Speedwell]

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

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

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

You don't have any science to rebut. All you've got is a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis which we don't care enough about to rebut.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know the basics of teh scientific method enough thank you.

But it is not me that has declared as fact that scales evolvewd from feathers. It is your high priests! And facts are based on empirical physical evidence- so where is it to support this supposed fact????????????????

Science do not have priests.

 

[nolidad]

Don't apologize - you got him to make some most telling admissions and to apparently be somewhat honest in his self-appraisal. For once.

I have been honest from the beginning.

I never admitted to being a scientist, nor being able to knowledgeably argue in the minutae (though I try and fail often- bad habit of mine).

Maybe I won't apologize for my errors anymore so that some of you guys and your arrogance, false assumptions of people and slanderous unsubstantiated claims can stand out like a billion candle spotlight in a starless night!

 

[nolidad]

This point really needs to be emphasized. That there are no independent methods to corroborate YEC claims of the age of the Earth, solar system or universe speaks volumes about such claims.

Well as they start with that as their foundation in the same way that evolutionist start with ages old universe, earth and life- by destroying the supposed long ages is one solid branch of evidence.

And there has been much research by ICR, AIG and many scientists in CRS to show young ages for the earth.

But we do believe the account of Genesis was revealed by god to Adam. That comes from having a real relationship with God and finding HIm trustworthy. Yes I know that cannot be validated by the scientific method- but many truths and many realities cannot be .

Old universe and earth and life are all based on the assumption that every value of every formula used to calculate these ages by viewing present day phenomena and extrapolating backwards are accurate. That cannot be known either just assumed.

 

[lasthero]

I know the basics of teh scientific method enough thank you.

What are they, then? In your own words.

Better yet, take one of the creationist papers you champion and explain how it follows the method.

 

[VirOptimus]

Well as they start with that as their foundation in the same way that evolutionist start with ages old universe, earth and life- by destroying the supposed long ages is one solid branch of evidence.

And there has been much research by ICR, AIG and many scientists in CRS to show young ages for the earth.

But we do believe the account of Genesis was revealed by god to Adam. That comes from having a real relationship with God and finding HIm trustworthy. Yes I know that cannot be validated by the scientific method- but many truths and many realities cannot be .

Old universe and earth and life are all based on the assumption that every value of every formula used to calculate these ages by viewing present day phenomena and extrapolating backwards are accurate. That cannot be known either just assumed.

We dont start ”with ages old universe”. The age of the universe is inferred from the facts and data.

Its you who start with dogmatic truths, not us.

 

[pitabread]

And there has been much research by ICR, AIG and many scientists in CRS to show young ages for the earth.

Except for the fact that there are no independent methodologies that date the Earth, solar system or universe that agree with the proposed YEC claims. You can search creationist literature (I have); you will not find any.

Even ICR's rate project came away with the conclusion that they need to account for at least hundreds of millions of years worth of radiation. And they can't account for it within a YEC framework short of invoking a miracle of God.

The *only* thing that YECs base their age of the Earth claims on is their interpretation of the Bible. That's it.

 

[Speedwell]

Well as they start with that as their foundation in the same way that evolutionist start with ages old universe, earth and life- by destroying the supposed long ages is one solid branch of evidence.

"Evolutionsts" don't start with an old universe. That was a conclusion reluctantly but inevitably drawn from the evidence during the 18th and early 19th century by scientists, most of them Christian clergymen who had set out to find evidence supporting the biblical account but had to give it up because the evidence just did not support it. This was, of course, well before there was a theory of evolution, so calling them "evolutionists" is rhetorical trickery.

Old universe and earth and life are all based on the assumption that every value of every formula used to calculate these ages by viewing present day phenomena and extrapolating backwards are accurate. That cannot be known either just assumed.

It can be in many cases, variations in these values sufficient to collapse the apparent 14.5 billion year age of the universe down to 6000 years would have left detectable evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

"Evolutionsts" don't start with an old universe. That was a conclusion reluctantly but inevitably drawn from the evidence during the 18th and early 19th century by scientists, most of them Christian clergymen who had set out to find evidence supporting the biblical account but had to give it up because the evidence just did not support it. This was, of course, well before there was a theory of evolution, so calling them "evolutionists" is rhetorical trickery.

A common failing of the run-of-the-mill YEC is this abysmal ignorance of the time, the generations, it took for an appreciation of the age of the Earth to take root and for the recognition to emerge that evolution was real, all this well before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Darwin built on a very solid foundation without which his theory could not have been developed. In fairness, there are several "evolutionists" at whom the same charge could be levelled, but at least they generally grasp the Modern Synthesis.

 

[Jimmy D]

The *only* thing that YECs base their age of the Earth claims on is their interpretation of the Bible. That's it.

Or Ussher’s interpretation based on a lot of guesswork and fantastical 500 year (a vague generalisation on my part) lifespans.

Of course evidence for such fantastic stories isn’t subject to the same scrutiny for some reason.

 

[46AND2]

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

Yes we can, and have...repeatedly.

 

[46AND2]

I have multiple times!

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

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

All these have been explained to you. Repeating your false claims does not make them true.

 

[46AND2]

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

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

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

I know the latter is true!

Those aren't the only two conclusions, as has been explained to you many times. You've gotten to the point in the conversation where you don't have an answer for our responses, so you backtrack and repeat your claims as if we haven't already responded to them. It's getting tired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

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

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

Where has this been found? You can't seem to find any reliable support for any of these claims. And how do you explain the countless amount of scientific evidence that tells us that the Earth is old and a total lack of scientific evidence fro a young Earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

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

Of course it has been demonstrated. Do you want to do so again? Steve Austin made errors in his refutation of dating that an undergrad geologist would make. He knew what he was doing wrong. He was bright enough to get a PhD, you can't explain how he made the errors that the did. You are relying on loons, liars and losers.

You have posted no "research" you have only posted failed creationist claims, though you are correct about the ad nauseum.

Let's take one of your claims at a time and we can go through it step by step to tell you how it fails.

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is now permanently closed due to flaming/goading. 68 pages and there were several cleans along the way.

MOD HAT OFF​