I'm tired of giving religionists a pass

[cupid dave]

Can you list them, please

7 "days?"

7) Cenozoic Duration:

6) Mesozoic Duration:

5) Paleozoic Duration:

4) Proterozoic Duration:

3) Archean Duration:

2) Hadean Duration:

1) The Cosmological/Formative Duration

see the thumb below

 

[plindboe]

I wonder if you can find any Bible verses in the human proteome

Laminin is shaped like a cross! God done it, case closed:

Oh, wait, never mind:

Peter

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

What about tRNA?

 

[Astridhere]

7 "days?"

7) Cenozoic Duration:

6) Mesozoic Duration:

5) Paleozoic Duration:

4) Proterozoic Duration:

3) Archean Duration:

2) Hadean Duration:

1) The Cosmological/Formative Duration

see the thumb below

Hey there

I'm a fairly liberal creationist. However I see alot of good reasoning in some of the YEC dating methods.

Helium dating appears to be more robust than the usual radiometric dating methods including Isochron. Helium dating puts the age of the earth at around 6,000 years.

Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years
Radiometric Dating Methods

There are also a heck of a lot of scientists abandoning evolutionary theory for various creationist paradigms.eg John Sanford an ex evolutionists turned YEC, with published papers on entrophy. It is becoming more and more evident with time that evolution and naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe and ordinary planet earth, are not the answers.

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials
Do real scientists believe in Creation? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists


Now with the proposal of wave theory placing earth at the cenre of the universe as opposed to the questionable evidence for Big Bang theory, and your dating methods which seriously call into question some old earth dating methods, I am really leaning towards a YEC view.

I believe, God left adequate evidence of himself in His creations and in the incredible scientific knowledge in demonstration of a higher intelligence guiding the scriptures. However, as we know, the truth will only be seen by those that seek to find it. The truth will certainly never be found by an atheist that will accept any flavour of the month offered to them, so long as it does not aside with a creator.

 

[Phred]

There are also a heck of a lot of scientists abandoning evolutionary theory for various creationist paradigms.eg John Sanford an ex evolutionists turned YEC, with published papers on entrophy. It is becoming more and more evident with time that evolution and naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe and ordinary planet earth, are not the answers.

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

No, there aren't. You list six. And none of them are biologists. Not one.

I refer you to the court case of Kitzmiller v. Dover. A conservative judge was convinced by listening to the evidence.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Helium dating appears to be more robust than the usual radiometric dating methods including Isochron.

Evidence please.

There are also a heck of a lot of scientists abandoning evolutionary theory

Evidence please.

Now with the proposal of wave theory placing earth at the cenre of the universe . . .

Evidence for wave theory please.

I believe, God left adequate evidence of himself in His creations and in the incredible scientific knowledge in demonstration of a higher intelligence guiding the scriptures.

Such as?

The truth will certainly never be found by an atheist that will accept any flavour of the month offered to them, so long as it does not aside with a creator.

Evidence please.

 

[Jazer]

humans are only "dominant" if you're already predisposed to think that.

Of course you would say that. Because evolution can not show you any difference between humans and every other species. Even though you would be hard pressed to find another species that will use the most simple of tools. While we are using advanced highly complex machinery. A huge leap and yet not one shred of evidence that there is any difference between us and them when you look at evolution.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Of course you would say that. Because evolution can not show you any difference between humans and every other species. Even though you would be hard pressed to find another species that will use the most simple of tools. While we are using advanced highly complex machinery. A huge leap and yet not one shred of evidence that there is any difference between us and them when you look at evolution.

Huh?

Me thinks it is a weasel.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course you would say that. Because evolution can not show you any difference between humans and every other species.

If you understood the theory of evolution you would realize that the entire purpose of the theory is to explain the differences between species.

Even though you would be hard pressed to find another species that will use the most simple of tools. While we are using advanced highly complex machinery.

That is an arbitrary measure of dominance. Perhaps you could explain why tool use should be used as the measure of dominance? Why not measure dominance by the number of organisms that make up the species? Even the smallest organisms are able to kill us, so how does that make us dominant?

 

[Split Rock]

Hey there

I'm a fairly liberal creationist. However I see alot of good reasoning in some of the YEC dating methods.

Helium dating appears to be more robust than the usual radiometric dating methods including Isochron. Helium dating puts the age of the earth at around 6,000 years.

Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years
Radiometric Dating Methods

There are also a heck of a lot of scientists abandoning evolutionary theory for various creationist paradigms.eg John Sanford an ex evolutionists turned YEC, with published papers on entrophy. It is becoming more and more evident with time that evolution and naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe and ordinary planet earth, are not the answers.

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials
Do real scientists believe in Creation? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Former Evolutionists who became Creation Scientists


Now with the proposal of wave theory placing earth at the cenre of the universe as opposed to the questionable evidence for Big Bang theory, and your dating methods which seriously call into question some old earth dating methods, I am really leaning towards a YEC view.

I believe, God left adequate evidence of himself in His creations and in the incredible scientific knowledge in demonstration of a higher intelligence guiding the scriptures. However, as we know, the truth will only be seen by those that seek to find it. The truth will certainly never be found by an atheist that will accept any flavour of the month offered to them, so long as it does not aside with a creator.

Sorry but:

1. Helium is light enough to escape our atmosphere.
2. Helium is also carried off by the solar winds.
3. Helium is produced on earth by radioactive decay.
4. The amount of helium created and lost cancels each other out.
5. Conclusion: helium cannot be used as a clock.

 

[Jazer]

If you understood the theory of evolution

OH your poor theory is misunderstood. Lets have a pity party.

That is an arbitrary measure of dominance.

So your going to be persistent and insist that there is no difference between humans and all the rest of the species? Good luck trying to sell that one. I can name that tune in three notes: "breath of live". God breathed life into Adam and Adam became a living soul.

All of your books and all of your theories and all of your science and all of your kings men can not explain the difference between man before Bible Adam and man after Bible Adam. God created, God made, God formed. But with Adam God breathed Life into Adam.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry but:

1. Helium is light enough to escape our atmosphere.
2. Helium is also carried off by the solar winds.
3. Helium is produced on earth by radioactive decay.
4. The amount of helium created and lost cancels each other out.
5. Conclusion: helium cannot be used as a clock.

For zircons, helium can move in and out of these crystals. This movement is also temperature dependent. These two facts make helium dating much less reliable that isochron dating where there is no movement of the isotopes in or out of the rock.

To make matters worse, the RATE group used incorrect assumptions as to the rate of helium diffusion used in the study. They extrapolated values from different temperatures to the temperatures used in their lab when measuring helium diffusion. Those extrapolations were wrong. When the correct values are used the real age of the zircons, according to helium diffusion, is 1.5 billion years old.

"Finally, Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b) shows that multi-domain helium diffusion models, which are far more realistic than the "creationist" and "uniformitarian" models presented by Humphreys et al. (2003a), are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons."
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

So even Astrid's supposedly "reliable" method returns results in the billions of years when the correct values for helium diffusion are used.

When Astrid says that helium diffusion is more reliable than isochron dating what she is really saying is that she likes one conclusion over the other, method be darned.

 

[Loudmouth]

OH your poor theory is misunderstood. Lets have a pity party.

I am trying to educate you, John. I can see that knowledge is something that you mock. Too bad.

So your going to be persistent and insist that there is no difference between humans and all the rest of the species?

Where did I say that?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

OH your poor theory is misunderstood. Lets have a pity party.

So your going to be persistent and insist that there is no difference between humans and all the rest of the species? Good luck trying to sell that one.

As long as you persist and insist that "your" is acceptable grammar when you really mean you're.

 

[Naraoia]

7 "days?"

7) Cenozoic Duration:

6) Mesozoic Duration:

5) Paleozoic Duration:

4) Proterozoic Duration:

3) Archean Duration:

2) Hadean Duration:

1) The Cosmological/Formative Duration

see the thumb below

The "cosmological/formative duration", if you mean things that happened before the earth, includes vastly bigger differences in circumstances than the other six combined. Like, fundamental changes in the makeup and workings of the universe. So what's the logic in lumping the whole pre-earth history of the universe into one age while the Mesozoic and Cenozoic get to be different ages?

The geological "durations" you list are not on the same level. Technically, only the latest three are "eras", and they are all part of the Phanerozoic Aeon.

Basically, geological time can be divided into an arbitrary number of units. In fact, it has a mind-boggling number of fine subdivisions. You could make a case for anywhere between two "Precambrian" vs "Phanerozoic" to dozens of "durations". (The official GSA geological time scale I have on my wall has 97 named ages if I counted right)

My point being: cherry-picking spiced with anthropocentrism doesn't make much of a case.

Laminin is shaped like a cross! God done it, case closed:
<pic>

Oh, wait, never mind:
<pic>

Well, it could be a cross having a good time.

What about tRNA?

Sorry to disappoint

(source)

Huh?

Me thinks it is a weasel.

Me thinks it is a New Caledonian crow.

 

[Jazer]

As long as you persist and insist that "your" is acceptable grammar when you really mean you're.

By all means go to Amazon and buy books that have been edited. Do not waste your precious time reading material that has not been edited.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Me thinks it is a New Caledonian crow.

Thanks for that. Pretty cool.

 

[Naraoia]

Thanks for that. Pretty cool.

Between crafty corvids and Irene Pepperberg's parrots, I think "bird-brained" has pretty much become a compliment

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

By all means go to Amazon and buy books that have been edited. Do not waste your precious time reading material that has not been edited.

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain.

 

[Naraoia]

As long as you persist and insist that "your" is acceptable grammar when you really mean you're.

I love that animated gif someone made out of these. "Your stupid!" "My stupid what?"

I can't seem to find the gif, but there is a transcript...