My Aliens challenge

[Kylie]

I have indeed noticed this.
And they also refuse to learn anything about it... preferring to make up convoluted fantasy stories about it.

Of course, it's easier to fight a man when he's made of straw...

 

[Tolworth John]

Why would the incorrect assumptions of one technique be wrong by just the right amount to match up with the results given by a different method with completely different incorrect assumptions?

ar to often a radioactive date is rejected by geologist, etc because the date does not fit with there expectations.


There is also the problem of samples of different rocks from the same location give very different dates.

You are skrptical of Christianity, may I suggest you be as skeptical of the claims for evolution and of radio active dating methods.

 

[Tolworth John]

Why would there be no aliens if there was no evolution? Are you suggesting that God would be incapable of life on another planet?

No I am saying that we have no knowledge of God creating life in other solar systems, we have not discovered any solar systems capable of sustaining life.

The knowledge we do have indicates that plant and animal life exists for the benefit of mankind, so with out man other life forms are unneccessary.

 

[Kylie]

ar to often a radioactive date is rejected by geologist, etc because the date does not fit with there expectations.


There is also the problem of samples of different rocks from the same location give very different dates.

You are skrptical of Christianity, may I suggest you be as skeptical of the claims for evolution and of radio active dating methods.

This would be a fine argument if the allegedly erroneous results given occurred at the same rate (or more often) than the results the scientists claim are correct. But they do not. And when erroneous result occur, the reason for this can usually be discovered (the sample was contaminated, or some factor was not taken into account).

And different rocks giving different ages is not a problem, since there is no rule of nature that says that rocks of differing ages can not be found together. Indeed, it would be a common occurrence. If a cliff collapses, the youngest rocks at the top would mingle with the older rocks below as they tumbled down the cliff into a big jumbled pile of debris.

 

[Kylie]

No I am saying that we have no knowledge of God creating life in other solar systems, we have not discovered any solar systems capable of sustaining life.

The knowledge we do have indicates that plant and animal life exists for the benefit of mankind, so with out man other life forms are unneccessary.

I'm sorry, but what knowledge do we have that confirms this? What benefit does humanity get from the tube worms that live clustered around volcanic vents at the bottom of the deep ocean?

 

[Tolworth John]

This would be a fine argument if the allegedly erroneous results given occurred at the same rate (or more often) than the results the scientists claim are correct. But they do not. And when erroneous result occur, the reason for this can usually be discovered (the sample was contaminated, or some factor was not taken into account).

And different rocks giving different ages is not a problem, since there is no rule of nature that says that rocks of differing ages can not be found together. Indeed, it would be a common occurrence. If a cliff collapses, the youngest rocks at the top would mingle with the older rocks below as they tumbled down the cliff into a big jumbled pile of debris.

I'm talking about the different crystals that can be found in a metemorpic rock, that were formed at the same time, yey have vastly different ages.

Or where a larva flow has been seen to occur and when cooled has been sampled. The rock formed a matter of a year or so ago, yet has a vastly greater age according to radio active dating.

 

[Tolworth John]

I'm sorry, but what knowledge do we have that confirms this? What benefit does humanity get from the tube worms that live clustered around volcanic vents at the bottom of the deep ocean?

You are saying God could have created life else where in the universe. Where do we have any statement that says God did this.
If we have no such statement we have no knowledge that God created life else where.

We benefit from the enormous range of plant and animal lives that exist in the world.
We benefit from the variety of different plant and animals.
Do we benefit from tube wporms on a volcanic ocean vent? Can you say that we don't or that we might from some discovery about them?

 

[Kylie]

I'm talking about the different crystals that can be found in a metemorpic rock, that were formed at the same time, yey have vastly different ages.

Or where a larva flow has been seen to occur and when cooled has been sampled. The rock formed a matter of a year or so ago, yet has a vastly greater age according to radio active dating.

Would you care to provide a scientific source to support this claim?

 

[Astrid]

Would you care to provide a scientific source to support this claim?

This leads straight into whether yec sites like DI or AIG are
honest, godly and good Christians.
And whether scientists actually are fakes, dishonest, anti god.

 

[essentialsaltes]

we have not discovered any solar systems capable of sustaining life.

We have discovered dozens of exoplanets that are in the 'Goldilocks zone' that could support life.

 

[Astrid]

..

 

[AV1611VET]

This leads straight into whether yec sites like DI or AIG are honest, godly and good Christians. And whether scientists actually are fakes, dishonest, anti god.

A person can't be honest, godly, and a good Christian, and a scientist at the same time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Being a yec grants a license to just say things.

Being a scientist grants a license to just question anything.

 

[sjastro]

.

 

[SelfSim]

Being a scientist grants a license to just question anything.

Well there's no questions once a belief is distinguished by science .. there's just no utility value beyond that point.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm talking about the different crystals that can be found in a metemorpic rock, that were formed at the same time, yey have vastly different ages.

The whole point of metamorphic rocks is that this is not true. It's existing crystals or rocks pulled into a matrix of a new rock.

Or where a larva flow has been seen to occur and when cooled has been sampled. The rock formed a matter of a year or so ago, yet has a vastly greater age according to radio active dating.

Do you have a specific example of this?

It sounds like a re-badging of the old Mt St Helens argument that held that the thick layers put down contradict any measurement of layers as connected to great age.

 

[Tolworth John]

We have discovered dozens of exoplanets that are in the 'Goldilocks zone' that could support life.

Yes there are planes in the golidlocks zone, as to whether they can support life is another matter.
The requirement for life is far more complecated.

 

[Tolworth John]

Would you care to provide a scientific source to support this claim?

That depends, are you broad minded enough to accept the results of a qualified practising scientist who is also a Christian?

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure - creation.com

and

Radioactive dating in conflict! - creation.com

They are articles together with the results from recognised scientic labs of radioactive dating on varrious samples.
None are from Mt st helens.

 

[Kylie]

That depends, are you broad minded enough to accept the results of a qualified practising scientist who is also a Christian?

Radioactive ‘dating’ failure - creation.com

and

Radioactive dating in conflict! - creation.com

They are articles together with the results from recognised scientic labs of radioactive dating on varrious samples.
None are from Mt st helens.

Creation.com is not a scientific source, which is what I SPECIFICALLY asked for. Even if they are quoting results from labs, they could be cherry-picking what they present, or they could simply not understand and be presenting a flawed interpretation of the actual science.

If their conclusion is valid, then you should have no problem finding a source for this that does NOT come from such a biased website.

In any case, the potassium-argon dating technique they are claiming gave flawed results is not designed to be used on such recent samples. What they did was akin to using a calendar to record the time for races and saying that both the 50m sprint and a marathon both take a day to complete.

 

[Tolworth John]

Creation.com is not a scientific source, which is what I SPECIFICALLY asked for. Even if they are quoting results from labs, they could be cherry-picking what they present, or they could simply not understand and be presenting a flawed interpretation of the actual science.

Read the articles check up on the qualifcations of the authors.

Or are you saying being Christian disqualifies any educational qualifcations.