Refutations of posts in Lonnie's Creationists thread

[Arikay]

A spin off thread to be nice to Lonnie. I know MB answered some of these things in that thread, but I thought I would take my own stab (MB is better at most of it though). This can act as the refutation thread to keep that one a bit clearer.


Radiometric dating
There is a lot of information left out by creationist groups when they talk about radiometric dating.

First of all, C-14 dating is never used to date rocks but to date organic matter that is not sea based.

So far it has only been shown that Beta decay can fluctuate in large amounts. Beta decay is how famous decay methods like K/Ar dating. It was discovered that under huge amounts of heat and pressure, which possibly isn't even reached in the earths core, it can accelerate beta decay. Now, many creationist groups use this to pretend that ALL decay rates can fluctuate in all conditions and thus can never be trusted. This is a false claim based on zero evidence. Its stretching the truth, to be nice, and being plain deceptive.
Beta decay fluctuation wont effect K/Ar dating because every time the rock being dated melts it resets the clock. Since the rock must remain relatively cool, this method of decay fluctuation will not effect K/Ar dating, and thus the claims that it invalidates dating methods is false.


The fossils are best explained by a flood

I have heard this claim many times, but I have never seen it backed up. I have never seen anyone explain how the entire fossil record and geological record can be explained by a flood. The statement is given as if its truth and can be backed up, yet silence when its challenged.

The reason for this is because the fossils are Not best explained by a flood. If they could be, then the flood theory would never have left us. We need to remember that over 200 years ago, the flood was considered a valid theory. The fossil record was one of the first things to disproove the flood.



No physical death before the fall

Theologically this is a very bad position to take, for multiple reasons.

1) The bunny effect.
God told the animals to be fruitful and multiple, and created the earth with a finite surface. If death didn't exist then every animal that follows Gods order would take up a spot on the earth. I calculated once that based on the current procreation rate of just bunnies, there would be 1 bunny per square foot of the earth in only 15 or so years.
God must have been not only expecting but planning the fall from the beginning, or he made a huge mistake, or physical death was around before the fall.

2) The gooey bunny effect.
Once the bunnies covered the world and mosquitos were everywhere, it would be hard to avoid them, which would lead to Adam stepping on bunnies. These bunnies (or any other injured animal) wouldn't die but would continue to live in its distorted crushed form. Sounds like hell to me.

3) What God cares about.
Sometimes I think some people put their literal reading of the bible before God. As you read through the bible, ask yourself, does God think the physical body is more important than the soul, or the soul is more important than the physical body?
So, do you think God ment there was no physical death before the fall, or no spiritual death?

4) Was Jesus the savior.
Many believe that Jesus pays for our sins, including first sin.
If first sin is physical death, and Jesus pays for all sins,
Then Jesus should prevent our physical death.
If christians still die, then maybe Jesus isn't the savior.

If God didn't mean physical death, but spiritual death, then it is still possible that Jesus saves our souls. Thus it would only make sense that Adam caused spiritual death and that physical death has always existed.


Mans reason can't be trusted

If mans reason can't be trusted, than how can we trust our translations and interpretations of the bible? No matter how you cut it, everything we read, see, and do is being filtered through mans reason, including the YEC belief.
Of course, science realizes this and baring some giant world conspiracy, that is what Peer review is about.


Evolutionists want to be God
Um, No we don't.
Many christians see evolution as the study of How God created, and find their discoveries to be humbling. The idea that evolutionists are trying to become Gods by discovering how God created is a very bad excuse to ignore the evidence and support false claims. It seems to be based on a fear that by understanding how God created it will take some of the magic and the romantic feel out of it.

To be added too...

 

[ischus]

To refute your theory, I propose that bunnies did not exist before the fall and were the result of sin entering the world.

 

[Mistermystery]

I like the therms Gooey and Bunny effect. Ask them to be © and ®.

 

[Lonnie]

"The reason for this is because the fossils are Not best explained by a flood. If they could be, then the flood theory would never have left us. We need to remember that over 200 years ago, the flood was considered a valid theory. The fossil record was one of the first things to disproove the flood."

How is it that the fossil record has disproven creation(or the flood)?

Radiometric dating
Well, one thing with dating methods like C-14 and K/Ar, is that it does has not worked(or in great error) on things that we already know the age of.
(see link, and you can look on google for more information about K/Ar dating)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm

Now, I know that probably some one will post a link to talkorigins that will disagree with this link says, or try to argue that K/Ar works fine, and that the link is full of lies, or hoaxs.

But then we need to decide who is telling the truth, and(I think) it seems that normaly people will choose to believe the link/people/statement that supports there beliefs.

 

[Mistermystery]

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK ON RELATIVLY NEW THINGS!

Pottasium argon has a VERY VERY VERY long half time, just as carbon 14 has a VERY VERY VERY short one. That's why carbon 14 works on relativly new things, and pot-arg on relativly old things. Stop using icr, and start reading a basic encyclopedia please.

 

[Lonnie]

What out side sources do you use to back up your statement Mistmystery?

Now, Mistermystery, can you please awnser the following question.
Have you ever studied why C-14 and Pottasium Argon does not work?
(I would say that my above question is a red herring, but... it is not a way for me to avoid a question...)

Thank you

 

[ego licet visum]

Hammers don't work if you use them incorrectly too....

 

[michabo]

But then we need to decide who is telling the truth, and it seems that normaly people will choose to believe the link/people/statement that supports there beliefs.

You demonstrate that well (picking icr of all places!), but this isn't a good generalization. You must ask how we should arrive at our beliefs in the first place. Some groups are considered reliable by many people because they agressively challenge all research to make sure it is of a high quality, and they seek out new and better explainations even if that means upsetting established ideas.

Other groups are cited because they defend their own ideas at all costs, potentially using less than honest techniques.

All sites are not equal. By noting that you use ICR while others use talkorigins (among others) does not mean that the two are equal but different, and it is not a reflection of a different preference.

 

[Lonnie]

That is what I have come to think(or learn) from these forums, is that if some one posts an ICR quote(that supports creation), and a TalkOrigins quote(that supports evolutoin), but they contradict eachother then most evolutionists will be likely to trust/support/believe the TalkOrigins quote, and most creationists will be will be likely to trust/support/believe the ICR quote.

Do you agree?

 

[michabo]

That is what I have come to think(or learn) from these forums, is that if some one posts an ICR quote(that supports creation), and a TalkOrigins quote(that supports evolutoin), but they contradict eachother then most evolutionists will be likely to trust/support/believe the TalkOrigins quote, and most creationists will be will be likely to trust/support/believe the ICR quote.

Do you agree?

Yes, but this is still missing the point.

talkorigins contains the citations to the original peer-reviewed articles and is not authoritative in and of itself. It is the peer-review process which is considered trustworthy, and an excellent way to acquire new knowledge.

ICR does not use peer-review, does not conduct research, and frequently distorts or outright lies.

I'll ask you straight out: how do you think we can acquire new knowledge, and how can we increase (or decrease) the confidence in our conclusions?

 

[Lonnie]

"Yes, but this is still missing the point."
It made/hit the point I was making...


"how do you think we can acquire new knowledge, and how can we increase (or decrease) the confidence in our conclusions?"

By studing the world around us(you can also read books/articles, ect).
By understanding/appling the knowledge we have aquired(that seems to be simular to wisdom...).

But, what I have inferred from the knowledge that I have aquired is that the world was created, and life came to be as it is, without the use of evolution(cells that has evolved into me).

 

[michabo]

By studing the world around us(you can also read books/articles, ect). By understanding the knowledge we have aquired.

How do the authors of these books and articles gain their knowledge? What can you do to make sure that what you read is accurate?

 

[Lonnie]

"How do the authors of these books and articles gain their knowledge?"
By either
a) reading other peoples books, articles, ect
b) gathering there knowledge from the world, through experiances
c) or if the book/article is fiction, then they can just make it up how ever they want


But, I have inferred(believe) that creationism(YEC) is less fictionful than evolution(cells evolving into modern day creatures).

"What can you do to make sure that what you read is accurate?"
You, can infer from your reading if it is accurate, by comparing it to past experiances, and experiances of others.
That is one of the reasons it is important to use outside sources to back up what you say. And I believe IRC uses other sources to support what they say, and they get many of there articles from there own experiances, and tests.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Well, one thing with dating methods like C-14 and K/Ar, is that it does has not worked(or in great error) on things that we already know the age of.

Misapplications of the method result in erroneous results. People like Snelling KNOW they are using the dating method improperly, doesn't tell his readers the whole story, and then the ignorant become hooked.

As for radiocarbon dating, that usually refers to recently deceased mollusks when creationists bring it up as "things that we already know the age of" but what creationists don't realize is that scientists already realize this. Mollusks don't get their source of carbon to create their calcite shells from the atmosphere. They get the carbon from older sources, so radiocarbon dating is irrelevant in this case.

(see link, and you can look on google for more information about K/Ar dating)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm

This has been already gone over on this forum. He sent the rocks to a lab that can only use K-Ar dating on samples older than 2 Ma due to the limitations of their technology. He failed to inform the reader of this. The samples also contained xenolithic inclusions (which he fails to inform the readers of in some of his specific articles) which contaminate the samples. He sends in samples for whole rock dating that he KNOWS contain contaminants that, when used by scientists, would be removed. Obviously if there are older rocks in the whole rock sample, the date will appear older due to excess argon. Furthermore, the standard error of the majority of the samples does include 0 Ma which is the correct date. The accuracy for this method is very low for young samples rendering it nearly useless.

Again, a misapplication of the method will result in erroneous findings.

But then we need to decide who is telling the truth, and(I think) it seems that normaly people will choose to believe the link/people/statement that supports there beliefs.

That's something that creationists typically do, yes. They refuse to consider and address opposing evidence in full. That much is clear. However organizations like ICR have infinitely less credibility especially when they admit that they don't practice science.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The fossils are best explained by a flood

And curiously enough neither fossils nor sediments are sorted by density in the sedimentary rock record either, which is what would be expected in a continuous global flood scenario. It really is no wonder why creationists are continually unable to provide any positive evidence for such an event but merely blindly assert that is must be true.

 

[Arikay]

"How is it that the fossil record has disproven creation(or the flood)?"

Because the flood doesn't predict the organization we see.
Some people have tried to come up with ways that the flood organized the fossils, but they never fit the fossil record.


"Well, one thing with dating methods like C-14 and K/Ar, is that it does has not worked(or in great error) on things that we already know the age of."

Carefull falling into this trap, its a very common one.
As MB pointed out, they missused the dating method and sent contaminated samples. Of course he would get bad results.
Now, a real scientist would have double checked the samples using multiple methods. Ar/Ar method can be used to detect if there is any contaminating argon in the sample. Did they do the Ar/Ar method on the samples? Nope.

An analogy, say you buy an expensive high quality chef knife. You then use it as a crowbar to open up wood boxes. The knife breaks. Now you go around saying that that maker doesn't make quality knifes. Is this very honest? Is the failure of the knife your fault or the makers?


There are plenty of other examples in this trap, a couple examples.

•C-14 dates living mollusk shells at 3000 years old.
Answer: Mollusk shells are sea creatures and cant be correctly dated by C-14.
•wood found in an old layer C-14 dates differently than the Ar/k dated layer itself.
Answer: Using the traditional method of C-14 can't go beyond 20,000 - 30,000 years because of background radiation. Once background radiation takes over, the C-14 reading could be considered "undetermined age."

There are plenty, and in each one the creationist paper has missused the dating method and then oddly left out details, only telling half the story.

To answer your question, Yes I have researched how dating methods can be wrong, and so far I have yet to see a legitimate example. The number one way dating goes wrong is human error and missuse, and creationist groups know how to take advantage of that.

Now, have you researched dating methods to see if the creationist papers are correct or in error, or did you just take them at their word that they gave you the whole story?

"The reason for this is because the fossils are Not best explained by a flood. If they could be, then the flood theory would never have left us. We need to remember that over 200 years ago, the flood was considered a valid theory. The fossil record was one of the first things to disproove the flood."

How is it that the fossil record has disproven creation(or the flood)?

Radiometric dating
Well, one thing with dating methods like C-14 and K/Ar, is that it does has not worked(or in great error) on things that we already know the age of.
(see link, and you can look on google for more information about K/Ar dating)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-307.htm

Now, I know that probably some one will post a link to talkorigins that will disagree with this link says, or try to argue that K/Ar works fine, and that the link is full of lies, or hoaxs.

But then we need to decide who is telling the truth, and(I think) it seems that normaly people will choose to believe the link/people/statement that supports there beliefs.

 

[michabo]

But, I have inferred(believe) that creationism(YEC) is less fictionful than evolution(cells evolving into modern day creatures).

There is a huge difference between inference and belief, but let's leave that alone for a second.

You have at least included observations of the world in your list of how to gain knowledge. Reading books is a good way to understand what others do or think, but if we are to gain anything, we should expect them to be held to the same standards. So reading a book which describes the observations of the world can help us learn more than a book which has no observations, just reflections on what should be. The one tells us what is really out there, the other tells us what one person thinks would be neat if it was out there.

Now, back to the discussion. Every theory must be either supported or neutral towards all observations. Taking gravity for example, watching a sugar crystal form, noticing that sea water is salty are observations which are neutral, watching two objects of different masses fall at the same rate supports, and watching two identical objects fall at different rates in the same situation would contradict it. If the last observation had been made, then there would be a lot of scurrying to drastically revise the theory or scrap it, but it absolutely can not be ignored. A person who ignores it is lying to you and to themselves.

Now when it comes to evolution, whether you listen to ICR and think (incorrectly) that it is a religion, it is at least consistent with all observations made so far. It is falsifiable, but everything we've seen in all fields of science are either supportive or neutral.

When we look at YEC, they may be able to point to some questionable observations which support their hypothesis (e.g.: trees are rarely older than about 10,000 years, some glaciers are not older than about 10,000 years). But this is NOT enough! They must be able to explain all current observations, which is where they collapse. YEC simply cannot explain all observations. That is, the theory must be radically revised or scrapped outright. What is their answer? Ignore the data! That's right, they deny the world around them. They are lying to themselves, they are lying to you.

Like it or not, evolution is a superior theory. As for "less fictitious", there is no such thing. If something is falsified, it is falsified, there aren't many grey areas. You may not understand how evolution can be consistent, how it works, how it explains the world but make no mistake: that is your understanding and not the theory.

That is one of the reasons it is important to use outside sources to back up what you say. And I believe IRC uses other sources to support what they say, and they get many of there articles from there own experiances, and tests.

This comes down to the scientific method and peer review again. The ICR may author excellent work on some highly selective disciplines but if their theory is false, then this doesn't matter. There are some excellent scholarly works documenting the geocentric model but that can't change the fact that it is wrong.

As it happens, the ICR does not do their own research. Their best work is to use the work of other scientists and try to attack it. On the few places where they contain citations, notice that the citations are either quote mining from work which supports evolution, or from theological work. They don't actually publish.

 

[Lonnie]

"Reading books is a good way to understand what others do or think, but if we are to gain anything, we should expect them to be held to the same standards."
Why should I do that?

"Like it or not, evolution is a superior theory."
Evolutionists infer(and believe) that the theory of evolution is a superior theory.
Creationists infer(and believe) that creation is superior.

What you infer is not the same as what is true.

 

[Lonnie]

"Because the flood doesn't predict the organization we see."
What proof do you have of this?


"As MB pointed out, they missused the dating method and sent contaminated samples."

You tell me that ICR is wrong/lying, about some topics, yet you want me to believe things you tell me, without using outside sources to support your claims.

 

[Arikay]

And thats why we have peer review, and other ways to figure out which is correct.

Anymore comments about the refutations or is this going to turn into one of those, "well its only a belief, so I refuse to listen to anymore of your evidence." threads?

"Reading books is a good way to understand what others do or think, but if we are to gain anything, we should expect them to be held to the same standards."
Why should I do that?

"Like it or not, evolution is a superior theory."
Evolutionists infer(and believe) that the theory of evolution is a superior theory.
Creationists infer(and believe) that creation is superior.

What you infer is not the same as what is true.