Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?

Bob

Please give references for copy and paste jobs. People should get credit (or blame) for their work.

"There seems to be a great deal of question regarding the branching ratio for..."

Strike! The brancking ratio has been known since the 1950s and has not changed. There is no question in the scienctific community on the branching ration and it borders on slander to suggest that they just pick the number that gives the best results. Dalrymple, G. B., 1984 How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to `Scientific' Creationism In "Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science" vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds). BTW, thanks for making reference to a dating method which does not assume the initial concentration of daughter products. YOu're doing my job for me.

"Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable. "

Read that real closely. The amount of Ar40 in the atmosphere initially is a problem for dating? Nope. All of the argon in a rock gets removed when it is melted and reformed. That is how the clock is reset. What the concentration in the atmosphere is does not matter. Don't you remember the recent discussion about Morris (he also spreads the lie above about branching ratios being picked from the air. Morris, Henry M. (Ed.), 1981 Scientific Creationism ninth printing, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, CA, ("general" edition).) and the young Hawaii rocks that dated old? The melted rocks had no excess argon. The unmelted rocks do. Strike.

"Argon diffuses from mineral to mineral with great ease."

Strike. Even if true, it does not affect dating since argon has been shown to prefferentially absorb to the surface and not penetrate into the interior of rocks. Young, Davis A., 1982a Christianity and the Age of the Earth Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

 

"As has been stated - both models result in the older mountain ranges being a the trailing edge"

Again, if dating has such problems, why does it work out so well for the Hawaiian islands.

 

Which day were the stars created?

Why are you backing away from you literal interpretation to accept another light other than the sun for the mornings and evenings?

 

"It observes galaxies held in place - that should not be."

The amount of light deflection when passing by galaxy clusters is consistent with the amount of dark matter implied from galaxy rotation. These both agree with the amount of dark matter measured with the CMB as pointed out before. Consistency. They measure the same through different methods.

 

You are now quoting the nline Encyclopedia Britannica. When did that become a peer reviewed standard for scientists?

 

I am also still waiting for your explanation of all the shared mutations and viral long term repeats between humans, apes and primates. That seems to be completely ignored except for the poodle thing. Of course, we can do that same thing for all of life. It is the twin nested heirarchy. Common descent seems to be the only explanation that fits.

 

"http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3852.asp"

Again, the most recent reference in that list is 1983. I gave you a link to a more recent analysis (Brown, T M & Christensen-Dalsgaard, J (1998) 'Accurate determination of the solar photospheric radius', http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9803131 ) where the data has been re-examined and combined with more recent and sensitive measurments to show there is no shrinkage. That, with the solving of the neutrino problem, puts the lid on any young sun arguments.

So, what about the mutations and LTRs? What about the copnsistency of the Hawaii dating? What about a listing of my fallacies and which type they are? When were the stars made? What about you going away from literal with the sun not causing the morning and evenings? What about the twin nested heirarchy?What about the CMB and gravity lensing providing a direct measurement for dark matter that concurs with galaxy rotatons? What about galaxies that have been colliding for hundreds of millions of years? What about how the Hawaiian islands were able to form, especially the heat transfer issues? What about all those transitionals I gave you last week? What about your promise to show me how "The Hawaiian Islands. The Marshall Islands. The mountain ranges of the American content, the Grand Canyon, the progress of the river deltas for all major rivers on the planet" show a young earth and can be better explained by YOU than geologists? What about...

 

No Bob.

Einstein gave us the math we needed to calculate how light behaves in the presence of a large gravitional field. When we look and gravitational lensing events, we see that there must about five times as much total mass as what is visible. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html

When we look a rotating spiral galaxies we find that there is an extra mass of up to ten times the amount of visible matter. Some of this is believed to be in the form of low mass objects (I mean low mass as in brown and red dwarfs). This is supported by microlensing studies.

And, as I have shown you elsewhere, the CMB details show us that there was five times as much dark matter as baryonic matter in the early universe.

Inflation predicts about five times as much dark matter as "ordinary" matter.

The evidence is convincing that dark matter exists. We do not know what it is...yet. Do you consider that a failure? If you think that dark matter is an "evolutionary limb" that we should not crawl out on, then why do you not debunk the evidnece for dark matter?

 

"What about your own evolutionist peers - like Richard Dawkings totally discounting your compromised position on the Bible and Science?"

I do not take my religious beliefs from atheists.

"What about the numerous geochronometers listed here showing a young earth? (And indeed - young solar system?)"

Which one would that be? I think they have all been fairly well debunked. I find it amazing that you mention the young sun still. I went over in very fine detail why the sun is not young. Give me some good evidence that the sun is young. Please!

"What about the fact that day for of the Genesis account specifies exactly TWO lights made on day four."

And uses the word for the abode of the stars wherever in Genesis 1 & 2 the creation of "heaven(s)" is mentioned.

"What about the fact that ALL evolutionary claims to evolving life - have so far - been debunked?"

Then show this to not be a valid transitional series from a factual basis.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

"Is there any science - any data at all that will disuade you from continuing to doubt the Creator's account?"

Yes. I would gladly change my mind if the evidence for a young earth were to come along.

Is there any science - any data at all that will disuade you from continuing to incorrectly insist upon a literal interpretation of the creation?

So, what about the mutations and LTRs? What about the consistency of the Hawaii dating? What about a listing of my fallacies and which type they are? When were the stars made? What about you going away from literal with the sun not causing the morning and evenings? What about the twin nested heirarchy?What about the CMB and gravity lensing providing a direct measurement for dark matter that concurs with galaxy rotatons? What about galaxies that have been colliding for hundreds of millions of years? What about how the Hawaiian islands were able to form, especially the heat transfer issues? What about all those transitionals I gave you last week? What about your promise to show me how "The Hawaiian Islands. The Marshall Islands. The mountain ranges of the American content, the Grand Canyon, the progress of the river deltas for all major rivers on the planet" show a young earth and can be better explained by YOU than geologists? What about...

 

UTEOTW,

It was said...

And you said...

Debunked by who? People set out to defend a completly unproven fairy tale???

Do you expect us to be swayed by people with an agenda as looney as they have?

Please...

Mike

 

Mike

Exactly what agenda do you think I have? Besides, it is the facts of the case that show that the things asserted as young geochronometers are not valid. Often, if you go back to the original source, you will see that the young geochronometers are based on a misrepresentation of the data.

Since you are back, we had a few things left unanswered last time you post on this thread. Just go back to page 1 if you want to see what I am talking about.

You had posted that "Creationism predicts that, since all kinds of life were created in much the present form, and at about the same time," and I responded:

Do you have a way to generate the record we actually see in the fossil record in a young earth?

You said " but there were never any "half-this-half-that" transitional creatures. The fossil record shows that this is true. In fact, no verifiable transitional fossils have ever been found above the "Family" level."

To which I responded

Do you still claim there are no transitionals? Then what are all these that I gave you above? THis is just a very small sample.

You said "Gould and Eldredge proposed the "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory, that says that evolution occurred in sudden jumps, with long periods of stasis, or changelessness, between the quick spurts of evolutionary change. They have no evidence for this except for the millions of missing transitional fossils."

I responded

PE says that most evolution happens in small, isolated groups on short time spans on the order of only hundreds of thousands of years. This is why transitionals are fewer at the species level. But, as Gould pointed out and I have listed a few for you, transitions are abundant at the higher levels you claim do not exist.

You said "Any such change causes an increase of entropy, that is, a decrease in complexity." and "But thermodynamics is a limited field and we can see that a more general law of a net increase in entropy (disorganization) applies everywhere."

I responded

I'll not bother to quote the smaller entropy quotes, you can go read them. If you wish to show that evolution violates entropy it is up to you to prove this by showing us, with physics and math, where any necessary step in the evolution of life violate the laws of entropy. Otherwise your claim is false and without merit. Do you have this data?

Since you are back, we can just pick up here.