Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?

[BobRyan]

That "clue" means we must also conclude that other physical atributes like the amount of daughter product in the earth's crust (as opposed to a massively radioactive crust with no daughter product) was in fact a viable "starting condition".

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Why would it have to be made "massively radioactive?"

YOu claim to have all these problems with dating.

Simple - the one thing that CAN be calculated is the amount of redioactivitiy that would result from walking the daughter product back - so that it is ALL redioactive parent product without daughter product present.

A result that would have been destructive to all life on the planet -

UTEOTW
Let's get back to the Hawaii example. If there is such a problem with dating, why is their such a strong linear relationship between the measured age and the distance from the currently erupting volcanoes? There should be no such relationship able to be drawn if dating were such a problem.

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Then in your statement above - you ask why God created start (other galaxies and solar systems) before earth. AS "if" that is a kind of logical argument for you to be making at this point

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
No. Again you reduce what I said to a strawman of what I said. I asked why distant galaxies would be required to show such age. The example I gave was colliding galaxies. They show hundreds of millions or even billions of years of gravitational interaction. How does this help the situation on earth?

The problem with your speculation above is "again" that you claim to know all events in the past and to have "sufficiently accounted" for them.

The obvious flaw in that "assumption" is that science today "admits" that it can not account for over 90% of the mass and 80% of the energy in what it observes.

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

It observes large solar masses a the outer ring of galaxies that "should not be there". If the billions of years idea is correct - they should have spun off long ago.

It observes trailing edges that should not be held in place.

The "fact" glaring back at them is that they have NOT accounted for even the majority of what they see today.

And "yet" when contending with the Creator's "account" they must "pretend to know it all" as you seem to be doing.

When in fact - the data points to an entirely different reality.

That such a large structure could form so quickly after the Big Bang calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time. Further study, which would include calculations of the mass in the structure, may yield new understanding.

"A successful theory has to explain the extremes," said Williger.

Discovery.com News Feb 20, 2001

Better to trust the Creator's Account than the wild speculations of atheists and evolutionist "needing their bias to work out" but unnable to account for the data they observe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon."

[from the Online Encyclopedia Britannica article, "Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record, Potassium-argon methods."]

And "yet" (Nothing in the past unknown to us) is the montra of true believers in evolutionism's doctrines.

Better to trust the Creator's account -

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.

Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate.

It's interesting to note that in a few cases, old radiometric dates are above young ones.

The fact that different methods often give different dates is noted by geologists. Here are some quotes from http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:

"Shafiqullah and Damon said: "The Ar40/Ar36 vs. K40/Ar36 isochrons are valid only when all samples of the system under consideration have the same non-radiogenic argon composition. If this condition does not hold, invalid ages and intercepts are obtained. Models 2-9 yield isochron ages that are too high, too low, or in the future, sometimes by orders of magnitude."

from Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology, Report 1," Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(4)209-19, March 1980, p. 218.

The fact that the only "valid" K-Ar isochrons are those for which the concentration of non-radiogenic argon (Ar36) is constant, seems very unusual. This suggests that what is occuring is some kind of a mixing phenomenon, and not an isochron reflecting a true age.

So then why rest your faith in the speculations of those who must "present the matter" as IF nothing was amiss to make their case?

Why not trust the Creator's account from the start?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

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.

 

[UTEOTW]

"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.

 

[UTEOTW]

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?

 

[UTEOTW]

"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.

 

[UTEOTW]

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

 

[UTEOTW]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
Even our sun is found to be "young" and not billions of years old --
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-276.htm

UTEOTW --
Why is the ICR still out promoting this garbage.

While an objective review of the data is not a "classic approach" for evolutionists -
I recommend

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

For "evidence since the study".

It leads us "again" to a position of trusting the Creator's "account".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"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...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"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.

Hello! Dark matter and Dark Energy are called "dark" for a reason.

The reason is - they are not there. The energy radiates "nothing" in terms of particles. The matter radiates "nothing". Your circular argument above merely shows WHY we needed the "black-box miracle goes here" in the first place. IT DOES NOT show us anything in physics today that is "dark matter" or "dark energy".

We see that our physics does not explain the acceleration over time AND it does not explain the force used to hold the galaxies together so we "make up" the black box miracle-goes-here solution called dark energy and dark matter.

The fact that this RESULTS in the MAJORITY of all energy being "unknown to our physics" and the majority of all matter being "unknown to our laws of physics" and observation - should "tell you something".

But to the truly devoted evolutionist - nothing is daunting. They must "claim" to know all the science "anyway".

It would be better just to Trust in the Creator's "account" than to crawl so far out on that evolutionary limb.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

What about the fact that the Genesis account AFFIRMS the use Paul makes (3rd heaven being what we call heaven today - 2Cor 12) by telling us that the BIRDS fly in the midst of the expanse of the heavens - referenced in Gen 1?

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

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

If not - why?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

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?

 

[UTEOTW]

"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...

 

[D28guy]

UTEOTW,

It was said...

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

And you said...

"Which one would that be? I think they have all been fairly well debunked."

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

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said 00
"What about your own evolutionist peers - like Richard Dawkings totally discounting your compromised position on the Bible and Science?"

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I do not take my religious beliefs from atheists.

You are dodging the point again. (And it is the point of the subject title for this thread).

Richard Dawkings (and Darwin) claim to know something about Darwinism. They are in "agreement" with Christians that place their trust in the Creator's "account" when they say the Claims of Evolution are in direct conflict with the clear - and obvious - statements in the Bible.

You on the other hand - only show that you 'need' to marry the two out of fear that one day evolutionism might be shown to be true.

I am simply pointing out that fearing the future and jump to a conflicted defensive position does not "avoid the problem" you sought to solve in advance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

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:

Then why do we not find all of the different kinds mixed together in such a way that indicates that they were formed in their present state and living together at the same time. We find only a very narrow slice of all known life and any given time in the fossil record. By what you are saying, creatures that in an old earth scenario lived a different times and should not be found together, should instead be actually found together in the fossil record. An ape and a dinosaur for example. The fossil record does not support recently created kinds.

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

I beg to disagree.

We have many examples of transitional forms. Look for example at the wonderful fossils coming out of China in recent years showing the bird transition from theropod dinosaurs. We have had Archaeopteryx for many years. Lately we have started filling in the others. We have Sinosauropteryx which is a small dinosaur covered in a very primitive, downy set of feathers. You then move on up to Caudipteryx and Sinornithosaurus which were theropods with more advanced feather. In this case they were relatively long feathers covering much of the body. But they were symetrical and therefore not suited for flight. Microraptor is a small theropod dinosaur. It was covered with asymettrical feathers, suitable for flight, on both its front arms and its rear legs. It does not seem possible of powered flight but the structure indicates an ability to glide well. Archaeopteryx is your half and half creature. It is a creature suited for powered flight and can very much be considered to be a bird. Yet at the same time it has dozens of traits that are well outside the range for any modern bird but are well within the range of theropod dinosaurs.

Please take a look at this. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? There you will find a long list detailing the transition to mammals from reptiles.

There are a number of fossils detailing the transition from lobe finned fish to amphibians including Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. The whale series is nice including Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon.

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

I think a quote from Gould deals well with this and your previous statement. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." From Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

PE explains why the transitions are lacking at the species level, though there are examples if you need them. Contrary to what you implied, PE explains why it is generally at the higher taxa where we DO have transitional examples.

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

Your premise is wrong so all that follows is wrong.

The type of disorganization that scientists mean when speaking of entropy is at the molecular level. Not what lay people think of when they think of disorder, though the comparison is sometimes made in order to help understand the concept. Entropy is simply a measurement of the amount of disorder at teh molecular level. Think of ice in a crystal versus water molecules bouncing around a liquid. Or think of a hot gas being more disorganized than a cool gas because the molecules are bouncing around more quickly. This has nothing to do with the general concept of order. It is a very specific property, like temperature or mass, of a system.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
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. " target="_blank">[url]http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html

[/url]

"Again" you are dodging the point with a circulare argument.

The mass "held in place" at the outer rims of the galaxies is held by "black box magic" of sufficient mass to account for a gravitational field strong enough to hold them in place. I.E a mass that would be needed to CAUSE the effect seen. (The same is true for bending light).

But of course the "problem" is that NO SUCH MASS is there. (Hence the "Dark Matter" label).

And the BIGGER problem is that such a mass would account for the "majority" of the mass of the galaxy - not some small micro-section of it.

Your response shows a lack of critical thinking when it comes to swallowing the doctrines of evolutionism.

In your defensive position you can not admit even the most obvious points of physics.

(Kind of reminds me of your position on entropy not happening on earth since the sun is shining)

UTEOTW said --
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.

You mean "believe" as in "no matter what we see".

Microlensing has NOT shown that 90% of galaxies consists of matter with unknown invisible non-radiating matter. Dwarfs radiate energy - dark matter does not.

The point being - it is beyond our physics at present EVEN WHILE you are claiming that the great doubt cast on the Creator's account - is our complete understanding of what we don't know about the Universe.

The "dark matter" label is there as proof that "we have no clue what is doing this".

We can see "some anomalies" and then invent "black box matter" (if you will) but the result is that 90% of the universe becomes "black box don't know what goes here matter".

I can't believe you are taking this "I have dark matter in my basement" attitude about it.

My argument does not "need to debunk what our physics can not identify" - I simply point out where we are doing hand waiving and taking shortcuts with our black boxes for things we can't explain. The bending of light AND the configuration of the galaxies (is not supposed to be there) based on the radiating matter that we detect. So we "make stuff up" about "dark matter".

IF 90% of our solar system, or 90% of our own galaxy was composed of this "don't-know-what-it-is matter" - we would have more data on it.

And yet... evolutionists "must pretend"...

In Christ,

Bob