Inconsistency of literalists vs science

Then defend some of these actions. Defend them as the right thing to do. Tell me why it is OK for Walt Brown to claim the two mammoths found in two locations 8 years apart are really the same animal. Tell me why it is OK for Snelling to claim he is dating wood when the lab told him it is nit wood but rust. Justify these things. And at the same time, tell me some specific actions by scientists that you have problems with and why.

 

I don't know anyting about the character of either of these two men. I like the wook of the Institute for Creation Research. I think that their RATE project is on the right track.

I would be interected to know how old the "rust" was found to be and if the mammoths were 2 different species of mammonth, though...

I would say I've a problem with Dr. Ernst Mayr. He is very bias against creationism without doing any investigation. Carl Sagan, was interesting to watch; however, COSMOS was little more than an entertaining philosophical monologue without solid evidence-----only presumptuous posturing.

 

I think, from memory, the rust was carbon dated to 27000 years. You cannot carbon date rust so the number is meaningless. Except to Snelling who will not allow anyone to see his sample of "wood." I am using "rust" here as a lay term for iron oxides, BTW.

Why would it matter if they were different species or not? Two different animals were found in two completely different locations (OK, they were in the same STATE) 8 years apart and he says they were the exact same individual animal. It is either gross incompetence or deliberate lying. I favor the latter since he must have read the references to make the claim. Surely he has basic reading comprehension skills.

So tell us what Dr. Ernst Mayr is putting out that is being used by mainstream scientists in a way which is incorrect.

You like the RATE group????

from above

And RATE group members...

 

Here are the links to my fuller discussion of the above. Since you like them, maybe you can defend them.

There are nine links below. When you respond, I want to know how many of the nine you have fully read (they are not that long) and how many of the nine you think can be defended. I would really like it if you would try and defend some or all of the ones you find defensible. I find them indefensible. Proof of the decay brought to many by a YE insistance. Their dishonesty stems DIRECTLY from trying to prop up their YE beliefs. You have yet to provide any proof for your allegations of what fruits an old earth belief bring.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740.html#000011

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000034

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000038

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000039

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/6.html#000079

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/7.html#000094

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/7.html#000098

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/10.html#000140

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/10.html#000141

 

What Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D. says:

"Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental evidence to support evolution."

I totally agree.

 

I feel that there are two general groups of Diamonds. Those that exist because of the Original
Creation and those that are the result of the FLOOD.
It is up to good scientists to explain the difference.

 

First, then explain your diamond formation from the flood process and tell us how the physical data associated wit hte diamond finds support your assertion.

Second, tell us why you think that reporting an age for a diamond that indicates that you are measuring nothing but background radiation as a real age is an acceptable thing to do?

Finally, I want to know how many of those nine items you have read fully, how many of those you find to actually be acceptable actions, and to defend those that you find acceptable. Your silence on this request speaks volumes for the morality of the actions of these people who claim to be Christian leaders. I feel that the silence indicates that you actually see the failings of the actions and have no means to even try and defend them.

Trying to prop up YE beliefs is shown to lead directly to un-Christ like behavior in some instances.

 

Nice assertion from Mastropaolo. Now support it.

I hate quote mining because it appears to be an argument without actually giving any evidence. Of course, this may not exactly qualify as quote mining since the guy is a YEer and I have no reason to believe the quote is out of context. But it is a meaningless quote without the supporting evidence. And I see none.

 

Quoted from "NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC" July 2004;

"Every eleven years, on average, the sun reverses its overall magnetic polarity: its north magnetic pole becomes a south pole, and vice versa. So a complete magnetic solar cycle-returning the sun to its initial orientation-actually lasts an average of 22 years. No one completely understands the entire process, just as no one understands why the Earth's field also reverses itself at seemingly random intervals, most recently about 780,000 years ago."
(my note; I don't buy the 780,000 number)
Continuing the quote...
"That's unfortunate, because there's evidence that sunspot cycles have direct consequences for human life. Witness the sobering case of the Maunder Minimum, the eerie stretch from 1645 to 1715 in which records show that practically no sunspots appeared on the solar face.
It was named after British astronomer E. Walter Maunder, who in the 1890's tried in vain to stir up interest in this aberration. In the 1970's American solar physicist Jack Eddy revisited Maunder's work, noting that the Minimum offered "a good test case for solar influence on climate". Eddy, like most solar scientists at the time, wasn't convinced that variations in sunspot numbers-the most visible indicator of solar activity-had any link to terrestrial climate. He examined data on the growth rings of trees from the 70-year-long minimum. They contained significantly more carbon 14 than trees before and after the period. That meant that higher amounts of cosmic radiation had been reaching Earth during that time. (A magnectically active sun reduces the cosmic radiation we receive.) So, Eddy concluded, there might be a connection after all."

Jim's comment;
This PROVES carbon 14 to be the INEXACT 'science', we literalists have been shouting to the world, it is. There is no possible way for you evolutionists to claim astronomical numbers for anything based on carbon 14 dating. Why? Because you have no way of knowing for sure HOW MUCH c-14 is in a given thing to start with. You have no way of knowing how much may have been added nor how much may have been withheld. Your own evolutionistic publication has demonstrated for the world that C-14 can NOT be counted on.
You will note the trees during the minimum had MORE C-14 than the trees before and after the 70-year period in question.
You have no way of knowing how many times this could have occured during the last 6000 years, therefore you have no RELIABLE way to date your so-called "pre-historic" fossils.

This may or may not have anything to do with this thread> I only offer it as proof FROM YOUR OWN CAMP that you begin with a flawed model, therefore your conclusions are flawed.
In His service;
Jim

 

See by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.

www.icr.org


Next, go to bottom of page to LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?

Type: IMPACT #368

Next, go to (1) NUMERICAL INDEX TO ICR IMPACTS

Find Impact #368 and click on it...

[ September 15, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: A_Christian ]

 

av1611jim

The changes in level of C14 due to solar activity is tiny but measurable. As you may have just noticed through your research for the post, we can go back to item of a known age and measure the C14 levels. THis allows us to calibrate C14 dating. Without calibration, the method is very, very accurate. With calibration, even more so. But the point is, C14 dating works for items of known age and therefore there is no reason to suspect that in general it is unreliable for items of old age. Other dating methods have also been tested against items of known age to verify there accuracy.

A_Christian

About Mastropaolo, why don't you make an argument in your own words right here for us to read about whatever you think supports the assertion from earlier. I'll try and rad your link later.

Now, have you yet read my nine links to specific lies by the RATE group, the guys you specifically said you liked, and do you have and do you have any means to defend their actions yet. If I remember correctly, I gave links to their side of the story for the majority of the items so you can go read their side of the story. I still say your silence speaks volumes for their actions. They are indefensible and prove that trying to prop up YE beliefs can lead to sinful behavior.

 

I find that much of what you say sounds like contradiction and is very difficult to understand.
You have not proven the RATE group to be liars. In fact you sound fanatical in your assertions that evolutionists cannot be mistaken and creationists lie. What I believe the RATE group is attempting to prove is that the tests that evolutionists are resting their laurels on are faulty at best. I give them all the credit in the world. They are fighting the tide and that is what Christians are expected to do to the RAPTURE.

 

Oh no. Everyone can make mistakes. I assert that the RATE group have deliberately and purposefully misrepresented data in a very dishonest way. I have given you several examples of such. I have explained why I find it to be dishonest. (Have you yet followed any of the nine links?) In some cases, I have even given links to their side of the story. Now, since you say that you like these guys, I challenge you to go and look at what I say and what they say and try and justify their actions if you can.

If you find anything I have said to be confusing, please let me know specifically what you have questions about and I will explain it to the best of my ability. I think that if you follow the nine links you will find fairly easy to understand explanations. I can see where the summaries might be confusing, unclear, or unconvincing and that is why I gave the links to the fuller discussions. I think I have made a very clear and convincing case that the members of the RATE group have practiced dishonest "science" and that they are not to be trusted in their pronouncements at this time. If you disagree, take some of the specific examples and defend them from the facts. So far you are long on assertions but short on facts.

They may be fighting on the correct side, but I assert and have shown that they do so in a way which can and does bring scorn upon Christians. Christians should not feel the need to lie to defend their faith. If they feel the need to do so, maybe they should reconsider some of their positions.

 

Alright. I read your Mastropaolo link.

The first section ignores all of the current research showing how the chemicals from life can be made from basic compounds and common catalysts. The rest is a standard argument from incredulity. It is so complex that he cannot see how it could have happened naturally. He offers no reason why it could not have happened naturally nor any evidence that it did not happen.

Do you have any specific arguments of his that you would like to discuss at length? Or any arguments at all?

Do you have any specific old earth things being taught today that you can show fault with?

Have you yet read my nine links to the dishonesty of the RATE members? Are you ready to defend any of them? The lack of an active defence is very revealing.

 

uteotw;
Obviously you either
a) did NOT read the NG article, or
b) you are unable to read and understand what you read, i.e. comprehension is poor, or
c) you have deliberately lied.

The article says "they contained SIGNIFICANTLY MORE carbon 14 than the trees..." (emphasis mine)
Yet YOU (the grand pooh-bah) say it is TINY YET MEASURABLE.
Which is it? You cannot have both. Significant is not tiny.
Or...are you deliberately trying to minimize this OBVIOUS contradiction of the evolutionists in order to support your sacred cow?
Whatever-your-name-is can you not see that you are being disingenuous?
The lack of an honest assessment of the article is very revealing.
In His service;
Jim

 

All of which ignores the primary point. C-14 dating cannot be trusted because;
1) You have no way of knowing how much C-14 was in the specimen when it died/fossilized.
2) You have no way of knowing how much may have been added or withheld due to sunspot activity.
3) You are beginning with a flawed model
THEREFORE;
YOUR CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG!
Simple for the child of God to understand. Not so simple for the child of "science falsely so called".
In His service;
Jim
BTW, that thing about lake bottom silt layers? Again, even my unscientifically trained mind can see it is flawed also. What do you do with a gully washer that may have washed a bunch of dirt in there in one day? Or what about the years of drought? Changes your model in a hurry dosen't it?

 

Significant does not mean a lot. If you want to accuse me of lying you darn better sure get your ducks in a row an find out what significant means in this context. From the context, I take it to mean measurable. If it meant a lot, we might really have a problem.

The fact reamins that we can compare C14 dates to the ages of known items and even the uncalibrated curves are pretty darn close to the actual age. These known age items allow us to calibrate the ages for even more accuracy.

BTW, I am Until The End Of The World. A favorite song of mine. Wehn regeristing, my first choice in names, part of my real name, was taken. I was sick that day and did not feel like going through endless permutations until I found something that worked. So I went with something I was sure would be unique. You can call me Ute for short. Others do.

 

Now, I did read the article. In fact, I read the entire article last week while flying to Billings. A co-worker who knows that such things interest me brought me that issue of NG.

Now, to go looking for the actual change. I suggest you do the same. My first reference I find.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0201/0201025.pdf

In this, they find that the change in solar irradiance, you know the stuff that makes the C14 in the atmosphere, was 0.19%! You think this is measurable? You think this is significant? You think this is actually a lot? You think that it is likely that the change in C14 production was likely proporational? I do. But I shall keep looking.