RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gup20:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Here's how I saw this argument:

Well here is how I see the argument:

Evolutionists: The Bible isn't true
Gup: The Bible is true.
Evolutionists: We can't believe the Bible because of science.
Gup: You can't believe the pseudo science of evolution because of the Bible.
Evolutionists: We don't believe the Bible is true, but we believe in Jesus
Gup: how can you believe in Jesus but claim the book that introduces him and his character to us to be false?

Evolutionists: We are going to teach our children and future generations that they only need to believe in Jesus but they can ignore the rest of the Bible.

Gup: 2Ti 3:16 - All scripture was inspired by God. Jhn 10:35 - The scripture cannot be broken.

</font>[/QUOTE]Excellent points Gup! Right as usual!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
"Exciting" indeed. All that energy that Austin thinks popped out in a few thousand years, would have been enough to melt the planet.

Since there's no sign at all of such a huge release of nuclear energy, we can safely discount that idea.

That would be the blind atheist's "rush to judgment" and "leap of faith" prior to thinking about the issue for a minute or two.

The problem has ALWAYS BEEN that Atheist's "bad religion" known as "evolutionism" ASSUMES the starting conditions in terms of radiometric data which accounts for the many proven annomalies with the known new rock samples. So step #1 -- toss out the bad "assumptions" for starting conditions.

Step #2. Note the evidence (rather than turning a blind eye to it) for the rapid introduction of daughter products into the system (with Zircons for example).

It is the combination of BOTh of these "inconvenient facts against evolutionism" that is causing the heartburn for atheist evolutionists.

Why in the world would Christians want to jump into the pit along side them without even looking before they leap?

As Dawkings pointed out of those Christians - it is pure nonsense!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You don't ever come back to support your assertions so iwon't bother to give this a formal response.

But here is a nice link on the Helium "work" I recently ran across.

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/002065.html

Though the bogus nature of that link is immediatlely apparent to the objective reader - it is useful in one respect if nothing else - it points the reader to this link...

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

What a great link!! Bible-believing Christians will get a lot of encouragement there!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And somewhat related to that - here is one from the same area showing the blunders of National Geo trying "spin a story" about birds coming from Dinosaurs!

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

What a great site!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
You don't ever come back to support your assertions so iwon't bother to give this a formal response.

But here is a nice link on the Helium "work" I recently ran across.

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/002065.html

Though the bogus nature of that link is immediatlely apparent to the objective reader - it is useful in one respect if nothing else - it points the reader to this link...

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

What a great link!! Bible-believing Christians will get a lot of encouragement there!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]SO if THAT "site" is SO obviously "bogus" then PERHAPS "you" will not HAVE any "trouble" going "through" IT and POINTING OUT where THE "math" MISTAKES are.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
And somewhat related to that - here is one from the same area showing the blunders of National Geo trying "spin a story" about birds coming from Dinosaurs!

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

What a great site!

In Christ,

Bob

It JUST "goes" to "show" you WHY you SHOULD NOT get your SCIENCE from "secondary" sources. NO REAL scientific "journals" actually PUBLISHED anything on Archeoraptor.

ALSO "overlooked" is that "while it" was A fake, THAT the PIECES that "were" cobbled "together" WERE real FEATHERED DINOSAURS.

 

[BobRyan]

Did "REAL" scientists speak to the subject - "or do you deny ALL inconvenient facts" in your devotion and in service to evolutionism?

(Just curious as to "how far" you are willing to climb out on that limb claiming that no evolutionists actually did what history records them doing)

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
SO if THAT "site" is SO obviously "bogus" then PERHAPS "you" will not HAVE any "trouble" going "through" IT and POINTING OUT where THE "math" MISTAKES are.

How many times do you have to be "introduced" to the same inconvenient facts about evolutionism before you start "dealing with facts" not fiction UTEOTW!!

#1. Evolutionism is nothing more than a set of "bad guesses" made in favor of atheism. THERE IS NO MATH!!

#2. The article goes to the core of the helium-Zircon argument it is trying to debate and simply SHOWS that it is contrasting KNOWN sources of internal helium for zircons and known decay rates -- vs "pure guesswork" - unproven speculation placed in opposition to actual science!

"you know" -- -- "Evolutionism" at it's finest!

How much extra helium could have this nearby volcano have introduced? Five times as much? Ten times as much? One hundred times as much?

This pathetic appeal to "unsupported guesswork" supposes THAT IF a study HAD been done MAYBE/hopefully helium measurements from a volcanoe a few miles away WOULD have been seen to migrate INTO zircons and somehow helped out evolutionists showing in the as yet unknown experiment that the Zircons finally stop supporting creationism.

But of course that kind of "guesswork" has to be "very convincining" to evolutionists whose ENTIRE world view is based on "faith in guesswork" not fact or science!

So I guess I can't blame you for missing your own blind spot.

Who could have asked anything higher of evolutionists in this regard? Certainly not me.

I would settle for evolutionists simply stepping out of the draconian mindset of the dark ages and embracing free objective intelligent thought and review for students and science!

Asking them to ALSO give up their blindspot on "guesswork presented as fact" would be asking too much. I readily admit that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

I think that if you look closely you will see some genuine false assumptions pointed out. But I would not expect you to take an actual look and respond. I am surprised that you did not respond with a string of unrelated quotes that have been removed from their context in such a way as to destroy their original meaning in a dishonest way.

 

[BobRyan]

I normally don’t reply to Internet posts from skeptics because I want them to try to publish their criticisms in peer-reviewed scientific journals, the proper place to carry out scientific debates.

However, in this case I want to take the opportunity to share updated information about our research which will appear later this year in the RATE[3] “results” book[4] and in the accompanying book for laymen.[5] I also plan to submit technical details of this reply to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, the Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ). If Henke chooses to sling yet more mud, let him try to do so in a scientific journal.

Critics like Henke must gird up their loins and undergo the same kind of scientific discipline—if they want people to take them seriously. If they refuse to do that, I plan not to reply to them further.


http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

But wait a minute. I thought the atheist evolutionists were trying to get everyone to nod their heads and "Agree" that the only peer-reviewed science journals that we should read are those that censor all science data related to YEC!!

Maybe Russell just didn't get the memo that you NEED to use circular arguments and redefine science as being 'Whatever the atheists say it is" -- instead of appealing to peer-reviewed science journals that are not managed by atheist Darwinians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them. If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time. Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates.

To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them. (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.)

This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model.

Basically this would be like having atheist evolutionists - going to a Bible-believing field scientist to have HIM conduct the experiments and then publishing the results of that blind study that used a Bible-believing scientist to do the actual measurements.

Hard to believe that someone could be so devoted to rejecting any science data that was found to be in harmony with the Bible - that they would "try and find excuses for turning a blind eye on this one".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Henke doesn’t like our explanation, let him offer his own. I’d be very interested to hear (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific journal) how he thinks the zircons suffered 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay but only 6,000 years worth of helium losses!

Which is the essence of the whole point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I am surprised that you did not respond with a string of unrelated quotes ...destroy their original meaning....dishonest way.

You seem to be choking on something UTEOTW.

Is this going to be a hard subject for you?

 

[BobRyan]

Humphreys (2005) repeatedly challenges me to publish my criticisms of his work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Here we see the confession that while Dr. Humphreys DID get HIS work peer-reviewed in a science journal - Henke merely whined on the internet!!

Henke

Contrary to his hopes, the publications of ICR, CRS and AiG have earned no respect in the scientific community. Authentic science journals are no more likely to accept a critique of his Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) article (Humphreys et al., 2004) than a rebuttal of the astrology columns

Can't you just hear this sophomoric whining "you dirty rotten stinking christians - we won't let your work be called science until it looks like atheist Darwininism! Get it??!! WE are holding the keys to the definition box!!"

This is exactly the kind of mindless dogmatist censorhip circular logic we have come to expect from atheist sources that just "can't deal with anything but pseudoscience myths of darwinism"

It is exactly the mind-numbing style of censorhip and mind-control the ACLU exercised throught the courts in Pennsylvania!!

But WHO do they think they are fooling with that tripe?? His pathetic "I don't HAVE to be peer-reviewed like you did - because that would submit my views to something like critical review!! whaaaaah" (Reminds me of that movie about the whaambulance)

No thinking person could possibly fall for Henke's dogmatist bunk. He needs to just be a man - step up to the plate and get peer-reviewed! Period!! Let his whining stop and his science finally "begin"!

Honestly the stuff that passes for "defense of evolutionism" is so childish, subjective, shallow who falls for that pseudoscience bunk anyway?

How do these guys continually fool themselves into thinking that these braindead tactics work!

I saw a review in TalkOrigins about how NOT to debate a Creationist and one of the things they pointed to was that these dogmatic elitist "We are right because we always say we are right" kinds of outbursts from incompetent evols are a positive embarrassment to the Evolutionist side!

At least they got THAT right!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hmmm. Would dogmatic outbursts be a sign of relative lack of valid argument?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
I saw a review in TalkOrigins about how NOT to debate a Creationist and one of the things they pointed to was that these dogmatic elitist "We are right because we always say we are right" kinds of outbursts from incompetent evols are a positive embarrassment to the Evolutionist side!

I.e. the favorite ploy of pompus-response-instead-of-proof-of-argument used by evolutionists 'does not convince anyone of anything'.

Paul then asks how this could possibly be true --

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Hmmm. Would dogmatic outbursts be a sign of relative lack of valid argument?

I "guess" you could always "read" the article.

In the case of the RATE discussion Humphrey did the work and appears to have all the science for this one.

Maybe the atheist wannabe argument needs to find an example that is a bit more vague where speculation will be given more weight. So far even the pompus dogmatism has not served you on this one.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

No, Humphrey's work remains questionable.

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/002065.html

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
No, Humphrey's work remains questionable.

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/002065.html

Wrong again - on some many objective levels it is hard to "Believe" that you even take your own arguments seriously.

Humphrey provides peer-reviewed STUDIES of ACTUAL data --

You post an "INTERNAT COMMENT" by a self-proclaimed NON-scientist who says It took me, an educated layman, not a scientist, a long weekend to unravel them, which I could only do with Kevin Henke's detailed response..

That means we have TWO internet sites NONE of which are peer-reviewed and the FIRST of which you direct us (to a NON-SCIENCE site!!) and "that" is the "substance" of your "it is questionable" argument in favor of blind atheist darwinian evolutionism??!!

You can do better.

ALL of the peer-reviewed science is in Humphrey's corner "so far". All you have been able to come up with so far is wishful internet-thinking. And this PROVES my point. The Atheist-wannabe position DOES NOT see evidence in favor of God's Word and say "Great what a wonderful find". Rather it REJECTS IT OUT OF HAND with NO DATA AT ALL to support that rejection because it KNOWS what the ATHEIST argument "NEEDS" to be true IN SPITE of the data and peer-reviewed conclusions being reported.

That kind of athiest-wannabe evolutionism is just plain "bad religion" friend. IT is pseudoscience bent to serve the needs and goals of darwinian atheists.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OH, you'd like a refutation from a REAL SCIENTIST?

Ok here's one from a genuine PhD

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Since Humphries has not published in real science peer reviewed journals, it is strange to read a request that he be refuted there.

The bad science he writes of course is its own refutation.

Distance = rate times time. You can't get away from that basic equation.

Stars 10 billion light years distant mean that stars were shining 10 billion years ago.

Gosh, it must be an interesting mind that can suppress this kind of evidence.

And doing so in the face of the command from God's word to listen to the stars for their message about God!

Ps 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
KJV

Why do you go against God's word and refuse to let the heavens tell you what God has made?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OH, you'd like a refutation from a REAL SCIENTIST?

Ok here's one from a genuine PhD

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

This conversation just isn't that hard to follow Paul. You are making this too easy for me.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

As can "be clearly seen" in that linke regarding your NON-PEER-REVIEWED INTERNET-only whining by Henke who does NO EXPERIMENTS and shows NO science just "I wonder and I wonder some more" sniping at the ACTUAL peer-reviewed work of Humphreys -- the point was that not only are Henke's snipes debunked BUT HE is challenged to get his own work peer-reviewed to give a rival position that holds water in opposition to Humphreys.

Again - this is the "obvious part".

Humphreys is the only one to publish in a peer-reviewed science Journal so far on that subject.

What is not to "get"?

Or were you going back to the "censorship dungeon" to plug hand-over-ears and say "anything those scientists say is NOT science cause I don't like what they say!!!""

Hello! Anybody home?!!