|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
1,395
guests, and 12
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78180
07/10/06 22:46
07/10/06 22:46
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then this evidence is enough to show that there was never a time where dinosaurs and men lived togethter. That is easy to realize.
There are bones in the ground. They aren't labelled with a date or a convenient photo and bibliography to tell us how they lived or when they lived. So we scientifically know that they lived....and died.
Infact, they are labeled with a time/date and science has already discovered how to make this visible and understand it, but you seem to not want to understand this, hence your 'these are just bones in the ground' comment.
When talking about more absolute dates, our dating methods might indeed still be a bit flawed, however relative dating gives enough evidence already, so that's why absolute dating errors are not important for these kind of conclusions.
And still, those error ranges are getting smaller and smaller with every development step the dating methods go through ...
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78181
07/23/06 21:05
07/23/06 21:05
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Infact, they are labeled with a time/date and science has already discovered how to make this visible and understand it, but you seem to not want to understand this, hence your 'these are just bones in the ground' comment.
Unfortunately, there's 'new', peer-reviewed evidence that the radioisotopic decay rates have been accelerated in the past, and that the earth is about 6000 years old. Wonder why you never see anyone do a new article on this? Bias, perhaps? No...not in the American media....that couldn't happen. Hm.
There has always been evidence of a young earth, but this is the most damaging because it once again shows that uniformitarianism is bull. And furthermore vindicates the viewpoint of people like me that have known the evolutionary timelines were based on huge assumptions. Rats (or should I say rates?  )
Quote:
When talking about more absolute dates, our dating methods might indeed still be a bit flawed, however relative dating gives enough evidence already, so that's why absolute dating errors are not important for these kind of conclusions.
And still, those error ranges are getting smaller and smaller with every development step the dating methods go through ...
Yeah, well it doesn't matter anymore. Evolution can't happen in 6000 years, so its a moot point.
If you're wondering what I'm blathering on about, please see....
this
that
evolutionist's viewpoint
rebuttle 1
more criticism
absolute and unrelenting destruction of the criticism....man I love being right....:)
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/23/06 21:05.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78182
07/23/06 21:49
07/23/06 21:49
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, there's 'new', peer-reviewed evidence that the radioisotopic decay rates have been accelerated in the past, and that the earth is about 6000 years old.
Lol, ok sure.. show me what real science journal published evidence that the Earth is 6000 y/o ..this is too funny.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78183
07/23/06 23:57
07/23/06 23:57
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
RATE. I provided links, its peer-reviewed. Of course, amateur evolutionists are conditioned to believe that creationists aren't peer-reviewed, that they don't do any 'real' science, and that they have no Ph.D's. You could look up the Creation Research Society Quarterly publication, or the Technical Journal publication. Both are peer-reviewed, and both are creationist. I would subscribe to the CRSQ, but I probably wouldn't understand it. Although I'm planning on subscribing once I'm in the middle of schooling, or once I'm done with schooling. Otherwise, if you want more information, click the links I provided. Two of the links are from one of the geologists who worked on the RATE project. If you want a specific source, feel free to check out this: (CRSQ 2004) Humphreys, D. R., S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, and A. A. Snelling, Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41(1), 1-16, 2004. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf.To further damage the unrelenting religious bigotry of evolutionists, the evolutionist predictions of magnetic fields is off, and the YEC view on God's creation of magnetic fields is on. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.htmlHm. Could it be? Creation science is science after all? I wouldn't have thought it the way you guys were talking.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/24/06 00:26.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78184
07/24/06 03:22
07/24/06 03:22
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Creation Research Society Quarterly
hahaha yeah really respectable.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78186
07/24/06 11:38
07/24/06 11:38
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
It is quite funny how creationists "review" their own pamphlets and call that "peer review". However, peer review means that a group of _independent scientists_ review articles meant for publication in _real_ scientific journals, like "Science" or "Nature". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_reviewCreationists seem to only publish inside their religious circle, and do not communicate with the scientific community. As to my knowledge they haven't published a single creationist article in any peer reviewed scientific journal so far. Quote:
Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly
Have you read that article? Even a layman can see the nonsense in those "Helium discoveries". In his calculations the author just ignored the effect of pressure on helium diffusion, and therefore his results were all wrong. And if you read his desparate answers on the rebuttals, you'll see that they didn't contain anything new, just a repetition of his arguments and an attack on the person who debunked his idea. In fact he should be grateful that a scientist took him serious enough to undertake the effort of debunking.
More interesting however is the mentioned "accelerated nuclear decay" on which this helium pamplet is based. This is indeed such a funny example of creationist faith that it's worth to be explained here:
As creationists learned to their dismay that radioactive decay proved an earth age of billions of years, they invented the "accelerated decay" idea to save their 6000 years faith. According to their belief, God somehow "accelerated" the radioactive decay in minerals by a factor of several millions to make them look much older as they are.
Unfortunately, any first semester physics student could tell you that such an "accerelated decay" would convert any innocent radioactive mineral into a considerable nuclear reactor! Accelerating the decay several million times would produce enough fission heat to roast Adam and vaporize the oceans. Pity that the "helium" author - and his "peer reviewers" - obviously missed radioactivity in school.
You should not be surprised that all the world is laughing at such creationist "science".
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: jcl]
#78187
07/24/06 16:38
07/24/06 16:38
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism? Right. Its become increasingly clear that this isn't an argument over science, its an ad hominem argument. Its really rather sad to see some intelligent people proposing such ignorant ideas when their theory is made foolish. Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results. Furthermore, if pressure was producing results with differences of a factor of 100,000, how would it just happen to match up with the 6,000 year age. Looking at Humphrey's biography, he seems like quite a genius. I'm inclined to believe him over you and Henke, who not only seems to not know what he's talking about, but used irrelevant arguemnts to 'refute' the findings. Furthermore, RATE research was posed in other scientific venues. I just quoted the most easily accessible. Why shouldn't I pass off Nature because, its only reviewed by biased evolutionists? That's stupid, and you guys know nothing about who these publications are reviewed by. I would be surprised that Henke wouldn't mention at length that these results were ignored by the mainstream scientific community if he could. Right. Quote:
According to their belief, God somehow "accelerated" the radioactive decay in minerals by a factor of several millions to make them look much older as they are.
This is nonsense. You should try actually researching what creationists have to say before making comments.
Quote:
Unfortunately, any first semester physics student could tell you that such an "accerelated decay" would convert any innocent radioactive mineral into a considerable nuclear reactor!
Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.
Quote:
And if you read his desparate answers on the rebuttals, you'll see that they didn't contain anything new, just a repetition of his arguments and an attack on the person who debunked his idea
Not only did Henke use irrelevant research, but I'm wondering....why not submit it for peer-review? He's making himself look like what you guys claim creationists are. Non scientist hacks who run their ideas on websites because you can say anything you want on the internet.
Quote:
hahaha yeah really respectable.
Ok. Well if this is how the debate on evolution works then there's no point in even discussing it. You guys consistently try and stack the deck in your favor. The only way evolution can be disproved is if each and every single evolutionist says there's no reason to believe it.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78189
07/24/06 17:15
07/24/06 17:15
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Let's just take a look at a few of the tactics you gtuys have used. "Creationists aren't peer-reviewed." I show you that they are peer-reviewed. "They're not peer-reviewed by respectable scientists." What would be a respectable scientist? Say one who's an expert in their field? Well by definition its not peer-review unless its reviewed by other experts. "RATE doesn't matter because Henke said something about pressure." So now you don't have to be peer-reviewed to do real science? Creationists are held to the highest standards by you guys (standards that can never be met), while evolutionists can basically do whatever they want....as long as its in favor of evolution. Talk about desperation. Here's the problem. I now present scientific, peer-reviewed evidence (the exact stuff you guys say we don't have) that the earth is young. Your response? To quite non peer-reviewed criticism, and then call a damaging rebuttle of that criticism 'desperate'. Which only begs the question of why its desperate. I submit that, in fact, based on comments by the remaining evolutionists, you guys are getting desperate. Creationism is becoming much more sophisticated, and the evidence has become even more damning to evolution so you're left with two options. 1). Admit that creationism is valid. 2). Ad hominem attacks. I don't have to wonder which one you guys choose. This religious devotion is really rather interesting. Especially coming from a militant atheist. Here's one way to shed some light on the problem. Quote some peer-reviewed evidence that RATE is faulty. The burden of proof is on you, a decade of research speaks stronger than your last desperate attempts to save your theory. 
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/24/06 17:16.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
