Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

My argument does involve 'miracles.'

So does atheist arguments involve miracles.

 

[6days]

You have already decided that C14 dating cannot be used to show the Earth is older than several thousand years,

C14 can be used to show the earth is young, and God's Word true.

so please work through this list, explaining how they are all producing misleading ages by exactly the same amount necessary to support your claim.

You mean "by exactly the same amount" except when aren't?

 

[6days]

So you're saying over Adam's 100 year life, he would not have taken up C14?

No, Rose did not say that.

 

[6days]

You say that like the only way there could be mass graveyards is a singular global event. Or that floods aren't a common disaster experienced by all cultures.

No Rose did not say that.
Are evolutionists hard of reading? Must they create strawmen to try counter what was really said? Read his words again... "There are global evidences of mass extinction, mass fossil graveyards, marine organisms on mountains, etc. Then there are the worldwide flood legends from cultures around the globe, having common elements"

 

[6days]

Given all that, 6days, why do you think that the RATE team refuse to use the multiple methods that would verify or refute their own C14 dates?

You obviously know nothing about Rate other than what you read on Talkorigins or other such sites.

As you have shown, real scientists cross check and retest and use a variety of methods before they reach an agreement.

As I showed, evolutionists flip flop around with dates not trusting their own radiometric dating results. They assign dates to fit their beliefs.

 

[gcthomas]

You obviously know nothing about Rate other than what you read on Talkorigins or other such sites.

I have said before that I don't like reading other people's interpretations of papers I haven't read, so I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't read Talkorigins stuff.

I DID read Baumgardner's paper, though, and he says that the accelerated decay of each isotope would have to be different for each one to make then consistent with his flood belief. Read the conclusion. He also repeats the erroneous claim several times that tests of old material should not reveal even one atom of C14 — that only goes to show how little he understands radiodating techniques, and that he should have picked at least one expert in the technique to co-write his paper. Not one has a convincing academic or practical background sufficient to make such a declaration.

Tell me, 6Days or Ros, how is it that the 14 listed dating methods ALL give dates for finds that are inconsistent with fundamentalist Flood claims, but they ARE all consistent with one another?

Time to dive in and learn some physics, I think!

 

[6days]

Tell me, 6Days or Ros, how is it that the 14 listed dating methods ALL give dates for finds that are inconsistent with fundamentalist Flood claims, but they ARE all consistent with one another?

You already know the answers to this. To start with... you seem to only accept results that agree with your belief system. You reject dates that are inconsistent with your desired results. I already gave an example in this thread showing how evolutionists do flip flops on dates using different methods that don't agree with each other.

 

[Rosenritter]

So you're saying over Adam's 100 year life, he would not have taken up C14? Why not?

First, the mouse was submitted 100 after it died. Adam's submitted his rib on his first birthday. I hope your lab wasn't mixing up its samples, having them labelled properly and all.

Where does C14 get absorbed from Jose? It has to come from somewhere. When Adam submitted his rib, the earth had only received sunlight for barely over 365 days. Do you have any idea how long it would take a system the size of the earth to receive enough sunlight for Carbon-14 to reach equilibrium in the environment? We're talking about 10,000 years or so, when input from the sun is going to approximate the amount you are losing to radioactive decay.

That "Genesis" model you are missing means "with the conditions described in Genesis." The English translation is at a 4th grade reading level and the first five chapters are really short. As a reminder, the earth and the heavens were created in six days, including the man and creatures. It means pretty much test the model with the conditions it describes.

Were you intending to argue that it somehow means that God created an "old looking" earth? I've always thought that was a stupid argument, I'd be surprised if you adopted it now. I thought you would assume that radioactive carbon starts to form as we see it today, when the sun's energy reacts with the atmosphere.

 

[Rosenritter]

Such an effect would be fantastically clear in the calibration data for radiocarbon dating, with older objects recording a younger radiocarbon age. There is no such effect, so your argument is false. Are you really so unaware of the calibration of C14 data by other methods?

OK, so you think that undermining C14 dating rules out reliable dating techniques that might disprove your mythological chronology. How about these other independent methods that give embarrassing dates for old items?

1. Uranium-lead dating,
2. potassium-argon dating and
3. argon-argon dating for rocks: three methods that give very similar results.
4. Uranium-thorium dating which is used to date fossil bones and corals: reliable up to about ¾ million years.
5. Electron-spin-resonance dating, for measuring solidification dates for igneous/metamorphic rocks.
6. Cosmogenic radionuclide dating, for dating relative to cosmic ray exposure on surfaces (rules out multiple strata being laid down at the same time)
7. Fission track dating
8. Dendrochronology
9. Ice cores
10. Lichenometry
11. Varves
12. Luminescence dating of archaeological samples such as pottery. Interestingly, this method overlaps strongly with radiocarbon date ranges, but IS NOT affected by variations on atmospheric C14. As you'd expect, the dates correlate strongly.
13. Isochron dating or meteorites, all converge on the SAME date for the age of the Earth. And it's not 6000 years.

You have already decided that C14 dating cannot be used to show the Earth is older than several thousand years, so please work through this list, explaining how they are all producing misleading ages by exactly the same amount necessary to support your claim. Independent methods, all wrong by the same amount? Needs some detailed critiques here, Ros.

We are dealing with one argument at a time here GCThomas. Put the rabbits back in the box and they will be answered in turn. Letting loose a thousand distractions to cover one of your embarrassments isn't going to fly here. Although just skimming those it looks like you are also lacking some of the science knowledge to know what you're talking about there too. Ice cores? Seriously? Let me guess, someone told you those are "annual rings?" And your numbers don't agree, by the way. But deal with your current dilemma first.

In this experiment, Adam submitted his own rib on his very first birthday to a carbon dating lab that is in existence today. Yes, he has to cross a time-space dimension, but it's part of our thought experiment. It was a basic test to see if you understood the first thing about how carbon dating works, namely the assumptions that it requires to operate.

You fail the test, worse that Jose. Jose ventured an answer at least, you are in denial after seeing the answer. The current day labs assume that the earth was saturated with radioactive carbon-14, a process that would take at least 10,000 years. Or in other words, they assume "old earth" in order to prove "old earth" which is a classic definition of circular logic. The Adam from Genesis wasn't created in an old earth, his earth was six days old, and it was this Adam that submitted his own rib for testing.

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear gcthomas,

You forgot! God created an older Earth and Heaven, and all of the host of them, just as He created an older Adam AND Eve, and trees, and creatures. He created adults. This is what our Bible tells us. Just as your carbon dating was affected by the Sun, so are all of your methods of dating anything. Sure, they all date that the Universe and the Earth, and the meteorites are 3 billion and 4.5 billion years old. Try 6.5 thousand years old. Your other methods of dating are stuck in the millions and billions of years old because they are founding wanting.

Dendrochronology tells us that the Earth is 3 million years old? Rather than that, they can age a tree within 13,000 years old, but not within 3 million years old. But God created aged trees. God created trees that were already grown and bearing fruit. Otherwise there would be no forbidden fruit to eat, much less all of the other fruit trees in the garden of Eden. God created everything this way to confuse men into thinking that they could date it older than it really is. Same reason you will never find the end of the Universe. He ISN'T going to LET you!!

As fast as you can see further and further, He expands the Universe more and more, so that man will never find the end/edge. Our God is One Smart Cookie, way ahead of man's insignificant dating techniques. He knew man would come to the point of dating with such techniques, for it is God Who gives man his ability to do anything. You'll find out only what God will let you. And you will get wrong answers. Just like man determined to build a tower to reach Heaven, there did God confound their languages, so that they were unable to go on. If it weren't for God, we would not even have computers. Read Genesis chapter one. You probably don't even own a Bible. Google it? Enough is enough.

Warmest Regards, gct,

Michael

Michael, here I went and told Jose that "God created an old earth" was a dumb argument and then you go and make that argument. Adult animals and trees from creation are not the same thing.

 

[Rosenritter]

Watching Rosen argue against dating methods is like watching anti-vaccinators argue against vaccines. They read something somewhere on the internet and suddenly they think they're gods gift to the field (pun intended). With an ego the size of a house they can't conceive that the reason they find it all so obvious is not because they're so smart and the "experts" so dumb but rather because they don't understand enough to understand how little they actually know. That and what they do know is either wrong, rumour or a gross oversimplification... No need to actually look back over what they've concluded is wrong and read up on the subject a bit more, they know it all after all....

*grabs popcorn* your patience here is admirable.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Our doctor says he is the father of a vaccine-damaged child, and indicated that we should do some of our own research. But what does he know he's just a PhD.

 

[gcthomas]

We are dealing with one argument at a time here GCThomas. Put the rabbits back in the box and they will be answered in turn.
…
You fail the test, worse that Jose. Jose ventured an answer at least, you are in denial after seeing the answer. The current day labs assume that the earth was saturated with radioactive carbon-14 over 50,000 years ago. Or in other words, they assume "old earth" in order to prove "old earth" which is a classic definition of circular logic. The Adam from Genesis wasn't created in an old earth, his earth was six days old, and it was this Adam that submitted his own rib for testing.

Did you miss the post where I discussed some assumptions? You must have.

Did you miss the part of the discussion where I showed the falsity of your claim that C14 concentrations were assumed? In fact, as has been said several times, the C14 concentration data is derived from the other methods that you have declined to discuss, even though using multiple methods is universal for dating when such methods are available.

Your belief in an increasing C14 level after creation would show up in the C14 calibration chart, with apparently older samples recording younger radiodates, so that the heartwood of old trees would record younger C14 dates than the outer rings. That this pattern is NOT SEEN is strong evidence that your claim is false. Please refute this specific relevent point, and present physical evidence that C14 is more absent from older samples.

Then, we'll get on with some of the other 13 methods that should have been used by Baumgardner in the first place.

 

[6days]

Tell me, 6Days or Ros, how is it that the 14 listed dating methods ALL give dates for finds that are inconsistent with fundamentalist Flood claims, but they ARE all consistent with one another?

Another answer showing all dates are are NOT consistent...This one from a evolutionist, and anti-creationist. (William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., instructorof Biology, California Polytechnic State University)
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists...." He then continues to say that the results are good enough to accept the long history of geological evolution.

 

[gcthomas]

Our doctor says he is the father of a vaccine-damaged child, and indicated that we should do some of our own research. But what does he know he's just a PhD.

There is no evidence for widespread vaccine-damage of children, so it looks like you just lucked out and found a medic who had as little regard for the accumulated large-sample research evidence as you do.

(And your Doctor has PhD? That is quite unusual for a family doctor, and you'd think that the research experience would have left him better prepared.)

 

[gcthomas]

Another answer showing all dates are are NOT consistent...This one from a evolutionist, and anti-creationist. (William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., instructorof Biology, California Polytechnic State University)
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’ The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists...." He then continues to say that the results are good enough to accept the long history of geological evolution.

Did he remotely suggest that the different methods are compatible with a 6000 year old Earth, or was he just suggesting that contaminations with older materials are quite common and care and averages have to be taken? Which is it?

 

[Rosenritter]

There is no evidence for widespread vaccine-damage of children, so it looks like you just lucked out and found a medic who had as little regard for the accumulated large-sample research evidence as you do.

(And your Doctor has PhD? That is quite unusual for a family doctor, and you'd think that the research experience would have left him better prepared.)

Thank you for your advice. I will make sure to only pay attention to the CDC-approved data, not the results that were leaked where they were caught covering up vaccine-linked autism rates. I am sure they did it out of care for my child. There must be a very good reason why mercury was listed is on that vaccination ingredient label I was reading. Mercury won't hurt infants.

 

[gcthomas]

Thank you for your advice. I will make sure to only pay attention to the CDC-approved data, not the results that were leaked where they were caught covering up vaccine-linked autism rates. I am sure they did it out of care for my child. There must be a very good reason why mercury was listed is on that vaccination ingredient label I was reading. Mercury won't hurt infants.

I should have guessed you were a anti-vaxxer as well!

Why are you giving mercury containing vaccines to an infant? There isn't mercury in any vaccines recommended for infants in the US.

(I'll let your wild conspiracy-crank autism comment go. Silly)

 

[Rosenritter]

I should have guessed you were a anti-vaxxer as well!

Why are you giving mercury containing vaccines to an infant? There isn't mercury in any vaccines recommended for infants in the US.

(I'll let your wild conspiracy-crank autism comment go. Silly)

I am not, I was using satire. But I read mercury on the ingredient list. Yes, common US vaccine I think. But I don't think you care so lets let red herrings lie.

Or you could Google mercury vaccine and see what pops up. At least Canadian Google has links to mercury in US vaccines.

 

[Rosenritter]

I should have guessed you were a anti-vaxxer as well!

Why are you giving mercury containing vaccines to an infant? There isn't mercury in any vaccines recommended for infants in the US.

(I'll let your wild conspiracy-crank autism comment go. Silly)

The autism link isn't exactly hidden anymore. Whistle blower had something to say. Specifically high in African American males, CDC concealed the link and data.

 

[6days]

Did he remotely suggest that the different methods are compatible with a 6000 year old Earth

That was already answered. He is a hostile witness... an anti-creationist.

or was he just suggesting that contaminations with older materials are quite common and care and averages have to be taken? Which is it?

What he is saying contradicts the claim you were making about consistency amongst the varying dating methods. "Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years)."
And, what he said is consistent with what I have said...Evolutionists reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs.