"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

Why don't you join Senator Rick Perry, and pray for your keys to be found, in Heuston Texas ?

Why do you mock sincere Christians praying to God?

... is it perhaps, because you know that God really does exist ... and you are trying to deny that He does?

... I wouldn't mock a sincere Atheist who tells me that s/he cannot/will not believe in God.
I will respectfully point out why s/he should be Saved ... and leave the decision up to her/him.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Well I guess it's a good thing that we don't solely rely on 14C for dating then.

Now, back to that list of Kinds you were going to show me.

... all fine except the Jenkins-Fischbach effect affects all radio-isotopes ... and not just 14C.
... and the decay rates are varying literally from one month to another!!!


http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1771/print/

Guys ... the Evolutionist 'show is all over'!!!:D

Here is what Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics has to say about it

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Delirium

For a scientist you seem to be really behind the times, that paper was published in August 2008 and carbon dating hasn't been abandoned since.;)

It actually seems to explain why carbon dating needed a calibration curve as part of the calculations.

And the highlighted part would say that items were dumped because they seemed anomalously young. This means that things could be older than expected.

Full paper here

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... all fine except the Jenkins-Fischbach effect affects all radio-isotopes ... and not just 14C.
... and the decay rates are varying literally from one month to another!!!


http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1771/print/

Guys ... the Evolutionist 'show is all over'!!!:D

you should really read the documents you quote from. The Jenkins-Fischbach says that the pulse that dramatically affects the 14C process, happens approximately every 200 years and not every month.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

Why do you mock sincere Christians praying to God?

Because praying is as useful as doing nothing. I think anybody in a position of power, let alone a secular nation like the USA, who spends his time praying for the economy to pick up should be mocked.

J C wrote: »

... is it perhaps, because you know that God really does exist ... and you are trying to deny that He does?

No I don't know

J C wrote: »

... I wouldn't mock a sincere Atheist who tells me that s/he cannot/will not believe in God.
I will respectfully point out why s/he should be Saved ... and leave the decision up to her/him.

That is not comparable to the scenario I addressed above


Now address my points please about the traits you attributed to God not being compatible

J C

koth wrote: »

you should really read the documents you quote from. The Jenkins-Fischbach says that the pulse that dramatically affects the 14C process, happens approximately every 200 years and not every month.

... it happens on short time-scales as well ... have a look at the effect of solar flares in the graph of manganese–54, in the following link

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108

J C

GO_Bear wrote: »

The need to punish would not be there had it not been implemented,

Knowing he would have to punish his own creations and still implementing it only displays malevolence

True Malevolence would be not acting justly to those who don't repent of their sin ... and not being merciful to those who do.

Like I have said, God created everyone with free will ... if some people willingly choose His Justice rather than His mercy, He must logically allow them to do so.
I believe that it breaks His heart, when this happens ... but it is balance by all those who love Him and have freely chosen His mercy.

GO_Bear

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, God created everyone with free will ... if some people willingly choose His Justice rather than His mercy, He must logically allow them to do so.

Yes but .......... again ............

Being omnipotent and omniscient, he would know BEFORE creation who would choose damnation, why would a benevolent God create something that is doomed to the worst possible scenario ?

IrishKnight

Wow, this is still going, sorta reminds of me of "Duty Calls"

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

They seem to torment each other both physically and spiritually ... and their tormented fate is in dramatic contrast to the eternal bliss which exists between the Saved amongst themselves and with their God.

And you'd know this how?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The latest results from Stanford University is supporting the idea that Neutrino flux can cause radioactive decay rates to vary ... and this places a major question mark over the apparent ages of biotic material.

The paper below confirms this and states in its summary:-
A surge in neutrino flux would have two effects:
• It would cause excess decays of the 14C isotopes in all dead biota (via the Jenkins-Fischbach effect), thus increasing their apparent ages as indicated by their “14C ages".
• It would produce excess atmospheric 14C for a brief period, thus causing the biotic matter formed during the surge to look anomalously young—perhaps by very large amounts (which may have led to unwarranted discarding of good data).
These two effects together mean that the 14C calibration curve may constitute a “neutrinocardiogram” giving a time history of the “heartbeat of the Sun.”

... and whatever about the “neutrinocardiogram” ... it certainly makes all radio-carbon dating tentative, at best ...
... but then, we scientists have known this all along ...
Creation Scientists have always used a 'health warning' when using radiocarbon dating ... and Evolutionists have also been circumspect about it ... see the statement, highlighted by me, in the above quote, about discarding radiometric data that didn't fit the known facts.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3986

The Jenkins-Fischbach effect mean that decay rates aren't constant ... and so, nuclear half-lives aren't definitive either.

It is a case of something which supposedly doesn't interact with anything (Neutrinos) causing changes in something which supposedly doesn't change (the rate of radioactive decay of an isotope).:D:eek:

... and thus another great 'foundation block' of Evolution (the supposed accuracy of the ages attributed to material by radio-nuclear dating) 'bites the dust.':eek:

Which is kind of like saying that amplifiers don't work because transistor characteristics aren't flat.

And yet they amplify.

Genghiz Cohen

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which is kind of like saying that amplifiers don't work because transistor characteristics aren't flat.

And yet they amplify.

So JC, that list of Kinds.

Mr. Boo

'Carbon Dating' is not a founding block of evolutionary theory. It wasn't that widely used in Darwin's time, as any scientist is well aware. It has since become a useful tool in paeleontology and counter-creationist arguments, among other things.

What proportion of the biological material is actually affected by these Neutrinos? Do they not just show up as outliers in the massive accumulation of data?

It is not respectful, at all, to tell an atheist that he/she should be saved. It is as disrespectful as an atheist saying to you "there is no god; move on". And it is at the root of this whole thing, "the origin of specious nonsense".

And if anyone else here based all their arguments on one book, I'd ignore them myself quite frankly. People are looking for actual evidence outside of the bible. Cheers.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

'Carbon Dating' is not a founding block of evolutionary theory. It wasn't that widely used in Darwin's time, as any scientist is well aware. It has since become a useful tool in paeleontology and counter-creationist arguments, among other things.

What proportion of the biological material is actually affected by these Neutrinos? Do they not just show up as outliers in the massive accumulation of data?

It is not respectful, at all, to tell an atheist that he/she should be saved. It is as disrespectful as an atheist saying to you "there is no god; move on". And it is at the root of this whole thing, "the origin of specious nonsense".

... but the the Jenkins-Fischbach effect mean that decay rates aren't constant across all radio-isotopes ... and so, nuclear half-lives aren't definitive either for any of these.
... and therefore the 'counter-creationist arguments' that you say are based on radio-nuclear dating are also invalid ... like most other things about Materialistic Evolution.:)

I see nothing disrespectful about a Christian telling anybody that they need to be Saved ... nor do I see anything disrespectful about an Atheist saying "there is no God, move on" ... they are both consistent with their respective beliefs ... and they both invite a reasoned respose from the other party.

I don't think that it is polite to scoff at other peoples beliefs ... but it is certainly vaid to question them ... and if they don't have answers, then maybe they should have a long hard look at what they believe ... that's what true skepticism is all about.;)

Equally, discriminating against people simply because they don't share your beliefs ... or censoring what they have to say, when you have no counter argument is quite abnoxious. In this regard, the way that I am confined to this thread on the A & A is quite ironic for a group of people who clam to be skeptics ... and who routinely rail against similar suppression of opposing opinion in the Medieval Church.
The reason that the church engaged in such censorship was often because it didn't have any valid answers to the questions raised ... and it therefore suppressed the questions and the questioners!!!
... I wonder could that also be the reason why there is such suppression of the the Creation Science viewpoint, as well?

Mr. Boo wrote: »

And if anyone else here based all their arguments on one book, I'd ignore them myself quite frankly. People are looking for actual evidence outside of the bible. Cheers.

You would indeed have a valid point, if that was what Creation Scientists actually did ... but they don't base all of their arguments on one Book ... they base their science on real world observations, maths and logic. The basis of their theology also varies ... there are Creation Scientists who are Muslims, Jews and Christians ... and there are ID proponents who are of all faiths and none, for example, the Deist (and former leading Atheist) the late Prof Sir Anthony Flew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

J_E

J C wrote: »

... but the the Jenkins-Fischbach effect mean that decay rates aren't constant ... and so, nuclear half-lives aren't definitive either across all isotopes.

Isn't carbon dating usually only done with Carbon-14 though? Hence accurate across the board.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... but the the Jenkins-Fischbach effect mean that decay rates aren't constant ... and so, nuclear half-lives aren't definitive either across all isotopes.
... and therefore the 'counter-creationist arguments' that you say are based on radio-nuclear dating are therefore also invalid ... like most other things about Materialistic Evolution.

I see nothing disrespectful about a Christian telling anybody that they need to be Saved ... nor do I see anything disrespectful about an Atheist saying "there is no God, move on" ... they are both consistent with their respective beliefs ... and they invite a reasoned respose from the other party.

I don't think it is polite to scoff at peoples beliefs ... but it is certainly vaid to question them ... and if they don't have answers, then maybe they should have a long hard look at what they believe ... that's what true skepticism is all about.;)

The Jenkins-Fischbach effect still hasn't been independently verified. Add to the that they've been heavily criticized for their misuse of statistics and correlation.

The discrepancy that the effect is allegedly highlighting only accounts for 0.2% of the age of an item, which means that the age of the items are still much higher than any age proposed by creationists.

J C

koth wrote: »

The Jenkins-Fischbach effect still hasn't been independently verified. Add to the that they've been heavily criticized for their misuse of statistics and correlation.

The discrepancy that the effect is allegedly highlighting only accounts for 0.2% of the age of an item, which means that the age of the items are still much higher than any age proposed by creationists.

The discrepancy can be quite dramatic ... the graph on page 3 of the following paper shows a 20% deviation from true age for living trees caused by a supernova ... and an opposite divergence would occur with the apparent 'ages' of dead material from this time.

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986v1.pdf

... and what do you mean by 'independently verified'?
... Here is what Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics has to say about it

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The discrepancy can be quite dramatic ... the graph on page 3 of the following paper shows a 20% deviation from true age for living trees caused by a supernova ... and an opposite divergence would occur with the apparent 'ages' of dead material from this time.

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986v1.pdf

As I said, it hasn't been independently verified and the data has been heavily criticized. They could say it's 50% but that give it any basis in reality until they can back up their assertions.

J C

Cydoniac wrote: »

Isn't carbon dating usually only done with Carbon-14 though? Hence accurate across the board.

The Jenkins-Fischbach effect affects the amounts of 14C by affecting their rate of decay ... and thus the apparent 'age' of the object. It highlights the problem of assuming constant rates of nuclear decay ... as well as other uniformitarian assumptions, that conditions in the past are just like they are today.
The fact that there was a Global Flood, means that the conditions when most sedimentary rocks were laid down, were nothing like they are today ... and the use of uniformitarian assumptions about the rates of deposition of the sediment that formed these rocks and the implications of the levels of radio-isotopes within them are simply wrong.

J C

koth wrote: »

As I said, it hasn't been independently verified and the data has been heavily criticized. They could say it's 50% but that give it any basis in reality until they can back up their assertions.

Does some Materialistic 'Pope' have to bless it or something ... for you to be happy?

... or is the repeatably verifiable evidence before your eyes not enough for you?:)

... this stuff isn't brand new ... the (peer-reviewed) paper highlighted above was published in 2008.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and what do you mean by 'independently verified'?

Get a group of scientists to test the maths that the Jenkins-Fischbach effect explaining. You know, do experiments to verify what is alleged is correct.

... Here is what Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics has to say about it

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

So he writes how an experiment noticed a change in the rate of decay but doesn't quantify it, and can't explain it.

if the Jenkins-Fischbach effect is correct why hasn't it been adopted to better determine the age of items?

Sarky

Does this mean you're unable to supply this list of kinds people have been asking you to provide for weeks? You could just admit you can't you know, if it's proving so difficult. Nobody would think less of you than they already do.

While you're at you you could tell us if you lied about watching the hundreds of Youtube videos in this thread and the thread(s) before. Or if you lied about understanding any of them.

But the list of kinds was asked for first and for much longer, so there's no rush, you can start with that.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Does some Materialistic 'Pope' have to bless it or something ... for you to be happy?

... or is the repeatably verifiable evidence before your eyes not enough for you?:)

nope, just have it confirmed in a laboratory by another group of scientists. Which hasn't been done in the 3 years since the paper was published.

Sarky

If J C doesn't know about independent verification, it doesn't speak terribly well of his claims of being a scientist. It's kind of the whole point. Anybody who did science before college would know that.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

If J C doesn't know about independent verification, it doesn't speak terribly well of his claims of being a scientist. It's kind of the whole point. Anybody who did science before college would know that.

Is the fact that the original paper is peer-reviewed ... and its conclusions haven't been invalidated since not enough for you?

In any event, the Jenkins-Fischbach effect has indeed been independently verified by Alvin J. Sanders at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville ... and he published this peer reviewed paper about it
http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986v1.pdf

... so it is not just Jere Jenkins and Ephraim Fischbach who are saying this
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3283v1.pdf
http://www.blog.thecastsite.com/?p=95

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Does this mean you're unable to supply this list of kinds people have been asking you to provide for weeks? You could just admit you can't you know, if it's proving so difficult. Nobody would think less of you than they already do.


But the list of kinds was asked for first and for much longer, so there's no rush, you can start with that.

Here are some examples (courtesy of Creationwiki):

* Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
* Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
* Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
* Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
* Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
* Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
* Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
* Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.

* Humanity — Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homo; with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.

... and here are some more facts of created life:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp

Here is a peer-reviewed paper on the subject
http://www.bryancore.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/download/4/7

Delirium

btw it seems Fischbach has a reputation for "finding" new physics effects, effects which are subsequently proven not to exist.

In addition to that Jenkins and Fischbach seemingly didn't do the experiments but just analysed data gathered by other scientists.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3986v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3283v1.pdf
http://www.blog.thecastsite.com/?p=95

I just read those, and it's pretty clear that you didn't even read the abstract or conclusions, because they do not state that carbon dating is useless. In fact, according to the first document, the regular periodic nature of the anomalies in the calibration curves are a very useful "signature" that helps align data for more accurate dating.

But this was known already. The first paper, being a review, quite clearly mentions that.

All these papers do is attempt to explain WHY the anomalies occur. They seem to do a good job, but they still need more independant verification. As they are right now, any evidence they provide is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE to what you claim it is. Again, you either didn't read a word of those papers yourself, or you didn't understand a word of them. Which was it?

J C, you are so dishonest in every way it actually hurts. Would your god really approve of such blatant lies? Such avoiding questions, misrepresentations and outright deceit? I think you need to take a good hard look at yourself. You might not be as "Saved" as you think.

liamw

...from ylyl

himnextdoor

liamw wrote: »

...from ylyl

Exactly.

Imagine if Microsoft Windows (TM) behaved like that.

Bill Gates is not God but he is an intelligent designer; looking out for himself!