"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/

Enjoy!!!:)

No, sorry - that doesn't answer my question. And all of those points are absurd. What you've done here is ignored my requests for a dating methodology to verify your claims of the Earth being 10,000 years ago - and in a last case scenario to try and save face, you link to one of the most absurd creationist websites on the internet.

Now addressing the (ridiculous) claims in the actual article.

Carbon Dating and Diamonds being '55,000 years' old.

Firstly, even your creationist friends (as wrong as their science is), have already put the age of the earth at more than 5 times the length of your claims. It doesn't back up your original claim of 10,000 years.

Secondly - If the Creation Research Society wants their dating claims to be actually independently verified, they would have no problems in having independent scientific institutions that are not driven by some ideological bias date the said diamonds. As expected, they have not done this.

Thirdly - You cannot date diamonds with Carbon-14 dating and it is not used to date it. It's pretty much the same argument as the dating of shells and is open to a false reading. Potholer54 completely debunks these claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

The Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

The very last line shows a staggering ignorance of how gravity works, and the rate of lunar retreat over time. Firstly, the data they use for the recession rates are incorrect. Secondly, they presume a constant rate of retreat which is wildly ignorant.

The topic itself has been completely debunked by Tim Thompson, physicist, astronomer, NASA employee and all around genius. You can read the data here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html


Human Population Growth

This is an absurd argument which has been destroyed time and time again. I don't know why creationists still continue to peddle it. It pulls a completely random, and unsubstantiated formula of the population doubling every 150 years. This is simply not the case.

Human population growth today is wildly different than in the past for a number of reasons. Advancement in medicine, nutrition and an understanding of health risks... Better living conditions, cleaner water, etc...

The Black Plague for example is cited as having killed off up to 60% of the population of Europe. The Justinian plague killed off another 50% of the European population. China's population halved in the late 1300's through conquest, war and famine.

At no point, does this population formula take any of the above into account.

Sarky

What dlofnep just did is what you should be doing to that paper, J C.

Hurry up.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

No, sorry - that doesn't answer my question. And all of those points are absurd. What you've done here is ignored my requests for a dating methodology to verify your claims of the Earth being 10,000 years ago - and in a last case scenario to try and save face, you link to one of the most absurd creationist websites on the internet.

Now addressing the (ridiculous) claims in the actual article.

A load of unsubstantiated ad hominem comments ... when I have devastatingly proven the 'billions of years' ... to be a myth!!!

I also note that you only tackled three out of the six proofs ... and you used other sources primarily ... so I will do the same

dlofnep wrote: »

Carbon Dating and Diamonds being '55,000 years' old.

Firstly, even your creationist friends (as wrong as their science is), have already put the age of the earth at more than 5 times the length of your claims. It doesn't back up your original claim of 10,000 years.

The presence of detectable C14 in diamonds, that Evolutionists believe to be up to 2 billion years old, proves that they are a maximum of 50,000 years old (based on current C 14 decay rates and production levels) ...
Quote :
"In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! That’s why radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date rocks at millions of years."

... This issue isn't confined to diamonds ... other carbon sources that are supposed to be millions of Evolutionist 'years' old ... also 'date' in thousands of years as well!!!:)

Quote :
"Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years."
"The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either in situ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood."

dlofnep wrote: »

Secondly - If the Creation Research Society wants their dating claims to be actually independently verified, they would have no problems in having independent scientific institutions that are not driven by some ideological bias date the said diamonds. As expected, they have not done this.

This has been done!!!
It's not only Creationists who have discovered the young 'ages' of diamonds!!!!
Quote:
"Confirmation that there is in situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.**
R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.

These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. Therefore, they cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is no other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. "

The University of California scientists, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument. Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young."

**R.E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.

dlofnep wrote: »

Thirdly - You cannot date diamonds with Carbon-14 dating and it is not used to date it. It's pretty much the same argument as the dating of shells and is open to a false reading.

I accept that all radio-dating should come with a strong 'health warning' ... but the fact that there is measurable C14 in diamonds is confirmation of a young Earth!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

The Moon
The very last line shows a staggering ignorance of how gravity works, and the rate of lunar retreat over time. Firstly, the data they use for the recession rates are incorrect. Secondly, they presume a constant rate of retreat which is wildly ignorant.

We have to look at what 'long agers' claim about the origins of the Moon ... their current favourite theory is that it was formed by a great chunk of the Earth being knocked off in a collision between the Earth and another body that was the size of Mars!!!
http://www.universetoday.com/47996/how-was-the-moon-formed/

If this was the case, the moon shouldn't be spherical ... (and it also defies the Roche Limit) but, be that as it may, the recession rate of the Moon should be slowing down from its initial explosive speed ... and therefore the current 4 cm per year, would have been much faster millions of years ago ... and therefore the Moon would have been touching the Earth less than 1.5 billion years ago ... but this is impossible ... the moon could never have been closer than 9,496 km , known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it ... and a good reason why the current most popular Evolutionist theory on the formation of the Moon is scientifically invalid!!!:)
So ... I guess you have a choice ... to not have any scientifically valid Evolutionist explantion for the formation of the Moon ... or to accept the truth, that it was Created!!

... the same choice faces Evolutionists in relation to living organisms and the Universe itself ... and they go for the scientifically invalid explanation every time ... because it is in line with their unfounded religious belief (that matter and energy is all there is) ... and despite virtual phenomena, like information and intelligence, being scientifically proven to exist!!!:eek:

dlofnep wrote: »

Human Population Growth

This is an absurd argument which has been destroyed time and time again. I don't know why creationists still continue to peddle it. It pulls a completely random, and unsubstantiated formula of the population doubling every 150 years. This is simply not the case.

Human population growth today is wildly different than in the past for a number of reasons. Advancement in medicine, nutrition and an understanding of health risks... Better living conditions, cleaner water, etc...

The Black Plague for example is cited as having killed off up to 60% of the population of Europe. The Justinian plague killed off another 50% of the European population. China's population halved in the late 1300's through conquest, war and famine.

At no point, does this population formula take any of the above into account.

If Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, there should be vast areas occupied by their graves and tombs!!!
The Human population has actually been following an exponetial trajectory since the Flood.
Conquest, war and famine may have held populations in check, in the short-term ... but advances in technology are there to be seen in ancient civilisations as well.
Equally, the Earth is quite capable of supporting a stable Human population of over a hundred million, using basic agriculture and hunting and gathering.
... and over 100,000 years, with an average lifespan of 50 years, this would result in a total population of 20 thousand billion people!!!
The graves for this number of people would cover 40 million square Km or roughly a quarter of the land area of the Earth ... and their construction and destruction activity would ensure that the entire land surface would have been disturbed thousands of times ... and yet archaeological sites occupy but a miniscule area of the Earth.

I also note that you have carefully avoided the other three, even more devastating, evidences for a Young Earth ... Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field, Dinosaur Soft Tissue 'Fossils' ... and Tightly Folded Rock Strata (and polystrate tree fossils - that completely invalidate the 'ages' attributed to rock formation) and support rapid cementation during Noah's Flood!!!!:)

Delirium

And I've noticed you still haven't begun to discuss the paper.

J C

koth wrote: »

And I've noticed you still haven't begun to discuss the paper.

Too busy trying to satsfy the great hunger of Evolutionists for the truth in Creation Science (and getting nothing but insults hurled back at me) ... to be bothered answering commercially sensitive questions on ID !!!!:)

Delirium

you mean you're just being selective and ignoring anything that makes your support of creationism difficult, which is almost everything that gets posted in this thread.

The paper shows that CFSI is nonsense, so you ignore it in the hope that people mightn't notice.

Address the paper, show that what you've been saying about your creation has some basis in reality.

J C

koth wrote: »

The paper shows that CFSI is nonsense ...

You wish!!!!:)

Delirium

care to go into more detail? You're not really giving anything to back up your case.

J C

koth wrote: »

care to go into more detail? You're not really giving anything to back up your case.

... says an evolutionist ... when there hasn't been a single piece of evidence given for the belief that Pondkind evolved into Mankind ... on this thread ... or anywhere else.

Delirium

I guess you have some sort of selective blindness when it comes to science. So that's a no to providing any evidence for CFSI.

J C

BTW, there was a debate on evolution on Newstalk tonight ... between an evolutionist ... and an evolutionist ... and a theistic evolutionist ... and Richard Dawkins!!!:)

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/217/sunday/1/popup

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

... says an evolutionist ... when there hasn't been a single piece of evidence given for the belief that Pondkind evolved into Mankind ... on this thread ... or anywhere else.

WHAT!

Mr. Boo

koth wrote: »

And I've noticed you still haven't begun to discuss the paper.

When I saw the long post I thought for a moment, "has JC began to discuss the paper? Paragraph by paragraph, as promised?"

Egg on my face.

J C

koth wrote: »

I guess you have some sort of selective blindness when it comes to science. So that's a no to providing any evidence for CFSI.

You're the guys with the selective blindness ... come on and provide even one piece of evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.
We keep hearing about all of this evidence ... but where is it?

Delirium

thanks for the link, JC

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

You're the guys with the selective blindness ... come on and provide even one piece of evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.
We keep hearing about all of this evidence ... but where is it?

What is this spontaneous evolution of which you speak?

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

WHAT!

Ironically, there isn't a single piece of evidence for Spontaneous Evolution ... if you know of any, please provide it.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Egg on my face.

... unfortunately, this is an ever-present occupational hazard for an evolutionist, Mr Boo!!!!:):D:eek:

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

What is this spontaneous evolution of which you speak?

The non-theistic variety!!!:)

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... and ever-present occupational hazard for an evolutionist, Mr Boo!!!!:):D:eek:

What the hell are you talking about?

Your contribution to this thread, and I'd imagine the threads that have gone before, amounts to nought. This type of trolling, of which you regularly partake, accounts for the majority of your input. The rest is a bunch of copy and paste jibbidy joo from fcuk-knows-which keyboard-gumming jesus forum.

Kindly refrain from turning not-so-subtle sarcasm into a perceived "point" for your side. It's beyond petty, much like your avoiding the task at hand.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

The non-theistic variety!!!:)

As opposed to some impish cosmic trickster pre-programming generations' worth of subtle change into all of "creation"?

I really would love to know what type of scientist you are. Shelving Occam's razor and instead employing Dr Seuss's bag of rainbows: a principle whereby explanation is provided by the most inventive fable, because life is all about stories with morals, and should be perceived as such.

J C

Prof Dawkins 'threw in the towel' on non-directed evolution ... saying that random forces would be completely incapable of producing complex organs and all of the other functional features of living creatures ... like functional wings that fly ... and functional eyes that see!!!

It was pointed out by the other evolutionists that mutations are random and many environmental effects are also random.
It is therefore a mathematical impossibility (as admitted by Prof Dawkins) to produce functional wings that fly via random non-intelligently directed processes.

Has the good Professor been looking at my contributions to this thread, I wonder??

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins 'threw in the towel' on non-directed evolution ... saying that random forces would be completely incapable of producing complex organs and all of the other functional features of living creatures ... like functional wings that fly ... and functional eyes that see!!!

Has the good Professor been looking at my contributions to this thread, I wonder??

Expand on what is meant by "random forces".

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about?

... your egg on face!!!!

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Your contribution to this thread, and I'd imagine the threads that have gone before, amounts to nought. This type of trolling, of which you regularly partake, accounts for the majority of your input. The rest is a bunch of copy and paste jibbidy joo from fcuk-knows-which keyboard-gumming jesus forum.

Kindly refrain from turning not-so-subtle sarcasm into a perceived "point" for your side. It's beyond petty, much like your avoiding the task at hand.

Come on and provide the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... your egg on face!!!!

Troll.

J C wrote: »

Come on and provide the evidence for Spontaneous Evolution.

I have not been pushing any agenda. I want you to clarify yours. With evidence, examples, and a firm debunking of the aforementioned paper.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins 'threw in the towel' on non-directed evolution ... saying that random forces would be completely incapable of producing complex organs and all of the other functional features of living creatures ... like functional wings that fly ... and functional eyes that see!!!

Has the good Professor been looking at my contributions to this thread, I wonder??

Must you misquote Dawkins every time you mention him? He was referring to creationists and their misunderstanding of evolution.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Expand on what is meant by "random forces".

It was pointed out by the other evolutionists that mutations are random and many environmental effects are also random.
It is therefore a mathematical impossibility (as admitted by Prof Dawkins) to produce functional wings that fly via random non-intelligently directed processes.
He seems to think that NS (which is 'directed') is able to overcome the random supposed source of the variety that NS selects (mutation) ... but his is incorrect ... any random process, like mutation will destroy CFSI ... and it will never recover ... for NS to select it.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Prof Dawkins 'threw in the towel' on non-directed evolution ... saying that random forces would be completely incapable of producing complex organs and all of the other functional features of living creatures ... like functional wings that fly ... and functional eyes that see!!!

Has the good Professor been looking at my contributions to this thread, I wonder??

Must you misquote Dawkins every time you mention him? He was referring to creationists and their misunderstanding of evolution.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

It was pointed out by the other evolutionists that mutations are random and many environmental effects are also random.
It is therefore a mathematical impossibility (as admitted by Prof Dawkins) to produce functional wings that fly via random non-intelligently directed processes.

Not only does this show that you have not got a bull's notion what you are talking about, but it does indeed confirm that you are misquoting a source to suit your own means. I'm no lover of Dawkins, but I know he wouldn't come out with this type of nonsensical dribble.

And I mean dribble.

J C

koth wrote: »

Must you misquote Dawkins every time you mention him? He was referring to creationists and their misunderstanding of evolution.

He was referring to what you say ... and he didn't realise that he was 'throwing in the towel' on Evolution, when he admitted that random processes would make evolution an impossibility ... but this was picked up by the other evolutionists after the Prof Dawlins contribution ... and they expressed concern and puzzlement about what Prof Dawkins was saying ... as they pointed out that Darwinian Evolution is full of random processes (including mutation).