Two potential creation scenarios

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #51

Post by H.sapiens »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 42 by Zzyzx]

"Evidence" presented is a personal opinion by an individual.
That, sir, is a statement of 100%, pure, unadulterated bovine scatology.

If a moderator may make such claims, and then determine whether the response to them is within the boundaries of the interpretation of some arbitrary and arcane "rules" -- all the while smugly insinuating that the poster is under scrutiny from a self-appointed conclave of grand poo-bahs (as if that would be the cause of the slightest bit of concern, other than a humorous one) --

then I leave you to your self-important DragonCon of a site.

By the way -- I know you will revoke both posting privileges, and delete this post; which will be both a source of bemused entertainment for me; bragging rites; and a source of anecdotes: "here's the site that got so frustrated with me, for knocking down the spires of their cloud castle faith system. And when they repeatedly demanded evidence for my claims, I gave them so much that they blatantly mischaracterized it as "opinion"; and banned me when I called them out for lying about it."

Good stuff.



8-) 8-)
I can't remember the last time I came across a person who was in love with both unsupported claims and the "sound" of his own voice.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #52

Post by Volbrigade »

[Replying to post 46 by Danmark]
Using Carbon 14 dating to measure objects millions of years old is like timing hair growth with a stopwatch.
That's your assumption. And your opinion. You are assuming hundreds of millions of years. Where's your evidence? "Radiometric dating..." with conclusions drawn from the a priori assumption of millions of years.

Completely circular... "reasoning". 8-)

Too funny (and please note the use of italics, whoever became upset over that issue -- H. Sapiens?)

Why, then, IS there C-14 in those items cited, including "billion year old" (give or take) diamonds, if every trace of C-14 should be gone after 50K years?

These tests were conducted independently, by a reputable lab, using third-party go-betweens to disguise who was submitting the samples.

If you say "trace contamination" -- why should we accept ANY radiometric dating, since they are all subject to that?

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #53

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 46 by Danmark]
Using Carbon 14 dating to measure objects millions of years old is like timing hair growth with a stopwatch.
That's your assumption. And your opinion.
No, it is a fact. And I supplied you with the evidence, the facts and the reasoning.

You respond with blather.

You failed to respond at all to the evidence I gave that you totally misrepresented what Dr. Mary Schweitzer wrote. You cited her and her findings to support this dopey YEC theory. She says just the opposite. YOUR witness repudiates you and says there is "tons" of scientific evidence the Earth is billions of years old.

Ignoring how you and your creationist website got caught out on this does not make the refutation of your claim go away.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17612
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #54

Post by otseng »

[Replying to post 39 by Volbrigade]

Moderator Comment

If you quote a website, please provide a link to it.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17612
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #55

Post by otseng »

Volbrigade wrote: That, sir, is a statement of 100%, pure, unadulterated bovine scatology.
:warning: Moderator Warning


Euphemistic swearing is not allowed here.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #56

Post by Volbrigade »

otseng wrote:
Volbrigade wrote: That, sir, is a statement of 100%, pure, unadulterated bovine scatology.
:warning: Moderator Warning


Euphemistic swearing is not allowed here.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Which is worse --

describing it, or providing it? 8-)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17612
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #57

Post by otseng »

Volbrigade wrote: Which is worse --

describing it, or providing it? 8-)
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

The worst is not abiding by the rules. We've given you plenty of warnings, this is your final warning.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #58

Post by Volbrigade »

This is to provide compliance in regard to the website that I pasted the text of, without providing a link.

It is one that will be rejected out of hand by many posters on here -- which is why I posted only the evidence itself, not the attribution from which it came.

Whether anyone chooses to review the evidence posited is their own affair. It is, however, not "opinion", as was mischaracterized by Danmark -- but over a 100 observable scientific facts that are the same for evolutionists and creationist alike, and which present problems for those holding the view that microbes somehow morphed into men.

That Dr. Schweitzer herself disputes the claim that her discovery of soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is an indication of "recent" fossilization, does not change the fact or the evidence. THAT is merely an opinion (hers), which indicates how deeply ingrained the m2m evolutionary bias is, within the secular scientific community (the objection that Dr. S. herself claims to be a "Christian" is irrelevant in that regard. Many Christians are compromisers on this issue).

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #59

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: This is to provide compliance in regard to the website that I pasted the text of, without providing a link.

It is one that will be rejected out of hand by many posters on here -- which is why I posted only the evidence itself, not the attribution from which it came.

Whether anyone chooses to review the evidence posited is their own affair. It is, however, not "opinion", as was mischaracterized by Danmark -- but over a 100 observable scientific facts that are the same for evolutionists and creationist alike, and which present problems for those holding the view that microbes somehow morphed into men.

That Dr. Schweitzer herself disputes the claim that her discovery of soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is an indication of "recent" fossilization, does not change the fact or the evidence. THAT is merely an opinion (hers), which indicates how deeply ingrained the m2m evolutionary bias is, within the secular scientific community (the objection that Dr. S. herself claims to be a "Christian" is irrelevant in that regard. Many Christians are compromisers on this issue).

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
This silliness of Batten's is the same nonsense peddled by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, who is now in Federal prison for lying and fraud. All the 'reasons' listed have been refuted on this forum and other websites by real scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_eviden ... e_universe for example. But it is not enough to simply paste in a URL and call it a day.
The scatter gun approach of people like Batten simply masks the fact that none of his poor logic and misstated facts are valid.

The better approach is to stick to one issue at a time and debate it:

For example, Dr. Schweitzer did not find viable soft tissue in dinosaur bones millions of years old. Essentially what she and her team discovered after taking samples of the fossilized tissue, grinding it up, applying acid and analyzing the powder they made was evidence in of heme structures from what millions of years ago was soft tissue. You can read the actual study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full

This story got 'dumbed down' for inclusion in popular articles for the layman and were completely misunderstood and misused by creationists like Carl Wieland.

'Carl Wieland is the major creationist "dino-blood" source and has presented his distorted interpretations of dinosaur biomolecule research through the Answers in Genesis Ministry: Creation Ex Nihilo (Wieland 1997) Creation (Wieland 1999) and the Answers in Genesis Ministry Webpages (Wieland 2002). His first article we will consider in detail, Sensational dinosaur blood report, opens with the following:

"ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.

It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old."

And he ends with

"Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation." [Wieland 1997]

These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. What possible basis for these wild claims could Wieland have had? His entire claim of cellular preservation in dinosaur age fossils originated from a selective misrepresentation of a popular magazine account of research by Mary Schweitzer titled "The Real Jurassic Park" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997). This article was published in 1997 by a magazine called Earth, a for-profit magazine focused on geology and paleontology for the general public. The magazine folded after three volumes. The former Editor, Josh Flishman, has personally acknowledged to me that Earth was a popularization, and not a scientific journal. But in 1997, the popularity of Steven Speilberg's film "Jurassic Park" prompted a tie-in theme at Earth magazine featuring Mary Schweitzer's preliminary analysis of an exceptionallywell preserved portion of a bone from a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex. There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry.'

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,� says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.� The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosau ... retal1997a

To summarize, what Wieland and other creationists have done is spread a lie.

'The basic lie that red blood cells had been observed in the bone of a T. rex now spread through the creationist literature, with the major vector coming within the Answers in Genesis publications. Jonathan Sarfati, a former chemist employed by Answers in Genesis, wrote in his 1999 book Refuting Evolution -

"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think that the last dinosaur lived." [pg. 112, citing Wieland 1997]

This bizarre claim was presented as one of six evidences that the Earth was young. Three significant scientific publications in 1997 and one in 1999 by real scientists are ignored by Sarfati, who not only misrepresented this primary research, but incompetently paraphrased Wieland 1997 to boot. More interesting, the position is hardened that somehow the Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 publication now demonstrated that this fossil was less than a few thousand years old, and this was support for the YEC position. The illogic of this assertion is entirely contained in Sarfati's statement implying that he and his associates know how long organic molecules can survive. This is of course absurd.'
ibid

As the Smithsonian article put it:

'Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth� creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.� On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.�'
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... EZ53i42.99

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 16718
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here

Post #60

Post by JoeyKnothead »

For reference:
Creation.com About Us wrote: ...The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
...
Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
...
At least in science, corrections can be made.

(tag edit, and how 'bout that :wave: )
Some say it came from Memphis down in Tennessee
Or it drifted in from Georgia about 1953
Just as long as it's greasy, as long as it's fast
As long as it's pumpin' honey, it's gonna last

It's the hillbilly rock, beat it with a drum
Playin' them guitars like shootin' from a gun
Keepin' up the rhythm, steady as a clock
Doin' a little thing called the hillbilly rock
- Marty Stuart

Post Reply