It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115157 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the resolution and error probability on the time estimates involved? BTW, it would be interesting to see you relate your "analogy(?)" element-by-element to the crater.
A miss is as good as a mile - or in this case about 200 miles. BTW, it would be interesting to see your psych profile related element-by-element to that of an Islamic extremist's.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#115158 May 10, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have just hit the mark for completely insane.
Modern dating techniques are established, stable, repeatable and accurate.
Go find anonther point to assualt fire plug, this one is old news and well refuted.
You are established, unsatable, repeat nonsense and are inaccurate.
Radiometric dating is worthless, and that fact is established by blind studies... something that is foreign to those who swallow evo-koolaid.
Example: 10 year old samples from Mt. St. Helens were radiometrically dated to over 300,000 years old.
I would say that a 30,000 fold margin of error = worthless.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#115159 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is worthless, and that fact is established by blind studies... something that is foreign to those who swallow evo-koolaid.
Example: 10 year old samples from Mt. St. Helens were radiometrically dated to over 300,000 years old.
I would say that a 30,000 fold margin of error = worthless.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_he...

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research'(ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method. Austin's conclusions on this project are summarized at the ICR website.

The 'research' efforts of Austin and his colleagues and their 'expertise' in radiometric dating have been widely criticized, including by Joe Meert (also here), Karen Bartelt and company and myself at No Answers in Genesis and in my web debate with Dr. David Plaisted at Tim Thompson's 'A Radiometric Dating Resource List'

AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Figure 4 in Austin's report, by itself, indicates that ancient zoned grains (phenocrysts and perhaps some xenocrysts) were common in Austin's dacite from Mt. St. Helens. It's also obvious from Austin's text that he was unsuccessful in adequately separating the volcanic glass from the much older minerals. Austin should have known that if he wanted to date the 1986 AD eruption the phenocrysts needed to be entirely removed from his 'fractions' and that another method besides K-Ar dating would have been required. Furthermore, when Austin submitted his samples to Geochron Laboratories, he failed to heed warnings from the laboratory about the limitations of their equipment. Both Austin and Swenson ignored the implications of zoned minerals and Bowen's Reaction Series on the age of the dacite. Obviously, it's Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method and not the method itself that is flawed. Rather than recognizing the flaws in Austin's essay, Swenson simply parrots Austin's erroneous claims without really understanding the chemistry and mineralogy of dacites.

MUCH More at link above

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115160 May 10, 2013
R.A.T.E. Sheesh!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115161 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is worthless, and that fact is established by blind studies... something that is foreign to those who swallow evo-koolaid.
Example: 10 year old samples from Mt. St. Helens were radiometrically dated to over 300,000 years old.
I would say that a 30,000 fold margin of error = worthless.
Agreed. Worthless.
Of course, you could have said that Dr. Austin and the ICR purposefully conducted a flawed radiometric analysis in methodology, execution and interpretation, but that would indicate that the whole pack and kaboodle of creationist unintelligible design pseudoscientists are as twisted as earthworms on a hot salt lick.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115162 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
There is global 4500 year old flood evidence.

False, as we have seen.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115163 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
To bring this to conclusion, all you have to do to win me over is provide confirming data which withstands scrutiny. Otherwise, your assertions are worthless.
You've never heard of the Hindu Kush before, have you?

Never mind. Here's your data.

http://www.assess-hkh.at/mains/geology.php

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115164 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently think that if some flood data remains for tens of thousands of years, it all does.

You apparently think (?) that the 2nd most cataclysmic event in earths 4.5 billion year history would have left no evidence at all, but it would.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115165 May 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You should stop lying, liar.

I tell you he can't. He lies compulsively. It is beyond his voluntary control

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115166 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What if you have a 1.4 million year old crater whose sidewall loose material only made its way from the sidewalls into the crater lake once, and that was about 4500 years ago.

I, and several others, went into some detail exposing this lie.

Don't you remember what the data suggested?

It was also demonstrated, about the same time, that the side was was not damaged by a flood, but rather likely by an earth quake.

Followers of the Father of Lies apparently have short memories.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115167 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the animal's belly would be too small?

No.

I do think that your brain is far too small for your skull, however.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115168 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the amount of flooding reported all over the earth today over the course of say 100 years, do you really think there is not evidence of flooding all over the earth from 4500 years ago?

Still we only get the assertions?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#115169 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the compelling proof confirming the crater sediment is not from the flood of Noah. Oh, you didn't provide any? Sorry, my bad.
No need to. There was no flood of noah.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115170 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the amount of flooding reported all over the earth today over the course of say 100 years, do you really think there is not evidence of flooding all over the earth from 4500 years ago?

Exactly!

See, you CAN find the flaws in your own arguments.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115171 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they all left evidence. Do you think none of that evidence has been obliterated or is unrecognizable today?

How big of a flood?

We have evidence of large regional floods from millions of years ago.

The fact is that thousands of scientists looked all over the world for evidence of a global flood and ended up throwing in the towel.

There are places where there would HAVE to be flood evidence (off shore sediment layers) and no evidence has ever been found.

This is dead.

No global flood evidence ANYWHERE.
No global flood.

It ain't rocket science.
LowellGuy

United States

#115172 May 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I tell you he can't. He lies compulsively. It is beyond his voluntary control
I know. He can't, but he should. He's tied up his sense of self into his lies. Now, his lies are part of his identity. It will take far more than we can do here to turn his lying ass around.
LowellGuy

United States

#115173 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Shortcomings have been identified in all the data provided.
According to your "standard," there are shortcomings in the evidence for H2 + O = 1 molecule of water + energy.
LowellGuy

United States

#115174 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't yet seen data regarding the stomachs of all sufficiently large sea creatures. Hey, how about that woman still alive after 17 days in the belly of the collapsed factory!
Between stomach acid, the need for breathable air, and the need for potable water, name a single oceanic organism...ANY oceanic organism...heck, ANY EUKARYOTE...inside whose stomach a grown man could survive for three days. Has that net been cast wide enough for you?
LowellGuy

United States

#115175 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Radiometric dating is worthless, and that fact is established by blind studies... something that is foreign to those who swallow evo-koolaid.
Example: 10 year old samples from Mt. St. Helens were radiometrically dated to over 300,000 years old.
I would say that a 30,000 fold margin of error = worthless.
If the shroud of Turin were dated to the time of Jesus' death, would you accept those findings?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115176 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider the record of Sargon and similar material to be in the "later parts" of the Bible? It seems you agree that the reliability of the source makes a difference. Do you?
Yes, relatively speaking. You are talking about a Semitic Assyrian King, which means Sargon lies millennia after the purported events of Adam, the Flood, Babel, and other obvious myths in Genesis. Genesis is the main point of contention between fundamentalist nutcases and scientific evidence, after all. I am not surprised if the Chronicles of the Jewish people contain references to Assyrian Kings who existed.

Just as I am not surprised that Schliemann found Troy, generally supposed before that to be a mythical city from Homer's Iliad. Yet the discovery of Troy does not prove that Achilles mother was really the river goddess Thetis, which is also in the Iliad.

Are you starting to grasp the concept of a mythical/historical narrative? And perhaps, are you starting to see how easily one could grow with a people before they developed rational and analytical methods to sort the wheat from the chaff? The Japanese had a similar tradition with history merging into myth at the earliest points (the Sun God being the ultimate ancestor of the Emperor's line etc).

Its not even rare. The oral tradition of the NZ Maori had careful recall of ancestral lines since landing in NZ, but...merging back to the myths of Maui fishing the islands out of the Ocean.

Its the same narrative structure the world over. Myth -> history and a fuzzy line between them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min NoahLovesU 143,225
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 8 min NoahLovesU 1,956
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 19 min Aura Mytha 14,807
Why natural selection can't work 7 hr paul porter 30
Question on complexity Common Sense says..... (May '12) 20 hr Dogen 19
Have you read the comments of avid evolutionist... (May '12) 20 hr Dogen 8
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat ChromiuMan 966
More from around the web