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

“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

Dubai, UAE

#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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#115177 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.
Yes, the studies certainly are blind. Worse, they are ingenuous and fraudulent. The sort of thing we come to expect from the YEC desperadoes.
HTS

Williston, ND

#115178 May 10, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>

'
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.
Austin didn't "use" the K-Ar method. He submitted a sample to a reputable lab. If evolutionists claim that Austin incorrectly collected a the year old sample, what reassurance is there that a 50 million year old sample is "correctly" collected?

What about the numerous other samples that have been collected from volcanic lava flows of known dates that have yielded equally worthless results? The Hualalai basalt lava flow in Hawaii, which erupted between 1800 and 1801, was determined to be 22 million years old by the Potassium-Argon Method.* Sunset Crater in Arizona, which erupted around AD 1064, was dated at 250,000 to 270,000 years. Mt. Etna basalt, which erupted in Sicily in 1792, was dated at 1.41 million years.*. Many other examples of volcanic lava flows of known dates have been blindly subjected to radiometric dating and have yielded similarly worthless results.

Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343

Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.

Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp

Do you know of any study that documents that radiometric dating of lava flows of historically known dates is accurate and reproducible? Why do no such studies exist?

You said, "K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old".
You are therefore assuming that all fossils are older than 6,000 years old. Therefore, none of the dates assigned to australopicithine fossils are valid. If a fossil is 4,000 years old, it will date much older.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115179 May 10, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
The global flood was about 4500 years ago, and yes, everything you named would have been underwater.

Except that it wasn't.

Egyptians were in the MIDDLE of building a pyramid 4,500 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Dynasty_o...

Shepseskaf was Pharaoh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepseskaf

He was building this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastabet_el-Fara...

Tell me when you see a problem....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115180 May 10, 2013
Yes, there can be some dates using K/Ar if the method is used incorrectly. And there are explanations of why those wrong dates appear.

With radiometric dating when a sample is at the edge of being too young to date or too old to date incorrectly taken samples can give very wrong dates.

A common problem with volcanic rocks are phenocrysts. Those are older, coarser crystals that are incorporated into the matrix. If you date the whole rock a little bit of old rock will make the sample seem much older than it actually is. Remember we are working with an exponential process here not a linear one. So a small amount of contamination can skew the result terribly.

In Austins case, since he is a dishonest incompetent, there was a high chance of contamination by atmospheric argon. If he did not take any steps to avoid that he could easily have given contaminated materials to test.

Your problem is that you only focus on the fact that wrong results were obtained. Not the more important fact that those problems have been identified and we know how to avoid those problems in the future.

Radiometric dating is extremely healthy as a scientific concept. Yes, it is possible to get wrong answers. Any COMPETENT scientist will take steps to avoid those. He knows that his results are worthless if they are not repeatable.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#115181 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, there can be some dates using K/Ar if the method is used incorrectly. And there are explanations of why those wrong dates appear.
With radiometric dating when a sample is at the edge of being too young to date or too old to date incorrectly taken samples can give very wrong dates.
A common problem with volcanic rocks are phenocrysts. Those are older, coarser crystals that are incorporated into the matrix. If you date the whole rock a little bit of old rock will make the sample seem much older than it actually is. Remember we are working with an exponential process here not a linear one. So a small amount of contamination can skew the result terribly.
In Austins case, since he is a dishonest incompetent, there was a high chance of contamination by atmospheric argon. If he did not take any steps to avoid that he could easily have given contaminated materials to test.
Your problem is that you only focus on the fact that wrong results were obtained. Not the more important fact that those problems have been identified and we know how to avoid those problems in the future.
Radiometric dating is extremely healthy as a scientific concept. Yes, it is possible to get wrong answers. Any COMPETENT scientist will take steps to avoid those. He knows that his results are worthless if they are not repeatable.
The results were corrected!!

Dammit, I am fed up with with these blistering idiots who don't know how this sh!t works.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#115182 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Austin didn't "use" the K-Ar method. He submitted a sample to a reputable lab. If evolutionists claim that Austin incorrectly collected a the year old sample, what reassurance is there that a 50 million year old sample is "correctly" collected?
What about the numerous other samples that have been collected from volcanic lava flows of known dates that have yielded equally worthless results? The Hualalai basalt lava flow in Hawaii, which erupted between 1800 and 1801, was determined to be 22 million years old by the Potassium-Argon Method.* Sunset Crater in Arizona, which erupted around AD 1064, was dated at 250,000 to 270,000 years. Mt. Etna basalt, which erupted in Sicily in 1792, was dated at 1.41 million years.*. Many other examples of volcanic lava flows of known dates have been blindly subjected to radiometric dating and have yielded similarly worthless results.
Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343
Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.
Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp
Do you know of any study that documents that radiometric dating of lava flows of historically known dates is accurate and reproducible? Why do no such studies exist?
You said, "K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old".
You are therefore assuming that all fossils are older than 6,000 years old. Therefore, none of the dates assigned to australopicithine fossils are valid. If a fossil is 4,000 years old, it will date much older.
Austin CHOSE the test that gave bad results, just as you CHOOSE arguments that are also invalid.
Maybe you should cut back on salt...
HTS

Williston, ND

#115183 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, there can be some dates using K/Ar if the method is used incorrectly. And there are explanations of why those wrong dates appear.
With radiometric dating when a sample is at the edge of being too young to date or too old to date incorrectly taken samples can give very wrong dates.
A common problem with volcanic rocks are phenocrysts. Those are older, coarser crystals that are incorporated into the matrix. If you date the whole rock a little bit of old rock will make the sample seem much older than it actually is. Remember we are working with an exponential process here not a linear one. So a small amount of contamination can skew the result terribly.
In Austins case, since he is a dishonest incompetent, there was a high chance of contamination by atmospheric argon. If he did not take any steps to avoid that he could easily have given contaminated materials to test.
Your problem is that you only focus on the fact that wrong results were obtained. Not the more important fact that those problems have been identified and we know how to avoid those problems in the future.
Radiometric dating is extremely healthy as a scientific concept. Yes, it is possible to get wrong answers. Any COMPETENT scientist will take steps to avoid those. He knows that his results are worthless if they are not repeatable.
I'll give you the same challenge SZ
Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating.
I'm waiting.....
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115184 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you the same challenge SZ
Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating.
I'm waiting.....
Sure you are.

Except you ignore it every time.(shrug)

Here's another for ya - I'm studying my computer while I am actually capable of typing into it due to being alive. And presumably as are you. But if you can present evidence that the view from Mars looks something like this:

http://forcemocha.files.wordpress.com/2012/01...

Then maybe you'll have something.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#115185 May 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, we really have him on the ropes.
He get dumber and funnier when he is boxed into a corner.
That seems to be the case.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115186 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll give you the same challenge SZ
Reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating.
I'm waiting.....

There are literally hundreds of THOUSANDS of article the use radiometric dating.

It has been cross correlated with other dating methods.

Can you reference a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility of need for oxygen in humans?

I'm waiting......
KAB

Linthicum Heights, MD

#115187 May 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That turns out not to be the case.
For example, the Atacama (look it up, you fuck!ng halfwit) has not seen significant rain in thousands of years, It has not been underwater in all of human history.
FAIL.
OK. Following the usual pattern, you've made the assertion. Now provide the data which confirms. You don't just go to the Atacama and say it sure is dry here. It probably hasn't rained here for thousands of years. Well, I know you would, but the scientists are different. Something has to be measured. What is it?

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) 4 min Subduction Zone 133,060
How would creationists explain... 7 min Chimney1 366
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 50 min Chimney1 577
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr positronium 2,938
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 8 hr Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web