CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES

ICR ^ | October, 2003 | John Baumgardner

[balrog666]

Does that mean my skepticism regarding the Greek and Norse gods is based on faith? Is my disbelief in the teachings of Jim Jones based on faith?

Well said. Too bad getting them to understand anything rational is like nailing Jello to a wall.

[bondserv]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science. Its closer to the methods used by the inquisition than to science. They start out with a belief, then go about looking for evidence to prove it. That's how it was proved that people were witches so they could burn them at the stake. When someone starts out trying to prove something they already believe, they will ALWAYS SUCCEED no matter how stupid or wrong their belief is. Because they pick and choose the evidence they want to use.

Take some time to read this website. You will be enlightened by the fact that you have perfectly described modern science.

[VadeRetro]

This link, and links therefrom, lead to some fun analyses of the real-world consequences of the Flood model John Baumgardner proposes. Boiling oceans are part of it. Funny the Genesis account fails to mention that little difficulty.

What they don’t tell you here is that the 10^28 J they admit to is already more than enough energy to vaporize all the water in all the earth’s oceans and convert the entire atmosphere to high pressure steam. There are about 1.4x10^24 grams of water in the oceans of the world (1.4 Billion Cubic Kilometers according to Britannica). It takes about 420 J to heat a gram of water from 0 to 100 C and another 2260 to boil it at room temperature. Thus it takes about 3.8 x 10^27 J to heat the oceans to boiling and boil them at room temperature. This is less than half of the energy supposedly released. It will actually take a little more energy to completely boil the oceans for two reasons. The atmosphere is hydrostatic so the air pressure will increase thus the boiling temperature will increase, however, as the pressure increases the heat of vaporization goes down so the total heat required is not a great deal more. Second as the oceans boil down they will become saturated salts solutions which will require higher temperature to boil. The final result will still be to convert the atmosphere to high-pressure steam at a temperature above the critical point of water(374 C).

[VadeRetro]

Exactly right! Note, however, that telling the Emperor he's naked does not stop him from prancing around in his imaginary finery. Appearances must be mainained.

[js1138]

Well I happen to accept the existence of God, but I do not believe any human has a full and complete definition of God, including those who think they have an inerrant transcript of conversations with God.

[VadeRetro]

I notice on that page an article on Neanderthals which tends to buttress the Multi-Regional theory, currently out of favor against a growing tide of evidence that the competing Out-of-Africa theory describes at least the main outline of events better. What's funny is that I'm in sympathy with the viewpoint that Neanderthals may have hybridized with later arrivals in their regions and thus may have contributed to our ancestry. The possibility cannot be excluded unless and until nuclear DNA studies are done and shoot it down once and for all. The mtDNA studies trumpeted as achieving this are inconclusive because mtDNA is almost purely matrilineal.

So, have I gone creationist? Not exactly. The heckling bozo who compiles that page picked that find because it contradicts a current trend. People like Ahban who argue with me about the skull series below defend to the death the statement that Neanderthals are not the ancestors of humans.

Why? Because then they can say, "That table is FRAUD! It has NEANDERTHALS in it and NEANDERTHALS ARE NOT HUMAN ANCESTORS!!!"

So, your C-E/H site compiler has come down on the side of someone whose study helps me; he is heckling mainstream opinion that helps Ahban in his fervent desire to wish away hard evidence. It doesn't matter. The guy's got a monthly edition to get out and he needs material. The people he's going to reach aren't doing a lot of critical thinking anyway.

[VadeRetro]

Your name taken in vain in a discussion of previous questions. Meant to ping you.

[Last Visible Dog]

Well I happen to accept the existence of God, but I do not believe any human has a full and complete definition of God, including those who think they have an inerrant transcript of conversations with God.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Last Visible Dog]

Well said. Too bad getting them to understand anything rational is like nailing Jello to a wall.

Well said? They were quesitons not statments or positions. I wish you evolutionists would spend more time actually debating and less time doing victory dances.

[Last Visible Dog]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science. Its closer to the methods used by the inquisition than to science. They start out with a belief, then go about looking for evidence to prove it.

There is nothing in the article to support your position. It looks like you started out with a belief and you presented it without providing any evidence to prove it. Welcome to the Inquisition.

[RippinGood]

arggghhh ....

I meant to send that info to message #1 as it concisely discusses some of the issues brought up in the original article.

RG

[HalfFull]

So you have provided a nice model of ICR-style scholarship. Just take what's good. Whatever you do, don't say how much data you left behind on the discard heap.

Your side, however, just takes what they think is bad, automatically begin calling respected researchers names because they cannot refute the this study. We have caught on to your game.

In this particular accusation (unrelated article, with multiple authors of unknown contributions) , you automatically assume the worst without even knowing all the facts. There are many possible explanations of why his nane is no longer on the article...of course you and prof just call him names...typical.

Of course, real facts of this particular thread (intrinsic C14 in fossils) remains unrefuted, in spite of all the smoke you and Mr. Prof are blowing.

[LisaAnne]

There is nothing in the article to support your position. It looks like you started out with a belief and you presented it without providing any evidence to prove it. Welcome to the Inquisition

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science

No wonder you have a difficult time following logic. Try reading the whole sentence in context.

*hitting the ignore button*

[VadeRetro]

Your side, however, just takes what they think is bad, automatically begin calling respected researchers names because they cannot refute the this study.

Caught out in a pathetic flim-flam, you hurl accusations.

The old-earth study of which Baumgardner is listed as a co-author in every case but one requires no refutation of which I am aware. His YEC model is a joke.

[VadeRetro]

Out for a few hours. Life beckons.

[Last Visible Dog]

This article came from one of those creation science web sites, but its not science

Says you. Are planning on providing any supporting evidence for this claim or are we supposed to just take your word on it, Ms. Inquisitor

No wonder you have a difficult time following logic. Try reading the whole sentence in context.

Maybe you should not be so intellectually lazy, a common malady among orthodox Darwinists. Now you are making more unsupported and baseless accusations. I understand exactly what you said - you said in summery "based on the web site is comes for it has to be invalid" - that is the logic used by bigots and it has not basis in science.

Maybe you should spend more time explaining and supporting your position and less time posting insults and doing victory dances.

[Last Visible Dog]

*hitting the ignore button*

A smart thing to do for people that arrive unarmed to an intellectual debate.

[balrog666]

Well said? They were quesitons not statments or positions. I wish you evolutionists would spend more time actually debating and less time doing victory dances.

You mean you're too stupid to understand the analogy with your hypocritical statements? Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

[bondserv]

Why? Because then they can say, "That table is FRAUD! It has NEANDERTHALS in it and NEANDERTHALS ARE NOT HUMAN ANCESTORS!!!"

Neanderthals may be a crossbreed between Unholy Angels and man.

Gen 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (Angels) came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (emphasis added)

Duet 1:28
28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Duet 2:10-11
10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

1 Sam 17:4
4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (11' 9" Tall)(emphasis added)

1 Sam 17:26
26 And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?

You have got to like David. Statements like that last one dubbed him "a man after God's own heart". And you think creationists are fighters for God.

[balrog666]

Neanderthals may be a crossbreed between Unholy Angels and man.

Gee, why not unicorns and cocker spaniels?