Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
Thank you, sir!
I was thinking to post on the Shroud, and likely would have only repeated those aspects of research that you have so eloquently pointed out. I decided to not “cast my pearls before swine,” but all the better to discover your lucid commentary.
“God is not compared to our father for no reason. All we need to do is trust Him just like we trust our human parents.”
That is profound when considered in the context you have supplied here. Thank you.
This thread is a prime example.
Yet folks get so incensed when they are accused of being "anti-science."
What they want to do is pick and choose among various fields of science, selecting those results they agree with -- even though the different branches of science all use the same methods.
Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so. It has gotten to the point where fields of science that they disagree with are claimed to not be science at all.
Black is white. White is black. Creation "science" is science and fundamentalists are pro-science.
I used to be one of them, so it can happen. Pray for Soliton.
What they want to do is pick and choose among various fields of science, selecting those results they agree with — even though the different branches of science all use the same methods.
***And I ended up on Soliton’s no-respond list for pointing out that this is exactly what he was doing with respect to the science behind the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
That's because we're not anti-science.
The problem is not the science itself. There's nothing wrong with investigating the world around us and applying it in technology to improve our lives. That's not what people are objecting to.
We are, however, anti-abuse of science.
We're against it being used as a weapon to advance political agenda.
We're against it being used to push ideologies.
We're against the fraud and deception within the scientific community to advance those causes.
We're against being beaten into submission having it used as a weapon.
We're against it being used to control what is taught in public schools that we are forced to pay for.
Yup!
How did I guess?
[[What they want to do is pick and choose among various fields of science,]]
Wjhat a load of crap- the bull just never ceases with you does it? We bring scientific fact after scientific fact, which you folk promptly ignore, and you just keep repeating the same old tired out lame accusations time and time again.
—Examples: Macroevolution is mathematically impossible- your response “Nuh uh” (or a little more involved response of “You creatards don’t understand that Macroevolution does run a straight line, therefore the mathematics are irrelevent” - which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual FACTS abotu hte mathematics)
—Macroevo is biologically impossible- Reponse “Mutations ‘could have’ accumulated and overcome these biological impossibilites” (Despite thefact that bulk doesn’t overcome impossibilities, and the fact that there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE in the records showing that accumulations can do so, and infact, the actual evidence conducted proves they can’t)
—Macroevo would have to violate hte second law at every single stage of it’s trillions of steps- response “You creatards don’t understand the second law” (Despite the fact that Tim Wallace over on Trueorigins.org completely and soundly defeated the scientist who made those claims, and sent him on his wy frothing at hte mouth and whini ng about ‘being bullied’- so infuriated was that nutjob that he put up yet another antiscience site whining and complaing about Tim wallce- proving that he was obsessed with exacting revenge for being soundly defeated by Wallace, and not truly itnerested in SCIENTIFIC FACTS!!!) That was a REAL interesting read- head on over to Trueorigins.org to view hte exchange between the two- it’s quite amusing, and you just might learn something about the assininity behind the claim that ‘an open system ‘could possibly mean that Macroevolution could violate the second law”
—There is nothign in the fossil record showing Macroevolution and hte stepwise process of kind changing into a different kind- Response “There are mountains of evidence supporting htis” (Despite there NEVER being presented any evidence except for moot irrelevent examples of PURE SPECIATION which falsl squarely within MICRO Evolution)
—The whole process of abiogenisis is impossible- response “The earth had no oxygen” (Heads up- Abiogensis is still impossible- check out hte science behind that fact)
On and on it goes- so enough with the assinine “What they want to do is pick and choose among various fields of science, selecting those results they agree with”
[[Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so.]]
Mmm, Yes, We’re “Nitpicking” when we point out hte blatantly obvious problems with the very core methods used to ‘determine hte age’ of fossils- Yup- that’s all we’re doing is ‘nitpicking’- Cripes!
Superposition
Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions
http://www.fbinstitute.com/powell/evolutionexposed.htm
Stratigraphy
http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/bulletins/135/home.html
Dendrochronology
Up to 10000 years tops
Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.scientifictheology.com/STH/Pent3.html
Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic
Very little info on this method
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/tecto.htm
Luminescence Dating Methods
http://karst.planetresources.net/Kimberley_Culture.htm
Amino Acid Racemization
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/amino/
Fission-track Dating
http://www.ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/86criticism.html
Ice Cores
Varves
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties
Pollens
Corals
Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/coral_reef.asp
Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating
http://www.present-truth.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-13.htm
Patination
Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio
Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating
why it’s wrong:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3059
RaDio helio dating disproves:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/369
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/
http://www.rae.org/
There’s plenty more- lemme know if you wish to review.... errr I mean ignore them all in more detail.
Your responses have amply demonstrated all of the points I made.
Well, aren’t YOU special. Getting a calendar named after you and all. ;)
Yup- We’re nothing but “Nitpickers”
“If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:
Scientific Facts/Solution
—Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
Solution? (2) reject the second law of thermodynamics
—In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the “backbone” of RNA and DNA. “science of the gaps”
Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).
Solution? “science of the gaps” discard chemistry data
—Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication (1).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (1) (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don’t form in outer space either).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication (1).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (3).
Solution? discard chemistry data
“science of the gaps”
—Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (4). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 based pairs at most, so it couldn’t even replicate itself (5).
Solution? “science of the gaps”
—Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
Solution? “science of the gaps”
—Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7).
Solution? discard geological data
discard chemistry data
—Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of “prebiotic soup.” The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a “prebiotic soup.” (8)
Solution? discard chemistry data
—Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated “early earth atmosphere.” All possible intermediates suffer severe problems (9). Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (10).
Solution? discard geological data
discard chemistry data
—Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (11). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (12).
Solution? discard chemistry data
—The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (13). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (14)
Solution? Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism.
—Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (15). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth’s oceans (16), destroying all life.
Solution? Life spontaneously arose by chance at least 30 separate times, each within a period of ~10 million years
—Complex bacterial life (oxygenic photosynthesis) had appeared by 3.7 billion years ago (17), leaving virtually no time for prebiotics to have evolved into the first life forms.
Solution? discard evidence
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
I cannot imagine why anyone would get worked up (in either direction) over such boring, irrelevant topics. It's literally of less importance than, say, having a thread to debate the merits of Velveeta & Ro-tel cheese dip.
But lets examine one of those many references you provided and see how accurate they are. We'll pick one in a field that I know pretty well.
Radiometric Dating Methods problems with radiometic http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
One of the main claims of this article, that purports to rebut the radiocarbon dating method is:
Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]
The article implies that the AMS method of radiocarbon dating is inaccurate because it got the age of these "ancient" skeletons wrong. But is that accurate?
No, its another example of creation "science" in practice.
Analysis:
This claim is false due to sloppy research and lack of familiarity with archaeology, amino acid racemization dating, and radiocarbon dating. And probably science in general.
This claim seems to have originated with Walter T. Browns In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.
The major mistake made here is assuming that the original dates, all by amino acid racemization, were accurate, and the newer radiocarbon dates were wrongprobably out of a wish to show errors in the radiocarbon method. The opposite is true: the Taylor et al. article, by redating these specimens using the AMS method of radiocarbon dating, corrected the earlier, erroneous amino acid racemization age estimates.
But through lack of familiarity with science in general and these fields in particular, this correction of inaccurate amino acid racemization age estimates has been morphed by creationists into a condemnation of the radiocarbon dating method a result the exact opposite of what the research actually showed! It was radiocarbon dating that corrected the earlier errors!
Are creationists so desperate to discredit dating methods that they are deliberately misrepresenting the actual facts, or are they just doing sloppy research through lack of familiarity with these sciences? Probably the latter, but this practice is so common that one wonders.
Reference
Taylor, R.E., et al., Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: None Older Than 11,000 C-14 Years B.P. American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1983, pp. 136-140.
-----------------
So much for the accuracy of creation "science" -- and this again demonstrates what I posted above:
Some sciences, because they produce the wrong results, are selected for their special attention, to be nitpicked by those least qualified to do so.
Keep posting; you prove my points with every post.
lol- Yep-
We ‘illustrated’ your points with the facts- which incidently are devestating to the claim that Macroevolution hypothesis is based on scientific facts and evidences when they clearly are nothign but ASSUMPTIONS based on a priori beliefs- Got another website which counters every single claim about DNA made by the lying and half-truth telling sites like talkorigins and pandas thumb- Care to read it? It’s a real eye-opener to htose willing to objectively look at the actual EVIDENCE and not get swayed by petty lame accusaitons and wild claims by sites liek htose I mentioned. Will bem ore than happy to post htem if yas like?
Sorry, but we’re not “Nitpicking” The hypothesis of Macroevolution- what we’re doing is major surgery- exposing the hypothesis for hte cancer it really is, and exposing hte lies and deciets that are so commonly touted as ‘overwhelming evidence’, and exposing just how silly it is to cling to something that is so rife with holes that it has no chance in hell of floating.
Well let’s see coyote- which was ‘right’? The Radiometric dating? Or the AMS? To know that- you NEED to know the exact ages of the fossils being dated- BUT, you ASSUME you know the age because one method with all it’s assumptions and a priori belief is used - but when another method comes along that contradicts those findings- well by golly, that one must be wrong-
Keep posting- it just further shows how rediculously a priori your assumptions really are, and exposes the fact that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS flaws- Spin it however how like- but it boils down to the fact that they are all plagued with serious problems beyond 10,000 years or so.
The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
“W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.
A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp
More and more wrong dates
“Is this dating failure from Mount St Helens an isolated case of radioisotope dating giving wrong results for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple,1 one of the big names in radioactive dating [and a self-confessed intermediate between an atheist and agnostic], lists a number of cases of wrong potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Table A). There are many other examples of obviously wrong dates. Only recently, Creation magazine reported that ages up to 3.5 million years were obtained for lava flows that erupted in New Zealand from 1949 to 1975.2”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/dating.asp
“Excess Argon”: The “Achillies’ Heel” of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon “Dating” of Volcanic Rocks
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict!
Fossil wood in ‘ancient’ lava flow yields radiocarbon
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
Radio-dating in Rubble
The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/radiodating.asp
“In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The whole rock rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MAa high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that low argon should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been zero argon indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the dating method.”
Want more?
The critical assumption of Rate of Decay- and why it matters!
“A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called equilibrium). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.”
Please Note the following admission and subsequent denials of the founder of the carbon-14 dating
“Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libbys original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libbys calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Again you prove my points about being anti-science and unqualified to comment in these areas.
AMS is radiometric dating! It is being used to dispute amino acid racemization dating, which has been shown to be inaccurate in a number of instances.
And these are human bones being dated, not fossils.
See, you really don't know what you are talking about, and you prove it with every post. Keep it up!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.