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.
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.
[[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.
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
Sigh. You're right. It's depressing.