Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
And this supposed test has been repeated, confirmed and published by how many recognized scientists in peer-reviewed articles?
Sorry, but a quick google doesn't turn up any.
Asking how many creationist papers have been printed in current scientific journals is like asking how many articles critical of Obama written by conservatives have been printed in The Nation. It doesn’t matter if the facts are correct.
It would be reasonable at this juncture to ask the diamond testers if they understand the rationale for the C14 dating test and understand why it is only relevant to living or formerly living things.
Consider these questions: how many scientists do we have posting to this thread, who are at the same time:
But so far, I haven't seen any of those folks. What I'm seeing instead is a quite different crowd. These folks:
Public education was not always a "nest" for socialist indoctrination. In the old days, the little red one-room school houses taught not only the three R's, but also the basics of religion & morality.
You seem to be arguing for elimination of any legal requirement for public education. I'm only saying that is not going to happen, period, ever. So fahgeddaboudit.
What can realistically happen is to restore community values in schools by allowing parents more options as to which schools their children can attend. This could begin to weed out the worst of those nests of Marxism, imho.
As I read your comment above, you've just confessed for all the world to see, that Creationism is not the same thing as science. Now, if I can just get you to confess that Creationism is a religious belief having nothing to do with science, then you and I will be in full agreement, pal. ;-)
I made no such admission. In fact, what I said was almost the opposite. I said that even if the facts were correct in an article, the publication would have no interest in it because of philosophical bias. That is the reason there will never be an anti-Obama commentary by Rush Limbaugh or Byron York in an issue of The Nation, and that is why there will never be an article written by creationists debunking evolution in a journal like Nature. The same goes for ID.
And just as liberals "prove" that Limbaugh is an idiot, liar, troop basher and racist because the media says he is such a person, evos will continue to "prove" that questioning current evolutionary dogma is not science because those who preach the dogma haven't let their opponents into their pulpit.
Actually, anyone can do simple math. For example, if a known rate of decay is 1% per 10,000 years, and half the material has decayed, then it's easy enough to calculate that roughly 700,000 years has passed since the atomic "clock" was "set."
But schaef21's point was actually reasonable and valid, up to a point. Stated more correctly, schaef21 was trying to say that just doing the math won't necessarily get you to the right answer. Many other factors have to be taken into consideration.
Chief among them is, do we know for certain if the material's atomic clock was fully "set" by reaching the necessary "blocking temperature"? And I'm pretty sure there must be other variables which, if set wrongly, will lead to the wrong answers. That much I agree with schaef21.
Where I disagree is schaef21's claim that these variables can NEVER be set accurately or objectively. And the example, where Young Earthers were successful in tricking testing labs, does not prove anything scientific, only that Young Earthers can be highly dishonest, imho!
Once again you've just said that ID-Creationists cannot do honest science.
Honest science does not necessarily "debunk evolution." What honest science does is present the results of research and experiments, explained by hypotheses and confirmed theories, all of them peer-reviewed before publication.
So what "research" and "experiments" have ID-Creationists conducted? What hypotheses have they proposed, and what theories have they "confirmed"? If any of this work was anything other than pure junk science, then it would be entirely repeatable and confirm-able by 100% NON-CREATIONIST scientists! Is there ANY such body of work, anywhere? I don't think so.
My point is this: real science is real science no matter WHO does it -- atheist, Christian, Hindu, whatever their personal beliefs. If an ID-Creationist were to produce real scientific results effecting our understanding of the history of Life on Earth, and could not get published in a scientific journal, well then, the simple answer would be to ask his atheist colleague to repeat and confirm the experiment, and publish it under his own name!
Do you suppose ANY ID-Creationist would deliberately deny the world the knowledge of his scientific work by REFUSING to do what is necessary to get it published? I don't. ;-)
“Everytime I think I’m out, you pull me back in.....”
It is so aggravating that you are so “thick” as to the points I’m trying to make......
****I can’t say, don’t know, if these results were typical or unusual. I’d first ask: was each lab given identical information about the rocks, or did they just arbitrarily assign different values to different variables?****
Did you read what I said? They each had the same rock. What information do they need? Should they have been told it was from the Grand Canyon so they could alter their assumptions or should the specimen stand on it’s own?
****I would also ask, aren’t such dates themselves usually expressed as a range of most likely ages — say for example, plus or minus 150,000 years? If so, then there’s more overlap in those results than your numbers suggest.****
Ok....you’re right....they had a range of +/- 250 million years...sheesh!
****First of all, all four radiometric techniques returned results in the one million year range — not ten million, a hundred million or a billion years. This would seem (assuming the test itself is legit) to at least gets us into the right ball park.****
Please recheck the number of zeros....they ranged from 840 million to 1.4 billion.
****Third point — from a scientific perspective, this example sort of blows completely out of the water any Young Earthers suggestions that our planet is only 10,000 years old, doesn’t it?****
No....because you always seem to miss my larger point I’ll try to spell it out for you one more time. THEY MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. With potassium/argon dating as an example, they don’t know the following:
1. How much potassium was there when the rock was formed.
2. How much argon was there when the rock was formed.
3. Whether the decay rate was constant.
4. Whether potassium or argon from another source leeched into the sample.
In light of the above and starting with an “old earth” view, what kind of assumptions do you think they’ll make....ones that will lead to a young age or an old one?
****Finally, we should note a rather notorious case, where Young Earthers misrepresented rocks they had taken from Mount Saint Helens, and were successful in getting an age of several million years. If this is that particular example, then the whole exercise is bogus!****
Please BroJoe.....you are making my larger point for me.
How do you misrepresent a rock? Should it make any difference what someone tells you? The idea is to test the rock and determine the age. If they got an age of several million years it’s because they ASSUMED things in the testing process that were wrong. If they would have been told the rock was from Mt. St. Helens they would have ASSUMED something different. Does that make the test more accurate or does that make my point.....that they can make the rock be any age they want it to be?
Everything you need to know is here:
I’ve given it to you once. There are articles they published, audios, etc. You can read them and learn that it was 8 years of research by PhD Scientists.
Their findings were published in a book called “Thousands Not Billions”....there’s also a DVD. You can find reviews (both pro and con) here:
http://www.amazon.com/Thousands-not-Billions-Challenging-Questioning/product-reviews/0890514410/ref=sr_1_2_cm_cr_acr_img?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Reviews, however, are BIASED, just like assumptions made in dating methods.....the best thing you can do is READ IT FOR YOURSELF.
Diamonds were, at one time, plants.....what’s your point?
Only if you also maintain that I've said Rush Limbaugh and Byron York don't ever discuss real, verifiable facts when they write op-eds.
And yet you refuse to thus far.
Carbon 14 can be formed by any source of radioactivity, such as uranium and thorium, common minerals found in rocks. Carbon 14 can only be used to date objects known to have acquired their carbon from the atmosphere.
A plant would have acquired C-14 from the atmosphere.
I don't think you get the drift here. Not all diamonds have organic carbon, and those that have some organic carbon are not entirely organic, and all are formed under circumstances where they can be exposed to ground radiation.
Let's see the write-up that demonstrates these factors were controlled by the experimenters.
The experimenters state that the crystal structure of diamonds prevents recent contamination with C-14. They got very similar results with coal
The experimenters are all PhD Scientists in the following disciplines:
Geology (2)
Physics (2)
Geological Engineering
Atmospheric Physics
Nuclear Physics
Geophysics
Their research was done over an 8 year period and documented in the Book and DVD “Thousands Not Billions”.
You can also get info on what they did by reading the papers and listening to the audios at:
www.icr.org/rate
There were two others on the team.....
one has an MS in Geology, the other is a PhD in Hebraic and Cognitive Studies.
So it was part of RATE?
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.