Posted on 12/30/2008 11:00:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Science does not rely on public debates, which are mostly showmanship. Science is conducted in the technical journals.
Creationists are welcome to submit to those journals, but they don't.
The journals require evidence.
Dr. Humphreys has already been published in journals far superior to the drivel generated by the Temple of Darwin cult. But thanks for the suggestion. I know you meant well. LOL
If you are referring to scientific journals, he published science there, not creationism nor any other form of mysticism.
If you are referring to creationist journals as "far superior" you are delusional.
If you would like to discuss radiocarbon dating, bring it on. But don't bother doing cut and paste at the usual creationist websites, as on this subject they post a lot of nonsense and misrepresentations.
The so-called "scientists" were corrected by "lay" people It had to to do with late century re-weaving of the cloth Did you see the recent TV show about the Shroud of Turin
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
and the misunderstanding by expert scientists of radiometric dating.
who were far brighter and understood the shortcomings
of being blinded by thinking radiometrics is a "Law"
and the dating is an average of the age of each carbon molecule.
You claimed these methods were inaccurate, and I challenged you on radiocarbon dating.
Put up or...
Radio Carbon dating assumes uniform absorption
while living and uniform decay thenceforth.
==If you are referring to creationist journals as “far superior” you are delusional.
Actually, it’s quite the other way around. In addition to performing superior science (which has far more to do with interpretation than the mindless data gathering that passes for science on your side), we take the data from your own journals and reinterpret it so that it finally makes sense. But instead of thanking us, you guys get all upset because we keep proving over and over that your materialist religion is a sham. LOL
==Put up or...
That means a lot coming from a guy who goes running for cover every time there is the slightest hint of real opposition. LOL
Don’t worry Xenia, keep pressing him. He’ll be fleeing the scene any time now. LOL
So? Science can back up those assumptions with a lot of evidence.
Can you back up the counter assumption, that is wildly nonuniform absorption and wildly oscillating decay rates?
If not, your objection is a "what if" -- a meaningless objection without any evidence to support it.
“Leapin’ lizards — that was worse than I thought!”
But
“What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?”
(1984)
“It’s a shame that so many well-meaning Christians are suckered in by frauds like Humphreys”
Exactly.
So Hugh Ross is a mental pygmy and Humphreys is an intellectual giant? Please, everything that Humphreys has written has been easily refuted.
Read for yourself why Hugh Ross won't debate with Humphreys. It has nothing to do with being afraid of Humphreys amazing intellectual prowess. It has everything to do with Humphreys being afraid to be in the same room with real astronomers and the difficult questions that they would ask him. Humphreys is the chicken, not Ross. Humphreys refuses to undergo the scrutiny of people who actually know what they're talking about.
By the way, it wouldn't have taken you 3 minutes to find out the real reason why there has been no debate between Humphreys and Ross. Why did you choose to post (somebody else's) lie? Why are you so reluctant to seek the truth on so simple a question? I figured that Ross was refusing to debate a fruitcake like Humphreys but I checked my facts before posting and found out the real reason.
Here's a critique in layman's language of Humphreys cosmological theories. Following is an excellent quote about how damaging YECs are to the cause of Christ. It says exactly the same thing that I've said many times:
Jesus' question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible's statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers.
This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel.
I'm one who believes that "scientists" like Humphreys are fundamentally dishonest. He's smart enough to know that that the entire body of observations and experiments are against his crackpot theories. Unfortunately, Humphreys draws a lot of well-meaning, sincere Christian victims -- including you -- into the fray. Posting this nonsense hurts the cause of Christ and makes it difficult for people like me to witness to people with any sort of technical understanding.
So tell me, do you agree with Humphreys that the universe was originally a two-light year diameter ball of water? Yes or no.
I saw that. The new studies did not invalidate the laws of radiometrics as you wrongly claim -- they merely pointed out that the samples tested were bad.
Of course not. You just get accused of believing "atheist science" and "worshipping at the Temple of Darwin."
The YEC "scientists" never have to show data supporting their crackpot theories. They just have to dupe the gullible.
The YEC "scientists" never have to show data supporting their crackpot theories. They just have to dupe the gullible.
I'm still waiting for the evidence to support those "what if" stories.
Is AnswersinGenesis down or something? That's where they usually go for their supporting "evidence."
One of my favorites is calibrating the radiocarbon dating method with reference to the global flood! That's about as scientific as basing egg production studies on the Easter Bunny!
If you want to understand radiometric dating, read this paper closely. It was written by a Christian and does an excellent job of explaining the basics without going into too much technical detail. Radiometrics is a well-understood and heavily-researched field of science. Scientists are still learning new things that tweak our understanding, but the basic knowledge has been in place for well over a century.
That's a good article. I have that and several other good resources pertaining to radiocarbon dating linked on my FR home page.
Anyone wanting some good basic facts about the method is urged to check them out.
While you're waiting, I can tell you some "just so" stories, like how the leopard got his spots and the camel got its hump. They're just as entertaining and at least as scientifically accurate as the "what if" stories.
You mean like how Al Gore invents and misinterprets data to prove that the ice caps will melt in 5 years?
LOL! Al Gore would make a great YEC "scientist." He has no decency and is willing to make things up to support his political agendas.
I'm sure that Coyoteman gets bored arguing with people committed to nonsense, as do I. It's fun for a little while, but it gets old.
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.