MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Lurking Libertarian]

there are MANY folks that call themselves 'Evolutionists' but do not PRACTICE their 'belief' by letting 'nature' take it's course [survival of the fittest] -- they go to doctor for 'cure'!

Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Junior]

there there are MANY folks that call themselves 'Evolutionists' but do not PRACTICE their 'belief' by letting 'nature' take it's course [survival of the fittest] -- they go to doctor for 'cure'!

But then, most evolutionists would consider using one's abilities (i.e., brains) to stave off death to be proof of fitness.

[Nataku X]

Agreed completely. My belief is that what science and Christianity are seeing, are two different things. Let's take the Mona Lisa for example.

Science can explain away each brushstroke individually and break down the painting into individual molecules, and, someday, it may be able to explain away each step how Earth came into being.

However, science cannot derive any meaning from a painting, or show why it is meaningful and why it invokes emotion in all of us. The meaning of the painting and its impact on us are infinitely more important to mankind than its chemical composition.

Similarly, we might be able to explain how we came into being (whether YEC or evolution) but we will never explain why we bother to exist as concious beings full of love, joy, hate, anguish, etc., rather than mindless entities aiming to reproduce--nor will we explain why the universe bothers to exist in the first place. Anyone who says that the universe is all that there is ignores these greater questions.

[jennyp]

miffed-that-nobody-pinged-me PLACEMARKER.

[PatrickHenry]

However, I don't believe that astronomers rely simply on trigonometry to determine distance. RadioAstronomer might be more likely to shed light on the tools used.

I think you've already received an answer to this. The parallax method, which relies on trig, was sufficiently useful for the nearest stars (those exhibiting an observable parallax shift every six months). Fortunately, among those nearby stars was a variable (one of a well-known type, like "old faithful") in the constellation Cepheus. Knowing its distance, and knowing that light drops off according to the inverse square law, we could determine the distance of other "Cepheid Variables" which are too far away for the parallax method. When one of them is located in a cluster, we could estimate the approximate distance for the whole cluster. Then Hubble noticed the relationship between all the distances thus determined and the redshifts of those stars, not only linking distance and recessional velocities, but allowing us to rely on redshift alone to determine distance.

RA, if I've blown it, please correct me.

[BMCDA]

"I second that" PLACEMARKER

[SengirV]

My apologies Junior. Next time I will double check names across multiple posts(not used to these multi-hundred post threads).

And I'm sure you will be shocked to hear that I have not gotten any response from Havoc on any of my questions to him. Yet, he claims non YEC's are afraid to talk about the subject.

[NewLand]

I was unaware that English was not your first language.

That comment he made did not even register with me (reading many threads very fast to catch up).

I have no reason to hold that view of you...so although I did not intentionally endorse that, please accept my apology.

[50sDad]

...that non-believers can feel welcome.

Good heavens, no! We wouldn't want any of those sinners coming in and getting the place dirty.

[50sDad]

...that non-believers can feel welcome.

Good heavens, no! We wouldn't want any of those sinners coming in and getting the place dirty.

[50sDad]

...that non-believers can feel welcome.

Good heavens, no! We wouldn't want any of those sinners coming in and getting the place dirty.

[50sDad]

SCIENCE is an exellent tool to measure what, how much, and what if.

CHRISTIANITY is an exellent tool to measure Why?

A smart workman always uses the right tools! ;)

[50sDad]

Didn't think for a minute that you were part of the intentional slam, brother. Think nothing of it.

[50sDad]

Very sorry for the aforelisted triple post. Machine lag and worms in the Net. Sorry.

[carl in alaska]

ping for later read......((ping))

[50sDad]

But how do we know, since we cannot observe it un-aided with the five senses, that light doesn't travel at a progressivly faster speed the further you move away from earth, allowing the light from far distant nebulei to arrive here in only 6000 years!!!!!!

Should have used some CAPS in that! ;)

Just playing for the other side for a few moves!

[50sDad]

I have to note at this point that Galileo was very near done in by the Church for supposing that the Earth was round. Clearly, the Pope of that time ascribed to the most literal interpretation of the Word.

[PatrickHenry]

Galileo was very near done in by the Church for supposing that the Earth was round.

He actually was done in. Forced to confess heresy, placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and his book was banned. It was for writing about the solar system. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633.

[Virginia-American]

[I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but]

PRO-evos are notorious for mangled and misleading PILTDOWN MAN, as you know as well.

Consider: 1) eoanthropus dawsoni was enough unlike evolutionary predictions that it was controversial from the start, and pretty much ignored after about 1930, 2) the fraud was exposed by evolutionists.

This is in sharp contrast to the deliberate mangling of quotations by creationists, which are never exposed for the frauds they are by their fellow creos.

[Virginia-American]

I am not suggesting tht ICR is of that level of genius [Galilieo], but, let's face it, peer review can be used to swat down dissent.

It can be used that way. But a lot of what attempts to pass itself off as 'dissent' is simply sloppy reasoning and ignorance of relevant facts. It would save ICR a *lot* of embarassment if their articles were run thru a BS dectector. It doesn't have to be formal review by a journal, just people with different perspectives and expertises

Evolution embarrasses me much more than does creationism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you speaking as a Republican? I'm not so much embarassed by the creations/ID-ers in the GOP trying to politicise the teaching of science as I am feaarful that it will cost us elections.

I am always fascinated by the use of words like "absolute". I see you have used it in your response and related it to honesty. Either you mean it as a rhetorical device, or perhaps you believe in absolutes? Perhaps even absolute truth?

What I said was "Hence the absolute necessity of peer review, helps keep 'em honest." It's meant to strengthen 'necessity', just aredundant adjective.

I have the sense that evolutionists are extremely embarassed by creationists

Why? what gives you that idea?

But let me ask why the laws of nature (presumably including the alleged evolutionary mechanisms) created at the time of the big bang can satisfy any search for, or explanantion of, origins when they cannot have preceded the "beginning"?

This doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be conflating 'origin of the universe' and 'origin of life', or something.