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.

[Right Wing Professor]

The only reason we have a rough idea about how far away the moon is happens to be that we went there and bore it out.

Hipparcus did it in 129 BC. This link involves a little trigonometry, but a mathermatician of your caliber should be able to handle it.

We've not been to a single star yet to be able to establish a standard rule of distance that can be looked upon as sure. So don't try to sell a mathemitician with a physics background on your quackery.

I would have thought a mathematician with a physics background would have known what trigonometric parallax is.

[balrog666]

Thus, if we can measure the period of variability and the apparent magnitude of the star, we can calculate the distance it must be from us, as we can calculate its absolute magnitude from the period of variability.

Wait a minute! Havok said that since we haven't been there, we couldn't possibly know how far it is to any star!

Oh, wait, he was just wrong again.

[longshadow]

So they belong to the menopausal "hot flash" phase?

No. Pre-adolescent would be more accurate.

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't think the Egyptians started until 2500-2000 years bc.

Egyptologists place the 3rd dynasty at 2650 - 2575 BC. The first and second dynasties are probably at least a couple of hundred years younger. But what do they know?

[balrog666]

Egyptologists place the 3rd dynasty at 2650 - 2575 BC. The first and second dynasties are probably at least a couple of hundred years younger.

And they didn't spring up from nothing. Add another century or six.

[Havoc]

I wonder how big they were when first hatched? And how fast they grew? Hm....

No fair using intelligent thinking. The obvious elludes them. Has to be a full grown elephant, not a baby that's a fraction of the size and weight and doesn't require as much food or space. Sheesh, you'll be the ruination of their arguments.. :)

[Havoc]

As light is filtered through anything (other than vacuous filtering through empty space), different frequencies move at different speeds. Thus one would see chromatic aberration if there were an ice canopy around Canopus.

Don't look now; but, someone is making one of my points for me.

[Havoc]

Heh! Are you sure that this is still microevolution? I'd rather call that hyper-evolution if you think that all these subspecies evolved in less than 6000 years from only a few specimen that were on the ark.

LOL, you're out of your mind. The explosion in diversity of floral options in the past 50 years is proof enough of that. Cross breeding has caused astonishing things to happen. It isn't the possibility that is a problem, it is your opposition to the possibility that is problematic. You need to learn something about diversity studies. I'm trying to remember the exact numbers but I believe someone noted that all the diversity in human races from skin tone to eye color to height could be achieved in a remarkable few generations because of the way dna works. I believe it was 8 generations; but, I'd have to go looking - been too long. Anyone know the numbers off hand to correct me here?

[Right Wing Professor]

When you think we've reflected lasers off the moon, and used the transit time to measure the distance to exquisite accuracy; that we can figure the distance to Mars by simply looking at its position in the sky at sunrise and sunset and doing parallax using the diameter of the earth as a baseline; we can figure all the other planetary orbital radii from Mars's and Earth's by Kepler's thrid law; that we can check all the distances we're using by the fact we can make a spacecraft turn up at the location of a planet two years hence and hundreds of millions of miles away; you have to wonder what sort of a universal flat-earth mentality can explain the sort of posts we've been reading!

[Right Wing Professor]

You can get all the races from a homogeneous population in 8 generations?

So how come white Australians are still white Australians?

[Havoc]

Nonetheless, C.S. Lewis's earlier beliefs illustrate that one can be both a Christian and an evolutionist.

No, it just proves even christians make mistakes when they start dabbling in things they ought not.

[Havoc]

If something is slowing the speed of light, then the universe is older than we had calculated, not younger.

Why didn't you give the other side? Cause editing yourself, in your mind bolsters your argument? It doesn't; but, it does betray your bias.

[Havoc]

The coelocanths of today are not the same species as the fossil coelocanths that had been thought extinct. They are not even the same genus. Their existence is thus powerful evidence for evolution.

Uh, that is mistating the facts. The structure is the same. they may be exhibiting variation within the species; but, they do not demonstrate evolution. There is no major demonstrable difference in my reading.

[Lurking Libertarian]

[Me:]If something is slowing the speed of light, then the universe is older than we had calculated, not younger.

[You:] Why didn't you give the other side? Cause editing yourself, in your mind bolsters your argument? It doesn't; but, it does betray your bias.

I don't understand what you're saying. It was your point that we don't know what might be obstructing starlight on its way to us. Or are you saying that there could be something making starlight go faster than 186,000 miles per second?

[Havoc]

For Young Earth Creationists, the real miracle was required when the animals disembarked in what is now modern Turkey, and the poor duck-billed platypus and Koala had to make it across deserts, ocean straits, and jungles to Australia, in time to be discovered by modern humans - to say nothing of the flightless parrots and kiwis who had to get a further 1000 miles across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand.

And your point is? Animals even today cover great distances in very short periods of time. The only thing you've demonstrated is incredulousness - not a practical impossibility. That's the difference between winners and losers. Winners find a way to make things happen or to discover how things happen. Losers stand back and grumble about how impossible it is without engaging or while engaging half heartedly.

[Theophilus]

Evolution robs the moral law of it's basis which is to say that man is a distinct creature, made in the image of the Creator and obliged to Him for devotion, obedience and gratitude. Evolution idolizes an imaginary thing called chance, which if it existed as a true force of nature, would render everything as meaningless as numbers out of context.

[Right Wing Professor]

Animals even today cover great distances in very short periods of time. The only thing you've demonstrated is incredulousness - not a practical impossibility. That's the difference between winners and losers. Winners find a way to make things happen or to discover how things happen. Losers stand back and grumble about how impossible it is without engaging or while engaging half heartedly.

So kiwis made it to New Zealand how? By surfing? By listening to the right motivational tapes? And if kiwis and moas and flightless wrens and kakapos made it to New Zealand, why didn't a single land mammal - not a mouse, not a rat, not even an otter - make it?

[Havoc]

I would have thought a mathematician with a physics background would have known what trigonometric parallax is.

I would expect that one attempting to judge distance to something that gives off light would know that obstructions that slow or speed the light given off or a combination thereof will cause faulty measurments in distance due to an apparent shift in position of the object from where it truly is. IE, if you are aiming at where it appears to be rather than where it is, your measurments are in error. Your standard does not consider this. And that is why I argue physics and Calc rather than trig. I'm thinking three dimensions and you're trying to beg 2.

[Lurking Libertarian]

[Me:]The coelocanths of today are not the same species as the fossil coelocanths that had been thought extinct. They are not even the same genus. Their existence is thus powerful evidence for evolution.

[You:] Uh, that is mistating the facts. The structure is the same. they may be exhibiting variation within the species; but, they do not demonstrate evolution. There is no major demonstrable difference in my reading.

I do not think I am "misstating the facts": the live coelocanth found in 1937 was a different species (and different genus and different family) from any fossil Coelacanth. In other words, the differences between fossil and living coelocanths are greater than the differences between humans and chimpanzees.

[BMCDA]

You can get all the races from a homogeneous population in 8 generations?
So how come white Australians are still white Australians?

Well, I guess that's a mystery ;^D

You either build a ship for millions of animals or you take only a few (let's say several thousand, which is still a lot for one ship) and let them evolve into the millions of species we have today in only 5000 years.
Heck, if you ask me, neither scenario is really plausible but who am I to judge ;^P