Conquer Club

Crispy,

1. See side scrolling thing on bottom of page here?

http://www.creationtoday.org/category/t ... o/debates/

But as far as the Berkeley video, see this on page?

"Over 160 professors at Berkeley University refused to take the challenge–even when money was offered to them! Since no one would debate him, Dr. Hovind spoke for an hour and took questions for almost another hour and a half."

2. What if there was a canopy less than 40 feet thick whether 40 feet is some critical number that is too thick to be possible or not?

3. I'm not sure an annual layers interpretation is good even near tops of ice cores, but relevant stuff here?

"I will show that the interpretation of annual layers is good near the top of the ice cores, but becomes increasingly in error the lower down the core. The reason for this is because uniformitarian scientists view the ice sheet as maintaining equilibrium, about the same height and shape, for a few million years. Thus they view each annual layer as becoming greatly compressed the deeper in the ice sheet. The number of annual layers is simply an outgrowth of their extended time scale.

On the other hand, creationists view both the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets as products of a post-Flood rapid Ice Age, plus additional ice added after the Ice Age (Oard, 1990). In this model, annual layers would be very thick in the lower portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet (the Ice Age portion determined by the oxygen isotope ratio) with decreasing annual layer thickness higher up in the ice sheet. Since the Ice Age ended about 4000 years ago, the compression of the ice sheet has been much less than uniformitarian scientists believe, but still substantial (Vardiman, 1993). So, one annual layer deep in the ice sheet may represent 100 or even 1000 uniformitarian ‘annual cycles.’ In this case, the claimed uniformitarian annual cycles represent oscillations that are much less than annual."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /greenland

"By the way, I called
Bob Cardin, he dug out one of the airplanes. He lives in Kentucky, Middleboro,
Kentucky, right by the Tennessee border. I said, "Bob, I understand you were the
guy that dug the airplane out of the ground." He said, "That is correct, I have
it in my garage, we are rebuilding it." I said, "Bob, when you dug that airplane
out, how many layers of ice were there above the airplane?" He said, "Oh, there
were many hundreds of layers of ice above the airplane." I said, "Well, Bob, I
was told that each of those layers is a different year - summer, winter, summer,
winter." He said, "That is impossible! Each of those layers is a different warm
spell - warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold." You could get 20 of those in one
year. We have it around here, don’t we? It is not summer, winter, summer...you
see that is their false assumption and it throws all their data off. By the way,
they then use the ice core sampling, the oxygen O18 and O16 ratios, to try to
validate Carbon 14 dating. So here we have two rubber rulers measuring against
each other. You can come up with any date you want. The ice cores do not show
the earth is billions of years old. They show less than 6,000 years old easily."
-http://excoboard.com/The_Lighthouse_Bap ... 06/1334730

I have read around, but can you find me a source that states who exactly (if anyone) has claimed to have found Vesuvius ash below less than 2,000 rings on an ice core? Whether a postflood ice age would help explain ash or not?

And if this is from wikipedia, who knows where any ash would actually be from...

"Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.[24]"
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores

Talk origins source here?

"The major diasadvantage of this method is that one must previously know the date of the eruption which is usually not the case. Furthermore the alkaline precipitants of the ice ages limits this measure to approximately 8000 BC."

4. I'm not sure where and when any disease is from. Did He create poodles? If He created living beings with free will who went on to breed and genetically engineer diseases and plants and animals, whether or not He created those comes down to definition. Who is denying that there is natural selection and variety brought about with the help of environmental factors, but why assume there is universal common descent or assume that any similarity among separate species is automatically the result of a common ancestor and not a common designer?

5. Who knows how many times separate disturbances have been lined up in error and or how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in the BCP chr-nology?

And does wikipedia itself not claim that currently, the maximum for fully anchored chr-nologies is a little over 11,000 years from present and go on to give a source that references one or more other source that has something to do with German oaks? Do you see a pdf here that a) claims that an earliest oak section is ca. 8050-7800 BC and considered to be floating and b) claims the tentative right-width synchr-nization between German pine and German oak as given by someone is no longer valid and c) claims the German pine chr-nology must be regarded as floating and d) speaks of discrepancies related to carbon dating and e) suggests revisions of published data is of major importance in calibrating archaeological samples older than than Neolithic?

http://rgzm.academia.edu/OlafJ%C3%B6ris ... libration_

6. How fast does natural selection work if you consider the Palestrina Mosaic and artwork in general? Did people guess what animals considered prehistoric looked like?

http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

7. What specifically are you meaning to suggest is adapted from Christian missionaries? Did some make up Chinese language?



"Treated either historically or mythologically, the story of the Great Flood and the heroic attempts of the various human characters to control it and to abate the disaster is a narrative fundamental to Chinese culture. Among other things, the Great Flood of China is key to understanding the history of the founding of both the Xia Dynasty and the Zhou Dynasty, it is also one of the main flood motifs in Chinese mythology, and it is a major source of allusion in Classical Chinese poetry."
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_%28China%29

8. What is really only found in deep layers if there were dinosaurs coexisting with humans in recent past?

Does The Travels of Marco Polo not suggest that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

Did Marco Polo not claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium? Want more? What's shown and described at these?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 3#p2620353

http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

"archaic : a huge serpent "
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

"dragon, serpent, sea monster"
"dragon or dinosaur"
-http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=08577

9. I'm not claiming that all strata was laid down during the flood.

10. Humans have more of a natural ability to momentarily escape death by flooding than most land based creatures and there were far less alive on earth before the flood compared to 2012 maybe, but you want evidence for preflood artifacts? Go on past a first page here?

http://s8int.com/

You mention a hammer? See page 6?



And as far as your scales image or whatever? Who is going to publish a peer reviewed scientific paper from a young earth creationist? How about search this in a search engine sometime... fired for supporting creationism.

Cola,

Even if Operation Northwoods is an something that is kind of public info now, how often is it discussed in schools or by mainstream media and what brought it to light?

"Follow the links provided below to declassified Pentagon documents and an ABC News article on Operation Northwoods. Approved by the top Pentagon chiefs, Operation Northwoods proposed fabricating terrorism in US cities and killing innocent citizens to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. First coming to light in the year 2000 through a Freedom of Information Act request, key excerpts from the Operation Northwoods documents are provided below. "
-http://www.wanttoknow.info/010501operationnorthwoods

If Notre Dame has a Latin translator online that includes the word secular as a result of searching the word seculorum, then what are we supposed to think?

"Word mod cl/cul
An internal 'cl' might be rendered by 'cul'
secul.orum N 2 2 GEN P N
seculum, seculi N N [EEXCM] Later
world/universe; secular/temporal/earthly/worldly affairs/cares/temptation;"
-http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin ... e?seclorum

Are there not rich and powerful individuals on record who want to reduce human population? Not that you are a dummy yourself, but...

http://www.infowars.com/the-population- ... r-dummies/



When have human beings ever ran out of space to grow food or water? If you live in a place with no rain and you want rain, why not start moving towards a place with more rain? What if people use monetary spending power on things for entertainment more than they should and people should help each other out more?

Also, what if there are some people who are even born with punishment for doing wrong? Even if there is some unjust stuff that occurs now, what will not work out for good eventually?

"13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt13.htm

"54:11 O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires.

54:12 And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.

54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of YHWH; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/isa54.htm

Neoteny,

You might lay out stuff with an assumption that the flood is not mostly responsible for sedimentary rock in the first place.

"Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water."

"Sedimentary rocks are only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers as strata, forming a structure called bedding."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

And how useful would carbon dating be for dating preflood stuff if the earth had much more plant life and a much different atmosphere before the flood? Has the atmosphere had a constant C14/C12 ratio if the flood resulted in fossil fuels and the biosphere had 500 times more carbon just prior to the flood?

I moved to Florida and have helped fix up a house and will be closer to Atlanta soon perhaps. Not that I agree with Kent Hovind on everything, but how about watch some stuff from the first link on this post or whatever if you want to see stuff discussed in debate?

Note: Not sure how to include pastes with bold or hyperlinks straight up in here and this includes one or more messed up quote maybe.

So, one chinese character confirms all the flood stories?

What's the meaning of the "ba1" in that character? Eight what? Is it even relevant?

Then there's confirmation bias. How many Chinese characters--when disentangled to their core parts--mean other things? Then, how many other languages confirm the the flood stories.

Then, who cares? What does one character say about the flood? Are they even talking about the Christian flood, or their own flood, a world flood, or a puddle in the King's backyard?

Lionz wrote:Neoteny,

You might lay out stuff with an assumption that the flood is not mostly responsible for sedimentary rock in the first place.

"Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water."

"Sedimentary rocks are only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers as strata, forming a structure called bedding."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

Yes, each body of water has its own sedimentation patterns. And they are all different. If they were all similar, or had one band that contained the fossils of the damned, the flood myth would be confirmed. But they don't. And areas like Stone Mountain were not covered in similar sediments. Why isn't Stone Mountain covered in flood sediment? Why does the Grand Canyon have so many layers while other places have none?

Lionz wrote:And how useful would carbon dating be for dating preflood stuff if the earth had much more plant life and a much different atmosphere before the flood? Has the atmosphere had a constant C14/C12 ratio if the flood resulted in fossil fuels and the biosphere had 500 times more carbon just prior to the flood?

There still isn't any evidence for a worldwide flood. If there were more carbon in the atmosphere below the flood the ratio of radioactive carbon would be, say, if we use your number, 500 times less than current carbon levels, or so. According to radiocarbon techniques, that would make everything before the flood appear much older if you assume that radioactive carbon is as common then as it is now. But, if there were 500 times more carbon, that's a lot more carbon for cosmic rays to work on to create C14, too. But I'll concede that a recent flood that somehow sucked up massive amounts of carbon would skew carbon dating, even though all other calibration methods and objective evidential sources indicate that this never happened.

How does a flood affect ratios of uranium and lead, used in a more reliable, even longer term dating system?

Lionz wrote:I moved to Florida and have helped fix up a house and will be closer to Atlanta soon perhaps. Not that I agree with Kent Hovind on everything, but how about watch some stuff from the first link on this post or whatever if you want to see stuff discussed in debate?

Note: Not sure how to include pastes with bold or hyperlinks straight up in here and this includes one or more messed up quote maybe.

S'all good. I'm actually going to be moving to Tampa soon, which is sort of coincidental, I suppose. I won't move back to Atlanta for a few years, though, if ever.

Double post - oops

1. OK, there are other debates (and sorry but I simply don't have time at the moment to watch a whole bunch of 2 1/2 hour videos) and scientists engaged the creationists.

Do you know what the main platform for scientific debate is though? Science journals, papers, publications etc. Creationists are just as able as others to put their theories and hypotheses for what happened 10,000 years ago in them as anyone else. Each paper is judged on that paper's scientific merits, not on who the author is. Indeed, some creationists have been published in these journals. The reason it's done this way is that it's then the science that gets judged, not who is a better public speaker. And everything is written down for people to take their time verifying claims and cross checking results, a luxury that just isn't there in a verbal debating forum.

Some notable creationist scientist papers:

- Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
- Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
- Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
- Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
- Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
- Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
- Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)

All of these scientists are publically professed creationists, and when they produce science of good quality they get published.

The creationist viewpoint as a whole has not made it into mainstream science because the scientific evidence for it simply isn't there. You'd have to make several very significant assumptions that contradict what we know about all sorts of different fields of science to make a scientific creationist argument as a whole.

Don't you think that if someone could debunk evolution, or prove creationism (the two are not the same thing by the way), they would have done so? Imagine the worldwide public acclaim to the man who proves Darwin wrong, or proves that God exists and the bible can be taken literally. Scientists are constantly looking for new discoveries, and the biggest amounts of kudos go to those who overturn the longest established theories, because by doing so they are the ones that advance scientific understanding the most.

2. You're missing the point on this one. The water had to come from somewhere. There is no known model which doesn't either create such huge amounts of energy that all the water would have boiled off (and the earth would still be massively hotter than now because it's not got ways to lose that heat this quickly), or it was in the atmosphere as precipitation, which would have created such vast amounts of atmospheric pressure that human and animal life would have mostly been killed. Nobody has come up with any scenario which explains where the water came from, where the water went, and how all that happened, that doesn't involve God simply magicking it up and magicking it away again, without running into problems with either heat exchange or pressure build up to the point that the story becaomes impossible anyway. And if God did simply magick it up and then magick it away afterwards the story still doesn't make sense because it says it rained and springs flooded forth and whatnot in the story.

3. Source

Page 3 on that study shows various different known volcanic eruptions and where they have been found in ice cores - I can't find one quickly for Vesuvius specifically, but that may be because it was in a relatively hot bit of the world and no huge amounts of ash were carried far enough to make a significant layer in ice.

Look at the figures on the oldest of these eruptions. The ash is found 750ish metres down, and the dating guide is that it was around 27.5 thousand years ago, and the margin for error is pretty much 5000 years (2500 either way). When you quote the figures from wikipedia out of context then yes a 7000 year difference in ages at 1900m looks big, but if that 1900m is an ice core from 80,000 years ago or more then the margin of error, while large in scientific terms, is not hugely significant in terms of debunking the core principles. Ice cores aren't there to give exact dates at these sorts of depths, just to give a range in which a prticular layer happened.

Just using ice cores has problems yes, but ice cores can be tested and calibrated with other dating methods. the red herring here is that you chase your tail trying desperately to discredit one form of dating, then another, then another, but there are always more. As neoteny said, how does a flood affect urnanium and lead? All of these different dating methods have to calibrate with each other, they all have to tie in. While you can pick holes with this or that aspect of one or another form of dating (and usually in a misinformed way, maybe you should go read the words of St Augustine I posted somewhere near here), in order to get the flood or a young earth into play you have to completely discredit ALL of them.

4. I'm going to quote this paragraph because if anything you've just argued against young earth creationism:

I'm not assuming that any disease is or is not postflood. Did He create poodles? If He created living beings with free will who went on to breed and genetically engineer diseases and plants and animals, whether or not He created those comes down to definition. Who is denying that there is natural selection and variety brought about with the help of environmental factors, but why assume there is universal common descent or assume that any similarity among separate species is automatically the result of a common ancestor and not a common designer?

So, man, right after the flood, built a lab and genetically engineered diseases, even though none existed (having all been wiped out in the flood, if they did exist before)? How do we get tiny tiny cellular organisms like viruses by genetically engineering from the smallest things on Noah's Ark? Take the tiniest insect in the world and it's STILL several orders of magnitude bigger and more complex than a virus. If life cannot come from no life, where do the diseases suddenly spring back from?

Why assume common ancestry? I'll leave you this rather than type it all out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3yDOp8Dv8Y

5. The chronologies do not only come from german Oak. A floating piece of the history between 8050-7800 BC just means they have a fragment that they can't tie down to an exact date yet because the other references they could use don't match up. So instead of doing what a creationist generally does and saying that this is proof of anything, they do what a scientist does and say "we don't know yet" and leave it floating there until someone can come along with good science and pin it down. Scientists finding fault with established science, as I mentioned earlier, is what they do. Finding small discrepancies and building them into our understanding is what advances science, it's not evidence that everything is flawed and we need to start again from scratch.

6. Going to have to come back to you on this one later - I know nothing beyond what wikipedia says about this mosaic and I would want to give a decent answer to your question rather than a rushed one. Remind me if I haven't before the next time you post.

7. I'm gonna go have a word with the friendly guy in my local chinese restaurant about this, but just using google translate and wikipedia I can already see that your definitions for the words are potentially wrong. The symbol you assign as "eight" is also the symbol for "man" or "people", and the symbol you've used for mouth could mean openings or spaces of any kind. So it's not a big stretch to think that boat is simply a way of saying "water-box with spaces for people" or somethinkg like that. No Noah flood tie in there (well, except that it's a boat...)

Also, as BBS points out, there are very many coincidences and false friends all over languages from all over the world. The French word for 8 is very very similar, on paper, to the french word for night. Would you propose that this is proof for a seven day creation position, with the first night being the one before day 1?

8. Where is there any evidence of this beyond potentially fanciful tales? Surely if there were dinosaurs alive into thie last millenium we'd see people flaunting their skeletons (unfossilised), or museums would contain some of them? If dragons were slain in Europe in the middle ages then wouldn't the bones of those dragons be a great ornament and prize for collectors, and like other great ornaments and prizes wouldn't some have survived today? Heroditus only claimed to have seen the bones of creatures, and we don't know if he knew enough to tell a fossil from a 100 year old fresh (ish) bone. I'm running out of time to write this post before I have to be somewhere else but really think about this. if there were pterodactyls flying around Africe within the last few hundred years how big a prize would that have been to the explorers who brought hom lion's heads and elephant's tusks. Why is there NOTHING in the scientific record that verifies any of these claims? Could it possibly mean they were either mistaken or outright lies?

9. Skip this one, you're not making an argument

10. Search google for "The London Hammer debunked" The guy who owns it has made several grand claims about it, but all have either turned out to be false, unverifiable or pure attacks on any scientific body that has been able to do any testing on it. There are some people who have managed to see it in person and claim that the handle is not fossilised, the head is not crystallised, and that it looks like a normal hammer with a limestone deposit built up around it (which is an observed phenomenon on other artifacts). When you make a claim about an object, and then deny almost everyone any access to make any of their own observations, then you're not backing up that claim. If I said I had a priceless diamond in my hand, but wouldn't take my hand out of my pocket and let you look at it, are you going to be happy to tell people that yes, for sure he has a priceless diamond. At best my claim is totally unproven (and therefore not evidence of anything) and at worst is suspicious to the point of being laughable. If I really did have a priceless diamond why would I not just show it and receive the kudos for having such a thing?

BBS,

I'm not sure where you see ba1, but you wonder why eight would be relevant? Paste from http://yahushua.net/scriptures/1pet3.htm minus bold font maybe:

3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of YHWH waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

And what is really only one Chinese character? How about we look around and see if there seems to be a general theme present? Is it not apparent that there are great flood legends that stem from an actual historical event whether Genesis has a correct version of one or not?





Neoteny,

Is there not a thin layer of sedimentary rock scattered basically all across the earth?



Why would you expect there to be one specific layer that looked exactly the same across the earth if the flood mostly came from below and some places had more change to landscape than others? What if there was a more violent shaking of mud and water in western U.S. compared to most places on earth? Notice turbidites kind of spiraling out away from Yellowstone?





"7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

"The research team surveyed the volcanically active Yellowstone region, home to 80 percent of the world's geysers and half of its geothermal features."-http://cips.berkeley.edu/newsclips/17MICR.html

And you mention Stone Mountain? What washed away surrounding landscape from it if not the flood?

"The amount of time suggested by the previously cited authors for the cooling and exposure of the Stone Mountain granite (i.e., 71 Ma) is quite rapid considering the timeframe for its emplacement and subsequent exposure. The overburden and surrounding rocks, which at one time covered the pluton, are gone (Figure 2). Today, when looking at Stone Mountain, two obvious questions come to mind: Where did all the overlying and surrounding sediments go and when did it happen?

Once again, from the creationist perspective, the Flood event was a time of intensive tectonic (orogenic) activity. Magma, created as a result of plate tectonic collisions and associated heat and pressure, would have been squeezed into the overlying rocks, causing them to be uplifted. The author believes that Flood waters eroded away both the overlying and surrounding sediments and rock from the quickly cooling granitic pl-ton. Eventually, due to the rapid erosion which was occurring, the cooled mountain surface would be exposed to the Flood waters which would further erode the granitic mass. With the release of the overburden weight (which served to compress the cooling magma mass) the mountain would expand, resulting in exfoliation. The Flood waters might even have eroded away the outer exfoliated layers of the exposed granitic surface."-http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... 31_4b.html

I'm not sure how you define evidence, but for you to say there isn't any evidence for a worldwide flood is beyond me? How about address everything I have already referred to and we discuss "all other calibration methods and objective evidential sources?" Want to start with uranium-lead dating if that is an example?

"Radioactive dating explained
Some types (technically known as ‘isotopes’) of ‘parent’ elements such as uranium, thorium, potassium and rubidium are said to be radioactive because the nuclei of the atoms are unstable, resulting in readjustments between the ‘particles’ (primarily neutrons and protons) in the nuclei with time. To achieve stability, some ‘particles’ are ejected from the atoms, and these moving ‘particles’ constitute the radioactivity measured by Geiger counters and the like. The end result is stable atoms of the ‘daughter’ elements lead, argon, and strontium respectively.

Thus the first step in the radioactive dating technique is to measure the amounts of the parent and daughter elements (isotopes) in a rock sample via chemical analyses. This is done in specially equipped laboratories with sophisticated instruments capable of very good precision and accuracy, so in general there is no quarrel with the resulting chemical analyses.

However, it is with the interpretation of the chemical analyses of the radioactive parents and resultant daughters that the problems with radioactive dating of rocks begin. In order to interpret these chemical analyses, geochr-nologists must make three vital assumptions, otherwise the radioactive ‘clock’ cannot be made to ‘read’ the ‘age’ of the rocks. These assumptions are:

the initial conditions are known;
the system has been closed; and
the radioactive decay rate has remained constant.
So that these assumptions are easily understood, they are best explained in the context of the hourglass analogy (see Figure 1). Grains of fine sand fall at a steady rate from the top glass bowl to the bottom. At time t = 0, the hourglass is turned upside-down so that all the sand starts in the top bowl. By time t = 1 hour, all the sand is supposed to have fallen into the bottom glass bowl.

Now this ‘clock’ works because the initial conditions are known—that is, all the sand grains are in the top glass bowl and none are in the bottom one. If there is already some sand in the bottom glass bowl, then unless this amount is known the hourglass ‘clock’ cannot ‘tell’ the time. Similarly, if the system has not remained closed (for example, if sand were somehow added or subtracted), then the calculation of the elapsed time, based on comparing the amounts of sand in the two glass bowls, will again lead to an incorrect conclusion. And finally, if the rate at which the sand grains fall from the top glass bowl to the bottom one varies (for example, moisture causes some clogging of the sand in the constriction between the two glass bowls), then again the hourglass ‘clock’ will be inaccurate.

Unproven assumptions
The radioactive decay of ‘parent’ isotopes of uranium, thorium, potassium, and rubidium to ‘daughter’ isotopes of lead, argon and strontium respectively is analogous to our hourglass ‘clock’, including these three assumptions. However, in the case of these radioactive ‘clocks’ these three assumptions can be shown to be not only unprovable, but invalid, rendering these ‘clocks’ virtually useless.

In the case of the initial conditions, no scientist can ever be sure as to what they were, because no scientist was present here on the earth at its origin. Thus the amount of daughter isotope that has actually been derived from the parent isotope by radioactive decay is unknown, since some of the daughter isotope might have been present with its respective parent isotope at the time of the earth’s origin.

So geochr-nologists have assumed that the uranium, thorium and lead isotopic composition of particular meteorites is equivalent to the initial composition of these isotopes when the earth came into existence. This is assumed because it is supposed that these meteorites represent fragments from another planet in the solar system similar to our earth that disintegrated very early in the history of the solar system. However, not all meteorites have the same uraniumthorium- lead isotopic composition, so why should the isotopic composition of these particular meteorites be considered to be the ‘correct’ composition for the earth at its origin rather than some other composition found in other meteorites?"

"Furthermore, even if today’s scientists believe they have the methods, for example graphical and mathematical, for determining how much of the daughter isotope might have been present either at the origin of the earth or the origin of the rock being dated, no one can ever be sure that these ‘answers’ are correct, because there was no scientist present at the beginning to observe those initial conditions, even though the scientists’ calculations may be extremely logical.

Similarly, there is no way that it can be proved that these radioactive systems have been closed through all the supposed millions of years of decay of parent isotopes into daughter isotopes. Again, the main reason for this is because no scientist has been present to observe everywhere these radioactive systems and so report that they have been closed through all their history. Indeed, the evidence indicates the very opposite, that is, that these systems have been open to all sorts of external influences.

For example, it is known that uranium is generally a mobile element in the natural environment, particularly in groundwaters near the earth’s surface. Thus, if a rock sample is analysed at or near the earth’s surface for its uranium and lead isotopes, it would be incorrect to assume that all the uranium and lead in the sample were there only because of the amounts placed in the rock at its origin and because of undisturbed radioactive decay from uranium into lead. Some of the uranium might have been leached out of the rock sample, hence making the rock appear older than it really is according to this radioactive ‘clock’. Or, some uranium might have been deposited by groundwaters into the sample, thus making it appear younger than what it really is.

Indeed, geochr-nologists often plot the chemical analyses of the isotopes, expressed as isotope ratios, on graphs, and these often show that the parent-daughter systems have not been closed, but open. Furthermore, by interpretation of these graphs they often claim to be able to quantify the loss or gain and thus overcome this difficulty to still ‘read’ the radioactive ‘clock’. However, once again this interpretation to overcome this problem of the invalidated closed-system assumption cannot be proved, but is merely assumed to be correct because it makes the radioactive ‘clock’ work.

The final assumption is, of course, that the radioactive decay rates have remained constant. However, once again, this assumption can in no way be proved, because there were no human observers present right throughout the earth’s history to be constantly measuring the radioactive decay rates and to have recorded them.

It is special pleading on the part of geochr-nologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The ‘bottom line’ is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally ‘laughed out of court’ by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochr-nologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive ‘clocks’ work!

So we have seen that none of these three basic assumptions which are foundational to all the radioactive dating techniques can be proved. Indeed, we have also seen that each of these three assumptions is invalid, not only because no scientist has been present from the origin of the earth to see what it was like then and to report as an eyewitness all that has happened everywhere since, but because we know of observations contrary to these assumptions."-http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... adioactive

So you are a Georgia guy getting ready to move to Florida? What is truly random? : ]

Crispy,

1. What makes Shermer or Waggoner any more of a scientist than Hovind? Do you not really help support a following point without trying by making one or more statement as if Hovind is not a scientist? How much space are young earth creationists going to get in anything you would consider a respectable science journal or paper or publication even if some have been featured before? Who determines who is a scientist and what is "science of good quality" that is worthy to be published?

How about we actually look at what can be observed and try to figure out who is being contradicted by observable evidence if you are trying to make a claim that I would have to make several very significant assumptions that contradict what we know about all sorts of different fields of science to make a scientific creationist argument as a whole?

"The Shrinking Sun

Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.



The Moon's Dust


Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.



The Magnetic Field


The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.



The Earth's Rotation


The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of S-turn.



The Missing Helium


Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth's atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn't. Where did it go? It can't escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn't really that old.



The Comet Mystery


Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can't exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years."-http://www.sodahead.com/living/proof-th ... n-1401785/


"Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation."-http://www.halos.com/

Also, what do you define as evolution if we are going to talk about disproving it?

"There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution" as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer's expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as "descent with modification") is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth "after their kind" in Genesis 1."-http://carnivalsage.com/articles/hovind ... offer.html

I'm not sure who has tried to claim that things do not bring forth variety through reproduction, but who shares common ancestry? Is it not true that similarity among creatures on even a genetic level can be attributed to both common ancestry and a common designer? If you were to design several different types of creatures on a computer program you might end up having an artistic signature in your work. You might end up finding eyes and arms and more to be both functionally useful and aesthetically pleasing and end up using eyes and arms on several original designs from a start. Should we look at eating utensils or limbs of living creatures and assume any similarity between either of the two groups would automatically be the result of common ancestry?





And what does the fossil record actually have to say? Pastes below from http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/evolutio.html with color added by me?

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

"Modern apes ... seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans ... is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
(Lyall Watson, Ph.D., Evolutionist)

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp ... moreover, for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician)

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply."
(J.O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science)

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain."
(R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order."
(H.S.Hamilton (MD) The Retina of the Eye - An Evolutionary Road Block.)

"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?"
(S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422))



You might argue life didn't come from a rock, but is that not essentially what many hold to be true if many figure that a big bang occured and earth cooled down and formed a hard rocky crust before being rained on and bringing forth life from amino acids?

What suggests to you that roses and dogs share common ancestry, if you stand by universal common descent or a theory of punctuated equilibrium that was proposed largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record that cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages? What would you even theoretically consider to be debunking evolution or proving creationism?

2. What would have boiled if there are pockets of non-boiling water inside the earth even now? And where did the water go?

"This passage tells us that mountains rose and valleys sank during the Flood. Mount Everest rose up during the Flood, so the Flood did not need to reach the height that Mount Everest is today.
There is enough water on earth for a global flood. If the earth was smoothed out, the water in the oceans would cover it to a depth of about 8,813 feet (2.6 kilometres). This does not include the water in rivers, lakes, glaciers, and other sources. They would add about another 2–3 thousand feet (600-900 metres). In reality, the Flood would only need to be a little over 7,000 feet (2.1 kilometres) deep."-http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood

If layers of mud were not compacted rapidly while in a putty like state to help form the Rocky Mountains and other places, then what is shown here?







3. Notice a column on your page three table or whatever that refers to dating methods? Jumps from layer counting data and ash dated to 140 and 163 years old to radiometric dating and ash dated to 8,200 years ago and beyond without any ash in between? Have you found something with hard data where known volcano eruptions were used to determine when ash is from by counting layers above it?

And see reply to Neoteny if you want to discuss uranium-lead dating or radiocarbon dating in general?

"By the way,
they then use the ice core sampling, the oxygen O18 and O16 ratios, to try to
validate Carbon 14 dating. So here we have two rubber rulers measuring against
each other."-http://excoboard.com/The_Lighthouse_Bap ... 06/1334730

4. What would it take to convince you that there was actually gene splicing (root-cutting?) taught by one or more rebel angel before the flood?

"...taught enchantments, and root-cuttings..."
-http://qbible.com/enoch/8.html



"...the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord..."
-http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/4.htm

"...he looked and behold, a large animal was devouring the ox; from the middle upward it resembled a man, and from the middle downward it resembled an animal..."
-http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/61.htm





Perhaps He created some diseases out of nothing and there are created beings who designed some of their own too. I'm not sure what survived the flood and what came to exist after it.

5. How many rings do you count here?



Who knows how many times separate disturbances have been lined up in error and or how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in the BCP chr-nology?

"Unfortunately, this dating method leaves much to be desired. Ring patterns vary considerably between trees of similar ages. To resolve the discrepancies, patterns are compared between several trees, with the attempt made to identify common years in several ring patterns. The key rings that are used to align different trees are the rings for drought years, or the narrowest rings. In some cases, however, a drought year ring may be missing altogether, falling on the ring for an adjacent year.

This leads to what is known as the ''missing ring'' problem. To solve this, the scientists fall back to radiocarbon dating to identify the rings more completely. This, in turn, leads to circular logic; if the radiocarbon dating is incorrect, the resulting ring dating will also be incorrect. In the final analysis, the BRISTLE CONE Pines still hide their secret."-http://www.sodahead.com/living/proof-th ... n-1401785/

"For illustrative purposes, imagine the simplified situation of only three trees, (A), (B), and (C), which started growing at exactly the same time, and each of which lived exactly 500 years. If nothing happened, the tree-ring series would normally crossmatch according to climatic signal, with the crossmatch point starting with the first ring each of Tree (A), Tree (B), and Tree (C). All the constituents of the 3-tree chr-nology would overlap completely, creating a chr-nology that spans exactly 500 years.
Now suppose that an external disturbance causes rings 2, 6, 9, 14, etc., in Tree (A) to grow much bigger or smaller than they otherwise would. At about this time, rings 1, 7, 10, 13, etc. are perturbed in Tree (B). 300 years after the disturbance of the growth of the rings in Tree (A), the sequence of disturbances repeats in Tree (B), affecting rings 302, 306, 309, 314, etc. (The repetition doesn’t have to be exact, because the discrepancy can be covered by inferred missing rings, which are common in the BCP chr-nology). 400 years after the disturbances in the early rings of Tree (B), similar disturbances occur in Tree (C), affecting rings 401, 407, 410, 413, etc. Identical reasoning can be applied to many more trees, and over a much longer period of time.

The net result is the fact that Trees (A), (B), and (C) will no longer crossmatch across their 500-year common growth history. They will now only crossmatch at their ring-perturbed ends. The result is an illusory chr-nology that is 1200 years long. Crossmatching experiments that I had performed show that it is only necessary to disturb 2–3 rings per decade, sustained across at least a few decades, in order to override the climatic signal, and to cause the tree-ring series to artificially crossmatch at the ring-perturbed ends."

"What Talk Origins does not tell you is that the extra rings make up at least 20% of the total, this leaves an error of at least 15% too old.

Both extra and missing rings are detected by comparisons with other trees. This is a somewhat subjective process, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. The fact that there can be extra rings and missing rings only increases the subjectiveness of dendrochr-nology."

"Morris's reference was to the dating of single trees by their ring count and does not refer to the entire dendrochr-nological record.

The problem is that comparisons between trees are somewhat subjective, since even trees of the same species growing side by side do not produce absolutely identical ring patterns. Therefore finding errors is also subjective, adding to the overall subjectiveness of dendrochr-nology.

Furthermore, conventional dendrochr-nology does not consider the after effects of the Genesis Flood. Climate instabilities immediately after the Flood would probably have resulted in additional rings across the entire dendrochr-nological record."

"Not surprising since dendrochr-nology is used to to calibrate carbon-14 dating. Not only that but carbon - 14 dating is used in tree ring matching. As a result the two are not independent dating methods, but are actually mutually dependent."

6. Got thoughts on the Palestrina Mosaic now?

7. Do you have a source you can provide that suggests that the Chinese character for eight or whatever can also mean person and the person or mouth one or whatever can also mean space?

And does China not have history concerning a Fuhi who escaped a great flood with eight humans total?



Edit Note?: I did reading even before post and Talk Origins disputes one or more thing and there is some confusion about what is legit about a the Hihking story maybe. How about we address what is a Chinese word for large boat even if we do not know where a the Hihking story comes from or what should be in one though?

Does France have ancient history that concerns eight and night? Nice to bring up seven day week either way? Where does a seven day week come from?

8. Did you thoroughly investigate each of these before asking where is there any evidence of this beyond potentially fanciful tales?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 3#p2620353

http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

And how long does it really take for something to fossilize?

















But are you sure even non fossilized dinosaur remains haven't been found by man?

http://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... saur-bones

"There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated.26 Also, there should not be “fresh” bones if they were really millions of years old.27 A report by these scientists stated the following:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope ... . The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center ... . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur ... . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 ... . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized ... . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”28
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska.29 Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska.30 Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an “age of dinosaurs” millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible."-http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -dinosaurs

And see stuff here that suggests even recently deceased dinosaurs have been found as of late?

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm

9. Is there anything you want to discuss for 9?

10. Here is a conclusion section of a skeptic page concerned with the London hammer?

"Conclusions

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact."-http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

What would be considered clear evidence linking the hammer to an ancient formation if there is a location of where it was found shown here?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-hammer.htm

And is it not kind of reaching if someone skeptical of the flood is trying to suggest it would contradict preflood artistic style?

Also, what is really being hidden in someone's pocket like a diamond if it's in a museum and there has been detailed research carried out independently of one another by two different institutes?

""This ancient tool has a simple form, similar to the type of hammer that is still common in Germany today. The handle now is a very hard petrified crystal with an intact structure. It was possible to ascertain that the interior of the handle had partly turned into porous coal.

There is no way to scientifically explain this combination of carbonization and petrification. I have not heard of a similar piece, found anywhere in the world. Two very different processes must have occurred simultaneously or in short succession. Crystal petrifaction requires an ecosphere of running water whereas for the development of porous coal, one could, for example, assume that fire was the necessary agent. Water and fire, it goes without saying, are two very different and mutually exclusive elements.

The analysis of the subsiding of the Flood, to be undertaken at a later point in this book, will explain what now looks like a contradiction. The outer layers of the hammer handle reminded me of the petrified stumps and piles of wood I had seen earlier at the "Petrified Forest National Park" in Arizona, on a visit in 1988.

The exhibits there, pieces of the cut up piles of wood, had completely petrified and displayed a homogenous crystal structure. I do not know of one piece discovered in that park to contain a coal interior comparable to that of the fossil hammer. The age of the trees there is officially estimated at between 100 and 200 million years.

Wood petrifies when it is buried in silt deposited by flooding rivers or seas and silicates, such as are found in volcanic ash, dissolve and impregnate it. These substances replace the hydrogen and oxygen portions in the wood and begin the petrifaction process by silicification. This may produce very solid opal or quartz minerals. The final product is approximately 5 times as heavy as common pine wood.

This short description of the hammer handle should make it obvious that the fossil hammer must be authentic and very ancient. In spite of all our modern technical abilities, it has never been possible to produce petrified wood with porous coal inside.

It therefore is out of the question that such a hammer could be a hoax. I must clearly emphasize this point, as most artifacts which contradict the accepted view of the world we are accustomed to, are accused of being forgeries. Our traditional

schools of thought, however, are at a loss to explain this hammer.

Petrified wood, and therefore this ancient tool, is supposed to be at least 140 million years old. Official scientific authorities, however, say that humans capable of manufacturing high quality tools have only existed for a few recent millenia. Something concerning these datings and the enormous time intervals of the geological era must be erroneous.

Is humanity really many millions of years old or is it a young species? Did the processes of rock formation take place more recently than is believed?

Examination of the hammer.

Before I look into these questions, I would like to give a more detailed description of the hammerhead's characteristics in order to make the full extent of the mystery clear.

Detailed research was carried out independently of one another by two different institutes. John Mackay, Director of Australia's "Creation Science Foundation", analyzed the hammer thoroughly during his visit to the United States.

A number of Australian metallurgists, as well as those working at the respected metallurgic Institute "Batelle Memorial Laboratory" in Columbus, Ohio (USA), took part in these analyses.

Sophisticated electron microscopes served to examine the structure and composition of the steel the hammerhead was made of.

The results of the examinations were as mysterious as they were bewildering. The hammerhead, chemically speaking, consisted of 96.6 % iron, 2.6 % chlorine, and 0.74 sulphur. Incredibly, this material is almost entirely solid iron!

Other additives or impurities were not detectable. Non-destructive testing methods of steel quality comprise x-ray examination, magnetic testing as well as ultrasonic detection. X-rays showed no evidence of inclusions or irregularities in the hammerhead steel. This means, it was tempered and hardened in some way.

In general, chemically genuine and unworked steel is rather soft. The even structure determined, however, suggests that this hard steel that was manufactured by some sophisticated technology. The results of the examination are as sensational as they are unbelievable. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of steel manufacturing knows that every modern steel-making process, inevitably leads to carbon or silicon impurities! I emphasize the word inevitably. Steel production without these impurities is simply unthinkable!

No other known ingredients used for refinement such as copper, titanium, manganese, cobalt, or molybdenum, vanadium, wolfram or nickel could be traced. We employ these and other elements in steel manufacturing to achieve different properties needed for different fields of application.

The high quantity of the chlorine in the fossil hammerhead is remarkable, as well. Chlorine plays no part in modern steel manufacturing. It is not used at all today, so it is impossible to produce the high steel quality of the type found here by today's manufacturing methods.

This leads us to the question; who manufactured this hammer and when? Based on the standpoint of accepted research and science, it is impossible for this hammer to exist, much less to have ever been manufactured. For the reasons given, it is thus out of the question that we are dealing with a "hoax" hammerhead.

Much the same has been shown concerning the hammer handle. Two forgery-proof materials for which we have no scientific explanation, combined in one tool.

This is extraordinary evidence of a very different history of earth and humankind! If our school teachings are correct, there is no other conclusion than that an alien visiting earth must have lost the hammer.

Still, I have one other more logical explanation to offer and I will present it in the further course of this book: My explanation, however, is not in accordance with traditional scientific theory. The fossil hammer shows still more peculiar features. In breaking open the hammer's original stone enclosure in 1934, the upper edge of the metal head was damaged, leaving a small notch. The inside of the notch revealed a shiny silvery surface.

Until today, more than 60 years later, the color of the notch has not changed. No traces of rust are perceptible. The relatively high concentration of chlorine combined with a total absence of carbon, which would cause corrosion by reacting with oxygen, may be responsible for this phenomenon...." Hans Zillner from his book: Darwin's Mistake"-http://www.s8int.com/page6.html

Note: Not sure how to get pastes right in here for quotes and this and earlier stuff has misquotes and dashes replacing one or more thing by me and there is messed up spacing and there are missing hyperlinks and numbers and images and messed up font related stuff perhaps. How about look for a source or ask me where something is from?

Lionz, you've got style. I can always tell it's your post by a quick glance scrolling up before ever even seeing your username.

-rd

Lionz I too give you kudos for style.

I will do a proper reply to your post soon (bit busy this evening, just taking a quick break from work), because I respect the time and energy you've put into it. But it seems that most of your points rely on "imagine everything is wrong, then start from this alternative, now what is more likely?" How about instead of that we accept that science, as a process, is a quest for the truth, and while it doesn't claim to have all the answers, it regulates how the questions are asked and how the answers are judged (as in against all of the "imagine ifs" everyone can bring to bear, including the creationist ones), and it has shown time and time again that the "how about we imagine this" type arguments that creationism uses are at best highly unlikely, and at worst fallacies and total misunderstadings of science itself?

And besides all of this you're going off topic somewhat. Even if I accept every single one of your points as you make them as 100% viable and acceptable, you still haven't proved God. Just as a thought experiment, imagine I accept all of them, and show me the argument that then links them all into being proof for a biblical God.

I will leave you with one answer though, because I did promise. And that's the Palestrina Mosaic. You assert that because an artist depicted things that might be dinosaurs on a mosaic, then dinosaurs must have co-existed with humans. For my rebuttal I give you these:







OH MY GOD!!! These aren't just sketches they're actual photographs of dinosaurs and humans co-existing! Someone ring the scientists and tell them everything they believe is wrong....

Yes, we know the origins of these images, and we know they're not actual biological dinosaurs, just models and CGI and artists impressions. What proof is there that the mosaic is a study of real life, and not a drawing based on a myth or a legend or a fairy tale, just like:



A 10th century depiction of Thor's fishing trip



A very, very old carving of an Egyptian God



Carving on top of a Hindu temple

Did all of these things really co-exist with humans too?

Just because someone drew or carved something, without knowing if they were trying to do a real-life or a religious tribute or a flight of fantasy that image in isolation and without context cannot be used to "prove" anything....

You already posted some of this, and it was already dealt with. Go away.

I've got a few more minutes now so I'll give answers to a few more of your points:

The Shrinking Sun

Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.

This claim was based off of a 1987 report by some French astronomers, based on eclipse data between 1666 and 1719. When the science was examined, using the proper systems of peer reviewed journals, independent experiements and observations and good old fashioned fact-checking and number crunching, this report was discredited because it was shown that the conslusion was derived from an erronious calculation of the 1715 eclipse path. The original data wasn't revised, the assumptions by which we make calculations and measure these things weren't revised, it was a simple mathematical error. If you're going to quote "scientific facts" like this then it's normally best to ensure that the "facts" your quoting are actually accepted and not, like these ones, totally discredited.

The Moon's Dust

Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.

14.3 millions tons of dust per year? If you believe that figure and ignore any factors that might reduce the amount of dust on the moon then yes, the moon should be covered with a thick layer of fine dust. The problem is that actual measurements, taken in space by NASA and the russian space program, point to a figure of more like 20-40,000 tons a year hitting the earth, or in other words nearly 1000 times LESS than the number that is based on a guy who climbed a mountain and collected some dust, then guessed at how much was atmospheric and how much was falling from space (which is where the 14.3 million comes from, and that claim even ignores that his guess rounded that down to 5 million). That's the figures for Earth too, the moon, being smaller and having much weaker gravity would collect far less dust again. The calculations involved in this claim also ignore any eroding effects of solar winds or dust that might be kicked up by continuing meteoric impacts.

Once again creationism takes debunked science with known errors and better measurements available, and tries to use it to prove something that simply isn't true.

The Magnetic Field

The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.

This is just a pure fallacy of reasoning. Because the Earth's magnetic field is shrinking means that it always has been shrinking. But it's like watching the tide go out as then assuming that the water always has and will continue to recede like this. The field is in a constant state of flux, and geological samples have been found that have showed that on many occasions in the earth's past the field has "flipped", so what we know now as magnetic north was at times magnetic south, and vice versa. The only way to explain this is that there is a long-term oscillation in the field, much like the tides, that gets stronger in one direction, then slows down and goes back in the other direction. So to look at the rate of weakeneing of the field today and try and extend that back thousands of years is at best misguided, and at worst just compeltely dishonest.

Again creationism picks up a fact from science, does not fully investigate it, and then uses it as "proof", when in fact if the full extent of available knowledge is used, rather than a quote out of context, the picture is very different.

Just a small break-off to ensure this pattern is noted. Creationist theories cherry pick bits and pieces from any scientific source they can, and consistently ignore the bigger picture or the validity (and in many cases the compelte discrediting) of the bits of science they are quoting. A bit like if I now did this:

there isn't any evidence for a worldwide flood

That was written by Lionz. He does not believe there was a flood!

(That really was written by you by the way, but obviously if we view it in it's full context the meaning changes significantly)

I'm not sure how you define evidence, but for you to say there isn't any evidence for a worldwide flood is beyond me?

This, albeit very crude example, is a perfect analogy for how creationism handles science.

Anyway, back to the post....

The Earth's Rotation

The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of S-turn.

Again creationism takes PART of a scientific finding, and then just extrapolates it upwards. Yes if there was a constant 4cm a year increase in distance we could wind back about 2 billion years and the moon would be in contact, wind back 1.9 billion years and it would be at roughly the 11,500 mile point that would see it breaking up.

Except the moon is affected by the oceans too. The current arrangement of the oceans has a limited "resonance effect" that pushes the moon along a bit faster, but if the layout of the oceans changed, such as when we had Pangea, then that resonance effect will have been different. In fact complex computer models have been written to analyse all sorts of different systems, and evidence like sedimentation layers in tidal zones has been examined, and it's been found that right now the moon is moving away from the earth faster than any other time we can see. Over the last 650 million years the average is about 60% of what we see now. Then we're getting back towards a time when there were not vast oceans of water, when the earth was rocky and volcanic and the tidal brake (and therefore the acelerating effect on the moon) wouldn't have been there.

That's all she wrote for tonight, I'll come back for more soon.

well you asked for people to post any evidence of God, now i haven't read the entire thing so i don't know what has or hasn't been said, but i do believe that God exists and that he loves us and wants what is best for us, if you want some kind of physical evidence of God like a picture or something, in all probability you will never receive one, knowledge of God is spiritual in nature, so to learn if he is there you must turn to a spiritual source, in the bible God invited us to pray to him, as it says, ask and ye shall receive knock and it shall be open unto you, the only sure way to know if God exists is to pray and to ask him, but one must pray with real intent and a sincere heart, meaning that you pray and ask because you really want to know and that once you receive the answer you must act on it, for example praying just to know but without any intention of changing to follow God's path, you probably won't receive an answer, but if you pray with the intention to follow the answer that you receive than you shall receive one
now then you may question in what form will this answer appear, it most likely won't be from an angel or other heavenly messenger coming down to visit you, but you will receive the answer through the Holy Ghost, by the fruits of the spirit, which are feelings of love, joy, peace, and other such good feelings, more are found in ephesians 5:22-23,
well i hope that helps, if any have questions feel free to ask

Crispy,

I'm not sure when I said imagine everything is wrong or that science should not be a quest for the truth. What's really a debate between science and creationism if we are discussing what science in and of itself suggests has happened?

There might be some disagreement between us that really comes down to who and what we trust. If there were two Skull and Bones members who graduated from Yale only two years apart and who were running against eachother as nominees for the Republican and Democratic parties in 2004, should that not suggest to us that there was some hand above both parties that helped make that happen? And if there was, what does that hand have as an agenda and does it have a finger in mainstream media or education? If the History Channel or even some mainstream science journal suggests something is true, should we assume that it is?

"2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH, and against his anointed, saying,

2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/psa002.htm

"4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/luke4.htm

You might pass me off as a some fringe conspiracy theorist, but are you not a conspiracy theorist yourself if you figure there are dozens of writers throughout hundreds of years of history who wrote blatant lies to back up religion that's against lying in the first place? With each somehow convincing colleagues that what they wrote down was true with many or all of them referring to miracles that happened in their own lifetimes?

People might regularly die for a lie, but who willing AND knowingly dies for a lie while being tortured if Andrew was crucified and Bartholomew was crucified and James Son of Alphaeus was stoned to death and James Son of Zebedee was cut off with the sword and Thomas suffered at the the end of a pine spear and Peter was crucified upside down? If there were so many Christians on earth as far away from Jerusalem as the Italian Peninsula by 64 CE that Nero blamed a fire of that year on them, then is it not apparent that something amazingly convincing occurred in the first century?

If it's claimed that Christ healed fever and leprosy and long term bleeding and withered hand and dropsy and deafness and muteness and blindness and paralysis and performed exorcisms and fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and several fish and that He withered a fig tree with a curse and turned water into wine and walked on water and transfigured and calmed a storm and raised the dead and even that He Himself was resurrected, then what happened?

If there's even Messianic prophecy from well before the first century concerning Christ that has to do with Name and family line and place of birth and places of growing up and being betrayed for a certain amount of money and being betrayed by a friend and being abandoned by friends and way of death and timing of death and having garments parted and being offered vinegar and sky being darkened during daytime and being resurrected and timing between death and resurrection and more, then what happened? Do a study on Daniel 9:24-27 and ask yourself if there was not prophecy hundreds of years before the first century that accurately predicted specific timing of Christ using weeks of years or seven year periods? Does the Babylonian Talmud not even ironically hint that He truly is Messiah? How about search Talmud the next two thousand years is the Messianic era in a search engine?

Whether or not we can even theoretically prove YHWH exists, how about we weigh evidence and ask ourselves what really suggests that a) there is universal common descent as opposed to a creation of separate kinds of creatures that were created to bring forth variety after their kinds and b) the earth came to be created from natural processes slowly over time without any intelligent influence as opposed to being the result of an intelligent Being creating it out of nothing? What suggests a or b is true and is not based on circular reasoning?

How about I not assume I know what you figured happened. Do you figure that everything is the product of natural processes starting back billions of years ago? And that entropy has somehow increased in the Universe through all time despite particles evolving into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and despite inorganic compounds evolving into living materials and living materials evolving into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution? And that entropy decreased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy? And that planet layout randomly happens to appear to be following a formulated pattern referred to with Bode's Law? And that life naturally came from non-life once and only once and all creatures stem from this? And that any sign of similarity between living creatures would automatically be evidence of shared ancestry and yet not a Common Designer with an artistic touch regardless of how many fossils seem to be missing? And that there are plants that carry on with the help of insect pollination that somehow existed before pollinating insects? And that penises and vaginas do not seem designed for each other and there were unisex individuals with male organs and female organs who somehow later mysteriously evolved offspring with only one or the other? And that light sensitive photon recepting pigments or a forerunner of that happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from? This as a result of the DNA sequence of a cell's genome having one or more purely random change and that happening billions of times?

What is Jurassic Park really useful for in a discussion regarding whether or not humans from ancient past understood what dinosaurs looked like if it's a movie made by people who had some idea about what dinosaurs looked like based on fossil evidence? Do you figure humans regularly dug up dinosaur fossils across the planet before the 19th century and had finds complete enough to figure out exactly what living dinosaurs looked like?

"Q: How many complete dinosaur bone sets have been found?
A: Good question, and I'll be darned if I know the exact answer. One scientist estimated there are only about 2,100 good skeletons of any dinosaur in museums around the world. But a complete skeleton is another thing. It's not like a model kit that comes with all the parts included. When we are lucky enough to find whole dinosaurs it is usually because sand from a stream bottom or a sand dune has covered over the dinosaur soon after it died. But even then, the little bones of the tail are often washed or blown away. For instance, we have about 15 good skeletons of T. rex now, including two that are nearly complete. That's a lot compared to most dinosaurs, which are only known from a single tooth or bone. But we still don't have a complete T. rex. (Don Lessem)"
-http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/arti ... es-fossils

And does the Palestrina Mosaic not even show non-dinosaurs creatures considered prehistoric? How quickly do things really bring forth variety and what really took millions of years?













And what is simply based on art? How many wrote of dinosaurs well before the 19th century? http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evi ... l/dragons/

And I'm not sure who existed, but what if there actually is some mythology that's based on true history? See Nephilim forum topic here? http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 89&start=0

"6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of Elohim came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen6.htm

"The idea that the nephilim or giants were the offspring of the fallen host and human females was not unique to Judaism. This understanding was likely behind the Greek, R-man, and Egyptian mythologies, as well as those of India and the near east. All these beliefs resulted not as mere inventions of fertile human imagination, but as a corruption of antediluvian truths which were distorted as their origin was forgotten over time. "
-http://ancientlosttreasures.yuku.com/topic/4662

Concerning the sun and shrinkage?

What was really resolved by Shapiro or anyone else?

"In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian cautiously announced that their studies of solar measurement records from Greenwich Observatory in England, and the US Naval Observatory in Washington, conclusively showed that the sun was shrinking. Its diameter was decreasing at a rate of almost six feet per hour.1
There were potentially astounding implications. The announcement by Eddy and Boornazian with respect to the age of the sun (and hence the solar system), along with the apparent conflict with previously held ideas about how the sun produces its heat and light, did not go unnoticed. A vigorous healthy debate among solar astronomers began.

After their own analyses of the Greenwich and Washington data, plus comparisons of solar eclipse records, and consideration of photographic and other relevant evidence, many colleagues agreed with Eddy and Boornazian but the consensus seemed to be that the shrinkage rate was less than half that initially suggested."

"However, not all scientists agreed that the evidence indicated the sun is shrinking. A number disputed the reported figures and presented results of their own that seemed to indicate no shrinkage. Among them was Irwin Shapiro of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."

"All Shapiro could really say was that he couldn’t detect any shrinkage if shrinkage was indeed occurring. Yet while his results showed no indication of any significant change in the diameter of the sun, his regression analysis yielded a decrease in solar diameter of under 0.2 second of arc per century at a confidence limit of >90%. Thus it could easily be argued that Shapiro’s results are still comparable with Dunham et al.’s approximate 0.2 second of arc per century shrinkage rate based on records of the 1715 and 1979 solar eclipses,3 and Howard’s 0.5 second of arc per century shrinkage rate from 50 years (1930–1980) of solar photography.4 "

"Gilliland was also bold enough to admit that since stellar evolution theory predicts that the sun should increase in size with increasing age (i.e. the sun’s diameter should be increasing), any decrease is quite significant."

"Even more telling is the fact that even though Parkinson, Morrison and Stephenson argued that the horizontal Greenwich measurements were not reliable before 1854 or after 1915 because of instrumental and observational inadequacies, analyzing only the horizontal Greenwich data from 1854–1914 yields a long-term decrease trend of just over 0.3 second of arc per century."

"To quote Gilliland:


‘Given the many problems with the data sets, one is not inexorably led to the conclusion that a negative secular (long-term) solar radius trend has existed since AD 1700, but the preponderance of current evidence indicates that such is likely to be the case.’
Furthermore, even


‘with allowance for possible systematic errors in both the meridian circle and M-rcury transit timing observations, a negative secular (long-term) trend of solar radius is still supported.’"
"Thus we can conclude that a thorough analysis of all the available evidence clearly suggests a steady long-term decrease of the solar diameter (i.e. the sun is shrinking) at a rate of almost 0.2 second of arc (150 kilometers or 93 miles) per century or approximately 30 centimeters (less than one foot) per hour, superimposed upon a 76–80 year cycle of systematic increase and decrease over a range of 0.8 second of arc (600 km or 373 miles). "

There might be contradicting information and things I can argue for and against myself, but how about we consider this?

"This of course raises the question as to which scientist or scientists one should believe? Similarly, whose mathematical analysis of the historical data should be believed? All the solar astronomers whose work we have cited have impeccable credentials. Their choice of mathematical manipulations of the observational data vary according to preference, yet they each promote their own conclusions with equal conviction. The layperson is left wandering in a maze and wondering how he can resolve the apparently conflicting evidence to arrive at the truth. While the debate continues to this day, a clearer picture is gradually emerging, one that still challenges the evolutionists’ multi-billion year age for the sun and solar system."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v11/n2/sun

Concerning the moon and dust?

If you figure there is going to be a bunch of dust on something based on how old you think it is and how fast you think dust is collecting on it and you come to find there is barely any dust on it at all, is it more logical to assume the dust gathered alot slower than you thought than to consider a possibility that the something is younger than you thought?

Even if Snelling and Rush came forward and claimed that one or more thing was consistent with a current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale, was there not very real concern about moon dust in the 1950s and 1960s? Just how much would an estimate be off even if the moon has less gravitational pull than the earth? Do you think 4,300,000 tons is a number came up with by some random guy trying to pick up moon dust with his hand on a mountain without considering differences between the sun and moon if Isaac Asimov actually published stuff in Science Digest? And what was simply Asimov?

"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, J-nuary 1959, p. 36."

"Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72."

"Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]"

"Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]"
-http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... tes79.html

"Moon Dust
I have right here on the floor—since I am in my home city here—I have an actual porthole from a space capsule. It is so pitted, you can hardly see through it. Now, we have added a few more scratches through the years hauling this thing around. But, it was all pitted when they first took it out of the space capsule because out of space is full of dust. Imagine blasting off with all that! The reason it is pitted is because outer space is full of dust. And when they are traveling around at 18,000 miles an hour, they run into the dust and it hits the glass. Well, the earth and the moon are running around together—they’re running around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. So the earth and the moon are running into all this dust in space. Kind of like your windshield collects bugs certain times of the year, and it gets thicker and thicker on the surface of the moon and on the earth, this dust does, because it is running into it. The problem is, on earth we have air, which makes wind and water and any dust that lands here gets mixed in. Once in awhile you will see a little bit on your furniture from time to time. How many have seen [some] of that before? This cosmic dust coming in from outer space generally gets incorporated into soil. But on the moon they have no wind and no water. So any dust that lands on the moon is going to be undisturbed.

Evolutionary Prediction

Well, before they went to land on the moon in 1969, they were very concerned that going to the moon would be a problem because of the dust on the moon. They did all sorts of studies and decided the dust would be an inch thick every 10,000 years. They said, "Man the moon is billions of years old, wow! Billions of years divided by 10,000, there is going to be a lot of dust on the moon!" They were concerned the guys would actually sink into the dust. I talked to the guy that created, designed, and built the radio back pack that Armstrong was wearing when he was on the moon. He was instructed, he is a pastor in Wisconsin now, he said, "I was instructed to make the back pack dust-proof just in case they sank into the dust. We thought there might be a problem [and] we want to be able to communicate with the guys." Hey, how are you doing down there? Sank into the dust! So to prevent the spacecraft from sinking in, they put huge landing pads on the spacecraft to prevent it from sinking in. They call it the snow shoe affect, spread the weight out. Cost millions of dollars more to add these duck feet, they called them. They were worried about the spacecraft sinking into the dust. It was a very serious concern. I listened to the conversation of the guys when they landed on the moon, the whole conversation, I have got it at home about 45 minutes to an hour. Most of their conversation centers around one question, "Where is the dust?" They talked about how deep the lunar pads sank in, about a half inch. Even the rocket that let them go down slow, the retro-rocket that lets them down slow, they thought it would blow a huge crater, not even an inch deep. Where is all the dust up there? The dust was about a half-inch thick.

Young Earth Upheld

Well, in 1972 after they had been to the moon several times, they revised the calculation of how much dust there should be so that it would fit the evolution theory. But I do not know how much dust there should be or should not be, but I know this, the evolution theory failed to predict the right amount. A half inch of dust is all there was on the moon, and that would fit fine with what the Bible says, G-d made the moon about 6,000 years ago not billions of years ago."
-http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar1.html

Concerning magnetic pull of earth and whether or not there are magnetic reversals and what that would mean?

"As early as 1971, creation scientist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, then Professor of Physics at The University of Texas at El Paso, drew fresh attention to the fact that the strength of the earth’s magnetic field was decreasing.1 He noted that between 1835 and 1965 geophysicists had made some 26 measurements of the magnetic dipole moment of the earth’s magnetic field. When plotted against time (that is, the year of measurement) these data points fitted a decay curve which Barnes calculated had a ‘halflife’ (halving period) of only 1,400 years. On this basis he concluded that the earth’s magnetic field was less than 10,000 years old, and so the earth must likewise be that young (see Figure 1)."

"Needless to say, because of the powerful implications of this evidence Barnes received much opposition from the evolutionary community. Evolutionist geophysicists simply poured scorn on Barnes’ conclusions because they argued that any ‘decay’ of the earth’s magnetic field merely represented the latest phase in the ongoing history of waxing and waning field strengths as the field repeatedly reverses during multiplied millions of years.2 But Barnes stoutly repulsed this objection by denying the validity of the ‘fossil’ magnetism (palaeomagnetism) measurements of reversed magnetic polarity (direction) in rock strata.3
Evolutionary geophysicists were already ‘locked into’ their multi-million-year timescale not only because of the radioactive dating of the rocks in which the palaeomagnetic reversals were measured, but because of their presumed ‘dynamo’ mechanism for operation of the earth’s magnetic field. It is generally believed that the earth’s magnetic field is generated by electric currents in the earth's innermost region, the core, which is presumed to consist of a metallic iron-nickel mixture. However, according to the ‘dynamo’ hypothesis, these electric currents are believed to be produced by the slow circulation of molten material that carries unequal amounts of positive and negative electric charge. The energy for this is thought to come from the earth’s rotation and/or its internal heat.4,5"

"So the generating mechanism is presumed to operate like a dynamo, (similar to an electricity generator) causing the field and maintaining it over large periods of time. Consequently, a reversal of the earth’s magnetic field (which is difficult for them to explain anyway) could be expected to be a slow process. Thus the evolutionary view has been that a transition from one magnetic polarity (direction) to the other generally took millions of years, or several thousand years at the very least.6 However, this so-called dynamo hypothesis, the operational mechanism preferred by most geophysicists, has many problems associated with it which have been well documented. 7-10"

"However, a collapsing magnetic field cutting across a conductor (the earth’s iron-nickel core) will generate more current, which helps to retard the rate of decay, otherwise the field would vanish more quickly. In fact, if we were to calculate how much current is being generated from the measured rate of collapse of today’s magnetic field, this current is sufficient to account for the actual known strength of the field as it is today! Besides being a good confirmation of the model, this means that the evolutionist’s ‘dynamo’, if it ever existed, must now be switched off.
Now we have already seen that this decay is real, having been measured for over 160 years, as pointed out by Barnes and documented by McDonald and Gunst.17 So this Barnes-Humphreys mechanism can account for this realtime decay of the earth’s magnetic field over the past 160 years, the current generated from such field decay correlating well with calculations of the amount of current actually present within the core. Furthermore, Humphreys maintains that it can also account for the magnetic reversals recorded in the rocks having taken place in only days to weeks!18,19"

"In order to further bolster his case for rapid magnetic polarity reversals, Humphreys22 has also pointed to a natural object, namely the sun, which demonstrates that a large body can rapidly reverse its magnetic field.23 Observations show that the sun reverses the polarity of its general magnetic field every 11 years, in synchronism with its sunspot cycle. When the number of sunspots is at a minimum, the observed field on a large scale has its lines of force going mainly north and south. As the number of sunspots begins to increase, the strength of the north-south part of the field diminishes. In about 5.5 years the north-south component has diminished to zero and the number of sunspots is at a maximum. Then things begin to happen in reverse. A south-north part of the field appears in the opposite direction from its predecessor and the number of sunspots starts to diminish. After another 5.5 years, the number of sunspots is at a minimum again, and the field is back to its original shape, but with the north and south poles of the field having switched places, that is, the sun’s magnetic field has reversed its polarity.

Physicists and astronomers do not yet have a theory that completely explains this complex reversal phenomenon. One probable reason why they have had difficulty explaining the sun’s reversals is that, because they believe the sun’s magnetic field is also generated by a dynamo, they have been looking for a mechanism which would not only reverse the sun’s field, but also regenerate and maintain it for billions of years. But if the sun is relatively young (only thousands of years), there is no need for the regeneration requirement. The sun would merely be winding up and unwinding whatever magnetic field it had at creation, losing magnetic energy each solar cycle. Its long-term behaviour would thus be a steady decay modulated by the solar cycle of reversals."

"If the creation scientist Humphreys is correct, and seeing that his predictions about planetary magnetic fields in the solar system have been verified, and his model for magnetic reversals here on earth does fit well to the geophysical and rock palaeomagnetic data compared to the woeful state of the dynamo model, then such a decrease in the energy of the earth’s magnetic field implies that it is not eternal but relatively recent. Consequently, Humphreys has extrapolated today’s energy decay rate back to a theoretical maximum energy,32 and so has derived an upper limit for the age of the earth’s magnetic field at 8,700 years."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... 4/magnetic

Concerning distance relationship between the earth and the moon?

If the earth-moon system is said to be 4.5 billion or so years old and it would have been straight up in contact with earth about 1.4 billion years ago extrapolating backwards using recent data, then how much can moving continents Really do to help you? Would the moon not cause serious problems to life if it was even a little closer?

"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years."

"That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon

"Talk Origins is accurate in pointing out that factors such as continental location affect tidal drag, but since the closer the Moon, the stronger its pull on the Earth, the rate of change tends to get vary large. The result is that to save the old Earth model it becomes necessary to virtually eliminate the effect of the continents. "

"The alleged rate of change in the Earth’s rotation rate of only 0.02 milliseconds / years (2 seconds / 100,000 years) adds up to about one additional day per year over 4.6 billion years and paleontological evidence (see below) does not support such a low rate of change in the Earth rotation rate.
One problem with this continental movement idea is that the methods used by geologists to trace theoretical past continental movement do not yield results for the precambrian, so any attempt to use it to prove that the Earth – Moon system can be 4.5 billion years old is speculative at best.

Eugene Poliakow's paper “Numerical modelling of the paleotidal evolution of the Earth-Moon System” is an example of efforts to calculate the effect of continental movement based on actual estimates of past continental movement. Because of limitations of the methods used to estimate past continental movement, it only projects back 600 million years, but this is enough to evaluate the results. "

"The way to judge the validity of a mathematical model is to see how well it reproduces known data. Poliakow’s calculations give (as seen in the above chart) a figure of 2.91 cm/yr as the Moon’s current recession rate and 1.59 seconds / century as the rate of slowing of Earth’s rotation. The problem with these figures is that they both differ significantly from the values actually observed. The Moon’s current recession rate has actually been measured at 3.82 cm/yr, which is nearly a 3rd larger than Poliakow’s model indicates. Furthermore the slowing of Earth’s rotation has been measured at 0.8812 seconds / century which is just 55% of what Poliakow’s model indicates.

At first glance the fact that Poliakow’s model overestimates the deceleration rate of Earth’s rotation would seem to be a plus for uniformitarianism. However, the limiting factor of the age of the Earth - Moon system is the position of the Moon, not the Earth rotation rate. Since the Moon’s recession rate is actually higher than in Poliakow’s model, the error would be a clear negative. The real problem is that discrepancies between the model and real world data show there to be fundamental flaw in the model. It means that Poliakow overlooked one or more major factors that could easily nullify his results. "

"The current rate of change in Earth rotation rate is often mistakenly projected back in a straight line, but the law of physics show that the rate would be higher when the moon was closer. Even if the current rate of change is projected back in time (light blue line), the statistical curve line (purple line) is still way off. The measured rate of slowing is about 8.836 milliseconds per year. (Based on data from the CRC Hand Book of Chemistry and Physics.)

The rate indicated by the statistical curve is 13.14 milliseconds / year. The result is that there is no correlation between paleontological data and projections based on direct observation of the changes in the Earth's rotation. This is further evidence against the accuracy of using paleontological data in estimating tidal effects on Earth's rotation rate. It indicates that the apparent trend in paleontological data has some other cause.

This data does not support the alleged rate of change in the Earth rotation rate of only 0.02 milliseconds per year (2 seconds in 100,000 years) from #2. This rate of change only adds up to about one additional day per year over 4.6 billion years. "

"When it is added to the chart it is essentially a flat line (orange line) and there is no indication of of such a flat line in the data. But according to the model needed to save uniformitarian time scales, it must be there. Yet it is not there. "
-http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_recedin ... k.Origins)

Note: There is a dash replacing one or more thing by me and I'm not sure how to get pastes right in here for quotes and there is messed up font related stuff and I stepped away and clicked one or more thing without realizing what I was doing and there is one or more misquote in here perhaps. How about look for a sources below quotes?

gregwolf121 wrote:well you asked for people to post any evidence of God, now i haven't read the entire thing so i don't know what has or hasn't been said, but i do believe that God exists and that he loves us and wants what is best for us, if you want some kind of physical evidence of God like a picture or something, in all probability you will never receive one, knowledge of God is spiritual in nature, so to learn if he is there you must turn to a spiritual source, in the bible God invited us to pray to him, as it says, ask and ye shall receive knock and it shall be open unto you, the only sure way to know if God exists is to pray and to ask him, but one must pray with real intent and a sincere heart, meaning that you pray and ask because you really want to know and that once you receive the answer you must act on it, for example praying just to know but without any intention of changing to follow God's path, you probably won't receive an answer, but if you pray with the intention to follow the answer that you receive than you shall receive one
now then you may question in what form will this answer appear, it most likely won't be from an angel or other heavenly messenger coming down to visit you, but you will receive the answer through the Holy Ghost, by the fruits of the spirit, which are feelings of love, joy, peace, and other such good feelings, more are found in ephesians 5:22-23,
well i hope that helps, if any have questions feel free to ask

Just two questions,why did your alleged deity (you never specified which one),so favour you with this knowledge,and deny it to me?Why did he endow me with a sceptical mind and not expect me to utilise it?

Lionz wrote:
And as far as your scales image or whatever? Who is going to publish a peer reviewed scientific paper from a young earth creationist? How about search this in a search engine sometime... fired for supporting creationism.
.

The only conspiracy against young earth creationism is that journals required scientists to prove their assertions with tests and verifiable data. I critiqued more than a few of what you put forward as credible scientific evidence of a young earth. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. You do have to prove things. Young Earthers simply fail to do that.

Oh.. and please don't insist that "creationism" and "young earth" are equivalent. A LOT of folks believe God created the Earth, through geologic processes and evolution.

gregwolf121 wrote:well you asked for people to post any evidence of God, now i haven't read the entire thing so i don't know what has or hasn't been said, but i do believe that God exists and that he loves us and wants what is best for us, if you want some kind of physical evidence of God like a picture or something, in all probability you will never receive one, knowledge of God is spiritual in nature, so to learn if he is there you must turn to a spiritual source, in the bible God invited us to pray to him, as it says, ask and ye shall receive knock and it shall be open unto you, the only sure way to know if God exists is to pray and to ask him, but one must pray with real intent and a sincere heart, meaning that you pray and ask because you really want to know and that once you receive the answer you must act on it, for example praying just to know but without any intention of changing to follow God's path, you probably won't receive an answer, but if you pray with the intention to follow the answer that you receive than you shall receive one
now then you may question in what form will this answer appear, it most likely won't be from an angel or other heavenly messenger coming down to visit you, but you will receive the answer through the Holy Ghost, by the fruits of the spirit, which are feelings of love, joy, peace, and other such good feelings, more are found in ephesians 5:22-23,
well i hope that helps, if any have questions feel free to ask

None is so blind as he who refuses to see.... Sorry, but faith alone is not what people want, and they patently refuse to accept that it can be a valid answer. (note that I am a believing Christian who has been debating this here basically since I entered the CC forum debates several years ago.)

Lionz you have style - I've given you kudos for that before - but it makes it very difficult to deal with your posts without spending hours writing essays about every single topic under the sun. I really can't be bothered with that any more. So pick a single point and I'll address it and we can argue about it all we like, but please also be prepared to show your sources as links rather than just copy/pasting from some unknown place (and I, of course, will do the same). It will help keep the length of the posts down too because you won't need to copy/paste into here.

I'll just address the non-scientific thing about conspiracy theories. People will die for their beliefs if they believe that they have an immortal soul that relies on them staying true to that belief until after death. And it doesn't take too many people, who will by nature not be skeptical at all about the truth of claims of miracles or acts of God to write down all the stuff that makes up the bible today. There are 40 known authors, and even if we say there were 4 times as many unknown ones that's 200 people in total who wrote out everything that christianity is based on going forwards from that time.

Finding 200 people during one small period covering a couple of centuries at most, and all from the same or closely related cultures, who believe in something irrational is not exactly difficult. Finding 2000 is easy enough, 200,000 is still very easy. Especially if that irrational thing is entirely unfalsifiable and appeals to elements of human nature and supernatural justice in ways which we want to believe are true a lot of the time (that guy who was a jerk yesterday, he'll get his dues sometime for that). Even more so if that irrational thing makes no claim to be rational with the get out that "it all works in ways we will never understand" (or in other words "God works in mysterious ways")

Finding hundreds of thousands of people, from right across human history, from every single religious and cultural background, who believe in independent and critical thinking and questioning every answer you're given and double checking and triple checking and cross checking of facts and observations, and then getting all of them, whenever they lived and wherever they lived and whether they believed in God or Allah or Krishna or nothing or something else, to subscribe to giving out a false message? Including the ones that lived before Christ was even born? How likely does that really seem to you?

200 people from the same culture sharing a religious conviction within a century or so of each other following a prescribed doctirne, or hundreds of thousands from all over the world right throughout human civilisation free to think in any inquisitive way they want? Which is more likely to have the better picture of the nature and history of everything? Which is more likely to have been able to have been influenced by some mysterious political power to lead humanity away from the truth? (Note I'm not saying the early christians were led by some conspiracy, just that your claim is utterly ridiculous)

All,

How about we have love for one another even if we do not agree on what's logical or credible? What will not be revealed eventually? : ]

"10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
-http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt10.htm

Crispy,

What do you figure occurred within a couple of centuries at most?

Also, what do you mean to suggest if not that Yahushua and many followers of Him were tortured and killed as martyrs for a cause they knew was based on lies in order to promote a religion that's against lying in the first place? What happened if there are several martyrs who followed Him personally and who saw things with their own eyes and it's claimed He did stuff like heal leprosy and long term bleeding and withered hand and dropsy and deafness and muteness and blindness and paralysis and performed exorcisms and fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and a bit of fish and that He withered a fig tree with a curse and turned water into wine and walked on water and transfigured and calmed a storm and raised the dead and that He Himself resurrected?

Christianity formed itself (for the most part at the fundamental level) within a couple of centuries, the main books of the NT (notably the gospels) were all written within a short space of time relative to each other and to Jesus' life.

And I specifically stated that I didn't think that the early christians were pawns of a conspiracy, just like I don't believe that all scientists could be party to a conspiracy. It wasn't an assertion it was a response to your suggestion that something is being deliberately hidden from us by orthodox science. I don't think that they were entirely wrong either, I like the message of peace and love and tolerance and the world would be a better place if everyone adopted them fully. I just don't think they are in a position to tell us the melting point of magnesium or the volume of a dodecahedron or the chemical composition of maple wood or the natural mechanism of nebulas "birthing" new stars or the truth of any other scientific matter, and I see nowhere except for the origin of the universe (which is more metaphysical than scientific anyway) where they even claim to do so.

We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

Like I said, pick just one of your rebuttals to the orthodox scientific view, and we'll deal with that, then move on to the next one. I'm just not willing to deal with the entire creationist position all in one go from every angle in every single post over and over and over again.

crispybits wrote: We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

This is true, but not proof of their being a God or not.

crispybits wrote:Like I said, pick just one of your rebuttals to the orthodox scientific view, and we'll deal with that, then move on to the next one. I'm just not willing to deal with the entire creationist position all in one go from every angle in every single post over and over and over again.

Good luck getting Lionz to do that. At least he seems to be reading your posts. I speant literally 8 hours researching, finding links and refuting his claims.. only to have him just issue an entirely new set of "questions", pictures and links. When challenged, he claimed "issues" prevented him from answering or limiting his discussions (you can read the old thread if you care for details.. else, I don't feel I should repeat it all)

crispybits wrote: We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

we're barely managing to tolerate each other even WITH god(s)...

john9blue wrote:

crispybits wrote: We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

we're barely managing to tolerate each other even WITH god(s)...

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker

Enjoy.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:

crispybits wrote: We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

we're barely managing to tolerate each other even WITH god(s)...

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker

Enjoy.

Huh, that looks interesting. Only £11 on amazon too.

Thanks.

john9blue wrote:

crispybits wrote: We can all love each other just fine without the need for any God or Gods.

we're barely managing to tolerate each other even WITH god(s)...

I think more LSD would help.

Compulsory LSD, that'd be an interesting platform to run on.

Compulsory LSD gets my vote

BigBallinStalin wrote:
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker

Enjoy.

That looks like a very interesting read - will put it on my christmas list for faraway relatives - thanks

Crispy,

I said dozens of writers and hundreds of years referring to Old Testament stuff too and we came across wrong to eachother or something. How about you pick out something to discuss if you want?

PLAYER,

When have I claimed issues prevented me from answering something or limited discussions? Would I be guessing wrong to guess that you're going to reply without actually giving a link to a past post?

"jeezy chreezy player. sometimes i wonder whether you are into some incredible long-game trollery. But I'll bite again."
-heavycola