Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

I am not going to respond much to this one, since it’s obvious you are losing your civil approach to the discussion and just becoming another one of the ill informed dingle-berries on here.

Losing my civil approach?

I have, repeatedly, replied to your posts on a point by point basis with good nature and honesty. In turn you have brushed my points aside and laced your replies with sarcasm and disingenuous remarks.

For you to say you’re going to ignore the majority of my post simply because I used the same kind of sarcasm you use is simply laughable and hypocritical. Obviously, in debate if one participant fails to address the points of another they are considered as conceded. I’m not going to make that claim but it seems more like you used this petty little remark as an excuse to avoid having to answer me.

Kind of funny how all of your supposed “rebuttals” to the RATE project pre-date the actual publishing of the RATE projects work. Can you say putting the cart before the horse?

How on this earth are direct criticisms of the science of that work inaccurate because of this?

Humphreys et al., published their ‘paper’ on Zircon diffusion rates in Fenton Hills before the RATE groups final work was published. This exposes that paper to criticism based on its merits. It’s nonsensical to suggest that these criticisms are somehow invalid.

Dr. Humphrey’s has been published in secular journals over 30 times, so that was a silly argument for you to use. No creation journal has ever had a fraudulent article published, I already pointed out that numerous secular journals have- so to suggest they have a better track record is absurd.

Unsubstantiated assertions.

I never claimed he hadn’t been published in secular journals. I said he could not have had that work published neither did I say anywhere that secular Journals have a better track records ... I simply said that the Creationist track record is far from laudable if this is some of the work they champion.

Zircon Diffusion rates were not the only thing studied by the RATE group I am sure you are aware. Polonium radio-halos being located at the same plane as uranium radio-metric decay is also very strong evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.

I am, in fact I expressly said in my original post “I haven’t reviewed all their work”. I'll say it again Statler, I also have a lot of other work to do. I can't devote myself to wading through 300 pages of Creationist 'Research'. The point I made was that taking this one paper as representative casts doubt on the enterprise (RATE) as a whole.

All of the RATE projects dating were done at secular labs, so to suggest otherwise is either being ignorant or dishonest.

Note please, that I actually said the samples were processed by ICR. This is of course completely accurate and is admitted in the methods section of Humphreys work. Essentially ICR did all the sample preparation (Grinding, Sifting, Separations etc...) before sending them off for dating. I wasn’t being ignorant or dishonest, I just understand the work.

The problem here is that Grinding for sample separation in diffusion analysis is a flawed method which causes the release of gasses before the analysis. In fact, slicing is the scientific standard. So, in fact ICR did play a large role in the sample analysis.

I highly doubt you really gave the RATE group much attention considering the work is written at the technical level and is over 300 pages long. I am thinking you just ran over to talkorigins and searched for counter-arguments. Every one of the counter-arguments your article brought up is refuted by Dr. Humphries during the RATE conference and in the 2nd edition of the RATE group findings.

I clearly said that I had not reviewed the entirety of the RATE groups work, I was talking specifically about the Zircon Diffusion paper. Oh, by the way Statler ... I can handle ‘The technical level’ as you put it, if you struggle with that kind of material then don’t read it but don’t assume that just because you have a hard time with it everyone else will.

Look, I read the paper (and Dr Humphreys replies to the rebuttals) and formed my own opinions before I even started looking at other websites. If you want to convince yourself I didn’t or that I went scrambling to other websites straight away to make yourself feel better then go right ahead. I notice you didn’t provide a link to these so called 'rebuttals' by the way...

I am sure you are also aware that in order for a syllogism to be valid the premises do not have to be true. So whether or not you believe God exists or is eternal is irrelevant; the syllogism I set up was 100 percent valid.

So you can create a logically valid syllogism based on completely erroneous assumptions and that makes it all okay?

The fact is Statler, that while logically valid; it doesn’t not afford any kind of real argument. In order for your syllogism to have any purpose in a debate you must be able to validate the assumptions in reality otherwise all you’re doing is saying ‘This statement shows a perfect use of logic’.

If you can’t validate the assumptions, the logic of the statement is irrelevant.

You’ll notice I’ve been nice and rained back in the sarcasm. Maybe now you could see you’re way clear to addressing my points like an adult.

Cheers

Sam