Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Polonium radio-halos being located at the same plane as uranium radio-metric decay is also very strong evidence for accelerated radiometric decay.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
A Review of "Radioactive Halos in a Radio-Chronological
and Cosmological Perspective" by Robert V. Gentry
by Thomas A. Baillieul

Conclusions:

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

It's rather sad, though not surprising that creationists are still trying to argue from refuted work.

---

Hmm, apparently Statler has a problem with scientists posting their critiques of creationists works on talk.origins. I have no problem with them doing so, and will continue to to refer to it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates"
Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

Now Statler, you complained that people weren't pouring over creationists' writings. The problem is that scientists have, in fact, done just that. Now, let's see you pour over the refutation at the link. Get back to us when you have a valid response.

---

I am sure you are aware that the Polonium Radio-halos I referred to were not part of Gentry's work, but rather part of the work done by the RATE group in 2008. So you are actually using non peer-reviewed articles (talkorgins) to try and refute work that was both peer reviewed in secular and non-secular journals. Pretty lame approach, but hardly surprising. Even if I was citing Gentry's work, this article would harldy be a refutation. Look at their reasoning, he operates using assumptions? Well they themselves do too, Gentry is just more intellectually honest about his assumptions. There are other lines of evidence that suggest the Earth is old? This is no excuse to deny the evidence that the Earth is young. You are going to have to come up with a lot better than that. Maybe you should actually check out the work done on the subject before you just run over to talkorigins, I figure you won't do this though because you are afraid of what you might find...Truth.

---

---

So in short, Darwinism gives us Holocausts; Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity- easy enough.

Oh, what a load of unadulterated BULLSHIT!

"Darwinism gives us holocausts"?

No, hatred and dictatorial power gives us holocausts.

And "Creationism gives us the Laws of Gravity"?



Just because someone who was a Creationist figured out the laws of gravity does not mean you can credit "Creationism" with the discovery. This is beyond absurd! This is like crediting Judaism with developing the polio vaccine because Jonas Salk happened to be Jewish.

---

Maybe if you had actually read my entire response you would have come up with a more educated reply yourself. Maybe not though. It’s pretty apparent today that Scientists working in Nazi Germany were DEEPLY inspired by Darwin’s work. This led to their practices in eugenics and helped to fuel their viewpoint that Jews were inferior to Secular Germans. Dictatorship may have been the tool that accomplished the Holocaust, but Scientism and Atheism were what drove this tool. If you read many of Hitler’s own writings, his viewpoint of Christianity was very similar to a lot of the posters on here.

As for Newton, his belief in God is what drove his Science. He actually spent more time studying scripture than he did Science. He believed that the laws of nature should make sense to man because they were part of God’s natural revelation. So his Creationist viewpoints were what drove him to discover the laws of gravity. You can try to deny history all you want, but it is really just a futile exercise.

---

---

Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.

Really? Seriously? That's what you're going with here?
That's now how the burden of proof works, Statler.
You created an unsupported premise and it was refuted for being as such. In order for your premise to be anything other than total rubbish, you actually need to have it backed up with something other than your word that it's true.

Also, my original statement still stands:

You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more.

You've done nothing to actually make a case to prove Lethe wrong about the reply she had against your post.

Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.

Many and perhaps all sciences are interrelated and have practical applications. Physics is a big one and is responsible for many of the technological innovations we have today along with chemistry in terms of many of the high tech electronics we have today - such as computer chips and electromagnetism and radio waves and orbital dynamics and relativity.
The thing about a good scientific theory is that it is not only backed through empirical and repeatable studies but that it can also make testable predictions.
How this relates to creationism is that many of the scientific tests and predictions that make a cell phone work, a computer work, an orbital telecommunications system work, a space probe to successfully launch on earth and land on an asteroid or comet zipping through space at thousands of kilometers per hour, and allow a nuclear power plant to work is the exact same science that goes into proving things like the age of the earth and the universe.

The fact that you think this concept is laughable only shows your contempt and disregard for anything that goes against your rather inane beliefs about the world in which we live.

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

Apparently willing ignorance in science also translates to willing ignorance in history.
Darwinian theory isn't a thing. It's a word used by creationists to describe things they think are godless but it otherwise doesn't exist.
You're thinking of evolutionary theory, which is a science wholly specific to describing the process of speciation among living creatures. It does not have social applications.

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.

Whether or not atheists agree with me is irrelevant. You're avoiding the point.
More importantly, I find it interesting that instead of attempting to make a point using, I don't know, evolutionary biology in medicine to prove your point, you resorted to quote mining.
I don't care about what these people think and given the quotations and lack of linking or a bibliography, I can't even be sure that you're using these quotes in the proper context.
All you've given me is your word that evolutionary theory is wrong and a bunch of questionably related quotes that altogether do nothing to make a point of any kind, let alone provide evidence of any kind to your point.

So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.

... and... so what? How is this related to Evolutionary Biology in medicine being an invalid science that can make no testable predictions? Eh... whatever. Let's talk about your red herring since you obviously can provide no reality-based evidence that Evolutionary Biology is unimportant to medicine.
I find it adorable that you can find scientists, even important ones in the distant past, who were Y-E creationists by today's standards whose contributed science has nothing to do with the concept or philosophies or what can be jokingly called 'science' behind Y-E creationism nor have any foundations in anything other than the search for truth by people who also happen to be Y-E creationists during the time they lived.
In short, creationism has nothing to do with science except in a historical context.
There is a reason, after all, why people who do actual science, in any science, from anywhere in any cultural background around the world, are rarely if ever creationists.
This is because that kind of willing ignorance is incompatible with the search for truth. The two are mutually exclusive.

---

Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides. However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.
Your argument that new technology somehow affirms that the Earth is old is a complete non-sequitur. I completely agree that empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability. I am actually a bit excited that we agree on this. The only problem is, the Earth has never been and never will be dated using empirical science. Like all sciences dealing with origins it is nothing more than a historical science. This is because nobody can observe the age of the Earth, nor could they repeat this observation. They can only make conclusions made on assumptions and inductive reasoning. So to suggest that the science that gave us GPS units is the same science that tells us the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is a bit irresponsible. Like I pointed out in my previous post some of the greatest modern inventors were YEC. The inventor of the MRI was a YEC, apparently they didn’t think the physics behind the machine meant the Earth was old. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that Old-Earthers don’t make assumptions. It’s these erroneous assumptions that make them wrong about the age of the Earth, not the physics itself.
You are playing the equivocation game. Darwinian Evolution does not merely assert that speciation through natural selection occurs (something YEC agrees with, and actually came up with first), but that all life has a common ancestor.
To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.
Kind of funny how when I point to a bunch of Atheists and Evolutionists who think you are wrong on this subject, you just say “Well I don’t care what my own experts think! So meh!” The fact of the matter is that Science has much more owed to Monotheism than it ever will to Darwin.
You may not have liked the sources I used, but at least I cited someone, your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

---

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on.

Or we could do exactly what we are doing today - developing humane strategies such as gene therapy and targeted drug regimes using - ahem, the theory of evolution.

There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.