The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[orogenicman]

I went through all 52 issues of volume 84 of the AGU Journal and found no such paper on C14 retention in diamonds and coal. Please provide not only the volume, but the issue as well for this alleged paper.

You could not find it? Not sure if I can help you with that much. The article is entitled, “The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older Than 100 ka” and it is cited as appearing in the Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46). I hope that helps, I read the article a couple years ago so I know it exists.

Jesus H. Christ, but you are long winded. I am assuming from whgat you posted above that you are referring to Volume 84, issue 46. Here is the contents of that issue:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...6/issuetoc

Nope, your paper is not there.

The only paper I found in Advances in Genetics authored by Ouweneel was this one: Developmental Genetics of Homoeosis, Willem J. Ouweneel, Volume 18, 1976, Pages 179–248, and it has nothing to do with creationism.

That’s not the work I was referring to; you could not find anything on his work on fruit flies? It is actually pretty famous even today.

Well, that's rather convenient, isn't it?

For something so famous, it sure isn't an obvious find. Perhaps you could provide a link and then tell us in detail how it refutes evolution.

Frair's work (his thesis) was published in 1962, and it too has nothing to do with creationism.

Frair’s work on turtle systematics and serology was published in several journals and significantly postdates that article. Whether you can find it for free online or not is a different story.

It's your reference, so I suggest you do a better job citing it so the rest of us don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time finding it. Same for all of your references.

Siegfried Scherer's paper cited above, Volume 104, Issue 2, 21 September 1983, Pages 289–299, concludes that "Based on our present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry it is concluded that the evolution of light-driven cyclic electron transport remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology. In order to clarify the situation, further experimental work in molecular evolution urgently is needed." It makes no mention of creationism, and does not refute evolution (it doesn't even attempt to).

No, it actually does refute the adequacy of the evolutionary mechanism to account for such systems.

Nowhere in that paper does he make that conclusion. All he is saying is that more work needed to be done, and that was back in the 1980s. This is 2013, so perhaps you should review the literature to see what has been done since then on the problem.

Grant R. Lambert' paper on Enzymic editing mechanisms and the origin of biological information transfer, Volume 107, Issue 3, 7 April 1984, Pages 387–403 concludes that "Based on present knowledge of molecular biology and biochemistry, it is concluded that the evolution of contemporary information transfer systems from primitive systems lacking such editing mechanisms remains an unsolved problem in theoretical biology." of course, like Scherer's paper, the conclusions were made in the mid-1980s. We've advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Moreover, as with Scherer's paper, this one also does not attempt to refute evolution, and certainly makes no mention of creationism.

Same as above, this is a paper that has huge creationistic implications written by a creationist in a secular journal. I have not seen any research that alleviates this problem in molecular biology either.

And you, no doubt, have conducted an exhaustive review of the intervening scientific literature in order to come to that conclusion, right?

Humphrey's published work in Review of Scientific Instruments has nothing to do with evolution or creationism.

[quote-Statler]Wait, are you suggesting his work contradicts the current creation model?

I am stating flatly that the paper has nothing to do with evolution or creationism. Did you even bother to read it?

I did not find his work in International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, probably because it is friggin ancient (pre-1957), but no doubt also has nothing to do with creationism or evolution.

I think you’re looking at the wrong article. Humphreys was born in 1942 and got his doctorate in 1976 so I doubt he was published at the age of 14; the guy is sharp but let’s be reasonable here. As for his work’s creationistic implications, it has them because it offered a contrary explanation for the phenomena other than that according to Big Bang cosmology (Humphreys has developed his own cosmological model).

If I am looking at the wrong article then you need to learn how to cite authors correctly so there is no confusion for others trying to find the right one.

Likewise his work on 1/γ velocity dependence of nucleon-nucleus optical potentials is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, makes no mention of the theory, and certainly doesn't offer a creationist argument.

You seem to be falsely assuming the creation only deals with the origin of life on Earth, this is false.

On the contrary, you are assuming that the biological theory of evolution has do with subjects other than biological evolution. What is more, biological evolution says NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING about the origin of life, the origin of the universe or anything else other than the evolution of life on Earth. It's only proposition is that however life originated, it evolves. Stick to the subject - or not, but don't expect us to see you as anything other than a fool if you don't.

The current creation model deals with all branches of science including physics and cosmology so the paper is certainly relevant to creation.

Except that, and I know you have been told this time and time again, but I will continue to tell you until it sinks in - creationism is not science. It is a religious belief, one held by a very small minority of radical religious fruitcakes. Hell, even mainstream religions think you people are fruity, as does the Supreme Court of the United States. Statler, the more you push a religious agenda into the science laboratory, the harder people are going to slam you for doing so.

Gentry's work on polonium halos has been widely refuted, and was about as sloppy as it gets.

Refuted by whom? You moved the goalposts yet again, you never said, “creationists do not do any of their own research that I do not personally believe has been refuted.” Now did you? Let’s be fair.

Look, if it creationism Gentry was trying to support, he would have said it, as would any of your alleged researchers. That they don't is not only dishonest, it is unethical. As for who refuted his work:

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

Gentry's hypothesis quickly runs into trouble with all of the accumulated evidence from many fields of earth science pointing conclusively to a great age for the Earth. Not the least of these evidences is radiometric age dating. To reconcile his presumed young age for the Earth with reported isotopic age dates for rocks around the world, Gentry (1992) argues that radioactive decay rates have varied over time. He is forced to conclude that decay rates for his chosen polonium isotopes have remained constant while those of dozens of other radioactive isotopes were many orders of magnitude greater 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This of course gives rise to several major inconsistencies:
•
many rocks have been dated by a variety of techniques using different isotope pairs having very different decay mechanisms, the results showing remarkable consistency in measured ages. Gentry's hypothesis would require that all of the different decay schemes for the different radioactive isotopes must have been accelerated by just the exact - but very different - amounts to give the consistent age dates we find for rocks today. For example, the decay rate for uranium-238 (half life = 4.5 b.y.) would have to be accelerated by nearly four times the rate for potassium-40 (half life = 1.25 b.y.). Given the large number of different radioactive isotopes and decay schemes that have been used in dating rocks, the chance of this coincidence taking place is essentially zero.

•
a general principle of radioactive decay is that the more rapid the decay rate, the more energy that is released. The slow radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40 has been identified as a primary source of the Earth's internal heat. Speeding up the radioactive decay rates of these isotopes by many orders of magnitude to be consistent with a 6,000 - 10,000 year age for the Earth requires that the energies of decay 10,000 years ago would have been extreme, keeping the Earth in a molten state to the present day. Obviously this has not occurred.

•
if one is going to propose that radioactive decay rates varied, and varied differently for each isotope over time, there is no reason why the decay rates of numerous polonium isotopes should not also have varied. Under a variable decay rate model, it can even be proposed that polonium decay rates were much longer than observed today. In fact, once the idea of variable decay rates is introduced, it becomes impossible to assign discoloration haloes to any specific isotope or isotopic series, and Gentry's hypothesis falls completely apart.


The decay rate and the energy of emitted alpha particles are both related to the imbalance of neutrons and protons in an atomic nucleus, and are controlled by the strong nuclear force and the binding energy for the particular nuclide. Anything more than a fractional change in the decay rate over time would require variation in the fundamental forces of nature and the relationship of matter and energy. There is no evidence that anything of the sort has ever occurred.

There are many independent lines of reasoning beside radiometric age dating for concluding that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. Other geologic processes, with completely independent mechanisms, which demonstrate a long period for Earth history include:
•
the slow crystallization and deposition of great thicknesses of limestones occurring over and over in the geologic record;

•
the growth of salt domes in the gulf coast region of the U.S. and beneath the deserts of Iran by slow, plastic deformation over millions of years of a deeply buried salt bed in response to the slow accumulation of overlying sediments;

•
the spreading of the world's ocean basins, recorded in the symmetrical patterns of magnetization of the basalts on each side of the mid-ocean ridges. The current measured rate of spreading results in an age estimate for the western margin of the Pacific basin of approximately 170 million years - an age which has been confirmed by radiometric dating.


Literally hundreds of other examples could also be presented.

Again, none of these gentlemen have published works on the (non-) theory of creationism in ANY peer reviewed scientific journal. That they have published scientific works unrelated to the theory of evolution or creationism is utterly irrelevant and is not what I asked for.

Well I am beginning to believe that even you do not know what you asked for since you continue to alter it. Secondly, looking for works that actively espouse creation in journals edited and reviewed by Darwinists is as silly as looking for works actively espousing common descent in journals edited and reviewed by creationists. I refuted your claim; creationists do their own research and have been published in creation and secular journals. You can admit you were misguided now. I’ve never felt this whole argument was very relevant but you are the one who insists on perpetuating it.

So you are admitting that no one in the scientific community has been taken in by the scam these religious junkies are pushing, so they have to make up their own rules and pretend to play science even though everyone knows that they are not. Well, that's a start. Perhaps for your next trick you could actually try to get a real science education, assuming any college will have you.

Just to be clear, natural selection is not about "intelligent design". There is nothing intelligent about placing an entertainment complex near a sewage treatment plant, nor is there anything intelligent about spina bifida.

Where did I say anything to the contrary? I will repeat myself for clarity, life on Earth is the direct result of design.

What design, where, and by who?

In addition to that- much of the biological diversity we see today (species) are the result of natural selection. Both are core tenets of the modern creation model.

Well, that's a load of crap. Perhaps you should rephrase your bullshite statement.

WTF???

Did I lose you? You do not see the problems with a dating method that assumes a constant rate of change and a beginning point of zero? Really?

I see that you don't understand radioisotopic methods. If you did, you would not be arguing against them as the valid methods that they are.

"God did it" is not a hypothesis. It is a dogmatic statement that cannot be falsified by the scientific method.

Neither is “all scientific explanations must be natural”; but that does not stop evolutionists like yourself from adhering to that position. Scientists are allowed to possess axioms.

Well, actually "all scientific explanations must be natural" can be falsified. Show us unambiguous evidence for explanations that are OTHER than natural, and you will refute that statement. I eagerly await your effort to show us angels dancing on a pinhead.

I like how you pretend to know what my education is and what I do for a living; such arrogance amongst you and your ilk.

I like how you've obviously forgotten that I've already shown that you have no science education of merit and aren't who you claim to be.

Thousands of real scientists DO have experience with it, and verify it in hundreds of laboratories worldwide every day.

What a meaningless statement. How do they verify it?

By doing the work, by using the methods each and every day, thousands of scientists, the world over, in hundreds of laboratories. You apparently are of the opinion that all of these dedicated men and women are so stupid that they would use these methods day in and day out for decades even though, according to YOU'RE ILK, they don't work. Don't insult my intelligence.

No, actually, it is you who are engaging in posturing, making a claim (that the Earth is not billions of years old) without providing supporting evidence.

The positive claim bears the burden of proof toots, so get to it!

And we've certainly been busy in that regard. Do a google scholar search for radioactive isotopic methods, and you will find thousands of peer reviewed papers on the subject. Now compare that with the utter drivel posted on such sites as answers in genesis. Case closed.

We scientists have provided a wide range of evidence of the Earth's ancient origins (the most convincing direct evidence of which is is [sic] the Uranium/lead isotopic decay method). You simple [sic] choose to willfully ignore it.

I thought you no longer worked in your field; did you get a new job I was not aware of? If so congratulations, if not then you are not a scientist anymore I am afraid. Secondly, what is your empirical means of verifying the validity of such dating methods? Let’s be scientific here.

Ad hominem. Don't deflect from your own inadequacies on the subject. I still do research, mostly in astronomy now. Now address the fact that you willfully ignore some of the most successful scientific methods currently in use, radio isotopic dating methods.

There are millions of square miles of oceanic crust that contains pole reversals that pre-date the alleged timing of the alleged Biblical flood

Nope. That’s false.

Are you calling me a liar? Bad form.

Assuming an anti-Biblical uniformitarian timeline in order to argue against the Biblical catastrophic timeline is begging the question. Let’s remain rational here.

Assuming that tribal scribbles written thousands of years ago to deflect attention away from the fact that they had no air conditioning can even hold a candle to modern scientific achievement, well, that's just sad. Let's remain rational here.

(for which the evidence is utterly null and void).

Ignorance of evidence is not proof of absence of evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where's the beef? Right, there isn't any.

Oh and by the way, there were NO pole reversals in the last 10,000 years.

No, all of the pole reversals occurred in the past 10,000 years.

My evidence is on the map above. And your evidence is?

The last geomagnetic pole reversal was about 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years.

You know this how?

The Laschamp event:

http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~raregas/jic...20EPSL.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...084936.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v25...705a0.html

http://www.ipgp.fr/~legoff/Download-PDF/...SL2007.pdf

http://www.ams.ethz.ch/publications/annu...s/2010/075

And many other peer reviewed papers.

Yes, all of the current oceanic crust (which ranges from about 250 million years to the present) post-dates nearly all of the continental Paleozoic sedimentary record, BY DEFINITION.

Yup, tell Optimistic Mysanthrope this, he is the one who seemed to knot know this.

Apparently you didn't know this either. Probably because you aren't a geologist.

But there is plenty of oceanic crust in existence that pre-dates Paleozoic continental crust. The very basement rock in the Eastern U.S. and much of Canada is over a billion years, and consists of the Grenville province, which is oceanic basalt and metamorphic greenstone that has become part of the North American craton [sic] through tectonic accretion.

How do you know how old the basement rock is? What type of rock is it?

Because the U.S.G.S has an entire warehouse of rock cores from drilling into it. And much of it is exposed at the surface in the Eastern U.S., and in Eastern Canada. As for what type of rock it is, it is composed of many rock types:

Grenville province

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6897000387

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...6898000333

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=petr...CCoQgQMwAA

There are about 8,000 more papers on the subject available online. Have at it.

There are multiple lines of evidence. We have large canyons carved out by receding flood waters

No we don't.

sedimentary rocks laid down all over the world,

Such a tiny fraction of which are flood deposits that one can completely ignore that line of thinking. Don't believe me? I have invited you numerous times to go into the field with me so I can prove to you how wrong that argument is, and in typical creationist fashion, you refuse to do it. Gee, I wonder why that is?

millions of tons of coal and gallons of oil resulting from decaying biomaterial deposited by the flood, deluge legends in hundreds of world cultures, and even the Biblical text says that the mountains rose up and pushed the waters back to the sea. Is that what you were asking?

And the biomass that accumulates on the ocean floor today? What happens to it? Does it wait around for the next global flood before it becomes oil? Oh wait - it is already in flooded terrain.

The "theory" I saw, involving rapid magnetic reversals in ferromagnetic rock, only really managed to demonstrate the phenomena on a very small scale. The mid-ocean ridges have near symmetrical reversals throughout their entire length.

All you would need for that to occur is for the deposition and then cooling to take place rapidly; since this is all happening over the course of less than a year that would take place.

Right. So what you are saying is that once we suspend the laws of physics, anything is possible.

You think it is a genuine question , right? Zazzy, there are no peer-reviewed creation journals.

You’re either ignorant of the facts or downright dishonest. I sincerely hope it is the former.

Journal of Creation
Answers Research Journal
Creation Research Society Quarterly

These are all peer-reviewed creation journals; you can admit you were wrong.

Not one of which peer reviews independantly of its publication. They aren't accredited scientific journals, either. Moreover, the reason you people publish there is not because real journals won't publish your work. They would if it contained scientifically valid work. It doesn't. And you people don't want to make the effort to ensure that your work is valid (because if it did, you would lose your argument), so you have started these rags and then declare yourself scientifically literate. It is pseudoscience at best. In reality, it is religion pretending to be something it is most assuredly not.

It's a red herring. Creationism is not a science. It is a religious belief. Don't believe me? Ask the Supreme Court.

The same Supreme Court that declared that tomatoes are vegetables rather than fruit (Nix v. Hedden) and far more erroneously and disgracefully that declared that Blacks are not human beings with existential rights (Dred Scott v. Sandford)? We do not allow people with law degrees to determine what is and is not science for us

No, not the same Supreme Court. Those folks have been dead for a long time. The one that declared creationism a religion did so on constitutional grounds, and was a conservative court to boot.

I would think that what he has already provided is a good example of how disingenuous he is - citing mostly outdated research papers from mostly dead or retired researchers that have nothing to do with creationism as his example of creationism research. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out his game plan.

I knew you were going to move the goalposts on that one, it’s part of your Modus operandi. I gave you exactly what you asked for, if you want to behave irrationally about it now then be my guest.

I have done no such thing. You are the one trying to pass off someone's work as being in support of creationism when it does no such thing. That makes it fair game, even for ridicule.

He is going to have to explain what he means by "now" because I've had that very argument with them in the past two years

I have argued with evolutionists in the past two years who believed that Humans evolved from monkeys

Then you haven't argued with evolutionists, because no evolutionary scientist has ever made that claim.

and who argued that we use radiocarbon dating to date rocks.

Then you not only haven't argued with any evolutionary scientist because we all know that radiocarbon dating is not used to date ROCKS, but you don't even know what it does date, showing yet again how ignorant you are on the subject.

I have never argued for C-decay, but nice try.

No, you just willfully ignore what the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum implies.