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

[orogenicman]

I would think that what he has already provided is a good example of how disingenuous he is - citing mostly outdated research papers from mostly dead or retired researchers that have nothing to do with creationism as his example of creationism research.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.

And he has the knack for trying to change the meaning of what he posted before when he's proved wrong. Like in this thread where I mentioned the creationist idea of the speed of light changing drastically, and he claimed that wasn't something creationists claimed. When I proved him wrong with numerous links, he claimed it's not what creationists claim now. Which if that's what he really meant, he could have mentioned that in his initial response.

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. Now, unless there was some sort of creationist symposium this year in which all the players agree that their claim was bogus, then I think it is safe to assume that he is lying.

[Doubting Thomas]

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. Now, unless there was some sort of creationist symposium this year in which all the players agree that their claim was bogus, then I think it is safe to assume that he is lying.

Well, his claim to me was that the changing speed of light is an argument which was proposed by creationists but no longer used. I guess the memo didn't get out to all creationists. True, Answers in Genesis does have the speed of light change in their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use, but they still use it along with all the other ridiculous arguments on that list.

[orogenicman]

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. Now, unless there was some sort of creationist symposium this year in which all the players agree that their claim was bogus, then I think it is safe to assume that he is lying.

Well, his claim to me was that the changing speed of light is an argument which was proposed by creationists but no longer used. I guess the memo didn't get out to all creationists. True, Answers in Genesis does have the speed of light change in their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use, but they still use it along with all the other ridiculous arguments on that list.

That's true. I've seen no cease and desist order by the creationist powers-that-be to refrain from any of these nonsensical arguments. What I've seen in the past five years is that they continue unabashed their attacks against science and those who practice it.

[downbeatplumb]

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. Now, unless there was some sort of creationist symposium this year in which all the players agree that their claim was bogus, then I think it is safe to assume that he is lying.

Well, his claim to me was that the changing speed of light is an argument which was proposed by creationists but no longer used. I guess the memo didn't get out to all creationists. True, Answers in Genesis does have the speed of light change in their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use, but they still use it along with all the other ridiculous arguments on that list.

I seem to remember he used it himself ages ago.....but then my mind is old my brain is grey and withered.

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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.

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.

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. It has huge creationistic implications and was written by a creationist. When you’re publishing in such a journal (one that is reviewed and edited by only evolutionists) you are always going to write at the end, “more research is needed in order to resolve this issue.” What are you expecting him to say? “God did it.” If you want to learn about how research like this actually ties into the creation model then you are going to have to read the articles published in creation peer-reviewed journals.

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.

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

Wait, are you suggesting his work contradicts the current creation model?

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).

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

"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.

That is because you aren't a scientist and have no experience with the method.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

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

Ignorance of evidence is not proof of absence of evidence.

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.

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?

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.

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?

My bad, I must have got a bit lost when tracing the quotes back, apologies.

No worries, it definitely happens! Put yourself in my shoes, here I have to respond to five different people who do not merely respond to what I say to them but also to what I say to other posters on here. It gets confusing rather quickly, but I am kind of used to it by now. :- )

But surely that would depend entirely on how you define the 'round trip'? If you define it from emission to detection, you run into the same problem since the 'overall' speed would have to fall under the constant and whichever convention you employ, the end result would be the same. Or am I missing something?

The round trip is only defined as from emission to detection if the beam of light changes direction. Me shooting a beam of light to you standing on the Moon is not a round trip, it would merely be the one way speed of light which is impossible to measure. Now if you reflect the light back at me then we have a round trip, and using either convention we’d measure the speed of light as being c.

Haha, I agree. As far as I am aware, the Redshift/Hubble constant can only lead us back to the so called 'Recombination Era' and before that is largely conjecture. I would have thought that the inflationary model would render the concept of a big bang singularity unnecessary, but I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the matter.

Me either, cosmology gets unbearably complex in a very short period of time.

It's not that at all. It generally takes a lot less time and effort to ask a question than it does to answer it. Answers generally take up a lot more words, too.

True statement. We are getting along far too well today; this has to stop! :- )

I just gave a brief explanation. If you can already refute the examples I gave, then my explaining them in greater detail would be a waste of time. If you have to look online to refute them, then you'll have to do the search anyway. Either way, it's an unnecessary use of time and effort for both of us.

Yes, creation scientists have answers for each of those points; so I guess we will not waste our time.

One method of verifying it involves comparison with dendrochronolgy. IIRC, bristlecone pines give an unbroken record dating back 9000 years or so.

Sure, the idea behind this makes since but did you know that many trees, including bristlecone pines can generate multiple “annual” rings per year?

It's not posturing. At worst, it's laziness. A wooden ship as large as noah's ark was supposed to be (let alone the size it would have to be in order to accommodate its cargo)simply doesn't have the structural integrity required to be seaworthy. Not to mention that the ark was sealed with pitch. And according to creationists, pitch comes from the animals that were killed in the flood. A creationist continuity error? Surely not

I believe there was research done in Korea that demonstrated that a vessel the size of the ark would have been remarkably stable. Secondly, pitch comes from living trees not from fossils.

If my objection to christianity was that lucy, the talking dodo had specifically told me that jesus was actually dancing caribou that tricked everyone into thinking he was god, then I think it would be perfectly reasonable for my objections to be dismissed in such a matter.

You have done nothing to demonstrate my objection falls into this category (whatever “lucy” means); so to me it appears you are merely avoiding my objection.

You must really hate search engines
how to trace mitochondrial DNA

Thanks! Finally something to work with. I do not see anything in this article that seems to contradict the creation timeline, did I miss it?

Though I also tried to provide details when called on it.....

Very true, if you would like me to provide more details about something I have said please ask. I’ll try my best to find something for you.

But that's the point, surely? The oceanic crust records geomagnetic reversals. If those records post-date the flood, then the oceanic crust must post-date the flood.

According to this creation model the magnetic reversals took place during the year of the flood; so I am not seeing any issue here.

You know, I really am getting the impression that you're just taking the piss. If so, I applaud you.

I have no idea what that even means. I am getting the impression that you are not an American.

For this

There are multiple lines of evidence. We have large canyons carved out by receding flood waters, sedimentary rocks laid down all over the world, 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?

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.

Yes. They weren't very good.

Quote of the year! Kudos.

I have scanned through the ones (the actual papers, which I have access to) you provided (that are biological), and two things jump out at me: 1.) none of them are published within the last 30 years

I do not believe that is correct, the one published in the geophysical union journal was published recently. I realize you narrowed it down to Biology but that was not part of your original claim.

2.) they don’t appear to be creationist. The Lambert paper does leave room by saying it’s an unanswered question. It’s not a thrilling conclusion, though. Much has been learned in 30 years about DNA and its probable predecessor, RNA, which renders the paper pretty toothless- this one I'll probably read all the way through carefully.

Well as I pointed out above I am not sure what you were really expecting. If they laid out the creationistic implications of such research there is no way they’d be published in these particular journals because they are being reviewed by evolutionists. You have to tread more lightly when someone hostile to your position has the power to reject your work. Often what you will see is a re-publishing of the same work in a creation journal where they are allowed to explain how their work relates to the current creation model.

The rest of the papers you provided are garden variety biochemistry and VERY early genetics which on first glance don’t appear to have any creationist arguments in them.

Are you saying they contradict the creation model?

Have you read them? I don’t want to sift through 30-year-old papers if you can point me to the specific arguments in them that are creationist. I have a feeling that most people claiming anything about these papers have never actually read them.

I have read a couple of them, but not all of them- they can be hard to find for free. I am not sure why you keep bringing up the age of the papers though. I’ve read Einstein’s work on special relativity (translated to English of course) even though it is over 90 years old now.

I have no idea. I don’t imagine it’s something people want on their CVs. It’s a good question, so I googled it, and got a few hits claiming that creationists have rejected critical reviews by evolutionary scientists. I don’t know if that’s true, or if so, why they were rejected.

You see though, that is why I think this argument is ultimately irrelevant. Evolutionists do not get published in creation journals and creationists do not often get published in evolution journals (unless it is dealing with something both sides agree upon).

No problem. Things often appear to be one way, and once you investigate them thoroughly, they turn out to be another way. This happens ALL THE TIME in research- you get fooled by an appearance.

That is all Mohler is saying though (who is not a scientist but a Theologian); he is saying that the Universe appears to be old but upon further investigation we can learn why that is incorrect. I do not entirely agree with his position, but I do not think it is intellectually dishonest in anyway.

Science is a contact sport. EVERYONE who challenges the status quo in science gets rough treatment, because extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence.

No! Not ECREE! We should debate that a different time though.

But I AM asserting this. I don’t know Dawkins, but I’m pretty sure he thinks evidence is necessary to support a claim. If he doesn't think so, then he's a tool. His whole book DOES provides the evidence for his claim. Have you read the book (It’s a little outdated now, but still good), or are you just quoting from the cover?

Quoting from the cover of course. I have read the God Delusion and the Greatest Show on Earth though.

To clarify your position, are you YEC? Or are you more in the Behe camp (now THAT guy is a published creationist)? Where does natural selection end? Why would it end? Some explication of your view on genetics would help me know where we both are.

Well sure, if you’re going to allow for Old Earth creationists then those guys have been published numerous times even in the secular journals (I am not sure why that is though, apparently you can believe a virgin gave birth but you’re not allowed to question the age of the Earth). As for me, I am a young Earth guy because I adhere to the authority of scripture. As a limiting mechanism you do not believe natural selection has limitations? I believe there were crated kinds of animals that underwent rapid speciation after the flood to give us the great diversity we see today. This seems to be consistent with the evidence.

The quality of the work in the journals is judged by the community. There is snobbery involved- everyone wants to publish in Science or Nature, even though many other journals publish work that is just as good (Is Harvard REALLY better than the University of X State? Probably not). Through experience, I have learned which journals are both relevant to my work and consistently publish useful research.

Yes, it’s a bit of an “old-boys club” unfortunately.

Sure- this was almost entirely true until the 20th century. Darwin is my favorite example. But things have changed. I’m sure there is some good science out there now not published by peer-reviewed journals, but close to 100% of it is now, because it’s a pretty good system, and it gets exposure. Plus, not subjecting yourself to peer-review is a suspect thing, because peer-review tends to make our work better.

Yes it has its place. I actually prefer people publishing their work and then having rebuttals published to that work, it’s a far more open and fair system.

Look, both of us are going to make grammar mistakes, even though we’re both clearly literate people. Do we have to play the [sic] game every time? I hate it. And for the record, I think posters here and everywhere often use it as low-hanging fruit for insults, a boring way to spend time.

Well I actually used to never do it because I hate it as well, until someone did it to me because I misspelled Pilate’s last name. So I figured, “well shucks, if they want to play that game…” From now on though since you are a stand up guy I am granting you immunity from my [sic]-ing.

Sure, science proceeds according to the assumption that things in the natural world can be explained by natural means. This is a good axiom, because if it can’t be explained by natural means, then why the hell bother studying it, since we can’t predict and experiment on magical supernatural things?

I guess that depends on what you mean by natural. We creationists are going to define that differently than you do.

Sure there are things we can’t explain now- it would be a major bummer for all the grad students if there were no more questions to answer. I think it’s wise to proceed with the attitude that we should try to understand it as best we can. If there do turn out to be magical things, OK. That just hasn’t proven true yet.

How would you ever conclude that the supernatural exists since you have already conceded that you only allow for natural explanations, and where they do not suffice you will merely assume there is a natural explanation that we do not know about? This is exactly my point; if I saw Jesus risen from the dead three days later after I saw him clearly die I would conclude that this is a supernatural event. It seems that you would conclude that there is a natural explanation for this event that we simply do not know about yet. You see? Same evidence, yet two completely different conclusions.

If you are going to claim magic and the supernatural... then I agree that we can never get our axioms in line with each other. Perhaps that's the end of this conversation?

Why would it be the end of this conversation? I am enjoying it; aren’t you?

Of course I said it in response. Why is that disingenuous? I said I'd retract it if you showed otherwise, and I did. It does appear that a handful of creationists published experimental work 30 years ago in the scientific publication system- and only one of those papers really has anything remotely to do with creationism. So I retract my earlier comment, and say this instead: creationists aren’t doing any CURRENT primary experimental work that DIRECTLY SUPPORTS CREATIONISM. If you can refute it, then I’ll retract this claim as well.

I already have refuted that, the work published on C14 retention directly supports a young age for the Earth and was published in the last few years. You simply ignored it because it was not biological. I am trying to find an article published by Carter on mitochondrial DNA that was published recently, if I can find the reference I will give it to you.

Sure. If all you have to say is that it looks designed and it must have been magical, that’s a science stopper.

Wait, are you conceding that no matter how good the actual work is- if it points to creation it deserves to get rejected for publication? That’s quite the concession. Would you allow a paper that concluded that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians to be published in your hypothetical journal?

If a useful scientific tool in service of creationism was discovered, scientists would be on that like white on rice. All they care about in the end is results. Good science eventually wins the day, as McClintock and many like her have shown.

It seems that you have too much faith in the system. I am far more skeptical.

Yes, the implications are huge. There would also be huge implications if it turned out that witches really can cause disease by cursing people, or many other things that people around the world think and claim.

You seem to be conflating operational sciences with the science of origins. I see no reason as to why creation cannot be a valid conclusion in our theories of origins.

Evidence is what matters in assessing these claims. I still haven’t seen any to support a creationist position- and yes, I’m following your other conversations.

Of course you have not seen anything supporting creation- you have already admitted that you rule out such an explanation even before you observe the evidence. You cannot say that you will not allow the evidence to point to creation and then pretend that you are proving anything by saying the evidence does not point to creation. That’s called begging the question.

What gets filtered out of the system is bad science- and it happens to plenty of evolutionary scientists, too.

No, bad science and science that has implications the reviewers do not agree with get filtered out.

And the "ducks in a row" aren't creationist ducks, as far as I can tell. If you read the papers and point me to the creationist arguments in them, then we'll talk about those.

You do not find it a bit odd that when a creationist does an experiment that has implications you agree with it gets published but when the exact same creationist submits an experiment that has implications you disagree with it gets rejected? The science is not changing in those two examples, only the implications of the science. That’s not what peer-review is for; it is not supposed to filter out where the science leads us.

Well, let’s see a few from that, then. If they’re biological (especially genetics) I can assess whether or not they’re any good. If that’s what you’ve got, bring it on. I want to see your evidence, although if you fully accept natural selection and common descent, then I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing on.

I never said I accepted common descent. Let me see what I can find online for free.

The Journal of Creation is my favorite but I could not find many of their articles for free online. Here are a few of the articles relating to Biology I could find available online for free via the Answers Research Journal. I have not personally read all of them but they looked interesting enough.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...bian-kinds

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...chromosome

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...me-fusion

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...eudogenes

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ark-kinds

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ation-dna

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...1/blastin

I will look at it if you provide it, and I’ll read it as I read every paper- critically. I am curious, but I'm not going to waste my time sifting through creationist papers. You're a creationist who reads the literature- show me the best ones recently. Or don't. It's up to you.

Sure I read through as much as I can, but I do not always have the time unfortunately. The articles I gave to you should give you a good idea of some of the work creationists are doing right now. I really enjoyed the articles concerning Biblical kinds, I find that very interesting.

Yeah, OK. If you think a few old, garden variety papers that aren’t creationist in nature support that claim, then technically you’re right. I yield the point.
I'm tired of the "quote for quote" thing now, so (if I miss an important point, let me know):

I am sure you did miss something, but I have more responses to respond to after yours so I need to keep moving. :- P

I understand your frustration with the “peer-review” conversation. It’s frustrating. It’s difficult to get published in a good journal. Creationists are not the only people in this boat. Since I have no idea what your research actually looks like, I don’t know if it’s quality work or not, but if it proposes or explains no mechanisms and comes to a magical conclusion, then it DOESN’T belong in a scientific journal.

Well not all research needs to propose a mechanism. You will not find any, “Poof! Then a miracle happened”-in their research if that is what you mean. However, their research is conducted within the working framework of a Biblical timescale and history because they adhere to that axiomatically.

Somewhat surprisingly, I am also enjoying the conversation now that our hackles are lowering. Show me a few, good, RECENT papers (preferably in genetics) from your journals if you care to. My expertise is primarily in genetics of bacteria and viruses (hence papers on those would be nice), although I can certainly read papers about other organisms. I want recent work because in almost ALL old work in genetics, the unanswered questions get answered later, rendering the paper pointless. And I’m only interested in primary bench research using currently accepted techniques, NOT in reviews of other scientists’ work. AND I’d like to see these papers directly support creationist analyses, unlike the papers you provided earlier. Surely you can find work in your journals that meets these criteria.

I believe what I gave you fits the bill, although it is not all genetics. Keep in mind that gene sequencing is expensive, so they will ‘piggy-back’ off of sequences already done by labs and published in secular journals. I see no issue with that myself- if someone else has already paid the money for the data by all means use it.

Statler Waldorf burbled as he wrote: "You have that backwards; the plate tectonic action caused the flood by pushing oceanic waters onto the continents and then caused the flood to recede due to continental upheaval back to the oceans towards the end of the flood year."

Utter nonsense. You'd have to be 5 cans short of a six pack to believe that.

If you seriously think that this constitutes as a rebuttal or refutation then you are even more of an intellectual hack than I originally suspected.

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.

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.

Oh no, he is genuinely this stupid.

Do you always perform so poorly when debating “stupid” people or is it something that only happens when you debate me? If I faired that poorly against another poster every single time I debated them I certainly would not be calling them stupid because that would make me look even worse. I guess you and I are just different Zen.

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.

Like in this thread where I mentioned the creationist idea of the speed of light changing drastically, and he claimed that wasn't something creationists claimed.

[emphasis added by SW]

I find it rather ironic that you would engage in such intellectual dishonesty while complaining about me allegedly doing the very same thing. This is what I actually said…

“They do not claim this either.” – Post#71

In English, that is what we called present tense, and present tense deals with….the present. Arguing that creationists have claimed that in the past is utterly irrelevant in regards to what I said.

When I proved him wrong with numerous links,

More intellectual dishonesty. You provided links from…

1. CMI- which argues against C-Decay, ironically in the same article you quoted from.
2. RationalWiki- which is not a creationist organization.
3. AIG- which also argues against C-Decay in favor of ASC.
4. Some anonymous internet user who says his dead dad used to believe in C-decay.

he claimed it's not what creationists claim now.

Hence why I used what we call present tense.

Which if that's what he really meant, he could have mentioned that in his initial response.

I did; perhaps my actual mistake was assuming that you knew the basics of English grammar. I vow never to make that mistake again.

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 and who argued that we use radiocarbon dating to date rocks. Despite this, it would be disingenuous of me to assert that evolutionists claim these things because I know they are not actually part of the evolutionary and geologic deep time models; I would much rather argue against what my opponents believe than a straw-man representation of what they believe. It is equally disingenuous to assert that creationists claim the speed of light has slowed down since none of the major creation organizations argue for this anymore. You can always find people on the internet who are behind on their research and who will claim things that are no longer accepted; this is not reflective of what the actual current understanding on a subject is. If your position is really so compelling then you should not have to resort to such irrationality. I was willing to give Doubting Thomas a pass because I just figured he was ignorant of the current creationist position on the matter; apparently rather than desiring for an accurate understanding of what his opponents believe he would rather attack a straw-man representation based on something they used to believe- unfortunately you seem to be no different.

Well, his claim to me was that the changing speed of light is an argument which was proposed by creationists but no longer used. I guess the memo didn't get out to all creationists. True, Answers in Genesis does have the speed of light change in their list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use [emphasis added by SW]

Check mate.

but they still use it along with all the other ridiculous arguments on that list.

Where? I will write them an email pointing this out to them if you can actually backup this assertion.

That's true. I've seen no cease and desist order by the creationist powers-that-be to refrain from any of these nonsensical arguments.

Wait, so they put it in their section entitled, “Arguments creationists should NOT use”- and you see no cease and desist effort by the creationist powers-that-be? Seems to me that you may have a bit of a visual impairment.

-SW

---

I seem to remember he used it himself ages ago.....but then my mind is old my brain is grey and withered.

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

[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.

[Minimalist]

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.

Uh-oh, Oro. You know? I bet the fucking devil removed it to make Waldork look bad.... not that it takes a devil to manage that!

[orogenicman]

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.

Uh-oh, Oro. You know? I bet the fucking devil removed it to make Waldork look bad.... not that it takes a devil to manage that!

Indeed!

[Minimalist]

The plot thickens.

I got curious so I put the exact name of the paper in quotes into Google and it came up in

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.V32C1045B

which is the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System.

However, I couldn't help but notice that the rest of the postings were for one creationist asshole site after another so I checked SAO/NASA further and found......(not to my surprise!)

The Astrophysics Data System (usually referred to as ADS), developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is an online database of over eight million astronomy and physics papers from both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources.

So this is nothing but more creatard hogwash which, I learned with a smile, waldork has previously tried to slip into the discussions on this very board - that came up in my search, too - with little success.

[Foxaèr]

---

A bunch of crap

---