Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Statler, we are all very aware that creationists like to use the lazy argument that "it is only a theory". Please refrain from doing so as you know very well that scientific theories are not in the same catagory as 'Sally theorized that billy ate her soup'. The Oort cloud idea came about for several reasons:

1) No comet's path has been calculated to indicate as coming from interstellar space.

2) All comets so far seen don't all come from one point in space.

3) There is strong orbital and gravitational evidence that many comets furthest point from the Sun lies around 50,000 A.U., roughly 1 Light Year or 50,000 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

No, there is no definitive evidence (yet) that the Oort cloud exists. So what?

---

Statler wrote:

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

---

Oh brother. Oort Clouds are not even a Scientific Theory, so don't pull that on me. Since you yourself admitted that there is no observed evidence to support their existance then they can't be a working theory. I can just go all Dawkins on you here too, "Well maybe a pink unicorn or a giant teapot is spitting out these comets!" Sad thing is that Oort Clouds appear in our high school textbooks as proven fact. I hate it when Old-Earthers lie to our children. I love bringing up Oort Clouds and other magical things because Old-Earthers have to use the very forms of arguments that they bash when Creationists use. "Well just because we have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" "Well they help explain the gaps we have in Comet Theory!"

Did you really just say O.M.G.? What are you? A 13 year old girl?

It's obvious you have no idea how valid logic works or how syllogisms are constructed. The premises don't even have to be true in order for the statement to be logically valid. So I don't have to prove God exists in order to build that valid form of logical argumentation. I suggest you pick up some books on Logic, I think a great one for you would be "Logic For Dummies".

---

According to Statler:

40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, By G.B. Dalrymple (who, he claims, refutes in some detail the various claims that radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and cosmic radiation, including Dudley's "neutrino sea.")

The problem, sir, is that there is nothing in that book about the effect of neutrinos on decay rates.

What's more, Ireported in the following link on recent research that shows that there is no evidence that neutrinos affect decay rates.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-5027.html

A post which you have yet to respond to.

Huh? I said that? Please show me where I said that. I have never brought up the "Neutrino Sea" in any of my posts. I think you are being dishonest and misquoting me again. It's sad you have to stoop to that level to try and prove your point.

[orogenicman]

Oh brother. Oort Clouds are not even a Scientific Theory, so don't pull that on me. Since you yourself admitted that there is no observed evidence to support their existance then they can't be a working theory. I can just go all Dawkins on you here too, "Well maybe a pink unicorn or a giant teapot is spitting out these comets!" Sad thing is that Oort Clouds appear in our high school textbooks as proven fact. I hate it when Old-Earthers lie to our children. I love bringing up Oort Clouds and other magical things because Old-Earthers have to use the very forms of arguments that they bash when Creationists use. "Well just because we have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" "Well they help explain the gaps we have in Comet Theory!"

What I said was that there was no difinitive (i.e., unambiguous) evidence (yet). The Oort cloud is a hypothesis based on the observational criteria I set forth in items 1 through 3. Unless you have a working hypothesis that better explains those observations, all you are doing here is blowing smoke rings outta yer arse.

Huh? I said that? Please show me where I said that. I have never brought up the "Neutrino Sea" in any of my posts. I think you are being dishonest and misquoting me again. It's sad you have to stoop to that level to try and prove your point.

Note that he didn't actually address the refutation. Typical. Oh, and by the way, you can make all the, ahem, logical arguments you care to make, but at the end of the day, if you don't prove your premise (God did it), then those arguments are meaningless.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Now you are just playing games with semantics. You are right, a person can’t use personal opinion to demonstrate an argument, it’s a good thing I didn’t use personal opinion though right? I used observation. I have never observed a textbook that represents Oort clouds as only a working theory; they all pass it off as a known validated fact. Now you will probably tell me that observation is not part of Science, but that is of course wrong.

I would not presume to say that observation is not a part of Science. You seem to think you know what I am going to say Statler I’m not sure why, but alas, this is not the case.

That’s right, you observed a textbook. Then you formed an opinion about how that material had been presented and how you understood it. Obviously both your opinion and your observations are subjective with regards to this. So you are still no nearer to proving your assertion that secular science is trying to pass the Oort Cloud theory of as a validated fact and therefore your argument that secular science uses ‘Super-Natural Rescue Mechanisms’ all the time is left severely lacking.

A quick look at Wiki also produces this;

The Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the Öpik-Oort cloud IPA: [ˈøpik]) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[1] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the gravitational boundary of our Solar System.

It’s a pretty interesting read as well, take a look;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud

As Orogenicman said Statler, this hasn’t just been dreamt up on the spot and no one is claiming it as an observed and validated fact as of yet. The evidence is however, strong. I hope you can now understand my original point i.e. that the Oort Cloud is a scientifically valid, natural theory.

Yes comets do represent one unknown factor in the current old Universe model; however they represent just one among numerous unknown factors with that model. It looks to me like we need to adopt a new model.

Hence why you’re not and astronomer I guess. The presence of unknown variables does not invalidate a model by default. These are unknown features which still require investigation and quantification. They haven’t just been omitted or ignored because they don’t fit as you seem to think.

This really isn’t proper scientific reasoning either since it can be used to fit any model. I could just as easily say, “Well distant starlight and background radiation are just two unknowns in our young universe model, but just because we have unknowns does not make our model invalid.” However, Creation Scientists have far better explanations for these two things than the the ways old universe guys try and explain comets.

Hmmmm ...

So it isn’t proper scientific reasoning to establish an effective model based on the observations you have, then theorise about any unknown factors and then begin observations to validate these theories? That is what you’re saying.

You’re right; having those unknowns in your models would not invalidate it. I fail to see where you were going with that.

I’m sure in your opinion they are far greater explanations Statler. Which Journal did you say they were published in? Oh, wait . . .

Now you are committing the very fallacy you claimed I committed. You said you believe it is plausible for the existence of an Oort cloud. This is obviously just your personal opinion since there is no observed evidence for the existence of any such structure.

Have you forgotten how scientific theories work? See Orogenicmans post, the theory was devised based on the observations we had and is not accepted as fact as of yet. Also you were making absolute statements I said it was a ‘plausible theory’ . . . different things I’m afraid.

You are right, “Develop a model, and test the model”. However, you test through observation, and since we cannot observe an Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, or Dark energy these are not good components to have in your model.

Okay, So tell me Statler . . . How was the theory of gravity tested?

It was tested by observing its effects, which correlated with the theory. First off, your assertion that you can only test through direct observation is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly you say that having features we cannot observe in a model is ‘not good’ . . . any assumptions/unobservable/unknowable variable in ‘your’ model? Be honest . . .

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

As Orogenciman & Lethe said, before you can start to make validating arguments for your God, you first have to prove ‘it’ exists otherwise your just making a circular argument. To use a simplified syllogism like that is foolish Statler.

All you’re doing is trying to bolster a faulty argument (Prime Mover or Original Cause) with theological babble about the attributes of God.

Sounds like a good book actually. Well you’ll notice that I was not saying, “The Bible is historically accurate so therefore all of it is true.” I was arguing against the claim that the Bible is not historically accurate, which of course it is. So I agree with you on this, however I do not believe I was trying to make that argument.

Actually, what you were doing was trying to argue that the bible was an ‘eyewitness account’ of historical events based on the premise that it is used in archaeology all the time . . . by your own admission this is not the case.
BTW ... That book idea is mine I’m watching all of you! *joke*

Well several studies have been done demonstrating this problem. Unfortunately Creation guys are the only guys who actually consider doing these tests, it’s kind of sad that the secular community would use methods without first cross checking their validity. The tests are always done by Secular labs who are blind to the groups predictions so the data is legitimate. I would encourage you to pick up the peer-reviewed work done by the RATE Group that came out in 2008 I do believe. It is pretty complicated, but if you have a background in Geology it should be no problem. Let me see if I can find some other articles for you to look at.
. . .Like I said earlier too, the RATE Group has work published too from 2001-2008 that shows many more cases of these erroneous ages.

I’m still trying to make my mind up about something here ... You see I looked up some of this RATE groups work.

I read it through, noted some of my criticisms, mainly concerning poor or inaccurate methodologies, misidentification of specimens, fraudulent alterations to previous works, invalid assumptions, the fact that the sample were processed by ICR not a ‘Secular Lab’. I started to write a critique actually but it was taking a long time and I have Uni work to do. Anyways here is a complete refutation by a Secular Scientist;

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

And a Christian;

http://www.answersincreation.org/RATE_cr..._he-zr.htm

Oh, and before you say it Statler, I reviewed your sides rebuttals here;

http://creationwiki.org/Criticism_of_RAT...usion_data

I hope you’ll note the complete lack of any counter to the serious issues raised in the previous two articles. Most of it is just them saying . . . “Yes, thats right but it doesn’t really matter does it?” and then kind of shrugging it off. I actually find it intellectually offensive if I’m honest.

So, this was the ‘evidence’ for non-constant radioactive decay rates then? Colour me unimpressed. Obviously I haven’t read all their work but this paper presents a serious challenge to their credibility with regards anything else they might have to say.

We have to go back to the “nature of evidence” discussion again? You can’t support your assumptions by saying the evidence supports them when you used these very assumptions to interpret the evidence. If you look at ice cores for example you will find that only the first couple thousand years have obvious annuals, where after that the layers appear all “squished” and almost as one solid layer. Secular scientists just assume though, “Well this rate of annual accumulation has been constant so we will just keep counting using our assumed annual accumulation measurement.” Whereas the Creation Scientist says, “Well that’s exactly what we would expect because the huge amount of ice that all is devoid of annuals is a result of the ice age that post dates the global flood.” Using anti-biblical assumptions to interpret data, and then using this interpretation to argue against Scripture is assuming the proof. We see this done all the time with the fossil record, radiometric dating, and radio-carbon dating. That’s why I have said many times that this really comes down to Worldviews and not the useless platitude “well the evidence says”, evidence itself says nothing.

Well, that’s not how Ice Core analysis works. First of all, the layers are ‘squished’ as you so eloquently put it, due to the accumulation of ice above them. Furthermore, we don’t just ‘keep counting’. We use ice core analyses to see how much ice accumulated at a certain time (among other things), thus indicating the nature of the climate at that time. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.

So to say a constant accumulation rate is assumed actually makes you seem rather ill-informed. Hey, I suppose AIG haven’t recruited an ‘expert’ in this field yet though. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.
I’ll paraphrase from Tiberiuss signature (@AH: Hope you don’t mind);

All opinions and assumptions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic, observation and argument than others.
Can we seriously drop this BS, I’m sick of hearing;

“Yes, yes ... that is and has been validated by science for years but you’re assuming .................................. Which I think is false because of the bible”

From now on why don’t you state categorically the assumptions you have an issue with when you have them.
I’ll say it again, the assumptions we use have been validated (in many cases) by over a hundred years of scientific study, whereas you can’t even prove any of your base assumptions or support them in observation enough to get anyone to listen to you.

Well then you have not been reading all the literature on the subject. You should pick up literature on the subject written by Creationists and see what they consider evidence for a global flood. I think you will find it very interesting and I think it is more intellectually honest than a lot of the secular geologic material printed today. I think the fossil record is some of the best evidence for a global flood available.

You’re right. I’ve been focussing my reading on the scientifically valid journals used by Academic & Professional organisations in my field of study. Considering I played to this once I fail to see why I should if you cannot even relates some of these ideas coherently.

Well the Creation Peer Review system is fairly new (25 years or so) so yes Dr. Lisle is most likely correct, it is still working out some kinks. Though I don’t think I am giving them “blind” trust, I pointed out that I was trusting them on their track record, which to this point is very good.

Not from what I’ve seen. In fact if the group you presented are to be taken as representative I’d say it has a pretty poor track record. I have to note that no secular journal would allow some of the things that were done by Dr. Humphreys.

It was actually interesting; ICR actually did a statistical study on the book of Genesis and the usage of the Hebrew verbs to determine whether it was written as historical narrative or just figurative allegory. The study came out conclusively that it was intended as historical narrative.

And this proves?

It would seem that this kind of analysis could not distinguish between something written to imitate a historical narrative and an actual historical narrative. As for which Scholars; I’m relatively sure that both the Catholic Church & Church of England now refute that genesis is an accurate account of creation. I can’t be sure though.

I did read that article but I can’t say I agree with its author much. He strikes me more as someone who got caught on shaky logical ground so he is trying the old “Despite my bad logic you still need to address the issue! So meh!” This of course is not true. I was taught in formal debate that if someone addresses you with an logically invalid argument you are in no way obligated to respond to the argument, just point out the fallacious use of logic and you win. You will see this in formal debates all the time. In fact, it is inappropriate to not point out problems in the other side’s logic because you then give credence to their bad arguments. A person must first present a valid argument before they can present a sound argument. All sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound. So if I can demonstrate the argument is invalid, then I have also demonstrated the argument cannot be sound. This is a very effective way of debating and I am not surprised that Dr. Lisle has frustrated a few people by using it.

He wasn’t really on shaky logical ground though. Dr. Lisle was picking up on the ‘Question Begging Epithet’ which is not sufficient to discount an argument in a debate. He simply uses emotive language to emphasise his point which does not make the logic invalid.

Also, this technique is used in formal debates. It removes the argument from consideration by the judges. Obviously there are no judges here so all you achieve is dodging the question.

Lol, ah the old "Appeal to Common Sense" fallacy, nicely done. Well it's a good thing I don't have "half a brain", but rather I have a whole one. So to those of us who have whole brains it is not non-sense. Argument stands unrefuted, I win.

Please don’t start arbitrarily claiming ‘I win’ Statler ... It is pointless and puerile, in fact I suspect you are doing it just to annoy people. I would much rather you just fuck off if you’re going to start doing it.

Cheers

Sam

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s see what else did you say? Oh yeah, and I would quit referring to OGM’s posts- you are way better than he is.

You also said that the RATE groups work would never get published in a secualar journal, well that's easy enough to disprove as well.

Humphreys, D.R., Austin, S. A., Baumgardner, J.R. and Snelling, A.A., Recently measured helium diffusion rate for zircon suggests inconsistency with U-Pb age for Fenton Hill granodiorite, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84(46)

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh brother. Oort Clouds are not even a Scientific Theory, so don't pull that on me. Since you yourself admitted that there is no observed evidence to support their existance then they can't be a working theory. I can just go all Dawkins on you here too, "Well maybe a pink unicorn or a giant teapot is spitting out these comets!" Sad thing is that Oort Clouds appear in our high school textbooks as proven fact. I hate it when Old-Earthers lie to our children. I love bringing up Oort Clouds and other magical things because Old-Earthers have to use the very forms of arguments that they bash when Creationists use. "Well just because we have not seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!" "Well they help explain the gaps we have in Comet Theory!"

What I said was that there was no difinitive (i.e., unambiguous) evidence (yet). The Oort cloud is a hypothesis based on the observational criteria I set forth in items 1 through 3. Unless you have a working hypothesis that better explains those observations, all you are doing here is blowing smoke rings outta yer arse.

Huh? I said that? Please show me where I said that. I have never brought up the "Neutrino Sea" in any of my posts. I think you are being dishonest and misquoting me again. It's sad you have to stoop to that level to try and prove your point.

Note that he didn't actually address the refutation. Typical. Oh, and by the way, you can make all the, ahem, logical arguments you care to make, but at the end of the day, if you don't prove your premise (God did it), then those arguments are meaningless.

Here is a hypothesis that explains your "unknowns" way better- The universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh look! Now I don't need to make up imaginary places to generate comets! Problem solved.

I am not obligated to address an argument that you were dishonest about and one that I never even made. That would be like me making up something you said, and when you said, "wait I never said that", I would then say, "See everyone! He never addressed the issue!!". Of course I am not going to address the issue, I never said it. Grow up.

So you are pretty much saying, "Stop being so logical Statler, I don't care about logic!". I have a great idea, how about someone else on here present a logical argument and then we can procede to talk about the premises. To the point, nobody has even gotten that far.

---

. No creation journal has ever had a fraudulent article published, ......

Can you prove me wrong? I have already pointed out numerous fraud's published in your beloved journals. Maybe you should laugh at them instead.

[Anomalocaris]

. No creation journal has ever had a fraudulent article published, ......

Can you prove me wrong? I have already pointed out numerous fraud's published in your beloved journals. Maybe you should laugh at them instead.

Your journal is one giant fraud. I would have said you are a fraud just like your journal, but commiting a fraud requires intelligence.

Here is a hypothesis that explains your "unknowns" way better- The universe is only 6,000 years old. Oh look! Now I don't need to make up imaginary places to generate comets! Problem solved.

:

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

He hasn't even made an effort to provide evidence for the existence of this supposed "Fluffy", or it's DNA. Fluffy could be a hamster, or a piece of dandruff from a cat that would subsequently possess the DNA of a cat, or Fluffy could be a figment of his imagination -- and still other realms of possibility exist with this abstract concept of "Fluffy". Until we can assert Fluffy's existence, we can not assume it's attributes.

---

[Anomalocaris]

(there is more than one creation journal btw)

We can hardly expect creationists to stop at one fraud. Just look at you.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Obviously you have never been formally trained in logic. What I set up was a completely valid logical syllogism. No wonder you guys are all Atheists, you have built your beliefs on a very shaky logical foundation.

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.

Ok, you just made another assertion. Prove it's (there is more than one creation journal btw) a fraud. I suggest you either put up or shut up. Making baseless assertion may be good enough for you and your Atheistic friends (since you're not basing yoru beliefs on a rational foundation), it's not for me though

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black? Interesting.
Theists still have the burden of proof and you've made no effort whatsoever to prove any claim you've ever made but just by being a creationist you've ignored or outright disregarded and attacked just about every major scientific discipline known to man.
Seriously - the same physics that allowed you to have a working cell phone and orbital GPS system is all thanks to the same physics used to determine that the universe is billions of years old older than an earth that is also billions of years old. Evolutionary sciences is what makes modern medicine and agriculture possible and is still paving the way for future advancements that would have been impossible without an intimate understanding of the topic.

Creationism has led to nothing and all of the foundational ideas are irrelevant to modern applications. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.
The entire modern world exists because of everything you have already denied as being true because of your illogical preference for your imaginary friend that, after millendia of recorded human history, still has made absolutely no traces of ever existing or causing anything to happen to provide evidence for a hypothosis that has less standing in the scientific community than even the least substantial scientific hypothosis for the entire reason that all scientific hypothosises have its roots in empirical evidence.

[Sam]

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

Losing my civil approach?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unsubstantiated assertions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Sam

[orogenicman]

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.