Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

That is a great question. All I know is that if you using a particular method to date a rock you will get an age for that rock. If you use the age of that rock to date something else the process breaks down. Especially if the first date was incorrect based on faulty dating.

In your prior post you made what sounded like a pretty specific claim – about other scientific dating methods in addition to the ones used by evolutionists. I responded with a simple direct question, asking what those other methods are.

Instead of responding and showing that you know even a single one of the other methods, you divert the discussion to the use of secondary dating (and what you said about that was pure hooey).

I want you to either tell what the other dating methods are that you claim exist, or else you are just fabricating nonsense claims. What will it be?

 

[Jacob]

In your prior post you made what sounded like a pretty specific claim – about other scientific dating methods in addition to the ones used by evolutionists. I responded with a simple direct question, asking what those other methods are.

Instead of responding and showing that you know even a single one of the other methods, you divert the discussion to the use of secondary dating (and what you said about that was pure hooey).

I want you to either tell what the other dating methods are that you claim exist, or else you are just fabricating nonsense claims. What will it be?

Both "methods" would be found in Geology, so they are both considered to be in the realm of science. Also, it is true that just because there are two dates and therefore two ways to arrive at a given date for a given rock layer does not mean that either of those dates are correct, though it is possible that one of them is.

 

[DavisBJ]

Both "methods" would be found in Geology, so they are both considered to be in the realm of science. Also, it is true that just because there are two dates and therefore two ways to arrive at a given date for a given rock layer does not mean that either of those dates are correct, though it is possible that one of them is.

Listen very carefully. WHAT ARE THE METHODS?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I Love This YEC!!!!! : D

The Moon? Vid Time; 0:55

=M=


==================================

The Moon; Proof of Order

 

[Jacob]

Listen very carefully. WHAT ARE THE METHODS?

I'm talking about the existence of at least two different ways, meaning more than one way or method or conclusion (which is how different people would arrive at different dates for a given layer of rock). I am not a Geologist and I don't remember what the differences are. But I do know that differential equations can be used when items are measured to determine their age, although I am not sure if that would be rock or not as well as other items. And then the question of if that age makes sense comes up... and sometimes people need more time for particular items (maybe a fossil or a layer of rock from soil sediment) because they are thinking more (greater age) in relation to something rather than less time for that something that the thing being measured is being measured in relation to.

 

[DavisBJ]

I'm talking about the existence of at least two different ways, meaning more than one way or method or conclusion (which is how different people would arrive at different dates for a given layer of rock). I am not a Geologist and I don't remember what the differences are. But I do know that differential equations can be used when items are measured to determine their age, although I am not sure if that would be rock or not as well as other items. And then the question of if that age makes sense comes up... and sometimes people need more time for particular items (maybe a fossil or a layer of rock from soil sediment) because they are thinking more (greater age) in relation to something rather than less time for that something that the thing being measured is being measured in relation to.

OK, I get it now. I don’t mean to be disparaging (well,,,, actually I do), but in many ways you seem to be a clone of Michael Cadry. Almost universally polite, responding to almost every post, and yet all over the map as far as responding coherently to a line of discussion. I think this is the time for me to reevaluate my time priorities, and watch for opportunities to respond to valid questions from other board participants. As before, I thank you for your consistent courtesy. All the engineers I know have at least a modest appreciation of how science is conducted, and have a need to be able to express themselves coherently on a specific topic of interest. For that reason, I have serious doubts you are employed as an engineer. A tinker-toy set would absolutely befuddle you.

I wish you the best, and as promised, I will challenge you if I see you expounding on aspects of science you have no grasp on. Jaa mata.

 

[Jacob]

OK, I get it now. I don’t mean to be disparaging (well,,,, actually I do), but in many ways you seem to be a clone of Michael Cadry. Almost universally polite, responding to almost every post, and yet all over the map as far as responding coherently to a line of discussion. I think this is the time for me to reevaluate my time priorities, and watch for opportunities to respond to valid questions from other board participants. As before, I thank you for your consistent courtesy. All the engineers I know have at least a modest appreciation of how science is conducted, and have a need to be able to express themselves coherently on a specific topic of interest. For that reason, I have serious doubts you are employed as an engineer. A tinker-toy set would absolutely befuddle you.

I wish you the best, and as promised, I will challenge you if I see you expounding on aspects of science you have no grasp on. Jaa mata.

I have only graduated as recently as this year. As for science, it interests me. But I am even more interested in the Bible and communicating the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ to everyone I meet. As for Michael Cadry I am glad he is polite to you. He is to me as well.

Shalom.

 

[Markseasigh]

I agree with Untellectual, too.

=M=

: P

So, BJ, how did the Moon Attain a Synchronous Orbit, Naturally?

I mean, I think order in the Known Universe, Proves an All Powerful Designer.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Untellectual is a wonderful person. He does his best, considering his age, just like you. 6days and Untellectual wiped up the floor with you and Stu the other night. I am far from all over the map, and also far from responding incoherently with you. (See this thread, Page 341, Post 5114). Get with it BJ!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

So, BJ, how did the Moon Attain a Synchronous Orbit, Naturally?

What do you mean by synchronous orbit? Synchronous with what?

 

[Stuu]

how did the Moon Attain a Synchronous Orbit, Naturally?

Tidal friction.

Next?

Stuart

 

[DavisBJ]

Untellectual is a wonderful person. He does his best, considering his age, just like you. 6days and Untellectual wiped up the floor with you and Stu the other night. I am far from all over the map, and also far from responding incoherently with you. (See this thread, Page 341, Post 5114). Get with it BJ!!

Michael

Yeah, Michael, I guess you are right. I’ve been keeping a secret, just like you. Here it is. I actually met one of your friends recently. Really a polite, courteous, helpful fellow. I was certain he looked familiar, like I had seen him somewhere before. He introduced himself, but I’m not so hot on remembering names. As best I can recall, he was called Caper, or Kusper, or Crisper, or maybe even Cooper.

You know, now that I think back on it, I know where I saw him. He was in a number of movies when I was a kid. Yeah, that’s it, I just hadn’t seen any of his movies for a long time. But tell you what, if he hadn’t been so friendly I would have been a bit taken back. Because he came in right through the wall. Didn’t even pretend to use the door. It seemed weird at the time, but his feet (as best as I could tell beneath the white sheet he had on) never once touched the floor. Good thing, cause I just had the floors polished. He spoke highly of you, said you have done just splendidly on learning new cooking skills.

Anyway, I gotta go now. (Really wish I could remember just what he said his name was. “Cusper, the friendly <something>“ sounds the closest to me. Oh well, maybe he will swing by again sometime.)

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear BJ,

Just got in from the store! Read your post. Grow up!

Michael

 

[alwight]

I mean, I think order in the Known Universe, Proves an All Powerful Designer.

The fact that the universe is almost totally hostile to life actually rather suggests the opposite.

 

[noguru]

Dear BJ,

Just got in from the store! Read your post. Grow up!

Michael

:think:

Oh the irony.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear BJ,

Just got in from the store! Read your post. Grow up!

Michael

I do actually feel sorry for you Michael. Where you have anger, I have pity.

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear BJ,

Just got in from the store! Read your post. Grow up!

Michael

Come on Michael, BJ's post was funny. Where's your sense of humour?

He spoke highly of you, said you have done just splendidly on learning new cooking skills.

Lol! :rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

Noguru explains:
This argument is not even logical. If in all other religions, man is "trying to make himself good enough for....". then man is "not good enough" in those religions as well. And then you wonder why people don't take you seriously?

He is talking about the idea that "if you do this this and this then you will be accepted by God and others".

Hmm...

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Even those Christians who don't accept what Christ says here, say you have to accept Him as Savior in order to be saved. So pretty much the same thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

What's Truly, Really Sad However, is that Evolutionists Constantly Scorn YEC's for using the Phrase, "God Did It", Even though, I rarely hear YEC's Implement that Argument.

Often they will find something that they think is the magic bullet that will kill science, but when someone explains it all to them, they usually retreat to "God did it." He did do it, of course, but they don't approve of the way He did it.

These Same Evolutionists Use the Word, "Nature", to form the same Kind of Translucent Arguments; Such as, "Nature is What caused Life to Appear From Inorganic Material".

Two major flaws there; first evolutionary theory makes no claims about how life began (Darwin just suggested that God created the first living things), and second, there's a huge body of evidence for abiogenesis, which I'd be happy to show you, if you like.

But if you're really a Christian, and believe God's word, He already told you in Genesis that life was produced by the earth.

Scientists are just figuring out some of the details.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm referring to the debates Christians and evolutionists have had about the dating of rock layers. The same rock layers (evidence), but different dates (interpretation of that evidence). Again, I don't have any link for you. It's just that years ago I saw something about this online.

Ah, and it was on the internet, so it has to be true. Maybe the literature is a safer place to get honest information.

Here's an example of the sort of "information" that sometimes turns up:

Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano
Steven A. Austin *
Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/

He dated recent eruption material from Mt. St. Helens, and was shocked to find the dating had it millions of years old.

Here's what he didn't tell his readers:

1. He located a lab whose equipment was unable to accurately date any sample less than two million years old. They warned him of that issue, but he submitted the samples anyway.

2. The Dacite he submitted from the eruption contained unmelted material that would be much, much older than the eruption and would have given a much older date, even if the analysis was capable of dating very young rock.

I notice on the ICR website, Austin now merely claims that his work shows that contamination makes dating impossible. But it's quite possible to find material without such inclusions and there are some methods, like Argon/Argon that can date very recent eruptions. It accurately dated the eruption that buried Pompeii, for example.