News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/global_processes.html

It's a list of dating methods that assume uniformitarianism, but the mainstream media never mentions them. They aren't published in textbooks as "proven facts". No evopusher in the world wants you thinking about them.

Over sixty methods are listed, and you won't have to ask why they receive no attention.

Note that the references to almost all of these claims in the column are to works by creationists. I can see quite a few errors just at a glance. It's also pretty cryptic, what some of these are supposed to mean. For example, "Formation of river deltas -- 5,000" -- what is that saying, exactly, and to what process is it supposedly referring? Do you know?

Maybe you would like to pick one of these claims for a more detailed discussion. It would make a welcome change from creationists here avoiding saying much in their own words and just posting stuff written by creationist leaders over and over.

Thank you!

Since the "Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capture" indicates an age of the Earth that is "too small to measure" then the "true" religion is Last Thursdayism.

When do you plan on converting?

Well, since the only method of posting that seems to be understood here is the quick-paste, otherwise known as the regurgipost, I'll add one of my own. I'm quite happy to talk about some of these individual claims myself, there are some truly funny ones. In the discussion below, the list seems to have changed slightly but contains many of the original points. Perhaps this list does the rounds and evolves itself like a game of Chinese whispers. I like the "Pre-cambrian wood" in this one; and common to both is the belief that no new land forms to replace that which is eroded (we can see what CTD has been reading lately).

from http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/731.htm

> (Unless otherwise indicated, based on standard assumptions of (1) zero
> initial "daughter" component; (2) closed system; (3) uniform rate.)

Generally, these "standard" assumptions are not standard at all, and
are violated in most of your processes.

> PROCESS AGE OF THE EARTH (years)
> Decay of earth's magnetic field 10,000

There is no decay of the magnetic field. This is a fascinating
topic to study for those who enjoy exposing some of the idiocy
published as "creation science".

> Influx of radiocarbon to the earth system 10,000

This is false. Radio carbon dating can goes back to 50 and even 100
thousand years. At these ranges it is not particularly accurate;
but that is not the question. More to the point, this has nothing
to do with age of the Earth. It has to do with the age of certain
carbon samples.

> Influx of meteoritic dust from space too small to calculate

I have no idea what you mean by this; but meteoric dust is another
fertile source of published howlers.

> Influx of juvenile water to oceans 340,000,000
> Influx of magma from mantle to form crust 500,000,000
> Growth of oldest living part of biosphere 5,000

This is out of date. New Scientist "Huge Organisms", p54 May 30,
1992, cites as aspen over 10,000 years old. I think this record has
been broken again since. What is the current record? These examples
stretch our notion of "organism", and may refer to a plant which
continually sends out new shoots.

> Origin of human civilisations 5,000
> Efflux of Helium-4 into the atmosphere 1,750-175,000
> Development of total human population 4,000

This is one of my favourites. I am sure Rod is posting much of this
tongue in cheek, but incredibly this has actually been used,
assuming a constant exponential growth rate. It ignores the
massive swings in population that occur periodically, and it
presumes a world population at the time of the Hebrew exodus which
is significantly smaller than recorded in the bible.

> Influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers 30,000,000
> Erosion of sediment from continents 14,000,000
> Leaching of sodium from continents 32,000,000
> Leaching of chloride from continents 1,000,000
> Leaching of calcium from continents 12,000,000
> Influx of carbonate to the ocean 100,000
> Influx of sulphate to the ocean 10,000,000
> Influx of chlorine to the ocean 164,000,000
> Influx of calcium to the ocean 1,000,000
> Influx of uranium to the ocean 1,260,000

None of the above are closed systems. I am particularly
disappointed that having included the "date" obtained by
erosion of continents that you have not also included the
"date" obtained by time taken to form continents or
other land forms. These two dates together make a nice
combination.

> Efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure 10,000-100,000
> Formation of radiogenic lead by neutron capture too small to measure
> Formation of radiogenic strontium by neutron capture too small to measure
> Decay of natural remanent paleomagnetism 100,000
> Decay of C-14 in pre-Cambriam wood 4,000

pre-Cambrian wood? Boggle. There was no such thing, and the
Cambrian was about 550,000,000 years ago. A bit out of range
for radio carbon dating! In any case, radio carbon applied to
wood has been dated much much older than 4,000 years.

> Decay of uranium with initial "radiogenic" lead too small to measure
> Decay of potassium with entrapped argon too small to measure

I have no idea what you mean by this. Potassium argon dating
is used to obtain dates in the thousands of millions of years.

> Formation of river deltas 5,000
> Submarine oil seepage into oceans 50,000,000
> Decay of natural plutonium 80,000,000
> Decay of lines of galaxies 10,000,000
> Expanding interstellar gas 60,000,000
> Decay of short-period comets 10,000
> Decay of long period comets 1,000,000
> Influx of small particles to the sun 83,000
> Maximum life of meteor showers 5,000,000
> Accumulation of dust on the moon 200,000
> Instability of rings of Saturn 1,000,000
> Escape of methane from Titan 20,000,000
> Deceleration of the earth by tidal friction 500,000,000
> Cooling of the earth by heat efflux 24,000,000

This is a matter of historical interest. It was the last
reasonable scientific objection to an old Earth, made by
Lord Kelvin. It was a real problem, since all other
available evidence consistently indicated an old Earth.
The solution was radioactivity: a process which generates
sufficient heat within the Earth to match radiative cooling.

But why is all of this in aus.religion.christian?

Remainder snipped.

Cheers -- Chris

In addition, here is another refutation of this list with more detailed science, and the author has checked some of the references; here we can get some insight into where these numbers came from.

This little thread is turning out to be very instructive, though perhaps not in the way intended.

So it's wrong just because someone says so? Fine. I say your evodates are wrong. Done.

http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/global_processes.html

This is some very revealing information.
I think some creationists should take a close look at it.

Creationists aren't born Creationists.

They study, review, research, and then they make an educated, intellectual decision to become Creationists.

Evolutionists are propagandized with false information shoved down their throats throughout all of their years of school. They don't study. They don't review. They don't research.

Instead, they simply believe.

Creationists have to overcome years of conditioning and false evidence before they can reach their conclusions.

Anyone interested in seeing how hard it is to propagandize properly, watch this video and see how many inconsistencies exist in the evolution literature itself. It doesn't matter though, they just keep on pumping it out.

http://urlbam.com/ha/K


Now, I'm an OEC (Old Earth Creationist) so I don't interpret all of the evidence that seems to support young-Earth as evidence of a young Earth, rather, I think it is evidence of a re-creation:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

I also believe that some evidence for an old Earth is properly interpreted as "old", although the dates are probably skewed to fit in with their desired model (to make it fit together in a publically-consumable package.

Nevertheless, I don't have any respect for statements like this:

"According to well-established antidisuniformitarianism presumptions, precambrian wood could not possibly have evolved, so don't even think about it. Vast forests of precambrian trees once spanned the entire supercontinents of Pangaea 1-b (modern Quebec) and Gondwanaland Junior (modern Tasmania), thereby providing shelter and life-giving closet space for the thriving anaerobic bacteria of those long gone days.

The entire fragile Proterozoic ecosystem was later wiped out when Earth passed through a temporal anomaly, causing all of the once-living precambrian trees to instantly transform into many billions of fossilized candlepins."

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Precambrian_wood


The reason I don't respect it is because it is just a bunch of statements.

This guy is just saying, well, this happened this way and this worked that way, and that's that.

I am pointing out here, with all sincerity, that so much "evidence" that you link to, and that I've read over the years that is supposed to "support" evolution actually does a discredit because it is the same as this stuff above:

Just a bunch of statements (JBS).


This is true of so many of the links you've made to the talk origins website. They are notorious for making statements about how thing "were" and how they "happened", with nothing credible to back them up. And when they are referenced, the referenced material is as goofy as the material referencing it.


These are my observations. So in part, we're in agreement to a degree with some of the real evidence, but information that seems to support old-Earth is being over-interpreted to support evolution, when the two are completely different subjects.

It's good to see you using some critical faculties here Russ. Maybe you can apply them to the next Hovind video you watch.

Now both of the sources I cited here have explained quite well what some of the problems are with the OP. For example, why don't Morris & co. realise that as rocks get eroded, other rocks are being created? This is basic geology. And it's interesting that instead of, say, reading about the reasons why the earth's magnetic field is not decaying, both Russ and CTD claim in so many words that it's simply all lies. I'll have a guess: neither of you bothered to actually read the Talk Origins article because . . . it's all lies. So are you going to take the OP here at face value simply because it says what you want, even though you don't know the methodology behind it? Is "Morris says so, therefore it must be true" what you honestly believe?

For my part, there's not much left for me to discuss here. I noticed silly statements like the methane on Titan (a moon of Saturn) "proving" that the universe is young.

Titan


There is also methane on Mars (though not as much), which has led to similar speculations as above.

Now what do you think is the more scientific approach?

a) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago, so there is a source replenishing it, which could lead to interesting discoveries.
b) The methane on these bodies should have disappeared long ago. Therefore the universe and the earth are young, therefore evolution didn't happen and the Bible is literally true.

Russ, your comments are interesting but it would be helpful if you could clarify. I think you went a little way towards doing this in another thread. From what I understand, you believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years though not billions of years. I wonder why you let all these videos "do the talking" for you when you don't actually agree with everything they're saying, since Hovind and the others are most certainly YECs. You do believe the standard YEC position that life on earth is only 6,000 years old and that there was a global flood. Is this correct? If so I have some questions to ask you on other threads, though I need to make sure I understand your position first.

These "explanations" are available for all to observe.

"> Decay of earth's magnetic field 10,000

There is no decay of the magnetic field."
On his say-so alone, we're to conclude this is all make-believe and throw out the empirical evidence, I guess. I hope some observers will be objective enough to understand why I don't jump right aboard the anything-but-the-truthists' bandwagon.

Who says they don't realize? Talkdeceptions? So what? Talkdeceptions doesn't realize that most people who can navigate the internet and read have brains in their heads. They assume just the opposite, and in keeping with their customs, they run with the assumption and never question it.

Its nothing more than some anonymous blogger's assertion. I have asserted that evodates are bogus. What makes this dopey assertion better than mine? It leads away from the truth, that's what.

The methodology is quite simple: assume uniformitarianism is true, and start taking measurements. Anyone can do it.

Neither of us have said anything of the sort. You, on the other hand, have presented "evidence" consisting of a simple assertion made by some God-hating blogger, and went on about how impressive it is, and how we should accept it. Do you even know this clown, or is any silly assertion which is contrary to evidence and sound reason just to be accepted because you like it?

There's certainly not much chance you'll make progress. Only those who already oppose truth as a matter of policy have any chance to be "convinced" by the junk you submit.

Do you think Titan is significantly younger than the Earth?

When observations run contrary to desire, people tend to speculate. I'm surprised to see you categorize speculation as speculation. Don't feel bad. We all make mistakes.

Should we base conclusions on observations or wishes? Since you advocate blind faith in wishing, I take your use of 'scientific' to be in keeping with the tradition of employing 'science' as an euphemism for atheism. Real science bases conclusions upon what is observed.

You also play the old "don't investigate" strawman card. Show me a real creation scientist who is opposed to investigation, if you can. I'd love to see Titan investigated just so we can hear even more entertaining fantasies. Evolutionism fails more and more miserably with every new fact that's discovered. The religion has a history of leveraging ignorance. "Junk DNA", "vestigial organs", and so many more things we'd need a new thread to properly catalog and discuss them.

And for those who don't already know, a thorough job of debunking talkdeceptions has already been done. I'm not into wasting time, and I'm not into pretending jobs haven't been done when they have.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25268#Post25268

Also see

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=35939#Post35939

The uniformitarian assumption set fails. Everybody knows it. Things change. That's kinda how we know time passes in the first place. If there were no sequential events, one could argue there was no such thing as time. There are, therefore there is, and there's no way around it.

Well CTD, more predictable angry bluster with zero evidence to back it up.



Unfortunately for you, anyone who actually looks at the link will see that there's a detailed discussion of this, citing evidence from peer-reviewed journals. I personally don't know a lot about this subject but I found the article to be pretty accessible to a layperson.

The major strike against Barnes (whose claims are the source of the "decay of the earth's magnetic field" claim in your OP) is that he denies that the polarity of the earth's magnetic field has ever reversed. This is clearly contradicted by the physical evidence in igneous rocks, which exists in such a preponderance that paleomagnetism has been used for decades as a reliable and consistent dating method.

He apparently also does not understand the nondipole component of the earth's magnetic field and so omitted this from his calculations.

Ignorance is no excuse for poor scientific methodology. You can champion this person if you want to and claim that real scientists are liars, though with the usual lack of evidence this does nothing to support your personal wishful thinking.




I simply read your OP. Did you?


This is clearly based on an assumption that while the continents are being eroded, no new crust is being created through volcanism or uplift. Claims like this are what make the post amusing, plus they show that anyone who actually believes stuff like this is lacking in some basic geological knowledge -- we're talking introductory high school level if not elementary school. As an interesting sideline, if this claim really were true, it's still saying that the earth is a lot older than what you personally believe. Still want to defend it?



Yes, that's quite clear in almost everything you post. What's also clear is that you have consistently been unable to prove this belief with any actual evidence. Denial and arguments from incredulity are not evidence.



The observation is that there is methane on Titan and Mars. Fact: the universe has been shown by a variety of means to be very old (just one of which is radiometric dating of rocks from earth, the moon and meteorites). Fact: methane in these planets' atmospheres would have disappeared long ago unless there was a source replenishing it. Fact: scientists know of geological processes that can add methane to the atmosphere. Fact: we also know that life can produce methane. Conclusion: the source replenishing the methane on Titan and Mars is geological in origin or could possibly be produced by life, e.g. microbes living underneath the surface. Either possibility is interesting and further investigation is warranted. The Wikipedia article said as much.

As an interesting sideline, if this claim of Titan only being as old as the methane currently on it really were true, it's still saying that Titan is a lot older than what you personally believe. Still want to defend it?

Your defense of methane on Titan "proving" a young universe is as nonsensical as your demand for proof that the Himalayas are rising. What you really need to do is just learn some basic geology, or stop criticising things you don't understand.

For the 12th time, yes, I believe the Earth is much older than 6000 years old.

I present these videos to show that there is evidence of a "young" Earth, but that I believe this is really evidence of a renewed Earth, as I've stated numerous times previously.


Honestly Linda, I have read some of the articles on talk origins, and they are horrible.

Just like the article that I rebutted:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A

They simply make assertions and then "name" archeological discoveries as being evidence for their position.

This is not science. It is soviet-style indoctrination.

I am continually astounded by the irony that people claiming to be intellectual accept this dribble as science.

But then, I know the Bible is correct when it says that the god of this world has blinded the people of this world. But of course, the people are blinded willingly.

You are very judgmental of the Bible, which is ironic for one who has read it -- or perhaps some of it -- one time.

You also have a lot to say about evolution, but when I read your follow-ups, you are simply parroting from other websites and throwing in a few big words to sound "impressive".

This is not science, and the search for truth is a very serious business, as the judgement of your life will be based on the things you do in this life.

Just remember this when that state worker wants to put that tattoo on your right hand.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here Russ, if anything; what you have neglected to mention is that I've been presenting evidence to back up what I've been saying in all the threads here while you ignore it and then make comments like the above. One question I'd like to ask you, though, is what you mean by the earth being renewed: what happened and when, according to you?

My position on creation...
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0020

Also, you have not presented evidence.

You post parrot claims from websites, etc. that don't really explain anything. They simply say, well, it could have happened this way, or that way, and then they ignore that fact that their claims only have the potential to cover a small part of what we see in the field.

I hope people are reading your links and your claims because their simply isn't anything there except a lot of words.

Nothing.

Show me something that can rightfully be labeled evidence, please.

In evospeak, assertions and conclusions are called 'evidence'. I don't know if they have a word for the evidence itself. If anyone knows, by chance, I'd be curious to find out.

I've read this before. You haven't explained your reasons for believing this, nor have you explained what you mean by "restructuring" on the earth. You have picked up on coincidences like the moon eclipsing the sun and said something about this being significant or necessary for life though you haven't explained why. You have also not explained why some rocks on the earth have been dated almost as old as rocks on the moon.



You've repeated this elsewhere recently. It's simple denial. You can't explain how any of the dating methods scientists use are wrong. You claim that the fossil record and the geologic column are out of order somewhere but you can't say where. And anything that proves you wrong, such as scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals, is now "claims" that people "parrot." If you're going to isolate yourself so far from reality then I don't think there's any kind of meaningful conversation we can have.

The links that you provide display well-constructed propaganda pieces that don't provide evidence.

What they do is express opinions.

If you wish to provide evidence, pick something and we'll continued.

So the facts that the polarity of the earth's magnetic field periodically reverses, the earth's crust is being replaced as it erodes, and that geological and life processes can add methane to an atmosphere are all "propaganda." Funny man.

I've been providing detailed evidence in the Flood and Geologic Column threads. If you were really interested in dealing with the evidence rather than avoiding it, you would go to those threads and attempt a meaningful conversation. Instead you simply want to deny everything, it appears.

I notice you also have not answered any of my questions about Creation According to Russ. Maybe you could go to that relevant thread and do so.

What questions?

By the way, what are you doing home all day.

You work for some government-funded program, right?

Try post 52505.

Nice try, putting me in the category of the overlords in your conspiracy theories. That obviously proves that the earth's magnetic field is decaying.

I just love having you around. You really make me laugh, you know.

The truth is, you are supporting the crusaders (even though you hate the crusades). Evolution is a social control being used to facilitate (sell to the public) socialistic mechanisms that enable the centralization of powers.

The fabricators of this system promote evolution because when people become convinced that evolution is real, they are then open to accepting socialistic mechanisms that facilitate tyranny. Of course, the public has been dumbed-down and is not intellectually capable of making this connection.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad by saying this. I just want to inform you about the extreme fallacy of your position so you can make informed decisions.

If I were you I would listen to this all important connection that William Cooper makes between the writing of the Masonic and related societies and "Mystery Babylon". If you study your Bible, you will realize that Bible prophecy speaks specifically about the time we are living in.

This is very important stuff, so don't neglect this information. Be sure to watch the entire series of 6 videos. They unmistakeably tie these "Mystery Religions" to Biblical prophecy, so it is important indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDJqaacgKzc
(Skip past the first 3 minutes of music.)

CMI has a very good article.
101 Evidences for a Young age of the Earth and the Universe

The explanations at the start are concise, accurate, and easily understood. This is suitable for all interest levels, and the list includes some remarkable items. The "Lazarus bacteria" was news to me. Wow!

I approve.