Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Zero responses? Sorry Steven "Mr Wall of Text" Gaal, but did you look at the link I provided? That refuted every one of the "101 reasons" you posted. If you have an issue with the refutation, please address them one by one, providing reasons why they are not valid responses.... not in a wall of text PLEASE! I'll respond to each reply as I get the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Actually, I'll put on my Moderator hat here. You can respond to refutation one at a time. You can choose the first in your list of 101 reasons, or choose what you think are best in order of importance. In any case, to avoid a huge overwhelming wave of issues, let's deal with each one by one. You can post a refutation on one of the "101" one at a time and not more than one at any time until the issue is closed. The issue is closed when either myself or Steven decided that the discussion regarding the issue is closed; the other party does not have to agree with the decision. That will prevent either one of us "spamming" the subject with more than one post, and whenever one or the other closes the issue it will be to the reader to decide who has won the particular issue. Overall, they can decide whose arguments are more correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Actually, I'll put on my Moderator hat here. You can respond to refutation one at a time. You can choose the first in your list of 101 reasons, or choose what you think are best in order of importance. In any case, to avoid a huge overwhelming wave of issues, let's deal with each one by one. You can post a refutation on one of the "101" one at a time and not more than one at any time until the issue is closed. The issue is closed when either myself or Steven decided that the discussion regarding the issue is closed; the other party does not have to agree with the decision. That will prevent either one of us "spamming" the subject with more than one post, and whenever one or the other closes the issue it will be to the reader to decide who has won the particular issue. Overall, they can decide whose arguments are more correct. Well you dont want to respond to posts #12,#13,#14. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ POINT #60 Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young A second noble gas testifies to the biblical 6,000 years http://creation.com/argon-from-rate-site Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 POINT #60 Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young A second noble gas testifies to the biblical 6,000 years http://creation.com/argon-from-rate-site Number 60: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#60 The authors of these articles have failed to consider the full implications of their hypothesis that radioactive decay was much faster in the past. If all past decay happened in just 4540 years instead of 4.54 billion years, the released heat would provide 50 times more power per unit of Earth's surface than the Sun in zenith, and the background radiation dose at the end of the accelerated decay period would have been around 2000 Sv per year, or more than one lethal dose per day. How would anything have survived such conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) POINT #60 Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young A second noble gas testifies to the biblical 6,000 years http://creation.com/argon-from-rate-site Number 60: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#60 The authors of these articles have failed to consider the full implications of their hypothesis that radioactive decay was much faster in the past. If all past decay happened in just 4540 years instead of 4.54 billion years, the released heat would provide 50 times more power per unit of Earth's surface than the Sun in zenith, and the background radiation dose at the end of the accelerated decay period would have been around 2000 Sv per year, or more than one lethal dose per day. How would anything have survived such conditions? Yes, you have regurgitated the rational wiki info,but not counter the Argon data presented in my post # 18.. Sorry Evan. Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 POINT # 66 Please Evan dont regurgitate rational wiki. Best to counter me by submitting my new info to them and then you can regurgitate their response. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Moon recessionhttp://creationwiki.org/Moon_recession See Also Moon Moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe Response to Talk.Origins Related References Our Created Moon book by Don DeYoung Young age for the moon and earth. by Thomas G. Barnes ICR Impact #110. 1982. How Long Would It Take the Moon to Recede from Earth to Its Present Position? The Moon is Still Young response to Tim Thompson’s “The Recession of the Moon” at Talk.Origins. rebutting Tim Thompson’s “The Recession of the Moon” at Talk.Origins). by Malcolm Bowden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Sorry Steven but YOU are regurgitating their claims. If you believe the refutations are wrong then please explain why they (the refutations) are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 POINT # 10 =================== Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers?http://www.infowars.com/fact-check-did-bill-nye-tell-a-huge-lie-about-the-fossil-layers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Sorry Steven but YOU are regurgitating their claims. If you believe the refutations are wrong then please explain why they (the refutations) are wrong. explain why they (the refutations) are wrong.Burton Since the refutation assumed the assumption of the young earth people (rapid decay) they have assumed a nonetablishment viewpoint (rapid decay) then to be consistant they should (can) assume that the heat radiation would not effect life. BTW rapid decay seems to be correct (possible) by recent evidence,thus putting one one the side of young earth scientists,(EXPLAINED) NOW ALSO please let me add = THEY DONT REFUTE ARGON DECAY<DO NOT ADDRESS IT> see below POINT # 60 http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers ============================ A million-year-old volcano would eliminate argon The answer relates to the fact that not only helium, but also argon, can leak from minerals. The hotter the minerals, the faster the leaks.11 Feldspar, a common mineral in the granitic rock (Figure 3), contains a lot of potassium, about 0.01% of which is the radioactive isotope potassium-40. Today it decays very slowly into the stable isotope argon-40. Comparing the two isotopes and assuming today’s rate of decay is the basis for the familiar ‘potassium-argon’ dating method, Harrison et al. found that in the deepest, hottest part of the borehole, over 20% of the nuclear-decay-generated argon has leaked out of the feldspar crystals. They also measured how fast argon leaks from the feldspar at various depths in the borehole. Using those data, I show that even assuming that the deepest sample did not get hotter than its present temperature, it would have lost nearly all of its argon in a million years.12 That is why Harrison et al. were forced to assume the temperature was very low until relatively recently. Then, they assumed that some unknown, unspecified source of heat rapidly raised the temperature in just twenty thousand years up to today’s high temperature. Creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner told me that “given the small value for the measured heat conductivity of granite, such a temperature scenario for this site is not defensible, since it violates the simple and well-known physics of heat diffusion.” Argon data say the site is young The rock in the borehole is dry, which combined with its low heat conductivity means that its temperature cannot change rapidly. Even if we assume Harrison et al. were correct in postulating a recent (and as yet completely unobserved) intrusion of lava very close to the borehole, the temperature could not have changed by more than 50 Celsius degrees (90 Fahrenheit degrees) over the past five millennia.13 That is a relatively small change. More reasonable uniformitarian heat models14 for the site done by Los Alamos National Laboratory give much smaller changes. That allows us to assume (for simplicity of calculation) that the rock temperature has been roughly constant over those past few thousand years. The uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al. Then, using Harrison’s own data and equations, I calculate that the feldspar in the rock formation would have lost the observed amount of argon in only 5,100 years, give or take a few millennia according to my estimate of the experimental uncertainty in the data. This age is consistent with results in the Harrison et al. paper, although they wanted to regard the numbers as indicating only the duration of their assumed fast heating pulse after their alleged eons of incredible coolness. This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation. So now we have two different age measurements using two different gases from two different types of nuclear decay in two different minerals—and the two methods agree within their error bounds. In contrast, the uniformitarian scenario of long ages would leave the rocks with almost no helium and little argon, contrary to the observations of both RATE and Harrison et al. Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Pratt Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I came across a Primary School Maths textbook that used the '6000 years ago' figure as the basis for an arithmetic exercise. This was unusual, to say the least, for a schoolbook published in the UK. Where does this figure come from, and why was the author of the textbook so sure of this as a fact that he felt able to use it in this way? Was he simply reiterating Archbishop Ussher's gestimate, or is there other evidence for this startlingly exact date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) 6000 is from Biblical chronology and reinforced by Creation science. ================================== Iron-manganese nodules (IMN) on the sea floors. The measured rates of growth of these nodules indicates an age of only thousands of years. Lalomov, A.V., 2006. Mineral deposits as an example of geological rates. CRSQ 44(1):64–66. == Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years. Note that attempts to explain away carbon-14 in diamonds, coal, etc., such as by neutrons from uranium decay converting nitrogen to C-14 do not work. See: Objections. == River delta growth rate is consistent with thousands of years since the biblical Flood, not vast periods of time. The argument goes back to Mark Twain. E.g. 1. Mississippi—Creation Research Quarterly (CRSQ) 9:96–114, 1992; CRSQ 14:77; CRSQ 25:121–123. E.g. 2 Tigris–Euphrates: CRSQ 14:87, 1977. == Erosion at Niagara Falls and other such places is consistent with just a few thousand years since the biblical Flood. However, much of the Niagara Gorge likely formed very rapidly with the catastrophic drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz; see: Climate change, Niagara and catastrophe. == The lack of bioturbation (worm holes, root growth) at paraconformities (flat gaps) reinforces the lack of time involved where evolutionary geologists insert many millions of years to force the rocks to conform with the ‘given’ timescale of billions of years. == Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed. == Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers. == The ages of the world’s oldest living organisms, trees, are consistent with an age of the earth of thousands of years. ============================================== Ussher chronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. Their task was complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled from different sources over several centuries with differing versions and lengthy chronological gaps, making it impossible to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher's calendar, James Barr has identified three distinct periods that Ussher and others had to tackle:[4] Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adam through to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation. Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline. Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27). Using these methods, Ussher was able to establish an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC. He moved it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Ussher chose 4 BC as Christ's birth year[5] because Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC.[6] Jesus could not have been born after that date. related content =============================================== Chronology of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible=========================================================== This Bible Timeline dates earth's history using a 364 Day Hebrew ... www.bibletimeline.org/ ===================================================== Biblical Chronology - Stanford University www.stanford.edu/~meehan/.../bibchron.html Edited February 8, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 8, 2014 Author Share Posted February 8, 2014 Norman, I think Steven has given you your answer.... but not the one he intended to give, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Norman, I think Steven has given you your answer.... but not the one he intended to give, I believe. Mr. Burton has a Bible and its named rational wiki. In addition to numerous factual errors and failures to understand the theories which it is intended to criticize, the document suffers from faulty logic. A list of arguments broken down by fallacy is presented at the end of this page. Although the list claims to have 101 points, several are just reworded duplicates and one is even a copy of the preceding item. Almost every reference link in the original article either goes directly to creationist sources, or to popular science magazines which support creationism; as there are no reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers.(BURTON QUOTING RATIONAL WIKI) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ did they (rational wiki ) say peer reviewed ???? (above quoted by Burton) http://kgov.com/2013-soft-tissue OOPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ========== REDUX UNREFUTED POST # 14 (which BTW Mr.Burton wanted to skip) Wednesday, 23 January 2013 http://therationalwiki.blogspot.com/ Rational Wiki is biased and Abiogenesis is impossible The Rational Wiki is biased. Honestly this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone considering it's mainly irrational extremist atheists operating behind the site but the extreme bias they apply to their articles while ignoring all the facts, misquoting sources and using fallacious arguments leaves them unworthy of the title "Rational". This is the same site proposing that abiogenesis has great evidence supporting it when there only ever was one outdated (their view as well) experiment proving that self-replicating molecules can form in lab controlled environments. "Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play, though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!" Says the "Rational" Wiki. This opinion can be applied the other way around too especially since observable data for abiogenesis doesn't exist (and it's next to impossible to test). So here goes: Give those crazy scientists half a billion or so years to play, though, and they might just discover that Louis Pasteur was right all along with Biogenesis (which so far remains correct). Unlike the improbable hypothesis of abiogenesis, The Law of Biogenesis remains solid and nature all over is testament and supportive to this observable law. Sadly the atheist in their fanaticism and ludicrous ideals refuse to admit that they are wrong with their baseless arguments and speculation about their creation myth. Continually they use fallacious reasoning and argument appeals to try and support themselves as they lie and proclaim that the "scientific community" (which to them consists of only the atheist scientists who agree with them) supports them. Abiogenesis is the only alternative to The Law of Biogenesis and what with it being inimical to scientific method and unobservable (not to mention completely illogical, only the atheist could believe in such a myth which they require to be true to support their atheism) it shouldn't be accepted by anyone with a rational and sound mind. Biogenesis states that life only comes from pre-existing life. This implies deliberate creation, something that the atheist refuses to accept hence their advocation for an outdated debunked concept. Tales of the world being created in 6 days may all sound fancy and magical but so do tales of life forming from dead material in mud-pools for absolutely no reason other than to defy the laws of nature via spontaneous generation - a debunked concept. Clearly there was a god behind creation. Whether Genesis or any creation story is true is another subject and one that is quite irrelevant to me. Atheism remains absurd and ridiculous when it calls upon blind faith in abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation of life that the unobservable, unscientific and impossible abiogenesis proposes happened billions of years ago in conditions of Earth that scientists are in debate about. The Miller-Urey experiment (the experiment mentioned above) only further reinforced Biogenesis by showing that only intelligent life (humans in this instance) can ever create something relating to life. When life is eventually created in a lab, it will be due to the scientists - and the conditions they enforced along with deliberate tampering - and not due to the impossible process of abiogenesis. Posted by Gabriel +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TO REPEAT Mr. Burton has a Bible and its named rational wiki. FROM therationalwiki.blogspot and kgov.com above RATIONAL WIKI IS DISCREDITED. sadly........LOL Edited February 9, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 Can you be a christian and still believe in evolution? Why, YES: http://www.oldearth.org/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) Is it Possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist? A leading creationist answers an often-asked question.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v11/n4/christian ======================================================== Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society. ==================== ====================Moral declineFrom Conservapedia Moral decline (or degeneration) refers to the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of morality. The condition of moral decline is seen as preceding or concomitant with the decline in quality of life, as well as the decline of nations. In the words of British lawyer and jurist Judge Devlin (1905 -1992), "an established morality is as necessary as good government to the welfare of society. Societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures."[1] ............ In the ideology of secular humanism, which the most prominent Western form of secularism advances, moral values are highly subject to change, being based upon the presumed superior reasoning of man, who is set forth as the supreme lawgiver. Being basically atheistic, it operates out of a materialistic foundation, and lacking an objective, transcendent moral authority and its moral absolutes, it offers no assurance of moral stability, and is prone to extremes of moral relativism. How materialism assesses morality is described by William Provine, a professor from Cornell University, “ Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable... Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society. Thirdly, human beings are marvelously complex machines. The individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is. Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us. [8] 1960 and beyond The decade of the 1960's would begin the most dramatic moral change in America's history. While a more developed moral social consciousness helped to effect beneficial and needed changes, such as in the area of civil rights, as regards such non-moral aspects as race and color, this recognition of basic equality was used by liberal moralists to advocate liberty for immorality in word and in deed, most predominately in the area of sensuality. The 1967 "Summer of love" saw hundreds of thousands of teenagers leaving their homes in search for deeper meaning, as well as satisfaction of fleshly lusts, with "turn on, tune in, and drop out," being a favorite phrase. Vast multitudes made their pilgrimage to the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, an area home to many rock icons, and known for its liberalized ideology and culture. The civilization that resulted was a testimony to the practical result of the prolonged practice of this ideology, and when the infrastructure of tradition society, which they both rebelled against and depended upon, could no support them. While the liberal media tended to celebrate it as a positive attempt at Utopian culture, indolence, homelessness or unsanitary living, and drug use (and overdoses) abounded, along with marked increases in crime and disease. "By the fall of 1967, Haight-Ashbury was nearly abandoned, trashed, and laden with drugs and homeless people. Most of the kids that descended upon the Haight with such hope and optimism in June returned home sick and out of money by September."[54] The 1960's culminated with two major distinctive concerts in 1969, Woodstock and the Altamont Speedway Free Festival. The former would become the world's most celebrated rock concert, being peaceful despite over 500,000 people, while the other was the largest rock disaster ever, with security being provided by Hell's Angels (whom many saw as counter-cultural brothers), and a murderous man being killed while the Rolling Stones sang "Sympathy to the Devil".[55] As regards moral decline, overall much of the generation of that decade and those that followed evidenced increased rebellion against authority in general(though usually not to living off the government) and against capitalism, and the promotion and practice of pre-marital sex, recreational drug use, the rise of feminism and the advocation of liberal ideology. While most of the main stream media and University professors in America are seen to treat this revolution and its foundational ethos as liberating and beneficial, its effects have been manifestly deleterious, as evidenced by multitudinous studies and statistics.[56] While promoting tolerance within its culture, and (in the beginning) rejecting the idea that materialism brought fulfillment, the 1960's cultural revolution birthed an unprecedented intolerance of traditional values, while its affection for drugs - used to find the alternative reality they sought - and the its later promotion of the demonic victim mentality (Gn. 3:1-5), had destructive effects upon society, in particular upon its weakest members. The emphasis on social justice may well have been a means to justify a basic rebellion against authority in general, in particular fathers, headmasters, police officers, soldiers. The rejection of Biblical and traditional sexual laws and promotion of sexual promiscuity and homosexuality would result in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, with a half million of Americans dead because of AIDS. Colleges and universities largely became the seminaries of the new cultural "religion" and its ethos.[57] Revised standard studies and new courses, such as gay studies, became part of the new orthodoxy, with a later neglect of core subjects.[58] . Relative few teaching posts became staffed by conservatives.[59][60][61] While early attempts by students to gain positions of administrative power in their institutions had only limited success, its graduates would soon fill positions of power in informational, educational, and governmental agencies, and as by a Fabian strategy achieve its victories. Religiously, a notable number of young seekers for a better reality became part of what some term a Fourth Great Awakening, out of which evangelical churches such as Calvary Chapel began and grew to be significance denominations. Edited February 9, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now