Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire The new Creation Museum is awesome!

This whole thread kinda reminds me of a Randy Travis song -- "Diggin' Up Bones."

It reminds me of Ezekiel. No one knew the significance of those bones in the valley until the Lord showed them. I believe that will be the case again.

"O, Lord God, Thou knowest!"

That's good, Rick. Always been a favorite Bible story of mine. I figure if the Lord could raise up children to Abraham from stones, he could get him a very great army from the valley of dry bones.

That rhymed that time.

yes, excellent rick.

It never seems to when I try.
It takes the Lord to bring it by.

I leave for a couple of days and Ringman is back onto the 'science' again? Please, at least come up with something new and interesting. The stuff you are posting again is so old and discredited that even the YECs have stopped using it.

So, you say, you have a list, somewhere, of a few hundred scientists that have become YECs? What were their backgrounds? How many were actually even in the field of biology? How many have Ph.D.s from 'creationists' schools?
What about the 100's of thousands of real biology Ph.Ds that believe in evolution?

As far as their motivation? Could it be money? Its easy to sell books and DVDs to people that want to believe their message. Its so much easier than having new ideas that are actually peer reviewed.

Well there are different types of fossils but from my own personal digging experience the minimum is 1,324,234 years and 12 seconds. Of course I am joking. I have no clue what the minimum time would be for a fossil (all types) to form. The reason is that the stuff I tend to look for is very very old. But here is what I can tell you. I have never found any fossils that are young from a geological perspective. Personally I think this rapid fossilization is just a red herring. I have never seen it or heard of an credable example of this. Much like spontaneous human combustion the few so-called examples are often questionable to say the least. The only example posted on this form was yours:




Here was my response.



Rapid fossilization was not really a part of my discounting this claim. To me it looked like monopoly money. Seen enough real cash to know monopoly money is fake on sight even from a photo. Here is the part that makes me think you got feed this junk from some kind of charlatan in one of those letures:

"That's because you are not aware of the most modern info. Consider a fairly recent fossil discovery"

Most modern info? A fairly recent fossil discovery? Heck I think this was "discovered" back in the early 80's. So unless you consider 25 years "most modern info" or "fairly recent fossil discovery" you are a liar. But here is the rub. I don't think you are a liar or fraud. I think some charlatan presented the find to you in a misleading light. If you paid for that lecture than in my view you got victimized even if the Earth is just 6000 years old. What is worse is that they used your strong and good religious beliefs to do it. An animal in my view as you deserved to hear solid proof not total trash.

Do you want to see what "mineralized" looks like? These poor little guys went belly up and then got mineralized into pyrite if I am correct.



So based on my digging I can't give you a minimum amount of time it takes to make all kinds of fossils. However the day I find a pyrite poodle I will reconsider all accumulated knowledge that tells me it tends to take a long time. Not that it would matter as rapid fossilization is a red herring, as it does not prove something is not very old. Also it is not needed to disprove the few and far between claims of clearly non-fossils being pawed off as fossils to prove rapid fossilization.

SakoAlberta,

First for 'science'. Are you saying that the "scientists" now accept some daughter product was present? How can we know how much was present?

Are you saying the "scientist" now accept there could have been a change in the decay rate? If so, how much did it change? If they don't believe it changed, on what do they base this position?

Do the "scientists" now accept the posibility that cantamination has occured? How do they determine what is contamination and what is actually daughter product? Or are they still believing the old idea cantamination never occured? And again, how do they know this?

Are you saying the "scientist" now teach leaching has occured? If so, how much and how do they determine this quantity? If not, upon what do they base this?

Have you found some samples of diamond, coal or fossil which does not contain carbon 14? Check your equipment.

Now for the philosophical attack on Creation scientists. I found a list of several hundred names of creationists. Not all believe the Bible to be God's Word so they have incorporated some of man's flawed ideas.

Carefully I went though the list and eliminated everyone who does not accept the Bible as God's protected Divine Word. There were still over two hundred. I don't remember any who recieved Ph.D. degrees from Christian schools. Some had only master's degrees. (What do you have?) Perhaps there were some who earned thier degree from a Christian school.

The vast mojority were like Drs. Morris(hydrolics, geology), Chittic(chemistry), Sanford(genetics) and Gish(biochemist). They recieved their degrees from secular schools. They have even taught in secular universities.

There is something you can't understand. The reason the Bible believers teach the earth to be about 6,000 years old is because that's what they come up with when they do a time line from Scripture. These individuals actually believe God is a just God and will punish those who lie. As far as making money: Being officially educated in thier fields, they learned the Truth, and at least casually educated in God's Word, they learned Jesus says, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

As far as "peer reviewed". The creation community produces their own journals which are peer reviewed. Even evolutionists are allowed to submit new ideas. If a creationist tries to submit to an evolutionist publication they are rejected before the material is even read. Give it a rest. Remember the fellow who invented the MRI is a creationist. Because he is, his assistants recieved a Nobel prise. Two Canadian evolutionists were very angry about it. See if you can discover who created the plate tectonics program used by Sandias National Laboratories. Let me help you. It is John Baughgartner, Ph.D. geophisics, young earth creationist.

Try to learn this. Millions of perfectly healthy people beleive in Santa Claus. You may have been one. But when all the facts were accepted, you changed your mind. As more and more scientists and lay people learn about the science of Out Of Place Artifacts*, then more and more scientists will have to accept God's Word was correct or they will reject the truth from blind faith; and they will still call it "science".



*Man's bones and/or artifacts have been found in every strata of the geological collumn. Exactly what one expects from a world wide flood.

*Man's bones and/or artifacts have been found in every strata of the geological collumn. Exactly what one expects from a world wide flood.

I am not even going to ask you to support this statement.

I remember when digging the hole into the earth that held my undiscovered species of insect I ate lunch, drank a beer and left footprints. If the hole gets covered up and someone re digs the site will a so-called creation scientist find the beer caps and footprints as proof of a 6000-year-old earth "strata of the geological collumn" or to discredit the age of my bug from the Cretaceous or claim it got fossilized the same year that the beer was brewed aka "cowboy foot"? Than will a charlatan misrepresent the find in letures or books to prove this point to you. Or worse post the crap on a creation web site for you to copy and paste as the truth? Than even if I say the beer caps are mine and the mud covering the hole is not geological the same will you than believe me or just blindly follow this fake science. What is next? My scraps of bread will be rapidly fossilized too? Still looking for that poodle mixed in with the T-rex. I would even take a small house cat at this point.

WoodsWalker,

Would you expect to find carbon 14 in your bugs? If they tested positive for c14, what would you think?

I feel like we are argueing with someone who thinks the World is flat. Do I really have to type it out?

"Would you expect to find carbon 14 in your bugs? If they tested positive for c14, what would you think?"

Worthless tests do the shorter half-life of C14 and old age of the bugs. So the carbon-14 would have decayed. However as I tend to respond to questions here goes.

If tested and shown to be under 40k the accepted maximum for C14 testing if I remember correctly? Or was that 60k. Shoot I forget. Anyways I would then test the amber that held the bug. Guessing to would be easier but don't know as I have never done this. If the test still showed less than 40k I would have tested other samples from the same site. Again if the same results I would use other Radiometric testing etc if appropriate but I have only read a few papers on these tests so I am far from an expert on this topic.

Anyways if the other radiometric test verified the Radiocarbon dating the next step would be have the area review by a geologist. If he verifies that the stratum is not as old as I initial believed than I would be forced to accept my error and sulk. However one miss read sample or location by myself does not prove anything other than my inability to correctly read the geology of the area and find. If there were serious conflicts that occurred between the Geologist and the Radiometric testing and I found a French poodle aka what I perceive as modern animals trapped in the same amber and it occurred over a wide range and became more predominate I would start to question the old Earth theory in greater favor of the young Earth crowd. As I said in the past if overwhelming evidence were found than a 6000 year old Earth would not be out of the question for me. But there is that speed of light issue and all the other questions you never responded to that would need to be explained in addition for me to be swayed. But salt in the sea junk would never cut it as those numbers are not supported by any side.

Yea I am about done with this too. However I am still going to visit the Creation Museum if in the area. Why not? Just hope the place is still open then.

Yes, I will go too. I've been to one other. I'm always interested in other viewpoints and possibilities, however, what I saw wasn't convincing. It was actually sad.

WoodsWalker,



From this I surmise you still hold strongly to the blind faith position that the readiometric dating never changes for any reason. Talk about sad...

I know you want this to be true and you say it as fact but there is no evidence that its true.



I've said nothing about it. What reaction are you or, more accurately, your YE websites, talking about? If you are talking about C14, the daughter product is ordinary nitrogen and plays no role in the dating process. So, to answer your last question, why would it matter how much is/was present?



Quantum mechanics, that stout pillar of modern physics which has been verified in so many different ways that I couldn't begin to list them all even if I had them at hand, gives us no theoretical reason to believe that the C-14 rate of decay has changed or can be significantly affected by any reasonable process.*



This is the funny one. Labs have ways to test and eliminate contamination but I won't even argue that as you would likely deny that fact. The funny part is that any unaccounted contamination would actually make the sample 'date out' younger than the actual age not older! If anybody is using this one to convince you, you had better ask a few questions.



What isotope are you(your websites) talking about now?



What are you saying here? All are made from some carbon and will contain some C14 depending on the age of the sample.

The vast mojority were like Drs. Morris(hydrolics, geology), Chittic(chemistry), Sanford(genetics) and Gish(biochemist).

So you have at least one on your list who is actually in the field, moreless. Dr. Sanford was teaching biology at university. He was released after his book of fiction was published. Also, note that he taught agricultural genetics, hardly putting him directly in the field. He divorced he wife, published his book, and became a priest in the Ra�lian movement. His book was never peer reviewed and is based on false presumptions, however, it sells well amongst the YECs and Ra�lians.



Doesn't this say it all? "We can't get anybody to agree with our false data and presumptions so we'll review our own work"



Rejected because they are full of errors, not because of their views.



Nope, never heard of him. Better check you spelling though. What is your point, anyway? He wrote a program?



I'll assume you are talking about Damadian? (What's this got to do with evolution, anyway?) He developed the first commercial focus field MRI but it was never used clinically. It is the gradient machine that is used not his focus field. That he did contribute to MRI technology is a fact. Again, what has this to do with evolution? The story of how he was snubbed for the Nobel prize is widely known and, of course, is often spun by creationist sites to seem like the snub was because of his eccentric behavior and his YE views. You really need to expand your readings.


The Earth is not flat**, the sun does not rotate around it***, and it is not 6,000 years old.

If you are looking to prove evolution cannot be true by using 'science', you are sadly misinformed and you need to look elsewhere. Your creationists sites are preying on you and are spinning a web of deceit to try to sell you something that isn't true.





*cut and paste (saves me time)
**1 Chronicles 16:30: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.�
Psalm 93:1: �Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...�
Psalm 96:10: �He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...�
Psalm 104:5: �Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.�
Isaiah 45:18: �...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...�

***http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm

SakoAlberta,

I'm sorry that I didn't make the challenge about radiometric dating more clear. I was refering to all systems which depend on a decay rate of the atoms involved.



This has to do with the "peer review" balony that someone brought up. If you are not an evolutionist, forget about getting your stuff published in things like National Geographics.

If there was ever any evidence of a young Earth, it would be published in scientific journals as well as NG, etc. The problem is, all 'evidence' presented is non scientific and cannot be published except on 'creationist' sites. Its simply not true!

If there was actually real evidence, lets say human bones found in a strata with dinosaur bones, NG would publish and it would be their best selling issue ever. They could make a lot of money.

However, if they were to publish the non scientific work you have presented, they would no longer be considered a scientific journal and it would hurt their sales and reputation.

There is no conspiracy to promote evolution! Its just that all the evidence has made it scientific truth beyond any resaonable doubt. Same as it is beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth circles the Sun and the Earth is basically sperical.