Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Paul,I won't bother with "creation geologists meet" and other such stuff. Just the meat.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radioisotopes-earthHalos: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.htmlradiometric dating (this one is VERY detailed): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.htmlI'll give you the conclusion of the dating article: Thus Cook’s (28) proposition and calculations, enthusiastically endorsed by Morris (92) and Slusher (117), are based on data that do not exist and are, in addition, fatally flawed by demonstrably false assumptions.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/radiocarbon-in-diamondsThis one is a known mechanism of decay of uranium-thorium isotope series.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.htmlhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/heavens-declare-young-solar-systemOh puhleeese....(this one is lame, Paul...easy answer below). Velikovsky was a moron. He's also the one who suggested reoganizing the Egyptian kingdoms in order to force them to line up with Exodus, based on no other data than Exodus itself. And since we know Exodus didn't happen...but I digress.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html(follow the link for a little more discussion)Try looking up REAL science, Paul. Or at least look up more than one source. I've been through all these articles on AiG. My coworker said I would be amazed. I was...but not the way he thought. I was amazed at the sloppy reasoning, poor data, dubious conclusions based on the poor data, etc.I am not a real expert on this, but I do what I can.And that's the real 'gotcha', Paul. You aren't. Most people aren't. It's unreasonable to expect most people to be experts. That's why we have a huge web of experts who publish in peer-reviewed journals, and who suffer the slings and arrows of their peers as new data is beaten to death to extract the truth from it. Tens of thousands of scientists from any given discipline read, review, critique, verify, etc. You can't do that, and neither can I. In the end this process produces a solid result that has weathered everything thrown at it.Sites like AiG can't make that claim**. They don't publish in refereed journals, they don't have tens of thousands of eyes scrutizing their work. They're a handful of guys (Austin, Humphreys, Vardigan, Snelling) who review each other for their compliance with scripture (assuming any review occurs at all, which I honestly see no evidence of). If the fossilized wood is so significant, get it published in Nature or even Scientific American. Not an online creationist website. That's no better than a blog.1poorguy**They were pushing the "vapor cloud" theory for years (earlier this year when I checked they still advocated it, but now they don't), when any physics grad student could have shown why that theory was impossible.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |