How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have thought about it, and I do not know of any human that has designed a machine that is as efficient as the creatures that God has made.

To determine if the creatures in nature are more efficiently designed than any human designs, you'd have to know what these creatures are used for, by their designer. How does god make use of the creatures it designed? If it is just for fun, like drawing stick figures on a piece of paper, then yes, the stick figures of nature are remarkably well drawn, amusing to be sure. I'd have to agree.

What's our usage to god? Once you've answered that, we can look at nature and tell whether or not it's an intelligent, efficient design, or if it is as it appears, a continuously evolving design with no objective end goals, where parts find new, non-optimal but good enough usages in different species as environment changes; a design derived at through a seemingly blind process, as evidence suggests.

But hey, if you can make that fit with the idea of a supreme designer, without misrepresenting or ignoring observed facts, I'd be curious to hear about it.

Originally posted by C Hess
To determine if the creatures in nature are more efficiently designed than any human designs, you'd have to know what these creatures are used for, by their designer. How does god make use of the creatures it designed? If it is just for fun, like drawing stick figures on a piece of paper, then yes, the stick figures of nature are remarkably well drawn, amusin ...[text shortened]... e designer, without misrepresenting or ignoring observed facts, I'd be curious to hear about it.

You are certainly one of those that the apostle Peter refers to as "willingly ignorant".

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are certainly one of those that the apostle Peter refers to as "willingly ignorant".

Whatever.

Dr. John Baumgardner Discusses Evidence for a Young Earth

Those who support evolution depend on radiometric dating of rocks to provide evidence that the Earth is 6.4 billion years old. In this interview Jim Bendewald asks Dr. Baumgardner about radiometric dating and the RATE project. The discussion includes the RATE project results which challenge the long ages of Earth's history. Carbon dating in coal is also discussed as well as carbon in diamonds which should long be gone if Earth is as old as the evolutionists claim.

This was an extremely important research project. It provided empirical data as evidence for a much younger Earth than evolutionists are willing to accept. Therein lies the problem. No matter how clear the data for disproving evolution, those committed to material causes will dismiss the evidence.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds

Carbon dating in coal is also discussed as well as carbon in diamonds which should long be gone if Earth is as old as the evolutionists claim.

YouTube

So, this guy explains how scientists have known since the late eighties that when radioactive uranium and thorium (that can be found in geological deposits everywhere) decays, and the radioactive rays hit c12, that produces small trace amounts of c14 in the ground. This is something well known to scientists in these fields, and they know how to account for it.

That take-down was good, but I really love his comment near the end:

So, yet again, with this relatively new young-earth creationist argument, we see their pattern. Because of their ignorance of the relevant science, they've developed a new young-earth creationist argument that's already been explained, and it's already known to be wrong, before they even made it up!

So, just remember, every time you hear a young-earth creationist make an argument about science, you can never believe it. Check out the facts, and confront them on it, and compel them to dig into the facts too. Don't let them rely on young-earth creationist propaganda. Compel them, say: Look, you need to deal with the real science, you need to check out the real science literature, and stop relying on the pseudo-science literature, the propaganda that's being pumped out by these young-earth creationist religious houses.

He then makes an excellent point on the choice of audience by these YEC "scientists", but I'll leave that gem to the viewer. I'll just end with the only proper word for this excellent take-down of his:

Booya!

Originally posted by C Hess
http://youtu.be/T-o7ArSeSOY

So, this guy explains how scientists have known since the late eighties that when radioactive uranium and thorium (that can be found in geological deposits everywhere) decays, and the radioactive rays hit c12, that produces small trace amounts of c14 in the ground. This is something well known to scientists in these field ...[text shortened]... e viewer. I'll just end with the only proper word for this excellent take-down of his:

Booya!

Do you know real identity of greeneto and what makes him an expert in this subject? What Phd does he have, if any?

Also did you note that he added the following in writing under the video?

(By the way, yes, I misspoke in the video about C14 being produced from C12 in the atmosphere; it's produced from nitrogen atoms, not carbon atoms.)

I think Dr. John Baumgardner's assessment of the dating methods is more credible, since it has already been proven by other sources that C14 dating is unreliable.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think Dr. John Baumgardner's assessment of the dating methods is more credible, since it has already been proven by other sources that C14 dating is unreliable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

'Nuff said.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was trying to make it as simple as possible for your simple mind. I did not take anything that can reproduce itself, because man has never made those things. The best man has done in that respect is to make machines that can make copies of other things. But the point is only to show you that even those things require an intelligent being to design them. ...[text shortened]... thin them DNA information programming code like a computer, are not also designed for a purpose?

You are an idiot.

Read my last post.

In fact read any post.

Read anything.

Whatever you do will make you less dense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We can never talk until you become rational about this subject and except that at some point we must accept the word of the creator God.

I certainly EXCEPT the word of the creator, just like you said.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You are an idiot.

Read my last post.

In fact read any post.

Read anything.

Whatever you do will make you less dense.

Fruit flies have already been tried and there was no evolution, they remained fruit flies.

Originally posted by C Hess
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rate-critique.html

'Nuff said.

Talk origins is an atheist website with prejudicial views and present misleading and inaccurate information.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I certainly EXCEPT the word of the creator, just like you said.

That's your problem. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Talk origins is an atheist website with prejudicial views and present misleading and inaccurate information.

The institute for creation research is completely unbiased, of course. They wouldn't misrepresent the facts or make shyte up to support creationism.

As it happens, Kirk Bertsche is a real scientist with a PhD in physics. He knows a thing or two about these things. Not only that, but he's actually been involved in the design and testing of accelerators used for this sort of thing. If he says that Baumgardner's “'intrinsic radiocarbon' is [probably] nothing more than contamination and instrument background", I believe it, until another qualified scientist says otherwise.

Originally posted by C Hess
The institute for creation research is completely unbiased, of course. They wouldn't misrepresent the facts or make shyte up to support creationism.

As it happens, Kirk Bertsche is a real scientist with a PhD in physics. He knows a thing or two about these things. Not only that, but he's actually been involved in the design and testing of accelerators used ...[text shortened]... tion and instrument background", I believe it, until another qualified scientist says otherwise.

Here is a real scientist who has a Phd in Physics.

Dr Jim Mason has a B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He had a 37-year engineering and management career in defence electronics developing ASW (anti-submarine warfare) systems and land tactical C4 (computerized command, control, communications) systems. This included the positions of Vice President and Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for one of Canada’s leading defence electronics system integration companies and being a member of that company’s Executive Committee.

Dr Mason points out:

“In cases where the actual age of the rock is known, radiometric dating techniques typically give wildly erroneous ages. For example, rock formed in a lava flow from Mt. St. Helens in 1986 was radiometrically dated as 2.6 million years old! If, every time you read a newspaper report concerning an incident about which you had first-hand knowledge, you found that the newspaper report was totally wrong, how many of these would you read before you began to suspect that all the reporting was wrong?”

Jim Mason, a real nuclear physicist, explains why radiometric dating doesn't work.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=real+scientists+with+a+PhD+in+physics+that+believe+in+creation

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is a real scientist who has a Phd in Physics.

Dr Jim Mason has a B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and a Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He had a 37-year engineering and management career in defence electronics developing ASW (anti-submarine warf ...[text shortened]... sts+with+a+PhD+in+physics+that+believe+in+creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EucVnmJqCI

Actually, real scientists know all about the problems dating rocks and have factored in the variances and know when they can rely on such dating and when they can't. Your dude is clearly a YEC who is trying his best to twist the known problems into total unreliability. Just another politician trying to win votes.