Young Age of the Earth - Part 2 (english)

Part 2 of 2

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• young
• age
• earth
• coal
• fossils
• dinosaurs
• creation
• created
• global
• flood

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight Let me put it plainly: Did Baillieul read Gentry's reports?

If he did, he knew that Rn-222 & Po-210 rings are distinguishable in fluorite, and that this refutes the point he wanted to make. Thus, he purposely deceived his readers into thinking otherwise.

If he did not, then he wasn't qualified to write an article condemning another scientist's peer-reviewed published research!

Plus, it wasn't only one error: He ignored the missing fossil alpha recoil track problem!

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight It isn't a minor point. Baillieul misled the reader. Was it on purpose? Your point suggests that it was, since "commonly" suggests that Baillieul knew there were exceptions, exceptions that refute his point, exceptions he failed to disclose.

On the other hand, if Baillieul was ignorant of the exception, he is far from an authority on the subject.

Either way, the entire article is thus called into question, as well as the website that hasn't fixed it 6 yrs later!

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight *I* was talking about disclosure, which does affect the dates' reliability. If evolutionists refuse to disclose ALL the isotope ratios that don't fit their targeted dates, the public cannot judge if the dates are reliable.

Gloss over? You fail to see the point. The dates evolutionists derive from isotope ratios depend upon uniformitarian presuppositions. If those presuppositions be false, the dates pontificated by evolutionists mean nothing, leaving nothing to gloss over.

[PicklePublishing]

(d) cont. The idea that 3.2 billion base pairs of human DNA came to be via mostly lethal, random mutations, leaving behind little or no transitional forms in the fossil record, is nothing short of miraculous.

Is it true that evolutionists believe a placental mole to be more closely related to a humpback whale than to a pouched mole?

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight Scientists who are atheists, skeptics, or infidels allow their religious views to influence their evaluation all the time. Sometimes they even admit it, that the obvious conclusion of the evidence (creation or whatever) is just unthinkable.

(d) Uniformitarianism, long ages, the Big Bang, random mutations creating all forms of life, Po halos caused by diffusion, all of this is unverifiable beliefs held by atheists, infidels, & skeptics.

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight (b) cont. Gentry proposed a falsification test for uniformitarianism and his own theory: synthesize granite. My point is that failed synthesis experiments falsify uniformitarianism, and they do. Thus, you can't use uniformitarianism to explain away scientific evidence of creation & the flood.

(c) I didn't say anything about 99% being atheists. I said skeptics, atheists, & infidels. Christians, Jews, & Muslims who don't believe the Bible are at best skeptics, even if not atheists.

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight (b) Have you read Gentry's reports yet? If not, how do you know whether his findings are refuted at the sites you link to?

At the first link, click "Gentry's Basis Premise" and read the part about Rn-222 and Po-210 rings being indistinguishable. Years ago I complained about this web page presenting this bogus argument, and it's still there. Why?

Your second link is pretty pathetic. It makes no attempt to deal with the science. Why?

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight (a) Evolutionists who refuse to test uniformitarianism have thereby placed that assumption outside of science.

If you think it has been tested, please cite studies that have indeed reported testing whether no miracles have ever occurred, even in the distant past. Please cite studies that establish that current laws and processes have always been the same, except around the time of the Big Bang.

[PicklePublishing]

@ArcanaKnight I have made no wild claims.

If you are going to criticize a video presenting unrefuted scientific evidence in support of creation and the Flood, the burden of proof is on you to discredit the historical source.

An objective scientist would not assume that a document is not an authentic historical account without proof. You seem to be arguing that it should be assumed to be unauthentic until proven otherwise. That is wrong.

[ArcanaKnight]

@PicklePublishing b) Actually, he said that they were very similar and can't COMMONLY be distinguished, not that they were indistinguishable. Also, even if your point did stand, finding one error in a minor point of an article doesn't even refute the entire article, let alone every article on the site.