The Barbarian

You're getting all worked up and just lashing out again. I'll give you some time to compose yourself.

Since Jesus made no comment on how old the Earth is, we can know that He did not consider it of any importance to His ministry to us. So you think He failed to get everything to us that He wanted us to know? He's much greater than you suspect. But you aren't Moses, and your interpretation of what Moses said is not God's word. You don't believe what Moses wrote. That's on you. Quote

But you don't get to invent new miracles. But you do. Every time a flaw in your new doctrines is pointed out, your response is "but it's a miracle!" Why not just be satisfied with God's word as it is? What do you think are "flood deposits?" Not surprising that you can't answer the question. Would you like me to link you to a YE creationist who does know what is meant by the term? You reject the plain language of the Bible, converting "land" to "whole world", because you prefer your way to God's way. (Denies basins can hold water) It doesn't take proficiency in mathematics to realize that a basin will hold water. The basin is filled, and even the high mountains in the basin can be covered. The great flood that filled the Black Sea basin did that,for example, even the high ground was covered. Basins don't have run-off to the sea. If that were true, the Black Sea would not exist. What makes you think the flood was in Israel or Great Britain? As you point out, it would not work there.

And you're back to "they are all lying?" You are not God. And it is not evil to disagree with you. As you learned, we have a record of C14 levels going back 60,000 years. In this case, the varves of Lake Suigetsu shows the fact. Varves occur annually, a light layer and a dark layer every year. So a very precise chronology. And it confirms C14 concentrations and nicely calibrates the system. Ice core drilling was verified again by the Lake Suigetsu data. The evidence comes from a number of independent sources. Nonsense. Even a few hundred years will give you accurate results. You're at a disadvantage because you don't have any idea how any of this works, and are just parroting sfuff you read by someone who knows little more than you do. I'm not trying to convince you. But there are others who read these discussions and draw conclusions from the evidence presented. So you've been very useful after all. You seem to realize that you're not doing well. So maybe reason is getting through, after all.

Fortunately, we know better. As you know, argon-argon testing got the flow that buried Pompeii to within 17 years. And you're back to "they are all lying?" That's kinda the final dodge, isn't it? You're the one who thinks billions of years are required for C-14 to work. As you learned, it works just as it should. Those lake varves just calibrated it to better accuracy. Problem for you, is that nuclear testing pumped up the amount in the atmosphere. That's now gradually going back to pre-nuclear era levels. You confused that with a long-term reduction. Has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. We have good data from the Lake Suigetsu varves and the variation changes back and forth. Which is no problem, if you know what the calibration is. Because we know the amount of C14 in the atmosphere from those years, it's easy to accommodate. Nope. Cosmic rays will always vary a bit, so it will go up and down over time. Special conditions like atmospheric nuclear blasts are less common. Nope. As you learned, we have a record of C14 levels going back 60,000 years. You already saw that story debunked. But since you don't remember.... 1. they have nitrogen inclusions in the crystal lattice 2. Ionizing radiation converts nitrogen to C-14 as we see it happening in the atmosphere. and 3. Diamonds are found in pipes with a relative high amount of radioactive thorium and uranium. Would you like me to show you?

Fortunately, we know better. As you know, argon-argon testing got the flow that buried Pompeii to within 17 years. The math is how they got that accurate. 17 years in roughly 2000 years is a rather tiny error. You're a little confused here. C-14 has a half-life of about 5700 years. You're the one who thinks billions of years are required for C-14 to work. Problem for you, is that nuclear testing pumped up the amount in the atmosphere. That's now gradually going back to pre-nuclear era levels. You confused that with a long-term reduction. Has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. We have good data from the Lake Suigetsu varves and the variation changes back and forth. Except for nuclear bomb tests and variations in cosmic rays. You confused a short-term blip for some kind of age of the Earth test. We get what we vote for. Wouldn't be the first time. But at least Nixon was competent. Nixon wasn't a democrat. LBJ was, and he was corrupt. But neither of them were actually convicted of anything.

As I just showed you, calibration methods make it more accurate than ever. The story they told you about lowering levels of C-14 have more to do with the production of C-14 in the past during nuclear tests. And the C-14 in diamonds come from radiation tranforming nitrogen inclusions in diamonds. Fortunately, we know better. As you know, argon-argon testing got the flow that buried Pompeii to within 17 years. You're a little confused here. C-14 has a half-life of about 5700 years. We get what we vote for. Wouldn't be the first time. But at least Nixon was competent.

I notice. And it's much appreciated. Because ours are, and we are his descendants. We are eukaryotes, animals, mammals, primates, hominids, and finally humans. The latest version of humans. Our cells, DNA, biochemistry, and anatomy all show our kinship to other living things. That's how God made us. But then, he made us living souls, like Him. And that made all the difference. There's a clue in the fact that evolutionary processes are more efficient at solving complex problems than design can do. Engineers have started copying God's way to solve many such problems. The tools are called "genetic algorithms" and they use random changes and natural selection to hone in on optimal solutions. God, as usual, knew what He was doing. Yep. That living soul, given directly by God to each of us. And one other thing. As God mentioned in Genesis, Adam became like him, able to know good and evil. And thereby potentially capable of fellowship with Him. But being unable to be truly good, we could not become what we were potentially to be. Someone had to pay for that sin. That's why a Savior was needed.

14C increased sharply (first figure) from the 1940s through the early 1960's due to the peak in nuclear tests. Since the atomic weapons ban treaty, atmospheric 14C levels have been steadily declining, but the rate of this decline has been slowing as atmospheric 14C reaches equilibrium with other sources and sinks. This is primarily the result of: the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere (plants, plankton) exchange with older CO2 in the ocean and the release of CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere (radiocarbon depleted in fossil fuels). The last YE creationist I know of still peddling the C-14 story is convicted felon Kent Hovind. Because: 1. they have nitrogen inclusions in the crystal lattice 2. Ionizing radiation converts nitrogen to C-14 as we see it happening in the atmosphere. and 3. Diamonds are found in pipes with a relative high amount of radioactive thorium and uranium. Would you like me to show you? From time to time, a atom of nitrogen is struck and changed to C-14. Essentially the reason we saw a spike of C-14 during atmospheric nuclear testing, followed by a gradual reduction in the rate when such testing ended. Good attempt, but no. This is not secret information. You could have done some checking before buying Kent's propaganda.

The data so far indicates mostly errors in the roughly 2 out of 10,000 papers that turned out to be faulty. The journal Science says otherwise. And they actually know what they are talking about. Show us that. I think you'll be disappointed. Probably most variation would have been over a billion years ago, from volcanic sources, before the crust cooled. Why did you suddenly not want to talk about variation? Did you just find the data? This is probably why you thought it doesn't work; you didn't know a thing about it. You got that wrong, too. It observably varies a small amount over time, depending on the cosmic radiation flux in the upper atmosphere. This is why the varves in Lake Suigetsu are so important; they show precisely how that varied over time. And because we can calibrate the method with that data, it's more accurate than before. It goes up and down at various times. You were fooled by short-term changes.

Although statistics were sketchy, retractions appeared to be relatively rare, involving only about two of every 10,000 papers. Sometimes the reason for the withdrawal was honest error, not deliberate fraud. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.362.6413.390 Compare that to stories peddled by YE creationists that turned out to be false. Fact is, people tend to do wrong things. Two out of 10,000 looks pretty good when you consider... According to a new study sponsored by LifeWay Christian Resources, 10 percent of Protestant churchgoers under 35 have previously left a church because they felt sexual misconduct was not taken seriously. https://www.christianitytoday.com/2019/05/lifeway-protestant-abuse-survey-young-christians-leave-chur/ Should Protestants stop supporting their churches because sexual abuse happens rather frequently there? I would think not. It would make more sense to focus on the 90% of Protestants who didn't experience that problem, or the 99.98% of scientific papers that were not fraudulent and did not have errors. I notice that Ar/Ar dating remains effective and accurate, based on other work, as well. It would be extremely dishonest to assert "Scientists are all lying!" or "All Protestants are sexual predators!" If they had not provided the data, there could have been no peer review. So that excuse won't work for you, either. Again, you retreat to "they are lying, all of them!" Show us that. I think you'll be disappointed. Probably most variation would have been over a billion years ago, from volcanic sources, before the crust cooled. And we see that the method got the Pompeii eruption to within 17 years. Next up: "Pliny the younger is lying!!"

I suppose you could look it up in a library. But yes, it's there. If not, no reputable journal would have accepted it for publication. You should probably know that peer-review is what goes on when a paper is submitted to a journal. Science is one of the most reputable science journals, and does indeed peer-review every article submitted. Regarding the use of Ar-Ar in volcanic eruptions... Excess argon in K–Ar and Ar–Ar geochronology A brief survey of the list of examples above shows that studies of excess argon have tended to be concentrated in metamorphic studies and this reflects the distribution of excess argon in natural samples. Excess argon is less common in volcanic systems where outgassing provides a release mechanism. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009254102000645

But you don't get to invent new miracles. Christians know this. Your new beliefs are not in the Bible. If you spent some time reading it, you'd realize this. Do you have any explanation for the forets and deserts in the middle of what you think are "flood deposits?" Neither does any other YE creationist. It's absolute nonsense to imagine God would do that. How does math put deserts and forests in the middle of "flood deposits?" For the same reason that the Himalayas are composed largely of marine fossils. Sea bottom often gets uplifted. I notice you can't explain why deserts and forests are found in the middle of what you claim to be "flood deposits." But of course, God never said it was a world-wide flood. Notice it says "land", not "entire world." Is the difference beyond your comprehension? Has your hostility to God's word blinded you that much? (question as to how a basin could hold water) That's the nature of basins. They don't have easy run-off to the sea. It doesn't take proficiency in mathematics to realize that a basin will hold water. I think we've located your problem. 13.000 is a more precise number than 950. But it's a smaller number than 950. There are basins much higher than that on Earth. They still hold water. Why would you think elevation would make a difference? It's very revealing that you have to misrepresent common definitions to defend your arguments. For example, "erets" means "this land" (as in erets Israel for the land of Israel). "Tebel" is used for the entire world. That's how we know the flood wasn't global. Why do you continue to doubt God?

So you made the claim that it lacks math. Up to you to support it. Here's your chance: the actual article, w links to the data: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.277.5330.1279 We all know why you won't.

Of course they did. C'mon. It was published in Science. If all you have is to accuse all scientists of lying, you're pretty much finished here. You made the accusation. Up to you to support it. And we all know you won't, don't we? Start a new thread and I'll show you where the money is. You'll be very surprised. Yes, I've taken a long look at that. But let's stay on topic here. If I pay more attention to my physician than my plumber as to whether or not I should have a medical procedure, that's "an appeal to authority." Just as I give more credence to the journal Science than to you. For the same reasons. Did you really not understand this? Your fallacy here was to miss the key element in a false appeal to authority... "As a Ph. D. candidate in particle physics I believe I can say with some authority that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax." See the difference? Properly speaking, the appeal to authority fallacy is an appeal to unqualified authority.

Yep. That's what happened when the basin flooded. What was a relatively small lake became a huge sea. That's the nature of basins. They don't have easy run-off to the sea. A basin is a depression, or dip, in the Earth’s surface. Basins are shaped like bowls, with sides higher than the bottom. They can be oval or circular in shape, similar to a sink or tub you might have in your own bathroom. Some are filled with water. Others are empty. Inside the basin. A rather minor lake became a large sea as a result of the flood. Some of it did run off as the flooding ended, but the sea remained. The Bible says that "the land" was flooded. The Hebrew version uses "erets" (land) instead of "tebel" (world). Because you don't read it carefully, you make mistakes like that. And says "land" not "world." You just revised what it says to make it fit your own wishes.

it if happened in just a few years, the energy needed to accelerate the continents and then slow them back down would have to be released as heat. Ah, another "It's a miracle!' invention. Handy gadgets, those. Even worse for your belief, in the middle of your supposed "flood deposits" , we see deserts and forests that one would have to believe popped into existence in the middle of the flood. Your new beliefs are not the Bible. And you aren't God. Are you now claiming God miraculously created forests and deserts in the middle of the flood? For what purpose? How does math put deserts and forests in the middle of "flood deposits?" But of course God didn't say it was a world-wide flood. That's your invention. If He had meant "world", He would have said "world."

Of course they did. C'mon. It was published in Science. If all you have is to accuse all scientists of lying, you're pretty much finished here. So now all the physicists are lying, too? C'mon. Where did they say that? They didn't, did they? The hoaxers have sort of changed their story. It used to be "there is no climate change", but after decades of observed change, they sort of shifted to "O.K., there is climate change, but it's not our fault." There's a lot of money to be made in climate denial. But save that for the "conspiracy theory" forum. Start a thread on that, and I'll show you where the money is.

Evidence says it was regional. Yep. That's what happened when the basin flooded. What was a relatively small lake became a huge sea. The Bible says that "the land" was flooded. It didn't say "the world was flooded." That is your addition to scripture to make it acceptable to you. Yep. Next time, just accept it God's way without your alterations. Creationists know better than to actually recreate the Ark and try to make it work. If you can call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your new interpretation hits a wall, then any story is equally plausible. Just not evidence for your new interpretations. Which is why you have to imagine nonscriptural miracles to cover for you.

Nope. For example, the testing of the flow that buried Pompeii merely analyzed the sample, and came up with a date that when checked, came remarkably close for such a short time. But you can't show us that? Not surprising. Radioisotope dating of the flow that buried Pompeii was off by seven years; about four-tenths of one percent. But it was a very short time. Longer times give better results. So you're claiming that these guys are just lying? The new results are published in the Aug. 29 issue of Science magazine. Renne's co-authors are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also is head of the Vesuvian Vulcanological Observatory. https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html Science is one of the most respected scientific journals in the world. I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing. And I'm pretty sure you don't. In fact, the data is published. C'mon. But as you learned here, it is easy for physicists to date the flow that buried Pompeii.

Nope. For example, the testing of the flow that buried Pompeii merely analyzed the sample, and came up with a date that when checked, came remarkably close for such a short time. In this case, it was off by seven years; about four-tenths of one percent. But it was a very short time. Longer times give better results. As you should remember, you were surprised to see how easy that was. Put it up again, if you like, but you'll find the same problems.

Age of a fossil is determined by facts, not assumptions. Would you like to learn how we know? The amusing part is, you have no idea. If you did, you wouldn't be recycling this old misconception... The funny thing is, many uneducated YE creationists bought that story without even thinking about it. For example, we can use varves to tell us how accurate radioisotope dating actually is. Here's a recent example: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/ Varves are annual layers formed in lakes. Every year, a light layer and a dark layer form on the bottom of the lake. So the age of the layers is easily found by counting. The cool thing is, the carbon in the lake can be analyzed for C-14, to calibrate the carbon dating system. It turns out that the formation of C-14 varies a bit over the ages due to fluctuations in cosmic rays. So the data was used to make C-14 dating even more accurate. Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html One of the objections to radioisotope dating is the claim that we can't know how much daughter isotope was initially in the rock when it formed. But that is easily shown to be a false claim by isochrons... There are a number of useful isotope systems which constitute clocks in the rocks and are useful for geologic dating. But if asked what is the most reliable and precise method for dating the Earth and meteorites, Brent Dalyrymple would point to lead isochrons. He calls the lead method "the hourglass of the solar system". The current approach to plotting Pb-Pb isochrons is referred to as the Holmes-Houtermans method. The above diagram from Patterson represented a major breakthrough in the use of lead isochrons when it was published in 1956. It presented the analysis of three stony meteorites and two iron meteorites and showed that they fell on the same isochron. In addition, it showed that a sample of modern ocean sediment fell on the same isochron. Besides offering confirmation of the meteorite age that had been approached in many studies, it offered evidence that meteorites and the Earth are closely related and of the same age. Like most modern lead age studies, it used the troilite mineral from the Canyon Diablo meteorite as the standard. The isochron age was reported by Patterson as 4.55 Gy, but that becomes 4.48 Gy with the application of the revised decay constants for the isotopes involved. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/PbPb.html Go here, if the physics seems daunting: https://universe-review.ca/R15-31-Dating.htm And I know the next move: "You scientists are just tossing out scientific mumb0-jumbo to fool us people who don't know physics." Pretty much like doctors decide on your treatment, based on biological understanding most people lack. There's no easy road to learning enough to understand all of it, but you could learn enough to understand a general outline of how it works. And no, "they are all lying, all of them!" is not an effective response.

They can and do, in the sense that YE creationists can do good work. I took my first course in immunology from a very competent bacteriologist who was a YE creationist. I loved that guy; he was kind and helpful and taught me a great deal. (He was tenured at a large state university, BTW; so much for that "they discriminate against creationists" story) One prominent YEer, (John Woodmorappe) wrote a number of papers, using evolutionary theory ,and got some meaningful results and an addition to knowledge. So it's not as though being a YE creationist means one is stupid. Many of them are pretty smart.

Interestingly, he was a known YE creationist, and yet he was accepted as a PhD candidate there.

Age of a fossil is determined by facts, not assumptions. Would you like to learn how we know? We'd see dinosaurs, elephants, rabbits, and humans in the same fossil deposits, for example. We'd see any lands unconnected to Africa, Europe and Asia to lack land animals other than birds. We'd see very few plants anywhere, other than those Noah bothered to take with him. Stuff like that. All jumbled together. Dinos, kangaroos, apes, humans, horses, all in the same deposits. As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise admits, the fact that we see nicely ordered transitional series in the rocks is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." And it shows that the rocks were laid down at very different times. And yet, if we go to the Grand Canyon, we find silt below sand and gravel. This is one of the most damaging facts against a world flood. It gets worse.... At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one-third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf