Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[Sparks]

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So you didn't bother to read the article I gave you?    One of them specifically listed calibration sources for a number of isotopes.

C-14, for example used 1950 wood as the calibration source.  Do you understand how that works?   If not, we can talk about it.

You really have no clue about this, so I have said there is no use in discussing it.  You have C-14 wrong, too (radio carbon dating fails too), just so you know. 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You really have no clue about this, so I have said there is no use in discussing it.  You have C-14 wrong, too (radio carbon dating fails too), just so you know. 

Turns out, it is accurate at least to 35,000 years.   You were misled about that, too.  would you like to see how we know?   I think you're confusing the calibration of the samples with the calibration of instruments that record the ionizing radiation.

And that is different than used for non-ionizing radiation.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

They don't point out that Haeckel's a fraud, and they use his drawings.

They point out that Haeckel was wrong.   As you just learned, no modern textbooks use Haeckel's recapitulation theory.  It was debunked in 1825 or thereabouts.    They lied to you about that.  Even the example you showed us, specifically contradicted Haeckel's theory.  

One more time: you claimed biology textbooks teach his theory.   Do you have even one example to show us that does?

 

[The Barbarian]

As you know, even knowledgeable creationists admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory . 

Todd Wood, Kurt Wise, Lloyd Quinn, Harold Coffin and many other YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence, admit that there is very good evidence for evolutionary theory.   They still don't believe it, but they admit the fact that there is evidence that supports it.

Because you don't know much about the evidence, this is a surprise to you.  Would you like me to show you?

 

[Retrobyter]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.

Did you even read it?   Second column on that page specifically refutes Haeckel's claims of recapitulation.  

"These striking embryological similarities led some of Darwin's contemporaries (But apparently not Darwin himself) to believe that the embryological development of an individual repeats its species evolutionary history... The cells and tissues of the earliest embryological stages are like the bottom levels in a house of cards. The final form of the organism is based on them, and even a small change in their characteristics can result in a disaster later... The earliest stages of an embryo's life, therefore are essentially “locked in” whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism."

You seem to have done my work for me.   I repeat.   Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

Remember where I showed you that von Baer debunked Haeckel's ideas in the early 1800s?    Why would you think otherwise?

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

I think otherwise because I saw it in Junior High School in one of my school textbooks touted as FACT!

I really don't care WHEN it was debunked if the drawings are STILL being used to support the theory, DESPITE being debunked!

[Retrobyter]

36 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out, it is accurate at least to 35,000 years.   You were misled about that, too.  would you like to see how we know?   I think you're confusing the calibration of the samples with the calibration of instruments that record the ionizing radiation.

And that is different than used for non-ionizing radiation.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

It really doesn't matter HOW long the test may be "accurate!" The numbers CAN'T be used legitimately back before the earth existed! The dilemma is of the same caliber as determining "impossibility" in probability, or determining "where an electron is" in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!

It's like halving a substance. Mathematically, the process should be indefinite; in reality, one will get to the molecule or atom of the substance, and no more halving would be possible.

And that would be true, no matter WHAT radiometric dating method was used!

[Retrobyter]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

As you know, even knowledgeable creationists admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory . 

Todd Wood, Kurt Wise, Lloyd Quinn, Harold Coffin and many other YE creationists who are familiar with the evidence, admit that there is very good evidence for evolutionary theory.   They still don't believe it, but they admit the fact that there is evidence that supports it.

Because you don't know much about the evidence, this is a surprise to you.  Would you like me to show you?

 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

So there are several "YE creationists" who haven't figured it out, yet. So what? We have ALL been inundated with evolutionary theory wherever we go, whatever we played with as children, whatever we watched in the movies, and whatever we see on TV and hear on the radio and read in the newspapers and magazines, .... Why shouldn't "YE creationists" be likewise duped, especially the younger individuals?

One of the BIGGEST facts ANYONE should believe is that "PEOPLE LIE WITH NUMBERS!" We subconsciously "know" that's true because we've seen it happen in economics, in politics, in business, in salesmanship, etc., but one must also understand that "PEOPLE LIE, EVEN TO THEMSELVES, WITH NUMBERS!" 

We are taught "mathematics" in grade school, and it is simply a skill that one can learn to do with the symbols that we use on a piece of paper. We start with the ten digits, "0," "1," "2," "3," "4," "5," "6," "7," "8," and "9," and we learn to combine those digits to make numbers greater than 9. Then we start adding other symbols, like the operators. And, we quickly discover that the operators always come in pairs. If something can be done, it must also be able to be UNdone. 

So, we learn addition with the "+" symbol, and it's opposite, subtraction with the "-" symbol, and we are given the equal sign, "=," to balance the two sides of an equation.

Then we learn multiplication "x" and division "/." At some point, we learn the use of the decimal point (.) and fractions, which are represented as division because
1 / 2 = 1/2. Whenever we are introduced to algebra, the boxes and triangles that we were supposed to fill with the answer become letters that represent an unknown (as yet) number.

We learn that we can subtract large numbers from small numbers to produce NEGATIVE numbers, represented with the "-" symbol, because 0 - 1 = -1. In the same way, POSITIVE numbers can be represented with the "+" symbol because 0 + 1 = +1.

And, we learn that we can COMBINE operations into a formula, and there are rules about the order in which those operations are performed.

Then, we learn about powers, superscripted numbers that represent how many times the number is multiplied by itself. And, then we learn its opposite, roots; what number when multiplied by itself however many times would give you the original number.

If we go on to trigonometry, we learn that there are sines and inverse sines; cosines and inverse cosines; tangents and inverse tangents; cotangents and inverse cotangents. And, these may all be "hyperbolic," as well!

If we go on to calculus, we learn that we can differentiate, and we can integrate.

BUT where we REALLY learn TRUE math is when we are introduced to UNITS, and we start doing WORD PROBLEMS! Now, we start USING the symbol manipulation to actually solve REAL WORLD problems! "Six" is just a number, BUT when we say "six inches," now we have a LENGTH that is measurable! My Calculus I professor announced to the class, "Welcome to your first REAL math class!" EVERY exercise was a word problem!

In both chemistry and physics, we learn two very important things about real world measurements. FIrst, there are SEVEN defined units upon which all the others are built: the meter (or centimeter), the gram (or kilogram), the second, the Pascal, the Joule, the Kelvin, and the mole. They measure length, mass, time, pressure, energy, temperature, and molecular amount, respectively.

Second, we are introduced to significant figures. These are limitations placed upon our answer with respect to the actual known values of measured variables and defined constants, and we learn the rules for those limitations.

To lie with numbers is very easy to do. One simply has to break a rule here or introduce a hidden "divide by zero" error there, and one can make 2 + 2 = 5! Neglect the rules for significant figures, and keep throwing numbers into the answer, and one has become dishonest with the numbers. I've had problems where the significant figures were too low for a meaningful answer. It should have been "15," for instance, but because I only had one significant figure allowed in my answer, I had to report "20," where only the "2" was significant! If it had been "14," I would have had to report "10" as my answer!

One is introduced to errors: error in measurement, error in calculation, limitations of the calculator, etc. And, then, there's the matter of accuracy and precision and sample size, and how those contribute to error.

Sorry about going on and on, but I hope you can understand my point. Scientists have taken the numbers to inconceivable and unrealistic sizes that do NOT support the evidence that we find that suggests a young earth.

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out, it is accurate at least to 35,000 years.   You were misled about that, too.  would you like to see how we know?   I think you're confusing the calibration of the samples with the calibration of instruments that record the ionizing radiation.

And that is different than used for non-ionizing radiation.

I have shown you scientists lie for money because there is no consequence to doing so.  When grants area involved, that's money.  People are about to lose their job, so they lie and say, "We could get more clarity with another grant."  I have shown you magazines and journals will publish the lies even after know the White Paper is a lie.

Why is it that 50 year old flows and 200 year old flows don't show up as zero years old, but instead they show up as millions of years old?   So an observed 200 year flow is millions of years off, but a 2000 year old flow is dead on? 

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

One more time: you claimed biology textbooks teach his theory.   Do you have even one example to show us that does?

Just the dozen or so I showed.

 

This is a colorized version of Earnest Haekle's exact art showing the fraud.  They are not displaying Haekle's exact art to say "Oh look, Haekle lied.  He committed fraud." 

Why display his artwork at all, since it is untrue and a fraud?  Why don't the captions directly admit the drawings are a fraud?

[The Barbarian]

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

This is a colorized version of Earnest Haekle's exact art showing the fraud.  They are not displaying Haekle's exact art to say "Oh look, Haekle lied.  He committed fraud." 

And if you bothered to read the text, you will notice again, that the text uses it to show that Haeckels "biogenic law" is not true.   One more time; do you have any textbooks that actually support Haeckel's claims?

You do realize that you are providing more and more evidence for my point, don't you?