Calling all Young Earth Creationists

Mt St Helen's created layered canyons as a perfect lesson book for those studying the timeline of the Grand Canyon. Atheist Darwinist just hate that.

The sedimentation rates of all major river deltas indicate a start point for all of them less then 10,000 years old.

The Helium build up in the upper atmosphere due to radioactive decay accounts for less then 10,000 years of earth's history.

The "rest of the universe" is God's making as is the earth. Nothing says he can not make a very large universe. (And nothing says that He made ALL the universe 6000 years ago).

This world and "our TWO great Lights" yes -- but the rest of the universe "no".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Looking at atheist darwinists we find that just the opposite is true as Colin Patterson (Atheist darwinist) pointed out.

Looking at the PRIME EXAMPLE given to us by atheist darwinists (the fraudulent horse series) we have the perfect example where THEY ADMIT that this "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" in the sequence they provided --- they simply took what bias told them was true and "ARRANGED Fossils" to fit the story.

Your point is valid in the case of REAL science - but when it comes to the junk science methods of atheist darwinism -- all bets are off.

HENCE the fact that they cling to "Stories" about abiogenesis NO MATTER WHAT they find in the lab to the contrary.

HENCE the fact that they cling to "stories" about "massive decreases in Entropy" No matter WHAT they find in the lab to the contrary!

But what is worse - is that so-called Christian evolutionists can not bring themselves to the SAME level of honesty and objectivity as ATHEIST DARWINISTS when it comes to admitting the blunders of Darwinist evolutionists (UTEOTW has demonstrated that in triplicate).

And far worse than that - (as UTEOTW has also demonstrated) a few Christian evolutionists have even gone so far as to bash non-Christian evolutionsts FOR ACCEPTING the glaring fact of "intelligent design" as SEEN IN nature ... even though Romans 1 tells us that "intelligent Design" is CLEARLY SEEN (even by pagans) in the things that have been MADE by God!

The bias and "spin" that atheist darwinists and even some Christian-evolutionists use to prop up the junk-science we know today as the religion of evolutionism is a matter of record sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Glad to see not much at all has changed around here.

The question was asked how you can know how old the earth is. The question was answered with a detailed series of two posts complete with several references. But, after the question being asked more then once, no one was actually interested in the answer.

Helen continues to handwave away simple observations that should be perplexing anyone who does not accept c-decay but which are in reality completely missing from reality. She continues to stand by simple mistakes such as standing by her assertion that the formula f* = f + v/L explains why galaxy rotation observations would be the same either way and ignoring the simple algebraic mistake that each side of that equation is assuming a different speed of light in her world meaning that the two sides really are not equal since simple substitution shows that the formula assumes that the speed of light is the same on both sides. She does not even bother to try and handwave away the necessity that in her world, the movement of the Hawaiian Islands over their hotspot MUST have changed in exact lockstep with the asserted change in the speed of light.

Bob also never stops with long discredited arguments. River deltas are much older than he lets on for various reasons including compaction and erosion of the deposited material, not to mention that dating a river delta only dates the river delta, not the earth. Should we date Bob by the age of the car in his driveway.

There are known, measured processes that remove helium from the uppoer atmosphere. Bob knows this. I have shown him the peer reviewed references many times. So why does he continue to make an asertion where he has not even attempted to dispute the science that exposes him.

[Personal attack deleted] If anyone can seriously think that Simpson meant to say that the horse did not evolve or was admitting any fraud when he said that opinions on the evolution of the horse changed from straightline to highly branched as more and more data came in either does not understand Simpson's quote very well or wishes to distort the meaning away from what was intended.

Bob continues to assert a chiral problem for abiogenesis while ignoring literally pages of references that have been given him. He claims this is an impossible problem but when actual experiments are given that show it not to be, he handwaves them away and falls back on his own personal incredulty.

Bob assumes an entropy problem even though he has been shown to misunderstand and misrepresent the salient points. He does not accept that there is an INCREASE in entropy in going from a molecular cloud to the world we see today. This is because he labors under a false definition of entropy where he equates it to disorder on a macro scale, ignoring statements from texts on thermodynamics and experts on dynamics. Why? Because it is a common analogy to explain entropy by equating it to a laymans concept of disorder. But Bob either cannot or will not acknowledge that such analogies are simly that. Analogies.

And he also tries to equate the Grand Canyon to a canyon formed at Mt. St. Helens. There is nothing at all similar between the two except that they are both canyons. Different scale. Different geology. Where in the Washington canyon to you see wind blown layers interspersed with marine deposited layers? Where do you see trace fossils from animal movement in the middle of the Washington canyon? Where do you see layers deposited in a shallow marine environment in the Washington canyon? Deep marine sediments? Limestones? Where are the multiple layers of lava flows, or any lava flows at all, in your Washington canyon? Mt. St. Helens affers no geology at all that is the least bit similar to the Grand Canyon. But Bob knows this. He loves to recycle discredited arguments.

 

My apologies... raying: And good luck with your exam.

 

I am still interested. I just was not on-line over night. Tell me how one can date the age of rocks directly?

You are correct I am going to challenge the dating methods used. Carbon dating etc. is accurate back to about 10,000 to 12,000 years. After that point the results begin to skew off and the further the dating attempts to go back the further off it becomes. The dating you talked about being consistent is so because the rate of the skew is exponential and consistently so. Bad data results in bad outcome which results in more bad data and so on and so on. Finally, I used to work for an Archaeologist. In all the survey work and digs I participated in we never found any artifacts older than about 10,000 to 12,000 years. Why look, those dates match the dates commonly accepted as very reliable for carbon dating etc. Why do you think that happens?

However, let's get back to the age of the earth's rocks. Please explain exactly how you understand they are dated. I don’t want you to link or refer me to a bunch of research here. I have already read lots of it. I just want to have a discussion with you (or the original poster) about your understanding of how the earth’s rocks are dated.

 

Thanks, Bibleboy.. Good point.

:thumbs:

 

Bible-boy, rocks are dated by radio decay rate methods. Specific heavy elements, such as uranium, are so heavy that they lose bits of their nuclei at a certain rate. This is called the decay rate. At the rate of decay as we see it today, any certain amount of uranium will be 'decayed' into lead in about 4.5 billion years. Thus, if the researchers see in a rock that there is about half the special type (isotope) of lead that comes from uranium and about half uranium, they presume the rock is about 4.5 billion years old.

Other elements have different 'half lives', meaning they will be half gone in a certain amount of time, and then half of what is left will be half gone in the same amount of time, etc. So looking at what they find in different rocks gives certain dates, or ages.

The two most unreliable forms of radiometric dating are any which deal with argon and carbon 14 dating. Argon migrates through rocks very rapidly and thus will often give known false ages depending on where it ends up or how little of it is left somewhere. Carbon 14 dating is also quite unreliable for a variety of reasons. However there is a rather reliable radiometric dating method, and that is using zircon crystals. An unblemished zircon crystal is generally quite reliable in giving consistently accurate atomic dates.

Please note I said 'atomic dates.' That is because the rate of atomic processes, and thus of radio decay, has NOT stayed the same through time. This has been a major part of my husband's research for the past 28 years. There are a number of ways to show that atomic processes have changed speed through time. Thus, dating something via atomic processes may give accurate ATOMIC time, but that is entirely different from orbital time, or time as God told us to mark it in Genesis 1:14 -- by the sun, moon, and stars.

We have been invited so many places to talk that we cannot possibly respond to every request. As a result, we are in the process of making a series of videos of Barry's work which will help people understand what the data are really pointing to -- and that is that the Bible is absolutely right in that this is a very young creation.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

Does it not "bother you" that atheists START by looking for answers that fit their atheist darwinist views??

does it only "bother you" that Christians seek answers that are in line with God tells them are the facts of what HE did?

WHo MADE the world - Atheist darwinists or God?

You have to settle that one first before you decide "whose bias you will take" going out the door.

If you don't BELIEVE that Atheists USE their bias - then read Philip Johnson's study of that VERY problem.

But having researched none of it - how then do you summarize as you have done - that only Christians seek answers in line with what God has told them and Atheists do not seek answers in line with atheist darwinism?

Especially given the atheist's OWN CONFESSION on what THEY did in terms of story telling about the horse series and story telling in general to prop up atheist darwinism "As if" it was fact?

How can you dismiss NOT ONLY what the Christians are saying BUT ALSO what the ATHEISTS are telling you???

That is the part that has me puzzled.

In Christ,

Bob

 

First UTEOTW offers "stories for children" THEN he offers "revisionist history"!!

How "unnexpected" of a devotee to atheist darwinist doctrines -- that they might use such methods!

UTEOTW offered "a thought experiment" solution proclaiming victory over the fact that "he could IMAGINE success" based on ACTUAL experiement that FAILED to produced the proteins and enzymes NEEDED for a single living cell.

How "surprising" that a devotee to atheist darwinism would take the failures in the lab as "proof" of thought-experiment SUCCESS siting as "evidence" the "number of pages it takes to tell the story".

Come on people THINK - these arguments are so shallow - I am amazed that anyone falls for them!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Wrong. As usual.

Entropy has NEVER been discredited here NOR has the REQUIREMENT for "A MASSIVE DECREASE in Entropy" by true believers in atheist darwinism EVER BEEN demonstrated in the lab to actually HAPPEN in such an imagined thought experiment. (Recall that to atheist darwinist true believers - their own THOUGHT experiements are to be accepted in place of demonstrated fact!)

What is worse - is that UTEOTW loves a bit of handwaving in leu of actually SHOWING massive decreases in entropy needed to transition from "molecule to human mind" as Isaac Asimov stated it.

Wrong "again".

Entropy is defined as "USUABLE energy" and the fact is that a cloud (no matter how hot) does NOT ORGANIZE to the states of energy required for even one DNA based life form -- not even if given ALL OF TIME! This readily observable - but of course atheist darwinists "can construct thought experiements with the cloud" and we should all be "aware of that" -- right UTEOTW????

Using UTEOTW's bogus story-telling we would conclude that every brain surgery starts with a giant explosion and then uses entropy to produce the surgeon!!

False "again".

And of course this is the normal story telling that we would expect from UTEOTW -- but never mind that part.

NO text has EVER claimed to do ANY experiement where ENTROPY is used to CREATE a computer chip from an explosion!!

The glaringly obvious point here is that IT ALWAYS takes HIGHER states of organized energy to produce LOWER states of organized energy. The devotee to atheist darwinism will faithfully and devotedly "imagine" that from the LOWEST state of organized energy may come all other forms of organized energy -- but it has never been SHOWN in the lab.

REcall that matter itself is in fact an organized state of energy.

E=MC2

The problem of order and disorder has been promoted by scientists and quoted here REPEATEDLY -- UTEOTW uses the Atheist darwinist ploy "any scientist that does not BELIEVE in atheist darwinism should not be read".

I just can't believe that such dark-ages methods still survive today - and yet UTEOTW uses them daily.

How sad.

UTEOTW - busted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

On the contrary, modern scientists start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old and the theory of evolution is true. After studying the physics behind nuclear decay I realized that while the equation is sound it rests upon several assumptions. First, it assumes a steady state of decay, logrithmic if I remember correctly. Second, it assumes that the only loss of material is through decay. Third, it assumes that all organism taken in a certain amount of radioactive material. I thoroughly do not understand why so many people are willing to call, something that relies on assumptions, scientific fact. This argument you use of thousands of scientists saying something is wrong is a logical fallacy. Just because large numbers of people agree does not make them right.

P.S. good luck on that Organic Test, I can sympathize with the pain.

 

Rew, one thing to understand. With all due respect to Helen, Barry's "work" is not that of a scientist. From what I can tell, he is a self-taught lay person with a preconceived idea, and he wants to come up with any inane way to "prove" that idea. He has to find unsupportable things that counter observations, and that is why no real scientists look at his writings with any credibility. If there was evidence to support them, they would be taken seriously. They are not. His audiences are largely fundamentalist churches. The scientific community is not dumb and Barry so smart that he has discovered things they don't know or understand.

Again, I mean no disrespect. I just call it like I see it.

 

You have used one of UTEOTW's ploys - in your term "mainstream science" do you not in fact mean "using arguments that would be acceptable to true believers in atheist darwinism?"

Do you actually KNOW anything about the science that was being done there?

Do you actually know anything at all about the HISTORY (the unREVISED history) of the debate that has been going on among scientists today on this point?

Is it wise to simply swallow every story that people like UTEOTW tell without first exploring both sides?

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is just so lame - I can't believe anyone falls for it.

The anti-atheist anti-darwinist scientifice community is very large (as it turns out) just not "popular" among atheist darwinists.

I brought one of our visiting physics scientists (research professor at NCState) to this board to review and comment on the bogus half-baked arguments in favor of "MASSIVE DECREASES in Entropy" and when quoted here UTEOTW and others CONTINUED to turn a blind eye to all that was said because they could always find some atheist darwinist that "held another view".

Their lack of objectivity research and science has been exposed time after time on this board -- and they simply come back after a few months to "repeat the same discredited stories"

How sad.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you have drinken the Kool-Aid. I guess the scientific community either wants to NOT discover how things work, or they want to hide it so they can push a false idea for God-knows-what reason. That you believe something like that is what is truly sad.

 

no MP, the secular scientific community simply refuses to consider any evidence that goes against their preconceived notion of evolution.

YES, some creation scientists do essentially the same thing........however, the Creation Scientists have an infallible Book on which to stand in their worldview. The evolutionists do not.


Let me add this as well......just FYI for the OPer........both Helen and her husband started out their scientific university studies as avowed evolutionists. It was through their studies of science that they were eventually turned to creationism.

 

Rew, you have it exactly backwards about something. After I resigned from teaching, I ended up, almost accidently, as a freelance science editor. I worked with men on both sides of the evolution/creation issue, helping get articles ready for submission for publication. I saw something that bothered me greatly -- up until one person, every single man I worked with on BOTH sides was going theory first and trying to cram data into it, ignoring other data, or marginalizing it.

There was one man who had the courage to go data first, convinced that God had not lied in His creation. And that person was Barry. He started out being stunned by the fact that there were three hundred years of measurements of light speed which showed that it had been steadily decreasing. The error bars were much smaller than the decreases measured. This was a major subject of discussion in scientific journals until 1941, when Birge, the 'keeper of the constants' at UC Berkeley, simply DECLARED that any belief that the constants were changing (and a number of them had been measured as changing, not just the speed of light), was contrary to the spirit of science as it was then known. One has to wonder what 'spirit of science' he was talking about, as it seemed to be divorced from a search for the truth!

However, Barry had been taught, as we all had, that c is constant, and so he figured that there must be some regular error in observation or mathematics and he gave himself about two weeks to clear the matter up.

It is 28 years later now, and he has simply kept following the data. He is humble enough to be corrected on matters and has been. Several years ago (about three as I recall now), a physicist from Spain very arrogantly corrected him on a matter. Barry took a look at the man's emails and said, "You know, he's right." And he retracked on his work on the Zero Point Energy, figured it as part of a recombination of Planck Particle Pairs, which is what the man said he had been ignoring, and the results were two major papers in the Journal of Theoretics. You will find them as the last two research papers on his website.

He is EXTREMELY careful about his research. So no, he does not start off with the answer (which, in fact, modern science does where evolution and long ages are concerned). This is why he started out as a long-ager and a theistic evolutionist and is now a young ager and a creationist. It was the data which convinced him, and that took some time. It is hard to change a world view. Most people refuse, despite any facts. He wanted the truth more than he wanted anything else.

So before you accuse him of anything, I would suggest you check into his work. The data is there. The math is there. The logic is there. Essentially, what he has done, actually, is take the work from other very respected mainstream scientists and researchers and looked at it, put it together and said, "look, see where this leads?"

If people refuse to see that, there is nothing he can do. He is presenting the truth he has found as simply a result of the data they have all collected. So please don't accuse him of fabricating anything until you know what you are talking about.

 

No disrespect, Magnetic, but you are not seeing it. He is a trained geologist, lectured in astronomy to the South Australia Astronomical Socieity for years, and is very respected among a number of physicists, several of whom have traveled thousands of miles to stay with us and meet him and talk to him.

So until you, also, know what you are talking about, best not to talk.