Rewards offered for evidence supporting creationist claims

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Peter101, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some creationist admiringly posted a link to a site where I found the following bit of false information, as expected. The site was trying to outline all the "errors" put forth by evolutionists. I have never heard this one before but perhaps some of you creationists have:

    "Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages."

    I deny that mainstream science, i.e. evolutionists, have ever done such a thing. I am now offering a reward of $1,000 to anyone who can prove that long ages for radioactive half-lives have been "assumed" in order to prove long ages. I know something about this field, so my money is safe. Prove me wrong.

    Reward #2. It is often falsely claimed by creationists that there is circular reasoning at work when "Fossils are used to date the rocks and then rocks are used to date the fossils". This is the gist of the false claim, although the exact wording may vary. I will give a $3,000 reward to anyone who can prove that errors have been made in dating either rocks or fossils, because of circular reasoning. To win this reward, you must present solid proof, involving a specific location or specific fossils and show without a doubt that circular reasoning is the cause. Remember that vague and non-specific information is not acceptable. You must show the spot on the earth that was misdated or the specfic fossil. If it is not possible to point to specific items, then this creationist claim is not valid. The devil is in the details, my dear creationists.
     
  2. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    So all I have to do is get a scientist to say that? Does the scientist have to mean it?

    :D
     
  3. Travelsong

    Travelsong
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I would just like to see one single solitary bona fide scientist convinced that the earth is no more than 6-10 thousand years old as YEC's claim. If YEC's are using such credible evidence, why is it so easily refuted any time a real scientist walks in the room? It seems to me that the only tactic YEC's employ to refute observable phenomenon is that things have not always been this way. In fact 6,000 years ago the world was totally different. C-14? Totally different. In fact so different as to make what would appear 300,000 years old today really only dead just yesterday.Sedimentary depostits? 6,000 years ago we had whole river beds forming over night.Wind and water erosion? Believe it or not the grand canyon only took about 35 minutes. Plate Tectonics? Yep, just 6,000 years ago the world was one land mass. Remember, everything happened 20,000 times faster back then. Mountains? Oh yeah, all of those were formed in 40 days and 40 nights.The speed of light? Yep, that changed dramatically too.

    It's all well and good to sit in a Christian forum preaching to the choir, but let's see you guys bear some real fruit.

    Click here and have at it.
     
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Because HE said so in HIS word.

    You can send the money to me at..... [​IMG]

    Diane
     
  5. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have to either name a scientist or present evidence that the dating methods are inaccurate.

    Mere anecdotes about personal interpretations do not pass go, do not collect 200... :D
     
  6. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I find funny is that some try and put God or even think that God is restricted to our level of dimensions of space and our dimension of time. But God is outside of these dimensions. And I for one could careless what science says, b/c I start within Gods word and not outside of His word.
     
  7. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read the OP, John6:63?

    It would appear that you didn't.
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this model use a uniformitarian assumption of natural history that has not been observed? If so, PM me and I will tell you where to send the money.

    When "Lucy" was geologically dated was the sample drawn from the same location as the fossils or were the dates provided by those samples too young?
     
  9. Elena

    Elena
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    EF Nope.

    EF Not a bad try, I'll let the person doling out the cash explain why this claim does not fit the bill.
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    EF Nope. </font>[/QUOTE] You will excuse me if a simple "nope" is not good enough. Please tell me what the provable, observable standard by which this dating method is calibrated.
     
  11. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  12. Elena

    Elena
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    EF Science does not 'prove' things. Science has observed decay events (trillions upon trillions upon trillions of them) and not found decay to be variant. Do you have any evidence that they are highly variable under near surface earth conditions?
     
  13. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You will excuse me if a simple "nope" is not good enough. Please tell me what the provable, observable standard by which this dating method is calibrated. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    Are you trying to respond to the challenge in a serious way? If so, read it again, and you will realize that the burden of proof is upon you to show that there is a problem with a particular dating method. To win the reward, you must provide appropriate answers and rather than questions.
     
  14. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;When "Lucy" was geologically dated was the sample drawn from the same location as the fossils or were the dates provided by those samples too young? &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    I don't know. It is up to you to provide answers and not questions. If there was circular reasoning, please provide the evidence as requested in the challenge.
     
  15. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Because HE said so in HIS word.

    You can send the money to me at.....

    Diane&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    Sorry Diane, but piety is not the standard by which quality is evaluated in this reward offer. It is required that you present evidence of a secular, rather than a religious nature, in order to be considered responsive.
     
  16. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;"Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages."&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    Just a word of clarification about the above. Some creationist must have been carried away with zeal to post such an outrageous claim as this. My reward offer is an offer to anyone who can prove that any mainstream scientist ever, in the history of science, ASSUMED without proof, a long radioactive half-life and then used that to show a old age of some object. In my judgment the above claim is just one more example of the poor and unacceptable scholarship of the creationist camp. The above claim is false and whoever made it is an ignorant person. The link where the above claim was made was given recently on some thread. I can provide the exact link if anyone wants to track down the person who wrote the above in the hope that they may have a claim of some substance.
     
  17. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    The link where I found the false claim mentioned in the previous post is given below:

    http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

    There are considerable number of falsehoods on the link above. I have just chosen one because I don't have time to write about all of them. It seems they have almost all of the major false claims broadcast by creationists. For any creationist who wants to explore the validity of the claim that I dispute, a good place to start would be to contact the owners of that web site, tell them of my challenge and ask for their help in providing evidence to back up their claim. It might gain you $1,000 if I am wrong and they are right.
     
  18. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    ANYONE claiming the age of something to be over 60,000 yrs. is assuming a long age for radioactive half-lives.
    Nothing is measurable after that *assumed* length of time, which is only assumed to exist due to the methods of dating so far, which may change in the future with the advancement of science.
    Carbon 14 cannot be accurate in the dating of anything older that a couple of thousand years because it would have all decayed in anything after that, and anything remaining would have been newly formed, so best way of guessing at anything containing only miniscule amounts of c14 (in comparison to known aged objects) would HAVE to be assuming a long age!
    Name of scientist who first inaccurately assumed long age in radio-active half-life: Henri Bacqueretblahblah.
    Did I as least SOUND like I knew what I was talking about??? :D
    Gina
     
  19. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Did I as least SOUND like I knew what I was talking about???&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    No. Radioactive half-lives are easily measurable in a short period of time, even if the half-lives themselves are in the billions of years. Nothing has to be assumed, as the half-lives can all be measured - in less than a day, using very simple techiques.
     
  20. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't like this game anymore! Can I quit? [​IMG]
    But...how can it be measured using c14 that doesn't exist anymore? :confused:
    Gina
     

Share This Page

Loading...