Rewards offered for evidence supporting creationist claims

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.

 

>>>>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. <<<<<<<<

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.

 

>>>>>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? <<<<<<<

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.

 

>>>>>>>Because HE said so in HIS word.

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

Diane<<<<<

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

>>>>Did I as least SOUND like I knew what I was talking about???<<<<<

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.