Search This Blog

Friday, January 04, 2013

What is Creation and Evolution and Who Cares? Part 8!

Yep, the time has come to welcome 2013 and bring back Dr. Ian Juby!!!










Yep! The time will also come, after the series, when we'll take another shot at the incredible stupidity of Anthropic Global Warming hysteria.   After Tamboro, the Northern Hemisphere experienced the Year Without Summer in 1816, a year of starvation and poverty because of the cooling caused by the emissions from the volcano.   We humans emit carbon dioxide, which is plant food.  A volcano is not so beneficent.   It throws lots of particles and poisons into the atmosphere.   A big one has a calamitous effect.   All the factories and farms of the world cannot equal one Tamboro.  Actually, global warming is a good thing.   Crops grow faster and bigger and with less rain.  Come on, warming, come and get us!

Stay tuned because there is plenty to do and it is time to begin blogging again.   Welcome to 2013!!!



31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait... "Dr." Juby now? Did he go and get himself a phony degree recently like that "achaeologist" you posted about?

Last time I checked, Ian's only credentials are a high school diploma and MENSA membership.

radar said...

I thought nobody read this blog and no one commented? Hmmmmmm?

radar said...

Also the commenter did not have time to watch the videos, he just dropped in to complain?

If you folks would WATCH the freaking videos you would LEARN something and not remain ignorant or brainwashed!!! Then you might begin to realize that Darwinism and all of its trappings are hogwash?

Then it would perhaps bother you that some animals are more equal than others - aka what the White House has in common with the house in Animal Farm. Then maybe you would realize Al Gore is a fraud and Richard Dawkins is incapable of defending the belief system he supposedly defends in his books. It is all nonsense, but it does make him a wonderful living.

cavalier973 said...

*Last time I checked, Ian's only credentials are a high school diploma and MENSA membership.*

That, and a considerable amount of time spent in field work and research.

http://tccsa.tc/notices/juby_bio.html

Anonymous said...

So is it "Dr." Juby or isn't it?

"I thought nobody read this blog and no one commented? Hmmmmmm?"

Why did you think that?

radar said...

No, Ian Juby does not have a doctorate. Within the comments thread of my last post before enjoying a holiday, a troll stated that no one read my blog and nobody commented on it anymore. But I know better. There are apparently one or more Darwinist trolls who are getting my feed so they can quickly scan for something derogatory to say. The troll wanted to state that Ian was not a doctor. He made the comments within 5-10 minutes of my posting this, which means he didn't watch the videos and is only interested in throwing stones.

This video series I am posting includes information gleaned from brilliant scientists from all over the globe. Often a straight evidence-based post does not draw troll comments because they do not have anything they can say.

Just like using a voltage meter to test a circuit to see if it is "hot" or not, I threw out a bone to the "nonexistent" readers and commenters and got the red needle bouncing clear to the right immediately.

Now for more evidence supporting creation and making evolution seem pitifully ludicrous, which of courst it is...

highboy said...

So are any of the commenters going to actually refute what is in the videos? I'd like to here arguments against the merit of the videos rather than just attacking the credibility of the content.

Anonymous said...

Hey highboy

I haven't commented for a while and am still busy for the next few weeks, but since this Juby thing is meant to be a sort of comprehensive look at Creation Science and Radar has a tendency to abort series once they are questioned, I wanted to wait until the series is finished before going through them and listing all the fallacies and mistakes.

On the whole, though, it's become obvious that Radar isn't even interested in trying to understand opposing arguments, so I don't expect any logical responses from him once the rebuttals come in.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper,

Thanks for the ad hominem in advance! It is entirely incorrect, naturally, but it does reveal your mindset. During the years I have done this blog I have answered every question that was not completely off the charts. You have a mind that is set in stone, so no amount of evidence and logic is likely to creep in. Get it? Creep in?

But you are human and alive, so you may be able to change your ways. In any event, this series was done a few years back and we have new evidence that was not available then. As usual, the new evidence supports creation and helps us better understand life as it is because we understand that the Universe and organisms and physical laws were DESIGNED.

Anonymous said...

Hi Radar,

I see you still haven't acquainted yourself with the meaning of "ad hominem", as you still insist on using it wrongly. If you can't even bother to get something like that right, it doesn't say much for your ability to take new information on board.

"During the years I have done this blog I have answered every question that was not completely off the charts."

I think we had some kind of list of questions you wouldn't answer. In any case, there's a bunch. And you can't admit that you can't answer them because that would get in the way of your particular mythology.

Here's one question I don't recall you answering:

"How can one re-calibrate dating methods (specifically C-14) so they don't falsify YEC but still line up with observable evidence?"

I wouldn't call that "completely off the charts", would you? YEC would actually have to have an answer to that for YEC to have any validity. So if you think you answered it, could you tell us where?

-- creeper

radar said...

Ad hominem means literally "to the man" and when you state that "On the whole, though, it's become obvious that Radar isn't even interested in trying to understand opposing arguments, so I don't expect any logical responses from him once the rebuttals come in."

So I see no logic or reasoning there, just an attack on me personally. Maybe YOU should brush up on your Latin?

One post to refer to among many:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2012/04/modern-science-mistakes-dating-part.html

There are many others. I also posted this video:

http://youtu.be/3wMV8Hw99yg

The trouble with C-14 dating is that we find it in every layer of sedimentary rock!! Yes, fossils from Cambrian layers have it and so do fossils from layers higher up. Every single fossil remnant we have found has been found to contain C-14, which should not happen after millions of years.

So what happens when Darwinists discover the evidence falsifies their pet myth? They make up excuses, like contamination. Yeah, right, sure, the check is in the mail! Same thing with the intricate design features of the cell, the evidence that shows that the Solar System is young, and a killer is the magnetic field! Real evidence ruins the Darwinist story. I've been trying to get to your brain for years now, Creeper, it would be great to see you be real and provide real evidence instead of depending on dumbbells like Richard Dawkins.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious. It seems you're getting more incoherent over time - or maybe you were like this way back when I first started commenting here.

1. You didn't finish your sentence in the first paragraph, so there is indeed no logic or reasoning there. What were you trying to say?

2. An "ad hominem" argument is when one tries to win a logical argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument instead of addressing the factual arguments at hand. My observation above was made with no connection to any specific argument, and so I wasn't trying to win an argument by attacking the person making an argument instead of factual arguments at hand. I was merely making an observation of your behavior, and you confirm again and again that that observation is correct: you don't even try to understand the questions or arguments posed to you.

And the meaning of "ad hominem" (other than the literal translation) still eludes you. It is not synonymous with insult.

3. You claimed that you had answered all questions thrown at you. Readers of this blog know that that is blatantly untrue. I presented an example of a question that you hadn't been capable of answering: "How can one re-calibrate dating methods (specifically C-14) so they don't falsify YEC but still line up with observable evidence?" (And this is really only one of many.)

Your response? A link to a previous blog post that also doesn't answer the question. A link to a YouTube clip that doesn't answer the question. Some more general rants about C-14 dating that don't answer the question.

Hm. Something tells me you didn't understand the question.

Read it carefully.

How can one re-calibrate dating methods (specifically C-14) so they don't falsify YEC but still line up with observable evidence?

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, I gave you the URL to the video by Ian Juby that discusses that topic.

You are the one who does not understand "ad hominem" and I am not going to argue about it any longer, be wrong and enjoy it. Wow!

The observable evidence is that all fossils have C-14 and therefore are all relatively "young" in that they are thousands rather than millions of years old. We also have evidence that the Flood event had a radical effect on all systems on Earth and that the atmosphere of Earth was a bit different before the Noahic Flood.

Since the Darwinist calibration methods sometimes yield very old ages for very new items, they are completely unreliable. The fossils from one layer in the same vicinity will yield measurements that differ by several million years. Darwinist C-14 methods almost always give ridiculously long ages to things.

Those of you who want to know truth need to get away from the "establishment" scientists who are protecting Darwinism now like they protected Geocentricism back in the days of Copernicus. Go to Creation.com and Answers in Genesis and other such sites from my links list and research radiometric dating methods. Search for Carbon-14 dating. Look up Polonium Radiohalo evidence and the Helium content of Granitic Zircons. That will take you on a journey of discovery that will open your eyes to the lies and myths perpetrated by Darwinists and perhaps lead you forward to check up on all their unfounded claims.

Anonymous said...

"Creeper, I gave you the URL to the video by Ian Juby that discusses that topic."

It discusses a related topic and it doesn't answer the question. Where does it discuss calibration of C-14 data in a way that lines up with a 6,000 year timeline? Seriously, where? Point us to a section of the video that does this. It's a 10 minute video. If you can't point us to that section, then you're admitting that the answer isn't there. Heck, the topic isn't even discussed.

"You are the one who does not understand "ad hominem" and I am not going to argue about it any longer, be wrong and enjoy it. Wow!"

If you have a problem with the definition of "ad hominem" (not just the literal translation) that I posted ("An "ad hominem" argument is when one tries to win a logical argument by attacking the credibility of the person making the argument instead of addressing the factual arguments at hand"), then please point out what that problem might be. Your claim that you think I don't understand what it means is completely hollow otherwise. You're simply thumbing your nose at me and running away.

"The observable evidence is that all fossils have C-14 and therefore are all relatively "young" in that they are thousands rather than millions of years old"

If by "thousands of years" you mean less than 10,000 years, you've got a problem right off the bat. C-14 data has been calibrated to over 10,000 years, and even that doesn't exhaust the C-14 levels, i.e. at 10,000 years ago the C-14 isn't as depleted as it is in many samples that are found.

These facts stands in complete contradiction to the claims made by YECs and falsify the notion of a young Earth.

Now YECs could deal with this problem if they were able to (1) credibly discredit any such calibrations, which they have of course not been able to do, and (2) provide a credible alternative calibration of the same data, which they have also not been able to do.

The question remains unanswerable by YECs and is a clear falsification of a young Earth. That's why you have to huff and puff and change the subject to all kinds of other things instead of even coming close to the subject of the question.

It's like that with almost all aspects of YEC. When you get down to it, they're all based on false or insufficient claims of some kind, and generally you don't even have to drill all that far down to find them.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, you are hard to reason with since you don't read all the articles and then long after I have covered the C-14 in detail you drag it back up and pretend to be ignorant of all the posts made.

The article I presented was one of several that covers key issues. Did you know C-14 is even present in diamonds?

The short answer is that YEC have seen that there is C-14 in all levels of sedimentary rock, so not one place on Earth is old enough to have depleted the C-14 in a sample anywhere. We've noted the drastic changes that took place during the Flood - magnetic pole reversals, Coriolis effect on rock formations, rapid formation of radiohalos and apparently changes in all decay rates from the sheer impact of a worldwide natural disaster that is far beyond all the natural disasters and the bombs and bullets of mankind put together over the last 2,000 years. The Noahic Flood would make all that a drop in the ocean of what the Earth experienced back in that time.

So YEC must factor in a lot of information in calibration, but it helps to date things that have a pretty well-established date and calibrate from there and also knowing the oldest samples will be less than 10,000 years old. So they test more modern specimens to get a reasonable age and that helps in calibration.

I suppose I could put together a couple of calibration pieces out there AGAIN so even Creeper could grok them. But I will finish the Juby video series first.

Anonymous said...

"Creeper, you are hard to reason with since you don't read all the articles and then long after I have covered the C-14 in detail you drag it back up and pretend to be ignorant of all the posts made."

If you think I missed an article in which the question was answered, by all means present it. Show us the link. So far you haven't done that. Don't be coy.

"I suppose I could put together a couple of calibration pieces out there AGAIN"

No need. Just point me to a single one that covers the subject of the calibration of C-14 data that lines up with a 6000 year timeline and that is consistent with other data. Your worldview tells you this should be possible. My worldview tells me it's not. So far you haven't come up with the goods, which means you're in the wrong.

Just a single link. No evasions. No nonsense like "Did you know C-14 is even present in diamonds" or in sedimentary rock - which only goes to show you're not even close to grasping what C-14 dating is about.

The question is about a method of calibrating the data that is consistent with YEC and with other observable data.

Instead of whining, present a link that you think answers this question. Not a link about C-14 in general, not some other creationist talking points, none of those evasions you keep trotting out. No whining about "the establishment" or what have you.

A single link that you think answers the question.

I know you don't have it. But you have yet to figure that out.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

And if you don't have it, just admit it and finish off the Juby video series so we can get around to that. I like that it's called "Complete Creation", because once it's taken apart, it means there's nothing left.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, for a guy who doesn't even grasp "ad hominem" you sure do throw around the accusations.

Suppose you are not capable of understanding the concept that, if deep ages were true, there could not possibly be C-14 in diamonds or in any fossils below the very top layers? You do or do not understand that?

Also, your entire worldview that you proclaim is based on nothing at all. I can sum up the entire premise of Darwinism - Nothing made everything by no discernible means or for no apparent purpose and now, when all evidence we can see tells us that mechanisms are designed and nothing is being either created or destroyed, Darwinists ignore this EVIDENCE to believe in their impossible mythology.

Big Bang theory is 95-96% made-up unobserved things they call dark matter and dark energy. One might suggest there is more evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy than there is for the Big Bang. All the observable evidence indicates that there would not have been enough time for the problem of background radiation being spread equally around the Universe. Stars only come from the remnants of dead stars. The laws of physics have proved that the Solar System could not have evolved from space dust into clumps into asteroids into planets and all the space missions we've sent out in space show a young Solar System.

Our Sun is, by observation, changing slowly as it emits energy. It would have been hostile to life even a billion years ago. The Moon is receding from our planet by observation, so we know it could not have been there for even a billion years. The magnetic field of the Earth would have been too strong to allow for life 50,000 years ago.

Your worldview is less realistic than Norse Mythology. At least it was based on genealogical records and chinese-telephoned into ancestor worship of sorts. Darwinism doesn't even have historical evidence to help it. Oh, I have to write a post about this underlying emptiness of Darwnism. You stand on nothing and don't realize you are therefore falling!

Anonymous said...

It seems we're stuck in a loop.

1. If you want to accuse me of not understanding the meaning of an ad hominem argument, then please tell me where you differ on the definition I provided. Otherwise you have no basis at all to accuse me of not understanding it.

2. Your response to me pointing out that you're not answering the question and instead dodging and evading by pointing at just about everything else... is to dodge and evade by pointing at just about everything else. So the more you run in circles instead of admitting you don't have the answer, the more you prove my point: you can't answer the question.

Focus.

And admit you don't (and YEC doesn't) have the answer.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Big Bang theory is 95-96% made-up unobserved things they call dark matter and dark energy. One might suggest there is more evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy than there is for the Big Bang."

Why? Both a belief in the tooth fairy and in God are based on 100% made-up unobserved things, so the Big Bang's ahead of them on that one.

highboy said...

"Why? Both a belief in the tooth fairy and in God are based on 100% made-up unobserved things, so the Big Bang's ahead of them on that one."

Not really. Radar was being generous with his percentages. Atheists and theists all believe in magic. Its just that atheists believe in magic with no magician.

Anonymous said...

"Radar was being generous with his percentages."

How so? What's the actual percentage in your opinion?

"Atheists and theists all believe in magic. Its just that atheists believe in magic with no magician."

Not really. Plenty of them don't mind saying "I don't know". It's not always necessary to plug in an answer for things that are beyond our comprehension, and the beginning of the universe (if there is such a thing) is well beyond our little minds to grasp.

Anonymous said...

And it sure looks like Radar doesn't have an answer to Creeper's question. Of course he'll huff and puff about having "discussed it" and pretend he answered it long ago... but in that case he could easily post a link to it.

He doesn't have the answer, end of story.

highboy said...

"Not really. Plenty of them don't mind saying "I don't know". It's not always necessary to plug in an answer for things that are beyond our comprehension, and the beginning of the universe (if there is such a thing) is well beyond our little minds to grasp."

Atheists don't say "I don't know". They say, "there is no God". Agnostics say "I don't know".

As for Radar, like I said, it would be nice if someone actually addressed what was in the post. But no one did, but attacked the credibility of the source.

radar said...

What part of "I will make a post specifically about Carbon-14 dating in the next month" do you not understand?

IF the readers had researched my blog they would be able to compile the information for themselves. Being either lazy or seeking to derail my current train of thought, I am asked to provide one link to cover an extensive issue. No. If it was that simple I could answer it in a comment.

Creeper will get his answer when I have time to do the work but my current plan will continue to be followed and I will shoehorn it in when I am ready. He and I both know he could research the blog and figure it out. But for the sake of newer readers I will do it before too long. But not instantly.

I could have just said, "What did your last slave die of?"

Anonymous said...

"What part of "I will make a post specifically about Carbon-14 dating in the next month" do you not understand?"

Your response here makes it clear that you're only thinking about C-14 dating instead of the question at hand, which is about the calibration of C-14 data to allow the conclusion of a young Earth.

So making a "post specifically about Carbon-14 dating in the next month" is pretty irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that you don't have an answer to the question.

Anonymous said...

"Atheists don't say "I don't know". They say, "there is no God". Agnostics say "I don't know"."

Cute. Yes, atheists say "there is no God" in the absence of any evidence for God's existence.

In the absence of any clear-cut answers to, say, the origin of the universe, they take their conclusions as close as the evidence will permit, and beyond that say "I don't know" - until there is more evidence.

AmericanVet said...

I understand what Creeper is asking concerning the C-14 dating methodology and calibration will be part of the post. Unless you are mind readers, you cannot possibly tell me in advance what I am NOT going to say.

As to Agnostics and Atheists, both say "I don't know" concerning the First Cause of the temporal Universe. We have had so many astrophysicists trying to make the math work, but there really is no coherent and evidence-supported beginning to everything but God or some other Supernatural entity or force.

The Universe is not eternal, it is running downhill. It is expanding too far and too fast to collapse into itself. The CBR is inconsistent with a Big Bang "only" 13.7 billion years ago and the scenario presented about the Big Bang is impossible.

Nothing explodes and creates everything? That is illogical. But it gets worse. The explosion supposedly creates a vast, intricate and fine-tuned Universe that has logical laws that operate and can be described mathematically. Any explosion that uilds rather than destroys would have to be carefully controlled.

So the start of time and a material world is naturally inexplicable. Worse yet (for naturalists), the stars and planets cannot have formed from the dust-accretion hypothesis that is taught to students.

Surely the top scientists in Astrophysics realize the apparently insurmountable hurdles their hypothesis cannot overcome. But down at the level of teachers, students and media that failed hypothesis gets presented with a gold medal for achievement!

No wonder the increased interest in the occult and ghosts as well as violent horror stories in films and on television. Since baseless superstition is being taught to them in schools, it is easier for them to suspend disbelief outside the classroom and imagine telekinesis and teleportation and poltergeists and so on and so forth.

Anonymous said...

"I understand what Creeper is asking concerning the C-14 dating methodology and calibration will be part of the post. Unless you are mind readers, you cannot possibly tell me in advance what I am NOT going to say."

Au contraire, it is possible to predict with a high level of certainty that you won't be able to answer the question at hand. Sure, "calibration will be part of the post", but that's about it.

Here's the question again, in case you forgot:

"How can one re-calibrate dating methods (specifically C-14) so they don't falsify YEC but still line up with observable evidence?"

highboy said...

"Cute. Yes, atheists say "there is no God" in the absence of any evidence for God's existence."

What you call "cute", the rest of the world just simply calls "the English language". But as far as the existence of the supernatural, to say it doesn't or never existed by definition has to be patently false. Even if you don't identify it as a god. By definition, the natural order before the big bang did not exist. Whatever or whoever caused that big bang existed outside the natural order, making it/he/she "supernatural". The only counter argument to this would be to say nothing caused the big bang, the first and only example in scientific history of an effect with no cause.

Anonymous said...

"What you call "cute", the rest of the world just simply calls "the English language"."

No, it's obfuscation. Different answers apply to different questions.

"But as far as the existence of the supernatural, to say it doesn't or never existed by definition has to be patently false."

Who says it doesn't exist "by definition"?

"Even if you don't identify it as a god. By definition, the natural order before the big bang did not exist."

We don't know what was before the big bang, if it was a natural order of some kind, we don't know if there was anything before the big bang, we don't even know if there is such a thing as "before" contained in what to our minds is "on the other side", time-wise, of the big bang.

"Whatever or whoever caused that big bang existed outside the natural order, making it/he/she "supernatural"."

We don't know if anything that is in any way comprehensible to us preceded the big bang. It may be part of some kind of natural order that is not understood by us, that is simply beyond our comprehension.

"The only counter argument to this would be to say nothing caused the big bang, the first and only example in scientific history of an effect with no cause."

That is hardly the only counter-argument. If we accept that the scientific evidence indicates that a kind of big bang occurred, then the only thing we can say with certainty is that we don't understand what caused it.

Contrary to Radar's constant caricatures, scientists do not claim that "nothing" caused the big bang.