Search This Blog

Friday, January 18, 2013

What is Creation and Evolution and Who Cares? The End?

What is Creation and Evolution and Who Cares? 

I do hope Creeper did watch the part 11 of the series over again so he would begin to see the problems with Darwinist dating methods.   It will prepare him for the Carbon-14 review.


Here is the website where you can get the overview, watch and/or purchase the DVDs for this Complete Creation Series by Ian Juby which has been presented here in segments.   This is a good time to throw in a bit of information about information supporting creation that is not focused on Earth.

Here is the Ian Juby interview of Spike Psarris.  Spike is the go-to guy for explaining what the US space missions have taught us about the Solar System and the Universe.   Then a video answering critics as part of the Genesis Week series.  Then we will apparently slice and dice one or two commenters who cannot understand evidence and claim that it has not been presented to them.   So it will be interesting to see what they say about the series just completed.  




The series on Evolution versus Creation was meant to provoke discussion. Let's try to stay on one topic at a time if possible. Thanks!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I do hope Creeper did watch the part 11 of the series over again so he would begin to see the problems with Darwinist dating methods. It will prepare him for the Carbon-14 review."

Stop dodging the issue. Is it possible to "re-calibrate" the data to line up with a YEC timeline or isn't it?

If so, how can the data be calibrated to achieve this?

-- creeper

Piltdown Superman said...

Stop being a creep and do a bit of homework before you make demands and attacks, mmmkay?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should try to find out what the conversation is about before calling other people names.

The homework has been done. The question has been posed. Radar is unable to answer it and so he keeps changing the subject.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

In case you missed it, this is the conversation Radar was referring to:

radaractive DOT blogspot DOT com/2013/01/what-is-creation-and-evolution-and-who.html

He claimed he had "answered every question that was not completely off the charts".

So I pointed out that there were a number of questions that weren't completely off the charts that he hadn't answered, and that this was one of them:

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

He's been not answering it ever since then.

Maybe you can help him. It seems pretty clear that YECs have not managed such a re-calibration, and if they had, it would be trumpeted far and wide on the usual YEC websites.

Let me give you two a hint: it's perfectly okay to say "that hasn't been achieved yet, but we are confident that with ongoing research it will be". That would be an honorable and acceptable thing to say, and certainly preferable to trying to change the subject.

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper,

As I said, you are the problem. I have covered Carbon 14 in detail with many posts over the years. I cannot give a two paragraph answer to a subject that requires a long answer and has already been provided by posts over the years. You are trying to do the bait and switch tactic of ignoring the overwhelming evidence against Evolution and focusing on a subject that was covered in the past.

So I said I would go ahead and make a post in the near future that should answer those who read your comment and wonder. You already know you are being a troll and Piltdown is familiar with such tactics, which is why he suggested that you do your homework. It would be responsible for you to take my first answer and use the search tool to review my MANY posts on dating methods and get your answer.

Will you do that? I doubt it. Yes, YEC scientists calibrate actual dating methods in many ways. Did you notice the way YEC dated the lava flow layer in the Grand Canyon that was being dated as millions of years by finding Indian artifacts in the layer? The Indians of the area would try to use pottery to capture lava when it was flowing and some of their pottery was pulled into the lava and preserved. Boom, we just dated that layer as around 800 to 1,000 years old in that location!

So even though I have covered it in detail I will make another Carbon-14 post during the next 25-30 days and perhaps within a week. But since I did it once already it may not be the first thing on my list.

You who like to investigate things for yourself are free to use the search tool on my blog to find numerous dating method posts and, unlike Creeper, you will find the answer.

Anonymous said...

"As I said, you are the problem. I have covered Carbon 14 in detail with many posts over the years."

No, the lack of an answer (and the lack of you recognizing that you don't have the answer) is the problem. Perhaps you think I'm the problem because I'm pointing out to you (and your readers) that you can't answer the question.

I'm not doubting that you've "discussed" C-14 before or talked about dating methods before. I'm saying you've never answered this question and that YEC doesn't have an answer to this question.

I have searched your site, yes, and I know you've never managed to answer the question. Not once.

Again, the question is:

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

If you (or "Piltdown Superman") assert that you've answered this question, it's really very, very simple:

Post a link.

If you think you haven't answered the question, but that the question can be answered, then it's also quite simple:

Answer it.

But as long as all you're doing is changing the subject, it's obvious to everyone here that you don't have the answer and you're embarrassed to admit that.

In absence of you being honest about this, I look forward to your continued evasions.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Did you notice the way YEC dated the lava flow layer in the Grand Canyon that was being dated as millions of years by finding Indian artifacts in the layer? The Indians of the area would try to use pottery to capture lava when it was flowing and some of their pottery was pulled into the lava and preserved. Boom, we just dated that layer as around 800 to 1,000 years old in that location!

Was this in one of the videos? If so, which one and approximately at what time?

If not, citation sorely needed.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"YEC scientists calibrate actual dating methods in many ways."

Please provide a link to a scientific paper (I'll let you off the hook and won't insist on peer-reviewed in this case) that details just one way (out of these many ways) that YECs calibrate dating methods.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Bueller? ... Bueller?

As usual, you just have to probe the tiniest bit into YEC to notice there's just no "there" there. All this crowing about "creation scientists" but they can't get to square one on a scientific basis.

radar said...

What I will not do is let Creeper dictate to me what I will post and when. I have a plan of action for this blog and I am following it. I presented a Creation Science overview and then I am presenting posts concerning worldview and reasons why the Atheist/Darwinist worldview is harmful to both science specifically and mankind in general.

I told Creeper I would squeeze in a blogpost about C-14 in response to his demands, but that will be when I am ready to take a break from the current plan.

It is likely that Creeper is demanding that I divert my attention from my goals to his little question to muddy the waters, but if he just researched the subject on my blog he would find his answer. I am not responsible for laziness on the part of commenters nor will I change my plan of action for the sake of his question.

So you go ahead and complain all you wish in the interim. A runner in the 1500 M event doesn't stop to say hello to someone in the crowd, he finishes the race first. Creeper can wait until I finish my series. BTW, it is funny that he has complained about me stopping a series to answer questions while now asking me to do exactly what he criticized. So duh to that!

Anonymous said...

As I said, you are the problem. I have covered Carbon 14 in detail with many posts over the years. I cannot give a two paragraph answer to a subject that requires a long answer and has already been provided by posts over the years.

He's asking for a link to the answer to his question. Should be easy if you've answered it. If you haven't, then just say so. Not difficult.

I have a plan of action for this blog and I am following it.

Cut and paste.


Eagerly awaiting your response to this series creeper.


lava

radar said...

Okay, lava, you want an easy answer? If Carbon-14 dating by Darwinist methodology was right, there would be no trace of C-14 in diamonds or in any fossils in all but the topmost layers of sedimentary rocks. So we know the dates given by C-14 dating by Darwinists are hilariously incorrect. Meanwhile, I can just take the Bible and count the years of ancestors and come up with an approximate age of the Earth and calibrate the dating by using that set of ages.

But if you want a detailed and serious answer, you can either research yourself or you can wait your turn.

radar said...

Meanwhile, Creeper, would you explain how the process of photosynthesis evolved in your spare time?