Young Earth Creationists

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

I know Young Earth Creationists exist, I've seen them on telly, but never met one in real life, so I'm just wondering if anyone here is one or knows one or whether they are actually just incredibly rare and reserved for extreme tv debating!

Pedro, this may be what you're looking for about C-14 in diamonds. From a peer-reviewed journal and everything. Imagine that. Creationists doing real science.

www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html

"After about 90,000 years of decay, there is so little 14C left that even today?s very sensitive instruments cannot detect it. ? Yet 14C has been found in diamonds ? even though the diamonds are allegedly 1 to 3 billion years old."

• Dr Jim Mason - B.Sc. in Engineering Physics from Queen?s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Ph.D. in Experimental Nuclear Physics from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Having reread all your contributions on radiometric dating, I don't think you've specified what unverifiable assumptions there are that make it such a flawed methodology.

Could you give us some details? Or provide a link?

"Having reread all your contributions on radiometric dating, I don't think you've specified what unverifiable assumptions there are that make it such a flawed methodology.

Could you give us some details? Or provide a link?"

I did, Pip, but I'll do so again.

First, let me say that I'm not claiming it has "a flawed methodology." I believe the dating methods are valid to a point. The problem becomes when 1/ there are no other independent sources to cross-reference like dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) archaeology and recorded history and 2/ when they use it only to confirm their presuppositions.

For example, they already believe based on the geologic column, that dinosaurs are 65 million years old. So dinosaur bones are not dated. The rock strata surrounding the fossil is dated and the fossil is assumed to be the same age. (A reasonable assumption but not necessarily true for other reasons.)

Sometimes they date a fossil several different ways and get several different dates. They then pick the one which matches the geologic column and don't publish the other dates. If they don't get the date they want at all, they chock it up to contamination and don't publish the data. This is common practice.

The three primary assumptions are these:

1. that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has remained constant through time
2. that the rock sample contained no daughter isotopes at the start
3. that there has been no leakage across time

There is good evidence to suggest that all of these assumptions are invalid. This Wikipedia article explains what I've just said in more technical language. Wikipedia is not a creation-friendly site.:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating#Assumptions

Also, see this video and skip to where he talks about the assumptions.:

What you must understand is that these assumptions are widely known and not controversial within the scientific community. Ask a scientist who uses these methods and he'll say, "Of course." He won't say I'm lying. But these assumptions are not widely publicized to students or the general public so we assume on blind faith that they know what they're doing. For me, the blinders are off. I am not anti-science one iota but I am cautious and skeptical about the claims of scientists. I think we all should be.

One more example: Mt St Helen's blew in the early 1980s. Around 2000, researchers used potassium/argon dating to date some of the newly-formed rocks. By their own dating methods, the rocks should have dated to be about 20 years old. The results came back millions of years old. Obviously something is wrong.

"How patronising."

Sorry, Sunny, but in this case I'm afraid it's called for. One needs to have a grasp on how science works before they can understand a lot of the stuff I'm saying. Many of the snide remarks I am getting are not attacks on my theory but on the scientific method itself. When I debate atheists and evolutionists who are scientifically literate, they often disagree with my conclusions but rarely my methodology. I appreciate that and we have a healthy discussion. If you think I'm wrong, say so but make sure it's a valid objection first.

I've been reading and not commenting, but when I read something like what you posted it doesn't encourage me to read more.

It's not as if women are short of men telling us how we should be thinking.

"You may not see it as an intelligent argument, but that's different to it being argued with intelligence, I think - at least Best has sources to back up his arguments and has obviously studied it in a lot of depth - it's just refreshing to hear when compared to usual YEC arguments.

As I say, I'm not convinced, it does not make sense to me, but no harm in acknowledging someone's efforts."

Thank you, Mad. I commend you for not being convinced. (That is not my intent here anyway.) And I would be disappointed if your worldview crumbled that easily. It took a few years and thousands of hours of study before I arrived at these views. But since you seem open to learning, tell me what I've said so far that does not make sense to you and I'll see if I can help. :^)

Do you have a link to the Mt St Helens results?

it's ok - googled it.

"we assume on blind faith that they know what they're doing".

Not really. Scientists are well-known for being competitive with each other and critical of each others findings. Even if the public has blind faith in scientists (which seems very, very unlikely given way that the public accepts woo that is contrary to all evidence), other scientists don't.

"I've been reading and not commenting, but when I read something like what you posted it doesn't encourage me to read more. It's not as if women are short of men telling us how we should be thinking."

I actually wasn't aware that this was a women's only site? Is that true? I thought most of you were men. Not sure why. Probably because most people I debate with online about this subject are men. Definitely meant no offense to women, Sunny, and I deeply apologize if it came off that way. I think ALL people - men and women - need to learn more about science - partly because it's a fascinating subject and partly because there's never been a time in history when there's been more scientific evidence for the existence of God.

To get a better understanding of dating methods and what they can prove, check out this excellent article titled, "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe."

creation.com/age-of-the-earth

*"How many errors do you want pointing out?"

You could start with just one. You haven't pointed out ANY yet. They are not errors of fact but different interpretations of facts.*

I did. But you managed to avoid answering questions on it.

Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists. There is literally zero evidence which suggests that the speed of light has EVER changed. But of course, with all your incessant ramblings, you probably hoped we'd forget that you didn't mention it again.

Incidentally, I watched your video, it's a load of bollocks. Perhaps it's too trivial for your incredibly advanced scientific brain, but the distances of stars proves not the age of the Earth but the age of the universe. The Earth could have popped into existence yesterday but we would still get light from stars which had been travelling for over 13 billion years which gives a minimum age of the universe.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of physics.

I was going to take you up on the discussion of the quantum, but I think you need to go back to remedial physics first.

And galaxies appear to be evenly distributed in the cosmos in every direct we look, implying we are near the centre.

Another fundamental misunderstanding. The universe has no centre. Wherever you are, the galaxies appear evenly distributed. The universe is also expanding uniformly everywhere, no matter where you stand in the universe, the perception is exactly the same.

Again, fundamental flaws in your arguments because you don't understand relativity, doppler shifts or particle physics.

I cant say your view makes sense to me. There are anomalies but carbon dating on the whole is fairly reliable. Other methods of rock dating even more so. Crestionists idea of the floods sorting Fossils into strata makes little or no sense and does not explain the complete separation of the ages.

Evidence does show that the appendix may have some, non vital, use but it also shows that this use is not the origional purpose of the organ and it has EVOLVED to be that way.

The diversity of species, even within their kinds, could not have occured in the time period you are talking about and could not be explain the complete separation of one species and another. For example why animals of the same kind but not spwcies are found on completely separate continents. Speaking of which how do we explain their movement over time?

And the light year interpretation well that is just rubbish. There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed and even if it did how dramatic would the slow down have to have been to account for what we believe (know) to represent billions of years only to actually represent 6000?

You dont have to be atheist to accept these things but you do have to accept that maybe the bible is not literal.

The problem here is that you are trying to have a conversation about astrophysics with a man who is so ignorant about the basics that he can say things like "there is carbon left in diamonds".

Not to mention the piercing powers of observation required to come to a website called MumsNet and conclude that its posters must be mostly men.

Didn't Best mean carbon-14 left in diamonds? Can diamonds be made of carbon but have no carbon-14? Genuine question as I don't have a clue.

And regarding women on mumsnet. What's the relevance of sex to the conversation? Best could have been female for all I knew or cared.

My point wasn't that Best is a man, but rather that I am not impressed with his powers of observation if he has come to a website named MUMSnet and thought its posters are mostly men.

Diamonds are not dated by carbon dating at all, because that is used for dating organic substances and only works for dating relatively younger substances. Many diamonds are over a billion years old. Diamonds are dated by radiometric dating that involves other (radioactive) elements.

"Your claim that the speed of light has slowed down over time. This is not just an error it's a lie. A famous lie invented by creationists."

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists. Watch this recently banned TED talk by anti-creationist Rupert Sheldrake (before it gets removed again) about the varying speed of light and how the universal constants may not actually be constant.

Listen to the story he tells between 10:00 and 15:15. This is very recent so try to tell me creationists made it up. I've had evolutionist professors who should know better tell me that creationists made up the terms micro-and macroevolution too until I proved them wrong. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

Two recent stories about extremely rapid evolution - a prediction of creationists but a huge surprise to evolutionists. I see this type of thing practically every day, folks.

news.discovery.com/videos/humans-are-speeding-up-evolution.htm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22039872

"The universe has no centre."

Pedro, I'll say it one last time. That is an arbitrary starting assumption of the big bang model based primarily on what is known as the Copernican Principle. It is not a fact. Please read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

"Not to mention the piercing powers of observation required to come to a website called MumsNet and conclude that its posters must be mostly men."

Cote, I get Google alerts daily on the key words "evolution," "creationism" and "intelligent design." I got an e-mail message with a link in it to this forum asking questions about creationism. I clicked on the link and offered my help without paying much attention to the domain. I know nothing about this site and have not perused its other pages.

Websites have all kinds of names that don't mean anything. Shoot me for making a mistake but ad hominem attacks don't become you and will not replace your need for a cogent rebuttal against by arguments. If you don't want to learn about a view other than your own and are happy living inside your own little bubble, then please go away. Some people on here actually care about truth.

"Didn't Best mean carbon-14 left in diamonds? Can diamonds be made of carbon but have no carbon-14? Genuine question as I don't have a clue."

Thank you, juule. Yes, I meant carbon-14 and no after about 50,000 years a diamond should not have any carbon-14 left. It is the hardest substance known on earth so contamination is ruled out as a possibility. The logical conclusion is that they are not millions of years old - especially considering we can make them in a laboratory in a few weeks.

Do some research and you'll find that every single thing we are told takes millions of years to form can be formed in days or weeks when given the right conditions - often the very same conditions a global flood would provide. Evolutionists can no longer use arguments like this to support their long-age theory. The truth is out and the Emperor has no clothes.

Pedro, please stop believing lies perpetuated by atheists to discredit creationists.

Best, please stop believing lies perpetuated by creationists to discredit science.

I'll say it again there is no evidence, none at all, which suggests a change in the velocity of light and certainly not since we've been measuring it. It is a universal constant.

I think you have a problem with this because to accept this constant, it destroys all your 'theories' about the age of the universe.

Pedro, I'll say it one last time. That is an arbitrary starting assumption of the big bang model based primarily on what is known as the Copernican Principle. It is not a fact. Please read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

I've read it thanks, and apparently understood it better than you did.

The big bang model is not arbitrary, it is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence.

The suggestion that we are at the centre of the universe is not only arrogant, it has zero evidence.

But let's say you are right and that we are near the centre of the universe and in your lovely gravitational well. Whilst this would affect time as we measure it, it would have no effect on light since light speed is constant to every observer in any level of gravitational pull or at any velocity. Therefore, the lightyear is a fixed distance and to travel that distance will always take light the same time in a vacuum. So if you are looking at a galaxy billions of lightyears away, the light has travelled for billions of years and that gives a minimum age of the universe. No mater how close the fictional centre you are.