Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[negZero]

plz explain away carbon 14 in diamonds which were done in non creationist labs.

Diamonds are made up of carbon, Carbon 14 is Carbon. Am not seeing the problem here?

 

[Brian Shanahan]

plz explain away carbon 14 in diamonds which were done in non creationist labs.

I'm feeling lazy so I'll let someone else do it (Thanks Homer):


Link to video.

Also let me point out the idiocy of trying to prove carbon-14 wrong by a process which lasts way longer than the 6,000 years you admit for the earth's age. Way to go!

 

[Trev]

Please post evidence of this dispute in the timeline of Ancient Egypt

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match
Yes I know it is a biased site, but it does reference back to a number of Egyptianologists for a number of its points and therefore makes a good case for a reduction in the Egyptian timeframe, the reduction to the extent they have gone is less easily proved, but possibly difficult to disprove also.

 

[Arakhor]

I have heard of the Egyptian dating controversy before. This is the first I've ever heard of it being used to "prove" creationism though.

Hint: it manifestly does not do that.

 

[Ajidica]

Tell me, what was the name of the Pharaoh Moses dealt with and what Egyptian Dynasty was he part of? I would specificaly like to see where the Egyptian records say "A bunch of Hebrew slaves got uppity, a Hebrew came out of the desert and called down the wrath of the Gods on us (I'm pretty sure they would record the 'all the first born kids die right), the part where the Hebrew slaves flee Egypt, and Pharaoh gets his army crushed by a huge wave."

I think the Egyptians would have either recorded something like that or their enemies would have.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match
Yes I know it is a biased site, but it does reference back to a number of Egyptianologists for a number of its points and therefore makes a good case for a reduction in the Egyptian timeframe, the reduction to the extent they have gone is less easily proved, but possibly difficult to disprove also.

I asked for a credible source and what did you give me? I want sources outside of your little fantasist circle before I will accept this. Please furnish such.

 

[uppi]

plz explain away carbon 14 in diamonds which were done in non creationist labs.

Carbon-14 is made by a nuclear reaction of Nitrogen. Now you have three guesses what the most common impurity in diamond is.

 

[magicfan101]

I asked for a credible source and what did you give me? I want sources outside of your little fantasist circle before I will accept this. Please furnish such.

i went over this in a previous post

circular reasoning
if "ACTUAL" scientists are those who believe in some sort of macro-evolution in your mind and "FAKE" scientists are those who dont believe in macro-evolution. How can i disprove macro-evolution when im only quoting macro-evolutionist.
if you dont like this line of reasoning plz provide a definition of an"ACTUAL" scientists

 

[Arakhor]

Magicfan, are you going to answer any of my questions any time soon?

 

[negZero]

i went over this in a previous post

All you need is one peer-reviewed paper and by peer-reviewed I mean by a scientist not some random Joe on the street. Also am willing to accept a miracle that science can't explain it away, through you must prove that it actually happen with something other then the Bible.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

i went over this in a previous post

No you spewed out some rubbish in a previous post, which I completely demolished in reply, go look it's just underneath what you've just quoted. Now stop wasting my time and either go get proper evidence or admit that you are living in a fantasy world. Believe me the second one will be a lot quicker, stubborn and all as you are.

 

[magicfan101]

So describe precisely how evolution should be taught "correctly", as you apparently think that doing so will prove creationism.

sorry Ziggy Stardust asked the same thing here was my answer

as long as the "theory of evolution" is taught as a blind,random,and chance guided process and with admittance that the evidence is not "absolute" for the theory of evolution. then Im fine with it being the only one being taught in the classroom. its when we lie or mislead in the classroom that i have a problem

 

[Brian Shanahan]

sorry Ziggy Stardust asked the same thing here was my answer

Still wasting my time....

 

[Arakhor]

So, as long the theory of evolution is taught along with a pack of lies, you're fine with it being taught, but you're not fine with lies or deceit in the classroom? You're not even being consistent in the same post!

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Where is the evidence for creationism?

Any response to my open challenge?

Does ANY young earth creationist have enough of a clue about their own beliefs to defend them AT ALL?

 

[Ajidica]

So, as long the theory of evolution is taught along with a pack of lies, you're fine with it being taught, but you're not fine with lies or deceit in the classroom? You're not even being consistent in the same post!

Their idea of a good refrence source is a thousand year old book written by representatives of a God that can't tell if he is 'thou shalt OBEY' or 'peace and love, dude. Revelation was far out man.'.

Do we really expect much consistancy?

 

[Arakhor]

I expect consistency from people who constantly tell us of the unerring accuracy of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth in Genesis.

Whilst I'm here though, here's my two other questions that fell on deaf ears:

How could you "prove" that the world merely looks 6,000 years old?

How does the Egyptian dating controversy even begin to prove the Young Earth theory?

 

[magicfan101]

All you need is one peer-reviewed paper and by peer-reviewed I mean by a scientist not some random Joe on the street. Also am willing to accept a miracle that science can't explain it away, through you must prove that it actually happen with something other then the Bible.

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, "Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe's argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

This article, co-authored by a theoretical biologist and an environmental biologist, explicitly challenges the ability of Darwinian mechanisms or self-organizational models to account for the origin of the language-based chemical code underlying life

i have a whole lot more!!!

 

[magicfan101]

So, as long the theory of evolution is taught along with a pack of lies, you're fine with it being taught, but you're not fine with lies or deceit in the classroom? You're not even being consistent in the same post!

if blind chance and random events does not guide evolution then what does.

 

[Arakhor]

Excellent, By all means, Magicfan, providing dissenting evidence. Then you may realise what peer review and rigorous testing is all about.

Chance has nothing to do with it. Evolution is about adaptation to suit the environment. You might as well complain that the weather is controlled by blind chance and random events, but meteorologists would disagree with you.