Millions of years ago ! ?
- Thread starter wincam
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And if you had checked the link and read far enough along you would have seen this also.
*Time magazine (June 19, 1964)reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? Simply by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!
Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way, the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!
If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that, in this case, would be required would be for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.
Evolution Handbook 3
The National Science Teachers Association appears to be a credible source to me.
This is what NSTA says:
'This version of special creation (referring to Young Earth Creationism) is derived from a particular interpretation of Biblical Genesis. It is a specific, sectarian religious belief that is not held by all religious people. Many Christians and Jews believe that God created through the process of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, issued a statement in 1996 that reiterated the Catholic position that God created while simultaneously affirming that the evidence for evolution from many scientific fields is very strong.
“Creation science” is a religious effort to support special creationism through a semblance of the methods of science. Teachers may be pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as “abrupt appearance theory,” “initial complexity theory,” “arguments against evolution,” or “intelligent design theory” when they teach evolution. Claims by proponents of these views have been evaluated and discredited based on scientific evidence. These claims have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, “creation science” and these other claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge. As such, these creationist perspectives cannot be considered science, and have no place in science classrooms.'
NSTA Position Statement: Evolution
This is what NSTA says:
'This version of special creation (referring to Young Earth Creationism) is derived from a particular interpretation of Biblical Genesis. It is a specific, sectarian religious belief that is not held by all religious people. Many Christians and Jews believe that God created through the process of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, issued a statement in 1996 that reiterated the Catholic position that God created while simultaneously affirming that the evidence for evolution from many scientific fields is very strong.
“Creation science” is a religious effort to support special creationism through a semblance of the methods of science. Teachers may be pressured to include it or other related nonscientific views such as “abrupt appearance theory,” “initial complexity theory,” “arguments against evolution,” or “intelligent design theory” when they teach evolution. Claims by proponents of these views have been evaluated and discredited based on scientific evidence. These claims have no empirical power to explain the natural world and its diverse phenomena. Instead, creationists seek out supposed anomalies among many existing theories and accepted facts. Furthermore, “creation science” and these other claims do not lead to new discoveries of scientific knowledge. As such, these creationist perspectives cannot be considered science, and have no place in science classrooms.'
NSTA Position Statement: Evolution
Not what I was asking.....
Is there a reason you are refusing to answer these questions? (restated below)
So a guy with a PH.D. is incapable of arguing science? Here is his biography. Is he incapable of having scientific beliefs? Humans are fallible in logic, do you honestly think everything a federal judge says is truth? He made a ruling, you are arguing that just because a judge says it, it must be true?
add on to these questions, what makes NSTA credible, they agree with you?
Is there a reason you are refusing to answer these questions? (restated below)
So a guy with a PH.D. is incapable of arguing science? Here is his biography. Is he incapable of having scientific beliefs? Humans are fallible in logic, do you honestly think everything a federal judge says is truth? He made a ruling, you are arguing that just because a judge says it, it must be true?
add on to these questions, what makes NSTA credible, they agree with you?
Sure, this former ICR lackey can argue science.
But not very well, according to:
Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism | NCSE
In which you will note it says:
"For these reasons, we reject Humphreys's cooling mechanism: because it is wrong, it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."
But not very well, according to:
Flaws in a Young-Earth Cooling Mechanism | NCSE
In which you will note it says:
"For these reasons, we reject Humphreys's cooling mechanism: because it is wrong, it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."
When Jesus quoted the OT, it was almost exclusively from the LXX, proving its authority as truth.....NOT the MT - which did not even exist at the time!
Therefore, I would like Old Hermit (who prides himself on the study of Greek) to explain why he adheres to the summation of the generations from the inferior Hebrew MT, over that of the superior Greek LXX.
Let's see if he even responds...
This is what the judge said in his opinion:
"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is "exquisitely important" in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must "publish or perish." (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science."
That's from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
No doubt you are quite familiar with it.
You know who specifically who the judge is talking about, right?
"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is "exquisitely important" in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. (1:66-69 (Miller)). In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must "publish or perish." (22:19-25 (Behe)). Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. (1:39-40 (Miller)). Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science."
That's from the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.
No doubt you are quite familiar with it.
You know who specifically who the judge is talking about, right?
Wow! To think I was missing out on such a fun thread, just because the OP is such a complete dork!
Well, so many things to refute, so much utter nonsense posed as science. I have to think that civilization has to be a factor in this discussion, which was only touched on once in all these pages. The fact is, civilization arose around the same time in Mesopotamia and Egypt and in meso-America, China and India.
In all cases, we are looking at maybe 2000 -3000 years before Christ. Strange coincidence? Or perhaps influencing one another? Or just the descendants of the flood establishing cities, agriculture, pottery and written language at the same time?
Of course, it took millions of years to get there, and suddenly within a short period of time (300-500 years) from an evolutionary standpoint, suddenly, civilization is found throughout the world.
Nor does this even get into the phenomenal rate of the explosion of human knowledge, and going from simple agriculture, circa 2500-2000 BC to nuclear technology in less than 5000 years. But of course, humans don't need millions of years to evolve their brains from hunting animals to cities with millions and modern technology, right?
The anthropological argument is valid!
Well, so many things to refute, so much utter nonsense posed as science. I have to think that civilization has to be a factor in this discussion, which was only touched on once in all these pages. The fact is, civilization arose around the same time in Mesopotamia and Egypt and in meso-America, China and India.
In all cases, we are looking at maybe 2000 -3000 years before Christ. Strange coincidence? Or perhaps influencing one another? Or just the descendants of the flood establishing cities, agriculture, pottery and written language at the same time?
Of course, it took millions of years to get there, and suddenly within a short period of time (300-500 years) from an evolutionary standpoint, suddenly, civilization is found throughout the world.
Nor does this even get into the phenomenal rate of the explosion of human knowledge, and going from simple agriculture, circa 2500-2000 BC to nuclear technology in less than 5000 years. But of course, humans don't need millions of years to evolve their brains from hunting animals to cities with millions and modern technology, right?
The anthropological argument is valid!
If this is one of your opening arguments in favor of evolution, it means pretty much everything else you have posted is also invalid, BY EVOLUTIONARY STANDARDS.
The claim by scientists in the late 1800's that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been thoroughly discredited by evolutionary scientists.
"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism’s development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organismÌs development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history—ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
This idea is an extreme one. If it were strictly true, it would predict, for example, that in the course of a chick’s development, it would go through the following stages: a single celled organism, a multi-celled invertebrate ancestor, a fish, a lizard-like reptile, an ancestral bird, and then finally, a baby chick."
"This is clearly not the case—a fact recognized by many scientists even when the idea of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny was introduced. If you observe a chick’s development, you will find that the chick embryo may resemble the embryos of reptiles and fish at points in its development, but it doesn’t recapitulate the forms of its adult ancestors."
Evolution 101: Does Ontogeny Recapulate Phylogeny?
Note: This is from an evolutionary website and is discounted as having any validity. Ivanco, you got off to not only a bad source, but using data that has been discredited for many years.
The claim by scientists in the late 1800's that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been thoroughly discredited by evolutionary scientists.
"In the late 1800s some scientists felt that ontogeny not only could reveal something about evolutionary history, but that it also preserved a step-by-step record of that history. These scientists claimed that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (ORP). This phrase suggests that an organism’s development will take it through each of the adult stages of its evolutionary history, or its phylogeny. At the time, some scientists thought that evolution worked by adding new stages on to the end of an organismÌs development. Thus its development would reiterate its evolutionary history—ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
This idea is an extreme one. If it were strictly true, it would predict, for example, that in the course of a chick’s development, it would go through the following stages: a single celled organism, a multi-celled invertebrate ancestor, a fish, a lizard-like reptile, an ancestral bird, and then finally, a baby chick."
"This is clearly not the case—a fact recognized by many scientists even when the idea of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny was introduced. If you observe a chick’s development, you will find that the chick embryo may resemble the embryos of reptiles and fish at points in its development, but it doesn’t recapitulate the forms of its adult ancestors."
Evolution 101: Does Ontogeny Recapulate Phylogeny?
Note: This is from an evolutionary website and is discounted as having any validity. Ivanco, you got off to not only a bad source, but using data that has been discredited for many years.
The intact geologic column is a myth! Actually, there is an interesting debate going on in the internet, defining what this means and if it exists, and to what extent!
Does the geologic column exist? If so, to what extent? With geological periods and epochs extending for hundreds of millions of years the column clearly contradicts the biblical time scale. Thus for many people, the geological column is an obstacle to their accepting a recent Creation and a world-wide Flood as recorded in Scripture.
Creationists have shown that the geological column presents no problem to Flood geology. It is nothing more than a hypothetical classification scheme based on selected rock outcrops in Europe, and used flexibly to classify rocks around the world.[SIZE=-1][SUP][1],[2][/SUP][/SIZE] Anti-creationists have responded that the column is valid, having been built up in a thoroughly logical way long before the theory of evolution was invented, and that many of those who contributed to its building were creationists.[SIZE=-1][SUP][3][/SUP][/SIZE] One unanswerable argument for the hypothetical character of the column is that nowhere in the world does the complete column exist. The majority of the geological periods are missing in the field. Although anti-creationists usually have not disputed that the column is mostly missing, they have argued that we should not expect the entire column to exist in the field. Erosion, they argue, is why the complete column is never found.3 Hence they claim that rocks deposited during one period would be eroded away during a later period. So, while those defending the column have invented ad hoc reasons to explain the missing geologic periods, they did not deny the hypothetical nature of the column.
Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists.[SIZE=-1][SUP][4][/SUP][/SIZE] Some of these claims have been made on the Internet and, as an active creationist scientist, I don’t have the time to fan the windmills of debate on this totally unregulated, unrefereed medium. Anyone can say anything on it, no matter how untrue. However, the claims made on this medium should not be ignored completely. We must provide responses from time to time so the critics and their readers don’t think their claims are unanswerable.
It is on the Internet that a number of geographical localities have been nominated where it has been asserted that the entire column is actually superposed period upon period in the one place.[SIZE=-1][SUP][5][/SUP][/SIZE] This is one of the few intellectual-sounding arguments on the anti-creationist sites that some people may mistakenly take seriously. Thus I address the bogus arguments of some of these articles relating to the geologic column. I want to examine these claims closely, first correcting common misrepresentations of creationist literature on this subject, then delving into the geologic issues involved."
"Anti-creationists have distorted what creationists have actually written about the geologic column, and created one huge ‘straw man’ of creationist research on global stratigraphy. Others have cited one or two popular-level creationist books and misrepresented them as the definitive thought of all creationists. For example, Glenn Morton writes in his Internet essay, The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota:
‘A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.’[SIZE=-1][SUP][5][/SUP][/SIZE]
Morton’s claim is very misleading. The unsuspecting visitor to Morton’s website gets only a small part of the story. Yes, Morris and Parker,[SIZE=-1][SUP][1][/SUP][/SIZE] whom Morton attacks, are not strictly accurate when they say there is no place on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed. (I combine the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian into the Carboniferous system, and omit the surficial Quarternary deposits.) However, it is wrong to state or imply that most creationist scholars believe this to be true. Back in 1968, Harold Clark[SIZE=-1][SUP][6][/SUP][/SIZE] made it clear that there are many places on the earth with most or all of the ‘complete’ column in place. In 1981, I re-examined this fact, and quantified it.[SIZE=-1][SUP][2][/SUP][/SIZE] More on this later.
But does the presence of all ten superposed Phanerozoic systems positively establish the reality of the geologic column? Hardly! Yet Morton (and others who repeat what he says) present it to their readers as if it did. As a start, let us examine more fully what Morris and Parker actually said about the geologic column:
‘The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! ...almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities.’ [SIZE=-1][SUP][7][/SUP][/SIZE] (Emphasis in original.)"
Note that Morris and Parker are not saying that the presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a ‘stack’ is the only issue defining the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. What they are saying, as is seen in the part usually not quoted by anti-creationists, is that nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. It is time anti-creationists stop misrepresenting Morris and Parker.
As for Morton, although he mentions the thickness-of-sediment issue, it is in a completely distorted manner:
Figure 1. The presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a 'stack' is not the only issue concerning the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles). The column to the right represents to the same scale the thickness of sedimentary rock in North Dakota. Clearly the geologic column is far from complete in North Dakota.
Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column! It remains primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a textbook orthodoxy. So, although there are places where lithologies referable to all ten of the Phanerozoic systems can actually be seen superposed, creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. And we have not even touched such matters as overlapping fossil ranges, non-superposed index fossils, and many other things, which expose the non-reality of the geologic column. That is, most fossils found are for only one geologic system (e.g. Devonian), and most index fossils do not actually superpose at the same locality. In other words, most locations with Devonian fishes are not overlain by rocks bearing Cretaceous ammonites, and most locations with Cretaceous ammonites do not overlie localities with Devonian fishes. The same can be said for all the index fossils of all of the geologic systems.
Finally, the number of different locations on earth with the ‘complete’ column is completely irrelevant. After all, regardless of whether there are 10 or 20 or even 50 locations on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed, there is no escaping the fact that this still totals less than 1% of the earth’s surface. Even this 1% does not include ocean basins. When the ocean basins are included (none of which have more than a few of the ten geologic systems in place), the global figure falls to less than 0.4%.[SIZE=-1][SUP][14][/SUP][/SIZE]
If this were not enough, the situation gets worse when we include the faunal basis for separating and correlating the lithologies into ‘geologic periods’. As mentioned earlier, only a small fraction of index fossils are superposed at the same location on Earth. This has been documented in my Diluviological Treatise.[SIZE=-1][SUP][15][/SUP][/SIZE] Therefore, all things considered, scientific creationists are more than justified in concluding that the standard evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column is, in fact, essentially non-existent.
Read here:
- The Geologic Column: Does It Exist? -
Note that Morris and Parker are not saying that the presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a ‘stack’ is the only issue defining the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. What they are saying, as is seen in the part usually not quoted by anti-creationists, is that nowhere on earth is the geologic column complete in the sense of having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period. It is time anti-creationists stop misrepresenting Morris and Parker.
As for Morton, although he mentions the thickness-of-sediment issue, it is in a completely distorted manner:
‘In point of fact Morris and Parker define the geologic column in a silly fashion. There is no place on earth that has sediments from every single day since the origin of the earth. No geologist would require this level of detail from the geological column.’[SIZE=-1][SUP][5][/SUP][/SIZE]
Morton’s comments have no semblance to reality. Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.
Figure 1. The presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a 'stack' is not the only issue concerning the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles). The column to the right represents to the same scale the thickness of sedimentary rock in North Dakota. Clearly the geologic column is far from complete in North Dakota.
Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column! It remains primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a textbook orthodoxy. So, although there are places where lithologies referable to all ten of the Phanerozoic systems can actually be seen superposed, creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. And we have not even touched such matters as overlapping fossil ranges, non-superposed index fossils, and many other things, which expose the non-reality of the geologic column. That is, most fossils found are for only one geologic system (e.g. Devonian), and most index fossils do not actually superpose at the same locality. In other words, most locations with Devonian fishes are not overlain by rocks bearing Cretaceous ammonites, and most locations with Cretaceous ammonites do not overlie localities with Devonian fishes. The same can be said for all the index fossils of all of the geologic systems.
Finally, the number of different locations on earth with the ‘complete’ column is completely irrelevant. After all, regardless of whether there are 10 or 20 or even 50 locations on earth where all ten geologic systems are superposed, there is no escaping the fact that this still totals less than 1% of the earth’s surface. Even this 1% does not include ocean basins. When the ocean basins are included (none of which have more than a few of the ten geologic systems in place), the global figure falls to less than 0.4%.[SIZE=-1][SUP][14][/SUP][/SIZE]
If this were not enough, the situation gets worse when we include the faunal basis for separating and correlating the lithologies into ‘geologic periods’. As mentioned earlier, only a small fraction of index fossils are superposed at the same location on Earth. This has been documented in my Diluviological Treatise.[SIZE=-1][SUP][15][/SUP][/SIZE] Therefore, all things considered, scientific creationists are more than justified in concluding that the standard evolutionary-uniformitarian geologic column is, in fact, essentially non-existent.
Read here:
- The Geologic Column: Does It Exist? -
The column has changed many times since I studied what little geology I have studied in 1968-69. I could see and always see the impossibility of it as being valid. It is just as the idea of the size of the universe has changed since tht time. Then the universe was expanding only, since it has been theorized that there is not just onw universe, but many. That is oxymoronic, but it is a theory. At that time, and inspired by the faith given me, I said to a friend on campus, an astrophysicist, the the more man discovers about the universe, the larger it will become. I said this becaus I know man will never have the satisfaction of proving God or disproving Him by creational effort, that is any effort of the creature. Ouor Father is glorious, amen.
Single cell? this sounds familiar to me, single cell,? hum an Egg! is a single cell.
ha, and your and mine mothers did produce an egg, fertile woman produces egg, the rest of the story is common knowledge, in a process of carnal union man and woman interchange genetic material. and the egg start the process starting from a single cell, to multicellular embryonic development, and does goes to it fish state, and mammal and has a tail, which is later deleted, but in some the deletion fail and here and there a human is born with tail.
This is old science, but not too old to be in the genesis book.
and as it is science and not a myth can not be in genesis, only myths are allowed in the pier review board of the old testament
Last edited:
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory
Go to this web and see the video there you will see an incredible science show, with prove?
Have a look and see what you think..... Creation science in action.
Go to this web and see the video there you will see an incredible science show, with prove?
Have a look and see what you think..... Creation science in action.
John Woodmorappe is a joke and so is where that is published.
Read here:
Dr Kevin R. Henke exposes John Woodmorappe's fraudulent attacks on radiometric dating and reveals other creationist misrepresentations
Read here:
Dr Kevin R. Henke exposes John Woodmorappe's fraudulent attacks on radiometric dating and reveals other creationist misrepresentations
Dr Kevin R. Henke exposes John Woodmorappe's fraudulent attacks on radiometric dating and reveals other creationist misrepresentations
Dr Kevin R. Henke
[FONT=book antiqua, times new roman, times]
Dr. Kevin R. Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota (i.e., South Canada).
He is now with the University of Kentucky, USA.
If you have questions about any of the essays on this page you can email the author at [/FONT][email protected]
[FONT=book antiqua, times new roman, times]
Dr. Kevin R. Henke has a Ph.D in geology from the University of North Dakota (i.e., South Canada).
He is now with the University of Kentucky, USA.
If you have questions about any of the essays on this page you can email the author at [/FONT][email protected]
Because the results of 40Ar-39Ar, K-Ar and other radiometric dating methods refute their antiquated Biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reliability of these methods. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym) is infamous for scouring hundreds of scientific references to find quotations that he believes dispute the accuracy of radiometric dating. However, when his quotations and references are viewed in context, they usually fail to support his claims and often refute them. Woodmorappe and his allies utterly fail to realize that misquoting large QUANTITIES of references does NOT produce QUALITY arguments. Bigger is not necessarily better.
Woodmorappe's 1999 book, The Mythology [sic!] of Modern Dating Methods, is no exception to his ability to thoroughly misrepresent the scientific literature.
--Dr Kevin R. Henke
Woodmorappe's 1999 book, The Mythology [sic!] of Modern Dating Methods, is no exception to his ability to thoroughly misrepresent the scientific literature.
--Dr Kevin R. Henke
So someone has to tell you that you are thinking correctly for science to be accurate? Sounds like brainwashing....
you better go tell God that science can't be accurate unless a human peer reviews it......goodluck with that......I don't buy that truth has to be verified for it to be truth......all of these scientific findings you claim are truth. Do you consider them to only be true after they have been verified or always true even though they do not have Peer review?
you better go tell God that science can't be accurate unless a human peer reviews it......goodluck with that......I don't buy that truth has to be verified for it to be truth......all of these scientific findings you claim are truth. Do you consider them to only be true after they have been verified or always true even though they do not have Peer review?