Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

Schraf,If I may add another, I've posted this three times to three different people & never got an answer.Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

TC,I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT.Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in totalLets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating.Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Origins are the only thing that Creationist use the supernatural, obviously because of our belief, creation-science does not deal with origins, as it already has its answer, we are just waiting for yours, the big bang for instance, we know next to nothing about it, the only thing we can do is assert and make conjectors or postulates, further reducing its validity is we can only postulate to the first 10 -43 seconds of the big bang, we are left with the problem of what happend before that, what were the initial conditions, ie the origin of the matter to, therefore bring about your reaction according to physical laws in the expance of space of zero.
--I for one see that the origin of life as even more eroneous than the origin of matter and the big bang, as we know even less than next to nothing on it happening out of any chance mechenism.

​

---

Very interesting, but you failed to answer my question, which was....."Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"
--Number one being because abiogenesis is simply eroneous in my logic, because there simply is no mechenism known to man that can bring about anything that would produce life that reproduces itself and carry's on natural processes to stablize it for further development. The Big Bang being eroneous to me, not as much as abiogenesis but in my opinion, i falt in logic when taken as an accepted theory. We are eons from contemplating a mechenism for both these concepts, second, I simply invoke the supernatural God as my accurrate book tells me, created the heavens and the earth, this is my creationist faith. Its not that I am fighting toward abiogenesis or the Big Bang being natural or not, its that you have to have alot more faith than I do to believe in either one in fully natural processes.

​

---

That abiogenesis is erronious to your logic is neither here nor there. You have abandoned the mechanistic framework for every known process in favour of a process that has never been seen.Abiogenesis is mathematically POSSIBLE, by chance alone, not that thats how I think DNA occurred, without earlier molecules, but it is POSSIBLE. But, away you go, "it must be the supernatural". There is no reason to believe it was the supernatural when it is POSSIBLE under natural mechanistics.Faulty logic.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Abiogenesis is mathematically POSSIBLE, by chance alone, not that thats how I think DNA occurred, without earlier molecules, but it is POSSIBLE. But, away you go, "it must be the supernatural". There is no reason to believe it was the supernatural when it is POSSIBLE under natural mechanistics."
--I never said it wasn't possible, I said it was eroneous. Of course anyone would be to believe that is 'possible', its just how far your going to drift into imagination, dreams, and fantasy. I might come to a possible acceptance if you had eternity to work with, but you just don't have that with abiogenesis, you have a couple billion years. Abiogenesis is possible, and as I said before I think we will be able to make life in the laboratory some day, the problem is, I would speculate, that your going to find just how amazingly complex the mechenism will be to produce this, also, this life must be able to reproduce itself in order to continue development, this I find eroneous to the highest degree. And no I didn't say 'it must be the supernatural'. I said that my belief states that it was the supernatural, and I accept that.

​

--NASA's Origins of life - "Not knowing what conditions are needed for the emergence of life, it is only possible to speculate about its existence elsewhere in the universe..."

​

---

I think you're misusing the word "erroneous".Abiogenesis is POSSIBLE. How is that erroneous?So, you're ditching the POSSIBLE, for something never observed (the supernatural), with the implication that God exists, & is able to do IMPOSSIBLE things. That is to say, the observed laws of physics & chemistry allow abiogenesis, but the supernatural will have to change those laws, hence the impossible. How likely is this compared to abiogenesis?Why jump ship from the natural to the supernatural?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

You know what I mean!! You know what I mean!! You know what I mean!! ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know"."

​

Ideally. However, I am not confident that all scientists actually use this approach.

---

Cobra, produce a scientific paper (that meets the scientific method), that uses belief as its main pretext.Or concede the point.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-01-2002]

Another addition to the list would be "define new information".------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating."
--Then why does it still exist in rocks many times older than 50,000 years, and in measurable quantities?

​

"Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older."
--What is the mechenism for C14 contamination to a non-living organism?

​

---

Contamination, water contains dissolved CO2, which forms carbonic acid, H2CO3. This is contamination that is difficult to avoid, but also, if the sample isn't treated correctly, grease, oil, mere atmospheric exposure.AS regards measurable quantities, just how much C14 is in these fossils?Also, as far as I'm aware, fossils should NEVER be radiocarbon dated at all. The idea behind this method is that organic carbon ingestion stops upon death, & the clock starts ticking. Fossils should contain no organically derived carbon, it has been replaced by minerals. So, any carbon present is by definition of non organic origin & so C14 dating cannot be used for fossils.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Cobra, produce a scientific paper (that meets the scientific method), that uses belief as its main pretext.

​

Or concede the point."

​

Whoa there buddy, calm down! Please don't take offense to my comment. If you are a scientist, then maybe you don't have a preconcieved notion of how the evidence should fit. The concept is simple:

​

1. Humans make mistakes
2. Scientists are humans
3. Scientists make mistakes

​

I am not saying that NO scientist follows a bias-free search for knowledge, I am just saying that I don't think many scientists DO follow a bias-free search for knowledge. INCLUDING Creation scientists.

---

Sorry Cobra if I sounded harsher than intended, & no offence was taken.But, you're implying that science is biased because the individuals are biased. Now, I can't vouch for all individuals, but any biased paper they produce will be rubbished by their peers. Hence science is unbiased at the point of delivery. That people make mistakes is irrelevent, any hypothesis/theory/paper is intensely scrutinised before publication.In any case we were talking about belief, not bias, so, you need to back up your claim & show that science as a whole, which is your inference after all. That science somehow shouldn't be trusted because of inherent belief/bias that is rife.So, a scientific paper that uses belief as it's main pretext, please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"I think you're misusing the word "erroneous".
Abiogenesis is POSSIBLE. How is that erroneous?"

​

--My reasoning that it is erroneous is towards my own opinion of what we have in science today. I don't find it that it is eroneous because it isn't possible, I find it erroneous that it is, but as I have stated times before, I speculate that when they do make life, you will find how much intelligence is needed to do so, not a natural process observed in the laboratory such as C-Decay.

---

erroneous is towards my own opinion means nothing. Erroneous means to be in error. Abiogenesis is possible, this is not in error, even in your opinion.Making life in the lab & abiogenesis are COMPLETELY different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"So, you're ditching the POSSIBLE, for something never observed (the supernatural), with the implication that God exists, & is able to do IMPOSSIBLE things."

​

--I am not in no way 'ditching the possible', I am ditching that it happend,

​

ofcourse technically, practically anything is possible, but as I have stated, its just how far into imagination and fantasy you will strive towards for your answr. I see it as nothing short of illogical when compairing the odds of it actually happening in any time frame. I believe the supernatural because that is my 'belief' my 'faith' as well as the origins if you blindly believe such is your 'faith' to claim it as possible is not a 'faith' because you just admit feasability. As for God being able to do 'impossible' things, this technically is not true if you look at the biblical God in his nature as an 'infinite' God, there is no such thing as an impossiblility, lest you contredict your grammer. If God created time and space, he is outside of his creation, and there is further no impossibility.

---

The question was :"Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.This has nothing to do with odds or possibilities. You believe in the supernatural because of your faith? I understand that, but this is exactly what is in question, the rationale of your faith. Get a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle & on the left list as many processes as you can. Combustion, electricity generation, meiosis etc. that have natural mechanistic causes. Then, on the right, write a list of known supernatural mechanisms. It’s a pro/con list. On the left you will quickly run out of paper, on the right you have a blank half page. So please explain why you invoke the supernatural over the natural, if you say faith, or belief, then I question your logic, rationale & reason.if you blindly believe such is your 'faith' to claim it as possible is not a 'faith' because you just admit feasability.No, no, no!!!! You believe in the supernatural DESPITE your inability to make a single entry on the right side of the page. I hold that the natural is responsible, because that’s all there is on my pro/con list. This is the dictionary definition of reasonable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Why jump ship from the natural to the supernatural?"

​

--There really is no jump involved, its my belief as to how it happend, simple as that.

​

---

It is the rationale for your belief that is in question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Also, being composed of matter, with all the elements existing, you can create self-sustaining life, but as I will continuously state, its 'fine tuning' that is the problem, thus intelligence - I reflect upon God for this action.

---

Fine tuning would be evolution, not abiogenesis.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

"Making life in the lab & abiogenesis are COMPLETELY different."
--I never said they were the same.

---

So why bring it up?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

mark said:

​

""Why is it reasonable to infer the supernatural mechanisms above natural mechanisms, when:

​

1/ Every known process is a natural mechanistic one, bar none. DNA replication, radioactive decay, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, etc. ad infinitum.

​

2/ Supernatural mechanisms are entirely unobserved.

​

This has nothing to do with odds or possibilities. You believe in the supernatural because of your faith? I understand that, but this is exactly what is in question, the rationale of your faith. Get a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle & on the left list as many processes as you can. Combustion, electricity generation, meiosis etc. that have natural mechanistic causes. Then, on the right, write a list of known supernatural mechanisms. It’s a pro/con list. On the left you will quickly run out of paper, on the right you have a blank half page. So please explain why you invoke the supernatural over the natural, if you say faith, or belief, then I question your logic, rationale & reason."

​

TC said:

​

--The problem with this is that the supernatural answers everything the left side of the paper tells you, this does not mean that I use the supernatural to explain naturalistic phenomena, I use it as my simple answer for origins, ie, goddiddoit.

​

---

But give a reason for believing in the supernatural when the right of the page is empty. With respect, you're being evasive. Your giving me a paragraph, & then saying "it's my answer". And this isn't answering the question. The question asks for REASONS, not beliefs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

mark said:

​

"No, no, no!!!! You believe in the supernatural DESPITE your inability to make a single entry on the right side of the page. I hold that the natural is responsible, because that’s all there is on my pro/con list. This is the dictionary definition of reasonable."

​

TC said:

​

--Besides it not what I was addressing, there is one entry on the right side of your paper, and it explains everything that the left side will tell you.

​

---

There is NO entry on the right side of the paper. Let me remind you what the right side of the paper is entitled. "Mechanisms for which the supernatural is known to be responsible". If you have one, I'd like to hear it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

mark said:

​

"It is the rationale for your belief that is in question."

​

TC said:

​

--How do you question the supernatural? All it is is my opinion and my belief, nothing more.

​

---

Now were getting somewhere. You believe the supernatural, but have no reason for dropping the natural mechanistics?"All it is is my opinion and my belief, nothing more."I have asked you for REASONS, not beliefs.If you're going to reply, please give a REASON for giving up natural mechanisms in favour of the supernatural, so far you haven't. You've made your position clear, told me what you believe, told me that the right side of the page explains the left. Sorry, but you need something on the right to explain the left. This is the crux of the argument. You can't use the right until you have something in the list.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

2)This question refers to YECs. The fact is the radiometric dates aren't always remakably consistent with each other. It is more likely that three different dating methods on one sample will yield three different "dates".

​

---

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=1&p=22Here's 4 methods, representing 187 samples dating K-T tektites to within ~1%Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
--Respectfully, concerning Shraf’s belaborings and Degreed’s response, both.

​

--Flowering plants not existing beneath certain plate layers and the GC ... Perhaps MANY plate layers are pre-flood in most parts of the world (with and without fossil graveyards--that were due to catastrophes). Please enlighten me (us) on the significance of your questioning. Does it really ‘prove’ no recent global flood or no flood induced GC?

​

---

Pre flood sediments should contain plant fossils, not to mention mammals, trilobites, dinosaurs, all-extinct-organisms-with-extant-organisms etc. together. So, you still have a problem, regardless of whether you consider a "plate" pre-flood or not.Also, how did an entire sedimentary bed flip-flop over post-flood beds, & STILL manage to date younger to older from top to bottom?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--Many evolutionists conclude catastrophic nearly global flood(s) have occurred without compromising their position.

---

Evidence that ALL inundations were catastrophic, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--The genesis flood, regardless of any scientific mechanism, for many YECs (like myself), did take place, indeed. The real mechanism was undoubtedly supernatural (similar to Sodom & Gommorha, the creation of Eden, the dispensations of the Bible, Christ’s death & resurrection, etc.). I’ve read YEC literature which gives scientific mechanisms (comets, tides, canopy breakdown, plate tectonics, and hosts of other explanations for the 40 days/nights of global deluge. Yet, I, too, believe it was supernaturally induced, not very explicable by scientific mechanisms. The number 40 is a ‘supernatural’ clue here. As a YEC I defy any biblical creationist who states this was not a ‘supernatural event, dispensation, and covenant (by God). Mechanisms are arbitrary here, if supernatural. Scientifically proving the ‘rain’ alone didit is nearly impossible. But that the deity didit must be inferred.

​

--Degreed (and others), might you not scientifically consider?:
Are there not variations of YECs and ToEs/ToMs (theory of mutation), besides the so-called ‘nave’ ones ? Consider:
Humphrey’s theorizes ‘general relativistic’ time dilation at the ‘event horizon’ within universal gravitation. I myself follow a special-relativistic time dilation model (E=mc(^2)), or ‘increased gamma’, at the instant following the ‘big bang’. The latter model seems to account for extreme solar time dilation in numerous (radiometric) clocks.

​

--Do not radiometric clocks perpetrate fraud to the unsuspecting public regarding the solar time intervals of the GC?

---

Why retreat to a Godidit position on the flood, but then try to use science to explain aspects of cosmology?What is a solar time dilation, & how does it affect radiometric clocks?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JP,

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

99% (or more) of the fossils we do know about do not support the ToE.

---

Please explain how they do not support evolution, & explain how they support creation sciences world view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

What would I expect to see if there was a global flood? Millions of dead things buried in sediment all over the world. Guess what we see? I would also expect to see marine organisms on and in mountains. Guess what we see?

---

Yup, millions of dead things that are ordered in such a way that no creation scientist has ever explained. Mainstream geology & evolution do.So, JP, here’s the challenge, if creation science is exactly that, then it will make predictions that are borne out. Let’s see if it can, & it does.Please make a prediction of your flood model & how it relates to fossil occurrence in the GC. In doing so, please be sure to identify pre-flood sediments, so we can examine the fossils contained within them, & let us know where they are. You even have the advantage of knowing the nature of the fossil record w.r.t. the gc.You may wish to predict the appearances (& disappearances, where applicable) of prokaryotes, single celled eukaryotes, trilobites, any crustacea, angiosperms, gymnosperms, pteropsida (ferns), ammonites, humans, whales, plesiosaurs, birds, & pterosaurs, & see if those predictions are met by your hypothesis.Also, please fit the following transitional sequences into your catastrophic, rapid deposition model. Nothing controversial here, all representing genera & below, that creationists tell me are post flood baraminic radiations.Intraspecific.Taxonomic group. Age. Variant character. Source.Fusilinid-Lepidolina multiseptata Permian, Proculus diameter (Ozawa 1975)Foraminifera-Afrobolivina afra Cretaceous, Megalospheric proculus (Reyment 1982b)Bivalve-Nuculites planites Ordovician, Prescence of anterior fold (Bretsky & Bretsky 1976)Transpecific & Transgeneric.Coccolithiphorids-Chiasmolithus-Sullivania Paleocene, (Bralower & Parrow 1996)Trilobites-Six interspecies transition series Early/Middle Paleozoic,Mammals-Tetonius-Pseudotetonius Eocene, (Rose & Brown 1984)Lots more if you want them.[everything hereafter added by edit]
Please use existing evidence, & not evidence you hope to find. After all, you wouldn't let me use the ol' I'm-sure-fossil-evidence-of-feather-developement-will-turn-up argument. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is not positive evidence for anything either, & as such cannot be used when making predictions. Although it is true we haven't seen everything in the gc, it does beg the question, where are the pre-cretaceous fossil angiosperms, when angiosperms are so common in the cretaceous & after. Anyhow, I'm sure problems such as this will be resolved in the flood scenario-fossil model that follows.Here's a hydrodynamic fossil sorting prediction to compare & contrast against, along with the rock types that we would expect to find them in.From top to bottom.Glacial
Fluviatile
Dunes & Loess.Post flood
Beach
DeltaicContinental shelf deposits.Late flood.Laterally transported, mixed, terrestrial plant & animal fragmentsTurbidites, contourites.Largely unfossiliferousFlocculated clays, cherts, limestones..Tree trunks & stumps, planktonic unicellular monista, protista, graptolites.Noncolloidal claysPlant seeds & sporesSilts.....Larger insectsFine sandstone...Small marine invertebratesMedium/coarse sandstoneLarge birdsConglomerates....Small vertebratesBasal breccia...Medium/large vertebratesBasal chaos....Reef & stromatolites fragments(Science & Earth History 1999, Arthur N Strahler, p373)Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-29-2002]