Enter the Matrix! (creationist websites)

Carl Wieland, Keith Ham, AIG, Woodmorappe, Duane Gish? What`s that bit in Ecclesiastes about dead flies in the ointment?

I'd suggest you not submit all of these corrections at once. It seems likely that they'd just ignore it if your corrections basically demanded that they get rid of all their info... if you take it step by step on the other hand, it might be interesting to see just how far you can take this (if anywhere at all).

Charles, I think I agree with MD. Give them time to respond to what you've sent so far, and then smack 'em if they give the non-response that I'll bet they do.

I found something totally hilarious on that site. Now It's nearly 2am here so I may be misreading this, but there seems to be a glaring contradiction from one paragraph to the next in the Carbon Dating section of that site.

quote:

---

The Flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere — plants re-growing after the Flood absorb CO2 which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore the 14C level relative to 12C increases after the Flood. So the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the Flood had to be lower than what it is now. Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the Flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

---

And then Straight after that we have

quote:

---

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the Flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-Flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

---

Now in the first quote they're saying that the Flood removed C12 from the atmosphere permenantly, but C14 continued to be produced. The removal of the C12 would then make objects date older than they are.THEN they go on to say that volcanoes ADDED C12 to the system, thus ALSO making things date older than they really are. So both removing AND adding C12 makes things date older....they can't seem to make their mind up.I'm pretty certain i've seen that whole section on Carbon 14 dating somewhere else before, so maybe we can just blame this site for being dumb enough to copy a contradictory source of information.(Again it's really late here, so if i'm totally reading this wrong thats why!)

I received this email:Hi Charles,Firstly, thank you for your interest in our website. Although we have
removed your comments from the campaign list, being an unsuitable place for debate, we do appreciate your feedback. (NB: As interest has been building up over recent months, we are considering having a section of the site for open discussions, but more on that another time.)As it is our ultimate objective to promote truth, it would not be in our best interest to deliberately offer false information, however being fallible human's we acknowledge that mistakes are inevitable. We also accept that opinions and interpretations of evidence differ immensely, so it is not our aim to force either upon our readers, only to offer information that would not normally be made available in this biased evolutionary society we live in. With this in mind, if you do find anything on the website that you disagree with, we would be very interested to hear your argument and any supporting documentation you can offer. Also if there are any arguments that you feel are missing from our site, please let us know and we will research
them.Please do send us your findings on Piltdown man and the Moon recession
topics. I promise that anything you send will be reviewed, researched and considered for update on our website.Many thanks againThe RAID Teaminfo@raidmedia.co.uk
Can we agree on one pretty must bullet-proof example to send them?

I'll have some more looking later.The moon recession suffers from the problem of complexity. The reason for the current rate being taken as high is because of complex modeling of tidal forces. The fact that they have zero reason to state it as higher in the past not withstanding.ABE
How about the Helium budget one?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-12-2004 02:16 PM

I'd like to see all the pile oners hop on this. It should be fun but not as easy as you might think.We are aiming for something digestable. It wouldn't be easy.

Come on people - jump on in!

Well we could consider the notion of the age of the comets to be useless for determining the age of the universe since the source of comets is what is needed to be established in order to make a case for ages.Perhaps there is someone at the matrix who would be willing to explain the age of the Oort cloud to us?

How about asking them for a geological map pointing out the Flood layers, and a complete geological description of the formation of those layers and the structures within them?Could be asking for a bit much though.

I think that the woodpecker or horse leg examples would be a good place to start.OF course, both are just arguments from incredulity combined with ignorance of how evolution actually happens.

It has to be as clear and simple as possible.The moon distance one I like but it requires some complex modeling of continents and stuff that the average Joe won't get.

yes - can we find something that is just flat out incorrect?I will take a look later.http://www.thematrix.co.uk/textmap.aspThis is the text only page - easier to have a look at the claims via this.

The problem I see with trying to refute any of his nonsense is that if you read through the material there is little to grab hold of. The general pattern is that an assertion is made and then the topic drifts off into prattle. "Facts" are created as needed with no real supporting basis. You find comments like so-and-so, a Canadian (substitute any nation) scientists said "Yada-Yada". But seldom if ever do you find links to the original source.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Under the topic on the flood concerning where the water came from we have this statement. Besides the fact that the oceans would not do this under the given scenario we would also question how the flood managed to stay in place after the tilting of the axis.This statement is patently absurd on the face of it and does not even support the biblical account of the event.