Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

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.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

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 joz:
That was scary I thought you had contracted Brads condition for a minute. then I realised it sounded suspiciously like Shakespeare, is it Measure for measure?

---

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you! LOL!!It is, indeed, The Bard, and it is from the scene in the church during Much Ado About Nothing.Brad's response to my Shakespeare quote is the strangest one yet.

Perhaps Truecreation is missing a fundamental point here. C14 is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of solar radiation with CO2. The C14 thus formed gets incorporated in the organic cycles just like normal C12. Therefore it will accumulate in living organisms up to an equilibrium concentration. However, if the living organism stops metabolising (dies) and is isolated from any source of C14 (say by burial) then the amount of C14(and proportion of C14 to C12) is fixed and C14 starts to undergo radioactive decay.This is why contamination is such an important issue. The atmosphere and all organic material contain new C14. If this is absorbed by the material which is to be carbon dated then it will appear as though it has much more C14 than expected and will give a false young age. And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error.I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination.

​

[This message has been edited by wj, 01-30-2002]

"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.-------------------

125 years ago,there was no mechanism known to man that could allow them to explore the depth of the ocean of walk on the moon and yet,Jules Verne had allready dreamed of these concepts. Just because we cant explain abiogenesis TODAY does not mean we wont be tomorrow...As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject.

"Perhaps Truecreation is missing a fundamental point here. C14 is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of solar radiation with CO2. The C14 thus formed gets incorporated in the organic cycles just like normal C12. Therefore it will accumulate in living organisms up to an equilibrium concentration. However, if the living organism stops metabolising (dies) and is isolated from any source of C14 (say by burial) then the amount of C14(and proportion of C14 to C12) is fixed and C14 starts to undergo radioactive decay."
--I have always been aware of this as is evident if you were to read through my responses, there simply are 2 problems that I am obviously showing still await an explination in this forum."This is why contamination is such an important issue. The atmosphere and all organic material contain new C14. If this is absorbed by the material which is to be carbon dated then it will appear as though it has much more C14 than expected and will give a false young age. And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error."
--So what is the mechenism for this absorbtion of new C14 radioisotopes? This is the first problem."I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination."
--Yes I understand this, so the second problem is, what are you going to do when you find something this old or even older with dates of 12,500 - 50,000 supposed years by C14 dating?------------------

"125 years ago,there was no mechanism known to man that could allow them to explore the depth of the ocean of walk on the moon and yet,Jules Verne had allready dreamed of these concepts. Just because we cant explain abiogenesis TODAY does not mean we wont be tomorrow..."
--If this is your argument, then it isn't to be argued against either way, I would be to point this out, and to believe in a natural process that is unconceivable requires a little more faith than I have. The thing is about abiogenesis atleast is that thousands have attempted to bring about life in a test tube, per se, I do believe that if the rapture doesn't happen before then, we will make life, but my speculation is that it will be eroneously complex and still inconceivable towards natural processes."As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject."
--All attempts to discredit it have simply failed, even in your own various arguments requiring interperetation of the bible, as it is obvious, discussion on this subject is no problem if you desire it, i do not see it as an opinion because it isn't an opinionated assertion, it is factually based with my current knowledge, and if anyone would like to inform me otherwize, you can attempt.-------------------

It has been falsified repeatadly but you just refuse to see it and try to twist the words into another meaning. I have allready explained to you how it is easily falsified in another thread...you have yet to reply.

"It has been falsified repeatadly but you just refuse to see it and try to twist the words into another meaning."
--If its falsification is depicted on your arguments, it is in extreamly good contition, and I do in no way twist words into another meaning, as is human nature to understand what it says, If I tell you something of the sort of 'Put your heart into it' say if you were a computer, you would say...hm... well I better pump faster or something, as taking it literally. But a human would obviously say, hey I need to be more simpthetic or more of an emotion or something. The way a computer would read it and a person is completely different, you seem to be a computer reading it."I have allready explained to you how it is easily falsified in another thread...you have yet to reply."
--Actually you have yet to give an explination out of logic and not opinion, if I have missed anything, show me what it is and I will get right on it ------------------

Gladly....lust comming from the heart? well guess what? It neithers comes from the heart NOR from the soul. Lustfull thoughts and feelings are a direct result of hormonal secretion in the brain in reaction to either an outside stimuli (beautifull naked woman) or an inside stimuli (memory of a beautifull naked woman). It is a natural built in mechanism of the human body whose purpose is the facilitation of procreation.

"Gladly....lust comming from the heart? well guess what? It neithers comes from the heart NOR from the soul. Lustfull thoughts and feelings are a direct result of hormonal secretion in the brain in reaction to either an outside stimuli (beautifull naked woman) or an inside stimuli (memory of a beautifull naked woman). It is a natural built in mechanism of the human body whose purpose is the facilitation of procreation."
--Tell me then, is your personality or character, part of your physical makeup? Ie, possibly a chemical secretion in the brain, triggering your physical feeling.------------------

Precisely...and thats documented evidence...you dont need to look for a soul to understand feelings...its all a chemical reaction in the brain. Same as memories. And thats not my opinion...thats documented science.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
...And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error."
--So what is the mechenism for this absorbtion of new C14 radioisotopes? This is the first problem."I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination."
--Yes I understand this, so the second problem is, what are you going to do when you find something this old or even older with dates of 12,500 - 50,000 supposed years by C14 dating?[/B][/QUOTE]Well, I'm not a geologist but I can suggest two mechanisms for your first problem. Groundwater seeping with dissolved carbon dioxide as carbolic acid can seep through significant depths of soil and porous rock. Secondly contamination by handling (sweat, skin flakes, synthetic chemicals, diffusion of comtemporary air through porous material. Remember, we are not talking about fully fossilised materials when applying carbon dating.I suspect that those same sources of contamination can have an effect on dating of 65 million year old fossils. But let's not be hypothetical, where are the actual cases of fossils expected to be millions of years old being carbon dated at tens of thousands of years?

Truecreation, I note that you have provided a number of quotes contained in Woodmorappe's "Radiometric Dating Reappraised". You may be interested in reading a critique of this paper by Steven H. Schimmrich at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html The site also has links to a reply by Woodmorappe and a response by Schrimmrich. Whilst the critique addressed the detail of the supposed problems in radiometric dating, the subsequent exchange is also illuminating in the attitude and demeanour of the protagonists.