Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

"I agree with you that there quite a few things we dont understand AS OF YET...but those things are not "THE Supernatural"
--I agree to a degree that they don't infallably present the 'fact that it is the supernatural', I simply say to my opinion, that it was the supernatural, I do not require scientific sustainment on this assertion, as it is outside the realm of scientific observation."they are merely NATURAL laws we are not aware of at the moment but give it time and i promise you that everything you attribute to the supernatural today will find an explanation in science eventually science eventually..."
--Then it is not discussable, and is assertion just as you have tried to pin on me, but I have attempted avoidance of sentences that start out with or constitute a wording such as 'they are' or 'but those things are not', as these statments make assertions that they are the only explinations, even if they are unexplainable. Thus, I coulc promise you the same thing and it would be just as relevant as your assertion."effectively,there is no limit to science's ability to explain away the universe and everything it contains...its all a matter of time."
--Exactly my point it can explain 'the universe and everything it contains', but nothing outside of this.------------------

"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."
--I could agree with the possibility of it being contamination by incorrect treatment with grease, and oil. But Atmospheric exposure, I think this would not be enough to be relevant, I would say that this if at all it actually happens, it would merely be undetectable. Do you have a resource that I could read that would explain respectively with this source of contamination?"AS regards measurable quantities, just how much C14 is in these fossils?"

quote:

---

a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

​

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

​

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

​

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

​

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

"Also, as far as I'm aware, fossils should NEVER be radiocarbon dated at all."
--This should be true, but the point is, what are you going to do when you have measurable quantities of radioisotopes in a sample that is many orders of magnitude older than it is supposed to be able to give dates that are not infinite."The idea behind this method is that organic carbon ingestion stops upon death, & the clock starts ticking."
--This is a very fundemental assertion as to the validity of contamination, and if this is completely true, then these dates present one of the biggest problems in Geologic time."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."
--Fossils are by organic origin, the question is at this point, the validity of contamination.------------------

quote:

---

"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."
--I could agree with the possibility of it being contamination by incorrect treatment with grease, and oil.

---

Actually, based on total exposure time, natural contamination is more likely. Contact with ground water, natural gas, etc. But I'm glad that you see the potential for contamination. It is really quite great as we are usually in dirty environments and we are carbon-based creatures ourselves.

quote:

---

But Atmospheric exposure, I think this would not be enough to be relevant, I would say that this if at all it actually happens, it would merely be undetectable.

---

I'm not sure about the amounts measured, but possibly in the parts per trillion. Any amount of contamination at that level is significant.

quote:

---

a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

---

What is your source for this. These are unsubstantiated numbers. I really think that there are more analyses than this.

quote:

---

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

---

Yes. Undoubtedly, there were others that were tossed because undefined dates make no sense and indicate that other methods might be necessary.

quote:

---

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

---

We have been over this before. Contamination in these systems is more likely than not. Do you have a specific sample that you would like to discuss. We need to know where it came from, who collected it, when, a complete in situ descriptiono of the sample among other things.

quote:

---

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

---

Again, we have been over this ground before. This tell us nothing. How deep and where were the samples collected? There are primitive life forms present and living today. How are these different? You have not subtantiated a single assertion here, TC. Your credibility is in the toilet.

quote:

---

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

More information. Give us a quote or something to work with. I'm quite certain that this sample was contaminated.

quote:

---

.. as far as I'm aware, fossils should NEVER be radiocarbon dated at all."
--This should be true, but the point is, what are you going to do when you have measurable quantities of radioisotopes in a sample that is many orders of magnitude older than it is supposed to be able to give dates that are not infinite.

---

I would first look at the sample description and check its chain of custody. That probably wouldn't occur to a creationist.

"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 mistakesI 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.

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 Quetzal:
Retrocrono: Let me get this straight. From your own statements:

​

1. You are in secondary school. Correct?
2. You know little about biology or evolution, principally because you don't have the time. Correct?
3. You (apparently) do not know enough about geology, plate tectonics, physics, etc, to construct a flood model of your own. Correct?

​

If the answers to the above questions are "yes", I'm curious as to how you feel you are able to dismiss 200 years worth of scientific study in geology and 150 years worth of scientific study in biology. You're quite free to believe as you wish, of course, but your rather forceful assertions that the people who have spent lifetimes studying these issues are totally wrong is interesting.

---

Firstly, I don't think that they are all totally wrong. I'm not yes to all those questions. I have plenty of time for biology (it's one of my subjects) and I've never seen anything in the subject that makes evolution necessary. It makes perfect sense, despite what people may say, without evolution being asserted as fact all through it. Evolution is not a fact, it's a probability built on philosophy and I've never seen one scrap of indisputable/exclusive evidence for the theory. Using a little physics I see no reason to take it as fact at all. So I don't have to claim that they are all wrong. No, I probably would be able to, given the time, be able to construct a flood model. But it takes awhile, even on a forum, to sit back, think how it all would of happened, than write about it and try get everything to fit together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle. That takes time and time is not what I have. Like I said, maybe one day.You have made assertions about me that I've done nothing for you to make such claims. Evolution isn't biology, biology is biology. Please, give me a break.

quote:

---

You have made assertions about me that I've done nothing for you to make such claims. Evolution isn't biology, biology is biology. Please, give me a break.

---

Actually, you just made an assertion that reinforces my contention. I'd love to see the biology textbook that shows biology doesn't depend and rely on an evolutionary foundation. How does your textbook explain diversity, genetics, population ecology, speciation, taxonomy/classification etc?

Well you are assuming that something exists outside this universe...an assumption not substanciated by any facts mind you...and certainly not scientific ones. You may convince yourself that those things you cannot understand or explain today have an "out of this universe" origin but i rather think that they are merely things of this universe that we dont yet understand. I dont believe in God because i need God to explain anything to me...science will do this all in good time...i believe in God because i do. period.

Um, then why are they called "Evolutionary Biologists?"LOL!

"Well you are assuming that something exists outside this universe...an assumption not substanciated by any facts mind you...and certainly not scientific ones."
--I'm talking of the supernatural, which isn't science, because the supernatural is outside of the realm of science, so your argument isn't too bright because I never claimed it to be scientific in the first place, as it is my faith, I must continuously assert. Also we don't know if there is an end to the universe and space, as we cannot even detect the edge or evidence of it being everlasting today."You may convince yourself that those things you cannot understand or explain today have an "out of this universe" origin but i rather think that they are merely things of this universe that we dont yet understand."
--Great, you have your opinion, and I have mine, because that is all they are."I dont believe in God because i need God to explain anything to me...science will do this all in good time...i believe in God because i do. period."
--Beside it being an opinion, I'll eat my words if this is true, but untill then, you can keep searching for your own answers.--I think we are starting to get out of topic, mabye we should get back to something besides our opinions and the supernatural, as all it will be is opinionated discussion.------------------

"Um, then why are they called "Evolutionary Biologists?"
LOL!"
--Well theres pure biology, and you have your biological theories such as the ToE and you get your Evolutionary biologist, wasn't that much of a belly laugh.------------------

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.

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."
--Erroneous in the way I used it in context, would mean, possible, but the odds are a billion to one to put it simply. I never said it meant anything relevant, I was addressing the fact that you and others critisize me for saying that this is science and how can you prove this or give me evidence of the supernatural and whatnot, and I am telling you that it can be nothing more than opinion from there."Making life in the lab & abiogenesis are COMPLETELY different."
--I never said they were the same.""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."
--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."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."
--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."It is the rationale for your belief that is in question."
--How do you question the supernatural? All it is is my opinion and my belief, nothing more."Fine tuning would be evolution, not abiogenesis."
--fine tuning is the state at which 'fine tuning'(self explanitory) is what is required for an action to be possible, it has much more to do with abiogenesis than evolution.------------------

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 Quetzal:
Actually, you just made an assertion that reinforces my contention. I'd love to see the biology textbook that shows biology doesn't depend and rely on an evolutionary foundation. How does your textbook explain diversity, genetics, population ecology, speciation, taxonomy/classification etc?

---

Biology doesn't depend and rely on evolution. The philosophy of evolution was built from biology. This doesn't mean biology depends on evolution, but the other way around. It's more of an attempt to unify everything in biology than take it as it is given. Take a look at the website that goes with the textbook we use, it's pretty good and has loads of evolution links and info.CLICK HERELet me also take a quote from the textbook.The classification of living things into taxanomic groups is based on how biologists believe they are related in an evolutionary sense.Notice the word believe. There is no definitive proof of there being ancestors, it's accepted as a belief. Science uses a totally naturalistic approach to the origins of everything. That's the only real reason evolution is accepted. Not because of evidence. Have you actually tried looking into the studies of comman ancestors? It's the only thing in the whole subject that seems a little iffy. Not because I don't believe it. It's because it's all over the place. Depending on what evidence you choose to look at, you could come up with heaps of different relatives for men. You than get the scientist who try to look at all the evidence to work out our closest relatives. The problem with this is most of the data is that at odds with each other it comes down to opinion. Usually on what would be most logical. The unison of life is done purely on mens philosophical nature, there is nothing there that I've seen that makes it certain.Don't think I'm objecting or being ignorant to the idea. It's just I'm yet to see of something that would make me believe it defently happened (please, no links to talkorigins.org, I have been doing plenty of reading on my own accord). With current biology knowledge and organizing the evidence to fit, evolution can be seen as could of happened, but you must ask yourself, did it?

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 02-06-2002]