Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

Oh yeah I remember.Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness.
In other words one should not lie. Or do you take it more literally and feel it is ok to lie except in court.Why do I think you are lying? This whole thread is about your book. Your original OP was basically just a link to the book. Your signature on every post has a link to the trash. Yes you are lying.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Your whole post is spoken like a true evolutionists.Firstly Coyote I could say the same thing about you not liking the dating results for a young earth. Secondly, its not that I don’t like the results. I don’t rely to heavily on any dating methods. If you read what I originally said, I said: As far as all processes for dating are concerned, I will repeat myself again. ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results especially when it comes to long ages.What I do know is this It seems that evolutionists always fall back on what’s called abiogenesis which means life coming from non life. They don’t focus on the origin of life, only the diversity of it. However abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis which means life originating from life - BTW biogenesis is a not a theory but a law of nature - IT IS A GIVEN FACT OF LIFE! Secondly abiogenesis is only a speculative hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up, and thirdly like I said, there is no credible mechanism for it like biogenesis.Now when we can understand biogenesis as opposed to abiogenesis one can clearly see that abiogenesis gives us no answers, while biogenesis clearly does. The Bible also clues us into the undeniable fact of biogenesis. Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.Here is also something else to think about pertaining to the age of the Earth - a lot of people never consider a particular factor The Bible tells us that G-d created Adam the first man and describes for us that he was already completely grown, he was a man perhaps around the ages of 16-30. We cant say for sure exactly how old Adam was, but from the description given in the Bible he was aged like a man and likewise so was Eve created in the same respect. We can conclude that this was a miracle.Now if this is the case that Adam and eve showed age, well then how about the age of the stars and the universe since G-d created these too around the same timeline as Adam and Eve came into existence given a few days in-between (according to the Bible) and as we know from science today (which much hot debate) about its actual age, the stars and the Universe also appear to show age. This would also apply to the idea of the process of evolution since we didn't see it happening either.One must consider the applicable factor of age being already present.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

The problem is that your method is still abiogenesis. You start with bare earth & poof, grass. That is even more absurd than the abiogenesis hypothesized by biologists. Yours starts with nothing, at least the bios version starts with something, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen & Water. Yours with Iron-alumno silicates (earth) which in no way can become grass.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I am an evolutionist; that was one of my studies for my Ph.D. (The other being archaeology.) Scientific dating methods do not show a young earth.You don't rely on dating methods? Not exactly. You deny dating methods. And you do so not because of some knowledge of the methods, techniques, and assumptions but because they produce the wrong results and support an old earth.And don't bother to regurgitate some of those "anomalous results" that creationists are so fond of. I have debunked quite a few of them in another thread: Radiocarbon dates -- young coal and natural gas (things that C14 date too young/old).We are getting a bit off topic here. If you want to continue discussing radiocarbon dating let's move to another thread. You pick it. We could use the one I just cited in the above sentence. It hasn't been used in a while. But read up on some of those "anomalous" dates first and see how wrong creationists can be when they try to discuss science without learning anything about it first.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So, your god is a liar, is he? I could understand a god who made an O₂ enriched atmosphere right-off-the-bat instead of an O₂ depleted one that would take a hundred million years for the garden to ready for A&Es arrival. But why did it create each, separate radioactive isotope in the proportions that would imply a 4.5 billion year old Earth? There should be twice as much U²³⁸if the Earth were >10kyo. And there should be plenty of Np²³⁷ around , but there is none. Nor anything else with a half-life of less than 100 million years (unless it is being constantly replenished) .By the way, that's what's called a refutation of your bologna. I knew you wouldn't recognize one without it being labeled as such, so I thought I'd help you out. There should be a comma proceeding the "and" in that compound sentence, Ms. Author-my-eye Meyer. Educate that!P.S. How do you explain √2 being irrational if π is unique in that regard? I'd really like to know; because we know it couldn't have been you being wrong. Right? I mean, that would have been somebody here making some sort of strong dent in one of your claims (Admittedly, not a substantial claim). Which, again, refutes the claim that no one has refuted a single one of your claims.Please try to show a little integrity.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

I once was too! How about biblical archeology, have you been privileged in any way? Correction, yes they do!There have been dating methods that have yielded a young earth. One of them has to do with helium being found in granite rock and another polonium. There are others as well such as carbon being found in diamonds. How about Mount Saint Helens, which proves that large canyons can form in a single day. And there are numerous other things as well evidence suggest that there is not enough dirt and sediment on the sea floor at the rate of the earths erosion. If the earths oceans are indeed millions of years old then the oceans would be massively saturated and stifled with sediment dozens of meters deep.Would you like me to go on?The conclusion here is, we simply cannot say with any sure confidence that the Earth is billions of years old since obviously we did not see this occurring. However, what we do have is a historically documented/recorded piece of evidence - a genuine eye-witness to this - the Bible! The Bible gives us a human lineage from Adam to Jesus which is just under 6,000 years. I can list this for you if you'd like?Even though this may seem ridiculous to you because it doesn’t fit into your evolutionary view, please keep in mind that the Bible has never been falsified - EVER! Even archeological evidence is recently surfacing to authenticate what the Bible says.All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures - Sir William Herschel (1738-1822).

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

No, I studied the technical and environmental aspects of archaeology, not the classical style popular for Mediterranean cultures. We read the record of the earth, not ancient texts. Don't embarrass yourself. Those points you raise are known here as PRATTs -- points refuted a thousand times. A good source of information on these is the Index to Creationist Claims. This site examines hundreds of these claims and shows where they are wrong.I'll let someone else deal with most of these, but I'll deal with the diamonds issue. The Taylor & Southon study that incorporated diamonds was designed to detect the residual C14 in the AMS instruments, and that's just what it did. Diamonds were used because there is no C14 in them (unless exposed to radiation). They revealed how much contamination was building up in the AMS instruments. This has been misconstrued by creationists looking for something -- anything -- to bolster their belief in a young earth. See the thread I referenced in my last post, as it deals with this and a lot of other creationist fantasies. [By the way, I know Taylor and have discussed this issue with him. He does not agree with the creationists' interpretation of his results.]Nonsense. The bible has been falsified in a number of instances, and this is just another of those.You might choose to believe in a young earth, but don't try to tell scientists that they are wrong based on your beliefs. Your evidence has been refuted, although you won't admit it. Sorry, false. Even my own archaeological research has falsified the global flood story.1) I have tested over a hundred sites that included the approximate 4,350 years ago time period. None showed signs of a massive flood. What we see instead is continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, and site deposition. One such example disproves the idea of a global flood some 4,350 years ago. I have come up with over a hundred such examples. [My colleagues have come up with tens of thousands of examples. Then you add in all the other -ologists who have produced similar data.]2) One site I tested produced a burial well over 5,000 years in age whose mtDNA matched living individuals in the same area. This shows there was no depopulation and replacement with mtDNA from Noah's kin. [Other archaeologists around the world have come up with the same data, often with far greater time spans. This alone disproves a global flood about 4,350 years ago.]And the evidence I have come up with is just a tiny amount of the evidence that falsifies the idea of a global flood some 4,350 years ago. The early creationist geologists tried to document the flood, but gave up just about 200 years ago. The evidence disproving the flood story has only grown since then.The only ones who believe that story do so because they believe the bible. But they have to ignore 200 years of scientific evidence to do so.You apparently are an example of this type of believer. You will accept the flimsiest of evidence which supports your religious beliefs, while rejecting the overwhelming evidence that shows that belief is false.You are lying to yourself, and that's the worst kind of lie I can imagine.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

These are all PRATTs. Maybe someone else id interested in refuting them point by point but to me it JUST BURNS.PRATT
Points Refuted a Thousand TimesBTW
Since your book is so wonderful and inspiring how come you couldn't get a real publisher to publish it? Did all real publishers turn it down? Did you try to find a real publisher?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Yes. Specifically I'd like you to produce evidence and reasoning instead of assertion and stuff you've made up. Speak for yourself. I can. But that's because I know stuff about geology. What a curious falsehood. Of course it has. For example, we can be absolutely certain that the Flood never happened.

And the fact that I am 36 also "fits with the Biblical perspective", but does not confirm it.The fact that there are things that are much older than 6,000 years blows the "Biblical perspective" to pieces.

Oh yes, Gentry's mistake, a blunder so awful that even creationist websites like AnswersInGenesis disown it. What, carbon has been found in something which is by definition made out of carbon?Well, that proves that the Earth is young ... er ... how? How about it? Yes, water can rapidly cut a channel (not, of course, a canyon) through unconsolidated volcanic ash. You do not explain how this is meant to prove that the Earth is young. And of course it doesn't --- the fact that water can wash away ash would be true no matter how old the Earth was, as you'd know if you'd spent five seconds thinking about the subject. As you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in the subject you're talking about, the sediment on the ocean floor is hundreds of meters deep.But of course you're not interested in geology, you're just interested in being wrong.Well, let me congratulate you on your multiple errors of fact and reasoning. Your pastor must be very proud of you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Coyote, Evolutionists are notorious for finding excuses to fit their fancy perspective. I suppose you could say the same for Creationists. For example on the diamonds issue, the evolutionist cry contamination. They claim the same thing from asteroids to, but did you ever notice that not one thing that is found in asteroids is off worldly. In other words everything that asteroids consists of is commonly known to be found on the Earth. I’ll save the reason for that in a future post.I have been through the whole rigmarole with both sides and what I have found is that evolution is still at a loss for explaining things (abiogenesis wise). No the science does not add up and quite frankly I’m sick of the excuses. I don’t care if you tell me something is millions of years old - what I do know, and I will say this again and again is that the science of dating is imprecise.You on the other hand have adhered primarily to the evolutionary perspective - and of course spoken like a true evolutionists. I have noticed that you only stick to your realm of knowledge and have not refuted other things that I mention, such as biblical perspectives. Please cite for me where it is falsified? You are an archeologist you should know that there have been some past and recent finds that clearly match with biblical doctrine. The worst kind of lie to imagine is denying that biogenesis is the law. Your evolutionary beliefs resemble the wings of an Ostrich.This website that you provided is very weak: An Index to Creationist ClaimsI’ve gone through several of them, in fact I’m quite sure I can refute ALL of them. Off hand I’ll just pick a couple such as: CA005.1: Darwin's racism This one claims that Charles Darwin was himself a racist.Charles Darwin was an agnostic. He lived his life believing in natural selection. He married his cousin and reared children with weak immunity symptoms. We can clearly see here that Darwin’s denial of G-d had exposed his children to hereditary sickness. We can also clearly see that the spirit behind Darwin leads to many sinful things racism, low tolerance towards other beliefs, customs, immorality, homosexuality, elitism. One can also say it legitimized Nazism and the Holocaust. CA001.1: Evolution and crimeJeffrey Dahmer was a product of Darwinism! One of America’s most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave an last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did: If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing. (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994). Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

Nice try at the Gish gallop. But futile. I'm sticking to the specific topic I am trying to discuss with you, just as you are doing everything you can to avoid that topic. The reason is because it is contamination, both in the sample and in the instrument itself.These measurements are being made using the AMS technique (Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy). That technique is extremely sensitive, and can measure the isotopes of carbon sufficiently small to produce dates back to 50,000 or so years. Some laboratories are working to extend that range back perhaps to 80,000 years.One of the things they need to learn is just how small the residual C14 can be before the readings are lost in a background of machine noise and contamination. When dealing with samples of that age, and those tiny amounts of C14, ion source memory becomes a significant factor, as do residual radiation in the area from which the samples originated and even the carbon (and carbon 14) in the atmosphere!Here is a good article on the subject. From my knowledge of the subject I can recommend it highly. The author, by the way, is a poster to this site: RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?If you would take the time to read and understand this article you would be able to avoid the simple mistakes that you have been making when you actually address the topic of radiocarbon dating.You are claiming radiocarbon dating is invalid because of the diamond results, so you have to provide evidence to that effect. So, please learn something about the subject, then we can deal with this one point. Once we have done that perhaps we can move on to another point.But please, no more Gish gallop, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are joking now, right? You talk like as if you were a clone of Kent Hovind or Venomfangx (Shawn)..........You started off by talking about mathematic nonsense which have no ground; your book failed, and now you try to defend it by saying stuff like holocaust, nazism, serial killers, misrepresenting the first few sources you ever did use in this thread. You claim to be a very smart person despite your low academic background; a good thing now would either be to acknowledge you are wrong or come with som really awesome arguments, that grants you the nobel prize, with both source and method for analyzing the stuff you talk about. A reason to why you are qualified to lecture a person about dating method whom uses it as an essential part of his field would be appropriated too..

Untrue. There are amino acids in meteorites of asteroidal origin that aren't found on earth, except perhaps at chemical supply houses like Sigma-Aldrich. Go read about the Murchison or Tagish Lake meteorites before you write that future post.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD