Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[Job 33:6]

I think there was a global flood although I never really explored geology and what might be learned there. When I got into this I felt I had a choice between the life sciences and geology, I ended up spending most of my time on genetics. As far as dating fossils, it kind of makes sense that if the fossil is mineralized by something that is very old the fossil would appear to be very old. As a young earth creationist (at least biologically) I have to qualms about radiometric dating or the depth of time regarding the age of the universe and the earth. I consider them to be irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

Here's an idea that I will just out on the table. It's hard to suggest that fossils as a product of life, are all less than 6000 years old, while they're encased in rock that is millions of years old.

You mentioned this idea of older minerals maybe making fossils look old. But if the rocks encompassing the fossils themselves are old, then it just seems like a...potentially contradictory situation if we were to consider that life was young but just within and encompassed by an old planet.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's an idea that I will just out on the table. It's hard to suggest that fossils as a product of life, are all less than 6000 years old, while they're encased in rock that is millions of years old.

You mentioned this idea of older minerals maybe making fossils look old. But if the rocks encompassing the fossils themselves are old, then it just seems like a...potentially contradictory situation if we were to consider that life was young but just within and encompassed by an old planet.

It makes sense to me, that's all I can say for sure. In order for fossils to be mineralized the substance of the elements involved have to saturate the bones. It seems consistant with a young earth biological creation to me, that's one of the reasons I never bothered to pursue it.

 

[Job 33:6]

For example, let's say we had a chocolate cake.

And let's say this cake has 4 layers. Chocolate on the bottom = layer A, moose on top = layer B, more chocolate above that =layer C, more moose on top = layer D. And let's say we have chocolate chips (fossils) throughout the cake. Chips shaped like fish in layer A, chips shaped like amphibians in layer B, chips shaped like reptiles in layer C and mammal shaped chips in layer D.

It would be hard to hold a view that such a cake were a million years old, while simultaneously stating that all chocolate chips throughout the cake were less than 6000 years old. As the chips are encompassed and unique to specific layers of cake.

 

[Job 33:6]

@mark kennedy if you're interested, please describe how someone might bake the above cake, thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

If I we're to bake such a cake as the one described above. I would pour batter for the bottom layer, sprinkle I'm the fish chips, pour layer B then sprinkle in amphibian chips, pour layer C and sprinkle in reptile chips, then pour layer D and sprinkle in mammal chips.

This would result in the layers and fossils being the same age.

The only way that the chips and layers could be different ages, is if the chips could somehow infiltrate the layers after the layers we're already present.

But chocolate chips cannot penetrate cooled layers and if the chocolate chips did, the layers would be obstructed in a visible way.

Beyond that too though, the chips would have to sort themselves by type. How the amphibian chips would make their way to layer B while amphibian chips only made it to layer C and mammal chips simply stopped on the upper most layer D.

There is no mechanism known in physics that could allow chips to sort in such a way.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just some thoughts^

 

[mark kennedy]

@mark kennedy if you're interested, please describe how someone Mike bake the above cake, thanks.

I think an interesting place to start might be the flood, of course there would be something out there on the subject. Maybe something about how fossilization works and the minerals involved. One of the problems I have always run into is good source material, genetics you can get peer reviewed papers that are pretty straight forward in their abstract and discussion, geology not so much.

This one pretty much sealed it for me, Potassium-argon ‘age’ of volcanic rock from Mount St Helens:

The calculated ages of the rock from the lava dome ranged from 350,000 years to 2,800,000 years, yet the rock had formed just 10 years before. Clearly the ‘age’ was vastly wrong. A key assumption of the potassium-argon method is that all argon escapes from the lava while it is still molten. In that case the ‘age’ would represent the time when the lava crystallized and the rock became gas-tight. But that assumption was wrong. The rock already contained lots of argon when it solidified and so it gave incorrect ‘dates’. (Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens)
​

He gets some samples of dacite, sends them to the lab, it gives you age dates as old as 2 mya. Evolutionist responses to this are fiercely ad hominem and never do they defend Potassium-argon dating. Something like that might be a primer.

Just some thoughts^

I like it, you seem to have a way with words in this context.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Brightmoon]

Ok I see what you’re saying . But there would have to be some evidence of turbation to get a young fossil in an older layer . And also the matrix around a fossil and the bones themselves also retain chemical evidence of belonging to a specific layer. It’s almost impossible to mess with that . Even if the bones are from the same layer , simply because they come from a different geographical area means the the bones would have different minerals and chemicals even if they are the same age . This means that a geologist or paleontologist can definitely tell if a fossil is out of place

 

[Job 33:6]

I think an interesting place to start might be the flood, of course there would be something out there on the subject. Maybe something about how fossilization works and the minerals involved. One of the problems I have always run into is good source material, genetics you can get peer reviewed papers that are pretty straight forward in their abstract and discussion, geology not so much.

This one pretty much sealed it for me, Potassium-argon ‘age’ of volcanic rock from Mount St Helens:

The calculated ages of the rock from the lava dome ranged from 350,000 years to 2,800,000 years, yet the rock had formed just 10 years before. Clearly the ‘age’ was vastly wrong. A key assumption of the potassium-argon method is that all argon escapes from the lava while it is still molten. In that case the ‘age’ would represent the time when the lava crystallized and the rock became gas-tight. But that assumption was wrong. The rock already contained lots of argon when it solidified and so it gave incorrect ‘dates’. (Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens)
​

He gets some samples of dacite, sends them to the lab, it gives you age dates as old as 2 mya. Evolutionist responses to this are fiercely ad hominem and never do they defend Potassium-argon dating. Something like that might be a primer.



I like it, you seem to have a way with words in this context.

Grace and peace,
Mark

If you take the position that the ages are simply wrong, then it sounds like you're suggesting that the world is young. I'm asking specifically, how the earth could potentially be old while the fossils simultaneously are young, given the cake example above.

I agree that if the earth we're 6000 years old, it wouldn't be a surprise if the fossils were too. I'm just pointing out that, I think the idea that the earth could be old while fossils young, I think this idea is contradictory.

 

[Job 33:6]

These are just...ah, thought experiments. I think that ah...in order to properly gauge the question of if evolution has occurred (on a macro scale), we have to be able to describe how the cake was baked and how the chips we're sorted within.

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationists tend to use Mt St. Helens a lot . They sent one sample already ground up so there was no way the legitimate lab could tell if the sample had been contaminated or not . Sometimes chunks of older rock break off in lava. if they don’t melt fully the might retain that older age and make the sample a misleading one . Since some creationists don’t accept older ages they might not even realize it. ( incompetence) or unfortunately given the tendency to lie by omission, they might realize it and give a sample they know is misleading ( dishonesty). There’s too much of this nonsense in creationist literature for me to take it seriously!
Then they also play games with the error bars . They use a rock that they know is very young and date it with a technique used on very old rocks. So a rock that’s a few decades old will get reported as a few million years in age BECAUSE they leave out the error bars. What info they actually get is this-rock-is-about -Y-age-but-it-could-be-as-young-as-X-or-as-old-as-Z . When creationists then report the “age” they report it as “ see that crazy evolutionist said this rock is Z old” .They don’t report the date range. I think that is what your 10 year old rock was subjected to . Misleading Error bar games.

 

[Brightmoon]

I know Andrew Snelling has done this . He used a 50year old rock and specified that the legitimate lab use a dating technique used on billion years old rocks . The lab gave him the result ( in plain English with the error bars ) as this rock is less than 2.3 million years old . It got reported as,
“Har,har see those crazy evolutionists said this rock is 2.3 million years old ! “

 

[Brightmoon]

Snelling’s dishonesty and/or incompetence made me so mad that I’ve refused to read creationist literature since . Legitimate scientists know that radiodating works so they tend not to question it. When they drop off a sample they kinda know how old it is . This is how the lab got caught in the YEC scam. They just took his technique-to-use recommendation at face value

 

[Job 33:6]

Snelling’s dishonesty and/or incompetence made me so mad that I’ve refused to read creationist literature since . Legitimate scientists know that radiodating works so they tend not to question it. When they drop off a sample they kinda know how old it is . This is how the lab got caught in the YEC scam. They just took his technique-to-use recommendation at face value

Yeah, I understand.

People rarely discuss the fact that the earth was understood to be old, long before radioactive dating ever existed.

This understanding was build with basic logical principals and laws such as superposition, cross cutting relations, the law of inclusions, among other simple and logical deductions.

Rock on the bottom must be older that rock on the top, else the top rock would be floating in space. Simple things like this.

And people who are familiar with these fundamental principals and logical deductions, as well as familiar with what actually exists in the earth, I think can see right through young earthers half-truths and vague or nondescriptive arguments.

 

[Aman777]

And people who are familiar with these fundamental principals and logical deductions, as well as familiar with what actually exists in the earth, I think can see right through young earthers half-truths and vague or nondescriptive arguments.

For many thousands of years young earthers have believed God's Holy Word by blind Faith, which is the way God demands. They have told the old story that in 6 Days, God makes everything perfect and then rests. They are correct.

God has but 7 Days/Ages and we live today on the 6th Day because the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 is future to 2018. At no time in the past has mankind had dominion or rule over "every" living creature AND never, in the past, have all creatures, including Bears and Lions been vegetarians as Genesis 1:30 states.

So don't be too hasty to dismiss the teaching of the young earthers for they are doing God's work. Amen?

 

[Brightmoon]

2 million years- if there was a 1% increase in brain size every 20,000 years ( neglecting compounding) you would double the brain size after 2 million years . Also given the fact that we don’t have those enormous jaw muscles attached to the top of our skulls to prevent out brain from growing. And humans have a thinner skull than other vertebrates because the bone is covering a larger area. That rapid ( geologically speaking ) brain growth is plausible .

 

[Aman777]

2 million years- if there was a 1% increase in brain size every 20,000 years ( neglecting compounding) you would double the brain size after 2 million years . Also given the fact that we don’t have those enormous jaw muscles attached to the top of our skulls to prevent out brain from growing. And humans have a thinner skull than other vertebrates because the bone is covering a larger area. That rapid ( geologically speaking ) brain growth is plausible .

Prehistoric man had the largest brain mindless Nature could produce but he did not have a Human brain because he was NOT a descendant of Adam, the common ancestor of ALL Humans. Eleven thousand years ago, Noah arrived in the mountains of Ararat and brought the FIRST Humans (descendants of Adam) to this planet. History begins then as agriculture led to settling in one area instead or running all over the earth to find food. Then came city building, math, writing and EVERY other modern Human trait.

The difference between Humans and prehistoric people is because today's Humans have inherited the superior intelligence of Adam, who received it from God. Genesis 3:22 The changes in the physical body are many but we changed from animal to Human intelligence because the Ark arrived in Lake Van, Turkey thousands of years ago. That's God's Truth which does NOT require the Magic Trick of evolutionists who will NOT tell us HOW God's superior intelligence got inside Apes. I'm beginning to think they don't know. Like Trump, who just passed spewing his 5,000th Lie, according to the Washington Post, it's really hard to trust them.

 

[tas8831]

We haven't discussed anything from a text book

This is from the OP:

I went to that den of simpletons, "The Institute for Creation Research" to see the essay that Tolkien quotes.

This is the essay by the creationist engineer:

"Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination"

In it, we see creationist engineer Randy Guliuzza write:

I didn’t escape being misled. In 1975 my sophomore biology textbook referred to a drawing very similar to Haeckel’s. Like most students absorbing this information for their first—and possibly only—time, I was somewhat shocked by the incredible fish-like similarity of all early embryos…especially humans. The visual evidence looked undeniable.

These drawings persuasively promoted three powerful evolutionary concepts. First, life evolved from “primitive” animals to complex humans. This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3

Second, as my textbook went on to say, “Human and fish embryos resemble each other because human beings and fish share a common remote ancestry.”3 It presented the remarkable similarity of the embryos in the illustration as strong evidence for a universal common ancestor.

Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself.

Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking.​

That number 3 citation is:
Keeton, W. T. 1972. Biological Science, 2nd Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 550.

I'm betting ol' Randy was betting that nobody would be able to read this book. I bet he didn't think it was still available anywhere.

Poor Randy didn't know that it is available for free (to borrow electronically via The Internet Archive). Which I just did.
First, recall, Randy writes:

"This “fact” is seen in the supposedly nonhuman structures that humans possess during development. My textbook commented, “For example, the early human embryo has a well-developed tail and also a series of gill pouches in the pharyngeal region.”3"​

Ok. That is on p. 344. But Randy only writes "550" in his citation. Weird... But not uncommon for creationist authors to try to trick skeptics.

Then on p.345, we see:

"The modern view is that Haeckel's idea was an oversimplification. Ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny in any strict or literal sense."

Which is odd, because ol' Randy claims:

"Third, a synopsis of the evolutionary history of life on Earth emerges as scientists map out all stages of embryonic development for every species. Remarkably, the stages of embryonic development for organisms, called ontogeny, supposedly reenacted or “recapitulated” their evolutionary history through time, which was called their phylogeny. Haeckel’s embryos were clearly time-lapse pictures of evolution itself."​

DIRECT contradiction of what Randy the creationist at ICR claims the text indicates!

It is odd - Randy cites p. 550 of the text, but p. 550 does not mention Haeckel at all. And the drawing of embryos (p. 344)? NOT Haeckel's (they are from Romanes, 1901).


Randy then claims:

"Those concepts remain cemented in contemporary evolutionary thinking. During medical school in 1992, my graduate-level human development textbook contained the same drawings and concepts.4"​

That 4 refers to:
Moore, K. L. 1989. Before We Are Born, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders Company, 70.

The Internet Archive only has the 5th Ed, but I have been using Moore and Persaud's human embryology texts for 25 years, and I know that their new editions generally only have new photos..

Anyway, let's see if Moore's 5th edition has the 'same drawings' and 'same concepts' as the other text he lied about...

Going to be tough... 'Haeckel' does not show up in a search or in the index... Nor does 'ontogeny' or 'phylogeny'... Going to have to do this the old fashioned way.
Maybe in the "historical highlights"? Randy says p. 70, but he biffed the page number with the other text.. and... nope. Nothing on p. 70. It is a different edition, so I will cut him some slack. Back to 'historical highlights'... No drawings or pictures of 'Haeckel's embryos' in the entire chapter. No mention of him or his ideas in the entire chapter.
Maybe in the chapter on the Pharyngeal Apparatus? You know, where the 'gill slits' are? Nope... Here we go! Chapter 6:

Nope.

Oh - wait - there it is, in the back, at the end of the chapter... In the 'clinically oriented questions' section...

1: I have heard that the early human embryo could be confused with the offspring of several other species, such as a mouse or chick. Is this true? What is the distinctive feature of early human embryos?​

And then - WAYYYY back at the end of the book, on p. 500, in the section with the answers to those questions, the answer:

1. During the first few weeks, human embryos resemble the embryos of several other species because of common characteristics (e.g., large head, pharyngeal arches, and tail); thereafter, embryos acquire characteristics that are distinctly human...​

Oh, the INDOCTRINATION! Those CONCEPTS! Those drawings!
Oh the humanity!
Oh, wait -

p. 501, there are some drawings of a bunch of embryos at early and later stages. No mention of Haeckel. No mention of 'ontogeny'. No mention even of evolution.

​

and I'm well acquainted with the Chimpanzee Genome paper even though you obviously read none of it, including the quotes. You see when you call someone a liar your supposed to compare the lie to the truth, you compared nothing to nothing. You posted a random quote of a Creationist who said the 98% ratio is wrong, and promptly ignored the point of the statement. You called it hyperbole and the name of the thread called it a lie and your clearly and obviously wrong.

I called you on it, you failed to defend the inflammatory statement which is exactly how you were refuted.

Have a nice day
Mark

Thanks for unwittingly admitting that you are wholly unaware of the very topic of this thread.

Your sad egotism is something to behold.

 

[tas8831]

You didn't know what you were talking about then and the substance of your arguments have not improved. Really Tas, you should let it go when you refuted.

Ok, Mr. Pharyngeal apparatus=ear holes.

Whatever you have to believe to make it through your day.

 

[tas8831]

2 million years- if there was a 1% increase in brain size every 20,000 years ( neglecting compounding) you would double the brain size after 2 million years . Also given the fact that we don’t have those enormous jaw muscles attached to the top of our skulls to prevent out brain from growing. And humans have a thinner skull than other vertebrates because the bone is covering a larger area. That rapid ( geologically speaking ) brain growth is plausible .

Among other naive ideals, Mark also seems to be operating under the '1 mutation = 1 specific small change' mindset.

What is 17 of those mutations he keeps harping on did nothing, but 2 increased the size?

I tried to get him to actually think about his argument a bit back by mentioning the myostatin mutants - single point mutations in the myostatin gene that produced nearly a doubling of muscle mass in mice and cattle.

His response? He insulted me for thinking muscles had anything to do with brain size...