Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

Dr Adequate, You say there is a blunder, well, what is it? One of the most telling glitches is through radiocarbon dating of a variety of diamonds using highly sensitive C14 (Carbon 14) detectors in which it was discovered that there is ten times the detection limit of C14 in diamonds. Now, diamonds which are said to be billions of years old SHOULD NOT have any C14 in them do to the short half life of C14 (a half life is equal to roughly 5,700 years). Logically this tells us that the C14 found in the diamonds should have been all decayed by now. Furthermore, carbon 14 has also been found in coal that is also said to be billions of years old. The erosion features at Mount St. Helens are not unique, but are similar to those observed elsewhere. Other examples of rapid erosion are: Lituya Bay, Alaska created in 1958... The volcanic island Surtsey south of Iceland created in 1964... Lake Peigneur, Louisiana 1980... A rain storm in southern Brazil 1974... The Waiho River of New Zealand 1965... Providence Canyon State Park near Lumpkin, Georgia 1820... The Imperial Valley of California by the Colorado River from 1905 to 1907 (the Salton Sea).Don’t go giving me this bull that there is different geologic processes at work here between a canyon being produced by subsidence (the sinking down of land level) and its different properties from a canyon produced by water erosion over level ground.We do not even know today how the Grand Canyon was formed - all postulations remains only in theory.Additionally, they have taken samples of many of these NEWLY FORMED rocks from Mount St. Helens and radioisotope them, and they estimate in the millions of years. So we know this cannot be so since these rocks were recently formed during the eruption in 1980! Its not just the rocks from the Mount St. Helens eruption, there are also numerous false readings from other known newly formed rocks such as from Mount Ngauruhoe (an active volcano) located in New Zealand. These rocks are known to have been newly formed from the eruptions starting in 1949 and they have been dated to be millions of years old. So it’s clear to see that something is evidently wrong with our starting assumptions.Are you going to come back crying - contamination again! There is not enough mud on the sea flood!Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would have massive amounts of sediment dozens of kilometers deep.Additionally there is not even enough sodium in the sea for an earth that is allegedly 3 billions years old.What’s more recorded history is too short! If primitive man built megalithic monuments and elaborate cave drawings, and kept records of lunar cycles and phases, why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

And too much aluminum for oceans over 110 years old. Do you know anyone that went to sea before 1900? I thought not.That's proof that the earth is just over a century old, Anita. Proof of the same caliber as your PRATTs.

---

"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

Coal that is billions of years old???? Maybe you mean this...Here is one of those creationist claims that I debunked on another thread:--------Claim:Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) SourceAnalysis:False information due to sloppy research.This is a difficult reference to track down because the actual page number is not provided. It appears that each creationist website just copies from the previous without checking the original citation. (The information in question is on page 319.)The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).The original article in the journal Radiocarbon includes the following paragraph describing this sample:

Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia 1680 170. A.D. 270

​

Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mourh of the r. Alabuga (41 25′ N Lat, 74 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan.

What we have here is no more than shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The coal is nothing more than charcoal from an archaeological deposit. This sample is even included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.The odd use of terms is shown clearly in another radiocarbon date, Mo-353, reported on page 315 of the same article. It reads Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loamBut the term coal in place of charcoal was enough to fool Ken Ham, as well as dozens of subsequent creationists who apparently were salivating to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times, and who repeated Ham’s false claim without bothering to check its accuracy.The interesting question is where Ken Ham managed to find Pennsylvanian in that short paragraph, and where he dug up the date of 300 million years.This is still another case where a creationist claim about science falls apart when examined more closely.ReferenceVinogradov, A.P.; A.L. Devirts; E.I. Dobinka; and N.G. Markova. Radiocarbon dating in the Vernadsky Institute I-IV. Radiocarbon, Vol 8, 1966, pp. 292-323.

---

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

---

Coragyps,Everything that is in this asteroid is already known organic matter that exists right here on the Earth.This meteorite was a carbonaceous chondrites. That is similar to the description for kerogen. A kerogen-like material is also in the ALH84001 which is considered a martian meteorite (an achondrite). In the ALH84001 they found under the electron microscope chain structures that looked to them like alien worm bacteria. What a laugh! This could be any fossilized microscopic worm even parasite that existed/exists on the earth.Now the CM meteorite from Murchison, Victoria has over 70 amino acids and other compounds including carboxylic acids, hydroxy carboxylic acids, sulphonic and phosphonic acids, aliphatic, aromatic and polar hydrocarbons, fullerenes, heterocycles, carbonyl compounds, alcohols, amines and amides, which are all common on the Earth.Kerogen is a mixture of organic chemical compounds that make up a portion of the organic matter in sedimentary rocks found on Earth. The soluble portion is known as bitumen when heated to the right temperatures in the Earth's crust. Bitumen is like petroleum.What is so spectacular about this?

---

Well, for a start, his unwarranted assumption that the radiohalos were caused by polonium. But this is not true. Naturally, since water can erode unconsolidated volcanic ash wherever it's found. And this would be true whatever age the earth is. You don't. I do. No, I'm going to ask you for references to the scientific literature. Then I'll tell you why you're wrong. You said that there should be dozens of meters. There are hundreds.If you now wish to move the goalposts, please show some sort of scrap of a shred of a scintilla of working. Even if we accept your say-so as to the relevant figures, which I should tell you frankly that I don't, and if we assume that all the sediment is insoluble, which it isn't, you're still off by a factor of at least 3. I think some idiot must have assumed that sedimentary rock has the same density as water. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. No geologist in the world claims says that there's any ocean on Earth as much as 3 billion years old. The oldest oceanic rocks are 200 million years old or less. Anything older has been subducted. You'd know that if you'd ever bothered to study a little basic geology instead of learning to recite crap you read on creationist websites. That is not how old the Earth allegedly is (it's older, as you would know if you'd ever taken a passing interest in geology) and there is plenty enough sodium. The reason creationists manage to be so howlingly wrong about this subject is that, because of their complete ignorance of geology, they are unaware that sodium leaves the oceans as well as being added to it. Because you can't record history using megalithic monuments. You have to, y'know ... invent writing. Apart from having been proved absolutely false, which makes it kinda unlikely.---In any case, it seems to me that you're wandering off topic. The topic of this thread is not "common creationist mistakes about geology". Can we go back to you being wrong about linguistics? At least that's original.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

All science deals in theories. All science is falsifiable. Theories are not guesses, they are things which are backed with physical evidence. They may be incomplete, but what is there is is viable. Only creotards can't see this and attempt to justify their claims with PRATTs.

---

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 have asked before if you knew what a scientific theory was. Since you declined to answer this request here Message 63, I will ask again.
Can you define what a scientific theory is? I will give you another hint. It is not a wild ass guess.
Go here and tell me if you agree with what it says.
In case your comprehension skills are a little addled, here is the kicker.

quote:

---

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

---

Another question.
Can a theory "grow up" and become a law?Finally, I got to say you are starting to tork me off by not responding to the simple questions I have asked you like the above.Here is another from Message 24. You made this claim in Message 23
You were asked for the name of just one "well renowned scientist"(damn I sure hope you had an editor check your book before you paid someone to publish it, or at least used spellcheck). Still waiting for that name.

---

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

This is one of those statements that you could do more then blab about. Cite where you got this from and show us you're not pulling it out of your butt. How hard would that be? This is one of those statements that demonstrate the you don't really have a clue. As if you were in a Canadian sports bar and walked up to a group of guys wearing Maple Leaf jerseys and announced "Hockey players score points by hitting the puck into the goal." It's that you aren't right. It's that you think your point is worth making. By the way, your English still sucks: "equal to roughly"? What the heck is that? And as you've been told, with citations, it was. How do you come to believe that you know what's going on in the lab than those in the lab? Are your wild guesses handed down from on high? The oldest coal is from 390 million years ago in the Silurian Period. Not impressive.Lituya Bay, Alaska was not created in 1958. There was a tsunnami in 1958 caused by a landslide on one side of the existing bay that eroded the soils all around the bay.Surtsey is an island not a canyon.Lake Peigneur is the result of a man made sink hole, and consequently looks like a sink hole.A rain storm in southern Brazil, 1974, is not an erosional feature.And blah, blah, blah.It should be noted that all of these (save for the rain clouds) are features in unconsolidated sediments. I find that if I take my hose pipe I can drill a hole in my lawn very quickly. Strangely, the same doesn't happen in the driveway. You'd have done better had you'd chosen erosional features that were rapidly crated in consolidated materials. There are several excellent examples that I'll not look up for you, but those wouldn't help you either. High speed erosion in solid rock occurs through plucking. Plucking is easily distinguished from the slow, abrasive erosion as seen in the 99&⁴⁴/₁₀₀% of the world's rock canyons. Why would we do that? It would be totally irrelevant. Oh! You don't know that, do you? We don't know that We don't know that We don't know that Girl, get over yourself. You not knowing something is not equivalent to "we" not knowing something. To me how babies are made is only a "theory". And look up the word "theory" already. This has been answered. You didn't understand the answer, did you? The gist was that it is well know that select methods produce these select errors in select materials so we don't date select materials with select methods. We instead use methods that don't produce errors. Kind of like not using microwave ovens to dry kittens. It produces errors, so we use towels instead.Edited by lyx2no, : Non-substantial.Edited by lyx2no, : Non-substantive. Yeah, better word.

---

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

Check the scale on those microscopic worms of yours. You'll find "The structures found on ALH 84001 are 20-100 nanometres in diameter, similar in size to the theoretical nanobacteria, but smaller than any known cellular life at the time of their discovery." They couldn't have been Earth parasites. But You didn't know that, did you?

---

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

My emphasis.You are dead wrong. Murchison has amino acids like isovaline that are very rare on Earth. Its amino acids have nitrogen-15 content unlike that of Earth-based ones. Fullerenes and phosphonic acids are not at all "common on Earth." I'll bet a sixpack of Red Stripe that you can't tell me what a "heterocycle" or an "amide" is without Googling them.

---

"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

All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally. I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before. You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.Genesis 1:6-8 - And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven.Genesis 2:5-6 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic.You may wonder why? The reason is because venom is a toxin that is created from BACTERIA!http://www.textbookofbacteriology.ne...eintoxins.htmlNow with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles. Genesis 3:18 - It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond

---

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

All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally. I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before. You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.Genesis 1:6-8 - And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven.Genesis 2:5-6 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic.You may wonder why? The reason is because venom is a toxin that is created from BACTERIA!Bacterial Protein ToxinsNow with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles. Genesis 3:18 - It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond

---

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

So you are unable to respond to my last two posts concerning radiocarbon dating, eh?You come on here and make outlandish statements, but can't back them up.Ever consider the reason for this is that your statements are wrong?(Didn't think so...)

---

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