Taking these in order:
These are not “assumptions”. They are either known experimental measurements or are known problems which are eliminated by careful selection of both methods and samples. As I said above, K-Ar dating should not be used on pillow lavas because it gives incorrect results. It gives correct results on sub-aerial lavas.
Yes, sorry; I meant to say “God did not have a beginning.”
Depends on one’s definition of science - theology used to be referred to as “the queen of the sciences”. In the nineteenth century, it was not unusual for a scientist to offer Divine Creation as a valid explanation for the Cambrian explosion, for example - that is not accepted as “science” today, although the Divine remains the best explanation.
Please provide an example of a “sign” that we are the result of “an evolutionary process that tried this and tried that”.
So let’s extend your logic and see if it makes sense:
Hang on a sec … didn’t I see a chimp mutating into a human on an episode of Star Trek?
In post 1318, you said, “Genesis’ creation account is, however, proven false by the multitude of observations that prove it does not match up with observation” - nothing there about someone’s “interpretation” of scripture. I’m appalled that a Catholic would claim that science has proven Sacred Scripture to be false.
You don’t believe God is an “intelligent designer of organisms”? If so, how did the first alleged organism come into existence? Are you saying humans, for example, are not the result of intelligent design?
A “distinct skeleton”? That’s a stretch – there is nothing “distinct” about the diversity of scientific opinion and ambiguity surrounding the needle-like “spicules” of organisms like Coronacollina acula. See The Myth of Precambrian Sponges | Evolution News
LOL … that’s the understatement of the century! Has the massive gap between preCambrian and Cambrian biota, for example, been filled? No, not even close.
More delusion - the fossil record exposes your “good idea” as an embarrassing insult to science and truth – the Cambrian explosion flat-out contradicts Darwinism’s theory of universal common descent. UCD is a pseudo-scientific fantasy that should be abandoned.
Universal common ancestry will remain the best scientific explanation for the origin of species – which just goes to show how wrong the “best scientific theory” can be … although UCD serves nicely as a comforting bedtime story for atheists and will be exploited by the Evil One to deceive people into believing life on earth didn’t need a Creator.
Science? Darwinism claims that the history of life on earth is the result of a process of mutations and natural selection – this theory cannot be tested, so it doesn’t even qualify as science.
That’s not even close to what I said. You’re not misrepresenting my statements, you’re just lying now. I’m done talking to you.
Realy? Here is the post that proves those were you exact words:
Who’s lying now?
You. Scripture =/= a literal account of Genesis, which is what I said was refuted by scientific evidence.
So, you believe a paper which its own authors, all Young Earth Creationists, think gives false dates? Do you want to know why they got those dates? Read this piece which explains how that paper got its biased results.
Ask yourself why that lava from 1954 was being dated. The date was already well known: 1954. What question were the scientists asking? In 1954, radiometric dating was in its infancy. The question they were asking was not: “how old are these rocks?” – the answer to that was already known. The question they were asking was: “does K-Ar dating work on these pillow lavas of known date?” The answer was that it did not work because too much of the earlier Argon was trapped.
Not an assumption. That New Zealand study was precisely to test Argon retention in various lavas of known date. Similar studies have been dome in Hawaii, again where the dates are known independently. Subsequent to those studies no assumptions are needed. The amount of Argon retention in various rock types is already known. Where too much Argon is retained, then a different non-Argon method is used if possible.
Considering the total process, including mining and smelting metal, forming and machining it, building the required circuitry, etc., what I see is a manufacturing process. This is very different than a natural process. And nowhere will you find any post where I denied that God started it, but also you will not find one where I asserted that God individually created or built anything except souls. Like most analogies, it is not perfect, but it does serve to illustrate the point. We have only been at this for an eyeblink relative to the amount of time that evolution has been working, whether you believe that God set it up or not.
Stop with the insults. I challenge you to find any statement of mine anywhere that shows that I am currently atheist. From another venue that I frequented many years ago: Provide Proof or Retract.
Predictable. When they have no argument or facts, evo’s lurch for the Atheists’ Playbook. I think this is Rule #3, "You’re just evil".
Assumption: The earth is the same age as the asteroid.
If the sample was known to be young and it was, it could still be submitted to the lab for K-Ar dating. If K-Ar dating only works on older samples, why was the age not measured as 0? If, as the article claims, Dr. Austin should have purified his sample more, to prevent an old age, how do we know that conventional K-Ar dating of other rocks is sufficiently purified to prevent artificially old ages?
… except that is not what you said. Here is what you said:
Where do you say “a literal account of Genesis”? I can’t see it. Perhaps I need glasses.
That’s pretty close to the mark. I’ve spent many an hour on atheist sites and the first accusation they usually hurl at you is, “You’re a moron” … followed a bit later by, “You’re a liar” … followed a bit later by, “You’re evil.”
Insults?
Why wouldn’t it be? Give a model that explains their separate formation and evidence in support of it.
If all asteroids give about the same age, no matter where they formed in the solar system, then it’s a safe bet that, especially considering the lack of identifiable decay product anywhere else, they give accurate readings.
Uhhh, not an assumption. That’s testable and verifiable.
Saying this shows exactly how scientifically illiterate you are. Constant half lives are the basis of many verified scientific theories and themselves have been measured and confirmed to death.
