Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

But it was still over by a billion years .
What makes you think that dating of none historical events is true?
And even they vary widely.

So you did not read the article. Where do you get this "over by a billion years" from? Not even Austin was that incompetent or dishonest.

When you rely on people that have been shown to be incompetent or liars for you "proofs" the only thing that you have done is to show that you are either incredibly incompetent or a liar. From your inability to even understand Austin's failed work I am going to have to go with incredibly incompetent.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

They dated lava from the 1981 Mount Saint Helen’s eruption and it dated billions of years old.
So the technique does not work.

Weird how lava goes from down below to up above during an eruption.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Weird how lava goes from down below to up above during an eruption.

And your point?

 

[joelr]

They dated lava from the 1981 Mount Saint Helen’s eruption and it dated billions of years old.
So the technique does not work.

Again, you do not care about what is actually true. Did you look into this?

It's a popular creationist talking point, Radio-Dating in Rubble
The article has 3 footnotes, 2 are from creationist articles.

First of all there were dozens of good samples found at Mt St Helens that accurately predicted ages, as shown in a prelimanary report:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0844/report.pdf


But the creationist claims were debunked here - Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Some issues with the ONE example are:
Using science, there are at least three hypotheses that may be purposed to explain why Austin obtained 'dates' of 340,000 to 2.8 million years from his samples:

1. Argon gas ('excess' argon) was incorporated into the glass and minerals in the dacite as they formed in the parent melt. The argon failed to degas from the minerals before the dacite solidified.

1. Because all but one of the dates in the above table are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories. The 2.8 million year old date also may have largely or entirely resulted from contamination.

1. IF the Geochron mass spectrometer was exceptionally clean on the day that Austin's samples were run (that is, IF hypothesis #2 is not a factor), the dates may be approximately accurate. Even if the absolute values of the dates are highly erroneous, the relative order of the fractions' dates from oldest to youngest may be roughly correct. That is, the various minerals (phenocrysts) in the dacite may have grown in the parent melt at different times and the entire crystallization process may have taken as much as a few million years. Additionally, somewhat older xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals, for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250) from the surrounding rocks may have been incorporated into the melt as it rose to the Earth's surface.

Any or all of these hypotheses are possible. Austin strongly argues that steps were taken in his laboratory to protect the samples from contamination and that xenoliths (foreign rocks, hypothesis #3) were removed from the samples before analysis. He also claims that microscopes were used to scan for 'foreign particles' (xenocrysts?, hypothesis #3) in the samples. Of course, he and his assistants may have missed many of the xenocrysts if they were small.

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.




You don't do science with one example. You look for trends. Radio metric dating has thousands of accurate results. Creationists frantically atack this and often make up literal lies.

Other thoughts from the piece on the creationists methods in attacking the samples:

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helens, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD. Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method. Austin's conclusions on this project are summarized at the ICR website.
The 'research' efforts of Austin and his colleagues and their 'expertise' in radiometric dating have been widely criticized, including by Joe Meert (also here), Karen Bartelt and company and myself at No Answers in Genesis and in my web debate with Dr. David Plaisted at Tim Thompson's 'A Radiometric Dating Resource List' (also here).

Austin rarely responds to his critics. However, non-geologist YECs, such as MD Keith Swenson at Is the Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Really a Million Years Old? and at the Answers in Genesis' website, have attempted to defend Austin's work. Although Swenson accompanied Austin on a trip to Mt. St. Helens, there is no indication from his writings that Swenson is familiar with igneous petrology, geochronology or even geology in general.

AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD
Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

Austin's results on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, which are also listed by Swenson, are shown in the following table:

Whole Rock and Mineral/Glass 'Fractions' from the Dacite​	K-Ar 'Date' in millions of years​
Whole Rock​	0.35 +/- 0.05​
Pyroxenes​	2.8 +/- 0.6​
Pyroxenes, etc.​	1.7 +/- 0.3​
Amphiboles, etc.​	0.9 +/- 0.2​
Feldspars, glass, etc. ('Tedder' sample)​	0.34 +/- 0.06​

Notice that only one of Austin's dates is above the lower dating limit of approximately 2 million years established by Geochron Laboratories. However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin's other procedures (including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his 'fractions'), YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the 1986 AD eruption. They then proceed to assault the validity of the K-Ar method. That is, rather than rejecting Austin's bogus 'message,' YECs unfairly attack the K-Ar 'messenger.'
Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers. Therefore, it's not surprising that some of Austin's dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc., 'fraction,' have large +/- uncertainties.
Without properly referencing Bartelt et al.'s report, Swenson comments on one of the many criticisms of Austin's 'research':

'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'

This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Again, you do not care about what is actually true. Did you look into this?

It's a popular creationist talking point, Radio-Dating in Rubble
The article has 3 footnotes, 2 are from creationist articles.

First of all there were dozens of good samples found at Mt St Helens that accurately predicted ages, as shown in a prelimanary report:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0844/report.pdf


But the creationist claims were debunked here - Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Some issues with the ONE example are:
Using science, there are at least three hypotheses that may be purposed to explain why Austin obtained 'dates' of 340,000 to 2.8 million years from his samples:

1. Argon gas ('excess' argon) was incorporated into the glass and minerals in the dacite as they formed in the parent melt. The argon failed to degas from the minerals before the dacite solidified.
2. Because all but one of the dates in the above table are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories. The 2.8 million year old date also may have largely or entirely resulted from contamination.
3. IF the Geochron mass spectrometer was exceptionally clean on the day that Austin's samples were run (that is, IF hypothesis #2 is not a factor), the dates may be approximately accurate. Even if the absolute values of the dates are highly erroneous, the relative order of the fractions' dates from oldest to youngest may be roughly correct. That is, the various minerals (phenocrysts) in the dacite may have grown in the parent melt at different times and the entire crystallization process may have taken as much as a few million years. Additionally, somewhat older xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals, for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250) from the surrounding rocks may have been incorporated into the melt as it rose to the Earth's surface.

Any or all of these hypotheses are possible. Austin strongly argues that steps were taken in his laboratory to protect the samples from contamination and that xenoliths (foreign rocks, hypothesis #3) were removed from the samples before analysis. He also claims that microscopes were used to scan for 'foreign particles' (xenocrysts?, hypothesis #3) in the samples. Of course, he and his assistants may have missed many of the xenocrysts if they were small.

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.




You don't do science with one example. You look for trends. Radio metric dating has thousands of accurate results. Creationists frantically atack this and often make up literal lies.

Other thoughts from the piece on the creationists methods in attacking the samples:



This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers.

I think you may not understand how measurements work in science,
They must be calibrated against known values.
So if they cannot date known events in the recent past, how could it possibly be used to date things of unknown age?
it can’t as that is extrapolation beyond the observed or measured range.

 

[joelr]

I think you may not understand how measurements work in science,
They must be calibrated against known values.
So if they cannot date known events in the recent past, how could it possibly be used to date things of unknown age?
it can’t as that is extrapolation beyond the observed or measured range.

The incident you are talking about and is detailed in Answers in Genesis has been shown to be in error.
What more do you need?

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

www.noanswersingenesis.org.au

AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

Austin's results on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, which are also listed by Swenson, are shown in the following table: (see link)
​

Notice that only one of Austin's dates is above the lower dating limit of approximately 2 million years established by Geochron Laboratories. However, rather than dealing with this issue and critically evaluating Austin's other procedures (including the unacceptable mineral and glass impurities in his 'fractions'), YECs loudly proclaim that the results are discrepant with the 1986 AD eruption. They then proceed to assault the validity of the K-Ar method. That is, rather than rejecting Austin's bogus 'message,' YECs unfairly attack the K-Ar 'messenger.'
Considering that the dacite probably erupted in 1986 AD, Austin should have known that at least some of the samples would have given dates that were younger than 2 million years old and that Geochron Laboratories could not have provided reliable answers. Therefore, it's not surprising that some of Austin's dates, such as the result for the amphiboles, etc., 'fraction,' have large +/- uncertainties.
Without properly referencing Bartelt et al.'s report, Swenson comments on one of the many criticisms of Austin's 'research':

'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'

This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers.

In contrast to Austin et al.'s juvenile attacks on K-Ar dating, geochronologists confirm the reality of radiometric dates by using multiple methods (Baadsgaard et al., 1993; Stern et al., 1981, p. 5-6; and Foster et al., 1989; also see How Can Woodmorappe Sell Us a Bill of Goods if He Doesn't Know the Costs? and/or comparing their results with fossil, paleomagnetic or astronomical data (e.g., Harland et al., 1990; Hilgen et al., 1997, p. 2043; Renne et al., 1998, p. 121-122; Baadsgaard et al., 1988; Baadsgaard et al., 1993; Queen et al., 1996; Montanari et al., 1985; and Hirschmann et al., 1997; also see Radiometric Dating Does Work; Consistent Radiometric Dates; The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands; A Radiometric Dating Resource List; How Serious are Errors in Ar40-Ar39 Dates and How Good are Their Monitoring Standards?). (Also see Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?, which refutes the nonsensical YEC claims that radiometric and fossil dating is based on 'circular reasoning'). To be exact, even without any radiometric dates, stratigraphic, fossil, and/or paleomagnetic data usually give geologists at least a rough idea of the ages of their samples.

I posted some reasons last time.

Also Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. Was debunked:

VN138 Trang Chính Thức | Đăng Nhập Đăng Ký VN138 138VN

Nhà cái vn138 địa chỉ ghi nhận nhiều phản hồi và đánh giá tích cực của người chơi. Khi tham gia cá cược tại 138vn với nhiều ưu đãi hấp dẫn.

gondwanaresearch.com

There is even a page that answers the apologetic claims against radio dating that come up in layman religious creationism articles and media:

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

www.tim-thompson.com

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The incident you are talking about and is detailed in Answers in Genesis has been shown to be in error.
What more do you need?

Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

www.noanswersingenesis.org.au

AUSTIN FAILED TO PROPERLY USE THE K-Ar METHOD

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

Austin's results on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, which are also listed by Swenson, are shown in the following table: (see link)
​

This is the old YEC 'only eyewitnesses can provide accurate histories' scam. Obviously, Swenson, like many YECs, fails to realize that scientists can successfully unravel past events without witnessing them. Forensic scientists frequently send criminals to prison without eyewitness testimony. To be exact, the recent hideous actions of the Washington DC area (USA) sniper(s) illustrate how unreliable eyewitnesses can be and how important forensic science is in solving crimes and stopping killers.



I posted some reasons last time.

Also Andrew Snelling (of Answers in Genesis) claims that a piece of 'wood' obtained from a Triassic sandstone yielded a C-14 age that was much too young for it to be a Triassic deposit. Was debunked:

VN138 Trang Chính Thức | Đăng Nhập Đăng Ký VN138 138VN

Nhà cái vn138 địa chỉ ghi nhận nhiều phản hồi và đánh giá tích cực của người chơi. Khi tham gia cá cược tại 138vn với nhiều ưu đãi hấp dẫn.

gondwanaresearch.com

There is even a page that answers the apologetic claims against radio dating that come up in layman religious creationism articles and media:

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

www.tim-thompson.com

The measured values are off by billions of years and it not just Mount Saint Helen.

 

[joelr]

The measured values is off by off by billions of years and it not just Mount Saint Helen.

In that example there were mistakes. Which are understood.
So that is fine. What other examples are you talking about?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In that example there were mistakes. Which are understood.
So that is fine. What other examples are you talking about?

I have 4 threads on radioactive dating which proves that it refutes evolution in the Evolution forum.
And they have links to various articles,

 

[joelr]

I have 4 threads on radioactive dating which proves that it refutes evolution in the Evolution forum.
And they have links to various articles,

Yet no scientist finds it credible. You have 4 threads? Are you a biologist? Amateur writings ALWAYS end up getting the reader snowed. They don't have the training to know what information is wrong.
You simply do not care about what is actually true.
Please link me to a peer-reviewed paper that suggests dating refutes evolution. An actual peer-review, not the made up creationist one.

Then, tell me one fact from dating, your best one, that refutes evolution and I'll find you the actual answer by asking a biologist.
Scientists don't care if a religion is true or false. They just want to know what is true and what the evidence can point to.
If a scientist is Christian they will incorporate their new findings into their beliefs. There is no conspiracy.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

www.tim-thompson.com

As Dr Carrier points out, amateur debates need an expert to moderate information. 4 threads means nothing. Show me 4 papers by a biologist that passes peer-review.

In March of 2018 the NonSequitur show hosted a debate between two YouTubers: Godless Engineer, who runs the popular eponymous atheist channel, and Michael Jones, who runs the popular Christian apologetics channel Inspiring Philosophy. The topic was whether evidence establishes Jesus existed. The whole debate illustrates the problem with only asking amateurs to debate things like this (neither participant has a relevant advanced degree or any peer reviewed publications in the subject).

I think they both run good channels. Obviously I find a lot of what Jones argues on his channel to be face-palmingly bad, as all Christian apologetics is, but he does some of the best communicating of what are, honestly, common beliefs and assumptions among his peers. And Godless Engineer, with whom I obviously more often agree, likewise runs a sharp and entertaining channel and is even doing great work editing the CHRESTUS app developed to assist with debating the historicity of Jesus (with significant updates currently in the pipe), for which I’m a paid consultant, ensuring the quality of its content. But live, an issue like this needs expert discussion. Because when Jones makes claims any historian can easily poke holes in, Engineer won’t know he’s being snowed. Nor will the audience or the host. And this is a methodological issue, not a partisan one. Even if you’re rooting for the other team, you can say the same thing, the other way around: how do you know Michael Jones and the public isn’t being snowed by Godless Engineer? Both participants are disarmed; and both prone to error. So why run these “all amateur” debates? I see no sound reason to. It can only spread disinformation and miseducate the public.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yet no scientist finds it credible. You have 4 threads? Are you a biologist? Amateur writings ALWAYS end up getting the reader snowed. They don't have the training to know what information is wrong.
You simply do not care about what is actually true.
Please link me to a peer-reviewed paper that suggests dating refutes evolution. An actual peer-review, not the made up creationist one.

Then, tell me one fact from dating, your best one, that refutes evolution and I'll find you the actual answer by asking a biologist.
Scientists don't care if a religion is true or false. They just want to know what is true and what the evidence can point to.
If a scientist is Christian they will incorporate their new findings into their beliefs. There is no conspiracy.

A Radiometric Dating Resource List

www.tim-thompson.com

As Dr Carrier points out, amateur debates need an expert to moderate information. 4 threads means nothing. Show me 4 papers by a biologist that passes peer-review.

In March of 2018 the NonSequitur show hosted a debate between two YouTubers: Godless Engineer, who runs the popular eponymous atheist channel, and Michael Jones, who runs the popular Christian apologetics channel Inspiring Philosophy. The topic was whether evidence establishes Jesus existed. The whole debate illustrates the problem with only asking amateurs to debate things like this (neither participant has a relevant advanced degree or any peer reviewed publications in the subject).

I think they both run good channels. Obviously I find a lot of what Jones argues on his channel to be face-palmingly bad, as all Christian apologetics is, but he does some of the best communicating of what are, honestly, common beliefs and assumptions among his peers. And Godless Engineer, with whom I obviously more often agree, likewise runs a sharp and entertaining channel and is even doing great work editing the CHRESTUS app developed to assist with debating the historicity of Jesus (with significant updates currently in the pipe), for which I’m a paid consultant, ensuring the quality of its content. But live, an issue like this needs expert discussion. Because when Jones makes claims any historian can easily poke holes in, Engineer won’t know he’s being snowed. Nor will the audience or the host. And this is a methodological issue, not a partisan one. Even if you’re rooting for the other team, you can say the same thing, the other way around: how do you know Michael Jones and the public isn’t being snowed by Godless Engineer? Both participants are disarmed; and both prone to error. So why run these “all amateur” debates? I see no sound reason to. It can only spread disinformation and miseducate the public.

More circular reasoning by you.

 

[joelr]

More circular reasoning by you.

Then this should be easy. Please describe where I used circular reasoning.

Then, please demonstrate any paper that is peer-reviewed and suggests reasons why dating refutes evolution.
If you think it's circular to only want experts to explain how dating refutes evolution, it's the opposite of circular but it sounds like you are upset about your creation "scientists" being taken off the table.

I also ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.
Calling that circular could mean you are afraid of the truth. There is no situation where it's circular. There is a situation where you call it circular because you hit a wall and cannot respond. I'm sure you can clear that all up.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then this should be easy. Please describe where I used circular reasoning.

Then, please demonstrate any paper that is peer-reviewed and suggests reasons why dating refutes evolution.
If you think it's circular to only want experts to explain how dating refutes evolution, it's the opposite of circular but it sounds like you are upset about your creation "scientists" being taken off the table.

I also ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.
Calling that circular could mean you are afraid of the truth. There is no situation where it's circular. There is a situation where you call it circular because you hit a wall and cannot respond. I'm sure you can clear that all up.

All reasoning used to support evolution and billions of years is just circular reasoning and not science. This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion). Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Not only that, but if there is any organization or person that shows evolution and billions of years are false, they are labeled as unscientific and even have their integrity questioned. This also extends into the peer review system, where papers that refute evolution and billions of years are not accepted by organizations and publications which alone count as reputable scientific organizations. Those organization and people that have shown evolution and billions are false are not counted as reputable scientific organizations. And if any publication or organization that accepts evidence against evolution and billions of years is not counted as a proper peer review organization. The same goes for those that fact check. And in all this, the assumption that evolution and billions of years is true is used to prove the conclusion. And that is just circular reasoning.

It has even morphed into censorship, propaganda, and indoctrination. Now most of those that firmly believe that evolution and billions of years are not being purposefully dishonest, although there may be a few who do so believe that it is important enough to so. They all firmly believe that evolution and billions of years are true. But the Bible says that Satan deceives the whole world (Rev 12:17) and that would include scientists who are using the false no God assumption in this area of knowledge.

Now a theory can be refuted by just one fact.
Here is an example of a false theory: the sum of any 2 numbers is 100.
And here is the fake reasoning used to “prove” the fake theory with facts:
10+90, 54+46, pi + 100-pi, 55 1⁄2 + 44 1⁄2 all add up to 100.
There are an infinite number of pairs of numbers that match the theory.
However, there are an infinite number of pairs of numbers which refute the fake theory. Falsified by 1+1=2, 10+10=20, 1⁄2+1⁄2=1
And for each pair of numbers that match the theory, there is an infinite number of pairs that refute it.

 

[joelr]

All reasoning used to support evolution and billions of years is just circular reasoning and not science. This is it in a nutshell.

What's funny is the argument below assumes a circular reasoning but isn't actually even close to any reasoning in science. so you have a huge strawman going on.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption)

We don't know, we go by the massive amounts of evidence and failure to disprove the theory. As well as multiple branches of science that all suggest the same thing.

and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

So right away you are completely wrong. It's actually the argument for every religion - since we know our guy had real revelations, our book is the correct word of god. Circular.
Scientists don't care what the evidence shows, the best way to become super famous in science is to find out a major theory is false. Like Einstein.

Your apologist, creationist media has led you to believe false things. You do not care at all about what is actually true.


Now again, I ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.

AND, Please describe where I used circular reasoning.

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Sorry, that's 2 strawmen. I didn't see any examples of this "evidence"???

Any evidence that contradicts evolution is INVESTIGATED. There has been many lines of evidence like this. Turns out when further studied, they fit in exactly with evolution. If more comes up scientists will hope they can be the one to show evidence, backed up by multiple teams running the tests, is actually an issue. Instant fame, interviews, prizes, and so on.

Not only that,

Those points were completely bizarre fantasy-land nonsense. So "that" was not that.

but if there is any organization or person that shows evolution and billions of years are false, they are labeled as unscientific and even have their integrity questioned.

Again, example please. In actual science, they produce a paper with results and other teams try to produce the results. If it's valid even more work is done in this area to find out what it means. Truth wins all. In science. Not in religion.

This also extends into the peer review system, where papers that refute evolution and billions of years are not accepted by organizations and publications which alone count as reputable scientific organizations. Those organization and people that have shown evolution and billions are false are not counted as reputable scientific organizations. And if any publication or organization that accepts evidence against evolution and billions of years is not counted as a proper peer review organization. The same goes for those that fact check. And in all this, the assumption that evolution and billions of years is true is used to prove the conclusion. And that is just circular reasoning.

It's also a lie.
Here is a paper -
S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004

Giles, J. Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design. Nature 431, 114 (2004). Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design - Nature

and an article on it in Nature:

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design - Nature

Critics of evolution score publishing success

www.nature.com

They gave him a shot. It's full of mistakes, all pointed out in thsi paper:

Meyer's Hopeless Monster

pandasthumb.org

If an actual paper came out with credible information scientists would pay attention. The theory is far too strong and creationists desperate attempts to bend reality to fit a mythical worldview simply fail because it doesn't represent what we actually see in reality.
It's the truth that you have a problem with, not science.

It has even morphed into censorship, propaganda, and indoctrination. Now most of those that firmly believe that evolution and billions of years are not being purposefully dishonest, although there may be a few who do so believe that it is important enough to so. They all firmly believe that evolution and billions of years are true.

Wrong, still. They believe the MASSIVE evidence from multiple fields demonstrates all these things are likely true. The failure to debunk any of the theories also shows it's sound.
The article you copy/pasted from is only telling you a small part of what is happening and running a false narrative.

But the Bible says that Satan deceives the whole world (Rev 12:17)

Yes and it also says Satan is the Angel of Yahweh, works with Yahweh, sends plagues for him, tortures Job for him, serves as a prosecutor for him and isn't in conflict with Yahweh whatsoever.

Until the Persian occupation where they has a mythology that their supreme God was at eternal war with the devil, would beat him in a final war and everyone would bodily resurrect and live in paradise on earth.
So they likely took those ideas from the Persians.

Revelations is the most fictive work ever. It's more fictive. than LOTR. So you ignore massive amounts of science and then quote a story about 7 headed dragons, women clothed in the sun and stars falling to earth as if it's a source?

and that would include scientists who are using the false no God assumption in this area of knowledge.

When scientists study evolution, they are not studying or even thinking about any god.
Most evolutionary biologists who are Christian simply assume god wanted to create people by starting evolution. Still is a bunch of fantasy but they at least know evolution isn't even a little bit wrong.

Now a theory can be refuted by just one fact.

Yeah, and I bet it isn't going to be evolution.

Here is an example of a false theory: the sum of any 2 numbers is 100.
And here is the fake reasoning used to “prove” the fake theory with facts:
10+90, 54+46, pi + 100-pi, 55 1⁄2 + 44 1⁄2 all add up to 100.
There are an infinite number of pairs of numbers that match the theory.
However, there are an infinite number of pairs of numbers which refute the fake theory. Falsified by 1+1=2, 10+10=20, 1⁄2+1⁄2=1
And for each pair of numbers that match the theory, there is an infinite number of pairs that refute it.

Wow, that was a bunch of nonsense, not related to the topic and even worse, no math theory would say that? You had to strawman a math theory?

It does illustrate creationist apologetics by showing you can create a fake theory and snow readers with misinformation because they don't know better and are using confirmation bias.

It would say : "The sum of any 2 irrational numbers can be 100", it wouldn't be vague like you wrote, that is a made up strawman.

For example, here are 14 arguments used to debunk evolution that are not correct. But uneducated readers who want to believe in a myth might buy into it.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What's funny is the argument below assumes a circular reasoning but isn't actually even close to any reasoning in science. so you have a huge strawman going on.






We don't know, we go by the massive amounts of evidence and failure to disprove the theory. As well as multiple branches of science that all suggest the same thing.





So right away you are completely wrong. It's actually the argument for every religion - since we know our guy had real revelations, our book is the correct word of god. Circular.
Scientists don't care what the evidence shows, the best way to become super famous in science is to find out a major theory is false. Like Einstein.

Your apologist, creationist media has led you to believe false things. You do not care at all about what is actually true.


Now again, I ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.

AND, Please describe where I used circular reasoning.


Sorry, that's 2 strawmen. I didn't see any examples of this "evidence"???

Any evidence that contradicts evolution is INVESTIGATED. There has been many lines of evidence like this. Turns out when further studied, they fit in exactly with evolution. If more comes up scientists will hope they can be the one to show evidence, backed up by multiple teams running the tests, is actually an issue. Instant fame, interviews, prizes, and so on.






Those points were completely bizarre fantasy-land nonsense. So "that" was not that.




Again, example please. In actual science, they produce a paper with results and other teams try to produce the results. If it's valid even more work is done in this area to find out what it means. Truth wins all. In science. Not in religion.




It's also a lie.
Here is a paper -
S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004

Giles, J. Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design. Nature 431, 114 (2004). Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design - Nature

and an article on it in Nature:

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design - Nature

Critics of evolution score publishing success

www.nature.com

They gave him a shot. It's full of mistakes, all pointed out in thsi paper:

Meyer's Hopeless Monster

pandasthumb.org

If an actual paper came out with credible information scientists would pay attention. The theory is far too strong and creationists desperate attempts to bend reality to fit a mythical worldview simply fail because it doesn't represent what we actually see in reality.
It's the truth that you have a problem with, not science.










Wrong, still. They believe the MASSIVE evidence from multiple fields demonstrates all these things are likely true. The failure to debunk any of the theories also shows it's sound.
The article you copy/pasted from is only telling you a small part of what is happening and running a false narrative.







Yes and it also says Satan is the Angel of Yahweh, works with Yahweh, sends plagues for him, tortures Job for him, serves as a prosecutor for him and isn't in conflict with Yahweh whatsoever.

Until the Persian occupation where they has a mythology that their supreme God was at eternal war with the devil, would beat him in a final war and everyone would bodily resurrect and live in paradise on earth.
So they likely took those ideas from the Persians.

Revelations is the most fictive work ever. It's more fictive. than LOTR. So you ignore massive amounts of science and then quote a story about 7 headed dragons, women clothed in the sun and stars falling to earth as if it's a source?








When scientists study evolution, they are not studying or even thinking about any god.
Most evolutionary biologists who are Christian simply assume god wanted to create people by starting evolution. Still is a bunch of fantasy but they at least know evolution isn't even a little bit wrong.





Yeah, and I bet it isn't going to be evolution.




Wow, that was a bunch of nonsense, not related to the topic and even worse, no math theory would say that? You had to strawman a math theory?

It does illustrate creationist apologetics by showing you can create a fake theory and snow readers with misinformation because they don't know better and are using confirmation bias.

It would say : "The sum of any 2 irrational numbers can be 100", it wouldn't be vague like you wrote, that is a made up strawman.

For example, here are 14 arguments used to debunk evolution that are not correct. But uneducated readers who want to believe in a myth might buy into it.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

you get a circular reasoning score of 100%
And extra credit for mocking the fact that any theory can be disproved with just 1 piece of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you get a circular reasoning score of 100%

What was the circular part? Be specific.

And extra credit for mocking the fact that any theory can be disproved with just 1 piece of evidence.

Where has he supposedly done this?

 

[joelr]

you get a circular reasoning score of 100%

At least try to hide the fact you are butt hurt because you have no response.

But now you have three tasks, the first is demonstrate where I responded last time with circular logic. Not your "score" (a creationist sarcastic score of 100% apparently means you are stumped).

And extra credit for mocking the fact that any theory can be disproved with just 1 piece of evidence.

No, I mocked your theory, written in a way no one would write a theory. And has nothing to do with evolution. You would think (?) you would give one issue with evolution....but no, your example is a poorly worded math conjecture? Yes, you got the name wrong as well.


Now again, I ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.

AND, Please describe where I used circular reasoning. The first time.

I know you don't do evidence, you just believe stuff because it's in a book. But you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence. Copy&paste from AnswersinGenesis isn't going to work.


Also failed responses to -

1) debunked your idea about peer-review and showed a paper that was accepted
2) failed to respond to your faulty idea that circular logic is used to support evolution
3) failed to show a person or organization who has a paper that shows evolution is false

but succeeded -
1) continuing to not care at all about what is actually true

 

[SavedByTheLord]

At least try to hide the fact you are butt hurt because you have no response.

But now you have three tasks, the first is demonstrate where I responded last time with circular logic. Not your "score" (a creationist sarcastic score of 100% apparently means you are stumped).

No, I mocked your theory, written in a way no one would write a theory. And has nothing to do with evolution. You would think (?) you would give one issue with evolution....but no, your example is a poorly worded math conjecture? Yes, you got the name wrong as well.


Now again, I ask for your best argument on how radio dating refutes evolution, and I will ask a biologist.

AND, Please describe where I used circular reasoning. The first time.

I know you don't do evidence, you just believe stuff because it's in a book. But you are going to have to demonstrate some evidence. Copy&paste from AnswersinGenesis isn't going to work.


Also failed responses to -

1) debunked your idea about peer-review and showed a paper that was accepted
2) failed to respond to your faulty idea that circular logic is used to support evolution
3) failed to show a person or organization who has a paper that shows evolution is false

but succeeded -
1) continuing to not care at all about what is actually true

But there are papers, organizations, books and people that have refuted evolution and billions of years.
You eliminated them in your own mind, not in reality, through circular reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But there are papers, organizations, books and people that have refuted evolution and billions of years.

No. There are organizations and people who publish books and essays in which they claim to have done so, but never actually did it.

You eliminated them in your own mind, not in reality, through circular reasoning.

1. not what circular reasoning is
2. they eliminate themselves by bearing false witness and willingly engaging in pseudo-science (which is inherently dishonest)

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. There are organizations and people who publish books and essays in which they claim to have done so, but never actually did it.



1. not what circular reasoning is
2. they eliminate themselves by bearing false witness and willingly engaging in pseudo-science (which is inherently dishonest)

Evolution and billions of years have already been proven false with many irrefutable proofs.