Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (second sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Before I looked

at the following comment from the man whose profile name reads blasphemously "Jeez S. Christ", I answered an older comment by a more honest person, as you will see, after this comment, when mine starts in a reply not yet concerning the foul probable Communist or Freemason.

"Jeez S. Christ"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's amazing how you produce very easily debunked claims and act as though you are standing on a rock solid argument. The degree to which you have convinced yourself is dangerously insane. Where are these books you read? Where are the laboratories that conclude this work you are doing is correct?

Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact.

The Russian petroleum research is highly questionable and has no real basis in fact. There is no independent support for the statement that there is "new oil" or "young oil". My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT. Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?

Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000.

Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact.

If your Creation occurred less than 10,000 years ago, there would only be a few hundred million people alive right now. Especially if all but 8 were wiped out in between that time and now.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Basically the crux of my argument, is that you are:

• A) insane
• B) cannot properly read books
• C) extremely disloyal to truth
• D) possibly the most motivated troll on Earth.

Hans Georg Lundahl

+Belegur Mastema -
"If they can date volcanic eruptions thanks to the radioactive decay, you can assume the organisms caught in the lava are of the same age."

The problem is, they can't.

Have you heard of Mount St Helen's recent eruption and its vast misdating?

Wiki : Mount St. Helens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

Wiki : 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helen's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

Hmm, for some reason the article on the eruption has no reference to the dating. Same goes for the article on the volcano itself.

Here I do find an article by Creationists. Do you think the source is biassed? Here it is anyway:

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

They give a list of K-Ar datings (Potassium-Argon datings), measured in Ma (Megaannum or millions of years, I presume).

• DOME-1 ‘whole rock’0.35 ± 0.05 (300,000 - 400,000 years old)
• DOME-1 feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06 (280,000 - 400,000 years old)
• DOME-1M amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2 (700,000 - 1,100,000 years old)
• DOME-1H pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3 (1,400,000 - 2,000,000 years old)
• DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old) (just an extract of a more complex table they gave, plus an understandable translation of the Ma values).

They also make this claim about the table: Potassium-argon data from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens Volcano.

So, suppose they are a biassed source, suppose they are making very wild claims, how come wiki isn't listing any reference to some link refuting these claims? Sth like a "non-biassed" (i e evolutionist) source?

Even more, the CMI link is referencing what the guys dating the lava (or defending the method in general) said: "Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope ratios from several modern lava flows."

So, why not go to note 22 for Dalrymple: 22.Dalrymple, Ref. 21. [which reads] 21.Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47–55, 1969.

And Krummenacher in note 23: 23.Krummenacher, D., Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface volcanic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970.

Of course, the references are from 1969 and 1970 ... science could have progressed since then and Steven A. Austin might be flogging a dead horse instead of fighting a live bull ... but shouldn't wikipedia have given some link to a refutation, if that were the case?

Wait, there is also a thing like TalkOrigins - maybe they have a thing?

Sure:

Claim CD013.1: Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2007
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Let's pardon them for only citing Austin and Swenson and not Dalrymple and Krumenacher (or was the CMI article talking of Austin and Swenson measures? Check, I am a bit tired today!) BUT what they give is not all that bad even so:

"Response:

• "1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
  
  
• "2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless."

Now, what do I respond to that?

• 2. is a problem that CAN be fixed. But was it fixed already when certain dates like at Laetoli were measured? Or has it been fixed only after Mount St Helens without adequate redating of already measured "dates"? And are xenocrysts all that neat to distinguish thousands of years after the eruption?
  
  
• 1. is a problem which CANNOT be fixed unless you prove the Earth very old and the samples under consideration therefore NON-recent. On YEC view, a date 2 million years ago never existed in time. Therefore, K-Ar just MIGHT have a use as dating items once the general old earth paradigm is taken for granted ... wait a second. You can know a sample is recent if you were around. But if you were not, how can you know whether it is within or beyond the 2,000,000 year limit?
  
  Even more : one date is beyond the 2,000,000 year limit, but watch the margin of error: 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)

Now for the lout*:

"Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact."

CMI : Dr. Tasman Bruce Walker
http://creation.com/dr-tasman-bruce-walker

* If you like some politeness from me, change the screenname, for one. Earlier comments will change name automatically if you change screen name and retain channel. Btw, I am not sure I haven't met you somewhere before.

"Jeez S. Christ"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, that video of that guy making shit up and bloviating on Biblical Worldview has totally returned me to Christ. Not.

He is not espousing anything that deposes Evolution, he is merely asking us to consider the Biblical Worldview. ALL of his evidence is undermined by itself, much like every rampant claim you further wish to endorse in regards to Creation. I'll be here all week, dumb [blip].

For the record, the man is not serving his degrees very well, nor is he seconded by independent critique. His degrees are solid, Univ of Queensland is a decent enough school, please explain to him that he is also wrong about Biblical Creation. Thank you again dumb [blip].

Next?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah you are an apostate. How sad.

I'm not crying over you. Answering you may help someone else.

"My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT."

According to the theory commonly given. I gave a real geologist a chance to reply to my criticism, she has so far not taken it. I nearly thought she was getting tired of you, but then she seemed more OK with you than with me even. So, no. Now, Lascaux and Altamira and so on ...

"Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?"

• 1) tas walker would not just agree, but has in fact agreed very explicitly that Carbon 14 datings are for one not entirely worthless but for another as commonly given, beyond a certain time back in need of reinterpretation - which is explained by lower C14 back then.
  
  You do not have a continual presence of human population in Altamira or Lascaux which have kept continual written records back to 20,000 years ago, therefore we cannot check the calibration for C14 dates that old against historic dating of objects.
  
  Now, half an halflife of C14 is another matter, it's about the time of Cyrus or Sennacherib or sth (not quite sure on exact half life) and you can check against objects from their days if C14 back then was close or spot on what it is today. You can't do that for Lascaux or Altamira.
  
  
• 2) THEN Lascaux and Altamira having this possibility of being much younger than 20,000 years (though obviously older than 2,000 years, which do give another carbon date and wich is indeed checkable), may in fact be post-Flood. Which is what the Creation Science community thinks by and large.
  
  
• 3) Most dinosaurs are however from before the Flood. OK, the Behemoth type has been sited after the Flood too, but one of the sitings was in Africa.
  
  So, possibly the guys painting at Lascaux had the luck not to meet a dino. Then again, they possibly had the bad luck to meet a dino after painting there and then they painted there no more.

"Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000."

Where exactly did I personally state anything implying that?

Where, for that matter, did any other creationist (like not a hack, but someone knowing some creation science and some science in general) ever give such a claim? Or even a hack for that matter?

Or wait, may I make a little guess about your method? Or two?

• A
  • 1) You look at increase rate right now.
  • 2) You look at how long ago Noah and his three sons lived, and all of the three had wives.
  • 3) You calculate how many according to that rate should have been alive in 46 BC.
• B
  • 1) You look at number of people now and number of people in the days after Ark stranded on Ararat. And at time between then and now.
  • 2) You calculate increase rate from that.
  • 3) You draw out a graph like a linear or geometric function and see how many there should have been in 46 BC.

BOTH methods are flawed.

Human increase goes way faster when men are few but with knowhow and space is for free, than later when they are crowded. So, human increase is NOT a simple function invariable over time.

"Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact."

I do not believe you that Syria had 3,000,000 people then, nor totally disbelieve it. It has more now, I think, and agricultural productivity has not gone up so drastically that 3,000,000 would certainly have been beyond the then capacity.

But when you speak of Roman Census for 46 BC, I'd like to know where you get that from.

Like, not just what modern scholar, but also what ancient writers citing the census result (or what archaeological digs). PLUS, if the number is based straight on number given in census or on some kind of calculus how many there would have been in a medium household or sth. You see, before 1800 direct individual counting statistics for populations are usually NOT available. That is a solid fact.

"Jeez S. Christ"

That's precisely why I keeping reeling you in, you make more claims and bury your argument deeper. In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce.

Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument. Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available. It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient.

To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude? I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum.

I do believe you are crying, btw. 

Mike Hardman

I don't think i understand the question.



Hans-Georg Lundahl

α

I'll repeat and restate: Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim?

If dinos were and men were not around and petrol comes from animal remains, driving cars is burning coal atoms etc. that once were in dino bodies. But since men were around in the days of Noah, are you worried driving cars or using plastic might be a kind of cannibalism? Perhaps I should be worried too.

β

Praise be to Jesus Christ - the lout who is abusing His holy Name has made himself ridiculous again.

"In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce."

Ah, that is admitting there is some consistency between Atheism and the ideologies of sterilisation or such? After all, you are voicing both.

"Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument."

Wasn't yelling, and am satisfied with the facts I brought to question until NEXT argument I counter.

"I do believe you are crying, btw."

You are lying - or dreaming. Now, for the argument you gave, you gave the fact I needed:

"Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available."

Ah, best possible long age model available?

I'll take that as an admission of two things:

• a) you really do not know
• b) you would reasonably know (perhaps in some places at least) if long age model were previously proven.

Thank you, but that makes it circular to use K-Ar as a proof of the long age model!

"It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient."

When it came to a lava flow in 1996 (not identic to the one dated by two creationists), the method missed by two million years. That is not "within several thousand years".

Also, you argue FROM us being being "so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient." Again, circular.

"To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude?"

Petroleum does not develop into crude oil, it is crude oil.

And yes, I said it.

"I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum."

What victory? You are going circular again. "we know it takes at least 40,000 years for crude oil to form because no crude oil is younger, and we know no crude oil is younger because it takes 40,00 year to form" or sth?

So, if you want to back up the "crude oil is all 40,000 years whereever we find it" you had better back up this independently of dating crude oil by the time it takes to form.

But that means dismissing the crude oil argument as much as you need also to dismiss the K-Ar argument. How many do you have left?

Btw, I'll resent if you try to get back to using either of these two as a back up argument for the next one that fails you!

"Jeez S. Christ"

[Blip] your claims, you are making shit up at this point. Everyone reading your thread will know that. You act as if you are the lone scientist on board, you're not. Like I said, keep shouting this bullshit, it is getting funnier.

I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not.

I am asserting that the dissipation factors you are calling to my attention will not change the scope of our current dating system by more than 5-7% which is just fine for the dating being attempted. In other words, if we are wrong about the specific period of dating in question, it is by far less than you assert that it would be. You are trying to convert Millions of years into a neat little 10,000 year package. it won't fit but please keep up with this bullshit you are slinging.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I made nothing up, and it is sad for you that you cannot see the difference between factual claim and logical argument about the ones you make. I am NOT acting as if I were the lone scientist on earth and have never done so - but you are acting as if a certain collective of them (admittedly in majority today) were the lone, not just scientists but even thinkers on earth and that everyone who is not on their line should let their set think for themselves. I refuse to coddle your collective megalomania, that is all.

"I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not."

If you did, why were you not answering my points instead of your diatribe?

"Jeez S. Christ"

No, I am not trying to convince you because if you can read the proper textbooks and still arrive at your conclusions, you are either insane or talking for our entertainment. Believe me, nobody is gaining a further knowledge of science from your entries. Nobody is changing their views due to your ridiculous assertions. If any of the things you are saying amount to claiming an Earth Age of less than 10,000 years, then you are obviously too insane to persuade. I wouldn't want you on my side, being insane like you are.

Discussing the depths of chemical reaction, chemical functions, and combined elemental materials with a person like you would not serve to improve upon what we understand. You are merely here for an entertainment for me.

I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered. You are claiming that because chemical transitions might be dissimilar, that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one, which it is not, your calculations would not be off more than FIVE TO SEVEN PERCENT> Please do a math problem for me and subtract 10,000 from 13.65 Billion. Now, divide that amount by 13.65 Billion. That is the percentage by which you are incorrect. Get a little closer to the bulls-eye if you want to be taken seriously. Have I reminded you of what a dumb cunt you are acting like? You are, you are being a dumb cunt who is off by more than 13.659999999991 BILLION years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Gloria +Patri+et Filii+et Spiritui Sancto!

Quisnam latine conscius iam audivit phrasim "iurare in verba magistri"?

"I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered."

No, you pretend to believe that because you are afraid to deal with the argument I really made.

"Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one"

Where exactly did I or the CMI article I cited or even the Mark Isaac pseudo refutation of the argument mention "dissipation"? More like absorption if you look. More you have argon, more potassium is supposed to have decayed into it. Absorb argon from air (other components of air not being measured or perhaps even reacting to form other molucules that can't be measured) and the "measure" is biassed to the older.

Plus, you cannot check the decay rate at any important portion of process (like a full half life, like a half half life etc down to a minimum sixteenth even) against historically known material. Not even sure K-Ar dates were made for Vesuvius.