Reply With Quote
Only if you want to support your original attack.
Actually you need to retreat and do some serious expounding on your first attack victim before even thinking about moving on to your next victim.
Man, there are some knowledgeable motherf...s in this thread! I used to have a point of view on the matter, but after reading some of the posts here, I realise I probably don't know enough to have one
EDIT: I have to say though, I'm leaning towards Extra's point of view. Just seems more complete and closer to what I believed in the first place
Only if you want to support your original attack.
Actually you need to retreat and do some serious expounding on your first attack victim before even thinking about moving on to your next victim.
Austin used non-cogenetic lava flows for isochronic dating, in an attempt to disprove the validity of Rb/Sr isochrons. A plot of the data showed the layer of the flows to be "older" than basalt layers beneath.
This is an elementary error no "expert" would make, because non-cogenetic flows by definition did not occur at the same time, and so all the plot reveals is the age of the mantle rock from which they emerged. In essence, all he proved was that the lithospheric mantle rock beneath the Grand Canyon is older than the basalt lying above it.
I will grant you that there is an alternative to his being unknowledgeable/unlearned: perhaps he knew perfectly well the invalidity of his research, and did it anyway. In that case, he is still a liar and a fraud.
And no, I am not going to systematically show each and every member of the ICR faculty to be liars and frauds. A representative sample is enough.
Andrew Snelling attempted to invalidate the potassium-argon radiometric dating method by analyzing New Zealand lava flows less than 60 years old at the Geochron lab.
The Geochron lab readily admits that their methods are invalid for any samples expected to be less than 2 million years old, because of the contaminating effect of atmospheric argon.
So either Dr. Snelling has serious lapses in knowledge basic to his field, or maybe he is engaging in intentional deception. Either way, liar and fraud.
Dr. Snelling also has a nasty tendency to submit samples of petrified wood for radiocarbon dating without protecting them from contamination. This results in cross-contamination by younger carbon and tends to yield an "age" of 30,000 years, regardless of how old the petrified sample is.
He uses these findings to try to disprove the validity of radiocarbon dating.
Either he is fatally careless in his research, which calls into question his expertise, or he knows full well the trace contaminants will throw off the results, and his audience at ICR will eat it all up.
Bill Hoesch has a "master's degree" from ICR Graduate School.
Please.
David Phillips is still a student.
John Oller is an expert in linguistics, not biology, geology, or cosmology.
Jay Wile writes creationist science textbook for homeschooling. He also claims that radiometric dating is invalid. He does have peer-reviewed journal articles in actual journals; however, none of them are about his claims of the invalidity of radiometric dating.
I can't call him a liar; he just is not an authority on the subject.
Andrew McIntosh is an expert in combustion theory. This makes him an authority if I want to build a coal-fired power plant.
Creation science? Not so much.
He does like to repeat the absurd claim that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a claim which ignores a source of external source of energy in the Earth system. You can see this source of external energy if you look up in the sky during the day; it is a bright yellow ball of flaming gas.
Tom McMullen is a chemical engineer who got a Ph.D. in the "History and Philosophy of Science."
Not an expert.
Kurt Wise cannot be characterized as a fraud like some of these others.
His main contribution to creation science is "catastrophic plate tectonics," which proposes that the continents arrived at their current locations as a result of a single catastrophe wherein slabs of ocean crust broke apart and began a runaway subduction of plates at interstate highway speeds, also causing enough ocean to boil off to produce a 40-day global rain, and a rising of the ocean floor that flooded all the continents.
His claims can be dismissed because A) there is no plausible mechanism for this to happen, B) mantle "hot spots" cannot be explained under his idea, C) The Himalayas would never have formed under his claims, D) certain seamounts could never have formed.
But he is not a liar or a fraud, merely wrong.
David Livingston's field of expertise is biblical archaeology.
Paul Ackerman's field of expertise is psychology.
(Is his research in "Why gullible Christians fall for our tripe?" Sorry. That was snarky.)
wow...
hmm... joch?
Keith Wanser's claim to fame is his contention that the inability to explain baryogenesis disproves the Big Bang, though he ignores other very strong evidence for it, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, observable redshift, and the preeminence of elements with atomic number less than or equal to 4.
Donald Chittick's field of expertise is alternative fuels.
Edmond Holroyd claims that if we see a supernova that is 150,000 light years away that, since our seeing it would imply that the universe is at least 150,000 years old, which is impossible since the earth is just 6,000 years old, God must have created its light "in transit" so we could see it.
Arlo Moelenpah is a chemical engineer.
Otto Berg has a Bachelor of Arts degree in "Physics/Chemistry."
I have to stop now. The convulsions from laughter are hurting my back.
Why? I've stated repeatedly that one can't prove that which was 'supernatural' with 'natural' means...
Try this analogy for comprehension: It's like trying to to prove the existence of colors to blind people... sure, we know they exist because we can 'see' them... but what if every living soul on earth were blind? Would you be able to prove it then - no matter how real it was to you?
I can see evidence of GOD's design in creation, in life itself, in DNA - in the sense that I acknowledge the Creator's work. But again, no amount of physical evidence will ever prove GOD's existence to doubting hearts because that's not how He chooses to operate (from what we read in the Biblical canon)... He desires to meet people on grounds of faith.
If ES can discredit people such as Einstein for reaching a Deistic conclusion he can do so at his own peril. Then again, Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian GOD... or advocate a 6-day creation of the Universe. While I don't preclude the latter from being true, I certainly can't prove it to be false when I know we are dealing with the supernatural. That stance can't be shaken because my belief in GOD does not hinge on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
For those who are curious - I align my belief structure more along the lines of Francis Collins', and Richard Deem's - not ICR's (even though I will admit that some of their articles point out interesting observations).
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-04-2007 at 01:04 AM.
Why would I discredit Einstein just because I disagree with his theology, and believe in a personal God instead?
Wow, yeah, you've totally destroyed each faculty member's credibility, and you've done it basically using only one sentence per member!!
A puzzle is complete when all of the pieces are put together Stout. In much the same way each faculty member of IRC contributes his expertise to a common cause.
What's laughable (ridiculous) is you isolating them into separate en iies as if each of them are on an island working towards their conclusions alone.
You are light years away from proving your assertion that "they are not knowledgeable" and they are not "learned in their field".
I won't pretend to be convulsing from laughter as you did, but it's quite disappointing to see a poster of your stature resort to blanket condemnations, and then show what amounts to nothing to support your charges.
BTW, have you lied to anyone about anything in, say, the last 3 years?
(I'll bet you know what's coming if you admit to this)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
