Andy Schlafly on age of the earth
Richard Carnes
latest insights on the age of the earth. To post replies where Andy
and his "students" can read them, go to http://www.eagleforumu.org and
register. Registration is free and incurs no obligation. This is
Andy's Lecture 5:
AS> Evolution theory depends heavily on lots of time - billions of years -
AS> for things to occur that are never seen in laboratories. That creates
AS> pressure to claim that the Earth and species are extremely old.
AS>
AS> The claims of enormous ages are not corroborated by ordinary evidence.
AS>
AS> The oldest writing, for example, is only about 5500 years old. The
AS> dictionary says that humans have been around for 1.6 million years
AS> (see "Geological Time"), yet no writing is older than about 3500 B.C.
AS>
AS> How about the age of the oldest trees, the ever-living sequoias? The
AS> oldest sequoia is only about 6000 years old.
AS>
AS> How about human bones? No old examples of those either. The age of
AS> human bones are rarely claimed to be older than about 10,000 years,
AS> even though evolutionists insist humans have existed for much longer.
AS>
AS> Spring water is easily dated, and water companies publicize old ages
AS> to demonstrate purity. An old earth would include spring water that
AS> is hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years old. Nope - the
AS> advertised age of the oldest (and hence purest) spring water is only
AS> several thousand years. The advertised ages are all remarkably
AS> similar, in fact.
AS>
AS> Well, what about mountains? Haven't they been around for billions of
AS> years? No, even evolutionists admit that mountains are much younger,
AS> because they often contain marine fossils. Either there was a global
AS> flood with the mountains in their current position, or they were flat
AS> and magically arose from the Earth after the marine fossils were
AS> deposited. Evolution theory opts for the latter, in order to continue
AS> denying the occurrence of a global flood.
AS>
AS> But mountains erode quickly. Mountains are eroding at such a fast
AS> rate that they would lose 90% of their height in 20 million years.
AS> According to the Cincinnati Post (12/7/01), scientists are baffled
AS> about this contradiction between mountains' alleged old age and their
AS> rapid erosion.
AS>
AS> How Age Estimates Are Really Done.
AS>
AS> Sensationalism sells, so that is what he hear from pseudo-scientific
AS> magazines promoting evolution. A find of some chicken scratches on a
AS> rock wall are quickly followed by exaggerated speculation that they
AS> are tens of thousands of years old. Nothing sells newspapers and
AS> magazines better than headlines like "history is being made" or a
AS> "record was broken." The real details inside rarely support the
AS> eye-catching headlines.
AS>
AS> Frauds are rampant in this field. For example, a year and a half ago,
AS> a reporter quietly hid video cameras among the ruins of a Japanese dig
AS> site. On October 22, 2000, the cameras recorded the following:
AS>
AS> "Shots taken Oct. 22 show [Renowned Japanese archeologist Shinichi
AS> Fujimura] driving up at 6:18 a.m., looking around furtively and
AS> removing a plastic bag from his pocket. He then digs several holes,
AS> buries stoneware and stamps the dirt down for 'discovery' later when
AS> his colleagues are presumably around to witness the find." "Japan
AS> Amazed as Archeologist's Magic Exposed as Sleight of Hand," November
AS> 9, 2000, Page A-1, Los Angeles Times, by Mark Magnier.
AS>
AS> The LA Times article continued: "Most of the 'proof' for discoveries
AS> is determined by the age of the soil in which the items are
AS> found. Fujimura simply buried newer items in older soil. And
AS> archeology here is a gentlemen's game. It's considered offensive to
AS> challenge fellow experts directly or demand that their findings be
AS> scientifically analyzed."
AS>
AS> The Fujimura fraud occurred because of the way artifacts are dated: by
AS> dating the soil in which the artifacts are found, rather than dating
AS> the artifacts themselves. This was the same flaw in the initial
AS> dating of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, allegedly much older than it
AS> really was. Note that a newspaper, not evolutionists, uncovered the
AS> above fraud.
AS>
AS> We occasionally hear claims that cave drawings are 30,000 or more
AS> years old. Many, imitating National Enquirer readers, rush out to buy
AS> magazines that make the sensational assertions.
AS>
AS> The date estimates for drawings are typically done, if at all, by
AS> finding some old material in the vicinity and running some tests on it
AS> rather than the artifact itself. This process does not demonstrate
AS> the age of the real artifact or drawings.
AS>
AS> The methodology and claims of evolution theory are unusually
AS> susceptible to fraud, in contrast to real scientific inquiries. From
AS> the examples above to the fake dinosaur-bird fossil published in
AS> National Geographic, rarely does a year go by without discovery of
AS> another fraud in the field of evolution.
AS>
AS> Flaws in Sincere Estimates.
AS>
AS> There are sincere estimates of age, and it is worth examining their
AS> assumptions and weaknesses.
AS>
AS> Most current scientific dating techniques, including the popular
AS> Carbon-14 test, estimate the age of material by measuring the amount
AS> of a key element in it. The accuracy of these techniques is based on
AS> three basic assumptions:
AS>
AS> (i) we somehow know the initial level of the element in the material;
AS>
AS> (ii) there has been no contamination affecting that level over time; and
AS>
AS> (iii) rates of decay of the key element have been forever constant.
AS>
AS> There is no way to confirm the validity of these assumptions. They
AS> can only be accepted as a matter of faith. Conclusions based on these
AS> assumptions are no more valid than the assumptions themselves, which
AS> are dubious at best.
AS>
AS> Science magazine ran a story (6/29/01) about how carbon dating
AS> estimates depend on a constant ratio throughout history of carbon-14
AS> to carbon-12 in the atmosphere. That assumption has not withstood
AS> scrutiny. Scientists now think there have been extremely large
AS> variations in this ratio.
AS>
AS> Also, the assumption that the rate of decay of a given element has
AS> always been constant is likely to be false. Physicists now concede
AS> that laws and constants were different earlier in time. Near the
AS> origin of the universe, many physical laws broke down entirely due to
AS> quantum mechanical considerations. In addition, a recent experiment
AS> confirmed that physical constants change over time. Indeed, there is
AS> no reason to expect otherwise.
AS>
AS> Errors in Dating Estimates.
AS>
AS> There have been numerous errors in dating estimates. Some are comical.
AS>
AS> In a report published in the Physiology of Forest Trees (1958),
AS> scientists dated wood cut out of living and growing trees. Although
AS> dead for only a few days, the scientists estimated its age at 10,000
AS> years old.
AS>
AS> In a report published in the Antarctic Journal of the U.S. (1971),
AS> freshly killed seals were dated as having an age of an astounding 1300
AS> years. Other seals which could not have been dead more than about 30
AS> years were estimated to have an age of 4600 years.
AS>
AS> Conclusion.
AS>
AS> Age estimates more than a few thousand years are speculative, and are
AS> based on untested assumptions. They are generally not subject to
AS> falsification, and hence do not constitute real science.
--
Richard
rich hammett
it was AIG or ICR, not one of Andy's posts on t.o.
rich
Richard Carnes sanoi, niin käheällä äänellä etten alussa tajunnut sitä:
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Chris Thompson
> Reprinted below for your edification/entertainment are Andy Schlafly's
> latest insights on the age of the earth. To post replies where Andy
> and his "students" can read them, go to http://www.eagleforumu.org and
> register. Registration is free and incurs no obligation. This is
> Andy's Lecture 5:
>
snip
> AS> The Fujimura fraud occurred because of the way artifacts are dated: by
> AS> dating the soil in which the artifacts are found, rather than dating
> AS> the artifacts themselves. This was the same flaw in the initial
> AS> dating of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, allegedly much older than it
> AS> really was. Note that a newspaper, not evolutionists, uncovered the
> AS> above fraud.
snip
This guy is too much.
I quote from Waterston, D. 1913. The Piltdown mandible. Nature 92:319.
"It seems to me to be as inconsequent to refer the mandible and the
cranium to the same individual as it would be to articulate a chimpanzee
foot with the bones of an essentially human thigh and leg".
1913!!!
Sheesh. What a liar.
Chris
Wayne Bagguley
> Reprinted below for your edification/entertainment are Andy Schlafly's
> latest insights on the age of the earth. To post replies where Andy
> and his "students" can read them, go to http://www.eagleforumu.org and
> register. Registration is free and incurs no obligation. This is
> Andy's Lecture 5:
This is my favourite:
> AS> Well, what about mountains? Haven't they been around for billions of
> AS> years? No, even evolutionists admit that mountains are much younger,
> AS> because they often contain marine fossils. Either there was a global
> AS> flood with the mountains in their current position, or they were flat
> AS> and magically arose from the Earth after the marine fossils were
> AS> deposited.
'Magically arose' like when continental plates collide perhaps?
Andy Schlafly is a liar and a fraud.
-
Wayne
Bigdakine
>From: snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley)
>Date: 4/2/02 11:48 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <129d3f9f.0204...@posting.google.com>
You're much to kind.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Fluffy
> latest insights on the age of the earth. To post replies where Andy
> and his "students" can read them, go to http://www.eagleforumu.org and
> register. Registration is free and incurs no obligation. This is
> Andy's Lecture 5:
>
> AS> Evolution theory depends heavily on lots of time - billions of years -
> AS> for things to occur that are never seen in laboratories. That creates
> AS> pressure to claim that the Earth and species are extremely old.
It's all a bit conspiricy! Of course!
> AS>
> AS> The claims of enormous ages are not corroborated by ordinary evidence.
> AS>
Yes they are.
> AS> The oldest writing, for example, is only about 5500 years old. The
> AS> dictionary says that humans have been around for 1.6 million years
> AS> (see "Geological Time"), yet no writing is older than about 3500 B.C.
So carbon dates are fine for ancient writings...
> AS> How about the age of the oldest trees, the ever-living sequoias? The
> AS> oldest sequoia is only about 6000 years old.
The oldest bushes are over 10,000 years old.
> AS>
> AS> How about human bones? No old examples of those either. The age of
> AS> human bones are rarely claimed to be older than about 10,000 years,
> AS> even though evolutionists insist humans have existed for much longer.
They are frequently claimed to be older than 10,000 years (or is this
'very modern humans'...)
> AS> Spring water is easily dated, and water companies publicize old ages
> AS> to demonstrate purity. An old earth would include spring water that
> AS> is hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years old. Nope - the
> AS> advertised age of the oldest (and hence purest) spring water is only
> AS> several thousand years. The advertised ages are all remarkably
> AS> similar, in fact.
Spring water companies are, of course, a top source of accurate
scientific information.
> AS>
> AS> Well, what about mountains? Haven't they been around for billions of
> AS> years?
No, and this is not claimed. Genuiune mountains are generally only
seen at convergent plate margins and over hotspots.
> AS > No, even evolutionists admit that mountains are much younger,
> AS> because they often contain marine fossils. Either there was a global
> AS> flood with the mountains in their current position, or they were flat
> AS> and magically arose from the Earth after the marine fossils were
> AS> deposited.
Plate tectonics..... it's not magic, it's convection. A global flood
that left shallow marine deposits on the top of everest would by
definition not leave shallow marine deposits outside of the himalaya.
> AS> Evolution theory opts for the latter, in order to continue
> AS> denying the occurrence of a global flood.
No; since there is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood, it
dosen't really need to be denied.
> AS>
> AS> But mountains erode quickly. Mountains are eroding at such a fast
> AS> rate that they would lose 90% of their height in 20 million years.
> AS> According to the Cincinnati Post (12/7/01), scientists are baffled
> AS> about this contradiction between mountains' alleged old age and their
> AS> rapid erosion.
According to the geological literature, they are not. But the
Cincinnati Post is a much more august publication, I'm sure.
> AS>
> AS> How Age Estimates Are Really Done.
> AS>
> AS> Sensationalism sells, so that is what he hear from pseudo-scientific
> AS> magazines promoting evolution. A find of some chicken scratches on a
> AS> rock wall are quickly followed by exaggerated speculation that they
> AS> are tens of thousands of years old. Nothing sells newspapers and
> AS> magazines better than headlines like "history is being made" or a
> AS> "record was broken." The real details inside rarely support the
> AS> eye-catching headlines.
> AS>
[Snip irrelevant stuff about frauds in Archeology - thought we were
talking about the age of the earth here.]
> AS>
> AS> The methodology and claims of evolution theory are unusually
> AS> susceptible to fraud, in contrast to real scientific inquiries. From
> AS> the examples above to the fake dinosaur-bird fossil published in
> AS> National Geographic, rarely does a year go by without discovery of
> AS> another fraud in the field of evolution.
As opposed to creationists, most of whom have entire careers build on
fraud.
> AS>
> AS> Flaws in Sincere Estimates.
> AS>
> AS> There are sincere estimates of age, and it is worth examining their
> AS> assumptions and weaknesses.
> AS>
> AS> Most current scientific dating techniques, including the popular
> AS> Carbon-14 test,
We do not use C14 for the age of the earth.
> AS> estimate the age of material by measuring the amount
> AS> of a key element in it. The accuracy of these techniques is based on
> AS> three basic assumptions:
> AS>
> AS> (i) we somehow know the initial level of the element in the material;
Not for all tachniques, and besides, even the creationists have only
managed to find 1 million or so year's worth of argon in basalt. Not
enough to throw out a 500 million year date. The geochemists of the
world have thought of this one already...
> AS>
> AS> (ii) there has been no contamination affecting that level over time;
> AS>
Which shows up pretty drastically. Laser ablation techniques reveal
this very well.
> AS> (iii) rates of decay of the key element have been forever constant.
Try changing any of the parameters in nuclear physics to get all the
dates 6 orders of magnitude larger at the same time. Without
destroying the sun.
> AS> There is no way to confirm the validity of these assumptions. They
> AS> can only be accepted as a matter of faith. Conclusions based on these
> AS> assumptions are no more valid than the assumptions themselves, which
> AS> are dubious at best.
Unless you use Isochron dating, which avoids asumptions (i) and (ii).
> AS>
> AS> Science magazine ran a story (6/29/01) about how carbon dating
> AS> estimates depend on a constant ratio throughout history of carbon-14
> AS> to carbon-12 in the atmosphere. That assumption has not withstood
> AS> scrutiny. Scientists now think there have been extremely large
> AS> variations in this ratio.
But C14 dating is not used to determine the age of the earth...
> AS>
> AS> Also, the assumption that the rate of decay of a given element has
> AS> always been constant is likely to be false. Physicists now concede
> AS> that laws and constants were different earlier in time.
How much earlier in time? Which laws and constants? Were decay rates
6 or seven orders of magnitude higher?
> AS> Near the
> AS> origin of the universe, many physical laws broke down entirely due to
> AS> quantum mechanical considerations.
You can't have a big bang and a global flood. Is the earth young or
not?
> AS> In addition, a recent experiment
> AS> confirmed that physical constants change over time. Indeed, there is
> AS> no reason to expect otherwise.
Which experiment???? Which constants? Over what time periods?
> AS>
> AS> Errors in Dating Estimates.
> AS>
> AS> There have been numerous errors in dating estimates. Some are comical.
> AS>
> AS> In a report published in the Physiology of Forest Trees (1958),
> AS> scientists dated wood cut out of living and growing trees. Although
> AS> dead for only a few days, the scientists estimated its age at 10,000
> AS> years old.
1958???? Oh yes, carbon dating again...
> AS>
> AS> In a report published in the Antarctic Journal of the U.S. (1971),
> AS> freshly killed seals were dated as having an age of an astounding 1300
> AS> years. Other seals which could not have been dead more than about 30
> AS> years were estimated to have an age of 4600 years.
Yawn... this is irrelevant to the age of the earth.
> AS>
> AS> Conclusion.
> AS>
The authour is intentionally trying to mislead the audience and
misrepresent the work of geologists, whilst attacking a dating method
that is irrelevant to the age of the earth.
Morgoth's Cat
snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley) scribed:
He's a creationist. It comes with the territory.
Best Regards,
Dave
morgoth AT valinor DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk * www.veilofnight.net
Supernovae & Creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/
Kharne - graphical AD&D-based RPG for Windows http://www.kharne.net
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
snow...@snowbird.freeserve.co.uk (Wayne Bagguley):
"Brainwashed moron" seems closer to his basic personality
and competence . All his other characteristics follow from
those.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless