Breaking News from Genesis 1:9

[Andylusion]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

Yeah, that explain why his counter argument didn't seem to have much substance.

 

[alang1216]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "firmament" that divided the waters below from the waters above?

They simply misspelled "figment", as in, "a figment of their imagination".

 

[Andylusion]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.

Have you bothered first to look it up yourself?

No?

Then stop wasting other people's time with your dishonest questions.

 

[Andylusion]

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.

Have you bothered first to look it up yourself?

No?

Then stop wasting other people's time with your dishonest questions.

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim... then magically when you can't provide any proof to a claim, suddenly it's my job to provide proof of your claim.

Thank you, but you are dismissed.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality. We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is. That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not. Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years? And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating. Dr Austin is right. And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that. So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon. They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts. Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs. Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions. That's a fact. It just is. If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science. It's your opinion creating a result.

The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.



CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...

Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

As was expected, the Austin charade did not publish their charade in peer reviewed journals.

The reasons are obvious:

Foundational Principles (of religious extremists at the ICR)

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

There’s more but you know the fraud these charlatans perpetuate by self-proclaiming to be “scientists”

 

[Andylusion]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality. We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is. That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not. Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years? And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating. Dr Austin is right. And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that. So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon. They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts. Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs. Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions. That's a fact. It just is. If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science. It's your opinion creating a result.

The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.



CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
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.

Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​

Great. So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.

Go outside, and pick up a rock. How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?

Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years? What are you going to do... radio date it?

Countering the Critics

Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano

The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts. Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.

One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.

A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.

Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.

Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination. The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:

1. Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
2. Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
3. Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
4. Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
5. Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
6. Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
7. Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.

Everything was done to scientific standards or better.

The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.

 

[Andylusion]

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...

Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.

You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.

So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.

My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.

Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline. Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago. The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.

And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this. That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:

As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,

‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’

In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth

Geophysical Research Letters
Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80
​

So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.

Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.

And others as well:

Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,

‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’

J. Geophysical Research 68:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.
​

So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred. Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.

Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.

Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.

So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.

Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document. What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.

 

[Hollie]

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?

Of course not. We believe that the claims about age, are false. There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating.... the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap. Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating. Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method. You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with. You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin. You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock. The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem. The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens. The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years, then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality. We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is. That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not. Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years? And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating. Dr Austin is right. And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that. So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon. They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts. Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs. Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions. That's a fact. It just is. If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science. It's your opinion creating a result.

The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.



CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

Claim CD013.1:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
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.

Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​

Great. So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.

Go outside, and pick up a rock. How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?

Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years? What are you going to do... radio date it?

Countering the Critics

Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano

The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts. Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.

One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.

A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.

Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.

Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination. The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:

1. Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
2. Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
3. Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
4. Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
5. Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
6. Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
7. Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.

Everything was done to scientific standards or better.

The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.

The problem you won’t address is that the charlatans from the ICR refuse to submit their work for peer review. They announce their bias toward a predefined outcome so it is not surprising that their methods support that outcome.

There’s a reason why peer review is critical: it allows a non-biased examination of the data.

You apparently have a vested interest in uncritically accepting the statements of charlatans. Not everyone accepts such fraud.

Your statement: “Everything was done to scientific standards or better.”, is nonsense. There was no peer review and having a predefined bias that requires an outcome match a predefined conclusion does not meet a scientific standard.

 

[alang1216]

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?

Kevin R. Henke is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​

 

[Hollie]

It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...

Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.

You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.

So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.

My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.

Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline. Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago. The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.

And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this. That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:

As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,

‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’

In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth

Geophysical Research Letters
Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80
​

So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.

Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.

And others as well:

Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,

‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’

J. Geophysical Research 68:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.
​

So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred. Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.

Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.

Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.

So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.

Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document. What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.

“My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet. And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”

Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend.


“Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall. So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe. Only to those who believe in evolution.”

Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth.

Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.

 

[alang1216]

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists. The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too. The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated? The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year. Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again. The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years. You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.

Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

I like your own links statement:

"'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?'"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are. You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

If you understood the science you'd know the answer. The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another. If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately. This is a known.

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

 

[jillian]

Just a matter of time as science adjusts its timeline.

The Bible is not science, deluded little wacko

 

[james bond]

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?

Kevin R. Henke is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​

Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it. It's not scientific; it's opinion. If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.

Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

Best atheist model. Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review. Put them back in.

 

[alang1216]

use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

I've been studying the evidence all my life and find the scientific evidence for creationism to be lacking. it is just as simple as that. You, yourself has failed to bring forward any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

 

[Hollie]

Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist. There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.

You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?

Kevin R. Henke is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​

Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it. It's not scientific; it's opinion. If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.

Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying. Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you. Who has the evidence to back up what they state? The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs. They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out. Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer. Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science. Get a life.

Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.

Best atheist model. Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review. Put them back in.

Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.

Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are arguing against something,

I answered your questions. An appropriate response would be, "thank you", if you were asking the questions honestly. Of course, you weren't. As evidenced by the fact that you completely ignored the answers.

we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.

Actually, that's 100% wrong. It's not constant. As such, I didn't read the rest of your nonsense, which was predicated on your false claim.