Godot

Magus55:

How convenient of you to quote two useless sources as evidence to back up your bullshit claims. Some think tank called Institute for Creation Research: A Christ-Focused Ministry doesn't strike me as an unbiased source of information, particularly as it is web-based.
When people around these parts ask for evidence, they expect to see links or directions to journal articles from reputable peer-reviewed publications, not the unsubstantiated opinion of an obviously biased individual. Something to do with independently verifiable sources help too.
If this idiot tried to get this shit published, he would have been laughed out of town; that's why it's only available on the website of his organisation.

Duvenoy

Hmm. Yes. The ICR is second only to Ken Ham's raucous, little circus when putting forth unreviewable and therefore unpublishable nonsense.

I seem to recall that, after a long court fight, the ICR gained the authority to grant Master's Degrees in science -- no link, sorry. I find this shocking and a sign of the decline of our civilization.

Yeesh! How'd you like to go to a lab and apply for a job with a Master's from ICR? Creatures as far flung as nesting emperor penguins would be awakened by the laughter.

Back to cannible dinos: So what? The quaint habit of devouring your neighbor (before he snacks on you) has been around since before Moby Dick was a minnow. And it still thrives today, as anyone who's even cleaned bullfrogs for the skillet, or followed the adventures of the late Jeffery Dalmer can tell you. I was hoping that the article would leave Darwin's Dementia in tatters, but alas, it hasn't. It's looking like nothing ever will. Bummer.

doov

Magus55

Such hostility, wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Quite interesting how out all the Christians and Atheists i have met, the Atheists are always the biggest jerks - can't imagine why...

Of course, Talk origins is just so completely unbiased, we should definately rely on that. Since the entire site is by people who believe in evolution and support it

caravelair

"Such hostility, wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Quite interesting how out all the Christians and Atheists i have met, the Atheists are always the biggest jerks - can't imagine why..."

it's not that atheists are more likely to be jerks. it's that atheists are more likely to be outraged by blantantly rediculous creationist claims.

"Of course, Talk origins is just so completely unbiased, we should definately rely on that. Since the entire site is by people who believe in evolution and support it"

where's the bias? does it claim anywhere on that site that there is no god? does it claim anywhere that christianity is wrong? no it doesn't. the icr started off with a goal to prove, and they work towards proving that goal. that is not science. science starts out with a hypothesis, and then attempts to DISPROVE that hypothesis. from all of the talk origins articles i have read, it seems to me to be a completely unbiased scientific assessment of the scientific evidence of human origins. they did not set out to prove evolution wrong, and creationism right. they have merely examined both the evolutionist and creationist claims about the evidence relating to human origins in an unbiased scientific way. the fact that it appears biased to you is simply because the creationist view does not coincide with science AT ALL, and that would be the conclusion of any extensive objective scientific study.

Nostalgic Pushhead

For the record- the first post in this thread was sarcastic, right? I'm confused...

Godless Dave

I personally suspect that Magus is not deliberately lying. He has been lied to about many, many things, and he seems to trust his sources enough to repeat their claims without investigating them himself.

Dark Jedi

Even after being shown, inside and out, back to front, that they are false?

To continue after that is deliberate, or mental defect.

At this point, it is difficult to discern which.

ps418

There is plenty of evidence that radiometric dating is reasonably accurate over millions of years, though you'll never read an honest presentation of this evidence on the ICR website. Below are three articles I wrote, each of which provides strong evidence for the reliability of radiometric dating methods over million year time-scales.

Sea-floor Spreading and the Age of the Earth

See especially the graph at the bottom of the page, where plate velocities determined through radiometric dating are compared to plate velocities directly measured with space geodetic techniques.

Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth

See especially the parts comparing cosmogenic nuclide production rates determined from radiometric dating with cosmogenic nuclide production rates determined by direct observation using water targets.

A Dusty Young-Earth Argument Backfires

Compare the rates of IDP infall determined from radiometrically dated pelagic sediments with the rates of IDP infall determined by NASA's Long Duration Exposure Facility satellite.

Patrick

Arvel Joffi

Magus, people are rude to you because you refuse to listen to reason. You quote poor sources, twist logic, and hammer the same disproven points into the ground again and again. It gets really old.

OrderedChaos

I don't think the people who propose the cDK idea relaise all of the implications it would have. Rember that Einstien gave us the equation E=mc^2. So if the speed of light is decreasing, the amount of energy contained in a given piece of matter is decreasing exponetally.

If the speed of light has decreased enough to show the difference in radioactive decay required for a young earth, then that is an incredible amount of energy lost from every piece of matter in the entire Universe. So what is happening to all of that enegry? The first law of thermodynamics tells us that energy can not be created or destroyed. The cDK idea (which as pointed out does not qualify as a theory) seems to break this fundamental law.

Care to explain Magus?