PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     R.A.T.E Project

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This Post goes out to all those who know what the R.A.T.E. Project is and find a problem with it's findings.

1. What specific part(s) of the projects' empirical data/analysis/conclusions do you disagree with and why? Please be specific.

2. When answering question 1 please be specific as to any scientific problems that the project leaders made that have made you disagree with their results.

3. If you cite a website, reference an article, or show a complex formula or idea, please be kind enough to along with that, also explain the gist of what the data you are using is saying so that layman such as myself will be able to fully understand the meaning and point.

I await your responses.


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 10:57 PM on April 3, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are many mistakes made in the R.A.T.E. research but we don't even have to go into them, this quote is the one that destroys any scientific credibility this project supposedly had:
RATE

"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past."

God drastically accelerated the decay rates?!?!
Where's the evidence to support God doing this?  Where's the evidence that it was God?This automatically removes this from scientific research and places it firmly in the category of unsupported faith based assertion, in other words, Goddidit.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:14 AM on April 4, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,

Thank you for responding. Unfortunately you never answered my question(s). Please be courteous enough to stay within the guidlines of my original post. Reveal these "mistakes" you say exist. If you disagree with a finding(s) or the conclusions of the R.A.T.E. Project, please specify the exact problem you have with the projects' EMPIRICAL DATA.


best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 03:35 AM on April 4, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't mean to take this thread off topic, and I've gotten in trouble for defending other people against Zero before, but....

If you disagree with a finding(s) or the conclusions of the R.A.T.E. Project, please specify the exact problem you have with the projects' EMPIRICAL DATA.


I think the problem Demon had with the empirical data, was the lack of data to begin with.

God drastically accelerated the decay rates?!?!
Where's the evidence to support God doing this?  Where's the evidence that it was God?This automatically removes this from scientific research and places it firmly in the category of unsupported faith based assertion, in other words, Goddidit.  


(Underlining mine)

He also hyperlinked to the page where he got the quote from.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:06 PM on April 4, 2006 | IP
thelmoose

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is not a peer reviewed journal.
The article is self referential. The abstract makes editorial comments.
The article mentions nothing of its methodology or theory, so commenting is impossible.
The whole structure of the article is juvenile, lacking the usual format of methods, results and discussion. I have never heard of commenting on (an unnamed) critic within the body of a scientific paper. It never discussed its own limitations. Its references are shoddy.
And I think Demon had an excellent point, the article stated that its "main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past." That's a rather unprovable and also unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The paper wouldn't be accepted for an undergrad class, let alone a respectable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.


 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:42 PM on April 4, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sadly it appears that EntwickelnCollin's prophecy has come true:
"...this threads off topic..." (the "s" after thread was inserted by me)

Before I go any further let me just wrap up this sidetrack of Demon38's position. He stated that the problem was that their conclusions involved God. Seeing as the team was composed of Creationists, that was going to be fairly obvious from the outset. But just to simply show you the answer to your questions which were, "where is this data to back up the notion that God accelerated nuclear decay," Demon38 quoted the answer in his reply. In fact it was the first part of the sentence of his quote. Where's the data to back up the assertion of God's involvement?
"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative...

Right there they state that their findings to support their hypothesis comes from the diffusion data. Now I'm only pointing this out so that we can get back to the point of the thread and end this digression.

My questions were quite simple and the guidlines were ridiculously clear. Show why you disagree with the R.A.T.E. project's empirical data and specifically state which parts you believe are in error and why. Please return back to what this post was started for and that is to see what problems people have with the R.A.T.E. project findings itself! Not their theology. Not their bias towards a particular belief. Using the empirical data itself what problems do you find with their data? If you write on anything BUT the data involved then you simply cannot follow basic intructions.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 04:28 AM on April 5, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative...


Uhm...Perhaps you can explain  how the  "diffusion data" supports the RATE research initiative.

My questions were quite simple and the guidlines were ridiculously clear. Show why you disagree with the R.A.T.E. project's empirical data and specifically state which parts you believe are in error and why. Please return back to what this post was started for and that is to see what problems people have with the R.A.T.E. project findings itself! Not their theology. Not their bias towards a particular belief. Using the empirical data itself what problems do you find with their data? If you write on anything BUT the data involved then you simply cannot follow basic intructions.


Ouch!!!...me thinks the creationist doth protest too much!!!

At any rate...Below is a link to a CHRISTIAN site that demonstrates how the RATE con-men lied about the  papers that support their claims about radiometric dating being peer reviewed.

Moreover the CHRISTIAN writer presents evidence that shows that  the RATE people are simply trying to to muddy the water with their critique of the dating of metamorphic rocks. As the writer, Christian Geologist Greg Neyman, points out, the RATE People "either had bad sampling and bad lab work, or they stacked the deck in advance."

What a CHRISTIAN geologist says

Greg Neyman AKA CHRiSTIAN geologist  goes even further in another article with a point-by-point disection of the RATE claims.

RATE gets thrown to a Christian and is mauled.

At this point ...I know what your thinking...I have just presented one Christian's view point.

Well let's see what the the folks at TrueOrigins have to say...First let me point out that the TrueOrigins (not to be confused with TalkOrigins) folks state the following on their home page:

"TrueOrigin Archive offers intellectually honest  responses to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents,  including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. "

Ok...now that we know that these guys aren't "evolutionists", let's see what they have posted on their web site regarding the RATE project.  (To be fair, I will do what no creationist would ever do and that is point out that the TrueOrigins site has also posted some pro-RATE writings.)


A piece-by-piece dismantling of the RATE project posted on an anti-evolution site.

So there you have it zero-cool.  CHRISTIANS presenting EMPIRICAL evidence that shows that the RATE project has ZERO scientific value.  



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:05 PM on April 5, 2006 | IP
mirage

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a dishonest post from Fred.
Your set up of the link to TrueOrigins is very deceptive.
Just why do you consider an article by Dr. Henke, an evolutionist, posted on the TrueOrigins site as an endorsement by TrueOrigins?  Might they not have posted the article to make the debate between Dr. Henke and Dr. Humphreys available for all to read and judge for themselves?   "To be fair," TrueOrigins did exactly what you said "no Creationist would ever do" and that is to show both sides of the argument.  On their home page are links to two rebuttals by Dr. Humphreys in response to Dr. Henke's criticisms.  (By the way, is CHRISTIAN all in caps supposed to mean something?)

You also failed to recognize that there is a world of difference between OEC (Old Earth Creationists) and YEC (Young Earth Creationists).  This is fodder for a whole other thread.  Greg Neyman, your poster boy for "Christian Creationists", is an OEC.  

It seems to me that when the terms "Creationist" or "Creationism" are used on this site, in general it is understood as YEC, unless otherwise stated.  You are over-simplifying the issue, then announcing your champion the victor.

So your CHRISTIANS, plural, "presenting empirical evidence" to dismantle RATE amounts to a "Christian" OEC with an ax to grind against YECs, and what you consider an endorsement by TrueOrigins which is not the case at all.

I am quite disgusted that none of the regulars have bothered to point out the under-handed way Fred's post was set up.  Are the evolutionists on this site content to see creationism knocked at all costs, even if it be not honestly?

If anyone feels inclined to launch an attack, could you at least be so kind as to welcome me first?  This is, after all, my first post.


-------
Jesus answered: and all that are of the truth hear my voice.
Pilate said unto him: what thing is truth?
-John 18
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 7:28 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am quite disgusted that none of the regulars have bothered to point out the under-handed way Fred's post was set up.  Are the evolutionists on this site content to see creationism knocked at all costs, even if it be not honestly?


Up until this thread, I had no clue what the RATE project even is, and even now I don't care enough about it to click any links. To make a long excuse short, I never found anything Fred to wrote to be 'under-handed' nor 'deceptive.'

If anyone feels inclined to launch an attack, could you at least be so kind as to welcome me first?  This is, after all, my first post.


Welcome. Stop blindly slinging accusations at people who are not involved.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 8, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin,

“Up until this thread, I had no clue what the RATE project even is, and even now I don't care enough about it to click any links.”

How unbiased and objective you are! Your desire to research the available “scientific” evidence concerning the evolution/Creation debate is truly unmatched. Apparently you’re intuition radar has already pre-detected (and pre-determined) that the R.A.T.E project could not possibly hold any scientific importance. I truly wish every evolutionist in this forum was as scientifically “honed” as you are…wait, if by that I mean reject any claim made by a Creationist out-of-hand, then I guess they all do. Never mind then...

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


(Edited by zerocool_12790 4/9/2006 at 08:59 AM).


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 08:53 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see how I should word the post next time. I should ask people what they themselves think is a problem with the R.A.T.E project’s empirical data instead of just leaving it open for people to list links and leave it at that. It appears nobody here has an actual problem with any of the R.A.T.E projects empirical data since no one has yet to name any problems with it, so I must then guess that everyone here agrees with it. Thank you everyone for revealing that.

best wishes,


zero cool_12790



-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 08:56 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How unbiased and objective you are! Your desire to research the available “scientific” evidence concerning the evolution/Creation debate is truly unmatched.


If I wanted to pretend otherwise, I wouldn't have said that. In further defense of what Mirage called 'disgusting,' I'd add that whether or not I knew anything about the R.A.T.E. project truly wouldn't have mattered; I still wouldn't have known anything about how TrueOrigins laid the project out. I've taken a look since last night, though. Congrats on yanking me out of my shell.

Apparently you’re intuition radar has already pre-detected (and pre-determined) that the R.A.T.E project could not possibly hold any scientific importance.


My lethargic attitude encompasses much more than support for just one side. Anything about Archaeopteryx, for instance, whether it's new ToE-supporting data or not, is just a natural turn-off for me.

I see how I should word the post next time. I should ask people what they themselves think is a problem with the R.A.T.E project’s empirical data instead of just leaving it open for people to list links and leave it at that.


Even that way is quite silly, Zero. You started the  thread off by asking people to point out specific flaws in the empirical data of the R.A.T.E. project... without showing how it even supports your position to begin with.

It appears nobody here has an actual problem with any of the R.A.T.E projects empirical data since no one has yet to name any problems with it, so I must then guess that everyone here agrees with it. Thank you everyone for revealing that.


At the beginning of this thread, Demon offered what I believe equally is a serious problem with the RATE project's data: it does not and cannot support their hypothesis that "God drastically accelerated the decay rates of atomic nuclei." When do you plan on stepping up to the plate on that one? Do you even disagree with it? Thus far, your only defense of the matter has been to call it off topic and irrelevant to the discussion you initially asked us to have. It isn't out of bounds, Zero. A lack of evidence for those who have the burden of proof is, as critical skeptics of transitional fossils would agree, significant.

Thelmoose also offered a position: that the RATE project was not professionally-conducted research, which would logically make its empirical data unreliable.

We've got a gap between the evidence and the conclusion, and a claim that the RATE project is unprofessional. If you plan on continuing this thread, address the above problems.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/9/2006 at 10:22 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:20 AM on April 9, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Answer from a YEC.  Do I agree with dating process?  No.  Do I applaud the RATE researchers for trying to apply science to their understanding of the Bible instead of trying "interpret" the Bible in such a way as to agree with preconcieved scientific notions?  Yes.  Do I think that they have, in any way, proven their theory?  No.  Until they can show scientific evidence supporthing their hypothesis (and I'm being kind with the word hypothesis here) then they should have saved themselves the embarassment of posting their "findings".  I'm a layman, not a scientist, and even I can't convince myself that they have proven anything.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:16 PM on April 9, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin,

“Even that way is quite silly, Zero. You started the  thread off by asking people to point out specific flaws in the empirical data of the R.A.T.E. project... without showing how it even supports your position to begin with.”

I was neither obligated, nor was it necessary for me to explain how the R.A.T.E. project’s data supports my position, if any, for my questions to be answered. Not once have I stated what my position was, or that I even supported the R.A.T.E. project, nor was it necessary for my original questions to be answered. My original post stated:

“This Post goes out to all those who know what the R.A.T.E. Project is and find a problem with it's findings.”

I further elaborated on the intention of my post by stating:

“1. What specific part(s) of the projects' empirical data/analysis/conclusions do you disagree with and why? Please be specific.”

So to comment on your response, there is absolutely no burden on my part to validate the R.A.T.E. project and it’s findings in the first place. In fact my post clearly excluded those who had no previous knowledge, and therefore could not satisfactorily answer my questions about the R.A.T.E. project. This would include you. Although people’s comments are always welcome, as well as your own, my objective was quite clear and was specifically targeted at those who believed there was error in the R.A.T.E. project’s empirical data. So rather than me do as you request and “address” your supposed problems, I still find it shockingly humorous that my initial questions were never answered. I could not have made it any simpler and clearer. Instead of showing me the problems that people had with the specific data of R.A.T.E., from people who knew about it and had problems with it, all I’ve gotten is frivolous whining about the theology of the scientists who lead the R.A.T.E. expedition. Which has absolutely nothing to do with their empirical findings, or what I asked. I personally have no desire to hear people’s opinion of why they don’t like R.A.T.E. or the people who comprise it, why they don’t like this or that theology, or why they think they’ve answered the question by relaying me to a site that they themselves probably have not entirely read. This is why I stated in my last post:

“I should ask people what they themselves think is a problem with the R.A.T.E project’s empirical data instead of just leaving it open for people to list links and leave it at that.”

People have the right to post any response they want, but when their response has no bearing on the original post or its guidelines, I being the originator of the post have the right to make mention that their responses have little value. Demon38, thelmoose, fredguff , and yourself have neither listed any error you have found in their specific data, in fact, the lot of you have not once addressed once specific problem with the actual data itself! Now if none of you really knows the data, then you are free to not respond seeing as you will be adding little to this thread. My last response stands and unless people start refuting it, I will be forced to consider that it is more than accurate:

“It appears nobody here has an actual problem with any of the R.A.T.E projects empirical data since no one has yet to name any problems with it, so I must then guess that everyone here agrees with it [or doesn‘t know enough about it]. Thank you everyone for revealing that.” (words in brackets were added)

And still I restate:

“My questions were quite simple and the guidelines were ridiculously clear. Show why you disagree with the R.A.T.E. project's empirical data and specifically state which parts you believe are in error and why. Please return back to what this post was started for and that is to see what problems people have with the R.A.T.E. project findings itself! Not their theology. Not their bias towards a particular belief. Using the empirical data itself what problems do you find with their data? If you write on anything BUT the data involved then you simply cannot follow basic instructions.”

EntwickelnCollin, you seem to be a prime candidate for those who lack the ability to accurately adhere to guidelines. I do not hold this against you, but unless you, or for that matter anyone else here, can precisely show me the specific data, believed to be questionable, gathered by the R.A.T.E. project, then anything you post in this thread is hereby moot.

Apparently my original post was savagely incoherent and confusingly disorientating. If there was any confusion on my part I apologize.

Best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 02:56 AM on April 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So to comment on your response, there is absolutely no burden on my part to validate the R.A.T.E. project and it’s findings in the first place.


Understood.

Although people’s comments are always welcome, as well as your own, my objective was quite clear and was specifically targeted at those who believed there was error in the R.A.T.E. project’s empirical data.


Actually, after reviewing the first post of this thread, that is not the extent of what you were asking for:

1. What specific part(s) of the projects' empirical data/analysis/conclusions do you disagree with and why? Please be specific.


People have answered that question since the second post of the thread.

EntwickelnCollin, you seem to be a prime candidate for those who lack the ability to accurately adhere to guidelines. I do not hold this against you, but unless you, or for that matter anyone else here, can precisely show me the specific data, believed to be questionable, gathered by the R.A.T.E. project, then anything you post in this thread is hereby moot.


You’re getting awfully hung up on the data section of the project, regardless of any importance to the conclusions, which is what people on this board obviously have a problem with.

Apparently my original post was savagely incoherent and confusingly disorientating. If there was any confusion on my part I apologize.


I wouldn’t call it savagely incoherent and confusingly disorientating; it’d more be like profoundly mystifying (or is that just a third synonymous phrase for ‘confusing’?) Unless you’ve forgotten your original intent of starting this thread, or are somehow attempting to misconceive those who read it, I would be very confused, because there hasn’t been a single off-topic post yet. You asked for problems with the conclusion, and Demon offered one. You asked for problems with the analysis, and Thelmoose offered one. I’m not only extremely confusedly disorientated and befuddled and puzzled by your savagely viciously ferociously incoherent post, I’m beginning to get a little irritated with your flat denial of those who replied.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:42 AM on April 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a dishonest post from Fred.
Your set up of the link to TrueOrigins is very deceptive.
Just why do you consider an article by Dr. Henke, an evolutionist, posted on the TrueOrigins site as an endorsement by TrueOrigins?


I purposely was trying to use only sites and authors that were either Christian or anti evolution  as sources for my critique against the R.A.T.E. project.  When I first found the rebuttal by Dr. Henke at True Origins, it did not appear to me to be posted to present the view-point of the other side.  I suppose I was giving the folks at True Origins credit for seeing what Dr. Hemke and may other scientists saw which is the flawed methodology used by Humphreys and others in the RATE project reach their erroneous conclusions.

At any rate I appologize for not being more thorough.

Might they not have posted the article to make the debate between Dr. Henke and Dr. Humphreys available for all to read and judge for themselves?


Maybe, but this certainly is not made clear by the format which TrueOrigins presents the rebuttal.  For instance they only link to Humphrey's original rebuttal.  Why no link to Humphreys most recent comment on Henke's critique?  My "rush" to embrace TrueOrigins as a proponent (at least in this instance) for real science is no less rash than the very un-christian way  you have rushed to judge me as dishonest.

 
You also failed to recognize that there is a world of difference between OEC (Old Earth Creationists) and YEC (Young Earth Creationists).  This is fodder for a whole other thread.  Greg Neyman, your poster boy for "Christian Creationists", is an OEC.


This is a non-sequitor. OEC or not, Greg Neyman is a Christian who goes out of his way to explain how he reconciles scientific truths with his faith.  As a Christian striving to be his HONEST best,  he has no choice but to believe that the earth, universe and living organisms have been around for billions of years.  This is what the scientific evidence tells him.  

It seems to me that when the terms "Creationist" or "Creationism" are used on this site, in general it is understood as YEC, unless otherwise stated.  You are over-simplifying the issue, then announcing your champion the victor.


Victor?  Champion?  Neyman and Henke and other scientists demonstrate scientific truths by obesrvations that they support with scientific evidence.  If these observations can be shown to have predictive value and are falsifiable then they are scientific--it's that simple.

In their critique of the RATE project, Henke and Neyman clearly demonstrate that the conclusions made by Humphreys and other fail in many regards to provide any scientific value.  Aside from the sloppy work, erroneous conclusions, the RATE project fails scientifically, as Demon pointed out,  when its "researchers" invoke "miracles"  for some of their conclusions.  


So your CHRISTIANS, plural, "presenting empirical evidence" to dismantle RATE amounts to a "Christian" OEC with an ax to grind against YECs, and what you consider an endorsement by TrueOrigins which is not the case at all.


This is simply your biased, unsubstantiated, opinion.  You have not demonstrated that Henke, Neyman or any other RATE critic has an "axe to grind" with anybody.  You have no answer for the thoughtful and logical critiques of the RATE project so you choose to be lazy and dishonest by attacking the scientists personally.


I am quite disgusted that none of the regulars have bothered to point out the under-handed way Fred's post was set up.  Are the evolutionists on this site content to see creationism knocked at all costs, even if it be not honestly?


Maybe they are turned off by your self-righteous and judgemental attitude.  You attack my credibility in your first post and you don't even say word one about the evidence that I linked to that critiques the RATE project.  You are not interested in debate.  You are here to point fingers and  judge people.  How very unchristian of you.


If anyone feels inclined to launch an attack, could you at least be so kind as to welcome me first?  This is, after all, my first post.


Why should you be welcomed?  You call me a liar and present unsubstantiated claims about the motives of competent scientists.  Moreover you have nothing to say --pro or con-- about the RATE project.  Are you here to debate or are you here to judge people?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:07 AM on April 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see how I should word the post next time. I should ask people what they themselves think is a problem with the R.A.T.E project’s empirical data instead of just leaving it open for people to list links and leave it at that.


Sorry zero cool, that's not how it works.  The links that I presented debunk the RATE project's conclusions in clear and understandable terms.  If you want comment on specific comments in the links that you are not clear about or that you think are erroneous, by all means go for it.  


It appears nobody here has an actual problem with any of the R.A.T.E projects empirical data since no one has yet to name any problems with it


You are either lazy, dishonest or have a reading comprehension problem.  The links I posted demonstrate clearly and logically why the RATE project is flawed using laymen's terms.  If you don't know how to click links or you are unable to comprehend the evidence that is presented that debunks the RATE project then maybe you should not  take part in this debate.


so I must then guess that everyone here agrees with it. Thank you everyone for revealing that.


It is clear that you would rather resort to gradeschool sophistry than address the evidence that debunks the RATE project. This is typical behavior of so many members of the creationist community.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:31 AM on April 10, 2006 | IP
mirage

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred:

My post still stands.  Links to both of Dr. Humphreys's rebuttals, including a link to his latest one rebutting the article you posted by Henke, are clearly posted on the TrueOrigin front page.  And they both have been there since last week when you originally posted.

My purpose was to refute the false impression you laid in this debate.  If you consider that "un-christian" and "judgmental" then that is your opinion.

I called your posting dishonest and deceptive because it's set-up was untrue.  You're putting words in my mouth by saying I called you a "liar."  Perhaps by adding "under-handed way" it implies a conscious deception on your part.  For that I apologize.  

Humphreys's second rebuttal answers the substance of Henke's problems with RATE's helium diffusion data:
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

And as for Neyman, he attacks the helium diffusion data by linking to Henke's articles (both have rebuttals by Humphrey) and to TalkOrigins.  The main attack he personally offers against the results of RATE (which may involve the helium diffusion data) is that they do not have enough peer review.  His criticism is, of course, problematic since the majority in the scientific community who are evolutionists may not want to be involved with carefully reviewing and replicating findings which may support young earth creationism.  

As for whether or not Neyman is personally honest, I made and make no judgments.  He does have an ax to grind when he declares that the preaching of YEC has driven "millions" away from "Christ."  I made and make no judgment as to Neyman's personal character, only that he has a personal problem with YEC belief.  

You, on the other hand, make sweeping unfounded judgments about the personal characters of others using words such as: "lazy, "dishonest," "judgemental," "self-righteous," "unchristian," all in a personal context.[

(Edited by mirage 4/10/2006 at 3:07 PM).


-------
Jesus answered: and all that are of the truth hear my voice.
Pilate said unto him: what thing is truth?
-John 18
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:38 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This thread is rapidly becoming a punching bag for ad-hominem rhetoric, so I'll get out what I've been rather modest about in the recent times.

Mirage:

You, on the other hand, make sweeping unfounded judgments about the personal characters of others using words such as: "lazy, "dishonest," "judgemental," "self-righteous," "unchristian," all in a personal context.


I equate "judgemental" with your phrase:

Mirage:

I am quite disgusted that none of the regulars have bothered to point out the under-handed way Fred's post was set up.  Are the evolutionists on this site content to see creationism knocked at all costs, even if it be not honestly?


"Not honestly"? So, in a sense you did call Fred dishonest, and you were judging both him and anyone on his side who was content to allow Fred to be dishonest.

You do, however, defend that with this statement:

I called your posting dishonest and deceptive because it's set-up was untrue.  You're putting words in my mouth by saying I called you a "liar."  Perhaps by adding "under-handed way" it implies a conscious deception on your part.  For that I apologize.  


If it "wasn't honest," what could it possibly be if not "dishonest"? You can still be incorrect and honest at the same time. Fred wouldn't have made any of those "sweeping unfounded judgements" about, no less, your judgement, had you not done likewise in the first place.

In my last post, I also hinted at my opinion of Zero's arguing style that goes along the lines of what Fred said:

It is clear that you would rather resort to gradeschool sophistry than address the evidence that debunks the RATE project.


Zero, there's more to this debate than the ability to heave pages out of a thesaurus at your opponent. I've been fair in not following you through the door whenever you open it with comments about, as irrelevant they are to the RATE project, my ability to 'adhere to guidelines', and I really hope it will stop with this thread. This is a formal request for you to, at the very least, address the topic when you feel the need to attack somebody.

I'm more than willing to go back to the discussion this thread was first intended for, but if anyone feels the need to counter my comments that have been made strictly over one's character, you're certainly welcome to do so.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/10/2006 at 3:24 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:59 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
mirage

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwick: See modified post above.  I apologized for any personal implications of the words used in my post.

I will say this, however:  That if I or any other creationist had posted what Fred posted (just substitute the words and postition accordingly), we would have been shredded apart, at best, for our misleading ignorance.


(Edited by mirage 4/10/2006 at 3:31 PM).


-------
Jesus answered: and all that are of the truth hear my voice.
Pilate said unto him: what thing is truth?
-John 18
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 3:15 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I also just edited my last post... right before you said you edited yours. I feel its best to drop the ad hominems, though I suppose Zero's still legitimate in defending my post if he wishes.

It might be more prudent than anything to just start this thread over in its entirety.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 4/10/2006 at 3:29 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:27 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My post still stands.  Links to both of Dr. Humphreys's rebuttals, including a link to his latest one rebutting the article you posted by Henke, are clearly posted on the TrueOrigin front page.  And they both have been there since last week when you originally posted.



I didn't access it through the front page.  I accessed it through google.  Further, if you look at the trueorigins link that I posted  you will see that there are no links to any rebuttals. Finally I appologized for not being more thorough.  How very UN-CHRISTIAN of you to not show forgiveness!!!


My purpose was to refute the false impression you laid in this debate.  If you consider that "un-christian" and "judgmental" then that is your opinion.


By any reasonable CHRISTIAN standards you are being judgemental. If you believe that the teachings of Christ allow for your judgemental behavior then so be it.  

I called your posting deceptive because it's set-up was untrue.  You're putting words in my mouth by saying I called you a "liar."


Wow you spin better than the sleeziest of the inside-the-beltway lobbyists! This is what you posted, "What a dishonest post from Fred."

You judged me to be dishonest without knowing all the facts.  I don't need to put words in your mouth as you are doing quite well on your own.
 

Humphreys's second rebuttal answers the substance of Henke's problems with RATE's helium diffusion data:
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp


Huh?!!!  All Humphreys does is address only one of Henke's rebuttal points.  Humphreys completely ignores the rest of the 40 + pages that Hanke uses to destroy all of Humphrey's silly claims.   Moreover, it turns out that on the one rebuttal point that Humphreys tries to counter, he is dead wrong.

Humpreys is dead wrong...Again!!!

And as for Neyman, he attacks the helium diffusion data by linking to Henke's articles (both have rebuttals by Humphrey) and to TalkOrigins.  The main attack he personally offers against the results of RATE (which may involve the helium diffusion data) is that they do not have enough peer review.


You obviously did not read all of my links. While it is true that Neyman points out that Humphreys avoided peer review, it is also true that this is just one of a multitude of problems  that Neyman and other reasonable scientists have with Humphreys' work.

His criticism is, of course, problematic since the majority in the scientific community who are evolutionists may not want to be involved with carefully reviewing and replicating findings which may support young earth creationism.



Ah...The old conspiracy theory rant.  So in other words the good Baptists who run Baylor University, the Catholics who run Notre Dame U and the Methodists who run SMU are all part of some cabal dedicated to holding young earth creationism down.  Why else would the religious leaders who run these fine universities only allow evolution to be taught as an explanation for species diversification in the science departments of their schools?  

Bottom line...There is no conspiracy to keep the YEC propoganda out of mainstream science.  YEC propoganda is barred from any serious scientific discussions because it is not scientific.


As for whether or not Neyman is personally honest, I made and make no judgments.  He does have an ax to grind when he declares that the preaching of YEC has driven "millions" away from "Christ."


From what I have read, Neyman's main problem with YECs has to do with the way they try to pass their propoganda off as science.  YEC is not science and those who try to pass it off as science are either ignorant, dishonest or both.  And just as liars turn people away from the Democratic or Republican parties, liars also turn people away from Christianity.

I made and make no judgment as to Neyman's personal character, only that he has a personal problem with YEC belief.


Uh so Jesus says that it's "ok" for you judge people without fully knowing what their motivations are?  I must have missed that part of scripture.   At any rate, by claiming that Neyman has an "axe to grind" you are claiming that his criticisms of YECs are unreasonable. For you to make such a claim without a modicum of supporting evidence makes you  appear petty and judgemental.  

You, on the other hand, make sweeping unfounded judgments about the personal characters of others using words such as: "lazy, "dishonest," "judgemental," "self-righteous," "unchristian," all in a personal context.


I upported every negative point I have made about you with evidence found in your posts.

Do you think that by lying about science and quoting scripture you are going to be saved?  Do you think such actions will bring more people to Christ?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 4:07 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
mirage

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred:
Aside from believing the tenor of your last post is way out of line, the link you provided (www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm) does not adequately explain why Humphreys's rebuttal is wrong.  The analogy of "blood boiling in space" is hardly the fair scientific evaluation needed to address the effects of pressure on helium diffusion in zircon crystals.  Or was your point found within one of the other 28 links and snippets on that page you linked to?  Humphreys fully addresses the effects of pressure on diffusion in zircon crystals in his rebuttal.  


-------
Jesus answered: and all that are of the truth hear my voice.
Pilate said unto him: what thing is truth?
-John 18
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 10:23 PM on April 10, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fred: Aside from believing the tenor of your last post is way out of line,

Tenor out of line?!! This coming from someone who accused me of being dishonest in their first post without possibly knowing the reasons why I posted what I posted. You couldn't find such over-the-top irony in a WB teen-drama.

If you don't like my "tenor" then change yours.

the link you provided (www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm) does not adequately explain why Humphreys's rebuttal is wrong.

Let me get this straight...You don't accept this rebuttal of Humphrey but you accept Humphrey's total handwave of the multitude of other issues brought up about his sloppy "scientific" research.  Wow!!!

The analogy of "blood boiling in space" is hardly the fair scientific evaluation needed to address the effects of pressure on helium diffusion in zircon crystals.

Ah but that's not all that was said.  Anybody who is open-minded about science and understands basic logic can see that Henke got the better of Humphreys.  Humphreys is a clown.  He may have a PHD, but all education in the world can't hide the fact that aside from clumsy rhetoric and bad science he has nothing.

Or was your point found within one of the other 28 links and snippets on that page you linked to?  Humphreys fully addresses the effects of pressure on diffusion in zircon crystals in his rebuttal.

Fully addresses?!!  Whatever...

The fact that he ignores everything else and continues to put out information that he knows is false speaks volumes about his credibility.  The fact that Humphrey's actions don't bother you speaks volumes about your credibility.

Like so many YECs you don't seem to be interested in learning or debating. You seem to be interested only in verifying what you already believe and getting the last word in.  I wonder how Jesus feels about your un-christian behavior.

Jesus answered: and all that are of the truth hear my voice.
Pilate said unto him: what thing is truth?
-John 18

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

-Matthew 7
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 07:36 AM on April 11, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.