Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_Fence Sitter]

Of Nipper it can truly be said that he has created a "cult of Christianity".

It really does grow tiresome to keep providing evidence to those whose fragile egos can't entertain it. Creationism is one of our most pretentious and persistent frauds.

When you think about it though, where else do we commonly hear the refrain;

"You can't 100% show how it was done so it must be true".

I attended a fireside a few years back given by Dr. Peterson in which that was pretty much his whole message, bring up things he thought were difficult to explain about how Mormonism came about and urge the audience to accept Mormonism as true since these straw-men had not been explained.

Science does not operate that way, if it did we would still be in the stone age.

Hey LN, if you cannot fully explain how that computer you are using works, you're not allowed to use it.

[_Maksutov]

When you think about it though, where else do we commonly hear the refrain;

"You can't 100% show how it was done so it must be true".

I attended a fireside a few years back given by Dr. Peterson in which that was pretty much his whole message, bring up things he thought were difficult to explain about how Mormonism came about and urge the audience to accept Mormonism as true since these straw-men had not been explained.

Science does not operate that way, if it did we would still be in the stone age.

Hey LN, if you cannot fully explain how that computer you are using works, you're not allowed to use it.

It serves emotional needs and reinforces identity, which are human attributes not controlled much by reason.

[_The CCC]

The newest book of the Bible is the book of Revelations and dates to about 95 AD. The earth was created by God, about 7000 years ago. You must prove that there is no God in order to exclude God as data. The only way a scientist may exclude God is if he can create biological life from stone, water and electricity himself. Since a thinking being cannot concoct biological life from inert objects, it is totally ridiculous for a scientist to imagine life originated spontaneously on its own or nature originated life. The only other possibility is that an all powerful God is the author of life. And as the author of life, what is or isn't possible is entirely in God's hands and not up to your imagination or incomplete scientific data.

The Book of revelation is not the newest book in the Bible.

No where in the Bible does it give the age of the earth. That "age" was given by Archbishop Ussher who was born after the KJV was written.

Abiogenesis proven in the lab.
SEE https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Actually given the conditions on early earth it is surprising it don't happen sooner.

[_LittleNipper]

The newest book of the Bible is the book of Revelations and dates to about 95 AD. The earth was created by God, about 7000 years ago. You must prove that there is no God in order to exclude God as data. The only way a scientist may exclude God is if he can create biological life from stone, water and electricity himself. Since a thinking being cannot concoct biological life from inert objects, it is totally ridiculous for a scientist to imagine life originated spontaneously on its own or nature originated life. The only other possibility is that an all powerful God is the author of life. And as the author of life, what is or isn't possible is entirely in God's hands and not up to your imagination or incomplete scientific data.

The Book of revelation is not the newest book in the Bible.

No where in the Bible does it give the age of the earth. That "age" was given by Archbishop Ussher who was born after the KJV was written.

Abiogenesis proven in the lab.
SEE https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Actually given the conditions on early earth it is surprising it don't happen sooner.

Revelation is the last written book of the Bible. Regarding your post, please read this:

Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution?; and: Does CMI tell “flat out” lies?
Published: 31 October 2009 (GMT+10)

3D structure of myoglobin
3D structure of myoglobin, a protein used to store oxygen in muscles. This protein was the first to have its structure solved by X-ray crystallography. From Wikipedia, after Phillips, S.E., Structure and refinement of oxymyoglobin at 1.6 Â resolution, J. Mol. Bio. 142(4):531–54, 5 October 1980.
Correspondent Davis G. wrote:

Hello,

I’m sure I am one of many writing in to get your opinion on the scientific experiment reported in the media earlier this year in which RNA seems to self-replicate as well as evolve to favor certain “species”.

Could you please give us the creationist perspective on this? Thanks much, and God bless your ministry.

Best Regards
Davis G.

CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, responds:

Dear Mr G./ Dear Davis

It’s likely that the media reports you mention were referring to the paper in Science journal by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce.1 Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match what was actually discovered. To be fair, Joyce, a well known chemical evolutionist, made it clear that he and his Ph.D. student Lincoln had not produced life, despite the headlines.2 Much earlier, Joyce admitted:

“The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA … . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”3
Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match what was actually discovered
Joyce and Lincoln started off with a fairly long RNA molecule. Given that nothing like RNA appears in Miller–Urey experiments, this already shows unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator. In fact, not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, the only sort allowed on the hypothetical primordial earth, as chemical evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith points out in his book Genetic Takeover4 (see extract at Cairns Smith: Detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis). And it’s a huge step from RNA to the genetic code, its major use today.

Not even the building blocks, nucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA
Furthermore, this paper didn’t demonstrate replication but ligation—joining two small RNA pieces. So this research already assumed not just one but three RNA strands. For this to be relevant to chemical evolution, the two pieces just by chance had to have pretty close to the complementary base pairs of the first piece—natural selection could not be invoked before reproduction.

Furthermore, since polymerization is unfavorable, the RNA pieces must be chemically activated in some way. Note that a catalyst merely accelerates the approach to equilibrium; it doesn’t change it (see diagram and explanation in Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?). The paper states that one of the two joining RNA strands has a triphosphate group on the end. This is very reactive, so would be an unlikely component of a primordial soup, and would not last long even if it appeared. So a supply of matching activated RNA pieces likewise shows unacceptable investigator interference.

See also Does ribozyme research prove Darwinian evolution? for a critique of an earlier Joyce paper on alleged ribozyme evolution, as well as Self-replicating peptides? which has many similarities to the recent Joyce claim.

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati

CMI-Australia

Statements that are equally as valid.

You must prove that there is no Santa in order to exclude Santa as data.
You must prove that there are no Leprechauns in order to exclude Leprechauns as data.
You must prove that there are no aliens in order to exclude aliens as data.
You must prove that there are no pink unicorns in order to exclude pink unicorns as data.
You must prove that Allah does not exist in order to exclude Allah as data.

You must prove that the Buddha does not exist in order to exclude Buddha as data.

You must prove that multiple Gods do not exist in order to exclude other Gods from your data set.


LN you have a lot of work to do here in order to exclude all of these things from your worldview. If you cannot prove they do not exist you have to take them into consideration, correct?

/boggle

Ah, but this is why we so often see paranormal bundles of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, created and promoted for not-at-all-pseudobucks. Because pseudothinkers like their pseudothoughts that make them feel pseudospecial.

Create life from stone, water, and an electric spark and you've proven that God is not a needed component of our existence. You have not proven that life is even possible without GOD. So to reject GOD, you have only some other belief and not a scientific fact.

[_Fence Sitter]

Create life from stone, water, and an electric spark and you've proven that God is not a needed component of our existence. You have not proven that life is even possible without GOD. So to reject GOD, you have only some other belief and not a scientific fact.

You have not proven that life is possible with out multiple gods, so you have only some belief.

Though I do have to admit you have proven how poor your reasoning skills are.

[_Maksutov]

Ah, but this is why we so often see paranormal bundles of pseudoscience, pseudohistory, created and promoted for not-at-all-pseudobucks. Because pseudothinkers like their pseudothoughts that make them feel pseudospecial.

Create life from stone, water, and an electric spark and you've proven that God is not a needed component of our existence. You have not proven that life is even possible without GOD. So to reject GOD, you have only some other belief and not a scientific fact.

Poor Nipper. Thinks capitalization is an argument. Thinks a creationist is a scientist. Thinks he can fabricate and lie in the name of GOD and it's okay. It isn't, Nipper. We can see it and we know what you are doing. Supposedly your GOD said that lying was wrong, but here you are doing it. Again, you worship your Bible and Jack Chick but not Christ or God because it's not about truth, it's about your petulance.

I don't reject "God", Nipper. I'm an agnostic. Since you don't bother learning what that is--or bother learning, period--I'll spell it out for you. It means I don't reject God, I don't accept God, I don't find that there is conclusive evidence for God. Hell, I can't even find someone who can define God. Your herders and fishermen can do nothing but mumble and you can do nothing but refer me to their mumblings as if they were somehow convincing or pertinent. They aren't. Because I have read more than one book in my life, Nipper, and I have actually understood them, and I understand that knowledge and education is the way forward. A lesson that you not only have not learnt, but you reject in its very essence. We are a species that has created a million Gods. It is one of the things we do. It's all over the planet. And all of them are relevant to our understanding why this belief exists.

I do reject your proferred God, Nipper, because your God, as I've described before, is a monstrous little midget without evidence and redeeming characteristics. Why you find monstrous midgethood inspiring is matter between you and your therapist. It's also a matter between you and your fellow Christians, because you frankly embarrass them. You have all the intellectual heft and argumentative skills of your typical West Virginia snake handler. Now this might make you a big man down at the Ark Park, but in the First World it makes you a sad case of miseducation and maladaptation. You can do better, Nipper, and it isn't too late

Interesting that you haven't answered Fence Sitter:

You must prove that there is no Santa in order to exclude Santa as data.
You must prove that there are no Leprechauns in order to exclude Leprechauns as data.
You must prove that there are no aliens in order to exclude aliens as data.
You must prove that there are no pink unicorns in order to exclude pink unicorns as data.
You must prove that Allah does not exist in order to exclude Allah as data.

You must prove that the Buddha does not exist in order to exclude Buddha as data.

You must prove that multiple Gods do not exist in order to exclude other Gods from your data set.

Nipper, you fail all of these tests that you would give others. Your hypocrisy, and your refutation, is complete.

And I know that this will not convince you, because at bottom it's about your ego and you lack the curiosity and courage to free yourself from fanaticism. If I am wrong I will be pleasantly surprised.

[_The CCC]

Revelation is the last written book of the Bible. Regarding your post, please read this:

Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution?; and: Does CMI tell “flat out” lies?
Published: 31 October 2009 (GMT+10)

3D structure of myoglobin
3D structure of myoglobin, a protein used to store oxygen in muscles. This protein was the first to have its structure solved by X-ray crystallography. From Wikipedia, after Phillips, S.E., Structure and refinement of oxymyoglobin at 1.6 Â resolution, J. Mol. Bio. 142(4):531–54, 5 October 1980.
Correspondent Davis G. wrote:

Hello,

I’m sure I am one of many writing in to get your opinion on the scientific experiment reported in the media earlier this year in which RNA seems to self-replicate as well as evolve to favor certain “species”.

Could you please give us the creationist perspective on this? Thanks much, and God bless your ministry.

Best Regards
Davis G.

CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, responds:

Dear Mr G./ Dear Davis

It’s likely that the media reports you mention were referring to the paper in Science journal by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce.1 Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match what was actually discovered. To be fair, Joyce, a well known chemical evolutionist, made it clear that he and his Ph.D. student Lincoln had not produced life, despite the headlines.2 Much earlier, Joyce admitted:

“The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA … . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”3
Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match what was actually discovered
Joyce and Lincoln started off with a fairly long RNA molecule. Given that nothing like RNA appears in Miller–Urey experiments, this already shows unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator. In fact, not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, the only sort allowed on the hypothetical primordial earth, as chemical evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith points out in his book Genetic Takeover4 (see extract at Cairns Smith: Detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis). And it’s a huge step from RNA to the genetic code, its major use today.

Not even the building blocks, nucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA
Furthermore, this paper didn’t demonstrate replication but ligation—joining two small RNA pieces. So this research already assumed not just one but three RNA strands. For this to be relevant to chemical evolution, the two pieces just by chance had to have pretty close to the complementary base pairs of the first piece—natural selection could not be invoked before reproduction.

Furthermore, since polymerization is unfavorable, the RNA pieces must be chemically activated in some way. Note that a catalyst merely accelerates the approach to equilibrium; it doesn’t change it (see diagram and explanation in Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?). The paper states that one of the two joining RNA strands has a triphosphate group on the end. This is very reactive, so would be an unlikely component of a primordial soup, and would not last long even if it appeared. So a supply of matching activated RNA pieces likewise shows unacceptable investigator interference.

See also Does ribozyme research prove Darwinian evolution? for a critique of an earlier Joyce paper on alleged ribozyme evolution, as well as Self-replicating peptides? which has many similarities to the recent Joyce claim.

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati

CMI-Australia

The Book of Revelation is the last book in the Bible because those good Catholic Fathers didn't know where else to put it.

CMI

[_spotlight]

Jonathan Sarfati

Comments on fora where Sarfati has editorial control reveal repeated instances of Sarfati removing comments from those who rebut him and him then crowing over his "speechless" opponents.

One of Sarfati's staunchest allies is Gary Bates, author of Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.[6] Bates is a fervent supporter of the Christian UFO movement[7] along with Hugh Ross. As with all things creationist, the true account of UFO-related phenomena is found in the Bible (demons and angels), but this true account is covered up by the liberal, atheistic government conspiracy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

[_The CCC]

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

[_Maksutov]

Jonathan Sarfati

Comments on fora where Sarfati has editorial control reveal repeated instances of Sarfati removing comments from those who rebut him and him then crowing over his "speechless" opponents.

One of Sarfati's staunchest allies is Gary Bates, author of Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.[6] Bates is a fervent supporter of the Christian UFO movement[7] along with Hugh Ross. As with all things creationist, the true account of UFO-related phenomena is found in the Bible (demons and angels), but this true account is covered up by the liberal, atheistic government conspiracy.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati

Wasn't Sarfati one of the authorities quoted in What the Bleep Do We Know?

The UFO contactees often made Christian references, although from a more occult perspective, such as that of Theosophy and Christian spiritualism. The aliens are basically technological angels or spirits. The unfolding narratives, the "logic" invoked, the cultic subcultures, show continuity.