Talk:FABNAQ
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
 Post comment,or browse for more talk. |
It's hard to believe that some of these questions were asked seriously.
Example: (1.1) "... explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect." Oh really? How many creationists do they think believe the Bible is incorrect?
Example: (1.2) "Why are many Christians evolutionists?" Duh! Why are many astrologers evolutionists? Why do ships go missing in the Bermuda triangle? Like there's only one answer?
Example: (1.3) "Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?" Duh again! Why are many murderers evolutionists? Why do some people like the color yellow? Why do many old ladies play Bingo?
And so on. I agree that answers should not be long, but I'm not sure it would matter if there was no answer given. The questions wouldn't rate a pass in a high-school logic class.
--Klang 02:29, 25 November 2006 (EST)
I agree, we should probably just leave the silly questions.
--RichardT 11:37, 3 December 2006 (EST)
Is anyone aware of the response available here,? Just thought i'd let people know.
--Gil 15:04, 1 December 2006 (EST)
I have a proposal for Question 4, on the alleged coherence of secular dating. Anyone care to comment or to correct my impression? Or should I just post it?Answer: This is a loaded question. Creationists have never conceded any such coherence among secular dating methods.
Indeed, Andrew Snelling of the RATE Group describes a finding in the Grand Canyon region of the United States that bears directly on this question. Twenty-seven rock samples from the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon turned out to have wildly different apparent ages, when tested according to different radiometric models, and often when tested according to the same model. The differences in ages vastly exceeded their published tolerances. Neither is this the first such instance. The literature is full of other findings of wildly discordant dates for the same formation--including one instance in which none of the reported ages bears the slightest resemblance to reality.
More to the point: postively the youngest apparent rock in the records of the United States Geological Survey has an apparent age of 700,000 years. This finding alone suggests that radiometric dating would be unavailing to date the eruption of, say, Mount Vesuvius, did not ample historical records of that eruption and its aftermath already exist to date it positively.
For another detailed discussion of the weaknesses of radiometric dating, see this essay by Douglas Sharp at Revolution Against Evolution.While I'm on the subject: Many have asked me--and I'm not sure that's on the FABNAQ--why I, as a YEC, do not or cannot cite "neutral" sources. My reply: That also is a loaded question. Science is not value-free, and never has been. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier used no "neutral sources" when he dealt the coup-de-grâce to the phlogiston theory of combustion, to name one example. And I suggest that we are very close to having our own "Lavoisier Moment." Maybe the RATE Group have already given that to us.--Temlakos 14:37, 21 December 2006 (EST)
OK, I went ahead and posted my answer--after expanding on it and moving most of it to a separate, linked article. Check it out, please, and talk to me if I am in error--because I want to get this right! This finding excites me more than any other single thing in creation science, and as such is the thing that drives my passion--so if I have misunderstood any of it, I want to know right away!--Temlakos 22:24, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Incomplete answers
Re: 'Observations', the question explicitly asks for observations supporting creation, not observations undermining evolution; the answer given is mostly the latter. Re: 'The water for the flood', only half the quastion has been answered - nothing is said about where the water went to. Roy 14:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Are they better now? Philip J. Rayment 23:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Flood bit is, observations section isn't - it's still mostly arguments against evolution. (Which don't work, btw - for example, the total number of bacteria in the wrold is many orders of magnitude more than 10^21 (see here), allowing that supposedly rare triple mutation to happen thousands of times a second) Roy 08:48, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Like it says on the very top of the page, "This page still needs substantial work in formatting, organizing, and answering the questions. Help is appreciated." If you feel some answers are incomplete or whatever, edit it! :) --Tony Sommer 17:46, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
- I'm sure he would if he could. Non-creationists are permitted to join for the purpose of reviewing articles, but are prohibited from editing content pages. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Had no idea he wasn't able to edit... Also Roy, if you search this site, you will find answers to most questions more in-depth. --Tony Sommer 03:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
