by Shining One 107 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy in which the origin of a belief, claim, or theory is confused with its justification. This fallacy is more often used to discredit a belief, though it may also be used to support one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
hmmm... sounds a lot like xianity actually rex. perhaps you should take the rafter from your own eye, so that you won't have to use your blind cane to poke at the theory of evolution with.
Tetrabug,
Evolution needs no 'poking', it has enough holes in it naturally.
Rex
I have gone around on the merry go round with you enough, Abaddon, I have posted, cut and pasted 'ad nauseum' and it is never enough for you to digest. The simple fact is that you are not honestly seeking any answers and have quite closed your mind to any thoughts that would enlighten you to the Christian faith. I don't feel any need to convince you anymore.
Rex
and have quite closed your mind to any thoughts that would enlighten you to the Christian faith.
Just as you have closed your mind to any thoughts that would enlighten you to BIOLOGICAL fact and reality. Why bother arguing with ex-JWs Rex? We were once brain-washed like you and we know ALL your tricks! Everything you have ever said on this topic is a page right out of the Jehovahs Witness Creation book, the same evangelical, fundamentalist CRAP we have rejected since leaving the watchtower. I am always amazed how you claim to be anti-watchtower and yet continue to promote the jehovahs witness anti-evolution agenda. The watchtower society should really be paying you commission for the free advertising!!
Hi KidA,
>Just as you have closed your mind to any thoughts that would enlighten you to BIOLOGICAL fact and reality.
Closed mind? No, not really. If anyone looks at the actual evidence that REALLY exists, it is not difficult to see these things:
1) Much of it can be used to support either argument but not conclusively. It all boils down to your presuppositions.
2) Evolution is shrilly defended as their 'gospel truth' by the very ones who would continue to restrict the examination of other theories.
>Why bother arguing with ex-JWs Rex? We were once brain-washed like you and we know ALL your tricks!
You are still following the pattern. You have just changed your reference point. There is no trick to it at all.
> Everything you have ever said on this topic is a page right out of the Jehovahs Witness Creation book
That is an absolutely idiotic statement. The scientists who support (openly) I.D. are finally coming to the forefront and stepping out with their conclusions. You simply don't like it.
>the same evangelical, fundamentalist CRAP we have rejected since leaving the watchtower.
No, it is not the same at all. As with the rest of the shrill defenders of your naturalist philosophy, you seek to undermine any valid arguments that refute your own belief system. You are still a JW at heart, Kid-A!
>I am always amazed how you claim to be anti-watchtower and yet continue to promote the jehovahs witness anti-evolution agenda. The watchtower society should really be paying you commission for the free advertising!!
And the same applies to you. You continue the efforts of those behind the Watchtower by promoting the slander of Christians who take their faith seriously.
Rex
Examining a few of Abaddon's points:
Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
- They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".
AiG (Batten) didn't "completely forget" such a thing -in fact he wrote in his referenced source (note underlined word):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp "Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12 C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO 2 , which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14 C is also proportionately lowered at this time, . . ."
Battens point was not that the flood itself would immediately change the "14C/12C ratio" as Abaddon mistakinly implied- but instead that the burial of the large amount of carbon (which would have been composed of more C12 at the time) would have facilitated a later relatively rapid increase in the amount of 14C relative to total 12C in the biosphere (though of course most of carbon would still be 12C).
As I pointed out earlier:
"Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG."
and:
"If a person takes the time to research the above points of Dr. Batten in light of his additionally referenced source: "The Answers Book, chapter 4" [Chapter 4 is online here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp and is also found as the first arcticle in the "Get Answers" arcticle index "Radimetric Dating" on the AiG Site] and then tries to understand them you will find that there is no "dishonesty"; "incompetence" etc. involved."
This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.
The paper gives both independent evidence for the the flood (the presence of 14C throught the geological record- indicating a recent age for all samples which additionally would also thus indicate a global catastrophe for their deposition), as well as an explanation for the ratios within the catastrophic paradigm. The paper was written by 4 qualified scientists (including a Los Alamaos National Laboratory scientist) and was I believe also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.
And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.
The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data. Also a recent CRSQ arcticle discusses this (summarized below by Fred Williams):
"Finally, Russell Rotta's September CRSW article "Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radio Carbon in Coal?", refutes the sister decay hypothesis mentioned by OC1.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstr...stracts41-2.htm
Rotta showed in a long, detailed analysis that “The concentrations observed in coal are at least a factor of 100,000 more than what could be generated by neutron activation within the coal, and this is the best case. There is just not enough C-14 generated by the low-probability radium decays, spontaneous fission or neutron activation of the coal. The anomalous concentrations of C-14 in coal cannot be explained by any of these generating processes.”
BTW, Rotta also cited evolutionists who admit that contamination is a toothless excuse, since the examples of in situ carbon-14 are so abundant."
Therefore your claims on this (especially "sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive") are fallacious. Futhermore, your claim that I "obviously don't know" about this is also false as I already was aware of both the statements by the Los Alamos scientist (I have his on DVD) as well as the above referenced information from Williams even before any discussions on this thread.
Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?
I did specify the talkorigins errors (there are others as well). The first link is to document your use of the arcticle and the last two are my responses (see especially the third).
