Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[The Barbarian]

Marke: The 10 year old Mt. St. Helens rock:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... e%2C%20etc.

Radio-Dating in Rubble
The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods
by Keith Swenson on June 1, 2001
Also available in Español

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.
[/b]

That's a classic example. You see, Austin collected dacite that was filled with rock inclusions from material that apparently had not melted, and was therefore very ancient and would therefore have given ages of thousands to millions of years for the sample. There's more; from a creation website:

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.

ZONED GRAINS (PHENOCRYSTS) AND POSSIBLE XENOCRYSTS

Figure 4 in Austin's essay shows a thin section photograph of a portion of the 1986 dacite. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct. Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts (microphenocrysts) are crystals that grow in a melt (magma) deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops (Hyndman, 1985, p. 32). Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large (that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more). In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts (Hyndman, 1985, p. 57).

Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools. For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts (for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250).

https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

The entire article is worth reading. It includes other factors that made the analysis misleading.

[marke]

Marke: The 10 year old Mt. St. Helens rock:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... e%2C%20etc.

Radio-Dating in Rubble
The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods
by Keith Swenson on June 1, 2001
Also available in Español

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.
[/b]

That's a classic example. You see, Austin collected dacite that was filled with rock inclusions from material that apparently had not melted, and was therefore very ancient and would therefore have given ages of thousands to millions of years for the sample. There's more; from a creation website:

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.

ZONED GRAINS (PHENOCRYSTS) AND POSSIBLE XENOCRYSTS

Figure 4 in Austin's essay shows a thin section photograph of a portion of the 1986 dacite. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct. Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts (microphenocrysts) are crystals that grow in a melt (magma) deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops (Hyndman, 1985, p. 32). Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large (that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more). In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts (Hyndman, 1985, p. 57).

Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools. For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts (for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250).

https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

The entire article is worth reading. It includes other factors that made the analysis misleading.

Marke: If evoloutionists do not like a test result for age they simply claim the result was skewed by contamination. What a catch-all copout. In actuality no test result can be accepted as accurate since test results must first be found acceptible by closed-minded evolutionists who simply reject all results they do not like. Furthermore, multiple tests of the same rock using the same dating method and same lab conditions are still likely to yield a wide variation of date results. Radiometric dating has far more problems than most evolutionists are willing to admit.

Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.
People also ask

[The Barbarian]

Marke: The 10 year old Mt. St. Helens rock:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... e%2C%20etc.

Radio-Dating in Rubble
The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods
by Keith Swenson on June 1, 2001
Also available in Español

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.
[/b]

That's a classic example. You see, Austin collected dacite that was filled with rock inclusions from material that apparently had not melted, and was therefore very ancient and would therefore have given ages of thousands to millions of years for the sample. There's more; from a creation website:

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.

ZONED GRAINS (PHENOCRYSTS) AND POSSIBLE XENOCRYSTS

Figure 4 in Austin's essay shows a thin section photograph of a portion of the 1986 dacite. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct. Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts (microphenocrysts) are crystals that grow in a melt (magma) deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops (Hyndman, 1985, p. 32). Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large (that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more). In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts (Hyndman, 1985, p. 57).

Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools. For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts (for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250).

https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

The entire article is worth reading. It includes other factors that made the analysis misleading.

Marke: If evoloutionists do not like a test result for age they simply claim the result was skewed by contamination. What a catch-all copout. In actuality no test result can be accepted as accurate since test results must first be found acceptible by closed-minded evolutionists who simply reject all results they do not like. Furthermore, multiple tests of the same rock using the same dating method and same lab conditions are still likely to yield a wide variation of date results. Radiometric dating has far more problems than most evolutionists are willing to admit.

Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.
People also ask

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

[marke]

Marke: The 10 year old Mt. St. Helens rock:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... e%2C%20etc.

Radio-Dating in Rubble
The Lava Dome at Mount St Helens Debunks Dating Methods
by Keith Swenson on June 1, 2001
Also available in Español

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.
[/b]

That's a classic example. You see, Austin collected dacite that was filled with rock inclusions from material that apparently had not melted, and was therefore very ancient and would therefore have given ages of thousands to millions of years for the sample. There's more; from a creation website:

Austin clearly ignores the possibility of contamination in the mass spectrometer (hypothesis #2) and the possibility that the phenocrysts in his samples may be much older than the 1986 AD eruption (hypothesis #3). Austin simply assumes that the first explanation is correct and then he proceeds to use the 'presence' of 'excess argon' in his samples to question the reliability of all K-Ar dates on other rocks and minerals. This is the logical fallacy of composition (Copi and Cohen, 1994). The validity of either hypothesis #2 or #3 would provide additional evidence that Austin's application of the K-Ar method is flawed and that he has failed to prove that the K-Ar method is universally invalid.

ZONED GRAINS (PHENOCRYSTS) AND POSSIBLE XENOCRYSTS

Figure 4 in Austin's essay shows a thin section photograph of a portion of the 1986 dacite. In the caption of Figure 4, Austin identifies the grains in the photograph as phenocrysts and microphenocrysts, which is probably generally correct. Phenocrysts and microscopic phenocrysts (microphenocrysts) are crystals that grow in a melt (magma) deep within the Earth. In some cases, the entire melt solidifies before reaching the Earth's surface and an intrusive igneous rock develops (Hyndman, 1985, p. 32). Because intrusive rocks solidify deep within the Earth away from cool water and air, volcanic glass is absent and the grains may be fairly large (that is, easily reaching lengths of one centimeter or more). In other cases, such as Austin's dacite, a partially crystallized melt erupts on the Earth's surface and produces a volcanic rock, which may be a mixture of rapidly quenched volcanic glass and coarser phenocrysts (Hyndman, 1985, p. 57).

Although Austin and Swenson will not admit it, some of the grains in Figure 4 may be xenocrysts rather than phenocrysts. In some cases, the magma may not be hot enough to melt or entirely dissolve the xenocrysts and they may survive after the melt cools. For even the best mineralogists and petrologists, xenocrysts may be difficult to distinguish from phenocrysts (for example, Hyndman, 1985, p. 250).

https://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

The entire article is worth reading. It includes other factors that made the analysis misleading.

Marke: If evoloutionists do not like a test result for age they simply claim the result was skewed by contamination. What a catch-all copout. In actuality no test result can be accepted as accurate since test results must first be found acceptible by closed-minded evolutionists who simply reject all results they do not like. Furthermore, multiple tests of the same rock using the same dating method and same lab conditions are still likely to yield a wide variation of date results. Radiometric dating has far more problems than most evolutionists are willing to admit.

Can radiometric dating yield different results when used on ...

Quora
https://www.quora.com › Can-radiometric-dating-yield-...
Yes. Radiometric data is notorious for high variability between different dating methods as well as between repeated tests.
People also ask

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

[The Barbarian]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

[marke]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.

[The Barbarian]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?
[/quote]

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.
[/quote]

Austin's rejection of God's creation isn't what makes him a liar. There are many honest creationists. Austin had so little confidence in his error, that he lied to make it more credible.

[marke]

Austin tried to pull a fast one, and he got caught. And he just walked away from the disaster afterwards. Because he submitted material younger than the method could analyze,
he knew in advance it would give misleading results. It's not the first time he got caught in an attempted deception...

It was Austin's intention to use the Mt St Helens eruption to convince us that catastrophes can cause rapid, large-scale changes on the earth's surface. Austin said that he had once been an evolutionist, but that his observations of the Mt St Helens eruption had converted him to catastrophism and creationism.
...
At the end of the presentation Austin was confronted by another member of our group, who asked, "Whatever happened to Stuart Nevins? Does he publish anymore?" Those of you familiar with ICR literature may recognize the name from tracts published in the late 70's. Austin admitted that he had published under that pen name. So much for his recent, Mt St Helens-induced conversion to creationism!
https://ncse.ngo/visit-institute-creation-research

Why would anyone be willing to trust this guy?

Marke: Austin's findings are just as valuable to the debates as are those of other researchers in spite of the unjustified biases of those who resent him and his findings.

He blatantly lied about being "an evolutionist." He got publicly called out on it. Why would anyone believe anything he says?

Marke: All men are liars, especially those who reject God and falsely promote errors in the name of science and truth.
[/quote]

Austin's rejection of God's creation isn't what makes him a liar. There are many honest creationists. Austin had so little confidence in his error, that he lied to make it more credible.
[/quote]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.

[Jose Fly]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.[/b]

This is the sort of thing that fascinates me about creationists. Earlier after I pointed to Dr. Francis Collins as an example of a Christian who accepts the reality of evolution, Marke said we can't trust Collins because of some nonsense about COVID.

But now Marke is saying Austin's dishonesty in one area doesn't mean he's wrong about something else.

I swear creationists just throw out whatever argument they think they need at any given time, with no regard to anything they've said previously. Just one ad hoc argument after another.

It's almost like they're not really thinking as much as they're just believing.

[marke]

Marke: For this discussion, calling Austin out for something unrelated to this issue does not prove he is wrong about the report in question.[/b]

This is the sort of thing that fascinates me about creationists. Earlier after I pointed to Dr. Francis Collins as an example of a Christian who accepts the reality of evolution, Marke said we can't trust Collins because of some nonsense about COVID.

But now Marke is saying Austin's dishonesty in one area doesn't mean he's wrong about something else.

I swear creationists just throw out whatever argument they think they need at any given time, with no regard to anything they've said previously. Just one ad hoc argument after another.

It's almost like they're not really thinking as much as they're just believing.

Marke: If Collins accepts evolution myths then it is not because he lied about Covid that he is wrong about evolution.