Evolution vs Y.E.C

[basics]

The one man missing from the list and yet said to be the world's foremost authority on radio halos, also discovered that zircon still contains helium something that shouldn't be there if zircon was as old as the evolutionists say and yet not one scientist has put his work to the test, rather debunking it because it doesn't fit the evolutionary pattern. On many occasions he has written to the scientific authorities and these letters are documented asking why they will not print his findings or responses to their denials, why? Because no one is allowed to prove evolution wrong thus making them look fools. He admits to once being an evolutionist but the scientist in him made him put it to the test and his findings over many years led him to realise that the Bible version of creation is more correct than the wild speculations about evolution. His name is Robt. V. Gentry and one can read his book or see him on Youtube.

[Genghis Skahn]

He admits to once being an evolutionist but the scientist in him made him put it to the test and his findings over many years led him to realise that the Bible version of creation is more correct than the wild speculations about evolution

Wow, that bolded part really speaks to his credibility. There is a stunning lack of empirical evidence in favor of Creationism over Evolution as a theory--I'm sorry, but anyone who is a dispassionate and evidenced based thinker just can't possibly believe that Bible Creationism is a more effective theory at explaining the origin of species than the theory of Evolution. There is very little convincing evidence for YEC as a theory--it couldn't be a more ridiculous claim when scrutinized and made subject to the empirical method. There is a very good reason why Creationism is not popular in academia... Dobzhansky, who was a member of the Eastern Orthodox church, thoroughly believed that nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution:

"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.[57]

Once again, for some reason, although you're fine with your children being taught math in school(since they would be disadvantaged without it), you're not ok with mathematics which run counter to your beliefs. So 2+2=4 is good, but proving that the Earth is MUCH older than 6000+ years old via measurement of radioactive decay(by the way, that's something they teach in high school Geology)? Bad, satanic, deceptive, a test put forward by God for the believers! I'll just never understand why people like you don't find radioactive dating evidence convincing--that piece of evidence alone blows your ridiculous Robt. V. Gentry's argument out of the water since it thoroughly disproves the "6000 year Earth" claim made by Creationists. Of course, since Creationists have no real counter argument whatsoever to radioactive dating, the solution is simple: just ignore it!

By the way basics, on another point--if God has such a love for humanity and "higher" life forms, would you mind explaining his special love for beetles?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...O_0/beetles_01

There are ~350,000-400,000(with more yet to be discovered) species of beetles currently known. So either God really freaking loves beetles, they were "intelligently designed" to be so successful, or they are highly evolutionarily successful due to the presence of successful adaptations which have ensured their survival and proliferation. Which is it? Because if you follow the Creationist line of thinking, God really really really loves beetles. By the way, I just did a quick ctrl+f of the King James Bible, and the only mention of the word "Beetle" is found in Levitcus 11. Sure is weird that God's favorite animal is mentioned just once in the Bible despite Him creating 350,000-400,000 different species of beetle(that's the highest known number of species for any macroscopic life form).

[conon394]

Robt. V. Gentry

Because his work simply does not stand scrutiny. Many of his samples are taken out of geological context or not correctly sourced so his argument of finding the Halos only in 'primordial rock' are unfounded. Beyond that he demands special pleading that only one type of radioactive decay is constant but the others are altered willy-nilly by biblical events. That is the fundamental problem if you can just use the bible to adjust radioactive decay were you need it. You have not really developed a sound scientific explanation - but simply I found an anomaly in a few samples but not all and even my best ones don't really sustain scrutiny - when I even bother show my hand to allow replication.

He has isolated possibly in some of his samples an interesting phenomenon, but his either careless or mendacious handling of his data and the addition of fairy dust to explain away contrary evidence is not impressive.

You might also basis take the time to look up a few modern science papers. You might notice they often have 2, 3, 5 or more authors. There is a reason for that. In this a man with a MA in Physics is decidedly not an expert on geology his lack of co author in that field is telling. I would also expect an expert on Genetics and Coalescent theory to explain how it supports a young earth - oh wait I sorry it does not.

Do yourself a favor basics be true in your belief, but don't look to pseudo science.

You might consider this. Very few scientists are avowed atheists. Very few less are like Richard Dawkins zealot like atheists who have achieved an almost religious belief. Many more may be Agnostic but that means you have an open mind. Most however I think you would find hold a religious belief of some kind. On the whole do really think any of them would not be quite happy to find proof of a god or their god or gods... In real science. The kind you get published and not a hack book, is hard, grueling, often not all that well paid. I really cannot think of any graduate student living on coffee and nicotine and little sleep who would not be delighted to know there was a reward in heaven for their work proved scientifically. But I am sorry to say that is not Gentry.

edit: Oh and he needs another expert to talk away 2.7 million years of ice core samples...