"This is an overstatement. There are many knowledgable and accomplished scientists that are YE. After 150 years of building upon naturalistic viewpoints, there is a great deal to chew on for a YE, but things may change, especially in light of all the recent challenges. Neither position is perfect, but I believe honest scientific inquiry will resolve these issues if the Lord tarries. "
It was a reference to polling which consistently shows that the more informed one is on these subjects, the less likely one is to hold YE positions.
I agree with you that there will be an answer that most people accept at some point. I would be happy for either side to win, OE or YE, though you know which side I think is correct.
"Case in point, the ICR RATE team research on helium diffusion and carbon 14 in diamonds."
The problem is that you cannot date a diamond by C14. C14 is produced in the atmosphere which is then fixed into living systems while they are alive. After they die, the level starts to decline due to decay. You date them by measuring how much of the C14 has decayed. Since the carbon in diamonds IS NOT biological in origin, it should not even be expected to have C14 from organic sources that would allow for an accurate date.
Next, they make sure and tell you about those strong bonds in a diamond that will not allow contamination. What they do not tell you is that those strong bonds have no bearing on whether energetic particles from natural radioactive decay in the background can penetrate the diamond and convert some of the carbon to C14. A very low rate of such activity will give you a detecable level of C14 in your sample. This is one reason that there is a limit on how far back you can date things with C14. Eventually that signal gets lost in the noise.
Which leads to the third problem. More noise. There is a limit to the detectable C14 level because of the background radiation at the lab. Even a sample with truly no C14 would be expected to show some small amount in testing due to error caused by the background radiation during the testing.
The helium diffusion problems are more technical in nature. To summarize the problems would take a while so I leave you with a link. http://www.answersincreation.org/helium.htm If you want even more information, there is a link in that page's first paragraph to a very long analysis. The gist is that they assume a linear relationship that may not be valid and that their most important measurements to get their numbers to work out are also the most uncertain.
"The discovery of T-Rex soft tissue recently is going to be a hard one for OE folks."
Why exactly? This is not even new. (Well, the particular find is.) But flexible fossils have been found that were much, much older.
One hting to keep in mind is that fresh, unfossilized tissue was NOT found. The material has been preserved, it was mineralized. Only when the minerals were dissolved away was the flexible material found. There is no indication that this is anything other than a very well preserved fossil. A molecular paleontologist, Prof. Matthew Collins, explained it to the BBC as such.
"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level. My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure."
In the same issue of Science that reported the findings, it was said "Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived." [Written by Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).] That bolsters my assertion about such well preserved tissues being old news.
"The debate did not go well for them, and 300 students were there to see. All subsequent invitations for discussions with students off line were turned down by the evo profs. I can arrange a debate with Dr. Jackson for any of you that are interested. He travels the U.S. speaking and debating, so I don’t thing you have to be concerned with his “unwillingness.” Let me know."
Oral debates do not usually go so well for the scientists. As an example, look up. It only takes you one or two sentences to say that soft dinosaur tissue was found which could not be old. It takes me paragraphs to explain why that is not so. In an oral debate, succinctness counts. It is hard to give a short but convincing explanation of these technical issues. It is the same for most subjects.
But get that same group of people from your debate together for a formal, written debate with a tightly defined topic and things would be different. Even more simple, get the group back together for a debate in front of the geology and biology graduate students from the university. In either case, things would be different.
It was a reference to polling which consistently shows that the more informed one is on these subjects, the less likely one is to hold YE positions.
I agree with you that there will be an answer that most people accept at some point. I would be happy for either side to win, OE or YE, though you know which side I think is correct.
"Case in point, the ICR RATE team research on helium diffusion and carbon 14 in diamonds."
The problem is that you cannot date a diamond by C14. C14 is produced in the atmosphere which is then fixed into living systems while they are alive. After they die, the level starts to decline due to decay. You date them by measuring how much of the C14 has decayed. Since the carbon in diamonds IS NOT biological in origin, it should not even be expected to have C14 from organic sources that would allow for an accurate date.
Next, they make sure and tell you about those strong bonds in a diamond that will not allow contamination. What they do not tell you is that those strong bonds have no bearing on whether energetic particles from natural radioactive decay in the background can penetrate the diamond and convert some of the carbon to C14. A very low rate of such activity will give you a detecable level of C14 in your sample. This is one reason that there is a limit on how far back you can date things with C14. Eventually that signal gets lost in the noise.
Which leads to the third problem. More noise. There is a limit to the detectable C14 level because of the background radiation at the lab. Even a sample with truly no C14 would be expected to show some small amount in testing due to error caused by the background radiation during the testing.
The helium diffusion problems are more technical in nature. To summarize the problems would take a while so I leave you with a link. http://www.answersincreation.org/helium.htm If you want even more information, there is a link in that page's first paragraph to a very long analysis. The gist is that they assume a linear relationship that may not be valid and that their most important measurements to get their numbers to work out are also the most uncertain.
"The discovery of T-Rex soft tissue recently is going to be a hard one for OE folks."
Why exactly? This is not even new. (Well, the particular find is.) But flexible fossils have been found that were much, much older.
One hting to keep in mind is that fresh, unfossilized tissue was NOT found. The material has been preserved, it was mineralized. Only when the minerals were dissolved away was the flexible material found. There is no indication that this is anything other than a very well preserved fossil. A molecular paleontologist, Prof. Matthew Collins, explained it to the BBC as such.
"This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level. My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure."
In the same issue of Science that reported the findings, it was said "Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived." [Written by Eric Stokstad, "Tyrannosaurus rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects" (Science, vol. 307:1852).] That bolsters my assertion about such well preserved tissues being old news.
"The debate did not go well for them, and 300 students were there to see. All subsequent invitations for discussions with students off line were turned down by the evo profs. I can arrange a debate with Dr. Jackson for any of you that are interested. He travels the U.S. speaking and debating, so I don’t thing you have to be concerned with his “unwillingness.” Let me know."
Oral debates do not usually go so well for the scientists. As an example, look up. It only takes you one or two sentences to say that soft dinosaur tissue was found which could not be old. It takes me paragraphs to explain why that is not so. In an oral debate, succinctness counts. It is hard to give a short but convincing explanation of these technical issues. It is the same for most subjects.
But get that same group of people from your debate together for a formal, written debate with a tightly defined topic and things would be different. Even more simple, get the group back together for a debate in front of the geology and biology graduate students from the university. In either case, things would be different.
