Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[UTEOTW]

Here is another link.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

They have charts. You can see from these charts 10000 years worth of C14 calibration data from tree rings. You can also see the effect of the Maunder Minimum. From the charts it is easy to see that the measured differences were in the few percent range. Measurable? Ues. Significant? Yes. A lot? No. Able to be handled through calibration? Yes.

You see, here you have a conundrum here. If you insist on pushing the problems of the Maunder minimum, then you have to accept that we CAN go back to items of known age and accurately measure how much C14 they started with. This means that the dating and the calibration are both possible and that they work well. If you want to insist that these things do not work then by definition the Maunder studies are flawed and you cannot use them as evidence against dating. It will be interesting to see how you work your way out of this one.

A few other things. Did YOU read the article yourself. You seemed pretty upset when you thought that I did not read it? Did you read the whole thing? You seem to trust its results enough to quote it. Does that mean you trust the results of the scientists who did the work as far as the age of the sun, also? I guess you are an old earther after all. Or do you just arbitrarily pick what you will accept and what you will reject without regard for the facts of the matter?

Also, I have demonstrated specific instances of real lying by YE leaders trying to prop up their beliefs. Since A_Christian is unable to defend their actions with the facts, maybe you would care to attempt to do so. I'll give you the links. But please hurry, I don't know how much longer I'll have power. It is already flashing.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740.html#000011

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000034

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000038

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/3.html#000039

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/6.html#000079

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/7.html#000094

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/7.html#000098

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/10.html#000140

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/10.html#000141

And I would greatly appreciate it if you would either substantiate your claims of lying on my part or withdraw the charge. Not simply a mistake, which I do not believe I have made either, but deliberate untruths.

 

[UTEOTW]

"1) You have no way of knowing how much C-14 was in the specimen when it died/fossilized.
2) You have no way of knowing how much may have been added or withheld due to sunspot activity."

Nope, it is calibrated by things of known age. The claibration curve does not differ that much from the uncalibrated curve.

"3) You are beginning with a flawed model"

Unsubstantiated assertion so your conclusions from it are suspect.

"Not so simple for the child of "science falsely so called"."

Another unsubstantiated assertion.

"BTW, that thing about lake bottom silt layers? Again, even my unscientifically trained mind can see it is flawed also. What do you do with a gully washer that may have washed a bunch of dirt in there in one day? Or what about the years of drought? Changes your model in a hurry dosen't it? "

Uh...No. Do you not thing that they have the ability to look for such events? Do you not think that such events would leave layers that look unlike the other layers that would be a strong clue that SOMETHING happened? Do you think that they are unable to account for these thigs? If so, I suggest that you support this assertion, too.

 

[UTEOTW]

I tried to edit my earlier post but the time has expired. Yes I understand that the C14 is also made by cosmic rays and that changes in the magnetic fields of the sun will change the C14 production in the atmosphere. (I am not sure which predominates.) But anyhow, I tracked down the actual changes in production and it was in the range of a few percent, so...

 

[A_Christian]

I really feel that it is the Creationists who have it just about right and it is the Uniformitiarians and the evolutionists who are S T R E T C H I N G the truth to make their dogmatic points.

You may yell all you want about the lying Creationists. That doesn't make it so, and I am not impressed. You are a LIBERAL and everything you say and the way you say it and about whom you choose to say it screams L I B E R A L. You have an agenda and it is to silence Creationists. You could care less if evolutionists are honest or not. Your focus is selective character assassination. I bet you have plenty to say about PRESIDENT George Bush and nothing to say against the Democrates as well... Always a onesided picture. They don't have the ability to guage the number or magnitudes of local floods. Our sophistication is very limited and depends alot on "educated guesswork", and depending on who does the educating the opinions way vary widely.

 

[UTEOTW]

You sure?

I voted for GW last time and I plan to again this time. Dole before that. I even find some of the things GW does to be too liberal for me. I also find some too conservative. You really think I am liberal? Accepting good science makes me liberal? Did you read my response to you about homosexuality? Did it sound like I favor their agenda?

I am not attempting character assasination. What I am attempting to do is to show the harm the YE brings to the cause of Christ. It is this harm that angers me against YE. It is the obvious lying and deceit of the leaders that angers me. They bring scorn upon all Christians through their actions and cause many people to turn from God or to never accept Christ to begin with.

You have asserted that OE beliefs bring about harm but you have yet to show any facts. I have shown many, many specific cases where people who call themselves Christians do unChristlike and sinful things to prop up their YE beliefs. You scream about a "onesided picture" but you have yet to come out with any kind of a factual defense of their actions. You hint about alternative interpretations and bad predjudices, but you have yet to present any facts.

It is because you cannot. The YEers do shoddy science at best and out right lie at worst. You are completely unable to defend their actions because they are defenseless. If this were not so, you would have already taken several of my examples and shown how they were actually good science. So instead you drag out the personal attacks. If you cannot refute the messenger I guess you think calling him a "liberal" is the next best thing. I'll bet you have not even read my nine links yet.

If you had a factual argument to make, you would have made it by now. I have asked for a defense of indefensible actions and you have fully passed. I have asked for you to present YE material to no avail. I have asked you to give specific examples of bad science and have been met with silence. You claim the facts are on your side but you seem to be unable to give any. You say that I accept bad science but you seem to be unable to give me examples of the bad science. You claim that you like the RATE group but you seem to be unable to defend their dishonest tactics. So you slander me. That is why these debates are unpopular. They too often turn into personal attacks when the facts do not go someone's way.

Do you have any facts to present or defense to make other than calling me a "liberal" as a not so subtle way to try and get others to not listen?

 

[Helen]

The YEers do shoddy science at best and out right lie at worst. You are completely unable to defend their actions because they are defenseless.

Gee, thanks. I'll tell Barry his work is shoddy and probably an outright lie. You know something, UTE? In your emails to him a year or so ago, you were polite and seemed almost rational! What's happened?

In the meantime, there are some pretty good scientists who have switched from the old to young earth positions BECAUSE of science. You will find a number of them in In Six Days which can be purchased here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0890513414/104-5690804-6944700?v=glance

Happy ranting.

 

[Helen]

Here, from your first link:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another good creationist "proof."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

Now the good Dr. Snelling claims that he found a piece of wood in a Triassic era sandstone and had it dated. The Triassic was roughly 200 million years ago. But it C14 dated to about 33000 years old. Obviously this means C14 dating is flawed, right?

Nope. What it means is that Snelling took an iron concretion and presented it for dating. Sandstones tend to be porous and water can flow through them and deposit minerals in the sandstone. Iron concretions are one type of deposit that can be formed and they are known to geologists to give incorrect dates because they are not organic in nature and due to the flowing water are likely contaminated.

The head of the C14 dating group at Geochron Labs, where Snelling had the sample sent for analysis, told Snelling that the sample was not wood but likely an iron concretion. Snelling said to date it anyway. He also still reported the sample as wood and claims that this shows that dating is flawed. He will not submit his work to peer review nor will he allow others to inspect the sample.

This is the junk that passes for science in YEC.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

UTE, Andrew Snelling is a personal friend and one of the most honest and ethical people I have ever known in or out of science. I don't know where you got that nonsense (Talk Origins again?), but Dr. Snelling is highly respected in his field. If the sample is not available it is because Answers in Genesis is holding it and not because Dr. Snelling is 'hiding' it. He, by the way, is no longer associated with them.

There are a lot of people about whom I would agree with you that are pretty shoddy in science. I'm afraid that's on both sides of the fence. But Snelling is not one of them. His character is as sterling as anyone I have ever met.

I'm not even going to bother with the other links. Some of the material you are quoting may be true, but if any of it is anything like the attack on Snelling, it is not worth the read.

 

[UTEOTW]

The lab said it was not wood. He claims it is and from what I understand he will not allow any others to examine the sample. Mainstream scientists would be laughed out of their profession for such actions. He may be a friend and you may vouch for his character, but if YE "scientists" ever want to gain any respect, they must change their ways. If he thinks he has done good work, let professional scientists review his work and his samples. You have done nothing to dispute the allegations I have made. The best you could do is get him to personally vouch that it is wood but then it becomes his word against the lab's word. I count that as a draw and say the claim should be shunned until better can be done.

 

[UTEOTW]

I have not made such allegations against him. Look through my list and I don't think you will see any references to him. I am still hoping that we can explore his ideas. I have doubts, obviously, but I am willing to listen and hope my concerns will be addressed. In all honesty, I do not think of him as one of the leaders. Others in the astronomy field get much more attention from my perspective. I don't have reason to doubt his honesty and enjoy actually getting to exchange ideas every so often. I hope we can pick up on some of the questions I have raised at some point.

As far as the ones I have gone after, I think that they show a distinct lack of credibility and that they bring harm to our cause. Every time I come against such things it makes me more and more angry that people would do such things. If it can be justified...Well I am waiting. You and I have had these discussions before. It was these very things that led me away from a previous YE stance. I got just as angry at the time and we have discussed this. I usually am not so vocal about it but once BobRyan started his "junk science" thread, I went off with many of the examples that I have seen. I usually am not so forceful on that aspect but at the moment, since he brought it up, I am.

But look at the things that happen. Look at my Morris example. Scientist go out and collect rocks from a volcano of known age. They choose some samples deliberately that where not melted and should not be expected to give a good age to see how far off they are. They of course date wrong as expected. They then date some proper samples and get the expected results. Morris reads the paper and then reports the ages from the rocks that did not have their clocks reset without giving the context and reports it as if dating does not work. Such action is indefensible.

Since you won't follow the link, here it is.

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.

Morris based this on a legitimate paper [Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607. ] thatwas fdoing testing on some rocks from a recent lava flow in Hawaii.

Now, when rocks are heated to a sufficiently high temperature and are melted, the argon in the rocks escape. When the lava hardens into rock, the potassium-40 begins decaying into Ar-39. By measuring the ratios, a date can be determined. Now if the rocks are not heated sufficiently, the argon does not escape and the rocks will date older than they really are.

Funkhouser and Naughton were purposely removing xenoliths from the rocks that did not melt to see how much older they would date. Of course they dated as old because they had not been reset by melting. They also tested the bulk rocks and found that the ages were zero, as expected.

So Morris takes the data that measured too old, ignores the known reason that it dated too old, and then claims that radiometric dating does not work. If he actually read the paper, he should know better. It was easy to see and was even the purpose of the work.

[ September 16, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's give another Snelling example, this time quote mining.

------------------------------------

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

USed many places including
http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=313&cr=29
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/link/link.htm
http://www.linda.net/creation.html

You will also find that the presentation of this quote in this form originated with Snelling according to the citations. Good old Snelling.

Well, lets give a fuller quote.

"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

So you see that what he is saying is not that the fossil record is not any use for proving evolution. He is saying that he knows of three better methods. And since he is a zoologists, is it surprising that he finds three subjects from his field to be the best at proving evolution is true?

-----------------------------

Snelling took a quote about one thing and made it sound like something else. The scientist in question certainly does not doubt evolution as the quote was made to sound. He specifically says that it is the creationists getting it wrong and that there are areas that more solidly prove evolution than the fossil record.

 

[A_Christian]

Sir:

What Morris seems to be trying to demonstrate is the very same thing Evolutionists are guilty of; assuming that the determinded age of rock in which a fossil is found is a valid measurement of the age of the fossil. I don't feel that it is. What is being determined is the assumed age of the minerals and sediment that the rock is made up of.
This doesn't prove the age of any fossil. Actually, unless you are of a mindset that when GOD created this planet that a scientist could have performed tests on the rocks, sand, and minerals and would have come up as days old....
I don't believe this would be the case at all.
This is what Creationists are fighting against. One cannot prove age ---- unless one is allowed to make assumptions. These assumptions are what are turning children away from Biblical Creation and utimately Bible acceptance as the inspired Word of GOD. This IS what I see. This IS what peers have told me-----when I was a youth, a teen, and a young man. This IS what I hear on the Internet. Any other opinion is just closing ones mind to the truth.

Test the age of a chunk of concrete of known age of pouring. A piece of sidwalk will do. You maybe in for a shock!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
[QB] All of which ignores the primary point. C-14 dating cannot be trusted because;
1) You have no way of knowing how much C-14 was in the specimen when it died/fossilized.

Actually, we do. By seeing how much c-14 is left compared to normal carbon, we get a reference percentage, which then translates directly into our developed history of known percentages from known times; one could go ahead, in theory, and actually calculate the true original percentage for the sample, but it isn't normally done because who needs that?

2) You have no way of knowing how much may have been added or withheld due to sunspot activity.

Actually, we do, because all we have to do is count back tree rings and count back organic material in annual layers in lake bottoms and count back annual layers in coral and

Hey, didn't I already say this? Where are your reading skills? It is time for you to say

"those methods don't work because" . . and say something that makes sense.

3) You are beginning with a flawed model

Your allegation that the model is flawed is faced with the fact that the model has been calibrated, as we have explained over and over and over and you never seem to hear.

Come up with some reason for questioning the calibration that makes sense, and we can continue the discussion. Merely repeating it is flawed based on faith that its flawed doesn't cut it.

BTW, that thing about lake bottom silt layers? Again, even my unscientifically trained mind can see it is flawed also. What do you do with a gully washer that may have washed a bunch of dirt in there in one day? Or what about the years of drought? Changes your model in a hurry dosen't it?

Well, thats why they don't do it in just any old lake, but only in the lakes where the annual sediment layers are preserved.

We're looking for some substantive reasoning here . . . and not finding any objections of substance. Hmmm. Maybe there aren't any.

 

[av1611jim]

Someone else on this thread indicated that you evolutionists are blinded by your need to prove God wrong therefore anything we say or present to you is wrong from your point of view and you immediately find any old excuse to dismiss it.
Fine. Have it your way.
God is right, your are wrong but you seem to think you know more than He.
Fine. Have it your way. Whatever.
God SAID He made everything in 6 days. You say He was lying since evolution IS A FACT.
Fine have it your way.
BTW Have you read, with comprehension, Job 38-41?
I rest my case. Your problem is not with creasionists per se, but with God.
I'll leave you to convict or convince Him.

In His service;
Jim

 

[Charles Meadows]

You can gbo back to the KJVO section now Jim.

Just kidding!

And no my problem is with people - particularly the ones who confidently assert that anyone who believes differently than the old fuddy fundy stance is not a real Christian. Any scientifically minded Christian will admit that only God knows for sure. Most of us however feel that it is not a sin to use our God-given minds. One who reads ancient near eastern epics realizes that there was alot of figurative writing - meant to convey theological and not factual truths. Now none of us would be so presumptious as to say for sure that that's what God intended. But it's possible. It's only the "fuddy fundies" who seem to think that they have everything entirely figured out!

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by av1611jim:
[QB] All of which ignores the primary point. C-14 dating cannot be trusted because;
1) You have no way of knowing how much C-14 was in the specimen when it died/fossilized.

Actually, we do. By seeing how much c-14 is left compared to normal carbon, we get a reference percentage, which then translates directly into our developed history of known percentages from known times; one could go ahead, in theory, and actually calculate the true original percentage for the sample, but it isn't normally done because who needs that?

2) You have no way of knowing how much may have been added or withheld due to sunspot activity.

Actually, we do, because all we have to do is count back tree rings and count back organic material in annual layers in lake bottoms and count back annual layers in coral and

Hey, didn't I already say this? Where are your reading skills? It is time for you to say

"those methods don't work because" . . and say something that makes sense.

3) You are beginning with a flawed model

Your allegation that the model is flawed is faced with the fact that the model has been calibrated, as we have explained over and over and over and you never seem to hear.

Come up with some reason for questioning the calibration that makes sense, and we can continue the discussion. Merely repeating it is flawed based on faith that its flawed doesn't cut it.

BTW, that thing about lake bottom silt layers? Again, even my unscientifically trained mind can see it is flawed also. What do you do with a gully washer that may have washed a bunch of dirt in there in one day? Or what about the years of drought? Changes your model in a hurry dosen't it?

Well, thats why they don't do it in just any old lake, but only in the lakes where the annual sediment layers are preserved.

We're looking for some substantive reasoning here . . . and not finding any objections of substance. Hmmm. Maybe there aren't any. </font>[/QUOTE]So you are saying that scientists have hundreds of millions of years of tree rings to compare and we have billion year old lakes which these careful men have drained and examined the INDIVIDUAL layers.... Yeah, right.... whatever...

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Naah. The tree ring chronology halts pretty much at the last ice age - about 10-12000 years ago. Lake bottom layers go back to about 40,000 years, if memory serves me right. They don't drain the lake, they drill cores.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Helen:
[QB] The YEers do shoddy science at best and out right lie at worst. You are completely unable to defend their actions because they are defenseless.

Gee, thanks. I'll tell Barry his work is shoddy and probably an outright lie. You know something, UTE? In your emails to him a year or so ago, you were polite and seemed almost rational! What's happened?

Simple - Christian Evolutionists often can not be trusted with holding to "the details" of any point when it comes to the junk science known as evolutionism or their attacks on Bible-believing Christians who accept Christ the Creator's own account for origins.

The fact that our Christian evolutionists lag far behind even atheist evolutionists in "Admitting to the facts" of the progress of REAL since in debunking the junk-science of evolutionism - makes a powerful statenebt abiyt their willingness to jerry-rig the details in favor of junk science.

Is it any wonder that this same wild-eyed fact-challenged method also leaks into their outright attacks on Christian Creationists?

I find it oddly consistent, and more or less to be expected.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Charles Meadows]

Helen,

"The YEers do shoddy science at best and out right lie at worst. You are completely unable to defend their actions because they are defenseless.

Gee, thanks. I'll tell Barry his work is shoddy and probably an outright lie. You know something, UTE? In your emails to him a year or so ago, you were polite and seemed almost rational! What's happened?"

Well, perhaps he's not speaking about your husband. But I would concur with UTEOTW that 99.9% of all YEC stuff I've read (and I read alot of it - tried like heck to BE it) is seemingly contrived. It seems that many authors are just looking for something to say that seems to cast at least a little doubt on evolution. Some square pegs may fit in round holes if one uses a hammer! That may not apply to Barry but it sure does apply to McDowell, Hunt, Faid, Ankerberg, Weldon etc.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Helen,

I looked at the Amazon.com link. Admittedly I have NOT read the book. Here's what one reviewer said:

"This book is the most counter-effective exercise in persuasion that I have met. It appears to provide to people with creationist sympathies the supporting intellectual arguments that they might otherwise lack. In practice, it does the opposite. I admit that I approached the book with evolutionist views but as science provides only probabilistic conclusions and all these merit assault, I was interested to find out what were the best arguments that creationists could assemble. But these! Are these the best the creationists can offer?"

This is one of my biggest problems with YEC science!! It's fine to point out that evolution is but a theory, that the bible CAN be taken at face value without need for scientific proof - but I think that presenting arguments that are obviously (and I can't say for sure since I didn't read it) a little forced one can actually hurt the cause. If we put forth wishy-washy arguments then we hurt the cause more than if we make NO argument and take the stance that no argument is needed to believe the bible!

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Helen,

"The YEers do shoddy science at best and out right lie at worst. You are completely unable to defend their actions because they are defenseless.

Gee, thanks. I'll tell Barry his work is shoddy and probably an outright lie. You know something, UTE? In your emails to him a year or so ago, you were polite and seemed almost rational! What's happened?"

Well, perhaps he's not speaking about your husband. But I would concur with UTEOTW that 99.9% of all YEC stuff I've read (and I read alot of it - tried like heck to BE it) is seemingly contrived. It seems that many authors are just looking for something to say that seems to cast at least a little doubt on evolution. Some square pegs may fit in round holes if one uses a hammer! That may not apply to Barry but it sure does apply to McDowell, Hunt, Faid, Ankerberg, Weldon etc.

What you seem to fail to realize is that the likes of McDowell and other authors, as well as many that post here, have learned a tremendous amount from the well-qualified scientists of ICR, AiG and Barry. The books they have written concerning the lies of evolution are fully stocked with reference material, so the readers can look them up and decide for themselves.

And looking at the bio’s from the contributing scientists on AiG and ICR have all been indoctrinated in evolution from secular universities. What they’ve learned is HOW to think and not WHAT to think.

And before YOU go blasting the likes of McDowell, tell me how many of your secular lost hell bound evolutionary atheists scientists have lead someone to Christ.