1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What happens when mistakes can be objectively shown?

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Peter101, Jul 24, 2003.

Top Posters
  1. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to comment on something that I have observed several times in the various discussions over creation/evolution. Many points of discussion are of course subjective and it is impossible to prove a point one way or the other. However, there are quite a number of claims made by creationists which are of a factual nature, and if one wants to continue the discussion to a conclusion, it is possible to show, in at least some instances, that the creationist claims are factually wrong. One such instance is the claim about the C-14 dating method that is made by a Trevor Major and is quoted approvingly on the Setterfield web site. In another case, also on the Setterfield web site, they link to a discussion about C-14 which is grossly mistaken. Briefly the claim by Trevor Major, apparently accepted by the Setterfields, is that in C-14 dating, there is an assumption that the production of C-14 has been constant over time. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such assumption by those who use C-14 dating. But what I want to point out here is the behavior of Creationists when there is no way out, when their claims are exposed as mistaken. What normally happens is that the creationist breaks off discussion and will simply not respond to the exposure of the mistake. I have had this happen many times with creationists such as Helen, Bert Thompson, and Jonathan Sarfati. The last one works for Answers in Genesis.

    They are willing to discuss/debate the points only as long as they are not taking a beating in the discussion, but once the creationist realizes that they have made a factual error, they never admit it but instead break off discussion, rather than admit to their mistake. I have asked Helen a number of times to correct the mistaken material on their web site related to C-14. She won't even discuss the matter and will not defend their claims.
     
    #1 Peter101, Jul 24, 2003
  2. john6:63

    john6:63 New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    A co-worker of mine is heavily involved in his Church’s youth group. Just the other day he told me that a Molecular/Cellular Biologist that works for an area pharmaceutical company along with two geologists came to speak to their youth one Sunday evening.

    I was told the biologist talked sternly against macroevolution and that there is no solid proof that supports evolution in this sense. The biologist went on to say that rarely does the media that reports these scientific findings from the labs are getting the full report. They will release just enough data to sound as though they are making progress to continue to receive their funding.

    The two geologists spoke along the lines as the biologist. They both agreed that C14 dating is unreliable and can produce inconsistent data with older objects.

    He didn’t go into great detail of the lecture from the biologists and geologists, although I wish I were there to hear this.

    Also I’ve met two geologists since I’ve moved to Indiana. One at a Church I visited, again he spoke that C14 isn’t very reliable with older objects and that even plants will produce inconsistent results. The other is a part-time drummer in a Christian Band and he had the same to say about C14 dating.

    I’ve met my next-door neighbor who is finishing up his graduate work in Microbiology. One day I’ll have to “pick his brain” and get his theory of evolution as well. :D
     
    #2 john6:63, Jul 24, 2003
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Peter, Barry is extremely ill right now and wants to research some of this material before any changes get made. In the meantime, you are willing to harp and accuse all you want -- which is what you do anyway.
     
    #3 Helen, Jul 24, 2003
  4. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    Thanks for finally making some response after several weeks of not saying anything. I will be looking forward to Barry dealing with this issue when his illness is over.
     
    #4 Peter101, Jul 25, 2003
  5. Peter101

    Peter101 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The two geologists spoke along the lines as the biologist. They both agreed that C14 dating is unreliable and can produce inconsistent data with older objects.

    He didn’t go into great detail of the lecture from the biologists and geologists, although I wish I were there to hear this.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    Second or third hand evidence of such vague nature is not worth much. I realize that many creationists don't trust C-14, since it directly contradicts their claim of a young earth. But mainstream science has a lot of confidence in it.
    Even clocks and watches must be used with some care, which is the only precautions that are needed with C-14 dating method. The weaknesses and strengths of the method are well known and are not insurmountable difficulties.
     
    #5 Peter101, Jul 25, 2003
  6. Travelsong

    Travelsong Guest

    Agreed, it appears the intellectual dishonesty one must force upon one's self in order to promote a YEC agenda is without limits.

    I'm still waiting for an alternate explanation to UTEOW's thread
    HERE.

    Of course I highly doubt we'll ever see one. I had my thinking cap on the other day while considering the cosmos and I wondered how YEC's would explain the difference between phenomenon observed in space which can be said to have happened 6,000 years ago and 10,000,000 years ago. What I mean is this:If a star can be said to have gone super nova 6,000 years ago, do we assume that it really happened because it fits within the creationist model? What about 20,000 years ago? Did it still happen or is that impossible? What is the cutoff point where a YEC will simply say, "Oh, God only created that star with the appearance of having gone super nova x years ago".
     
    #6 Travelsong, Jul 25, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...