From: John W Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 24 2003 - 10:18:07 EDT
Joe Sebeny continued:
Evolutionists (who are they? He did not define the word.) claim the
earth’s age of 4.5 BY is “fact.”
(Joe does not understand, in spite of his training at MIT, that “fact”
to a scientist is not the same as “absolute proven unquestionable truth.”
Just as the physicist’s word “work” does not encompass a person standing
still with an 80 pound bag of cement on his shoulder, “fact” is a term
which means “generally accepted within numerical boundaries of precision
to be used in subsequent experiments and computations.” It is a “fact”
that the earth is round if one wishes to make an ocean voyage. It is NOT
a “fact” that the earth is round if one is driving up a jeep trail in the
San Juans, just 50 miles north of Durango,)
Scripture pinpoints the errors of the evolutionists. 2nd Peter 3:3-6.
Therefore evolutionists are the “scoffers Peter is writing about.”
Therefore recent creation.
Joe then turned to radiometric dating. Used the candle illustration
(never pointed out that candles burn more or less linearly while
radioactive isotopes don't). But the points he made were valid enough.
More on this later.
Science HEAVILY favors a recent creation. There are HUNDREDS of physical
processes which show this. Slide shown with at least 58 listed.
(He used a log scale to illustrate five of these, not identified), With
the log scale, which I must assume most non-technical people are not used
to, the discrepancy between 6007 years and 4.5 BY does not look (to the
eye) like all that much. Joe has apparently never read Tufte’s book on
the creation of graphics which do not mislead an audience. Or “How to Lie
with statistics,” a classic book (forget the author) of fifty years ago.
That sort of stuff was required reading at Carnegie Tech – could MIT have
Creation Scientists publish “lots of papers.” (He did not mention where.
Has there EVER been one in the American Journal of Physics? I think not.
Has ANY reputable scientist -- I define reputable as simply one who does
not subscribe to the YEC nonsense -- EVER published in a YEC “journal?”
Actually – yes. But Glenn Morton subsequently saw the fallacies involved,
and repudiated those papers. For which he has taken more grief from the
YECs than any person of integrity ought to experience.)
Evidences that the universe is young. Galaxies wind themselves up too
fast, outside slow – inside fast. Therefore the universe is young.
(By my calculations the Milky Way galaxy has rotated about 50 or 60 times
since it came into being. By Joe’s calculation it has yet to take the
first tick of a clock).
Comets crumble too quickly --- therefore recent creation. Joe did not
mention the Oort cloud model.
It has been shown that one can change plant matter into coal in a few
hours – therefore RC (recent creation). Similarly, oil. Similarly
British Columbia strata are folded and not fractured, therefore RC.
A fossilized Teddy Bear was found somewhere, therefore RC.
Polystrate fossils prove RC.
The earths magnetic field decay is too fast, therefore RC.
(Joe carefully stayed away from the evidences of field reversal. and, of
course, the incredibly inept work done by the professor, Thomas Barnes,
at UT El Paso ? on the source data. I really thought that this argument,
like moon dust, had been buried by even AIG.)
Cited with approval the work and writings of Humphreys. Asserted that
Humphrey’s creationist model had accurately predicted certain findings of
the space probes.
Seafloor sedimentation evidence supports RC.
Joe turned to radiometric dating. Described accurately the three boundary
conditions and assumptions,
amount of daughter element present at the beginning,
decay rate constant,
which surround any such measures. (Did not mention the absence of short
life radioactives on the planet.) Asserted that researchers get many
“wrong” answers, publish only those which agree.
Asserted that many researchers in radiometrics “deliberately lie.”
Said that their techniques do not work on objects of known age.
All coal has C14 – therefore RC
Top layers of the Grand Canyon are older than the bottom layers,
Not enough helium argument. New research (by ICR’s RATE project) into
decay rates. “Cutting edge research.”
The creation model – very fast radioactive decay (unknown mechanism) in
days 1-3 and again during the Flood of Noah’s time. Joe identified this
as a hypothesis, no more. (I would call it a speculation, but no matter).
Helium in the rocks. 1km is 58%. 3 km is 19%. therefore RC. (I could not
follow his argument here).
Other arguments –
the receding moon
population studies (I almost choked on this one). Probably the LEAST
persuasive YEC argument I've ever encountered. Morris promotes it in his
book of fairy tales.
Red blood cells found in dino bones
Anything not directly measured is not a fact. Summary – trust the Bible
first. Not science.
In summary. I sat through a session like this put on by ICR back in 1988.
It was nonsense then. It has not changed. Its advocates are, I must
assume this, sincere Christians. They are wrong, and their efforts
dishonor both science and Christianity.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 24 2003 - 10:33:19 EDT