Re: It's no joke!

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 17:41:33 EDT

I will try to explain.
> Regarding the Baumgardner poster you posed the question, "Is there any
> reason why this could not be published in a peer reviewed journal
> (assuming that the facts can be verified)?"
> There can be little doubt that Baumgardner et al would be more than happy
> to publish these findings in peer-reviewed form if a relevant journal
> could be found to accept their work. However, the sad truth is that a
> paper challenging the accepted uniformitarian paradigm
Despite being a geologist and done field work in three continents, a member
of the GSL History of Geology Group with a fair number of papers on the
histroy of geology I do not know what the uniformitarian paradigm is, except
as a mythical YEC construct which bears no resembalnce to geology as it has
been practised over the last 3 centuries. Not even Lyell held to this
uniformitarian paradigm.

 - irrespective of its
> intrinsic quality - invariably meets with editorial and reviewer
> hostility.
> ASA members must surely be aware of this, and it is therefore hard to
> understand the comments which from time to time appear in this forum; for
> example,
> (1) "They (the YECs) play their game by denying the reality of all
> science." (GM, 1.4.05)
Glenn argues from inside knowledge of YEC and one who knows his geolgy and
the absurdity of YEC objections.
> (2) "This (Baumgardner's poster) is typical ICR rubbish which is discussed
> on the talk-origins site. It is a complicated problem and beyond my skill
> to explain well. However I have yet to see anything from YEC sources eg
> ICR AIG which does not misrepresent radiometric age-dating...YEC
> fairytales on radiometric age dating has been refuted many times but they
> wont listen. Hence the impatience of some of us." (MR, 1.4.05)
I first read YEC crtiques of Rad agedating in 1971 and soon worked out how
they had twisted everything. 34 years on I still find all YEC attacks on Rad
age dating to be false and verging on the dishonest or possibly not verging.
> (3) "Instead of pfaffing about with little details why not face the fact
> that the earth is billions of years old and all those who say otherwise
> are either stupid or dishonest [shades of Richard Dawkins here! - VJ]...I
> await the day when any TEC argument does not depend on misrepresentation
> or misunderstanding...(MR, 2.4.05)
I will be dead if I have to wait another 34 years.
> As for "verifying the facts", Walt, this would entail finding an
> independent researcher to perform C14 analyses of items of varous
> (supposed) geological ages, including diamonds. Clearly, since only a
> creationist would contemplate the possibility that significant C14 levels
> could be found in geologically "old" samples, it would be very hard to
> find anyone prepared to undertake this job.
When radioactivity was discovered in 1896 no one had a clue what rocks they
would be found in. The only reason why geologists deny that C14 can be found
in ancient rocks is that they have never found it and only find radioactive
elements with longer half-lifes. You cant find what's not there.
> Some further personal comments:
> A theory which needs to be shielded from the light and stoutly defended
> against all criticism can hardly be deemed worthy of the epithet
> "scientific", for such actions represent a complete denial of the spirit
> of science and of the scientific method itself. It is this cuckoo-like
> mentality and an adherence to fraying assumptions that sustains the Theory
> of Evolution; and this practical demonstration of how the unfit may yet
> survive hardly does credit to those whom the general public have been led
> to believe are _the guardians of truth_. In this forum it surely invites
> the question, "Should any Christian be involved in such shenanigans?" Yet
> when do we find TEs demanding a fair hearing for YECs in the ongoing
> debate?

What you term evolution is eminently falsifiable. Just find human bones in
the Precambrian and we will all become YEC. I could give loads of other
theoretical possibilities.
> That Evolution is no 'run-of-the-mill' scientific theory should be
> patently obvious to all. It is sustained by the fiction that those
> scientists who refuse to accept it are 'second-raters', whose views are
> not worth hearing. When one considers that many are Christians attempting
> to honour what they read and understand of God's word it does appear
> appropriate that, on this issue at least, TEs should part company with
> atheists and renounce the fiction.
Sorry but the evidence of an ancient earth - 4.6 billion years and the whole
succession of life is irrefutable and is not a fiction.The vast age of the
earth was demonstrated in the 1780s and has been improved ever since. It is
odd that so many of the early geologists like Sedgwick were evangelicals and
had no problem.

Cant say any more.

Received on Mon Apr 4 17:43:37 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 17:43:38 EDT