June 1, 2020

From the Archives

windowslivewriterharnessingthepowerofthesun-143d5sun-over-ocean-coast-thumb1.jpgJez has been having a side debate with me regarding a post I made on November 7, 2005 (you can find the whole debate so far by a couple of clicks in the archives). I thought I should bring it back to the top so you can all see what we’re talking about.

The issue surrounds the RATE review and an Article on www.answersingenesis.org. Jez stated that I should do some research before linking to them, that all of their material had already been refuted, and that, at worst, these people were just out to make money off of people buying their material, and at best, they were just liars.

So, we’ve gone back and forth with links and logic. I pick up where I left off after her last comment:

I’m no geologist, nor do I claim to be. But for someone who starts this whole comment thread by suggesting using the web to do some research, I recommend you use google or yahoo to search for “radiometric dating problems” without the quotes. You’d find that your “proof” of consistancy is far from that.

First off, can you post me some links that show a double blind study for radiometric dating? Funny, I can’t find any on Talk Origins. In fact, they say a few interesting things over there. First, there was one post in reply that said that a double blind test would benefit Creationists and be used to pull Evolution out of schools. Why would that be? Well, a double blind test pulls humans out of the equation. One of the main arguements that evolutionists use for saying that radiometric dating is consistant across methods is that the dates come out the same. But, do they come out the same because they are supposed to? By doing a double blind test, neither the researchers nor the those doing the dating know what thing they have.

So, back to my question, why would a double blind test help Creationists, unless that poster thought that it would prove that the dating methods DID NOT come up with the same date? Note, in that post no one ever refutes that it would help Creationists. In fact, on the four articles that have “double blind” radiometric dating, another post by someone who considers himself in the know tries his best to downplay the results of a double blind test.

Back on topic: Jez goes out of her way to put herself on the side of the evolutionists. She links to a site that refutes an article on answersingenesis.org that was written against the article, but said article doesn’t look at the science behind the research. She doesn’t attack whatever they’ve produced, but immediately says that the talkorigin evolutionists must be right. She predisposes herself to this worldview, and blindly accepts them to be right, all the while accusing me of doing the same thing.

And back to my point– we have a war of worldviews going on here– as predicted by Peter when he said that people will claim that the Earth is always as it was. It has not been, and it will not be. And I’m sorry to say it, but some people will not believe the truth about Creation or Salvation and will reject the Creator. My heart goes out to them, for they are deceived, and blinded (as it says in II Corinthians 4), and we must continue to preach the light.

(Visited 8 times, 1 visits today)

12 thoughts on “From the Archives

  1. Yep, Jez keeps you on your toes, doesn’t she? I really do like her a lot, she has spunk.

    You know, I have been praying for my hubby for years now to accept the Lord into his heart. And last night, mine broke for him. The late night news was on and they were talking about evolution and divne creation, I spoke out loud and said, that “hello…? Divine creation is the truth.” Well, hubby blew up, literally saying and I quote “YOU CHRISTIANS ARE SO ONE-SIDED YOU CAN NEVER SEE THE OTHER SIDE TO ANYTHING!!” I sat there in total in shock, “You Christians!?” Ummmm…. did he forget that his wife is one?

    I kept my cool, but began to pray inwardly. There was no way I was going to get into another debate with him over God. Nope, I won’t.

  2. WOW! I couldn’t have said it better. We used to go to Drdino.com to do research. I can’t remember what his real name is, but he’s a scholar on why the science proves creation and where the flaws in modern science exist..Oh his name is Ken Hovind. He sells videos on evolution vs creation that are awesome. Though he did used to put a great deal of it online as well.

  3. I went to the AIG and really couldn’t figure out exactly what it was, is it a sales site or is it a research site? The link sends us to a sales site, which makes it pretty hard to get to any actual information. The articles that I saw were from the times and Bishop Spong. I’m I doing this wrong?

  4. Hi,
    I have of course investigated problems with radiometric dating, and I’m aware that some of what is documented on the internet are problems. But I also know that these examples are seleceted, and are not shown in the context of the rapidly accumulating evidence backing radiometric dating which goes unreported outside of specialist professional literature.
    Neither the world we study nor the equipment we look at it with are perfect, let’s be honest. There are a few anomolous results, and these recieve massive publicity from creationists. That’s not a bad thing, I think the anomolies deserve some attention, but keep in mind the overwhelming mass of evidence which is not anomolous. If there were a problem with the theory, as we examine more samples we would expect more anomolies to come forth. In fact the opposite is true. The more we example, the better the ratio of “normal” results to anomolies. It’s difficult to think of how that would happen without the theory being essentially correct.

    It should not surprise you that no double blind tests have been performed, since they are only useful where the object of an experiment is human and must be insulated from the psychological effect of expectation (eg. placebo effect). There’s no need a shield a rock sample from these effects! However, young-earther’s claim that researchers (subconsciously?) skew results to fit, and their motivation for a double-blind study is really to test the technician operating the machinery. Go ahead. Build your own lab and do the test, but I don’t see why eg government research money or share-holders money should be used to fund your paranoia.

    I responded about the RATE research because you presented it as if the effects reported were a) new and b) uncriticised by the mainstream. These are both false, some of the phenomena go back decades and have been adequately accounted for by the main-stream model. It was not my intention to deal with them myself, merely to demonstrate t

  5. It was not my intention to deal with them myself, merely to demonstrate the recycled nature of RATE’s findings. Old, discredited evidence is presented again and again in new clothes to give the illusion of progress. It is a low tactic, and an insult to you intelligence since they put so little effort into disguising it. Very little effort is needed to reveal them for what they are…

    I guarantee you that any war between us is not between worldviews. Absolutely not. We might have a war between methods, the self-doubting falsifyable method of science, and the belief-based faith inherent to religion. They are not equal, and they are not opposite. They are not natural enemies, but you and aggressive young-earthers like thouse petitioning the Kansas education board insist on fighting it.

    But the URL I gave you in http://www.answersincreation.org is, in fact, a Christian one. There is no need for this war, and I do not fight it. I merely answer to the blows delivered, beneath the belt and on the referee’s blind side, by creationists against science.

    And I’m a man.

  6. Well, I’m glad you straightened me out on your gender– probably one of the few things that I won’t even attempt to refute. If it makes you feel any better, I’ve been labelled a she a few times as well.

    As for the other comments, you can cast your impression of my post any way you wish. I reported what a website said about a release of research that had been in progress for a while. Take up your fight with them.

  7. Well, I guess creation scientists aren’t stupid, and are aware of the corrupt nature of the “science” they present, but do it anyway. I can’t really argue with that. (Or else they present the best work they can, and they really are that stupid… again I can’t with that. But you might be honest, and so worth talking to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge