Jez 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.