Allen Roy responded:
> Anyone can say this, knowing full well that no one has the time to
> adequatly research all the thousands of statments to document a
> 'lie.' Not to mention the near impossiblity of 'proving' that
> something is a lie.
I don't think *intent* is too important, and it's not really our
position to judge it anyway... so you can skip the problems that
you mention in your last sentence. It is sufficient to document
statements which are seriously in error. Even if the author is
not *knowingly* spreading untruth, the end result is the same as
far as the readership is concerned.
I also don't think it's all that difficult to document statements
that are seriously in error -- providing that the source is as
low-quality as you allege the t.o web site to be. Since you are
knowledgeable about creation/evolution arguments, you shouldn't
*have* to research all of the statements on the site. You should
be able to read a few FAQs, pick out a few really questionable
statements, and only research those. Let me give you an example...
A few weeks ago, a young-Earther threw the following quote in my
face (among a few others, all cut-and-pasted off the "Handy Dandy
Evolution Refuter" web site) on the supposed unreliability of
isotope dating:
[http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm]
# A certain rock from Apollo 16 gave lead ages from 7 to 18BY but
# was chemically treated until it yielded an acceptable "corrected"
# age of 3.8BY.22
I went to the web site and looked up their footnote 22. It was:
Nunes P.D., and M. Tatsumoto, 1973. "Excess Lead in "Rusty Rock"
66095 and Implications for an Early Lunar Differentiation" in
_Science_ vol. 182, pp. 916-920. One day when I was out running
errands, I stopped by the local library -- which has few geology
journals but some old volumes of _Science_ -- and obtained a copy
of the paper.
The authors of the paper took two chunks from a single
lunar rock. The first bit was separated in various ways (minerals,
magnetic separation, etc.); isotope ratios of the separated portions
were measured (Table 1) and the results were plotted on a U/Pb
isochron diagram (Figure 1). The resulting isochron age was 3.8Ga
with a fair amount of slop (about 0.3Ga, I recall, but I am out of
town right now and don't have it with me).
The second bit of the same rock was incrementally dissolved
in a series of increasingly harsh water and acid washes. The
isotopic ratios of lead removed in the various washes was analyzed
(Table 2). The result was two distinct sets of Pb/Pb ratios -- one
for "easily leached lead" (the earlier washes) and a different one
for the remainder. The authors believe that the "easily leached"
lead represented lead that was added after the rock's formation
(which added slop to the isochron determination and would have
completely screwed up any "model ages" based on only a single
measurement of U/Pb isotope ratios). Knowing the isotopic
composition of the added lead, the authors derive implications
for early lunar history (these secondary conclusions are, of
course, more tentative than just the age of the rock itself).
It is obvious to anyone who goes to the referenced
literature that the "chemical treatment" (Table 2) had nothing at
all to do with the age that was obtained (Table 1, Figure 1).
The alleged "7 to 18BY" dates to not even *appear* in the paper
and must have been computed as simple (but unreliable) "model
ages" by the young-Earthers making this claim. The young-Earthers
make a serious -- but totally false -- accusation of dishonesty
on the part of the scientists who wrote the paper (i.e., that
they fudged the data "until" they got an "acceptable" result).
There it is, Allen. I documented a *seriously* erroneous claim on
a young-Earth web-site. Either I am quite lucky or else that site
is of very low quality, for the very first one that I looked into
turned out to be a lulu of a falsehood.
As for the issue of deliberate lies... I don't care whether the
authors of the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter: (1) deliberately
misrepresented the contents of the paper (i.e., are dishonest);
(2) misunderstood the contents of the paper (i.e., are clueless);
or (3) just "inherited" the blunder by copying it without checking
it out themselves, from another YEC source that contained the same
error.
All that really matters is that the authors of HDER are
making false statements which are causing sincere (but overly
credulous) Christians to get hammered in debate. So far I have
obtained three of the technical papers referenced by that web site
and *all three* have blown up on the young-Earthers in similar
ways (though in the other cases, the HDER's own claim isn't as
heinous as a false charge of fudging data).
If I were to guess, by the way, I would say that option #3
(credulously copied, "inherited" error) was the most likely reason.
In my opinion the widespread use of this practice in the YEC
community is why the "error rate" of most YEC literature remains
unacceptably high. However, even so... (1) at the bottom of the
reference chain there must be someone in one of the first two
categories who originated the error; and (2) by referencing the
scientific paper directly (instead of the source that the claim
was copied from), the authors of HDER assumed responsibility for
the falsehood.
Anyway, there it is. This is the practice I recommend, Allen:
First check it out. If it turns out to be spreading falsehoods
then by all means let it be known -- by presenting examples.
("Test all things. Hold onto the good.")
-- Chris (chris@stassen.com)