From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 23:37:33 EDT
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:52:42 -0400 "Jay Willingham"
<jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>
> Burgy,
>
> I detect the same lack of healthy skepticism from both sides of the
> debate.
>
> On one side there is a lack of skepticism about radioisotope and
> stratigraphic dating techniques as well as fossil record
> interpretation.
>
> On the other side there is a similar dismissive attitude about the
> same
> hypotheses and a lack of skepticism about certain biblical
> interpretations.
>
> <snip>
> Jay Willingham, Esq.
> Central Florida
>
Jay,
I was taught YEC and thought the world of George MacReady Price and Byron
Nelson. I collected quotations that I thought showed the error of an old
earth. Then in grad school I read the journal articles for the first
time. As I checked the data, I discovered that there might be an error in
dating by a factor or 2 or 3, but not by twice that number of orders of
magnitude, which YEC requires. This conclusion has been strengthened by
the more recent computations that give the correct numbers for
radioactive half lives of the various elements involved in the dating. It
is no longer the U-Pb series alone, nor just radio-carbon. To this must
be added the nearly incontrovertible Big Bang, plus the distances
measured by various techniques to the stars, galaxies, quasars,
etc.--unless the Creator is deliberately misleading us, making him have
the same character as the devil (John 8:44). The same science that
supports the half life data is what gives us atomic and hydrogen bombs,
explains the power of sun and stars and the amounts of elements
throughout the universe. Unless you deny the existence of all these
phenomena, you cannot reject radiological dating.
One does not need advanced science to find problems with creation
research claims. Some years back I saw the bristlecone pines, perhaps the
oldest living things we know. (I've seen a claim that some rings of
desert plants are probably older, but one can't count annual rings
there.) The ring count goes back some 7 Ky. This creates such a problem
for the Flood date that their journal claimed that some years these trees
produced a double ring. But this would have to happen in a majority of
years, which is incredible. The radio-carbon dates also generally agree,
though they may be corrected from the ring record, for radio-carbon
production has not been absolutely consistent. This agreement had to be
explained, so a nearby nova or supernova was claimed. The problem with
this explanation is that such astronomical events (1) do not produce the
required results (this involves more advanced physics); (2) leave a
pulsar or neutron star or similar residue, which cannot be pointed out
(this is a simple matter of looking). This follows the principle that no
man is smart enough to be a successful liar, the foundation of cross
examination by a lawyer.
Michael Roberts has given us evidence that the YEC "history" of belief in
the age of the earth is false. Glenn Morton presents evidence that they
misquote and misuse the scientific literature. All this is independent of
any appeal to the interpretation of scripture. The only YEC scientist
that I know of whose work was taken seriously was the chap with Po halos.
I don't recall the details, but he interpreted them as indicating a
recent catastrophe. There are alternative explanations in standard
science. For the rest, when I encounter nothing but mutually inconsistent
ad hoc explanations from flood geology/creation science, am I somehow
lacking in skepticism about scientific hypotheses?
I was at the meeting of the Western Section of AAAS in Santa Barbara when
Gish spoke. After his presentation, he was asked, "Is there any possible
evidence that could change your opinion?" His immediate reply was, "There
is none." Is this the attitude of a scientist? I know that I have been
forced to change my mind repeatedly, reluctantly: the evidence demanded
it. I trust that God in his mercy and wisdom will forgive and control my
mistakes and ignorance. But I am certain that I cannot serve him with a
lie."I had the best intentions" will not justify a lie when I face the
judgment seat of Christ.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 00:31:16 EDT