From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 14:19:05 EDT
If proponents of both sides could work systematically and jointly rather
than lobbing ad hominum attacks at each other from separate camps.
From this the secular world could see that reasonable, learned Christians
can differ and still work side by side or at least cooperatively. This
would do much to further the cause of Christ.
Jay Willingham
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duff,Robert Joel" <rjduff@uakron.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: RATE
> Burgy,
> I think your perception that RATE is where creation scientists will be
focussing the efforts is right on. I've started to see the RATE research
filtering down to the dialogue among lay people in the church. The rate :-)
at which the work is being disseminated is impressive and the RATE project
appears to be a unifying piece of work among the various organizations at a
time when some cracks had been beginning to show themselves. I have to
admit that the articles generated by the last ICC appear to many to be more
substantial at first glance.
>
> Even without specific training in physics and geology I could easily pick
out flaws in past research but these new articles ratchett up the lingo
enough that when I was confronted recently with some of RATE conclusions
recently I had to admit they sounded pretty good. The conclusions they are
drawing from these studies would appear to draw a clear line between an old
and young earth. While the rhetoric appears to be very strong with this new
work and will likely be even more effective with the masses, I would imagine
that the strategy could potentially be quite devestating to creation science
if they are shown to be clearly wrong.
>
> Although a seeming waste of money to some, I've often thought that it
would be interesting to present a specific challenge to the YEC community.
The challenge would be for a couple Christians who are persuaded by the old
earth evidence and a group of YECs to jointly derive research experiments
to directly test the assumptions of the two competing theories. Each group
would devise two expeiments that they feel would test this theory.
Presumably each group would derive test they think would provide evidence in
support of their model BUT in each case the other group would have a chance
to a priori write about what there expectations would be for those same
experiments. Both groups would eventually have to agree to a set of
hypotheses and agree on how they would interpret the result prior to
collecting the data. The data would be collected as agreed upon by both
parties and published with both sides interpreting the data. I've always
wondered if such an arrangement could!
> be made if NSF could be coaxed into supporting the challenge. My guess
is that no YEC volunteers would be found for such a challenge. I like to
think of this as an equivalent to the $250,000 Hovind challenge (or has he
upped that to a million now?).
>
> Joel Duff
>
>
>
> * I'd like to start a new topic, very tightly focused.
> *
> * AIG sent me this ad:
> * ----
> * Don't miss it. A bombshell for anyone who believes in
> * millions of years!
> * Startling breakthroughs in radiometric dating--announced by the
> * five-year-old RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth) research
> * group--will put scientists who believe in 'millions of years'
> * on the run.
> * Make sure to tell your friends!
> *
> * Read about this cutting-edge research that confirms biblical
> * history this
> * week at:
> * http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org
> * -----
> * The October 2003 Acts and facts, from ICR, also features this work.
> *
> * One claim being made includes the fact that "100 million year
> * old" coal
> * still contains C14. It should contain none. A second claim, made by
> * Humphreys, is that, based on the helium content of granite,
> * the flood was
> * 5680 +- 2000 year ago. "This is prima facie evidence for a
> * young earth,"
> * he writes (pg 2).
> *
> * My perception is that ICR, AOSA and AIG are using this
> * research (?) as a
> * major new thrust to argue their YEC claims.
> *
> * ICR's "Impact #364" contains a somewhat technical (high school level)
> * analysis of Humphrey's claim by John Baumgardner, an ICR geophysicist.
> * Page iii of that monograph has a graphic which renames C14 as "modern
> * carbon" and is clearly created by someone who never read
> * Tufte's book on
> * how to make graphics.
> *
> * Comments?
> *
> * Burgy
> *
> * www.burgy.50megs.com
> *
> *
> * ________________________________________________________________
> * The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> * Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> * Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 16:49:47 EDT