From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 07:05:12 EDT
One of the things I have always enjoyed about geology is that geologists can
strongly differ with good humour. Both sides can put their case forward and
progress from there. There are many examples of this and I have been privy
to disagreements and involved in them (for me dating the Precambrian in
South Africa). With the to and for on arguments based on evidence progress
is usually made. I also witnessed some of the discussion between radiometric
age workers over the years -and aware of personal differences. However it
all boiled down to what Jay says should happen between YE and OE over age
dating.
However it cannot happen because YE (experts not rank and file!) put forward
their distorted version of radiometric age dating and have done for decades
and will not change their minds when their errors are highlighted. It is not
a case of learned Christians differing as could happen between myself and
say Keith Miller over some geological issue (the origin of sandstone dykes
in the Tertiary of the Badlands?, whether diamictites are glacial etc), but
we are in total agreement over all essentials as we are with all secular
geologists.
But when it came to YE versions of geology it is difficult to discuss due to
misunderstandings by YE geologists.
If one could it would do wonders for the cause of Christ, but the YE leaders
simply will not listen.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: RATE
> 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 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 07:02:58 EDT