Re: It's no joke!

In a message dated 3/27/05 2:03:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
vernon.jenkins@virgin.net writes:

<< Regardless of whether or not there are still traces of blood vessels and
cells in these T.Rex bones, it is certainly remarkable that they are not
completely fossilised after spending ' 70 million years' entombed in sandstone. All
things considered, an impartial skeptic might reasonably inquire whether this
generous estimate of burial time makes any sense. However, it is now evident
that the situation offers a rare opportunity for 'old earth' proponents to
justify this much-quoted feature of the geologic column. Thus, a simple C14 test
on a sample of the material and/or associated bone - openly conducted and
properly monitored - would certainly shed some much needed light on the matter, and
in the interests of truth would surely be hard to deny. >>

Hi Vernon,

You are naive if you think C14 dating will change the mind
of a rigid YEC. If a small amount of C14 is found, no matter
how small (due to contamination or some irradiation from
the rocks), YECs will say that this proves the specimen is
less than many millions of years old, thus by implication is
only a few thousand years old. If no C14 is found, YECs
will ignore that result and state that "evolutionists" are
making uniformitarian assumptions.

I remember arguing with dogmatic YECs about distant
starlight, for which the evidence is completely irrefutable,
but they reply that I am making uniformitarian assumptions,
or God created the universe to look old. I remember asking
a YEC what evidence would make him change his mind
about a global Noah's flood, and he said none. This is the
hallmark of dogmatism, when one is not prepared, even in
principle, to be open to other ideas.

Don't forget that people who are locked in a dogmatic
paradigm, be it creationism, lysenkoism, astrology or ufology,
believe that they have the absolute truth, and no amount of
evidence to the contrary will make them change their mind.
On the other hand they will gladly accept any evidence that
supports (or appears to support) their beliefs, but that
evidence is meaningless as they rerject in principle any
contrary evidence.

Christopher Sharp
Received on Sun Mar 27 20:22:30 2005