[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:01:46 +0000 (GMT)

J A
I used the term 'sad' because it is gentle, non inflammatory. I acknowledged 
that the data were accurate -- but part of the formula is to leave out the 
complicated bits, the bits which would show that the problem is not simple and 
that a simple explanation often misses the point. But the really sad part is 
embodied in the quote -
Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, 
or an interpretation of past events (historical science)? Cast doubt -- it may 
not be based on eye witness account therefore it's unreliable!
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? Assumptions are bad!
Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe? Where is 
there any possibility of observing -- say -- 15000 year passage of time? 
Therefore it's unreliable!
Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate? This 
could be attacked on just so many fronts. What is a scientist? Does a degree in 
Political Science qualify? How about Theology? But presumably their opinions 
would have weight equal to those of a graduate in nuclear physics. What is the 
standard of accuracy needed? What does reliable mean in this context? 
It's all about doubt. There is nothing of the point by point engagement one 
might hope for. I could take those same questions (with a word here and there 
changed to meet the new subject) and pose them as being asked of the 
reliability and truth of the Bible. They would be just as unanswerable in that 
context as they are in the 14C context. And just as dishonest! The case is won 
by snake oil promotional methods.
However it all goes pear-shaped for me when we read -
When a scientist?s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of 
the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible.
The corollary to this is that we must instead deny the evidence, or concoct 
some artifact to explain it away. Like decay rates might have been faster in 
the past or some other bunch of horse feathers. My view here is that if there 
is a creator God who made the universe, in whatever manner He chose -- what He 
did and how it works is best discovered by examining His handiwork and not by 
attempting to unravel the comments of those who claim to know what was meant by 
those who recorded what they said that God said. One could also wonder why 
there is so much acrimonious debate over just what the Bible's 'clear meaning' 
is. In passing, I note that the Bible has already been 'interpreted' but we 
should not check that it was done correctly.
Lastly, evidence which is difficult to deny is never mentioned eg at 
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttal1.html Earth's magnetic field would have 
stopped C14 dating no more than 1500 years ago. (A small rebuttal article).
Paul D



----- Original Message ----
From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 6:48:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


Howdy Paul,
 
Sorry, I'm wrapped around the axel so far this week and have only given your 
article a brief look. But I think I'll have a chance Thursday or Fri.
 
On your opinion of my sugested article, I don't understand your use of the term 
sad. I understand you don't agree with what it said, and I take it you don't 
like the formula used for presentation, but what about the actual details? What 
do you find faulty in the actual reasoning?
 
On the Grand Canyon, I believe you are mistaken about what would be claimed on 
that site, Normally creationists would say the river did not carve the canyon 
and that the time frame was much shorter than a year (perhaps you mean 
something else about the timeframe). The explaination would usually be a 
catastrophic dam break, releasing the contents of a large inland lake that is 
credited with carving the majority of the canyon, sometime after the retreat of 
the floodwaters of Noah. I don't think you read the article very well in this 
case.
 
Regarding faith: it will be practically impossible for us to discuss it since 
we have very different definitions. But using your definition, you practice 
faith all the time if you accept theories like the big bang, or planet and star 
formation by accretion, or abiogenisis, etc... These are all theories that defy 
the known laws of science. 
 
On my personal statement, thank you for your concern but I was moved, not 
prodded, so there is no problem here.
 
JA

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J A
I read all of your reference 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible. (How 
are you going with 
"http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/seven-creation-paradigms-2.html";?) It is 
just like all the other pages I've read on this site in that it follows a sadly 
predictable formula -
Start with an innocent question from a troubled believer.
Explain the problem in simple but accurate terms.
Cast doubt on some aspect of the problem.
... might have been ... ... has not been proved ... ... there is doubt about 
... etc eg -
Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, 
or an interpretation of past events (historical science)? 
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? 
Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe? 
Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate? 
(Build on this doubt until -- ta-da!)
Argument demolished!
Build alternate case based on the Bible.
Make warm fuzzy statements to reassure the reader.
(References, if not actually internal, are overwhelmingly 'friendly' ).
 
While reading this page, I followed a link which led me to something on AiG 
about the Grand Canyon but I didn't make a note of the page. However, the crux 
of it was this -
The Grand Canyon -- 277miles long, 4 - 18 miles wide, depth in places exceeds 
one mile. Sediments deposited, attained sufficient strength to stand 
unsupported, and Colorado river carved out the canyon -- all in one year? 
Clearly evidence doesn't cut the mustard here, you need faith -- that which 
allows us to believe what we know just isn't possible.
Concerning faith -- I have been wondering for quite some time about why some 
have it, others don't, but the majority just have a dollar each way. There may 
be a gene which predisposes us to be what we are.
Thank you for sharing your experience of personal faith but I hope you didn't 
feel prodded to do so because that was certainly not my intention.
Paul D



Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 
now. 




Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and 
lay it on us.


      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

Other related posts: