Paul A few comments in red JA Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 So what are the complicated bits? What are the missed points?. 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! There is nothing wrong with casting doubt on something you are trying to refute - thats part of arguing against something. Separating observation from interpretation is a realistic goal in that pursuit. Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? Assumptions are bad! No, assumptions are just that, assumptions. If all your assumptions are unprovable or questionable, then so to are your conclusions. 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! Thats not what they mean. Are the results always accurate with known samples? No. Do objects that are considered to old to have c14 still have it, yes. Does this mean c14 dating is consistant with what we observe, no. 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? For someone who finds the concensus of the people he believes in to be of determining value, I don't see why you should fault someone for questioning the solidarity of those people. It's all about doubt. (standard practice for trying to show something is not true, or at least not as rock solid as others would have you believe)There is nothing of the point by point engagement one might hope for. (the article is well-written, with sound arguements that are carefully explained in a point by point refutation of C14 dating. What did you read??? I was expecting you to take the points raised and show me why they were wrong-headed, or illogical or something, not just dismiss the entire thing. 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! (there is no dishonesty in this piece, if you can point out the specific lies, or even shading of the truth, then go ahead! The case is won by snake oil promotional methods. I think you call it that because it promotes what you assume to be unscientific, blinded by faith, anti-evolutionism. Creationists think evolutionists tend to be unscientific & blinded by faith. But responding like your opinion of the other is true, and they are therefore beneath responce is not engaging in debate. Look at the arguements, comment on the logic and observation. 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. You can easily ignore this since you find it offensive and still comment on the actual logic and observation contained in the article. 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 (evidence that decay rates were faster in the past has some good scientific evidence. That you dismiss it out of hand makes your viewpoint unscientific). 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. Creation scientists use logic and observation to answer the evidence of evolution, but evolutionists do not answer creationists charges with anything (it would seem) other than derision and righteous indignation. Who's the one using science to knock the other and who's using religious superiority? One could also wonder why there is so much acrimonious debate over just what the Bible's 'clear meaning' is (perhaps it is the same reason evolutionists are always disagreeing, or the same reason everyone finds to disagree about everything under the sun). In passing, I note that the Bible has already been 'interpreted' but we should not check that it was done correctly. (why not? why shouldn't anyone who's interested, investigate the meaning of the most important and influential book in the history of the world) 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). (the "rebuttal" consists of saying that any problem with the current evolutionary cosmology, no matter how great, will be answered in the future. That's one heck of a rebuttal. Nice fallback position for any foolishness one wants to believe in. I think ducks created the earth, I know there are some problems with this theory but all my peers accept this and future discoveries will vindicate me, so my current position is correct and scientific and how dare you question me you backward religious myth follower, I don't have to answer your actual arguements, you are beneath me!!!! Paul D JA ----- 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. Get it now. --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids.