Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

[inquiring mind]

I've got to pass the reins to someone else, I've been on here two days. I even think I'm starting to sound snarky now.

 

[Speedwell]

That... or he could've been the only one actively teaching at a university, in which case a lot of pressure to rethink his position would most likely be brought to bear. I can picture the science dept. in the dean's office, can't you.

No, the anti-creationist militancy ascribed to academia is largely imaginary. Mainstream philosophers, theologians and scientists don't really take creationism as seriously as creationists like to think. It's merely regarded as an anti-intellectual nuisance, much the same as flat-Earthism or alien abductionism.

 

[inquiring mind]

Accelerated radioactive decay is something that YECs need to use to explain the billions of years worth of radioactivity on Earth.

Not if they consider that age assumption has always been, and is flawed, and proven by the inconsistency reported in dating results between different labs.

The problem is they need to:

• arbitrarily adjust certain physical constants with no mechanism to do so;
• explain how it only affected certain nuclei (but not all of them);
• explain how these adjustments would occur at certain times but not other times;

Why are there inconsistent lab results now, with a testing mechanism?

explain how living things somehow survived the massive amounts of heat and radiation that resulted during these periods; and,

How can science be so sure of the levels of heat and radiation during that time? They won’t even concede it happened.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why are there inconsistent lab results now, with a testing mechanism?

Can you produce citations of these "inconsistent lab results"?

 

[inquiring mind]

Can you produce citations of these "inconsistent lab results"?

Actually, no, I was referencing the 'Is Genesis History?' video in which one of the geologists said they had submitted the same sample to various labs and got much different results, thereby rendering it unreliable in their opinion. A quick websearch will pull-up a lot of articles and papers in that regard though. Here's a couple, granted they're a little dated themselves, but I'm sure you can find more recent ones. I didn't read it all, but the first few paragraphs appear to be speaking to this.
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

 

[pitabread]

Not if they consider that age assumption has always been, and is flawed, and proven by the inconsistency reported in dating results between different labs.

I'm referring specifically to the ICR RATE project's conclusions itself. This is creationists saying they need to explain billions of years worth of radiation.

The conclusion that a large amount of decay has occurred had been denied or ignored previously by many creationists. However, the evidence is overwhelming. The magnitude of the nuclear decay indicates that, independent of initial conditions, the equivalent of billions of years worth of nuclear decay has occurred during earth history. How then should a young-earth advocate proceed? The only remaining avenue available appeared to be to question the assumption that nuclear decay rates have been constant. This approach was adopted by the RATE group as the preferred avenue for research, given the evidence for massive nuclear decay.​

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf

Why are there inconsistent lab results now, with a testing mechanism?

I'm not sure what results you're referring to.

Though in my own experience, there are some remarkable consistencies between different dating methods. I recall reading up on solar age calculations via helioseismology and how those are remarkably consistent with radiometric dating performed on off planet rocks (e.g. meteorites). Both independent methods yield an age of ~4.6 billion years.

We need to remember there are more than just radiometric dating methods out there. There are numerous different methods (both radioactive and non-radioactive) and there is cross-correlation between methods in many instances.

How can science be so sure of the levels of heat and radiation during that time? They won’t even concede it happened.

Again, this is coming from the Institute for Creation Research.

When one proposes a physical model for something, one can calculate the physical consequences thereof. The consequences of YEC flood models is massive heat and energy release.

Per the ICR's RATE project:

If God caused a period of accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood, it would have generated a massive pulse of heat in the earth. The RATE group estimates that the heating would have been equal to that produced by about a half billion years of decay at today’s rates. But, it would have been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood. The heat would have melted the crustal rocks many times over unless there was some mechanism for simultaneously removing it quickly. How did the earth survive such a massive dose of heat without vaporizing the oceans and melting the rocks? How did Noah and his family survive such an environment on the Ark?
​

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, no, I was referencing the 'Is Genesis History?' video in which one of the geologists said they had submitted the same sample to various labs and got much different results, thereby rendering it unreliable in their opinion. A quick websearch will pull-up a lot of articles and papers in that regard though. Here's a couple, granted they're a little dated themselves, but I'm sure you can find more recent ones. I didn't read it all, but the first few paragraphs appear to be speaking to this.
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Pretty typical: mention problems which may affect radiometric dates and then pretend that scientists are unaware of them.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm referring specifically to the ICR RATE project's conclusions itself. This is creationists saying they need to explain billions of years worth of radiation.

The conclusion that a large amount of decay has occurred had been denied or ignored previously by many creationists. However, the evidence is overwhelming. The magnitude of the nuclear decay indicates that, independent of initial conditions, the equivalent of billions of years worth of nuclear decay has occurred during earth history. How then should a young-earth advocate proceed? The only remaining avenue available appeared to be to question the assumption that nuclear decay rates have been constant. This approach was adopted by the RATE group as the preferred avenue for research, given the evidence for massive nuclear decay.​

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf



I'm not sure what results you're referring to.

Though in my own experience, there are some remarkable consistencies between different dating methods. I recall reading up on solar age calculations via helioseismology and how those are remarkably consistent with radiometric dating performed on off planet rocks (e.g. meteorites). Both independent methods yield an age of ~4.6 billion years.

We need to remember there are more than just radiometric dating methods out there. There are numerous different methods (both radioactive and non-radioactive) and there is cross-correlation between methods in many instances.



Again, this is coming from the Institute for Creation Research.

When one proposes a physical model for something, one can calculate the physical consequences thereof. The consequences of YEC flood models is massive heat and energy release.

Per the ICR's RATE project:

If God caused a period of accelerated decay during the Genesis Flood, it would have generated a massive pulse of heat in the earth. The RATE group estimates that the heating would have been equal to that produced by about a half billion years of decay at today’s rates. But, it would have been generated over the period of only one year of the Genesis Flood. The heat would have melted the crustal rocks many times over unless there was some mechanism for simultaneously removing it quickly. How did the earth survive such a massive dose of heat without vaporizing the oceans and melting the rocks? How did Noah and his family survive such an environment on the Ark?
​

https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/RATE2-Summary.pdf

Very interesting RATE Project paper... Thank you. I finally just read the summaries and conclusion though. I will include it in my go-to material for sure. I’m too tired now to answer each of your questions thoroughly… that is if I can?

Right now, I’ll just say I’m not completely discounting the dating mechanism based on a minority of unreliable results, just questioning and saying that other possibilities (i.e. accelerated decay) can’t always be ruled out. I can’t answer how those on the Ark survived extreme temperatures; I can only say what Wood says, I believe they were preserved some way.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the ‘stretching of the heavens’ (4 dimensions instead of 3) mentioned as a possibility for heat dispersal as science or supernatural (not a trick question)?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I didn't read it all, but the first few paragraphs appear to be speaking to this.
More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

You should be aware that radiocarbon dating is limited to around 50,000 years, not billions or even millions.

You should also be aware that geologists are well aware of the various confounding effects on radiometric dating and take them into account. Where possible they'll try to corroborate them using other methods. The idea that there could be inconsistencies invalidating all radiometric dating just doesn't hold up.

 

[pitabread]

Very interesting RATE Project paper... Thank you. I finally just read the summaries and conclusion though. I will include it in my go-to material for sure. I’m too tired now to answer each of your questions thoroughly… that is if I can?

I'd take it with a grain of salt. A lot of the claimed arguments for a young Earth have been previously debunked.

You can read a concise summary of the issues with the RATE project here: Assessing the RATE Project (And just to note, that site is a Christian organization.)

Right now, I’ll just say I’m not completely discounting the dating mechanism based on a minority of unreliable results, just questioning and saying that other possibilities (i.e. accelerated decay) can’t always be ruled out.

It's not a question of ruling it out. It's a question of why rule it in?

Generally in science the purpose of new models is to add explanatory power and address shortcomings of previous models.

In the case of YEC models it's the opposite; they offer less explanatory power and create more problems. The only reason their models even exist is for the purpose of shoe-horning reality into their narrow literalist interpretations of Biblical scripture. It's not any different that Flat Earthism in that respect.

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the ‘stretching of the heavens’ (4 dimensions instead of 3) mentioned as a possibility for heat dispersal as science or supernatural (not a trick question)?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to propose there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to propose there.

I would suggest it's a sciency-sounding miracle.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just out of curiosity, do you consider the ‘stretching of the heavens’ (4 dimensions instead of 3) mentioned as a possibility for heat dispersal as science or supernatural (not a trick question)?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to propose there.

According to Einstein bending spacetime is a reality, so I suppose it's science on the one hand, provided the extra mass was added to the earth some way to expand the heavens, and therefore also supernatural on such a scale if you believe it a possibility. Even within the limits of man's knowledge and capability bending spacetime is thought possible with antimatter reactors, but the global flood situation is on a colossal scale (referring here to the dispersal of heat). However, macro evolution is only possible if you factor in unfathomable amounts of time, so...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to Einstein bending spacetime is a reality, so I suppose it's science on the one hand, provided the extra mass was added to the earth some way to expand the heavens...

How would increasing the mass of the Earth 'expand the heavens'?

However, macro evolution is only possible if you factor in unfathomable amounts of time, so...

Yup; that's why it's called 'deep time', and that's exactly where multiple lines of independent evidence point.

 

[inquiring mind]

How would increasing the mass of the Earth 'expand the heavens'?

It would require more mass to make a bigger dimple in the spacetime fabric... wouldn't it?

 

[inquiring mind]

Yup; that's why it's called 'deep time', and that's exactly where multiple lines of independent evidence point.

Relying on evidence alone will take you anywhere the presenter desires you to go; correct interpretation of that evidence is crucial, or you could end up in Jersey when you thought you were going to Ohio.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Relying on evidence alone will take you anywhere the presenter desires you to go; correct interpretation of that evidence is crucial, or you could end up in Jersey when you thought you were going to Ohio.

You misspelled "faith".

 

[pitabread]

Relying on evidence alone will take you anywhere the presenter desires you to go; correct interpretation of that evidence is crucial, or you could end up in Jersey when you thought you were going to Ohio.

The correct interpretation would arguably be the one that most coherently explains the observed evidence. And that particular interpretation is the one that suggests the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old and that a global flood didn't take place ~4000 years ago.

To go the YEC route just creates a whole bunch of problems that are solved by inserting unevidenced ad hoc 'solutions' that in turn create even more problems. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

It would be simpler for YECs to just go the "appearance of age" route and call it a day. Maybe it's not as satisfying, but at least it would be less time consuming.

 

[inquiring mind]

The correct interpretation would arguably be the one that most coherently explains the observed evidence. And that particular interpretation is the one that suggests the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old and that a global flood didn't take place ~4000 years ago.

To go the YEC route just creates a whole bunch of problems that are solved by inserting unevidenced ad hoc 'solutions' that in turn create even more problems. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

I'm still not committing to a date stamp either way (time is the wild card), but different interpretations regarding things like the global flood are why I spend so much 'time' here.

 

[inquiring mind]

You misspelled "faith".

Pretty good.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Pretty good.

Thanks.