Help Me Understand!

[lucaspa]

Interesting article (sorry Bear its scriptural)
Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’
by Ken Ham
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):39–42,
December 1999 – February 2000

Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:

‘I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?’

Ham is approaching this wrong. There is no scientific proof that God exists or that He created. This is not because there is not a God, but because science has problems detecting one.

Science can't directly test for God. It's in how we do experiments. Science can only test material/natural causes. It's called Methodological Materialism or Methodological Naturalism. We can go into detail on that if you want or don't understand.

So, in order for science to address God, you have to sneak God into the back door. You have to propose a mechanism by which God works. That is, you say "God created by instantaneously making every species in its present form." or you say "God created humans by forming the first man out of dust and then the first woman out of his rib. There were originally only two humans and they were in the present human form." Then what you do is test the mechanism. What happens is that you find no support for this mechanism and a lot of evidence falsifying it.

OR, you can say "God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution." Now, test those mechanisms and you have tons of support for them.

I'll go into this more in the next post where I dissect Ham's claims, but essentially Ham accepts the basic statement of faith of ATHEISM. IOW, Ham is a closet atheist. All creationists are. Atheists must believe that natural = without God. If they don't, they can't remain atheists. So, atheists think that anything "scientific" shows that God is absent.

But Ham also believes this. Only if God zaps things into existence by a process that science cannot explain did God create!

Put another way, it's god-of-the-gaps theology. Which is totally counter to the Biblical doctrine of Creation. God did not make a universe with gaps.

Now, in the next post I'll deal with Ham's individual points, but I just wanted you to think about the overall picture first.

 

[lucaspa]

Interesting article (sorry Bear its scriptural)
Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’
by Ken Ham

Briefly, my response is as follows.

Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

A major problem here is that, even today, at least 40% of scientists/evolutionists are theists. Ham separates Christians and evolutionists. But that separation doesn't hold. There are evolutionists who are Christians, evolutionists who are agnostic, and evolutionists who are atheists.

Historically, creationism was disproved in the period 1790-1831. At that time, virtually all of the scientists believed in God! IOW, they had the same "presuppositions" as Christians. All but a few were Christians (Lyell was a deist) and most of them were Christian ministers. So Ham's "presupposition" argument fails from the start.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

Sorry, but we all have a "time machine" and one more reliable than the Bible -- God's Creation. The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. IOW, cause and effect. Ham is trying to deny that. He is saying that there is a disconnect between the past and the present. This is, of course, nonsense.

No one was there to see a meteor hit to form Meteor Crator. Yet we know it happened. Why? Because it left evidence -- the crator and fragments -- that we can study today. Anyone who has watched the TV show CSI knows that you can know what happened in the past without being there.

Ham acknowledges this in a backhand fashion in the next quote with "the evidence of the present"

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Again, this ignores history. Ham is ignoring that YEC was the accepted scientific theory from 1600-1831. They started out with the "presupposition" that Genesis 1-11 was history and that the evidence of the present would justify it.

However, these good Christian men found the opposite. The "evidence of the present" contradicted a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. They falsified creationism 28 years before Darwin even wrote Origin of the Species. They didn't stop being Christians. They simply listened to the first quote in my signature and realized their human, fallible, interpretation of Genesis 1-11 was in error. Ham can't admit his error.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

Ah, but this isn't a Christian vs non-Christian forum, is it? Nor has the argument ever been Christian vs non-Christian. Ham is fighting the theism vs atheism battle. But he is fighting it on the wrong battleground!

I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

Ah, but since this forum is all Christians, we can put on the creationists' glasses and understand how they look at evidence. It's simple. Ham ignores God. He ignores God's Creation and therefore denies that God really created. Ham listens only to his interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Which means that Ham sets himself up as above God. Ham is always right, and won't even listen to God when God tells him he is wrong.

Until Ham questions his own presupposition that he is above God Ham will never be able to see the truth.

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions.

IOW, when he brainwashed students into ignoring God also. How sad.

Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. [/quote

The problem here is that all creationists -- including Ham in other writings -- claim that creationism can be taught in publich schools on the science alone without reference to the Bible! I have such a textbook -- Henry Morris' Scientific Creationism. Ham just admitted here that creationism is not science but religion and therefore can't be taught in public schools.

Thank you. I have to remember this in case creationism ever comes to a local school district near me. This is fantastic evidence to keep it out of the classroom. Clear violation of the Establishment Clause!

Truth can/should be determined independent of God.

Wait a minute! Ham now contradicts himself! First we needed the "presuppositions" to establish truth (of creationism) but now it can be determined independent of God? Watch those U-turns, everybody. Ham is an accident waiting to happen1

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral.

Ah, but what about all those Christians who accept evolution?

Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!

And Ham admits that truth can be determined independent of God, or the Bible.

But notice that Ham here is denying a basic belief of Christianity: that God really did create! The universe is just as much God's book as the Bible.
"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

God's second book -- Creation -- can be read independently and will also give us how God created. Actually, it will do so more reliably than the Bible, because God doesn't have to put theological messages into Creation nor does He have to dumb it down for us to understand. He can simply wait until we have learned enough to understand it.

Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me.

Translation: I am going to call my human, fallible interpretation of the Bible as "the Bible" and I will stick to it no matter what God tells me thru His Creation! I know more than God.

I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition.

Does Ham address the specific issues Darwin raised in Origin about this? The woodpecker far from any trees, for example? Or why the Cape St. Verde and Galapagos Islands have such different plants and animals when they have the same geography and climate, each similar to the neighboring coast? Or why God was so sadistic in creating rabbits such that they have to eat their own feces? Or God is so dumb that He couldn't give the panda a decent thumb?

Somehow I doubt it. Ham is blind to theology.

This young man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

The same way one believes in reality and truth when you do believe there is God. We can go into this one in a new thread. Truth is not defended by such sophistry.

In fact, science could avoid becoming still-born only in a Christian framework. Even secular philosophers of science are virtually unanimous on this. It required biblical presuppositions such as a real, objective universe, created by one Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive — and who also created the mind of man in a way that was in principle capable of understanding the universe.

Yes. Christianity did give the presuppositions necessary to do science. Ham gives three of those basics: objective universe, accessibility, and unity. That is, the universe exists outside of ourselves, we can understand it, and it is unified. However, notice that Ham just provided a major reason why the universe refutes creationism: "Divine Lawgiver, who was neither fickle nor deceptive". God wouldn't lie to us in His Creation and the evidence that shows creationism to be wrong.

Its understood we are all Christians here. My point is how creationists and evolutionists interpret facts.

Ah, so you realize the problem with Ham's argument, do you? The presuppositions that Ham says determine how the facts are interpreted don't apply, do they?

So, yes, there is a difference in how evolutionists and creationists interpret facts. I submit that evolutionists listen to God and let God tell us how He created. Creationists tell God how He had to create. All "facts" for creationists are interpreted to make them right. Evolutionists let God be right.

 

[DRIVEN]

Lucaspa....Wow
I'm sorry, I guess I should have been more specific with my cut and paste, but I found the whole article interesting.
Anyway the one point I was trying to make(Which your last two posts helped prove), is that anything a creationist says an evolutionist can quickly disprove and vise versa, because of their presumptions. There is a lot of earthly scientific evidence that supports both sides, but an evolutionist may never see the creationist side and vise versa, because of their presumptions. I was brainwashed by evolution until i was 32 and heard a radio show that made me question it. It didn't hold up, so I choose to believe the bible literally. God always gives us the choice to make. Science has proved the Bible wrong many times only to find out later that the science was bad, or we didn't understand something.
2 Timothy

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

The following is a bad attempt at poor humor:
how fast do you drive when the speed limit is 55? If 6 days=4.5 billion years then 55=WOW.
Sorry I know that doesn't belong here,but i couldn't resist.

 

[lucaspa]

Anyway the one point I was trying to make(Which your last two posts helped prove), is that anything a creationist says an evolutionist can quickly disprove and vise versa, because of their presumptions.

My posts proved the exact opposite. Evolutionists and creationists do not have different presumptions. That's the fallacy.

There is a lot of earthly scientific evidence that supports both sides, but an evolutionist may never see the creationist side and vise versa, because of their presumptions.

You keep forgetting that all the evolutionists were once creationists. Darwin was a creationist! He started the voyage of the Beagle accepting that species did not change! Rev. Adam Sedgwick started as a young earther and believer in the Biblical Flood. As he looked at the rocks, he realized that the earth was very old and that there never had been a world-wide Flood.

I was brainwashed by evolution until i was 32 and heard a radio show that made me question it. It didn't hold up, so I choose to believe the bible literally. God always gives us the choice to make. Science has proved the Bible wrong many times only to find out later that the science was bad, or we didn't understand something.

Remember you at a Christians Only forum here. No one here thinks science has proved the Bible wrong. What we know is that God's Creation has shown that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is wrong. A literal interpretation. Read the first quote in my signature. It was written by Christians -- before Darwin even thought of evolution.

Now, we can discuss in detail why you don't think evolution holds up. In fact, I'll start another thread called "Brainwashing" for this. However, I submit that you were told some falsehoods about evolution. We'll find out, won't we?

2 Timothy
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Do you know who these verses were directed at? Go back to the beginning of the letter and look. They were directed at preachers, not scientists.

The following is a bad attempt at poor humor:
how fast do you drive when the speed limit is 55? If 6 days=4.5 billion years then 55=WOW.
Sorry I know that doesn't belong here,but i couldn't resist.

It makes no sense. But let's answer a joke with a joke:

Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

 

[DRIVEN]

Lucaspa
Strike two
You completely missed my point again.

The most simple way i can put this is that you will interpret the evidence(regardless of what it is) to support evolution and i will interpret it to support creation. And we will both laugh at each others interpretation.

You should be able to agree with this. I won't complicate it by responding to any other of you responses as it would be off topic.

 

[ej]

The most simple way i can put this is that you will interpret the evidence(regardless of what it is) to support evolution and i will interpret it to support creation. And we will both laugh at each others interpretation.

Could you explain this phenomenon using examples please, as I don't understand it. Thanks

 

[DRIVEN]

ej see the thread prove evolution. There are numerous examples of how things can be interpreted both ways.

http://www.christianforums.com/t75815

 

[Bushido216]

Lucaspa
Strike two
You completely missed my point again.

The most simple way i can put this is that you will interpret the evidence(regardless of what it is) to support evolution and i will interpret it to support creation. And we will both laugh at each others interpretation.

You should be able to agree with this. I won't complicate it by responding to any other of you responses as it would be off topic.

But in order to interpret the data to fit creation you have to make stretches, then you have to stretch the stretches and so forth.

 

[DRIVEN]

But in order to interpret the data to fit creation you have to make stretches, then you have to stretch the stretches and so forth.

Thats your interpretation. I feel the same way about evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa
Strike two
You completely missed my point again.

The most simple way i can put this is that you will interpret the evidence(regardless of what it is) to support evolution and i will interpret it to support creation. And we will both laugh at each others interpretation.

Sorry, but I got the point. What you have struck out twice on is that this suposed interpretation doesn't happen. Let's try again.

1. You said "creation". Creation is different from creationism. Creationism is a very definite how that God created: Ham's is 144 hours (6-24 hour days), recent past, species zapped into existence in their present form. Now, in this forum, evolution is also a HOW God created. IOW, evolution is also creation! God still creates, but He did it differently. God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution. This is what theistic evolution is all about. See the second quote in my signature. So, if it turned out that God created by creationism, I wouldn't care. The reason I conclude that God created by evolution is because of the evidence. I have no reason to interpret the evidence solely in terms of evolution.

2. Science started out -- people started out -- interpreting the evidence to support creationism. Pay attention here, I'll say it again. Between 1600 and 1831 creationism was the accepted scientific theory! As the accepted theory, people then had no reason to interpret the evidence differently.

What happened was that these people -- all of them Christians or deists and many of them ministers -- looked at the evidence and determined that creationism was wrong. This was before Darwin published Origin of the Species. So there was no evolution to interpret the data for. The data simply said that creationism could not possibly be right. Even tho they had no theory other than creationism to work with.

So, historically people started out with creationism but didn't interpret the data for it.

You should be able to agree with this. I won't complicate it by responding to any other of you responses as it would be off topic.

Sorry, but I can't agree. For the reasons I stated above. And yes, you must "complicate" it by responding to my responses, since those responses refute your claim. If you don't, or can't, respond, it means that my arguments are right and your claim is wrong.

Now, it could be that you can't interpret the data any way other than for creationism. But that is your personal failing. It is not legitimate to project your feelings onto me. As for me, if the data would falsify evolution and support creationism, then so be it. The universe is what it is, not what I want it to be. But in any case, I have no conflict here. I am still left with God creating whether He did it by creationism or by evolution. It's a win-win situation for me.

 

[lucaspa]

ej see the thread prove evolution. There are numerous examples of how things can be interpreted both ways.

http://www.christianforums.com/t75815

Not really. If you look closely, what you find are
1) Misrepresentations of what evolution is.
2) Misrepresentations of what the data is.

Also, you miss the post in this thread where I explain falsification.

What you are working with is the idea that you stack up the evidence "for" both theories and the highest stack wins. That isn't how it works. What happens is that evidence conclusively falsifies. This is from deductive logic: true statements can't have false consequences. Creationism has false consequences, therefore it can't be true. No matter how much "interpretation" you do for data "for" creationism, you can't get around the data that falsifies it.

Now, much of creationist argument takes the form of trying to falsify old earth and evolution. That's OK. I always take such arguments very seriously. If you look closely, what happens is that we find reasons independent of evolution that the falsification is wrong. Notice the bold. That's the key. If I want to say the argument is wrong, I must do so for a reason other than it will falsify evolution.

 

[DRIVEN]

Lucaspa
Sorry I meant creationism.

I never said presumptions couldn't change. Mine did.

Your statement about you being right if I don't respond is hilarious!!! A. I don't falsely pretend to know everything B. Its important to stay on topic or you might be labeled a troll and C. You learn more by listening not talking(typing).

Your interpretations (your personal failings)lead creationism to false consequences. Neither evolution or creationism have been absolutely proven. There is obviously a lot that science hasn't figured out.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa
Sorry I meant creationism.

Well, then, your argument collapses. Go back and look at Ham more closely. Ham is arguing against atheists and talking about atheist presuppositions. Since I'm not an atheist, I don't have those presuppositions, do I? In fact, I have the same presuppositions Ham does about God creating. Therefore the differences here cannot be due to different presuppositions.

I never said presumptions couldn't change. Mine did.

But you did state that evidence is interpreted only by presumptions. I am saying it is not and was not done in the creationism vs evolution decision. Evoluitionists did not and do not come to the discussion with the presumptions Ham says they did and do. Therefore his (and your) argument collapses. When the premise is wrong, the argument is wrong.

Your statement about you being right if I don't respond is hilarious!!! A. I don't falsely pretend to know everything B. Its important to stay on topic or you might be labeled a troll and C. You learn more by listening not talking(typing).

And all these are excuses for not addressing the points. Sorry, the point still stands. If you cannot address the arguments, you can't just duck it by claiming they are not relevant or you don't want to. In particular, my responses were totally relevant to your post and the topic.

Now, if you want to admit that you don't have responses but you think there may be responses that you are unaware of, I'll accept that. I'll help you do the search, even. After all, I want to find truth just as much as you do. As long as you are genuinely discussing on topic (you are) you aren't a troll and I'll defend you from any such charges.

Your interpretations lead creationism to false consequences. Neither evolution or creationism have been absolutely proven. There is obviously a lot that science hasn't figured out.

Driven, you will have to demonstrate that I give creationism false consequences. Seriously. I see no reason to do so. If I would do that, it wouldn't serve my search for truth.

Do you know how statements are tested?

1. Assume they are true.
2. Derive deductions from the statements. Figure out the observations that should go with the deductions.
3. Look for the observations.

Now, you are claiming I'm making either false deductions or false consequences. Remember, I am working on the deductions and consequences the creationists claimed should be there. Whiston, Whewell, Sedgwick, Burnett, Darwin when he was a creationist, Owen, etc. all made deductions from creationism. And they found observations that contradicted their deductions.

Now, what science can, and does, do is show absolutely that some theories are false! When observations are opposite of the observations that should be there if the statement/theory is true, then you know the theory is false/wrong. True statements cannot have false consequences. Creationism has false consequences. It is those false consequences that got creationism falsified by 1831.

 

[DRIVEN]

You say Creationism has false consequences. Start a new thread and list what are they?

 

[lucaspa]

You say Creationism has false consequences. Start a new thread and list what are they?

I started a new thread on brainwashing so you could tell us how you were brainwashed by evolution. You never showed up. But OK.

 

[ej]

ej see the thread prove evolution. There are numerous examples of how things can be interpreted both ways.

http://www.christianforums.com/t75815

I still don't see any
Could you explain the point, using examples please? Thanks.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Indeed. I'd be more than interested to see how the retriviral insertion data can be interpreted to support anything other than common descent.

 

[lucaspa]

Indeed. I'd be more than interested to see how the retriviral insertion data can be interpreted to support anything other than common descent.

Karl, please put that in the thread "Consequences of creationism". It is one of the consequences that falsifies creationism. If creationism were true, that data should not exist.

 

[TheAmanOne]

One of the more recent evidences was discovered by the RATE group (a group of scientists from various creationist organizations). Following is a quote.

"There is now powerful independent confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper1, though technical, can be summarized as follows:
• When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock.
• Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
• By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
• There is a significant amount of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
• Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years."

This article also lists new information about carbon 14 dating.

"Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.
This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.
The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.5
C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old."

You can read it for yourself at “ht t p : / / w w w. Answersingenesis . o r g / docs2003 /0 82 1rate . a s p”. Notice that I have left spaces in the web address because I need 15 posts before I can post a web address. Whoever thought that rule up garners little respect from me. Until my next post.

TheAman_1

 

[LewisWildermuth]

This article also lists new information about carbon 14 dating.

"Dr Baumgardner sent a diamond for C-14 dating. It was the first time this had been attempted, and the answer came back positive—i.e. the diamond, formed deep inside the earth in a ‘Precambrian’ layer, nevertheless contained radioactive carbon, even though it ‘shouldn’t have’.
This is exceptionally striking evidence, because a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.
The diamond’s carbon-dated ‘age’ of <58,000 years is thus an upper limit for the age of the whole earth. And this age is brought down still further now that the helium diffusion results have so strongly affirmed dramatic past acceleration of radioactive decay.5
C-14 labs have no real answer to this problem, namely that all the ‘vast-age’ specimens they measure still have C-14. Labelling this detectable C-14 with such words as ‘contamination’ and ‘background’ is completely unhelpful in explaining its source, as the RATE group’s careful analyses and discussions have shown. But it is no problem or mystery at all if the uniformitarian/long-age assumptions are laid to one side and the real history of the world, given in Scripture, is taken seriously. The C-14 is there, quite simply, because it hasn’t had time to decay yet. The world just isn’t that old."

You can read it for yourself at “ht t p : / / w w w. Answersingenesis . o r g / docs2003 /0 82 1rate . a s p”. Notice that I have left spaces in the web address because I need 15 posts before I can post a web address. Whoever thought that rule up garners little respect from me. Until my next post.

TheAman_1

Okay, you did know that C14 dating only works on materials that were once living that absorbed their C14 through respiration don't you?

Since diamonds are not living things they cannot be tested by carbon dating.

You might as well try to prove that computers do not work since you can't make a fresh cup of orange juice with it...

Answers in Genesis fail to tell you these things even though they themselves have been told why these things happen, thus they are bearing false witness.

In other words, AiG is lying to you and hopes that you will not call them on it. Do you believe that lying about God and God's creation is a good way to convert people?