Evolution is a Fact #31 - Ten Questions for Creationists

by cofty 95 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.
  1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.
  2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen.

  Where in the article does he discuss carbon dating?
• 

  recovering

  Right here. Did you not read your own evidentiary citation?

  Most people think the idea of billions of years comes from radiometric dating. But clearly that’s not true, since this dating method was not developed until the beginning of the 20th century, about 100 years after Hutton died. Hutton based his idea of an old earth on an assumption. It was not a discovery. He assumed that the same slow processes eroding the Scottish highlands in the present formed the ancient rocks by the North Sea in the past. So an old earth is the outworking of an unbiblical philosophy (cf. 2 Peter 3:3–7).
  
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "If all this geological evidence of "deep time" speaks for itself, then why was there a need to come up first with the "principal" (apriori philosophy) of Uniformitarianism" - Hooberus

  Uniformitarianism is, in essence, saying that the key to understanding past geological events comes from observing events taking place today (or in the 18-19th century when these principles were being developed). The assumption being that what is occurring now (then) has always occurred. Observations showed that sedimentary deposition takes place uniformly for a given location and extrapolating from that shows us that extremely thick beds of lithified sedimentary strata indicates vast periods of deposition. It was these observations that led early geologist to realise that the Earth was vastly older than the few thousands of years that had been accepted up until then. Geology has moved on since then but these principles are still valid, the difference now being we have many lines of evidence backing up these principles...

  Perhaps if you understood these principles better you could answer your own questions?
  
• 

  recovering

  • By the way Hooberus , Creation Research Society Quarterly is not considered a scientific journal by most scientist so peer review by it is suspect.
  • 
    
  • The Creation Research Society Quarterly has been published since July, 1964. Creation Matters containing popular level articles has been published bi-monthly since 1996. CRS has also published an assortment of special papers, monographs and books. Creationist publications have been criticized by scientists, such as Massimo Pigliucci,[10] as "nonsense" in their attempt to blend faith with empirical fact. Glenn R. Morton is an author of more than 20 articles published by CRS in an attempt to "solve scientific problems" of creationism.[11] Morton later left the creationist movement complaining "The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!".[11]
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Creation Research Society Quarterly" - Hooberus

  Why not publish in a geologically focused peer reviewed press? It would come to the attention of far more experts in the field and have a greater chance of altering the current thinking. That's assuming that:

  1 - The science is applied correctly and the conclusions fit the evidence.

  2 - That is what the authors of these pieces wish to happen rather than furthering their own creationist agendas away from critical analysis of their research...
  
  
• 

  hooberus

  Quote from recovering:

  "Right here. Did you not read your own evidentiary citation?

  Most people think the idea of billions of years comes from radiometric dating. But clearly that’s not true, since this dating method was not developed until the beginning of the 20th century, about 100 years after Hutton died. Hutton based his idea of an old earth on an assumption. It was not a discovery. He assumed that the same slow processes eroding the Scottish highlands in the present formed the ancient rocks by the North Sea in the past. So an old earth is the outworking of an unbiblical philosophy (cf. 2 Peter 3:3–7)."

  There is nothing there (or in the rest of the article) that is specifically about the "radiocarbon" technique. So your accusation about radiocarbon specifics and the authors knowledge is bogus. Perhaps its you that needs to be a better reader.
  
• 

  recovering

  Can't you read? What do you think radiometric dating is?

  You still have not addressed the issue of scientific peer review
• 

  hooberus

  My quote feature is not woking so I will manually quote:
  

  Quote recovering:

  "Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.
  1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.
  2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen." End Quote

  Once again, no where in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating
  
• 

  recovering

  a form of radiometric dating—called Radiocarbon dating—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.
  
• 

  hooberus

  Quote recovering

  "Can't you read? What do you think radiometric dating is?"

  The general term "radiometric dating" does not always (or even usually) refer specifically to the radiocarbon technique with its specifics. Once again Once again, nowhere in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating, so all of your claims on that regarding him such as "He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used . . . " are a big straw man argument.