Evidences given for a young-earth

[Subduction Zone]

I finally got around to clicking the link about the C14 date of old oil, and it turns out to be short, lol! Anyway, about the contamination argument, the AiG article says that "for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination. And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems."

Since the instruments didn't have radiocarbon but the samples did after all the "brutal treatments," would this rule out contamination?

Sorry, but I seriously doubt their claim. those sorts of treatments would only remove surface contaminants at best. If the contamination was due to percolation of ground water in fossils that would not remove contaminants. Did they link how AMS does this and what contaminants are removed? AiG itself is not a reliable source. They actually require their workers to swear that they will not use the scientific method. Those most amateurs do not understand how they do this.

 

[Jose Fly]

Anyway, about the contamination argument, the AiG article says that "for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated brutal treatments with strong acids and bleaches to rid them of all contamination. And when the instruments are tested with blank samples, they yield zero radiocarbon, so there can’t be any contamination or instrument problems."

Since the instruments didn't have radiocarbon but the samples did after all the "brutal treatments," would this rule out contamination?

Only potential contamination from other compounds in the material being tested. As TO notes, it possible for C14 to enter the oil itself from background radiation from the rocks surrounding the oil. The acid/bleach treatments would not alleviate that.

 

[Kilk1]

Sorry, but I seriously doubt their claim. those sorts of treatments would only remove surface contaminants at best. If the contamination was due to percolation of ground water in fossils that would not remove contaminants. Did they link how AMS does this and what contaminants are removed? AiG itself is not a reliable source. They actually require their workers to swear that they will not use the scientific method. Those most amateurs do not understand how they do this.

Wait, they make their workers swear not to use the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, they make their workers swear not to use the scientific method?

Yep, and they do not even hide it very well.

 

[Kilk1]

Only potential contamination from other compounds in the material being tested. As TO notes, it possible for C14 to enter the oil itself from background radiation from the rocks surrounding the oil. The acid/bleach treatments would not alleviate that.

Okay, so if C14 entered the oil itself, it could be detected despite any treatments. This seems to make sense; I'm sure there are counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, but as of now, there's nothing more for me to say. I wonder if any creationists have done debates on this (other than the Ham-Nye debate).

 

[Kilk1]

Yep, and they do not even hide it very well.

Can I have a source just to make sure? That they swear not to use the scientific method, I mean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can I have a source just to make sure? That they swear not to use the scientific method, I mean.

I bet that you will miss it, but it is right here:

Statement of Faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, so if C14 entered the oil itself, it could be detected despite any treatments. This seems to make sense; I'm sure there are counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, but as of now, there's nothing more for me to say. I wonder if any creationists have done debates on this (other than the Ham-Nye debate).

I am sure it has been debated on countless websites. There is one thing that you should know about the sciences. Work that advance it is done through the peer review system and creationists avoid real peer review like the plague. In peer review experts in the field go over the work submitted and see if there are any obvious errors in it. Creationists cannot seem to get any works through real peer review. So they invented a false peer review. The only problem is that the articles are so shoddy that they could often be refuted by a bright high school student.

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay, so if C14 entered the oil itself, it could be detected despite any treatments.

Right. That's the whole point of the process (to see if there is any C14 in the oil). It wouldn't make much sense to try and remove all C14 from something when you're trying to see how much C14 is in it.

This seems to make sense; I'm sure there are counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, but as of now, there's nothing more for me to say. I wonder if any creationists have done debates on this (other than the Ham-Nye debate).

Glad I could help. As far as debates, I'm aware of a few but I can't recall any that I found to be particularly memorable. In-person debates aren't a good way to resolve scientific issues. They're more about showmanship and debating techniques than actual science.

 

[Kilk1]

I bet that you will miss it, but it is right here:

Statement of Faith

You're right about me missing it. The closest I was able to see was this statement: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." This definitely doesn't sound like an outright denial of science, let alone the scientific method, regardless of whether or not their views stand against scientific scrutiny.

 

[Kilk1]

Right. That's the whole point of the process (to see if there is any C14 in the oil). It wouldn't make much sense to try and remove all C14 from something when you're trying to see how much C14 is in it.


Glad I could help. As far as debates, I'm aware of a few but I can't recall any that I found to be particularly memorable. In-person debates aren't a good way to resolve scientific issues. They're more about showmanship and debating techniques than actual science.

You're aware of debates on this topic? While you can't recall any memorable ones, can you think of any of the participants?

 

[Kilk1]

I am sure it has been debated on countless websites. There is one thing that you should know about the sciences. Work that advance it is done through the peer review system and creationists avoid real peer review like the plague. In peer review experts in the field go over the work submitted and see if there are any obvious errors in it. Creationists cannot seem to get any works through real peer review. So they invented a false peer review. The only problem is that the articles are so shoddy that they could often be refuted by a bright high school student.

If this is true, then I'd love to see some debates on the topic. The truth on this should be obvious after both sides interact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right about me missing it. The closest I was able to see was this statement: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." This definitely doesn't sound like an outright denial of science, let alone the scientific method, regardless of whether or not their views stand against scientific scrutiny.

It is really clear right here:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

They are swearing not to follow the evidence. With the scientific method one cannot assume an answer ahead of time or declare that the evidence is wrong if it leads you to an answer that you do not like.

And this shows up in their work. That limitation causes them to make such gross errors that no one takes any of their "science" seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If this is true, then I'd love to see some debates on the topic. The truth on this should be obvious after both sides interact.

The sad fact is that every creationist that I have ever run into has to run away from the concept of scientific evidence. If you ever hear a creationist say "there is no evidence for evolution" then they are either lying or so ignorant about what science is and how it is done that they have already lost the debate.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're aware of debates on this topic? While you can't recall any memorable ones, can you think of any of the participants?

The Kent Hovind ones always stand out to me, mostly because Hovind is such an obvious conman. He reminds me a lot of a carnival barker/snake oil salesman, in how he throws out so many falsehoods in such a short period of time, it's impossible for his opponent to counter all of them. It's fascinating from a behavioral study perspective, where you can see how one side is (the science advocates) are careful, deliberate, and do their best to be truthful, whereas the creationists feel no such obligations. The result is it only takes Hovind about one minute to state 10 lies, while it takes the scientist 10 minutes to debunk just one of them. Meanwhile, to many of those in the audience it seems as if Hovind stumped the scientist on the remaining 9.

The truth on this should be obvious after both sides interact.

Not at all. Like I said, in-person debates are about tactics, presentation style, and rhetorical tricks, none of which are relevant in science. Think of it this way.....when I was on debate teams, one of our regular exercises was to argue for one side of a topic, win the debate, and then switch to the other side of the topic and win the debate again. I did it several times, which shows that winning a debate doesn't mean you are actually right. It just means you're good at debating.

 

[tas8831]

You're right about me missing it. The closest I was able to see was this statement: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." This definitely doesn't sound like an outright denial of science, let alone the scientific method, regardless of whether or not their views stand against scientific scrutiny.

Right - just an affirmation of how they are required to reject science it contradicts their a priori beliefs.

 

[tas8831]

You're aware of debates on this topic? While you can't recall any memorable ones, can you think of any of the participants?

Jose is right - Hovind is a classic, though most creationists engage in similar tactics. I saw a Hovind debate live about 25 years go. He had advertised the event far and wide, and there were literally buses full of 'believers' that drove for as long as 4-hours to attend. Hovind debated a guy whose area of expertise was woodpecker ecology who was just as boring as it sounds, while Hovind had a slick presentation with lots of pictures and jokes and 'scientific' graphs and such that he did not leave up long enough for people to really read. The woodpecker guy had the science and facts on his side, and at one point proved Hovind had lied about moon rocks (he was famous for claiming that one rock brought back from the moon was sent to 3 different dating labs and they all came back with wildly different dates - in fact, the paper that he refers to clearly indicated that there were 3 different specimens), and when it was his turn to rebut, he just went full preacher - stood out in front of his podium, and says something like "So, I'm a liar, huh? Well I know the TRUTH!" and strutted across the stage holding a bible aloft. He never did address the moon rock thing, but man, the bused in creationists loved it.

 

[Kilk1]

The sad fact is that every creationist that I have ever run into has to run away from the concept of scientific evidence. If you ever hear a creationist say "there is no evidence for evolution" then they are either lying or so ignorant about what science is and how it is done that they have already lost the debate.

The Kent Hovind ones always stand out to me, mostly because Hovind is such an obvious conman. He reminds me a lot of a carnival barker/snake oil salesman, in how he throws out so many falsehoods in such a short period of time, it's impossible for his opponent to counter all of them. It's fascinating from a behavioral study perspective, where you can see how one side is (the science advocates) are careful, deliberate, and do their best to be truthful, whereas the creationists feel no such obligations. The result is it only takes Hovind about one minute to state 10 lies, while it takes the scientist 10 minutes to debunk just one of them. Meanwhile, to many of those in the audience it seems as if Hovind stumped the scientist on the remaining 9.


Not at all. Like I said, in-person debates are about tactics, presentation style, and rhetorical tricks, none of which are relevant in science. Think of it this way.....when I was on debate teams, one of our regular exercises was to argue for one side of a topic, win the debate, and then switch to the other side of the topic and win the debate again. I did it several times, which shows that winning a debate doesn't mean you are actually right. It just means you're good at debating.

Jose is right - Hovind is a classic, though most creationists engage in similar tactics. I saw a Hovind debate live about 25 years go. He had advertised the event far and wide, and there were literally buses full of 'believers' that drove for as long as 4-hours to attend. Hovind debated a guy whose area of expertise was woodpecker ecology who was just as boring as it sounds, while Hovind had a slick presentation with lots of pictures and jokes and 'scientific' graphs and such that he did not leave up long enough for people to really read. The woodpecker guy had the science and facts on his side, and at one point proved Hovind had lied about moon rocks (he was famous for claiming that one rock brought back from the moon was sent to 3 different dating labs and they all came back with wildly different dates - in fact, the paper that he refers to clearly indicated that there were 3 different specimens), and when it was his turn to rebut, he just went full preacher - stood out in front of his podium, and says something like "So, I'm a liar, huh? Well I know the TRUTH!" and strutted across the stage holding a bible aloft. He never did address the moon rock thing, but man, the bused in creationists loved it.

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but if you know any that debates (or discussions) not involving floods of arguments, I'd like to see them.

Does anyone know of any other creation-evolution debates/discussions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but if you know any that debates (or discussions) not involving floods of arguments, I'd like to see them.

Does anyone know of any other creation-evolution debates/discussions?

There are quite a few on this forum alone. But if you do find them you will see that flood advocates keep bringing up old failed arguments and refuse to deal with the evidence that shows their beliefs to be wrong.

In the world of science the flood story is not longer even a bad joke. Defenders of it are eventually forced to lie outright to try to support their claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but if you know any that debates (or discussions) not involving floods of arguments, I'd like to see them.

Does anyone know of any other creation-evolution debates/discussions?

There's lots of them all over the internet, so it mostly comes down to what you're hoping to get out of them.