Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Some Scientists Worry That Sophisticated Center Will Distort Children's Views of Science
According to an ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days. In Petersburg, Ky., this weekend, a creation museum is opening that depicts a story far from what you may have learned in science class.
Exhibits at almost every natural history museum teach that dinosaurs are millions of years old, and that they died out long before human beings existed. But at the Creation Museum, they say God created dinosaurs and humans at the same time.
The Creation Museum, designed by the same man behind some of the attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, is a $27 million, high-tech sensory experience with animatronic dinosaurs and a movie theater with seats that shake.
The museum is intended to convince visitors that evolution is wrong and that the biblical story of life on earth from Adam and Eve to Noah's ark is scientifically verifiable.
The museum depicts Adam living with animals, including a dinosaur.
Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the group that is funding the museum, says that only "secular scientists" would maintain that the first humans never lived with dinosaurs.
"[Scientists] can say that, but what's their evidence?" Ham says, insisting that "All land animals were made on day six."
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted view of science.
"That they'll show up in classrooms and say, 'Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this spiffy museum last summer and they say that everything you're teaching me is a lie,'" said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Ham believes that's what should happen.
"And I say, great. Amen. That's what this place is all about," he said. "It's meant to challenge people."
The stakes are high. The museum argues that evolution jeopardizes people's belief in the Bible and leads to social ills like pornography and abortion.
"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."
[more at the link]
The organisms which can be used in radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood, marine shell, human or animal bone, antler, peat; in fact, most of what contains carbon during its life cycle can be used, assuming it’s preserved in the archaeological record. The farthest back C14 can be used is about 10 half lives, or 57,000 years; the most recent, relatively reliable dates end at the Industrial Revolution, when humankind busied itself messing up the natural quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. Further limitations, such as the prevalence of modern environmental contamination, require that several dates (called a suite) be taken on different associated samples to permit a range of estimated dates.
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm
I thought the article was well done, too.
Over the weekend I saw videos of some of the park’s features and attractions. I think it would be fun to visit. If I’m ever in the area, I will.
I watched two old BBC Horizon reruns last night about Atlantis. The first one focused on this 'scientist' that reminds me of Ken Ham. One of a very few actual scientists that forwarded a crackpot idea that 10,500 years ago Atlanteans went around the world and instilled some sort of memory of Atlantis. Fast forward 7-8,000 years and all these monuments pop up that are reminiscent of star constellations. He had an answer, however ridiculous, for any refutation of his claims.
You want to talk about the frauds and liars in the evolution movement?
I asked for evidence, not more empty evolutinist rhetoric.
The most ridiculous scientific claim ever made is evolution, something came from nothing, life came from non-life.
How?
Well, you can't expect us to answer that, the evolutionist protests, we just know that it did because we think it did.
Now why do I bring this up? Because accepted science is that carbon dating works. Next you'll be telling us that Einstein's theory which helps astronomers measure the explosion of stars and their distance from earth (and therefore distance in time) is somehow flawed because it shows we're picking up gamma rays from 13 billion years in the past. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere. And to continually argue a point that in no way should shape a person's faith is sort of ridiculous
First, now you are shifting the argument to the star issue.
The issue of light can be addressed from the Creationist view.
Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct.
So, we are back to where we started, with Evolutionists making assertions they cannot prove, on an assumption that is based on utter nonsense, that something can come from nothing and life from non-life and then evolve into man.
All you guys have to do to show how idiotic your view is to say it straight forward, without all the scientific jargon and you know it sounds like the myth that it is.
http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm
That's Archaeology 101 material. Try again.
I was pointing out that he sounded about as ridiculous as those that claim Adam was off riding dinosaurs. I'm not doubting God's hand in things. But I don't see the importance of limiting His actions to a specific timescale that can be found nowhere in the Bible.
Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct.
Ah but it can't be over 10,000 years old can it? 6,000, 10,000, 50,000,000. Does it really matter that much to you? Why?
Stop blowing smoke, like you did with the dinosaur bones.
Maybe you need to reassure those mainstream scientists. ;)
I challenge you to show that your fringe idea that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 6,000 years is accurate, and you post a paragraph from Archaeology 101 which is both true and fails to support your position.
You don't know enough about radiocarbon dating to even cut and paste pertinent articles from the web correctly and you are trying to tell scientists how the method works and what its limitations are? What a joke!
Never heard of anyone riding any dinosaurs.
But very likely they existed with man.
We are now finding all kind of species that we did not know even existed, so who is to say what existed with man before the flood.
Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct. Ah but it can't be over 10,000 years old can it? 6,000, 10,000, 50,000,000. Does it really matter that much to you? Why?
Frankly the age of the Universe is not as important to me as is the age of man and the method of creation, direct and immediate.
Adam was a real man, the Fall was real, and the need for a saviour is real.
No Adam, no Fall, no need for a Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, since, according to evolution, man is not made in the image of God, he is just an highly evolved animal.
The joke is on you.
The article states very clearly the limits in radiocarbon dating.
Now, you have yet to show otherwise.
All dating has its limits, and is very limited, and you know it.
That is why you are so desperate to avoid dealing with that fact.
Now this is what evolutionists don't want anyone to see, what is behind the curtain, what their theory really states.
And that is suppose to be 'rational'!!!
I don't know what is sillier - this museum or people like you who actually get worked up about it. I think the latter.
This is wrong because it conflates evolution with atheism, when they aren't the same thing at all. On the other hand, there are plenty of militant evolution proponents who perpetuate this misperception by displaying overt God-hatred.
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Natural Corrections
Reservoir effects
Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it.
One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Washington. Human bone may be a problematic medium for dating in some instances due to human consumption of fish, whose C14 label will reflect the ocean reservoir. In such a case, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise reservoir difference and hence apply a correction to the measured radiocarbon age.
Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations of radiocarbon-depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old. Bruns et al. (1980) measured the radioactivity of modern plants growing near hot springs heated by volcanic rocks in western Germany and demonstrated a deficiency in radiocarbon of up to 1500 years through comparison with modern atmospheric radiocarbon levels. Similarly, this effect has been noted for plants in the bay of Palaea Kameni near the prehistoric site of Akrotiri, which was buried by the eruption of the Thera volcano over 3500 years ago (see Weninger, 1989). The effect has been suggested as providing dates in error for the eruption of Thera which has been linked to the demise of the Minoan civilisation in the Aegean. One modern plant growing near the emanations had an age of 1390 yr. The volcanic effect has a limited distance however. Bruns et al. (1980) found that at 200 m away from the source, plants yielded an age in agreement with that expected. They suggested that the influence of depleted CO2 declined rapidly with increasing distance from the source. Radiocarbon discrepancies due to volcanic CO2 emissions are a popular source of ammunition for fundamentalist viewpoints keen to present evidence to show that the radiocarbon method is somehow fundamentally flawed.
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
Then what would they have to complain about? Besides, I thought I heard on the news this morning that openining weekend attendence was underwhelming so I doubt it will be much of an issue.
Sure it is...you obviously have not read the literature.
Where did God come from?
Well I've read the Bible, but not as a science textbook. And I've read science books, but not looking for any theology. And so far I've managed to keep the two separate.
Good question.
We Creationists always acknowledge that our views are based on faith (Heb.11:3).
But, on that we are at least honest.
The evolutionist wants to pretend that he is not depending on faith for his system as well.
Both systems are faith based, and what has to be seen is which seems the most reasonable, based on the condition of the Universe and man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.