Posted on 08/06/2007 6:34:13 AM PDT by steveg1961
Professional paleontologists from around the world are concerned about the misrepresentation of science at the newly opened Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The Creation Museum has been marketed to the public as a "reasoned, logical defence" for young- earth creationism by Ken Ham, the President and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, a world-wide scientific and educational organization concerned with vertebrate paleontology, contends that the museum presents visitors with a view of earth history that has been scientifically disproven for over a century.
The Creation Museum's fossil exhibitions, though artistically impressive, include a vast number of scientific errors, large and small. These errors range from implying that the Earth's sedimentary rocks were deposited by a single biblical Flood, to claiming that humans and dinosaurs lived alongside one another, to denouncing the reality of transitional fossils.
"Ken Ham is not recognized as a scientist or educator among experts in the fields of geology and paleontology, and his views on the interpretation of Biblical texts are extremist. Visitors to his 'museum' may arrive knowing little about these sciences, but they will leave misled and intellectually deceived," said Dr. Kevin Padian, Professor and Curator, University of California, Berkeley and President of the National Center for Science Education.
The fossil exhibits at the Creation Museum discount the last 150 years of paleontological and geological discovery. Not only are transitional fossils, including snakes with limbs and dinosaurs with feathers, abundant in the fossil record, but radiometric dating allows paleontologists to pinpoint the timing of major events in the ancient history of the earth.
For example, Tyrannosaurus rex existed over 65 million years ago, whereas modern humans didn't show up on the scene until 200 thousand years ago. They never walked side by side. The Creation Museum neglects to include this critical data in its analysis of the history of life on earth. "Most of us in the public view museums as places to get the latest information on scientific discovery. In this case, the Creation Museum is using the disguise of science museums and centers without including an iota of science inside," said Dr. Kristi Curry Rogers of the Science Museum of Minnesota.
"That's the real danger of such a place – undermining the basic principles of science, eroding the public's confidence in science, and causing a general weakening of science education in the country," commented Dr. Glenn Storrs of the Cincinnati Museum Center.
and yet the creationist scientists, using the same evidence and techniques have come to a different conclusion.
it is highly unlikely that all creationist scientists would arrive at the same conclusion and be in error.
perhaps it is the starting point that the guides the two camps?
You appear to be behind the curve on this one. The Southern Baptists have appointed a new director for their Center for Theology and Science who has said:
Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.
no one is saying we base this on science alone, as kurt wise, the person quoted, is a YEC himself. we beleive in God’s word that it was created in 6 days, and then with that starting point, we are able to use the same science techniques that secularist types use to arrive at a YEC conclusion.
if you use science alone, i.e. bereft of the God that created the very physical laws that govern science, you can come up with another view point.
Very, very wrong. Let me quote the passage to you.
7 And there shall be a unique day, which is known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but at evening time there shall be light.
8 On that day living waters shall flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea [2] and half of them to the western sea. [3] It shall continue in summer as in winter.
9 And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.
Even a cursory reading indicates that "that day" in verse 8 is referring to the "one day" (or unique day) in verse 7. We agree on more than you think but, I'm sorry, whatever your sources are for this passage in Zechariah are twisting it to conform to a young-earth point of view. Why not accept the plain meaning of the Bible and the overwhelming evidence of science. You can see the Andromeda galaxy with binoculars. How can you believe in young-earth creationism when you can see the evidence with your own eyes?
Developing a standard deviation by associating independent data sets in this manner is largely meaningless. The simple fact of the matter is that when you date rocks using one method, you arrive at one number. When you date rocks using another method, you will most likely obtain a number which is widely divergent from the first, and on down the line - the isochrons obtained by independent testing using each method are often nowhere near being within the confidence level for each independent data sat. Treating them for convergence is merely a way of getting around this, so that the data sets can be plausibly associated to give a statistically "average" number (used colloquially). It's not a conspiracy by geologists to hide anything, it's just a way to make the numbers smooth out. Yes, okay, you get a number, and statistically it works out, but it's not "real", which is the point. It's a statistical construct which only has relevancy because it makes everyone's lives easier.
None of this addresses my original argument, however, which would basically be that you can collect all the data you want, using whatever methodology you like, but if your starting assumptions about how the rock "acts" and what it's condition was when it first formed are faulty, then any subsequent data collection is ALSO faulty, regardless of how you statistically treat it. If you don't really know that the rock had no argon (for K-Ar dating, e.g. - and there is research out there that seems to indicate that we CANNOT make that assumption) to begin with, then you can't confidently say that you know what's its age is NOW based upon the decay rate of 40K. This precedes statistical treatment, which is what you're missing.
Wrong. "It shall continue" indicates a continuation of the conditions established initially on that "one day". If the first part of the verse were intended, in and of itself, to indicate an ongoing state of affairs, there would be no need for the then-redundant "it shall continue".
Professional paleontologists - lol, oh man, that’s a laugh ....
You are obviously experiencing a momentary lapse of reading comprehension.
Your statement is not compatible with what Kurt Wise said. You are free to believe things that contradict the findings of science, but attempting to manipulate the findings just displays ignorance. "Ignorant"is his word, not mine.
Um, no, your interpretation of the data is faulty. A divergent value for the age of the isochrons is obviously indicative of initial conditions that can't be used. If the isochrons do converge, well, then you obviously have a datable sample. Tell me - can you find any instances where a pyroclastic flow underneath a sedimentary stratum (which generally can't be dated radiometrically) containing benchmark fossils from any era prior to the Cenozoic that returns a convergence in ages significantly more recent than the Cenozoic (barring regions where an obvious upheaval has occurred)? Now that would be impressive news.
None of this addresses my original argument, however, which would basically be that you can collect all the data you want, using whatever methodology you like, but if your starting assumptions about how the rock "acts" and what it's condition was when it first formed are faulty, then any subsequent data collection is ALSO faulty, regardless of how you statistically treat it.
Actually, that's been addressed, you just didn't catch it. There is no way you could get a convergence of diverse isochronic data under any feasible circumstance unless the data meets the initial assumed circumstances. That's where your misunderstanding of the process (no doubt fueled by creationist propaganda) comes in.
Also, it's not like radiometric dating is the only process that confirms the earth is older than 10,000 years old, for crying out loud. (Funny that processes used for dating the age of the sun, which are totally different than those used to date rocks, return the same age for the solar system, Hmmm......)
regardless of kurt wise and his quote (keeping in mind you are agreeing with someone who is a YEC) what i said is true.
we have differing starting points to kick off the research.
folks like you see a fossil and ALREADY DENYING THE REALITY OF GOD, start off with whatever you can to prove the fossil is a step in a evolutionary chain.
folks like me see a fossil and REALIZING THE TRUTH OF THE LIVING GOD AND HIS WORD, start off with evidence that points us to the YEC position.
no one is being ignorant of the scientific method, especially those creation scientists who’s research points to YEC as well.
again, Wise is referring to taking science in a vaccuum, void of God, and sure enough, you end up with billions of years...no kidding...
We now know the mass of the universe and the velocity at which it is expanding. It will not collapse back - the big bang was a one time event. Combine that with the parallel universe theories recently being proved to be mathematically dead the average atheist cosmologist is in a real sweat.
Everybody just needs to stick to the science and quit bending the facts to fit their particular belief systems.
the insistance of using the quote from kurt wise, while leaving out how he COMBINES THE TWO, of science and his belief in God, note the following from kurt himself:
My favourite evidence for creation!’
Assistant Professor of Science, Department of Mathematics and Natural Science, Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee.
The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures.
I believe that the best extra-biblical evidence for creation would come from the design of organisms past and present. The schizochroal compound eye of the trilobite (a horseshoe crab-like organism of the past), for examp le, contains the only known lens in the biological world which corrects for focusing problems that result from using non-flexible lenses. The designs of the schizochroal lenses, in fact, are the very same designs that man himself has developed to correct for the same problems. Furthermore, the design of the schizochroal eye combines this optimum focusing capability with the optimum sensitivity to motion provided by the compound eye as well as the stereoscopic (3-D) vision provided by closely spaced eyes.
The design of the schizochroal eye makes it unique among eyes; perhaps even to the point of being the best optical system known in the biological world. This design, in fact, seems to far exceed the needs of the trilobite. The origin of the design of the schizochroal eye is not understood by means of any known natural cause. Rather, it is best understood as being due to an intelligent (design-creating) cause, through a process involving remarkably high manipulative ability. Among available hypotheses, creation by God is the most reasonable hypothesis for the origin of the complexity of the trilobite’s schizochroal eye.
(Dr. Wise’s doctoral degree in palaeontology was completed at Harvard under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. See also his Interview in Creation magazine.)
‘My favourite evidence for creation!’, Creation Ex Nihilo, Sept.-Nov. 1989, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 29
So were fossils sprinkled around by God as — well — tricks or practical jokes?
why would you accuse God of ‘tricks’ regarding fossils? what do you base this on?
Do you believe that light from anything farther than 6,000 light years away was created in-transit? That would be another trick of God, too.
If the universe is only 6,000 years old, then why would God create it to appear that it's about 15 billion years old? The character of God is such that he would not play such tricks on us.
To be a young-earth creationist, you have to wring things out of scripture that aren't there; plus, you have to believe that God has tricked the human race into believing that the universe is 15 billion years old.
Who are you going to believe: all the evidence of the universe or a medieval interpretation of the scriptures?
I believe that God always tells the truth and that the truth points to a universe that is about 15 billion years old.
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.