MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[Lurking Libertarian]

501?

[Terriergal]

Nope, I'm not Calvinist. But I do believe in prevenient grace and that each person will be held accountable for what he did with the truth no matter what kind of 'stumbling block' he perceived to be in his way.

[Terriergal]

Reply to an ad hominem by a poster who didn't sign the agreement

So am I to understand it correctly that we are free to attack posters who have not signed on, even if we have?

[Terriergal]

I haven't read any of his thoughts on evolution yet. I also dont' agree with him on everything.

I do think that evolutionists can be saved and still believe somewhat in evolution. The only problem comes when they actually examine the doctrine of sin and find that death came before sin in evolution, therefore what need is there of salvation, if death (both physical and spiritual) is not a result of sin?

[Terriergal]

Lewis explained at some length his view on the question of origins. These letters reveal that during the last years of his life Lewis grew increasingly uncomfortable with the claims being made for organic evolution.

Not surprising, from a thinking person.

[Right Wing Professor]

So am I to understand it correctly that we are free to attack posters who have not signed on, even if we have?

5. Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."

Italics mine.

[Right Wing Professor]

Maybe cubits have been shrinking along with the speed of light?

As we evolved from the apes, our forearms have shortened since our knuckles no longer need to drag. Thence the cubit is shorter

[Terriergal]

From CS Lewis at http://www.apologetics.org/acworthletters3.html

I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth's unpublished "The Lie of Evolution"] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant. I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders. The section on Anthropology was especially good? The point that the whole economy of nature demands simultaneity of at least a very great many species is a very sticky one. Thanks: and blessings.

After reading these letters it seems obvious to me he was at the end moving on to question evolution. It was just one of those things he hadn't seen as important until then.

[VadeRetro]

5. At its upper limits, contamination will always be a problem for techniques like C-14 dating which rely on measuring the amount of very trace amounts of material. Even at the best of times (i.e., before an organism's death) Carbon-14 only makes up 0.0000000002% (not a typo) of the Carbon in the organism. *Very* small amounts of additional C-14 will contribute a significant amount of "noise" to the measurements of the smaller amounts of C-14 present in an old sample.

Back to what I guessed in reply 25, IOW. You have the normal decay curve which acts just like it's supposed to, only it descends into a non-zero noise floor. All physical measurements have this problem in one degree or another. Carbon gets particularly noisy when you try to stretch the technique beyond its limits because carbon atoms can diffuse around one way or another in all sorts of materials in water solution or in gas compounds.

The ICR team tries to lawyer the situation to mean that everything older than 40K as dated by ¹⁴C (that is, beyond the "radiocarbon barrier") actually died at the same time. That is, the carbon in a Devonian trilobite fossil is from something that died at the same time as the carbon from a Jurassic allosaurus fossil.

There's a sense in which this is true, in that it's unlikely that any carbon in such an old rock came from either creature, given the almost total replacement process that Sentis points out in reply 81. But what the ICR team is really trying to say is that a great flood killed everything some geologically not-so-long ago and then almost the whole geologic column formed from the debris.

They neglect to present a detailed scenario for how so much of the geologic column can be the residue of a single flood, the deposition of so many distinct layers, their warping and folding (in some places but not others) and their subsequent erosion in some places but not others.

Bottom line: they followed the usual quack-science formula.

To sell an impossible scenario as real, they focused on a single presumed anomaly (the non-zero ¹⁴C noise floor) in the current picture. They announced that their model explains the anomaly whereas mainstream science does not. They neglected to present their alternative model in any detail or defend it against any natural criticisms that would arise from considering all the other evidence readily available. They very inadequately presented mainstream science's understanding of the "anomaly."

Not science. Data-lawyering, maybe. Propaganda, mostly.

[Havoc]

I didn't make an excuse, I just stated a fact. You could have gone out on the net and been swamped in articles talking about the subject. So rather than play dumb like most of you do...

HERE learn something oh all knowing one.

Then while you're telling us all about the extinction of the trilobytes later, I'll sit and chuckle about the coelacanth.

[Elsie]

Then you, sir, are an urepentent liar.
.
.
...blowhard.

(Is this name calling?)

[Havoc]

You do not know of what you speak. It's trigonometry, plain and simple. The relationships involved are completely independent of the medium it passes through. Read the relavant posts before you pontificate. Your posts are looking increasingly ridiculous and paranoid.

No, it's physics. You can't change the laws of physics just to suit yourself. basic trig does not account for the physics involving obstructions. You must then climb the ladder to physics and Calc. And snipers know that even on a clear day, this is true. Screws up your "science" to admit you have no idea what obstructions may be out there to slow the travel of the light emerging. But it betrays you to admit you aren't accounting for them. Thank you.

[Terriergal]

So can I sign off and then sign back on again?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question!

So am I to understand it correctly that we are free to attack posters who have not signed on, even if we have?

Whereas the Language Restraint applies to complying posters, as Right Wing Professor has observed --- it should also be noted that the overarching principle of the agreement is this:

Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves.

Thus, a "willing" should never be more harsh with another poster than he would want to be treated himself were the situation reversed.

[Terriergal]

So we *are* free to insult people who haven't signed on? Oh goody! I wonder how I'll keep track. It will get awfully tedious to check the list over and over and see if so and so has signed on yet.

[Elsie]

Oh please! Evolution (whether factually correct or not) is a description of what happens in nature. A description of process. You are suggesting that if astronomers detect a future asteroid impact, they (and we) should let nature take its course. I assume you are being sarcastic.

Ahh... NOW we're talking!!!

DIRECTED Evolution, here we come!!

---

(Can ID be far behind??)

---

Randomness does not a process make.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question!

So can I sign off and then sign back on again?

It is an entirely voluntary agreement and you can sign off for no reason at any time.

However, people who are not signed on to the agreement are subject to the abuse button by complying posters for any disruption - along with the usual polite and peaceful methods which apply.

[Lurking Libertarian]

After reading these letters it seems obvious to me he was at the end moving on to question evolution. It was just one of those things he hadn't seen as important until then.

I hadn't seen those letters.

Nonetheless, C.S. Lewis's earlier beliefs illustrate that one can be both a Christian and an evolutionist.

[SengirV]

Oh and ... given that even creationists believe in microevolution/adaptation, one wouldn't need to take every subspecies along either.

You need to do some investigating on dinosaur Taxonomy, becasue your excuse fits with Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Humans all microevolving into each other. And I'm pretty sure you do not want to say that.

[Terriergal]

Oh. Well that *can* be interpreted many different ways... what happens to people who are bothered insults like a duck is bothered by a little rain? It would be easy to say "I don't mind being called a blowhard" (or insert whatever term was used) in defense of one's own actions.