Former 'Young Earth Creationist' - Now Confused 'Old Earth Creationist'...

[YellowSquash]

Setterfield's data analysis is not scientific. He made a number of errors:
1) he ignored error bars in his curve-fitting (this is essential for proper data analysis)
2) he threw out data which gave lower than accepted values of c, and did not include them in his curve fitting
3) he arbitrarily selected an unusual function for fitting, one which asymptotically goes to infinity in the past. Standard curves are linear, power series, log, etc. It is not acceptable to select an arbitrary curve, and not to use any sort of "unusual" curve unless there is a valid a priori physical reason that the data should behave in this unusual fashion.

It should be noted that ICR published a monograph years ago detailing some of these problems:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=283

What the data shows is actually a common phenomenon in science, which Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez called "intellectual phase-lock". An initial measurement of a parameter is made, but which has some error. As others try to reproduce the experiment with more precision, they subconsciously try to get close to the original value. The find and fix problems with their experimental apparatus until they are close. Then, thinking that they've got the bugs worked out, they publish their new data. But small unknown systematic errors may remain in the experimental apparatus, still giving an error in the result. This process repeats, and with time the true value emerges. Sometimes the data relaxes more-or-less smoothly to the true value (like Setterfield's curve shows), and sometimes it "oscillates" a bit around the true value (like Setterfield's curve would have showed if he had not thrown out the data that he didn't like). This can be seen with historical measurements of properties of a number of subatomic particles--see the plots here: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/historyrpp.pdf (Note that scientists believe that all of these properties are constants; the variation with time is solely due to measurement error.)

Hi KBertsche,

Again, like I responded to mpb1 earlier, I will refer you back to http://www.setterfield.org. I believe that Dr. Aardsma's work in the ICR Impact article has been addressed here. I tried to provide the most concise link I could so that it wouldn't take too much of your time, but there is other relevant information nearby.

I know that OE creationists will have objections to this information, fine. But IF you look at the information, then look at the give and take before you dismiss it. I am not going to keep spoonfeeding information to everyone who has read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield.

Yellow

[gallileo]

Hi Gallileo,


1. I place the authority of scripture above science, mpb1 doesn't. That is why I used the word 'derive'. This was neither bloviation nor blasphemy.

Squash,





Per your statement

Right, you derive your authority from man without understanding the issues yourself.

it seems you defined yourself as the arbiter of whose authority comes from man and God. I see that as you setting yourself up as the standard.

By the way, If I am not mistaken, this is a creationist only area. I am pretty sure that theistic evolutionists would be encouraged to post elsewhere, but thanks for keeping me alert to the dangers of bloviation. I am definitely not immune to it.

Yellow

Sorry for intruding, I regard myself as a Creationist since I believe God to be the source of all things. I just don't presume to tell Him how to do His job, just like its not a good idea to tell the carpenter how to cut and measure if you want your house built right.

By the forum rules, I would say I am surprisingly not allowed to discuss mainstream theology here. Oh well.

Have fun bloviating,

Later

[YellowSquash]

Squash,





Per your statement



it seems you defined yourself as the arbiter of whose authority comes from man and God. I see that as you setting yourself up as the standard.


Sorry for intruding, I regard myself as a Creationist since I believe God to be the source of all things. I just don't presume to tell Him how to do His job, just like its not a good idea to tell the carpenter how to cut and measure if you want your house built right.

By the forum rules, I would say I am surprisingly not allowed to discuss mainstream theology here. Oh well.

Have fun bloviating,

Later

I wished I could see what you are seeing. The standard is the Bible, not me or any man. Right?

As far as whether you are intruding, if the moderators let you post...then post. My very first post was to the wrong area...I think it was to the basic theology site that is heavily moderated. I am still not used to this setup.

I agree that we cannot tell God how to do his job. If I left that impression then I am at fault.

Yellow

[KBertsche]

Hi KBertsche,

Again, like I responded to mpb1 earlier, I will refer you back to http://www.setterfield.org. I believe that Dr. Aardsma's work in the ICR Impact article has been addressed here. I tried to provide the most concise link I could so that it wouldn't take too much of your time, but there is other relevant information nearby.

I know that OE creationists will have objections to this information, fine. But IF you look at the information, then look at the give and take before you dismiss it. I am not going to keep spoonfeeding information to everyone who has read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield.

Yellow

Thanks for the reference. I have not looked at Setterfield's stuff in a few years, and not seriously in nearly 20 years. His new claims are even more nonsensical than the original, and makes me even more sure of my original conclusions. His claims of a non-constant speed of light are unscientific fantasies.

FYI, I have not merely "read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield." I independently analyzed his data (from his own papers) before any such articles appeared. His data analysis was simply wrong, as I noted above. Aardsma caught some of the problems that I noted, but not all of them. The complaints about Aardsma's analysis on Setterfield's website are not substantial; they do not change the poor data analysis of Setterfield.

Note also that Setterfield is NOT "Dr. Setterfield". From his own website: "Though often referred to as Dr. Setterfield, Barry has taken pains to point out that he has not received a Ph.D. and the term 'Dr.' should therefore not be used with his name." In fact, I do not see any evidence on his website that he has ANY earned degrees, even a BS or BA.

[YellowSquash]

Thanks for the reference. I have not looked at Setterfield's stuff in a few years, and not seriously in nearly 20 years. His new claims are even more nonsensical than the original, and makes me even more sure of my original conclusions. His claims of a non-constant speed of light are unscientific fantasies.

FYI, I have not merely "read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield." I independently analyzed his data (from his own papers) before any such articles appeared. His data analysis was simply wrong, as I noted above. Aardsma caught some of the problems that I noted, but not all of them. The complaints about Aardsma's analysis on Setterfield's website are not substantial; they do not change the poor data analysis of Setterfield.

Note also that Setterfield is NOT "Dr. Setterfield". From his own website: "Though often referred to as Dr. Setterfield, Barry has taken pains to point out that he has not received a Ph.D. and the term 'Dr.' should therefore not be used with his name." In fact, I do not see any evidence on his website that he has ANY earned degrees, even a BS or BA.

It is good to meet someone who has read his claims. I just didn't want to become the librarian in this thread.

Since you analysed the data yourself then you have reason to draw a conclusion. If you wish to characterize Setterfield's work as bad science I would accept this as your opinion, but to call it unscientific is a bit over the top. There are subjects that I would classify as bad science too, but I would not deny that they are scientific.

BTW, thanks for pointing out my error in calling him a Dr., I stand corrected.

Yellow

[OfficialPro]

Old_Earth-ism isn't as solid as they once hoped. Reference the fact that diamonds, coal, and oil ALL have measurable amounts of C-14 in them.

What does this mean?

Well, C-14's half life means that nothing can be dated before 250,000 years. In fact, going earlier than 50,000 years is stretching it. Yet Coal, diamonds and oil are all said to be Millions of years old. If C-14 (with no contamination evident, or in the case of Diamonds, it's not even possible to be contaminated) is found in measurable amounts in these things, it seriously puts into question not only the age of the materials, but also throws into question the other dating methods that may have been used (on surrounding igneous-based rocks) to guess the ages of the materials.

[KBertsche]

Old_Earth-ism isn't as solid as they once hoped. Reference the fact that diamonds, coal, and oil ALL have measurable amounts of C-14 in them.

Not true.

There have been SOME claims that diamond and coal were found to have measurable amounts of 14C. The reports are questionable (important info like how the samples were prepared and which lab did the dates were not presented). It is certainly not true that ALL samples have measurable 14C.

What does this mean?

It could mean a few things:
contamination in situ
contamination in sample prep
backgrounds in measurement technique

Well, C-14's half life means that nothing can be dated before 250,000 years. In fact, going earlier than 50,000 years is stretching it.

True.

Yet Coal, diamonds and oil are all said to be Millions of years old.

True.

If C-14 (with no contamination evident, or in the case of Diamonds, it's not even possible to be contaminated) is found in measurable amounts in these things, it seriously puts into question not only the age of the materials, but also throws into question the other dating methods that may have been used (on surrounding igneous-based rocks) to guess the ages of the materials.

Nonsense. It means contamination of some sort. And it has no implications at all on K-Ar dating mathods used on igneous rocks.

Here's a question for anyone who knows: how in the world did they even prepare a sample of DIAMOND? These measurements were supposedly done by AMS, which requires oxidizing the sample to CO or CO2 and then reducing it to graphite. How do you oxidize diamond? I would be very suspicous of this, and of any chemicals used to try to extract carbon from the diamond. The chemicals used in procesing are a well-known potential source of contamination. In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond? I doubt that any lab would have done this knowingly. The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples, so I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.

[KBertsche]

Here's a question for anyone who knows: how in the world did they even prepare a sample of DIAMOND? These measurements were supposedly done by AMS, which requires oxidizing the sample to CO or CO2 and then reducing it to graphite. How do you oxidize diamond? I would be very suspicous of this, and of any chemicals used to try to extract carbon from the diamond. The chemicals used in procesing are a well-known potential source of contamination. In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond? I doubt that any lab would have done this knowingly. The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples, so I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.

I'm replying to myself. I just did a search and found one good-quality paper on 14C and diamond. I've posted comments in the "Natural Science" thread on "The Scam of 14C", which is a more appropriate place to discuss this:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=387

[Vertetuesi]

In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond?

Were they asked to? All that was needed was to ascertain if they contained any measurable and significant C-14. Dating is another matter. I'm sure you know the difference?

The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples

How is this accusation relevant here? All diamonds are supposed to be very old; in fact, some of the oldest geological features around.

I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.

And how do you contaminate a diamond?

[KBertsche]

Were they asked to? All that was needed was to ascertain if they contained any measurable and significant C-14. Dating is another matter. I'm sure you know the difference?

And how do you contaminate a diamond?

Was anyone even asked to measure the 14C in diamond?? How were the samples prepared?? If you know, please provide references.

The only decent reference that I found to actual measurements is the paper of Taylor and Southon. If anyone has any more info on YEC claims of radiocarbon in diamond, please post it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=387

[blackapologist]

I don't know, but Science can't prove anything. The creation story can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I believe creation is indirectly proven though.

[MattPalumbo]

I reccomend reading "the Science of God", It reconciles Genesis and Evolution perfectly

[KBertsche]

I reccomend reading "the Science of God", It reconciles Genesis and Evolution perfectly

Who is the author of the book you are recommending? (I believe there are at least two books with this title; one by McGrath, and the other by Schroeder).

[lee_merrill]

I would recommend "The G3n3sis debate--Three views on the days of Creation", where the YEC / OEC / Framework views are discussed and debated. Or you can roll-your-own contrasting views set, with Safarti's "Refuting Compromise" (YEC view) read alongside Ross's "A Matter of Days" (OEC view).

Blessings,
Lee

[Athanasius]

Well, so far the only responses seem to be from...

a.) Those who do not take the Creation account literally; and

b.) Young earth creationists trying to debate old earth creation

This thread was clear from the beginning that the ASSUMPTION was being made that young earth creation does not square with accepted science.

Other threads can debate this.

I was looking for one thing in this thread... Old earth creationists who know of a reasonable explantion for how we can reconcile known science with the Genesis account of Creation.

After 25 years of saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," I really want to be able to defend my faith WITHOUT having to stick my head in the sand and pretend that I can explain away science, which to many is as PLAIN as 2+2=4.

I don't believe in evolution. I believe evolutionists are DISHONEST in continuing to believe and promote evolution in spite of the lack of evolutionary fossil records, and in light of the mathematical impossibilities of DNA - or anything else in the human body - being formed by CHANCE.

Apparently, you and many others, including the fine people with Answers in Genesis, are content to use outlandish theories to explain starlight - not to mention ALL other indications that the earth (and life on earth) is MUCH older than our Bible seems to indicate that it is.

I want to reconcile known science with the Book of Genesis, without denying a literal interpretation of Creation, and without denying the reality of known science.

-

Here's a preliminary hypothesis which attempts to answer your questions. What if...

1. The days of Genesis are based upon the cycle of evening and morning (as the text states) not on a 24 hour clock?
2. The first night was of indefinite length. During that night, within the sphere of the waters, (which may have been light-years across) the elements formed through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.
3. The first light source was external to the sphere of waters?
4. Although the raw material of the earth was within the waters, the earth was not at the center of the waters?
5. The firnament divided not only the waters of the earth from the waters above the firnament, but also the waters of other heavenly bodies from the waters above the firmanent?
6. The stretching of the expanse of the heavens took billions of years, more than enough time for light to arrive on the earth? During this expansion, the universe rotated once in relation to the light source.
7. The cycle of evening and morning does not become a 24 hour period until the earth, sun and moon are fully formed?