I was recently reading up on the creationist/evolutionist debate and I came across a blog where the author, who couldn't be bothered to post his name, (apparently an educator at NAU) had the following to say about the creationist Russ Miller.
"Radioisotope dating has demolished the notion that Earth is merely 6,000 years old. In retaliation, young-earthers wage an all-out smear campaign against mountains of evidence in the public domain. Their level of denial is exceeded only by the likes of Flat Earth Society. For example, the CSEM FAQ page says:
The only thing that these dating methods have proven is that they (Carbon, Ar-K, Isochron, etc.) are completely unreliable.
Right. And I suppose this is borne out by the ~900-page graduate text sitting on my desk, Isotopes, Principles and Applications. Funny I can’t find this point in there anywhere. Nor does it appear in a truly vast refereed literature (137 selected references for the K-Ar chapter alone). Ah, but CSEM explains this too:"
Wait a graduate paper?... you mean a paper turned in to you by a student? Granted one who is preparing to move on to bigger and better things but still... are we really to be expected that this means the author of the paper has the years and or decades of experience to prove all those creation scientists Mr. Miller references to be wrong?
Please forgive me my sarcasm here I am not as well educated as our illustrious "guest"
Back to the issue...
"'Typically a wide range of ages are given by these methods with the date selected being the one which matches the Geologic Column.'
Ok, this is really not obvious from the text; they never taught it to me in grad Geochemistry at Caltech either. I guess that’s because geochemists secretly throw out all the “bad” measurements before they report them. I’m glad a creationist was available to explain this to me - I’m sure they know better, having spent untold hours undercover as mainstream geologists witnessing the discarding of all that “bad” data.As a mere professor in planetary science with a Ph.D. from a Geological Sciences Division, I probably wouldn’t have been allowed to witness such a plot. Or could it be this is a great big fib? I thought that was against the ninth commandment. Surely biblical literalists would never act thus!"
WOW. The hate that pours from this... why so much emotion? at least now I can feel better about MY sarcasm.
Finally I wanted to bring up this quote...
"Russ Miller again confirmed his role as a disciple of Henry Morris by claiming in his Cline Library lecture that Earth’s crustal rocks originated literally in a global flood that wafted Noah’s ark. He left out details, but some are available in his online seminar about the Grand Canyon. Here he claims the entire Paleozoic sequence - from Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone to Permian Kaibab Limestone (consistently misspelled as “Kiabab” in his slides) - was laid down in the Genesis flood. Further, he claims that washing away of the overlying Moenkopi and Chinle formations constitutes “absolute proof” for a global flood (huh?). No notice is made of the preservation of these formations to the north, together with 1,000’s more feet of Mesozoic and Cenozoic rock in Zion, Bryce, and Grand Staircase National Parks".
At least the author did finally admit...
"Bottom line - we don’t yet know precisely how to make life or how it first arose. But there is no reason to believe the process required a miracle."
I will admit I felt some frustration at reading this but after the way this Professor with a Ph.D in geological sciences Division, treated others in his blog I also feel somewhat justified in my response, sarcasm and all since it was obviously good enough for him, after all if this guy who is so far above me in station can do it then I can too right?
Anyway my response...
Methinks though doth protesteth too much!
I believe from reading these articles that your “bone to pick” is entirely based on emotional distress.
And as such I cannot believe that what you are writing is truly thought out and considered.
“For in the heat of the moment one will say anything to try to convince others of how ‘right’ he is even when He is dead wrong.”
Therefore this entire line of reasoning becomes suspect due to too much emotion involved.
Reason for my “suspicion” lies in how you appear to feel you have to nit pick every little thing you can to try to make your “opponent” look like a fool. (The spelling of Kaibab? Come on who outside of Arizona is going to even care? It is petty to complain about this, especially when you couldn't even Get the CESM acronym right, while looking at the site... I mean you did create a link to it.)
If your opponent is truly as misguided or foolish as you claim then the mere facts will bear that out. What will not prove his foolishness is a diatribe given by an overwrought individual.
Similarly, while you pick at how much information he is or is not giving. I notice that you seem to be equally guilty of the same. You quote the “scientists” or “doctors” who support your viewpoint he does the same, and it all looks pretty equally balanced to me. That is when it becomes he said-he said.
You claim that your tests are real and work without really getting into how they work, somewhat reminiscent of the way the Wizard of OZ put on a big show that was all bluster no substance. Hey I could claim my face turns green when I am happy but how would you know it unless I showed you? But you want me to just take your word for it?
Maybe the real problem here is the air of “secrecy” that seems to exist around all the Biological /geological / anthropomorphic / or whatever science?
I have seen people try to discuss these issues with others and they all end up saying something to the effect of “it is too complex for someone who doesn’t have a P.H.D to understand.”
Well that right there is part of your problem with edumacatin us idjets. You make it too dad blamed hard fer us lowly scum who aint worthy of yur lofty attentions.
First, You make it too difficult to understand your view point.
Second, When trying to talk to anyone else you tend to treat people as if they were not as capable (or smart) as you, if they hold a different idea. (can we say Closed minded, kids? I knew you could!)
Third, When someone comes close to understanding your view and tries to put it in simpler terms, you tend to rant and rave about how “no, no it isn’t that simple” like someone pushed you and made you drop your ice cream cone.
(Side note here… for the record when I say “you” I do mean the scientific community as a whole.)
Therefore, because of their behavior, scientists make the entire scientific community actually look like a bunch of childish whiners who didn’t get what they wanted. (Not name calling here just sayin…)
So when you get emotional and distressed at the merest hint of a challenge and he faces the challenges he encounters equably. This helps me to believe that maybe he has something there.
Maybe I ought to thank you for “showing me the truth” through your unreasonableness. (Yes I have been to college, yes I believed Evolution was real! Now? Having seen what is out there I have to say the Creationist’s arguments do make a lot of sense).
Maybe I will go back to college some more so’s I ken git mahsef a gud edumacashun and one ov dem docterit thangs and then ah ken figur it out fer mahsef.
To sum up, please stop being condescending to all the “lay people”, and start trying to work with all the people openly. Oh and don’t tell me you have been open. If you were then there would NOT be all this room for them to argue otherwise.
I followed through and looked at some of the comments posted at his site there were things like...
"These people make me want to burn religious institutions."
Now how is that for "scientific method?"
Please forgive me any perceived hypocrisy. this blog is NOT meant to be a scientific paper, I am merely voicing an opinion here and pointing out that maybe there is a need for everyone to back off and try to find a new common ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment