One of the best answers ever ...

[Jorge]

I just finished reading a letter sent to CMI U.S.A. from what appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist. That letter is reproduced below. The response came from Dr. J. Sarfati and it is one of the best responses that I have ever read coming from any Biblical Creationist group. Sarfati states - far more eloquently than I ever have - my own views down to a 'T'. In fact, most of you should be able to correlate portions of Sarfati's response with what I've posted here on TWeb on numerous occasions (again, Sarfati was far more eloquent than I).

Topics covered include "peer review", "woodenly literal", "how to interpret Scripture", "evolution", "evidences for a young earth" and other related topics. Sarfati's reply is also chock-full of references/links to further educate those that are trapped in erroneous ideologies be they Christian or not.

In short, I highly recommend taking the time to carefully read and study this resource. Perhaps it will be able to accomplish what I have not.

Lastly, since the expressed views are essentially my own (except in Sarfati's words), feel free to ask anything that you do not understand. Be forewarned that blind, fanatical, personal incredulity or irrationality will not be answered. Also, 'trouble-makers' will be booted off - this is serious stuff.

Bravo ... great work, Dr. Sarfati!!!

Letter and response here : http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously

P.S. By the way, this also serves as evidence that it's NOT about me (Jorge). Of course, those with an ad hominem agenda will continue harping the same tune regardless.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to object strongly to your ministries’ representation of the Bible’s recount of creation in Genesis as a valid scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology, geology and biology.

As a Christian I take seriously the task of reading the Bible. Seriously, but not ‘literally’. It is significant on this first Sunday in Lent (9th Mar) the lectionary readings for the temptations of Christ include passages from Genesis about Adam and Eve’s temptation. Serious exegesis leads the reader to a deeper understanding of the human duty to resist temptation while a pilgrim on the way to the Cross at the end of Easter. The details of the type of fruit or serpent or the alleged dimensions and location of Eden are not important.

As an enthusiastic astronomer and physicist I also perfectly accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth 4.6 billion. Evolution occurs, just as our understanding of science and the Gospel does.

Yours faithfully,
K.G., Australia

[HMS_Beagle]

I notice Sir Farty didn't actually respond to the age of the Earth discussion but merely provided a link to the same moronic Don Batten "101 evidences for a young Earth" that you did.

He also repeated the stupid YEC PRATT "evolution can't produce new information!!"

I can see why you think evasion, misinformation, and flat out lies are the "best" answers. Pollos of a feather flock together it seems.

[Jorge]

I notice Sir Farty didn't actually respond to the age of the Earth discussion but merely provided a link to the same moronic Don Batten "101 evidences for a young Earth" that you did.

He also repeated the stupid YEC PRATT "evolution can't produce new information!!"

I can see why you think evasion, misinformation, and flat out lies are the "best" answers. Pollos of a feather flock together it seems.

That was really a worthwhile contribution, Beagle Boy. NOT !!!

That was your first and LAST post on this thread, Beagle Boy.

Mods: any future posts by HMS_Beagle in this thread should be deleted. Thanks.

Jorge

[rogue06]

Just a couple of points...

He is correct that science is decided by the evidence.

The problem here for YECs is that it is overwhelmingly against them and continues to be even more so as new evidence keeps coming in. And that evidence is cross correlating, corroborating and consilient and comes from dozens of different, independent scientific disciplines.

This is why YECs don't just have a beef with biology and genetics which keeps demonstrating again and again that evolution is real. They also have a problem with geology because it keeps demonstrating that the world is incredibly ancient. They also have a problem with paleontology because it supports both. They also have a problem with physics because it provides us with the means of dating things that demonstrate that the earth is ancient. They also have a problem with astronomy and cosmology because they demonstrate that the universe is even more ancient. And on and on.

IOW, they disagree with nearly every different scientific discipline.

OTOH, YECs continue to do little more than trot out the same hoary old PRATTs.


As for reading this portion of the text literally, as in in an overly simplistic and yes woodenly literal manner.

Let's keep in mind that roughly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 concern the creation of the firmament and when read in the manner mentioned above describe it as a solid structure. So much so that for many centuries Christians unanimous agreed that the firmament was indeed a solid, physical structure on to which the sun, the moons and the stars were physically affixed.

Today (thanks to our closely examining the heavens) we understand that it was incorrect to interpret those verses thusly and realize that a different reading is the correct one. The one where the firmament is understood to be an expanse.

Now, if we can clearly see that a quarter of Genesis 1 was not to be read in the manner that YECs tell us that it must, does not this strongly indicate that the rest of this portion should not be read in the same overly simplistic, woodenly literal manner that has already conclusively been shown to be in error?

Still, the text of chapter 1 does indeed have a literal message and that isn't to teach scientific truths but rather to convey the message that God is unquestionably the creator of everything. From the earth and every single thing on it (including us of course) to the entire universe that surrounds us. God created it all.

Since you get upset and start whining that a post is too long if it is over a certain length (though you obviously have no problem reading lengthy articles if they support YEC claptrap) this should do for now.

[Omega Red]

I just finished reading a letter sent to CMI U.S.A. from what appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist. That letter is reproduced below. The response came from Dr. J. Sarfati and it is one of the best responses that I have ever read coming from any Biblical Creationist group. Sarfati states - far more eloquently than I ever have - my own views down to a 'T'. In fact, most of you should be able to correlate portions of Sarfati's response with what I've posted here on TWeb on numerous occasions (again, Sarfati was far more eloquent than I).

Topics covered include "peer review", "woodenly literal", "how to interpret Scripture", "evolution", "evidences for a young earth" and other related topics. Sarfati's reply is also chock-full of references/links to further educate those that are trapped in erroneous ideologies be they Christian or not.

In short, I highly recommend taking the time to carefully read and study this resource. Perhaps it will be able to accomplish what I have not.

Lastly, since the expressed views are essentially my own (except in Sarfati's words), feel free to ask anything that you do not understand. Be forewarned that blind, fanatical, personal incredulity or irrationality will not be answered. Also, 'trouble-makers' will be booted off - this is serious stuff.

Bravo ... great work, Dr. Sarfati!!!

Letter and response here : http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously

P.S. By the way, this also serves as evidence that it's NOT about me (Jorge). Of course, those with an ad hominem agenda will continue harping the same tune regardless.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to object strongly to your ministries’ representation of the Bible’s recount of creation in Genesis as a valid scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology, geology and biology.

As a Christian I take seriously the task of reading the Bible. Seriously, but not ‘literally’. It is significant on this first Sunday in Lent (9th Mar) the lectionary readings for the temptations of Christ include passages from Genesis about Adam and Eve’s temptation. Serious exegesis leads the reader to a deeper understanding of the human duty to resist temptation while a pilgrim on the way to the Cross at the end of Easter. The details of the type of fruit or serpent or the alleged dimensions and location of Eden are not important.

As an enthusiastic astronomer and physicist I also perfectly accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth 4.6 billion. Evolution occurs, just as our understanding of science and the Gospel does.

Yours faithfully,
K.G., Australia

I find it curious for a couple of reasons. First, that K.G. from Australia would believe that such a letter would achieve anything close to his motive for sending it. Second, that out of all the letters/emails that CMI do receive, they would choose from the opposition this one to respond to. Third, comes from the opening sentences:

Source: http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously

Objection noted, but we have no intention of changing. For one thing, you have not in the slightest shown that it’s an invalid scientific alternative or that the current mainstream is right.

© Copyright Original Source

Is anyone, apart from the pro-CMIs, going to fall for the expectation that K.G. from Australia should have detailed the vast volume of scientific evidence for old life, earth, universe and/or detailed the vast problems with the supposed scientific evidence (4 pieces if I recall correctly) for a 6-12kyr life, earth, universe?

This exchange was self-serving and ultimately pointless. Most if not all those references that Sarfati links to have been considered and disposed of before.

Sarfati does give a good piece of advice: “you could easily have found this out for yourself”. Pity Jorge only saw those words just now, rather than him making the blunder of thinking that certain anti-evolutionary articles were actually pro-evolutionary.

This is another pointless thread started by Jorge where he fails to articulate his arguments with data, but refers everyone to more links.

[Jorge]

Since you get upset and start whining that a post is too long if it is over a certain length (though you obviously have no problem reading lengthy articles if they support YEC claptrap) this should do for now.

I decided to start with your ending (above). First, your post is long - it brings up multiple issues that would each take considerable time to fully/appropriately answer. And if I give a 'quick and dirty' answer, we all know what would happen, right? It's a lose-lose situation for me. Second, you forget that you write one post but so do other people (such as OR, for now) and so by the time it's all said the volume is huge. I'm one guy having to respond to an avalanche of issues. Third, I do have a life and that life is far more important than trying to convince people that would only be convinced if Jesus Christ Himself came down and slapped them silly into submission. You may have forgotten that I've been posting for over a decade and you remain immersed in the same errors now as then - in fact, you've gotten much worse! Okay, with all that said, let's see what I can do ...

Just a couple of points...

He is correct that science is decided by the evidence.

The problem here for YECs is that it is overwhelmingly against them and continues to be even more so as new evidence keeps coming in. And that evidence is cross correlating, corroborating and consilient and comes from dozens of different, independent scientific disciplines.

See what I mean? The above alone would require a book to answer in its entirety. Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.

This is why YECs don't just have a beef with biology and genetics which keeps demonstrating again and again that evolution is real. They also have a problem with geology because it keeps demonstrating that the world is incredibly ancient. They also have a problem with paleontology because it supports both. They also have a problem with physics because it provides us with the means of dating things that demonstrate that the earth is ancient. They also have a problem with astronomy and cosmology because they demonstrate that the universe is even more ancient. And on and on.

IOW, they disagree with nearly every different scientific discipline.

OTOH, YECs continue to do little more than trot out the same hoary old PRATTs.

The KNM-ER-1470 episode completely obliterates everything you just said.

As for reading this portion of the text literally, as in in an overly simplistic and yes woodenly literal manner.

You dare use "woodenly literal" even after I have repeatedly explained to you the blatant error of such a phrase and after you read (did you?) what Sarfati wrote on that ridiculously stupid "woodenly literal" phrase? See, this is why I am compelled to regard you people as dishonest beyond words. I can certainly listen to other views and ideas, but when said views and ideas totally disregard what has been amply corrected many times - only to continue parroting the same errors / lies - then what's the use?

I'm done here ... at least for now. .......

Jorge

Let's keep in mind that roughly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 concern the creation of the firmament and when read in the manner mentioned above describe it as a solid structure. So much so that for many centuries Christians unanimous agreed that the firmament was indeed a solid, physical structure on to which the sun, the moons and the stars were physically affixed.

Today (thanks to our closely examining the heavens) we understand that it was incorrect to interpret those verses thusly and realize that a different reading is the correct one. The one where the firmament is understood to be an expanse.

Now, if we can clearly see that a quarter of Genesis 1 was not to be read in the manner that YECs tell us that it must, does not this strongly indicate that the rest of this portion should not be read in the same overly simplistic, woodenly literal manner that has already conclusively been shown to be in error?

Still, the text of chapter 1 does indeed have a literal message and that isn't to teach scientific truths but rather to convey the message that God is unquestionably the creator of everything. From the earth and every single thing on it (including us of course) to the entire universe that surrounds us. God created it all.

[klaus54]

Jorge,

I've tried about a dozen times to get you to regale us with a literal. unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading of the Genesis stories.

Since you're on web link spree, perhaps this is the thread for you to finally cough it up?

So, IS there a weblink from CMI or some other reputable YEC defense organization that gives the requested reading of God's Word?

Without such a reading it seems to me that any YEC "science" paradigm would be spitting in the wind from the get-go since they would have no position to defend. In others word, why bother trying to dispute mainstream geology, etc. without having an alternate unambiguous physical theory to which to compare them?

So could you provide us with your favorite linky?

Thanks!

K54

[Omega Red]

...Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.
...

Have you just gone and found an example from papers published 30-40 years ago to dispel the notion that there is consilient evidence in dating techniques. Didn’t you harangue me, in your poor attempt to divert attention away from your blunders, for (supposedly) doing the same thing in the peer review thread? Unbelievable.

With respect to the KNM-ER 1470 fossil, HMS_Beagle said "it was "evo" scientists who both identified and corrected the error.... I'll also note that since this original discovery several other Homo rudolfensis specimens have been identified and all date to the 1.8 tp 1.9 MY time frame providing yet more consilient evidence."

There’s some interesting reading on Lubenow’s book too. What I would like to know is, given that this dating controversy was amongst pro-evo scientists who finally found the errors, why couldn’t Austin et al. have done the same for the Mount St. Helen samples when they knew their samples should be dating much younger? At least he acknowledged that “...higher purity mineral concentrates could be prepared from the dacite at Mount St. Helens”; as Henke points out "the bogus K-Ar results from Austin's dacite are obvious and Austin et al. and not the K-Ar method are to blame". But was it simply enough for Austin’s supporters to use those spurious dates and say ‘yep, that confirms radiometric dating is hokum’?

Why do you, Jorge, overstate the (perceived) problem? Despite your veiled attempts to vilify the scientists involved, surely all your highlighted tale can tell us is that they needed a more robust testing procedure back then. Yes, some anomalous data does exist in science, but how many actual problems does it take to destroy all confidence in radiometric dating and consilient, cross-correlating data?

[JonF]

See what I mean? The above alone would require a book to answer in its entirety. Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.

That's one of my favorite examples of consiliency and evidence winning out in a classic example of the scientific method as it should be applied.

The KBS tuff was dated by Ar-Ar dating (then in its infancy) and index fossils (pigs). The dates failed to agree. By a lot. That's a problem. Scientists started working on resolving the discrepancy by objective measurements and techniques. K-Ar dates roughly agreed with the Ar-Ar dates. The issue was discussed extensively in Nature (at least one of the best journals in the world if not the best). After much investigation scientists found the the KBS tuff was actually a mixture of different-age materials, and when the older material (leached into the formation) was separated the radiometric dates agreed with the pig dates, After this procedure was replicated in other labs the case was closed.

It's worth noting that an eminent scientist, Richard Leakey, favored an older origin of modern man and favored the older date. He lost to the evidence as is exactly the correct way.

No YEC (especially Jorge in his post) has ever suggested what should have been done differently, because the issue was handled exactly as it should have been.

The new Jorge, unthinkingly regurgitating PRATTs, is only slightly more interesting than the old.

[shunyadragon]

I actually do not need radiometric data to confirm an ancient earth, because stratigraphy does it by direct evidence, and also confirms radiometric dating. The varves in lake deposits are deposited annually for over one hundred thousand years in the same manner as today, and all over the earth we have ancient annual varves going back millions of years. In a number of places we have complete sequences of different kinds of sediments going back hundreds of millions of years. Limestone and coral growth in the Pacific is continuous for millions of years around coral Islands cannot be possibly explained by a young earth scenario.

This evidence is direct and conclusive. Uniformitivism rules and YEC is falsified. Consistency and uniformitivism is directly observed in the incremental annual seasonal lake varves and annual coral growth.

[JonF]

I forgot to mention that the KBS Tuff dating also belies the common YEC claim that discordant dates are hidden. In this case discrordant dates were published in major scientific journals including Nature.

[JonF]

This evidence is direct and conclusive. Uniformitivism rules and is falsified as consistent and true by observed incremental annual seasonal lake varves and annual coral growth.

"Uniformitivism rules and is falsified..."; I think you left out a "YEC" there.

[klaus54]

Jorge,

I've tried about a dozen times to get you to regale us with a literal. unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading of the Genesis stories.

Since you're on web link spree, perhaps this is the thread for you to finally cough it up?

So, IS there a weblink from CMI or some other reputable YEC defense organization that gives the requested reading of God's Word?

Without such a reading it seems to me that any YEC "science" paradigm would be spitting in the wind from the get-go since they would have no position to defend. In others word, why bother trying to dispute mainstream geology, etc. without having an alternate unambiguous physical theory to which to compare them?

So could you provide us with your favorite linky?

Thanks!

K54

I'm waiting for that link or links.

K54

[JonF]

Fisking the Jorge-meister (and Lubenow)

I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.

The issue was closed when McDougall (at the time the head of one of the best, if not the best, Ar-Ar lab in the world) published 40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation. Bones of Contention was published in 1992 (apparently there's a 2004 edition). There's no excuse for Lubenow's many errors, documented in many places on the Web.

Working from Jorge's summary:

Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).

False. In New Hominid Remains and Early Artefacts from Northern Kenya: Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artefact Site Fitch and Miller reported whole-rock (i.e. no separation) K-Ar dates from 219-223 mya, whole-rock Ar-Ar dates of 2.40 and 3.36 mya, and "feldspar" ("a collection of feldspar phenocrysts (Leakey IB2) separated from the tuff." {In the field - JF}) Ar-Ar dates of 2.38 and 2.36 mya. In their conclusion they wrote:

Source: Fitch & Miller

Thus the age indications obtained in this survey can be summarized as follows: Leakey 1B1 pumice: between 2.25 and 4.62 m.y. 2.5 ± 0.5 m.y. is a close minimum age.

Leakey IB2 crystals: 2.37 ± 0.3 m.y. is a minimum age; 2.64 ± 0.29 m.y. is a reasonably close age; and 2.61 ± less than 0.26 m.y. is a very close age estimate.

These age indications are all consistent. The best and most acceptable estimate is clearly 2-61 ± less than 0.26 m.y."

© Copyright Original Source

2.9 was mentioned nowhere, and 2.61 was the author's preferred number.

(Interesting aside: the original samples were collected 16 km from skull 1470. In 1996 in Dating of the KBS Tuff and Homo rudolfensis Fitch et al argued that the samples were actually from a different tuff; several of the papers on this issue note the difficulty of correlating tuffs between different locations in this area. We'll never know. As is common the original authors kept some of the samples but in 1981:

Source: Fitch et al

...we (F.J.F. and J.A.M.) sent a crush of all the remaining crystals of the original sanidine-anorthoclase concentrate (stored since 1969 in the Herne Bay office of FM Consultants) to Professor John G. Mitchell at the University of Newcastle for "blind" K–Ar dating. Neither the K nor the Ar isotope analysts knew that this sample was from Koobi Fora (if we could have foreseen the technical advances to come, we might have retained a few crystals for single crystal laser dating at some other laboratory, but it is too late for that now). The K–Ar apparent ages obtained in the Newcastle laboratory from the sample were 2.30+/-0.03 Ma and 2.23+/-0.3 Ma (1 sigma; Table 1).

© Copyright Original Source

Wonder if Lubenow has updated BoC to reflect this paper?)

- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?

Wrong antecedent for "it's" (and there should be no apostrophe). "It's" in Jorge's post obviously refers to the tuff, when in actuality it refers to the skull 1470 excavated by Leaky (who loved the initial dates).

- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.

Not in the initial study or the re-study of the original samples, see above. I haven't seen those numbers anywhere in my reading.

- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. ...

Jorge is very confused. The associated index fossils (mostly pigs) showed that the tuff was expected to be around 1.8-1.9 mya, not the "2-5 mya" Jorge posted (which, amusingly, includes the original range of dates for the tuff.)

... Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!

Nobody said there had to be excess argon. They would have been remiss not to investigate the possibility of excess argon. Turns out it wasn't there.

- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".

When the many rudolphensis fossils found since then were unambiguously dated to much younger, the would have revisited the original finding. It's possible some of our dates are wrong, it's not possible that all of them are wrong. Scientists are always looking for independent verification of even very old results.

- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.

No evidence of subjectivity or circularity has been presented. Two independent dating methods (fossils and radiometric) gave wildly different dates, and real scientists wanted to know 1. why? and 2. what's the correct date? Not at all circular or subjetive.

- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."

Infamous? No. But he did say that. SFW? He was in favor of tossing out the theories of modern man but he turned out to be wrong.

- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.

]
No mention of the pig fossils that were the independent but inconsilient dating method. And more confusion: the fossil was presumed to be the same age as the KBS tuff and the pig fossils, the skull itself was no problem in the dating controversy. (It was a problem at the time in the hominid evolution field.)

- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.

I haven't seen any evidence of fudge factors or data discarded without objective and repeatable reasons. Of course Jorge hasn't seen that evidence either.

- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Not even wrong. Ridiculous, in fact. I wrote in a message above about what really happened, and have presented more detail here.

Jorge didn't mention pig fossils. (Reviews of BoC I've seen say Lubenow did). Jorge didn't mention the separation of minerals and the identification of the older and younger components. Jorge didn't mention any of McDougall's 1981 results; it's worth posting some excerpts:

Source: McDougall

An unresolved problem concerns understanding the meaning of the ages for the KBS Tuff reported by Fitch, Miller and coworkers11,16,19, who mainly used the 40Ar/39Ar dating technique on anorthoclase separated from pumice clasts. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages ranged from 0.52±0.33 to 2.6±0.3 Myr, and the step heating measurements yielded complex age spectra, interpreted11,17-19 as indicating marked disturbance of the anorthoclase subsequent to its crystallization. They suggested that crystallization occurred ~2.48 Myr ago, with deposition in the KBS Tuff shortly thereafter, followed by thermal overprinting at various times, especially at ~1.8 and 1 Myr ago.

Here I present results of dating of anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts found within the KBS Tuff, using the 40Ar/39Ar total fusion and age spectrum techniques. These data provide strong evidence that the samples have remained undisturbed since crystallization, which occurred 1.88±0.02 Myr ago. ...

Locally within the KBS Tuff, pumice clasts are found, regarded as products of the same volcanic eruptions that produced the bulk of the tuff3. Pumice clasts are used for the isotopic dating because they are less likely to be contaminated by old detrital material compared with the enclosing tuff. Here I have used anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts, previously dated by the conventional K-Ar method13. ...

The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages, measured on separate aliquots of the samples, agree well with one another, yielding a mean age of 1.89 ± 0.01 Myr (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the individual results are concordant with the K-Ar ages measured on the same samples. ...

Finally I comment on the previously published11,16-19. 40Ar/39Ar results on anorthoclase from pumices in the KBS Tuff. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages measured on 10 different concentrates, as summarized by Fitch et al19, range from 0.53 to 2.48 Myr, typically with quoted errors between 0.1 and 0.5 Myr. The proportion of 40Ar* in these analyses generally is <20% of the total 40Ar and commonly <10% (ref. 18). On the basis of the large scatter in the ages and the small proportion of 40Ar* in the gas extracted from the anorthoclase concentrates, I suggest that the results are analytically less precise than given by these authors.

© Copyright Original Source

"Less precise than given by these authors". ROFLMAO. Translated from academia-ese for Jorge, he means "total BS". (40Ar* means radiogenically generated 40Ar, i.e. produced by decay of 40K after formation.)

I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

[Jorge]

I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.
.
.
.
I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Ad hominem to the rescue - up, up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!!

You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words).

At least you're "honest" enough to admit that you haven't read Lubenow's book - that puts you one up on Matzke.

From all that I know I stand by Lubenow's work.
It might help a bit if you actually read the book.

Jorge