I really look forward to reading this thread as it develops. From what I can tell in studying these issues the last few months, this topic is really the crux to either sides argument and neither side will bend on it as it's so important.
I've read very little on this so far except for some very basic papers, actually articles so I'll probably be way over my head in this topic but hopefully I learn something.
I would like to point one thing out, a presupposition if you will from the YEC side that makes it very difficult to persuade a YEC to believe in millions of years and that is that first and foremost, we believe that the Bible is literally true, that the creation event is true, that Noah's flood is true, and that Babel is true.
From what I understand, a creationist says that the problem isn't with the science itself but with the interpretation of the results.
Anyway, I'm sure this should be interesting to read and learn from, for me at least.
Edit: Coyote, can you put that in laymen's terms please. That looks like Egyptian hieroglyphics to a police officer. That's why I've never been able to understand this issue, every book I've picked up on the shelf, even from the creation side, looks like that. Thanks and sorry for the ignorance.
Obviously, yours (and Coyote's) knowledge of this subject is way beyond what I could ever even begin to comprehend. Two basic questions though....one, did you ever respond to AIG's response to you?
And two, how is the average joe blow out here who never works in this field supposed to know the truth? How do I know that you are right and AIG is wrong, or vice versa for that matter?
Also, real quick and I hope this is the right spot to ask this, Henry Morris did a study a few years back that collected all the uniformitarian ways to rate the age of the earth, outside of radiocarbon dating (is that the right word?), and I think he came up with 66 or 67 other means, such as earth's magnetic field decay rate being one of them. He supposedly used chrisitian and secular sources for this study and of the 66, one could come up with an age older then just a few million years old, nothing close to the 4.5 billion that radiocarbon dating comes up with....is he dead wrong, am I wrong, or is there some truth to this? Thanks in advance for your answers.
I obviously erred in what I was looking at. I briefly skimmed your original post link of your critique. To be honest, I didn't even read the AIG article yet either so I'm not sure what it says. I'm going to print both up tonight and probably read them after work tomorrow.
Thanks for your response and for the advice you gave on how to go about understanding this issue.
I saw the results of the study in a chart form and one brief paragraph published in The New Defender's Study Bible 2006, p. 2076-2079. It's obviously not the full study and that's why I really didn't elaborate on it but just asked kbertsche if he knew of the study and his thoughts on it. I'm fully aware that Dr. Morris is deceased and did most of his work from the 70's-90's.
The actual number of studies was 68 (if it matters) and he states the oldest age of the earth that was revealed was 1-500 million years, with 23 methods revealing this date, 23 methods giving a year of 0-10,000 with some scattered in the middle.
Someone mentioned one being something about the oceans. Yes, one is salt levels in the ocean, rate of decay of earth's magnetic field, and growth rate of human population. Again, I can't comment on the actual study as what I looked as it a very basic explanation and not a full methodology explanation.
Taq, I'm in no way saying that there is some grand conspiracy to keep a perceived fallacy a secret. Kbertsche isn't implying that I'm saying that either. I'm being honest from a city employee perspective (lol) that I have no clue on what I'm even reading when I read this stuff...it looks like gibberish. In my 3 months of crash course reading creation publications I've not read one author/scientist who says they believe that the scientific community is involved in a "wrestling conspiracy" (good analogy Huntard) to keep this a secret from the layperson.
Hmph. Defending the Bible with PRATTs? Don't sound too bright an idea. And that page lists its price at nearly $500 (that's "five hundred dollars"). Say, if you're interested, I own this bridge back east in New York City that I'd be willing to sell to you.
No you didn't come off to harsh. This is a message board. I'm not easily offended here...lol.
PRATTs??? what does that stand for? sorry.
BTW, ICR has this Bible for $35. Not sure why one would be selling it for $500!!!
I do have a question for Coyote and kbertsche since you guys have actually done work in the field:
Are or are there not some assumptions that come with this process? For example, nobody was around billions or millions of years ago to observe what the earth was going through at the time or what these samples went through as far as how they were affected by any sort of catastrophic event, and in discussing millions or billions of years, there's a good chance they went through quite a few catastrophic events, not just one.
One example, how do we know for certain what the initial amounts were to begin with? Isn't that an assumption? Has the rate of decay changed at all during time? How can anyone know that for certain?
One last question that I have that doesn't pertain to assumptions is, is C14 dating only good for geological samples or also for biological samples, or in an idiot laymen's terms, for dead animals, plants, leaves, ect??? Thanks in advance for the responses.