“That the samples were prepared by the requesters rather than …

Comment on Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results by Bob Helm.

“That the samples were prepared by the requesters rather than the laboratory in order to preserve their true identity Iwould view as highly suspect.That they cluster in the range of coal petroleum and graphite suggests to me they are really no different to infinite age samples prepared by with a bit of modern carbon contamination.”

Paul, all of the individuals who have looked at this data, including those at the C14 lab in Georgia, admit that they do not have a valid explanation for it because of the precautions against contamination that were used. But the work of Thomas Seiler and the Paleochronology Group is just the tip of the iceberg. C14 analysis of dinosaur bones is going to continue, and in light of this, two scenarios could be forthcoming: 1) It is possible (though I personally think it unlikely) that conclusive evidence will emerge for modern carbon contamination. 2) It is also possible that C14 dates in the same range will continue to be obtained for dinosaur remains without any evidence for modern carbon contamination.

I assure you that if contamination can be proven beyond dispute, I will withdraw my support for this data. However, suppose the second scenario plays out. What if every precaution against contamination continues to be taken and we eventually have scores or even hundreds of C14 dinosaur dates that are well below the 43.5 ky limit of detection? At this point, would you be willing to at least give some consideration to the validity of this dating?

“God did it has never been sufficient direct explanation for Newton or any scientists since then.”

Nor is it for me, Paul!

“Those proposing that the established data and paradigm for the age of dinosaurs is incorrect need to provide the convincing data and explanation and propose an alternative model.”

In principle, I agree with you. But it certainly would not hurt if those who doubt this data decide to do their own research. Even Mary Schweitzer did not categorically rule out C14 dating of her specimens. She simply replied, “not now.” Mary Schweitzer is a Christian (although a theistic evolutionist), and I think she is more willing to think outside the box than many others. Perhaps she will eventually change her mind.

In summary, I agree that more work is needed in this area, and let the chips of evidence fall where they may. But I do plead for open minds. Please, when evidence becomes weighty, let’s not close our minds to it! Please, if you feel the evidence becoming weighty, be willing to reconsider your paradigm.

One more thing. You asked about 30 ky C14 dates for dinosaurs and a chronology of 6 ky since creation week. Paul, on this matter, I am only giving you my opinion. I am not speaking for Sean or anyone else who posts here. First, I do not subscribe to a rigid Ussher chronology for several reasons: a) Although I do not have the time to discuss this in detail, I am intrigued by the possibility that the Israeli Exodus from Egypt occurred a millenium earlier than is commonly assumed (as proposed by Dr, Gerald Aardsma and others). If a mid-third millenium Exodus is accepted, the Biblical chronology is pushed back by about 1,000 years. b) The Septuagint adds about 1,600 years to the Biblical chronology, and its chronological data ( which was accepted by the early church) may be correct. c) I am not persuaded that the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 are chronogenealogies, as some have argued. In other words, they may simply be tracing a line of descent rather than giving every name in the genealogy. The fact that the Septuagint adds the name Cainan in Gen 11:12-13 (omitted in the Masoretic Text) and the fact that Gen 5 and 11 seem to be stylized around the number 10 suggest as much. So I am willing to accept a longer chronology than 6,000 years. Even Ellen White sometimes said, “more than 6,000 years.” Second, I suspect that the C14/C12 ratio in the antediluvian atmosphere was different from today’s ratio. If the antediluvian ratio was smaller than today’s ratio, it would result in antediluvian C14 dates that are excessively old. So I believe that a longer Biblical chronology and excessively old C14 dates both come into play here. Again, this is my opinion. Some people strongly defend the Ussher chronology, and there may even be others who are willing to extend the Biblical chronology to 40 ky. Personally, I doubt both of these extremes, but I am only speaking for myself.

Bob Helm Also Commented

Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@Sharon: I don’t completely agree Sharon. The faith of the fideist is still saving faith that lays hold of Jesus as a personal Savior. And it is possible to have this kind of faith even without believing in a recent creation. Remember – Jesus said that even faith the size of a mustard seed counts. The problem is that Christianity loses its appeal when the rug of evidence is pulled out from under it. For the fideist and the theistic evolutionist, evangelizing intelligent, thinking people is a hopeless task. Without apologetics, evangelism is dead. It is interesting that every denomination that has bought into neo-orthodoxy (fideism) and/or theistic evolution is dying. It cannot be otherwise!


Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@Sean Pitman: I agree. Scientific revolutions have often occurred because one person or a small group of people doubted the consensus of the scientific community and set out to falsify it.


Scientists and the Temptation to Bias Results
@pauluc: A few more points. Be aware that not all the rocks visible at the Grand Canyon were laid down by the flood. I believe that the Precambrian rocks in the inner canyon, below the Great Unconformity, are pre-flood and probably pre-creation week. I also believe that the Great Unconformity marks the onset of the flood.


Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
I believe in good medicine and am thankful to God for the Moderna vaccine. Walter Veith deserves to be ignored, and not just on this issue.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Carlos: Far from being outdated, I would say that Sean’s arguments are cutting edge. As for the assertion that scientists don’t use Darwin’s model for evolution, that is correct – because Darwin had no knowledge of Mendelian genetics. The original Darwinian model was replaced by the Neo-darwinian Synthesis about 1940, which claims that evolution takes place as natural selection acts on random mutations. Although this model still dominates biology today, it is facing increasingly serious problems, which Sean has touched on.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Sean Pitman: OK, I see it now. Sorry – I missed it earlier.


Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Sean, Dr. John Sanford, who was an important contributor to the development of GMOs, has written a book on this issue entitled, “Genetic Entropy.” I don’t see him quoted anywhere in your article, and I’m wondering if you are familiar with his work. It is noteworthy that Dr. Sanford has abandoned Darwinism and adopted creationism/intelligent design, not originally for religious reasons, but because of this problem.


Evolution from Space?
Sean, once again I urge you to publish your material in book form, preferably with a non-Adventist publisher. You have such wonderful material, but the Educate Truth audience is so small.