@Carl: I understand better how you have reached your conclusions.

Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by Sean Pitman.

I understand better how you have reached your conclusions. You have a powerful bias that the Bible must be literal history, and that predisposition has driven much of your scientific thinking.

It’s not just my own bias. This was also the bias of the Biblical authors themselves. The author(s) of the Genesis account were not writing allegorically. They were attempting to present to their readers an accurate account of real historical events. This is clearly how Jesus interpreted the Genesis account. And, most modern Hebrew scholars, even liberal Hebrew scholars like James Barr, do not question that the Genesis account was always intended to be taken quite literally.

What still mystifies me is that you attempt to take the open issues of science and use them as an argument that a short history is equally as believable (I think you claim more believable) as a long history. That is one huge leap.

It isn’t nearly as big a leap for me anymore after 15 years of study into this topic. As far as I’m able to tell, the weight of evidence strongly favors the young-life position and works quite strongly against the mainstream position on the ancient origin of life on this planet and its evolutionary progress over hundreds of millions of years of time.

Iâ€™ve read parts of your personal Web site, and it seems to me that you have failed to establish your points. In what you have written, I have found no compelling evidence to believe a short history. You do well in raising doubts about the standard model, but doubts on one side are not a convincing argument on the other side.

You’re in good company in your conclusions. Certainly the majority agree with you. However, you are mistaken when you say that the presentation of doubts on the one side is not a convincing argument for the other. Have you ever heard of the null hypothesis? Evidence against the hypothesis in question is in fact evidence for the null hypothesis.

For example, say I find pealed a banana laying on a rock out in the middle of nowhere. Say that it looks and smells and even tastes “fresh”. Say that someone comes along and tells me their theory that this banana has really been sitting on this rock for ten years. If I can present evidence that indicates that such a hypothesis is not consistent with the known decay rate of bananas, this evidence not only effectively falsifies the long-age hypothesis, but supports the “fresh” hypothesis at the same time.

Exactly the same thing is true for evaluating the mainstream theories on origins. Presenting evidence that cannot easily be explained by the long-age model not only argues against the validity of that model, but, at the same time, argues in favor of a shorter-age model.

You do not have any detectable theory of how the earth could possibly come to be as it is within about 10,000 years. Your discussion above again misses the major issue. The evidence that is at odds with a short history is much greater than the evidence that is at odds with a long history. You have come nowhere close to showing otherwise. Ten thousand years is a very short period of time.

Again, your view is certainly shared by the majority. However, as far as I can tell, your own arguments, and the arguments of your mainstream colleagues, while certainly abundant, do not carry the weight of those features of living things and of the fossil record which very strongly argue for a very recent history of all life on Earth. Such evidences should be presented within our own schools by those who actually favor the young-life model of origins.

If you personally do not think this model tenable, then you really shouldn’t be working for a paycheck from the SDA Church with whom you have a fundamental disagreement. What you are doing is undermining your employer’s clearly stated goals and ideals on the employer’s dime. What do you call that?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
One more thing Erv. I’d also be interested in your response to the following comments from Dr. John Baumgardner regarding your 2007 paper:

Finally, Bertsche seeks to dismiss the 14C we measured in diamonds also as contamination. He cites a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon. The paper describes the techniques the authors recently applied to measure 14C levels in natural diamond. As part of the background of their paper, Taylor and Southon list six potential sources of contamination for samples analyzed in AMS laboratories. At the very top of their list is â€œ1 Pseudo 14C-free sample: 14C is present in carboniferous material that should not contain 14C because of its geological age.â€ By placing this item first, they acknowledge what has long been known by AMS radiocarbon specialists: namely, that the vast majority of samples that ought to be completely 14C-free because of their geological context display 14C levels far beyond what can be accounted for by sources attributable to laboratory procedures or equipment design.

Indeed, they implicitly acknowledge this in the first paragraph of their introduction by mentioning 14C ages of 47.9 ka for a marble sample and 52.1 ka for a Pliocene wood sample, both far beyond the AMS 100,000-year detection limit they mention in their first sentence. It is astonishing that these authors never attribute this discrepancy to any one of the six possible explanations they list later in the article. In fact, they are completely silent as to just what the correct explanation might be. This silence is all the more noteworthy since the 14C level in the marble sample is 546 times the detection limit of their AMS system.

The main point of their paper is that by using diamonds and mounting them directly in the sample holder, they are able to exclude items 2 through 5 in their list of six potential sources of contamination. These items are 2 Combustion/acidification background, 3 Graphitization background, 4 Transfer (to the sample holder) background, and 5 Storage background. The last item in their list, 6 Instrument background, involves a â€œ14C signal registering in the detector circuitry when 14C-ion [is] not present.â€ This item is routinely and reliably tested by running the system with no sample in the aluminum sample holder. This test is the basis for the value of the ultimate AMS detection limit, about 0.0005 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 14C years. Therefore, by process of elimination, what these authors are measuring and reporting is their item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the diamonds! This is precisely what we claim for diamond samples we measured using the same technique.

Taylor and Southon report results from eight individual natural diamonds and from six separate fragments cut from a single diamond. The 14C values ranged from 0.005 to 0.021 pMC for the eight individual diamonds and 0.015 to 0.018 pMC for the six fragments, with typical uncertainties of Â±0.001-0.002 pMC. Note that a value of 0.015 exceeds the AMS system background value by a factor of 30.

I certainly grant that one needs almost to be an AMS insider to be aware how routine it is to measure the sixth item in Taylor and Southonâ€™s list, instrument background, and hence to realize that the 14C values they report represent intrinsic 14C in the diamonds themselves and not instrument background. It is therefore understandable why Bertsche comes away with an incorrect conclusion after reading their paper. This illustrates again, however, that he is not the expert in 14C dating that he makes himself out to be.

What about the RATE diamond measurements? Bertsche alludes to the fact that the RATE team also tested diamond by placing diamonds directly into the AMS sample holder. Our tests were done in 2006 after the RATE book was published in 2005. We obtained results quite similar to those reported by Taylor and Southon in 2007. Our ten diamond samples displayed 14C values between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC. Certainly these 14C levels are much smaller than what we obtained for our coal samples; so, caution is obviously advisable in their interpretation. Nevertheless, unless one has a philosophical bias against such a possibility, the most plausible explanation, astonishing as it may be to some, is that natural diamond contains measurable and reproducible levels of intrinsic 14C.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/11/30/feedback-rate-contamination

Thanks…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Dr. Ervin Taylor on Radiocarbon and AMS Technology

@Ervin Taylor:

Hi Erv,

I really don’t know why you’re getting all excited about my comments regarding radiocarbon dating and AMS technology? I understand that AMS technology has various problems of contamination. I also understand that these problems can be understood and even controlled to a reasonable degree using careful techniques. Given these techniques, it seems to me like my original points and observations still stand – i.e., that most samples of coal, oil, and non-fossilized remains of fossils contain levels of 14C that are in fact above the level of that can reasonably be attributed to the AMS technology itself. In other words, there is real 14C in most of these particular types of specimens – even if it is given that there is no 14C in diamonds (I never personally understood, even from a creationist position, why there should be much 14C in diamonds to begin with).

As an aside, did you not find it curious that your analysis (using your own AMS machine) of multiple cuts of a single diamond produced a very narrow range of apparent ages? apparent 14C ages ranging between 69-70 kyrs? Yet, the range you measured, in the very same machine, between different diamonds was 68-80 kyrs? Why the significant difference in apparent age between different diamonds if all the 14C was the result of “contamination” due to “instrument background” and other such sources of potential contamination associated with the AMS machine and methodology? – i.e., not the result of any intrinsic 14C? One would think that if there was no intrinsic 14C at all in any of the diamonds analyzed that all should have essentially the same apparent age within the same range of error according to the background produced by the machine itself… or am I way off base here?

After all, didn’t you and Dr. Southon actually addressed this phenomenon in your 2007 paper – on the Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds ?

“Our measurements have confirmed our hypothesis that diamonds represent a much “cleaner” surface with respect to adhesion of carbon-containing molecules from the ion source that contribute to trace memory or sample “cross talk” effect. At this time, it is not clear to us what factors might be involved in the greater variability in the apparent 14C concentrations exhibited in individual diamonds as opposed to splits from a single natural diamond. Possible factors suggested to us are greater variability in the orientation of the crystal facies and microfractures in individual diamonds.”

Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance here, but I’m not sure what variability in the orientation of crystal facies or microfractures would have to do with producing an increased variability in apparent 14C age of the diamond? – given that the diamond did not in fact have any 14C to begin with? But, at least you and Southon admit to the reality of this curious observation given your hypothesis of a complete lack of 14C in all diamonds analyzed.

In any case, regardless of if diamonds do or do not have trace amounts of 14C, the issue remains on how to explain the presence of real 14C in most samples of coal and oil and other organic remains of fossils? It seems like we are back to square one with the usual counter argument being “in situ contamination”…

As noted by Dr. Paul Giem in his 2001 Origins paper, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, the common argument of 14C production by Uranium within or near the coal sample releasing neutrons over time is not reasonable given the degree of 14C “contamination”. The amount of original radioactive material would have been prohibitive. And, perhaps the most striking problem, as noted by Dr. Giem, is:

“If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample [given that nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more effectively than does carbon-13], radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data.”

Therefore, the levels of 14C “contamination” that are generally observed could not reasonably be explained by in situ production of 14C – right? So, where does this leave us? with your argument for in situ contamination by modern 14C of course…

There seems to be at least some validity to this argument, but how does one explain the nearly universal nature of this in situ contamination? As Dr. Giem notes, “It is difficult to imagine a natural process contaminating wood, whale bone, petroleum and coal, all roughly to the same extent. It is especially difficult to imagine all parts of a coal seam being contaminated equally.”

Of course, there are still a few mysteries for the creationist side of this particular line of evidence as well. For example, why do some forms of anthracite exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon above the background level of the AMS technology?

So, there remain questions on this particular issue for both sides. Yet, it seems to me, at least for now, that the weight of evidence seems to favor the creationist position when it comes to radiocarbon dating – to include the use of AMS technology. However, any further comments and education from someone of your expertise in this area would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
@Professor Kent:

More from Richard M. Davidson, Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures: Toward an Understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics

The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.

Does anyone here disagree with one of the leading SDA theologians, representing the Adventist Biblical Research Institute, on these points? You can read more here: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/interp%20scripture%20davidson.pdf

There is a difference between being able to interpret what the Scriptures are saying vs. being able to determine if the Bible is or is not really the “Word of God”. Coming up with a correct interpretation of a text, of what the authors were trying to say, is not the same thing as a demonstration of the Divine origin fo the text. Such a demonstration needs additional evidence beyond the text itself in order to be able to rationally pick the Bible over all other competing texts/options as the true Word of God.