Comment on Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’ by BobRyan.
Erv Tayor said:
1. Sean and fellow fundamentalists who have commented on this say the results of 14C measurements on coal or diamonds demonstrate that fossil organics actually contain cosmogenic (cosmic-ray produced) 14C and because of this all such organics must be younger than 100,000 years. Therefore, all organics are geologically young and thus all life is less than 100,000 years old. The whole point of this misrepresentation, is of course, is to be able to say that macroevolution over billions of years is therefore impossible. Here is very short and simplified version of why this argument is totally invalid.
2. AMS spectrometers are complex instruments, much more complex than those used in the earlier decay counting technology used in 14C research. More complexity means that there are more factors that can influence the data you obtain than was the case in decay counting. Back in 2007, a colleague and I published a list of the factors that can influence backgrounds in AMS systems. There were fifteen listed.
The most important factor for almost all samples―including coal backgrounds—is that these samples must be first converted into CO2 and then that CO2 converted into a form of graphite. It has been well demonstrated that even under the most stringent conditions, small amount of contamination from a number of sources—e.g., the walls of the combustion and graphitization tubes, the chemical used as an oxidizer used, etc.—yield very small amounts of 14C contamination. (Some coals apparently also contain in situ 14C through, by example, sulfur bacterial action)
However, with diamonds, you can use them without having to combust and convert them to graphite. In the case of diamonds, the most important factor producing a background count involves the fact that all samples measured including diamonds must be ionized in a sputter source. All sputter sources have slight memory effects due to the presence of trace amounts of ions from other 14C samples that “stick” on the surface of an ion source even if very high vacuums are maintained and even if the source is physically cleaned.
However, this is not the only source of background in an AMS system even with diamonds. There are small amounts of hydrocarbons in the spectrometer beam line which contributes trace amounts of 14C. There are also conditions when non-14C ions in the beam during acceleration acquire mass 14 characteristics and are counted in the detection circuitry as 14C. These and other factors all contribute to slight background counts even with diamonds. All of this is well know to those involved in AMS 14C research and well studied.
Ok – critical thinking time.
1. Your observation of the argument against the standard model for long ages evolution is correct.
2. Your defense of the idea of background C14 levels intrinsic to the use of the AMS technology never gives the value for background C14 levels that were present when calibrated the AMS system background level in a vacuum and how that compares to your Diamond test or any other tests.
3. Baumgardener’s response includes this comment about your own paper –
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 ±0.001-0.002 pMC. Note that a value of 0.015 exceeds the AMS system background value by a factor of 30.
Your response here proceeds as if you never read Baumgardener’s point above response or are for some other reason unaware of the point which requires the discussion to “circle back” to a point already covered in the debate by Baumgardener rather than moving forward with your response to it. Yet you certainly had to be aware of that detail even without reading it from Baumgardener’s review of your own testing.
4. The other point you did not address in your post above is the issue of C14 cosmic production levels that the creationist argument would need to posit for the pre-flood world where atmospheric conditions were so different from the present that they “had no rain”.
Given: The Creationist argument predicts lower C14 production levels than we have today — but not zero, and the evolutionist argument predicts zero-C14 content above the background level for the AMS technology in the case of Diamonds.
Yet the measured amounts apear to be orders of magnitude higher than is expected or attributable to AMS background C14 levels, and yet low enough to provide evidence for a creationist low-C14 production argument for pre-flood earth. Where does that leave the true-believer in evolutionism that expects no C14 in the Diamond test above the AMS background level? (Much less 30-50 times that level!)
Maybe your reluctance to address Baumgardener’s response specific to this point in your paper is a clue.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Ken – as I pointed out in the case of the book of Daniel and in instances such as the case with the atheist views of professor Veith – that book has convinced a number of atheists of the reality and reliability of the Bible account.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
While it is true that planet earth with its Garden of Eden perfectly reflected the Love and Wisdom of God – and by contrast the law-of-tooth-and-claw disease, death and predation system that followed after the fall of mankind only imperfectly reflects the Wisdom and love of God — YET it would be utterly foolish to ignore the Romans 1 claim by Paul that EVEN godless barbarians are “without excuse” when they “pretend” not to notice the I.D. aspect of “The things that have been made”.
In Romans 10 Paul argues that nature itself is proclaiming the Gospel to mankind!
Ellen White also makes a strong case for the hand of God seen in nature as does the book of Isaiah.
How then do we get a few befuddled misguided SDAs now and then who think it a virtue to uphold atheist-centric observations in nature so obvious in evolutionism?
The deny-the-Bible-first model of observing nature may work well in an atheist evolutionist context – but does not work for SDAs.
The bend-the-Bible-when-evols-need-it idea may work well for what 3SG 90-91 calls the “Worst form” of infidelity – but does not work for SDAs.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Back to the actual topic of this thread in the OP.
Erv is helpful in revealing more of the transparently flawed tactics of evolutionists.
1. Pretend that accepting the Bible for what it says is the problem of one or two people like Sean – using their own ideas about the Bible — INSTEAD of admitting that this is the position of the Adventist denomination.
Erv said
His interpretation of the Bible requires that all life must be very young—less than 10,000 years. However, he is not content in just leaving it there as his personal belief about the history of the physical world based on his own interpretation of an ancient text. He believes that there must be solid modern scientific evidence to support the conclusions he has reached because of his religious beliefs.
In the above statement Erv appears to claim that what you believe happened IN nature as you are informed by the Bible account of origins – should not lead you to look for it IN nature.
2. Rely on the fact that atheist evolutionists have hijacked several areas of earth-history science (as a number of scientists point out in the “Expelled” on-camera interviews) – to say that acceptance of the Bible model for origins is “not popular” among atheist evolutionist dominated disciplines in human prehistory storytelling.
Erv said
He believes that there must be solid modern scientific evidence to support the conclusions he has reached because of his religious beliefs. He is thus forced to call into question and reject the foundational conclusions of the essentially all of the scientific disciplines which deal with earth history, the fossil record, and human prehistory.He always finds some major, fundamental mistake or misunderstanding that all of the specialists in each field who have spend their professional lives studying either don’t know about, or ignore, or misinterpret or something.
And of course – Erv loves to “pretend” that scientists studying geology, and various other earth and human history areas of discipline who provide evidence for young life “do not exist”.
At least Erv did not yield to the common evolutionist tactic of smearing all of science with evolutionism as if Physics, Chemistry and Biology will not work unless you repeat to yourself “birds come from reptiles… birds come from reptiles” while clicking your heels.
Credit where credit is due.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
BobRyan:
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Mack Ramsy:
Obviously the references abovI don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
BobRyan:
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
http://www.thebranch.org/videos/Creation_Calls.mov
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
in Christ,
Bob
Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
in Christ,
Bob
Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
in Christ,
Bob
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
BobRyan:
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
My pleasure.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
in Christ,
Bob
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.
in Christ,
Bob
