“Bob I appreciate your open minded attitude to data at …

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

“Bob I appreciate your open minded attitude to data at the edge of acceptable scientific practice.I presume this means that you also accept the very conventional methods for dating dinosaur fossils as well.”

Paul, I am aware of the conventional methods for dating dinosaurs. They involve measuring radioactive isotope ratios in igneous rocks that are located near certain dinosaur fossils and then applying the resultant dates to all dinosaur fossils via the principles of stratigraphy. I admit that I do not have an absolute answer to this data, just as you do not have an absolute answer to the C14 data for the unmineralized portions of the dinosaur fossils themselves. However, you hypothesize that the C14 data has been contaminated by modern carbon, and I likewise hypothesize that the igneous events responsible for these rocks did not completely reset the mother/daughter isotope ratios to zero. In other words, these isotope ratios may be partly reflective of radioactive decay that occurred in more ancient rocks that existed prior to the flood and prior to creation week. There is data from certain sites supporting this hypothesis, but you can also probably come up with objections to it, just as I can come up with objections to your hypothesis regarding modern carbon contamination of the C14 data. In other words, neither of us have a final, absolute answer to these issues.

Basically, we are faced with radiometric dating techniques that are yielding wildly divergent data. The radiometric dating of the igneous rocks is suggesting that dinosaurs lived 65-230 million years ago, while the carbon 14 dating of the fossils themselves is suggesting that dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago. Clearly, something is wrong here! Either one set of dates of the other set of dates is invalid!

So let’s think about this a little more. It would seem that the carbon 14 technique should be the most accurate, since it dates the fossil itself rather than a rock near the fossil – unless there is a problem with the methodology, such as contamination. Also, our presuppositions are going to affect which set of data we accept. We have to be honest Paul. Neither of us can completely overcome prejudice. I believe that the weight of evidence from comparing God’s two books – scripture and nature – favors the creationist/catastrophist paradigm for natural history, whereas you favor the Lyellian/Darwinian paradigm. This colors which set of radiometric data we accept. Yes, I favor the carbon 14 data for the fossils, while you favor the other radiometric data for the igneous rocks. The best we can do is continue to weigh both lines of developing evidence and be open to whichever direction the weight of evidence eventually points, even to the point of changing our paradigm. Fair enough?

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.