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’
Brother Guy said the Catholic church accepted biological evolution and rejected the modern concept of “intelligent designâ€. “The term has been hijacked by a narrow group of Creationist fundamentalists in America to mean something it didn’t originally mean at all,†he said.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34852b86-c25f-11df-a91c-00144feab49a,s01=1.html#axzz18QnA94fZ
Hmmm – that sounds familiar.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
Ken – I am more than happy to agree that Darwin, Dawkins et all reveal the distinctively religious nature of their argument – and in many respects I would do the same thing on a creation vs T.E debate.
However – a zillion “different topics” have been reviewed on this web-site so far regarding evidence both for and against belief in evolutionism — the end result is that the evolutionists will simply “run to another point” if the current point does not hold up well and creationists will also speak to their strengths while minimizing the unknowns.
No real news there.
What you do not see is Kris “reconsidering belief in evolutionism” just because one of his ideas does not pan out. He simply goes to another one hoping for better results.
And you can see that in the creationist argument there is no claim to have all answers to all puzzles. But there are very good answers to certain points and there is the “still gathering evidence” on other points.
I value these discussions because you can always find new material here. But in the context of a Christian web site and specifically and SDA web site there is a huge “I must ignore the glaringly obvious facts” that an SDA evolutionist has to engage in when it comes to the Bible and Ellen White that goes far beyond many of the observations in nature point-and-counter-point scenarios.
If they are not willing to master the easy topics where everything is clearly spelled out – what about the more speculative questions?
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Ervin Taylor: ‘A truly heroic crusade’
In an effort to help the Web Admin – replace my prior post with this one.
ReplyBobRyan says:
December 14, 2010 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 BobRyan(Quote)
Ken replies
ReplyKen says:
December 14, 2010 Dear Bob
Thanks Bob.
Point well taken. The Bible has had an incredible impact on mankind. Great reading. I’ve enjoyed it as I have many other great books including the Origin of Species.
Education is an inclusive rather than an exclusive process. History shows that the collective human mind will not be shackled by dogma but will progress favorably with better knowledge. What education does is give one perspective and critical thinking skills. My wish for my children, who think quite differently than me by the way, is to think for themselves.
Ken — “Think for themselves†— a good goal/objective. no sense in simply parroting “birds come from reptiles†mythology and “eukaryote cells come from rocks gas and water†alchemy when no science demonstrates that such wild fictions are valid.
But as you point out above – there are opposing views such as we find in the Bible vs Darwin’s own doctrine on origins. Darwin himself confronted that problem and finally admitted – no way to bridge that gap. The two views are completely opposed to each other.
He was right in that regard.
One must “pick a lane†as they say – and I pick the lane that says that observations in nature will reflect what actually happened IN nature even if those observations do not pander to atheist religious notions about there “being no godâ€. As firmly as the atheist evolutionist begins his observations in nature with firm belief and conviction that “there is no god†— I begin mine with the firm belief and conviction that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and is to be accepted “as it readsâ€.
The God of the Bible is described as creating a “free will†system of intelligent life including Angels and humans etc. Thus each person – even today much make their choice.
To each his own.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
