Comments on: From the Archives

By: Kate O'Malley

Kate O'Malley — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:22:07 +0000

L� an Altaithe Sona Dhaoibh! (Happy Thanksgiving in Irish)

By: Shelli

Shelli — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:21:09 +0000

Thanks for the correction. I’ll pass it on to my husband.

By: jez

jez — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:20:27 +0000

Well, I guess creation scientists aren’t stupid, and are aware of the corrupt nature of the “science” they present, but do it anyway. I can’t really argue with that. (Or else they present the best work they can, and they really are that stupid… again I can’t with that. But you might be honest, and so worth talking to.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:20:02 +0000

Well, I’m glad you straightened me out on your gender– probably one of the few things that I won’t even attempt to refute. If it makes you feel any better, I’ve been labelled a she a few times as well.

As for the other comments, you can cast your impression of my post any way you wish. I reported what a website said about a release of research that had been in progress for a while. Take up your fight with them.

By: jez

jez — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:19:43 +0000

It was not my intention to deal with them myself, merely to demonstrate the recycled nature of RATE’s findings. Old, discredited evidence is presented again and again in new clothes to give the illusion of progress. It is a low tactic, and an insult to you intelligence since they put so little effort into disguising it. Very little effort is needed to reveal them for what they are…

I guarantee you that any war between us is not between worldviews. Absolutely not. We might have a war between methods, the self-doubting falsifyable method of science, and the belief-based faith inherent to religion. They are not equal, and they are not opposite. They are not natural enemies, but you and aggressive young-earthers like thouse petitioning the Kansas education board insist on fighting it.

But the URL I gave you in http://www.answersincreation.org is, in fact, a Christian one. There is no need for this war, and I do not fight it. I merely answer to the blows delivered, beneath the belt and on the referee’s blind side, by creationists against science.

And I’m a man.

By: jez

jez — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:19:16 +0000

Hi,
I have of course investigated problems with radiometric dating, and I’m aware that some of what is documented on the internet are problems. But I also know that these examples are seleceted, and are not shown in the context of the rapidly accumulating evidence backing radiometric dating which goes unreported outside of specialist professional literature.
Neither the world we study nor the equipment we look at it with are perfect, let’s be honest. There are a few anomolous results, and these recieve massive publicity from creationists. That’s not a bad thing, I think the anomolies deserve some attention, but keep in mind the overwhelming mass of evidence which is not anomolous. If there were a problem with the theory, as we examine more samples we would expect more anomolies to come forth. In fact the opposite is true. The more we example, the better the ratio of “normal” results to anomolies. It’s difficult to think of how that would happen without the theory being essentially correct.

It should not surprise you that no double blind tests have been performed, since they are only useful where the object of an experiment is human and must be insulated from the psychological effect of expectation (eg. placebo effect). There’s no need a shield a rock sample from these effects! However, young-earther’s claim that researchers (subconsciously?) skew results to fit, and their motivation for a double-blind study is really to test the technician operating the machinery. Go ahead. Build your own lab and do the test, but I don’t see why eg government research money or share-holders money should be used to fund your paranoia.

I responded about the RATE research because you presented it as if the effects reported were a) new and b) uncriticised by the mainstream. These are both false, some of the phenomena go back decades and have been adequately accounted for by the main-stream model. It was not my intention to deal with them myself, merely to demonstrate t

By: Shelli

Shelli — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:18:13 +0000

I went to the AIG and really couldn’t figure out exactly what it was, is it a sales site or is it a research site? The link sends us to a sales site, which makes it pretty hard to get to any actual information. The articles that I saw were from the times and Bishop Spong. I’m I doing this wrong?

By: Shelli

Shelli — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:17:48 +0000

Thanks, I’ll pass that on to my husband, he has a real passion for the evolution/creation debate.

By: MInTheGap

MInTheGap — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:17:25 +0000

I tend to shy away from Hovind to some extent just because he’s easier to attack, I think. AiG tends to be better researched.

By: Shelli

Shelli — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:17:05 +0000

WOW! I couldn’t have said it better. We used to go to Drdino.com to do research. I can’t remember what his real name is, but he’s a scholar on why the science proves creation and where the flaws in modern science exist..Oh his name is Ken Hovind. He sells videos on evolution vs creation that are awesome. Though he did used to put a great deal of it online as well.