A facebook debate with my creationist colleagues

markfla

Right, I'm currently working in Arizona and work with a handful of creationists....head wreckingly frustrating arguments in work on a regular basis about evolution and climate science. Anyway on my FB I had up an artice about islamic extremism and anyway my creationist buddies waded in and escalated to the usual tired arguements. Anyway as I'm not a scientist I'm just wondering if there are anyone who works in geology and has a good hold on dating techniques to counter the below..I have a good grasp on astrometrics for the age of things. Anyway enjoy.laugh contribute to the rebuttal. Anyway here is one of the 88 comments.


"Dating Methods? For the sake of brevity and time I do have several sites that I will mildly pull from and modify for my reply.

Pick your poison on the type, Carbon 14 (14C), potassium-40/argon-40, uranium-238/lead-206, uranium-235 decays to lead-207, rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87, etc. So, for radiometrics, 14C and K-Ar, are arguably the most popular or at the very least well known. For the sake of discussion, I will also use a “given” that isotopic measurement systems use the basically the same premises to compose a date based on the amount of specific isotopes found in an object.

So to my first specific objection in the accuracy of these methods:

1st. Isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from these measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rates have always been constant. (no accelerant or decelerates)

3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

2nd: Methods should work reliably on things of known age. We should be able to consistently use the same method on an object and pull the same data within the tolerance. (i.e. the known dates of lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand testing)

3rd: Different dating techniques should consistently agree: They don’t. Using isochrones to measure objects instead of isotopes also gives varied dates and figures. (i.e. the Grand Canyon Basalt testing)

4th: 14C has been found in fossils supposedly millions of years old.

Now, 14C has fairly agreed upon, from my studies, ~30,000 year limitation. Basically, meaning that anything older than 30K shouldn’t be found to have 14C in it. The more recent an object was formed the more 14C it should have in it. This entire dating method is based the belief that the decay of carbon 14 in a given object is linear over time compared to the amount of radiation let into the earth via the atmosphere. In August of 1990, a sample of 2 dinosaur bones were sent to the renowned lab at the University of Arizona for 14C dating without revealing what they were to the lab. (it actually is known for cutting edge dating) These fragments should have so little or no 14C in them if the dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years as our children are currently taught. The results? Sample A = ~16K years old, and sample B came in at ~9K years old. (see next post for uploaded document)

5th: Physical evidences contradict the “billions of years” ideas. You would think that they would also coincide if they were accurate.

• Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata. Some of the evidences are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of “rock” bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more.

• Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone

• The speed at which the Earth’s magnetic field is deteriorating

• Supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to current physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies. Meaning young…

• The moon is slowly receding for the Earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the Earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the Earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric “dates” assigned to moon rocks.

• Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age…

• Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years…

On and on it would seem… I will end the dating issue here with this:

No one wants to tackle the 400 pound gorilla in the room. I understand, it’s difficult and messy. What is it when it comes to science and data analysis? Data manipulation to achieve preferred results. Yup, conspiracy, scandal, the human component if you will. Hold on for a second don’t jump ship yet! Because of our world societal push against the legitimization of conspiracy theories, I would content that the populous has been conditioned to instantly scoff at any idea that would track back to the mere thought of scandal. Let me quickly point out something that Mark and I touched on a few weeks back. Climategate… which “evolved” into energygate, climategate 2, etc. We have been sold on the idea of man-made fossil fuel emissions killing the planet. B.S.. I have more articles, links, and sources on how much non-sense this is than I know what to do with. I won’t get into it other than to point out that personal agenda can easily override moral compass. Piltdown Man for another type of example. Etc, etc, etc…"

robindch

Here's a list of comprehensive answers to most of the common creationist claptrap:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

But arguing with them? Well, here's John Cleese:

Sarky

I don't think you should bother. They're almost certainly not going to listen to a rebuttal, no matter how much sense it makes.

Galvasean

Have to agree with Sarky here. If they were open to the evidence they simply wouldn't be Creationists.

markfla

I know they'd try worm around a rebuttal...but I thought it would've been cool to get a professional reply from someone in geology. They'd see it as winning if I don't bother reply and only reinforce their beliefs..... I've been on the talk origins site...I could have pulled up a load of it. It's unbelievably frustrating working with guys who believed we walked with Dinosaurs...outside of religion they are nice guys...talk religion or climate science....they put on the crazy hats.

Turtwig

The problem is though that they aren't stupid, you'd be surprised Rob. Most of these types (programmer nerds I assume) will actually respond to stuff. Just focus on one thing. Don't let them use a shotgun(a barrage of points with little depth), if they do then just reply to one point. Look to the esoteric details of it. I can't help you here. But if you really want to convince them then you're going to have invest some time in it. If you have noting but shallow rebuttals and website linking you'll just embolden their position even further. Look at it this way, even if you don't convince them by taking the more detailed approach you'll learn **** for yourself. So don't aim to debunk, aim to discuss but in detail, be pedantic. Most of creationism is an elaborate smokescreen. You need to make him/her realise that himself/herself.

Sorry that I can't really be of any help.

sink

I didn't read all your post but in regards to the first point on radiometric dating, what he's saying is counter to another argument creationists often use in favour of a god created universe. The rate of radioactive decay depends entirely on 3 of the fundamental forces (the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetism) if they're not constant that flies in the face of the fine tuning argument and any change in these forces would affect a lot more that radioactive decay.

Ziphius

I've to echo what others have said, I doubt you'll ever change their minds. Their view are based on religious beliefs rather than science.

Regarding the alleged dinosaur soft tissue, this article published in 2008 in PLoS One offers an alternative explanation -- recent bacterial contamination.

From the paper:

"A biofilm would coat the voids of vascular canals and lacunae, producing an endocast of the structure. Once the bone is dissolved, these biofilm endocasts would closely mimic pliable vascular structures. The results presented here suggest that the tubular structures and osteocytes are formed by this process. The lack of observed cell structure in the transparent tubes is inconsistent with preserved tissues"

As much as I'd love dinosaur soft tissue to be discovered bacterial contamination is just far more likely an explanation.

Galvasean

Ziphius wrote: »

I've to echo what others have said, I doubt you'll ever change their minds. Their view are based on religious beliefs rather than science.

Regarding the alleged dinosaur soft tissue, this article published in 2008 in PLoS offers an alternative explanation -- recent bacterial contamination.

From the paper:

"A biofilm would coat the voids of vascular canals and lacunae, producing an endocast of the structure. Once the bone is dissolved, these biofilm endocasts would closely mimic pliable vascular structures. The results presented here suggest that the tubular structures and osteocytes are formed by this process. The lack of observed cell structure in the transparent tubes is inconsistent with preserved tissues"

As much as I'd love dinosaur soft tissue to be discovered bacterial contamination is just far more likely an explanation.

FAR more likely. It just doesn't get anywhere near as much media time because it isn't, "ZOMFG T-REX BLOODZ!!!"

magicbastarder

your best bet is to be openly, but not evangelically atheist, and to be a nice guy.

swampgas

I don't think you'll get far, but if it were me, I'd be more inclined to shift the conversation away from what's possible (e.g. all the different ways that carbon dating might be skewed) and more towards what seems more probable and plausible.

I'd probably answer with something along the lines of "sure, we can all dream up ways that radiometric dating might be wrong, but it seems to me far more likely - from the current data - that it's mostly right, and that the bible is wrong. But then, I'm free to think that the bible could be incorrect, which you're not ...". After all, if they won't consider the possibility that their religion might be wrong, they can't really approach the issue scientifically.

Realistically, though, it might be best though to agree a truce and not discuss religion at all. You do have to work with them, after all.

magicbastarder

if they're coders, then make them take their 'if... then...' statements to their logical conclusion.

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

I don't think you'll get far, but if it were me, I'd be more inclined to shift the conversation away from what's possible (e.g. all the different ways that carbon dating might be skewed) and more towards what seems more probable and plausible.

I'd probably answer with something along the lines of "sure, we can all dream up ways that radiometric dating might be wrong, but it seems to me far more likely - from the current data - that it's mostly right, and that the bible is wrong. But then, I'm free to think that the bible could be incorrect, which you're not ...". After all, if they won't consider the possibility that their religion might be wrong, they can't really approach the issue scientifically.

Realistically, though, it might be best though to agree a truce and not discuss religion at all. You do have to work with them, after all.

Absolute no no. Leave the bible out of this as much as possible. It's just asking for them to stonewall. You need to separate their faith as much as possible from the discussion, treat Creation Science as if it is science and show it to be rubbish. Insult or criticise their personal beliefs and they'll most likely regard it like they would you criticising their family. You need to separate their creationism away as much as possible from the emotional attachment and comfort that is their faith.

who the fug

magicbastarder wrote: »

if they're coders, then make them take their 'if... then...' statements to their logical conclusion.

AI ?

Dades

In theory your best bet here is to try and get them to admit to themselves or anyone that their views are held because of religious, not scientific reasons. Clearly the weight of actual scientific evidence is absolutely enormous that it requires another agenda to ignore it.

Frankly though, I think humility and humour are your friends here. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, so you might as well be a nice guy and slowly garner some trust that one or more might actually listen to you rather than give the stock "Christian Science" response.

But, yeah, don't fall out over it, as you're probably wasting your time anyway.

JuliusCaesar

who the fug wrote: »

AI ?

Artificial Insemination?

Ziphius

Dades wrote: »

In theory your best bet here is to try and get them to admit to themselves or anyone that their views are held because of religious, not scientific reasons. Clearly the weight of actual scientific evidence is absolutely enormous that it requires another agenda to ignore it.

Agree with this. Perhaps the OP could try show that there doesn't have to be a conflict between religion and evolution and geology. Most mainstream christian churches (for example the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Churches) have accepted both evolution and the geological age of the earth.

Lucy8080

a date?

you find the hottest lad/lass...imply that you are totally understanding of where they are coming from.

sort the rest out later...life is for the living.

trust me....your common bills will take precedent over your convictions.

your attraction for each other will smooth the path.

a healthy respect for each other/divorce will sort out any other probs.

Ziphius

Lucy8080 wrote: »

a date?

you find the hottest lad/lass...imply that you are totally understanding of where they are coming from.

sort the rest out later...life is for the living.

trust me....your common bills will take precedent over your convictions.

your attraction for each other will smooth the path.

a healthy respect for each other/divorce will sort out any other probs.

Indeed. Mate with them OP. Breed out their creationist genes.

Lucy8080

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LMAO

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

In theory your best bet here is to try and get them to admit to themselves or anyone that their views are held because of religious, not scientific reasons. Clearly the weight of actual scientific evidence is absolutely enormous that it requires another agenda to ignore it.

Yeah, but that is ONLY A THEORY.
Ergo, your post is invalid.

MagicMarker

Sarky wrote: »

I don't think you should bother. They're almost certainly not going to listen to a rebuttal, no matter how much sense it makes.

+1

OP, really, don't waste your time arguining with people who have be stupified by faith.

MrPudding

MagicMarker wrote: »

+1

OP, really, don't waste your time arguining with people who have be stupified by faith.

Would the same principle not apply here as applies on the creationism threads? Unlikely to change there minds but it is worth the hassle to get the facts up there for others to see? It is a public fora and there may be some undecideds. If they seethe creationist making points that might seem reasonable to someone that does not know any better a d they do not see those points refuted then they may begin to believe that the creationists are on to something.

It is you duty to mankind to fight the good fight against idiocy.

MrP

MagicMarker

MrPudding wrote: »

Would the same principle not apply here as applies on the creationism threads? Unlikely to change there minds but it is worth the hassle to get the facts up there for others to see? It is a public fora and there may be some undecideds. If they seethe creationist making points that might seem reasonable to someone that does not know any better a d they do not see those points refuted then they may begin to believe that the creationists are on to something.

It is you duty to mankind to fight the good fight against idiocy.

MrP

Good point, I suppose I take for granted the fact that not everyone is familiar with both arguments.

pauldla

MagicMarker wrote: »

Good point, I suppose I take for granted the fact that not everyone is familiar with both arguments.

Yeah, I'd agree with the above. Fight the good fight, but be realistic in what you can achieve: you're unlikely score any major successes (I almost wrote "Don't expect any miracles" ). If you can give someone pause, and food for thought, you can consider that a result.

Ziphius

Perhaps this clip of Sir David Attenborough will provide some inspiration.

"I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing."

swampgas

Jernal wrote: »

Absolute no no. Leave the bible out of this as much as possible. It's just asking for them to stonewall. You need to separate their faith as much as possible from the discussion, treat Creation Science as if it is science and show it to be rubbish. Insult or criticise their personal beliefs and they'll most likely regard it like they would you criticising their family. You need to separate their creationism away as much as possible from the emotional attachment and comfort that is their faith.

Thing is, you're not really discussing science properly with creationists. They aren't following any scientific method, they're just cherry-picking scientific "facts" (regardless of how well supported they might be) and shoehorning them into their faith based ideology. All they want to do is rationalise away the science that conflicts with their faith-based world-view, they don't actually want to be scientific about it. Trying to discuss science with people who are willfully trying to misunderstand it is a waste of time.

If they cared about science at all, they would be concerned about the fact that their theories are so far away from any kind of scientific mainstream consensus.

IMO, you might as well go straight to the elephant in the room: their faith takes precedence over scientific method. Or else avoid discussing it at all.

Maybe you should give them a copy of "Why are you atheists so angry?" and ask them for their opinion on it instead?

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

Thing is, you're not really discussing science properly with creationists. They aren't following any scientific method, they're just cherry-picking scientific "facts" (regardless of how well supported they might be) and shoehorning them into their faith based ideology. All they want to do is rationalise away the science that conflicts with their faith-based world-view, they don't actually want to be scientific about it. Trying to discuss science with people who are willfully trying to misunderstand it is a waste of time.

If they cared about science at all, they would be concerned about the fact that their theories are so far away from any kind of scientific mainstream consensus.

IMO, you might as well go straight to the elephant in the room: their faith takes precedence over scientific method. Or else avoid discussing it at all.

Maybe you should give them a copy of "Why are you atheists so angry?" and ask them for their opinion on it instead?

You don't know these people. If you assume in advance they'll behave a certain way then it's quite likely that everything you see that confirms those assumptions will be taken note of. Carl Sagan believed that everyone can be made more aware of stuff. You were, I was, others are, but the point is if you assume you're a superior thinker to them, or that they're not going to play fair then you're wasting your time. Reasonable people are reasonable; unreasonable people are unreasonable. Both are just as unlikely to believe a crazy idea. Everyone deserves a fair chance.

(I'd like to point out that I don't think there is such a thing as a reasonable person but that's for another thread.)

Lantus

It is incredibly hard to 'argue' with the religous mind. The religous mind is very rigid and has a set belief in certain constants.

This affects their perception of logic and reason so you cannot simply use logic and reason to argue a point and expect to win.

Bear in mind that they believe in a world that is only a few thousand years old because one badly written book says so against the known knowledge of science.

All you can do is appeal to their values as a starting point and try to reach out to them.

swampgas

Jernal wrote: »

You don't know these people. [...]

I've argued with quite a few, so maybe I know a little about them.

In my experience arguing scientific facts won't really get you anywhere. I think people only really start looking at science properly (i.e with an open mind) when they have started to have serious doubts about their faith, and then all they have to do is google or look at wikipedia, and it's all there. As long as they are in "faith mode", they simply don't care what science says.

That's not to say that you can't argue the scientific facts with them, but I think it's better to focus on how faith based beliefs are incompatible with science.

equivariant

@op

Read the entire bible prophecy and creationism thread from start to finish. Don't skip any of it

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566

After that you will know what to do