MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Ichneumon]

[So contrary to your assertions, the primary researchers *do* have an explanation, and it *is* the current authors who have chosen to rule it out.]

"I don't know" is not an explanation.

Don't misrepresent, please. They didn't say "I don't know" what's producing the readings, they said that contamination was producing it. For example:

Rather than deal with the issue of the nature of the 14 C intrinsic to the anthracite itself, the authors merely refer to it as “contamination of the sample in situ”, “not [to be] discussed further.”

And:

This same approach of treating measurable and reproducible 14 C values in samples that ought to be 14 C dead, given their position in the geological record, as ‘contamination’ is found throughout the current literature.

The fact that you apparently don't agree with their explanation or you consider it inadequate doesn't change the fact that they do, indeed, have one. And it appears to be the correct one -- see my next post.

The primary researcher's tried and tried to eliminate the anomalous result. They failed. The result was. "I don't know".

No, they did numerous things which would likely eliminate *surface* contamination (from the original site as well as during transport/testing) and contamination of the testing equipment, and concluded that the readings were thus coming from contamination *in* the sample itself. That's not "failure", that's successful elimination of other factors. The result was not "I don't know", it was "we now think that the contamination is likely from within the sample and not from *external* contamination".

Any of your hypothetical explanations fails to account for the tests used by the primary researchers and described by the "non-reading" current authors.

Oh? How do you figure that? You forgot to "show your work".

Now you might note that Giem is cited from [18] Giem, P., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins, 51(2001) pp.6-30. and these are the primary researchers on the case I mentioned [30] Nadeau, M.-J., Grootes, P.M., Voelker, A., Bruhn, F., Duhr, A., and Oriwall, A., Carbonate 14C Background: Does It Have Multiple Personalities?, Radiocarbon, 43:2A(2001), pp. 169-176.. Giem does not cite them.

Yes, I "might" note that, since I was the one to point that out to you in my prior post:

That refers *only* to citation #30, and describes their inability to explain why C14 levels would be correlated with species. It's not a summation of all the "primary researchers" [i.e., the dozen-plus cited by Giem].

Is there any special reason you're repeating it back to me?

Finally, despite your aspersions, Uranium is not as ubiquitous as Nitrogen.

Red herring alert. Not only did I not claim that it was, but that's irrelevant to the point I made. I would be highly interested to hear why you thought it was.

What is relevant, however, is that Uranium is more ubiquitous than Carbon-14. The human body, for example, contains about a thousand times as many Uranium atoms as Carbon-14 atoms, and in long-dead organisms the disparity is even greater. Carbon-14 is present in only trace amounts even at the best of times (it comprises only 0.0000000002% of the Carbon in living tissue). It doesn't take much C-14 from other sources (internal or external) to contaminate things.

Furthermore, Carbon-14 can be produced in situ by muon capture by Oxygen nuclei -- and needless to say organic material has a lot of Oxygen. See for example In situ produced 14 C by cosmic ray muons in ablating Antarctic ice. Additional measurable C-14 was produced at depths of over 40 meters.

The authors of the PDF failed to examine either of these possible sources of de novo Carbon-14, among others, as well as the possibility that there may be others sources which we just haven't learned about yet (note that Ac-225's alternate decay mode into Carbon-14 was only discovered in 1993, for example).

However, it seems that the real explanation is simple surface contamination after all. See my next post.

[Ichneumon]

First, sorry for the mega-ping, but I tried to catch everyone who had expressed some manner of interest in the validity in the original article. I believe the mystery may be solved.

First, a quick recap of what the "too much Carbon-14" measurements may mean (bear with me please):

1. Systematic error in the testing equipment or methods.

2. External contamination.

3. Internal contamination (i.e., new Carbon-14 being produced within the sample in some manner).

4. All organic samples really *are* no older than 40,000 years.

5. Decay rates have varied in the past.

6. Bad data, dishonest reporting, sloppy technique, fabricated results, etc.

7. Some combination thereof, including the original authors' overburdened combo of "they indicate a max of 40,000 years because a) nothing died earlier than that *and* b) they're even much younger than those careful 40,000-year measurements indicate by an order of magnitude because *also* c) decay rates have changed drastically from time to time *and* d) so have production rates". Uh huh...

From the original article in this thread:

#1 seems ruled out by the repeatability of the results for different samples, and the fact that some samples measure just fine at "damned little C-14" as expected. Although it would still be possible that something about the testing methods may produce spurious results only when applied to samples with certain compositions, but that's unlikely.

#2 seems ruled out by the many methods which were used to try to "wash away" external contaminants.

#3 seems possible, and that's the direction I was leaning, but some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations led me to think that they might not be able to account for as much C-14 as was measured (although I'm hardly a nuclear physicist, and may have overlooked some possibilities).

#4 is incredibly implausible on its face, for reasons I've given earlier -- there are just *too* many other lines of evidence that firmly indicate that the Earth really is quite old.

#5 is highly unlikely, *no* evidence has been found that decay rates have ever fluctuated while we've been monitoring them, nor that they ever have in the past (since that would have left tell-tale signs).

#6 is tempting, but... Other than the fact that I think it's pretty sloppy to try to compare readings from multiple researchers across multiple labs across multiple years (since their techniques and precisions and equipment are all likely to vary), I'm willing to give the authors and the researchers they cite the benefit of the doubt.

#7 is... Imaginative, but unlikely cubed. Not only does it postulate *multiple* outlandish deviations from established principles of science just to "reconcile" one anomalous finding, but it flies in the face of innumerable other findings which are much better supported *and* its proposed solution would have caused countless other noticeable effects (like, say, a million-fold increase in natural radiation which would have flash-fried Noah) which simply are not the case.

So since we seem to have eliminated -- or at least cast strong doubt on -- all possibilities, what the heck *is* the explanation for the results?

I can't resist a good puzzle, so I've been researching this question off and on all day. I've learned a lot of interesting things in the process (and expanded my IE bookmarks even further), but I think I hit paydirt when I came across the following:

Abstract

New dating confirms that people occupied the Australian continent before the earliest time inferred from conventional radiocarbon analysis. Many of the new ages were obtained by accelerator mass spectrometry ¹⁴C dating after an acid–base–acid pretreatment with bulk combustion (ABA-BC) or after a newly developed acid–base–wet oxidation pretreatment with stepped combustion (ABOX-SC). The samples (charcoal) came from the earliest occupation levels of the Devil's Lair site in southwestern Western Australia. Initial occupation of this site was previously dated 35,000 ¹⁴C yr B.P. Whereas the ABA-BC ages are indistinguishable from background beyond 42,000 ¹⁴C yr B.P., the ABOX-SC ages are in stratigraphic order to ~55,000 ¹⁴C yr B.P. The ABOX-SC chronology suggests that people were in the area by 48,000 cal yr B.P. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), electron spin resonance (ESR) ages, U-series dating of flowstones, and ¹⁴C dating of emu eggshell carbonate are in agreement with the ABOX-SC ¹⁴C chronology. These results, based on four independent techniques, reinforce arguments for early colonization of the Australian continent.

-- From Early Human Occupation at Devil's Lair, Southwestern Australia 50,000 Years Ago (published online 11 March 2002)

Oh look, someone's broken the "radiocarbon barrier". And the fact that they did it with a new method for removing external contaminants seems pretty convincing evidence that the "radiocarbon barrier" was due to, well, external contaminants. Looks like those prior researchers weren't off-base after all (the ones that the authors of the PDF sneered at for attributing the results to contaminants).

Note the interesting parts of the abstract, which I've highlighted in color.

The green portion notes that this is a new technique for removing contaminants.

The red portion is key -- it notes that although older pretreatments for eliminating contaminants still showed the 40,000-year-old "radiocarbon barrier", the new technique allowed readings way beyond 40kya -- up to 55,000 years. Furthermore, in a NERC grant, one of the authors was granted 19,627 British pounds to develop a facility to apply the technique in greater volume, with claimed ability to read dates up to 60,000 years.

Furthermore, the technique is shown to not just produce higher numbers by some means, but to do them accurately, as matched against the results of four other independent dating methods (blue text).

So to summarize:

1. The PDF authors concluded that the "radiocarbon barrier" was due to some real feature of the specimens (i.e., they all really did die "recently") and pooh-poohed the notion that it was due to contaminants. However, the fact that a particular technique can make specimens read older than the proposed "barrier" *and* match the results of other independent dating methods pretty much blows that one out of the water.

2. The fact that a contaminant-removing method has succeeded in overcoming the "barrier" indicates that the barrier was indeed caused by contaminants.

3. The fact that the dates "uncovered" by the method make sense (i.e. are consistent with the origin of the specimens and their relationship to each other and to younger specimens) and match four independent dating methods very strongly indicates that the findings are "real" and not artifacts of the processing method.

4. The new higher results can't be the result of "washing out" too much of the original Carbon-14 -- C-14 dating is done by measuring the ratio of C-14 to C-12 within the sample, and this will remain constant despite vigorous "washing" because any cleaning method is going to remove proportionately equal amounts of C-14 and C-12 because they are chemically identical.

5. At its upper limits, contamination will always be a problem for techniques like C-14 dating which rely on measuring the amount of very trace amounts of material. Even at the best of times (i.e., before an organism's death) Carbon-14 only makes up 0.0000000002% (not a typo) of the Carbon in the organism. *Very* small amounts of additional C-14 will contribute a significant amount of "noise" to the measurements of the smaller amounts of C-14 present in an old sample. This is not an indictment of C-14 dating in general, though, since such contamination has a far smaller effect on the relatively larger amounts of original C-14 being measured in younger samples. It's only when stretching the technique to its upper end that contamination "noise" becomes almost as large (or larger) than the true amount you're attempting to measure. Previously, the best techniques would still leave enough contamination to swamp a 40,000+ year reading. With the new more effective ABOX-SC technique, the noise level has been pushed back to 60,000 years -- but it's still there. The authors of the PDF would have you believe that this is because there's always measurable amounts of "original" C-14 in all samples. But this does not follow. The much more mundane (and likely) explanation is that there will always be an unavoidable amount of modern C-14 creeping into everything, like the way that sand on a beach always gets into your socks and shorts no matter how you try to avoid it.

6. This is the sort of thing which would have been caught by peer-review publishing. That's one of the many reasons why it's valuable.

7. In reference [12] the PDF authors cite an earlier work by some of the same authors as the article I abstracted above, and their overview of it sounds rather like ABOX-SC, or an earlier version of it -- and yet they did not point out the breaking of the 40,000kya radiocarbon barrier. Call me suspicious, but I'm going to track down a copy of that earlier work and see whether the PDF authors glossed over its implications or presented it misleadingly (although it's possible that the earlier work had not yet achieved the above success). I'll report back after I do that.

[Elsie]

Good heavens, no! We wouldn't want any of those sinners coming in and getting the place dirty.

 

AMEN Brother!!!

 

(We IN THE CHURCH do that quite well already!!)

[Elsie]

2) the fraud was exposed by evolutionists.

 

Does this mean that NO 'C' folks had said it was bogus before then?

[Elsie]

Myself, I am an omnivore.........

[Elsie]

The word is very clear regarding the earth not being flat.

I thought it was the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way, that got him in trouble.

---

That 'earth shall not be moved' stuff.

[Bluntpoint]

Let me get this straight. The earth is older than 6000 years and we just got Direct TV in the last 10 years?

Something is not right with this picture! This digital picture!

[Elsie]

---

You win...... for having the LARGEST 'home page' on FR that I've ever seen!

[Elsie]

...still there are those who tell us that history has ended, that religion has no more need of scripture, ...

 

Am I getting the wrong take on this??

 

Does he mean that not ALL Scripture has already been given?

 

It seems that's how Mohammad and Joseph Smith got started: by writing down MORE 'stuff' that 'god' had given them.

[laredo44]

I didn't read the article, but will if you assure me it explains how Noah got the kangaroos, dodo birds, llamas, tapirs, and other remote species on board the Ark and then back to their current habitiat in such a short time and without their leaving any evidence of such a migration.

[Elsie]

And I don't even have cable!

[Elsie]

Not only that, but just why doesn't someone, supposedly raised by animals in the jungle, not have a beard???

(Tarzan)

[Havoc]

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please back it up. Since it's 'widely known', providing some indepedent corroboration should be easy.

It has been easy, it's only been posted to FR countless times and seems to come up in most every debate. Just happens I'm talking between calls at work and don't have the link here. It's one of the leading reasons for debate on a number of fronts and has been attempted to be explained away in some rather creative ways.

I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack

It's not an ad hominem attack. Soo willing to play the martyr and root for someone's sympathy as though you were being maligned. Give us a break.

Previous papers from Dr. Humphreys, one of which I critiqued in detail some months ago, were shoddy in methodology and data analysis

Heard this one before too. Amazing how you require proof on something that is published and then expect to be taken at face value on something that is not when your ideology is at question. Hmm. Seems like the same doublestandard I'm accustomed to. And the same "take my opinion, please" proof that I'm used to.

The cure for shoddy science is people that examine the science. Just like the cure for certain religions claiming to be Christian is scripture. The public is largely dumb and unaware. That is the only reason charlotans thrive. But when they start getting a little educated, the lights come on and the liberals and evolutionists scurry back under the cabinets - albeit screaming - they scurry nonetheless.

[Bluntpoint]

So, it is 2003, and you have yet to evolve into a cable viewer.

Is their much evidence of life before "I Love Lucy?"

[Bluntpoint]

"Scurry?"

[Elsie]

I didn't read the article, but will if you assure me it explains how Noah got the kangaroos, dodo birds, llamas, tapirs, and other remote species on board the Ark and then back to their current habitiat in such a short time and without their leaving any evidence of such a migration.

Maybe they had round-trip tickets?

Genesis 7:8-15
 8.  Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,
 9.  male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
 10.  And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth. 
 11.  In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
 12.  And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
 13.  On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.
 14.  They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.
 15.  Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.

[Elsie]

I think the 'E' group, as WELL as the 'C', have got some 'splainin' to do!!

[Elsie]

So, it is 2003, and you have yet to evolve into a cable viewer.

 

So true, but my doctor HAS noticed a previously unknown growth in my body.  He, and none of his associates, seem to know what it is or is used for.

 

Perhaps I'll just leave it to my kids; maybe they or their kids will be able to make use of it in the future.

[Bluntpoint]

Plug your TV's cable into the growth. Maybe you have evolved into a biological satelite receiver.

If you can only receive C-Span, shoot yourself.

[Elsie]

I've always wondered........

Our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather; the one that branched off into monkeys and apes and humans:

did he NOT have a tail, and the monkey line EVOLVED one, or
DID he have one and the apes and humans DEVOLVED it?

So many questions, so little time........




[betcha Tarzan would know!]

[50sDad]

It's been said time and again; "The church is not a museum for saints, it's a hospital for sinners."

[Elsie]

Yup.. and I am one of the sickest.........


{the above is fodder for many comments}

;^)

[Bluntpoint]

Man lost his tail. For the next million years men have been chasing tail.

All life is a cicle.

[TaxRelief]

Why is it the people who attack C14 dating as flawed, have no problem using it to try to support their own theories?

Although phrased a trifle rudely, this question is the most intelligent on this particular thread.

[TaxRelief]

¹⁴C is coded by using <SUP>14</SUP> C

[Havoc]

How does your flood account for the destruction of extinct aquatic life like Plesiosaurs, trilobytes, etc..?

One, I didn't say anything about the flood, only about how fossils come about. They come about through rapid burial in pliable soil which then sets up and hardens. It's the same way molds are made in principle. No rapid burial means no preservation of tissue and no fossil.

Who, by the way, said Plesiosaurs and trilobytes are extinct? Can you prove it?

How come Noah didn't take any dinosaurs with him in the ark?

How do you know he didn't? Where does it say he didn't. I can't find it. And as far as whether scripture mentions the beasts or not. Who says it doesn't? You don't find the word dinosaur or Tyranosaur, etc; but, those are modern names given to the beasts. The catalogs of beasts that we have are generally ALL modern and ALL follow modern naming conventions because NO one had done it in the distant past - at least not to the extent that such a catalog survived to compare notes against. There are things mentioned in scripture that you and I are clueless about because we haven't seen them before. Just as there are things in nature we are clueless about because we have never seen them before. Do giant Squids exist? People have been doing searches for them in the oceans for years. But no one has witnessed a giant squid and gotten proof of it on camera. Are they extinct - or just largely living where you can't see?

Science has a history of making statements of fact that turn out to be not so factual. It would be better if egos silenced themselves and the facts were presented rather than claims based on popular opinion. Lest we believe the spotted owl to be extinct or near extinct...

[Right Wing Professor]

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please back it up. Since it's 'widely known', providing some indepedent corroboration should be easy.

... Just happens I'm talking between calls at work and don't have the link here...

Dog ate your homework. Yeah yeah. Get back to me when you decide to take some responsibility for what you post.

I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack

It's not an ad hominem attack. Soo willing to play the martyr and root for someone's sympathy as though you were being maligned. Give us a break.

Then you, sir, are an urepentent liar.

But when they start getting a little educated, the lights come on and the liberals and evolutionists scurry back under the cabinets - albeit screaming - they scurry nonetheless.

He can't come up with the material to which he referred; he flung set of lies he won't retract; and now he says we're scurrying!

Any time you have something of substance to post, instead of this vacuous chest-beating intended to distract from your post's lotal lack of content, get back to me, blowhard.

[Bluntpoint]

Every time he hits the "post reply" button to respond to you, it comes back with a message:

"I'm not in right now, please leave a message and I will return your posts when I return from scurrying."

[Havoc]

Please look at my post #308 here and tell me how left controls the science of trigonometry that is used as basis for measuring distances to stars?

LOL. They don't and they aren't using trig, they're using physics and do not know all the variables. Sorry. The speed at which light moves is dependant upon the substance it is moving through and the resistance applied. Science has no idea what light from distant stars might be filtered through. It is thus impossible to determine distance. A duh moment here. Thus the distance becomes an argument of ideology - not a statement of fact. But that doesn't stop the ideologues from stating their screwups as facts.

Well, the next time I am in interGALACTIC space I'll take some samples of the void.

Good, while you're at it try observing all the particulate matter that exists in a path between earth and the stars you're measuring distance to. Probably out to take temperature readings as well and check for existance of solar wind.. wouldn't want wind shift to make you look dumb now would we. Hmm. How many more things can we imagine as problematic here....

I'd love to see your "What science needs is to be free of the idealogues and otherwise full of people who do science rather than speculation" response.

No, what you would love is that it was 20 years ago when people didn't pay any attention and ya'll could just get by with saying anything you pleased. Tough to bs people when under an increasingly skeptical review by anyone with an interest.

[savedbygrace]

Thank you. I'll probably forget that coding way before the next time it comes up. I tried <SUPERSCRIPT> and <SUPER> and gave up.

Now this is weird. The first time I previewed this post, the < and the > showed up in the Preview box. I edited the comment, and suddenly those characters won't show, only the coding.

Then I previewed again after adding the last paragraph and they show up again. Weird

[ThinkPlease]

LOL. They don't and they aren't using trig, they're using physics and do not know all the variables. Sorry. The speed at which light moves is dependant upon the substance it is moving through and the resistance applied. Science has no idea what light from distant stars might be filtered through. It is thus impossible to determine distance. A duh moment here. Thus the distance becomes an argument of ideology - not a statement of fact. But that doesn't stop the ideologues from stating their screwups as facts.

You do not know of what you speak. It's trigonometry, plain and simple. The relationships involved are completely independent of the medium it passes through. Read the relavant posts before you pontificate. Your posts are looking increasingly ridiculous and paranoid.

[AndrewC]

I would be highly interested to hear why you thought it was.

Your other repeated statements that no explanation is an explanation need no comment. It is fairly easy to conclude that if the source of the "contaminant" cannot be something prevalent then the source of that "contamination" cannot be from something less prevalent barring any explanation as to why the less prevalent thing should be more prevalent in this case. Otherwise, it is the just-so story you are trying to push off.

Your following post can also be addressed. It is nice that they were able to extend the dating about another 30% but that still falls short of the 125% extension that would be needed to get to the limit of the AMS technique as stated in the paper of 90000 years.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up to your analysis!

[PatrickHenry]

Agreed. If the light from distant stars were being filtered through anything, then it would travel slower, not faster, so the suggestion that because we don't know what such light passes through would somehow allow for a faster lightspeed is nonsensical. Also, there is considerable knowledge of what such light travels through, and these observed distortions only verify the distance estimates otherwise determined by redshifts alone. Anyone can do a Google search on the expression "Lyman forest" for a decent explanation of this.

[SengirV]

Please look at my post #308 here and tell me how left controls the science of trigonometry that is used as basis for measuring distances to stars?

LOL. They don't and they aren't using trig

Wrong tough guy, trig was the system of choice for relatively close objects for centuries. Yes, it is true that last century we only had the technology to measure distances to about 100 light years. Then, up to 20 years ago it was only 500 light years. But now we have the technology that can measure angles to better than 10/1000ths of an arc second. Ever wonder how we can tell there are planets orbiting other stars? Because we can measure the stars wobble, down to a dozen meters, as they are perturbed by orbiting planets. That is why I CORRECTLY claimed the systems we use(trigonometry, Cepheid variable stars, Type 1a supernova) do in fact overlap, and we can tell distances accurately.

How come Noah didn't take any dinosaurs with him in the ark?

How do you know he didn't?

OK, lets try using logic again. Here is a non complete list of of one subclass of dinosaurs(Sauropods) - Anchisaurus,Thecodontosaurus ,Ammosaurus , Lufengosaurus ,Massospondylus,Mussaurus ,Plateosaurus,Euskelosaurus ,Melanorosaurus,Riojasaurus,Vulcanodon,Baraposaurus ,Cetiosaurus,Datousaurus , Haplocanthosaurus , Patagosaurus ,Rhoetosaurus ,Shunosaurus ,Brachiosaurus,Pelorosaurus ,Ultrasaurus,Camarasaurus ,Apatosaurus ,Barosaurus ,Diplodocus,Mamenchisaurus ,Supersaurus , Alamosaurus ,Antarctosaurus ,Hypselosaurus ,Saltasaurus ,Titanosaurus

Now lets look up some info on a couple of these bad boys - Brachiosaurus - 25 meters long, 70 tons; Diplodocus - 45 meters long, 30 tons; Titanosaurus - 20 meters long, 7 tons; Barosaurus - 25 meters long, 40 tons

And this is just a small subclass of dinosaurs. I'm guessing that the measurements for the ark in the bible are incorrect, in order to fit all these bad boys in there. But hte bible can't be incorrect. So the measurements must be correct, but if hte measurements are correct, how could Noah have taken all these sauropods, PLUS all the hundred of other species of dinosuars - DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!!

Sorry, but you are wrong on both counts.

[Terriergal]

But beating a Cold, Rational, Scientific Person over the head with the literal interpritation of Flood and Pre-Flood Creation will place a unneeded barrier between them and Jesus Christ.

Au contraire. Those facts all support salvation ... as Theophilus seemed to say. If those facts are not accurate, salvation is unnecessary anyway.

Many cold rational people *have* come to salvation after examining the facts or engaging in true philosophizing.

CS Lewis (once an atheist), Francis Schaeffer (once an agnostic), Don Bierle, etc...

But it only works if the heart is willing as well. If it is not, the lack of stumbling blocks in someone's path won't change it. Christ crucified is his own stumbling block to those who do not seek truth.

[Terriergal]

Oh... and of course the cold and rational, once won by the Truth, usually become some of the greatest Christian apologists.

[Terriergal]

I'm guessing that the measurements for the ark in the bible are incorrect, in order to fit all these bad boys in there.

I wonder how big they were when first hatched? And how fast they grew? Hm....

[Doctor Stochastic]

As light is filtered through anything (other than vacuous filtering through empty space), different frequencies move at different speeds. Thus one would see chromatic aberration if there were an ice canopy around Canopus.

[longshadow]

"Lyman forest" placemarker

[Terriergal]

Oh and ... given that even creationists believe in microevolution/adaptation, one wouldn't need to take every subspecies along either.

[js1138]

there there are MANY folks that call themselves 'Evolutionists' but do not PRACTICE their 'belief' by letting 'nature' take it's course [survival of the fittest] -- they go to doctor for 'cure'!

Oh please! Evolution (whether factually correct or not) is a description of what happens in nature. A description of process. You are suggesting that if astronomers detect a future asteroid impact, they (and we) should let nature take its course. I assume you are being sarcastic.

[BMCDA]

Heh! Are you sure that this is still microevolution? I'd rather call that hyper-evolution if you think that all these subspecies evolved in less than 6000 years from only a few specimen that were on the ark.

[BMCDA]

LOL!! I think I'm going now to practice my 'beliefs' in the theory of gravity and throw people off tall cliffs or buildings ;^D

[sakic]

The Institute for Creative Research has spoken.

[balrog666]

But the bible can't be incorrect.

Maybe cubits have been shrinking along with the speed of light?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Let me be the first to suggest that "blowhard" is over the line.

[50sDad]

But it only works if the heart is willing as well. If it is not, the lack of stumbling blocks in someone's path won't change it.

This sounds vagely Calvanist to me. Predetermined to be saved?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Many cold rational people *have* come to salvation after examining the facts or engaging in true philosophizing. CS Lewis (once an atheist), Francis Schaeffer (once an agnostic), Don Bierle, etc...

C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionist.

[Right Wing Professor]

Let me be the first to suggest that "blowhard" is over the line.

Reply to an ad hominem by a poster who didn't sign the agreement.