Real quick...our problem is not with the demonstrable and measurable,
but with the interpretation and the basis of that interpretation.  I
don't question the amount of carbon 14 measured in a lump of coal.  I
question the assumption made about the age of the coal based on those
measurements.  (By the way, carbon 14 isn't useful for dating anything
that is older than 50,000 years because of the decay rate.  After that
length of time, there shouldn't be enough carbon 14 left to measure.  If
you think it is older than 50,000 years and it still has a measurable
amount of carbon 14, you have a problem with your assumed age.  I
haven't read all the data out there, but I don't think that they have
ever found a coal sample devoid of carbon 14, and yet they still insist
that coal is millions of years old.  Something is amiss.)  I also
wouldn't base your criticism of creationists on the "measurable,
repeatable results of radiometric dating."  The same radiometric
technique will come back with a fairly wide range of ages for one
sample.  Subject that same sample to several radiometric dating
techniques, and it is my understanding that you'll come back with an
even wider range of dates.  How do you decide which one is right?
Geologists typically pick the one that best supports their hypothesis,
i.e. the one closest to their presupposed beliefs.  (Let's see a
creationist get away with that kind of obvious bias.)
It's a common fallacy that variation (you would say speciation) proves
evolution.  Variation within a species is the product of the
rearrangement of pre-existing genetic information.  It does not create
new information, and more typically is the result of the loss of
previously existing information.  Evolution requires the creation of new
information.  Variation is observed.  Unique plant hybrids are the
result of variation--new combinations of old information.  Extinction is
observed.  Anyone seen a saber-toothed tiger recently?  Evolution is not
observed.  Has anyone ever observed an apple develop bone tissue?
Either the information is already there, or it is not.  Whether the
existing information is expressed is another discussion entirely.
And lastly, evolutionists don't get into ultimate origins because they
can't.  No one spends the day worrying whether a horse will
spontaneously materialize in their living room while they are at work
because matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  No one worries
about life springing forth from their compost pile, because life isn't
spontaneously generated from non-life.  And that was demonstrated one
hundred and fifty years ago by Louis Pasteur--a creationist.

That the universe and the life in it has occured is undeniable.  What is
interesting is how it occured.  I'll agree with Louis Pasteur: "The more
I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."

Okay, so that wasn't real quick...but compared to the time required for
evolution to occur, it was a blink of the eye.

Stephen


Nick Honerkamp wrote:


>> I disagree with Stephen Nichols characterization of the
>> evolution/creation
>> debate. Besides ultimate origins--which many evolutionists do not get
>> into--much of what is disputed by creationists concerns the nuts and
>> bolts
>> of how old the world is. In all the debates I have had with creationists
>> over the years, there is indeed a rejection of basic physics,
>> specifically,
>> the physics behind the demonstrable, measurable, repeatable results of
>> radiometric dating (carbon 14 and K-Ar).
>>
>> There is also a common fallacy evident in Stephen's statement concerning
>> fact and theory. Contrary to most popular versions of these terms,
>> fact and
>> theory are not arranged on a gradient of certainty, with the former being
>> reliable and the latter suspect. As with any other science, evolutionary
>> theory (such as Darwinian natural selection) is used to explain
>> evolutionary fact (such as extinction and speciation appearing in the
>> fossil record). That evolution has occurred in undeniable. What's
>> interesting is how it occurred.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>> Nicholas Honerkamp, Ph.D.
>> Acting Head, Sociology, Anthropology, & Geography
>> Director, Institute of Archaeology
>> University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
>> 615 McCallie Avenue
>> Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
>> 423.425.2374  / fax 423.425.2251
>> [log in to unmask]  http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/Nick-Honerkamp/
>