Here is my similarly not-so-quick response to Stephen Nichols observations.

I submit that Stephen is on pretty thin ice in his critique of C14. I say
that because I'm an archaeologist, and it's my job to familiarize myself
with C14 and its limitations. The example of coal producing C14 is simply
bizzare. Unless new carbon is somehow introduced into the coal sample, it's
impossible to get an accurate reading on C14 decay past 70 k years ago (not
50 k - AMS has extended the range somewhat). The variety of dates that come
back from any radiometric procedure reflect the fact that the decay of the
unstable isotope is random, not absolute. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
BUT, the results inevitably cluster (as with the three samples for the
Shroud of Turin), and there is always a standard deviation reported in the
literature, though perhaps not in newspapers. There have been literally
tens of thousands of C14 dates that have been consistently cross-verified
using multiple samples since 1949, when Libby introduced the technique, not
to mention the thousands of correlations with stratigraphy and hundreds
(maybe thousands) of calibrations that have been carried out using
dendrochronology--which IS an absolute technique. The calibration of C14
goes back at least 8000 years using bristlecone pine. That thousands of
dates are consistent rather than diverse is rarely if ever acknowledged by
most creationists. BTW, the calibrations indicate that C14 underestimates
dates prior to 1500 BC by up to 700 years. This is likely a result of
variations in the amount of atmospheric C14 through time.

As to variation and information, Stephen has missed one of the four forces
of evolution, the one that is the ultimate source of all variation:
mutation. Mutation definitely produces new information. Sometimes it's
not-so-good, which is why dental assistants give you a lead vest when you
get your teeth x-rayed. But some mutations stick, which accounts for the
differences we see in humans today. Viva la difference, and positive mutations!

The four forces of evolution are only operable once life is up and running,
which is why some evolutionists don't concern themselves with the origin
question. Some may suppose there can be a "skyhook" (Daniel C. Dennett's
metaphor for a creator) to start things going, and this is a position that
several creationists (and evolutionists) that I know adhere to: God creates
an original mega-primitive life form, evolution then proceeds accordingly.
However, other evolutionists are very much involved in research concerning
the origin of life (sadly, I don't keep up with it, and can't say much
about it--that gets pretty far afield from archaeology). There have been a
few advances in chemistry, physics, biology, and genetics since Pasteur's
time, which allows this question to be addressed in new ways.

Nick


>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/
>>
>>  At 02:15 PM 2/24/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>>While reading through a week's worth of email, I ran across a few lines
>>>in one of Richard's emails on the "academic freedom bill" that I find to
>>>be a bit misinformed.  Granted, I understand Richard's main concern, but
>>>I feel the need to clear up the topic.
>>>
>>>Richard expresses concern over a student "objecting to evolution in a
>>>biology class without equal time to creationism or a law of physics
>>>rather than God's law in an engineering course."  Why would creationists
>>>object to a law of physics?  Creationists do not have a problem with
>>>demonstrable, measurable, repeatable science (e.g. physics, chemistry,
>>>genetics).  Instead, they disagree with the metaphysical theories
>>>about the historic origin of time, space, and life (e.g. macro-
>>>evolutionary theories--punctuated equilibrium, neo-Darwinian evolution)
>>>which are increasingly taught as fact instead of theory.
>>>
>>>Stephen