VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:38:40 06/10/99 Thu
Author: David C. Wise
Subject: Re: Time continued
In reply to: daniel 's message, "Re: Time continued" on 12:25:10 06/09/99 Wed


>
> >
> > > P.S. Dr Gary Parker of AIG told me that the rate
> of
> > > radiometric decay has been seen to change under
> high
> > > energy bombardment.
> >
> > Again I ask you (in order of decreasing priority):
> > 1. how much did their rates change?
> > 2. just what effect do you wish to claim that that
> > rate change would have? (i.e., just how much do you
> > want to claim that radiometric dating is off by;
> e.g.,
> > do you wish to claim that it falsely makes
> > 10,000-year-old rock look like it's 1 billion years
> > old?)
> > 3. which isotopes?
> > 4. what kind of decay was involved?
>
> I am attempting to contact Gary with your post.
>
Hopefully, he is much better at answering than Harold Slusher is.

If that is the Gary Parker that I am thinking of, then he is a biologist by training. I would assume then that he had not done the actual research for the claim he passed on to you, but rather had himself gotten it from somebody else, probably just the stated conclusion without any actual figures. In that case, he would have to contact HIS source, initiating a series of inquiries down a long chain of people who had just been given the stated conclusions. And if Harold Slusher was the source, then we will never receive an answer.

Daniel, since this claim is used repeatedly in creation science, I'm sure that Gary Parker was not your only source for it. For example, I'm sure that it has been presented several times in your Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journals. Please check your other sources as well. It is very important that we get those actual numbers.

In the meantime, could you please answer question #2 and explain exactly what it is that you are trying to say with this claim? Are you indeed trying to say that the amount of rate change is sufficient to make 10,000-year-old rock falsely appear to be billions of years old?

> >
> > > > > Have you read the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
> > > > Journal?
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I have read many of it's articles.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > > And so it should be quite obvious to you that no
> real
> > > scientific effort has been made by anyone that has
> > > published in this magazine. Reminds me of studying
> > > the devil's work. I study it so that I can know
> that
> > > what ever is said is likley untrue. I will
> maintain
> > > my subscription so that I will always know what
> > > scientific claims are made in this poorly,
> > > unsubstantiated Journal are substantially untrue.
> > >
> > > Thank you for the opportunity for me to easily
> > > identify error. All articles written in the
> creation
> > > ex nihilo journal are false.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean that you have finally seen the light
> > about creation science?
>
> Yes, I have seen the light. It is clear that you do
> not understand sarcasm. I will not write in this tone
> again. If you honestly believe that ALL articles in
> Creation Ex Nihilo are false, then your prejudice has
> seen fit to blind you.
>
Darn. And here you almost had me believing in miracles. <gr>

Do you know how much communication is verbal? Much less than half. The rest of communication is handled through metalanguage, which includes facial expressions, gestures, posture, intonation, inflection, etc. For example, the Yiddish word, "nu", has scores of different possible meanings; which one is being used depends on the metalanguage accompanying it.

In cyberspace, we attempt to communicate with each other through a purely verbal medium. The metalanguage has been stripped off. Normally, when sarcasm is being employed, the accompanying metalanguage clearly labels it as sarcasm. But with that metalanguage stripped off, we cannot tell that it is not a simple statement of fact. You say, "I will not write in this tone again.", but there IS no tone to any of our writing here. That tone, which is metalinguistic, had already been stripped off. We could not see the bulge in your cheek and so had no knowledge of the placement of your tongue at that moment.

Therefore, it has become customary to insert artificial metalanguage. That is why some people use those cutsy emoticons (eg, ;) for winking ). Myself, I prefer metalinguistic tags like <gr> for grin, <LOL> for laughing out loud (though I am usually too reserved for such behavior <gr>), <sigh>, etc. If you will insert artificial metalanguage where needed, then there should be fewer misunderstandings in the future.

>> If you honestly believe that ALL articles in Creation Ex Nihilo are false, then your prejudice has seen fit to blind you.<<

Complain not about the mote in my eye until you have attended to the boulder in yours.

I did not say that I believe that ALL articles in Creation Ex Nihilo are false. However, I do understand the Ex Nihilo people to be cut from the same cloth as the ICR people and to be following the same "wacky trail" (the term used by some CREATIONISTS to describe ICR-style creationism, AKA "creation science"). I would not immediately declare the articles to be false, sight unseen, but I also would not accept them as true, sight unseen. I would immediately be suspicious of them and insist that they be checked and verified.

That is not prejudice speaking, but rather about 20 years of sad experience with creation science claims. About 20 years of seeing sloppy scholarship, the use of out-dated and refuted sources, the ignoring of pertinent data and sources, misrepresentation of science, the reaching of unwarranted conclusions, etc. For over a decade, my advice to others has always been to verify a creationist's claims. Have you done that with any of those articles?

Daniel, do I need to remind you that I have said that there are a number of serious creationists who are making honest attempts to find actual scientific evidence supporting YEC? And I believe that I have also told you that most of them are very bothered by the ICR and its ilk (which I believe includes the Australian creationists who include the Ex Nihilo people) and by they damage being done through their creation science.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.