Did you not read the article I linked? There's no assumption involved; radiometric dating is based on actual observed decay rates of radioactive isotopes and other hard science. It's all explained in the article.robbyyoung wrote:The article was critical of making false assumptions. Since every single radioisotope dating method is still based on an assumption, when not directly observed, radiometric dating will produce erroneous results. That was the point. Withholding observable facts was the critical element in the science. Now scientists, who most definitely weren't around at the beginning, make these same assumptions when dating the earth and universe--discounting the miracle of creation, which was also not withheld.
Let me lay out what AIG's scientist did as concisely and clearly as possible, just so it can't be missed:
- He collected a sample from very new volcanic rock.
- He then sent the sample to a lab for testing, specifying a test method that he knew would produce a wildly inaccurate result with that sample.
- He deliberately withheld information that would've let the lab know the result would be inaccurate and would've enabled them to suggest a test that would be accurate.
- He then used that wildly inaccurate result to "prove" that radiometric dating is unreliable.
The relevant beliefs being that truthfulness is important; Christians should be particularly careful to be truthful; and it's particularly reprehensible when authority figures deliberately mislead to further their agenda at the expense of those less knowledgeable who trust them to be truthful.Albeit, your observations are both astute and consistent with your belief.
I have no idea how you make that logical leap, especially after Si, a theistic evolutionist, so eloquently explained how his belief fits into and enhances his belief in miracles. If you missed that, you might want to go back and read it, as it'll help you better understand what you're arguing against.Thus, miracles seem to be the OEC’s Achilles Heel, for miracles skew logic and knowledge of what is scientifically empirical evidence.
On this we certainly agree. My experience in this regard is similar to Si's, although our beliefs are somewhat different. When I was YEC, I thought creating everything from nothing in 6 24-hour days was a pretty impressive miracle; it was hard to imagine how any Christian could believe otherwise. But that paled into insignificance when I came to understand what OEC actually believes, as opposed to the twisted misrepresentations of it I'd always heard from the YEC activists. Suddenly I understood that God's majesty, power, love and care for us, and many other attributes, are infinitely greater than I'd ever imagined. Everything from the Big Bang on -- every intricately intertwined detail of this incredibly complex universe and everything in it -- planned and executed precisely over a scale of time and space so mind-bogglingly immense that we can't even begin to imagine it. And all of it focussed on us -- all of it just to create this infinitessimally microscopic window of a few tens of thousands of years of the stability we need to live on earth. A miracle on steriods, indeed! In comparison, YEC now seems to me like a bad joke, a dim shadow of the truth not even close to being worthy of the God we serve.IMO, creation is a miracle on steroids!
THAT is what OEC's believe about miracles. The question is, will you take an OEC's word for it, and maybe do a little research to see if it's what other OEC's believe as well? Or will you stay in your comfort zone and just stick with the twisted misrepresentations of OEC that you've been fed by those who have your misplaced trust?
This was one of the things that taught me the importance, when discussing with one who believes differently, of understanding what he actually believes, and why he believes it, as opposed to some stereotyped misrepresentation of his beliefs I heard somewhere. Without a good working knowledge of what you're trying to argue against, the best you can do is beat the air. Just some food for thought that I hope you can find helpful in discussions on creation, as well as other areas.
I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm not familiar with that organization, but from their About page it's clear they're anti-Christian and more interested in ideology than science, and definitely have nothing to do with OEC. I have no idea why you'd even associate them with me or OEC. Please be a little more careful when telling me what I believe.Here’s a quote from this article of your persuasion/belief that sums up the matter quite nicely: “Only when young-earth creationists produce convincing quantitative, scientific evidence that the earth is young will they be worth listening to on this important scientific matter” (https://ncse.com/library-resource/radio ... -does-work).
In contrast, OEC says science can and does prove miracles all the time. OEC says Psalm 19:1 is literally, absolutely, unfailingly correct when it says the heavens declare the glory of God. YEC says the heavens lie about God if you look too closely.YEC’s don’t need to prove a miracle, that’s impossible, so unfortunately we are marginalized by the scientific community for our first assumption. Well, I honestly don’t blame the OEC’s, after all, seeing is believing, right?
The same way you do.How would OECs have confronted the Old and New Testament miracles?
Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope in the future you'll dial back the assumptions and try to learn a little more about the subject matter.I apologize up-front if my comments are too assuming, for I know OECs love the Lord as much as anyone else
God bless.