Home | Feedback | Links | Books

Feedback from March 1998
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.


From: William D. Mayercheck

Thanks for taking the time to present educational truths about the creation/evolution controversy. Of course, there has NEVER been ANY scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.

Dr. Carl Sagan, an avowed and famous evolutionist, once calculated the probability of man evolving (via macroevolutiuon/abiogenesis) at 1 chance in 10 to the 2 billionth power. Likewise, Muncaster (1997) calculated the probability of an evolutionary start of mankind by calculating the probability of randomly producing a single living cell at 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Since Borel's Single Law of Chance states that beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power events never occur, I'd say that both Sagan and Muncaster proved the chance of life via evolution to be zero. The only thing that seems to keep evolving is some different definition of the word “evolution.”

PLAY THE EVOLUTIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are simple. Start with an original assumption, liberally add more assumptions, introduce an evolutionary psuedo-scientific opinion, add a flawed “scientific dating system” and end the game (a winner every time) concluding that the original assumption is now a “scientific fact”!!

In my extensive personal research into the creation-evolution controversy, I've concluded that there are 3 schools of thought (belief systems) as to the origin of mankind: Those people who firmly believe in special creation of mankind by God over six 24-hour earth days, approx. 6,000 years ago (Bible: Book of Genesis); those who firmly believe in evolution of mankind from chemicals to humans by chance over billions of years; and those who are confused as to their beliefs to include theistic evolutionists (God needed help and used evolution).

William D. Mayercheck


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you for your encouraging remarks and for sharing your observations. As for the “3 schools of thought” to which you refer, I think you will agree that careful analysis shows the third category to be deceptively fatal compromise, yielding a blend of fact-free science and the meaningless religion involving what should be an embarrassing and essentially man-made (and therefore powerless) deity.

Kind Regards,
TW

Back to Top


From yoho@execpc.com:

I have talked with many Geologist. Although number does not indicate correctness, I have researched Polonium halos and other such things, and you seem to be wrong. You may want to stop trying to prove God with science. You see, as you are proving dating methods wrong, you are calling the science you are usiing to prove your point wrong. I am a Christian, but God does not depend on Genisis being literal, nor on dating methods being wrong. Go on faith, not pseudo-science for crying out loud!!!!

(name withheld)


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you for taking the time to offer your feedback to the true.origin pages. I would like to respond as follows:

>>I have talked with many Geologist. Although number does not indicate correctness, I have researched Polonium halos and other such things, and you seem to be wrong.<<

It would help if you were more specific about 1) what exactly is wrong, and 2) exactly how it is wrong.

>>You may want to stop trying to prove God with science...<<

It is not an objective of this site to “prove God with science.” One can hardly be asked to stop trying something that one hasn't even begun to try. The purpose of this site is to demonstrate where the empirical scientific data does not support the theory (and religious/philosphical underpinnings) of evolution, and to demonstrate where that same empirical scientific data does support an alternative model based on a creationist framework.

>>...You see, as you are proving dating methods wrong, you are calling the science you are usiing to prove your point wrong...<<

Not at all. Dating methods are not the embodiment of Science; they are a means of estimating or measuring. If certain dating methods happen to be inaccurate, then they are not valid, useful tools for the scientific process. This does not in any way diminish the value or usefulness of the scientific method or Science itself; rather it reveals the fact that erroneous methods (and their questionable results) are being used to prop up a pseudo-scientific theory as if it were “scientific fact” in the popular mind.

>>I am a Christian...<<

That's wonderful! So am I!

>>...but God does not depend on Genisis being literal...<<

God does not depend on anything. However, if His Word is reliable (and I have no doubt that it is), then the historicity and truthfulness of His Word - including the Genesis record - will never be proven false by any genuine science.

God does not “depend” on Genesis being literal, but our not taking His Word at face value causes far more theological problems for us than it solves, and it is by no means a more “scientific” practice than the alternative.

>>...Go on faith, not pseudo-science for crying out loud!!!!<<

I agree completely! That's why I've bothered to post the true.origin pages in the first place.

Kind Regards,
TW


Reply from yoho@execpc.com:

>>It would help if you were more specific about 1) what exactly is wrong, and 2) exactly how it is wrong.<<

1) the “evidence” (scientific) doesn't point to a young Earth. 2) too much to type for right at this moment, but have you talked to any geologists? They could give you plenty.
>>It is not an objective of this site to “prove God with science.” One can hardly be asked to stop trying something that one hasn't even begun to try. The purpose of this site is to demonstrate where the empirical scientific data does not support the theory (and religious/philosophical underpinnings) of evolution, and to demonstrate where that same empirical scientific data does support an alternative model based on a creationist framework.<<

But you are, at least trying to support your theory with “scientific evidence”, and you are misreading the “evidence”. Seriouly research the “evidence” that you at the present time believe points to a young Earth. Ask around. Talk to professors. Science does not support a young Earth.

>>Not at all. Dating methods are not the embodiment of Science; they are a means of estimating or measuring. If certain dating methods happen to be inaccurate, then they are not valid, useful tools for the scientific process. This does not in any way diminish the value or usefulness of the scientific method or Science itself; rather it reveals the fact that erroneous methods (and their questionable results) are being used to prop up a pseudo-scientific theory as if it were “scientific fact” in the popular mind.<<

Ah! They are very very deeply embedded into science that is accepted as correct. If you don't find that science correct, that's fine. But that science says, based on that science, these methods are correct. If you say they are not, the science behind them must be wrong. But you are using that very science to support your own arguments. ie: If you say radio active decay rates may have changed, how on Earth do you know polonium halos are are even from Polonium??

You can't pick and chose what you want to use from the science without discreditting yourself.

>>God does not depend on anything. <<

Good answer. :)

>> However, if His Word is reliable (and I have no doubt that it is), then the historicity and truthfulness of His Word - including the Genesis record - will never be proven false by any genuine science.<<

Are you saying that it will never be proven that *according to science* Earth is old, or that Genesis is wrong as even a parable type story? Why can't Genesis just be a good story to illustrate some good points?

>>God does not depend on Genesis being literal, but not taking His Word at face value causes far more theological problems than it solves, and it is by no means a more “scientific” practice than the alternative.<<

Exactly. God need not be scientific, which is why I suggest trying to stop explaining a literal view of Genesis. If you believe it, that's one thing, but don't support it with “science”.

>>...Calling science wrong about dating, and then using the same science (that you said was wrong) to support your own arguments *is* psuedo-science.<<

Thanx, (name withheld)


Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>1) the “evidence” (scientific) doesn't point to a young Earth.
>>2) too much to type for right at this moment, but have you talked to
>any geologists? They could give you plenty.

1) Speaking of the “evidence” in such a general term isn't saying much, and does little more than restate your argument without supporting it. Perhaps you would like to cite the specific “evidence” which you believe doesn't point to a young earth. In the meantime, much of the material in David Plaisted's article entitled “The Radiometric Dating Game” reveals some facts often obscured and unknown in the popular treatment of science. A careful reading of his article (and the URLs which it references) would be advisable before making blanket assertions about what the “evidence” supports or doesn't support.

2) I haven't spoken to a geologist face-to-face on the subject of dating, but I have read much that has been published by geologists - both evolutionists and creationists. Yes indeed, they have plenty to say. My studies haven't yielded any overwhelming, unequivocal indications that an old earth interpretation is the most logical. In fact, quite to the contrary, I find the “old earth” interpretations often more questionable than their “young earth” counterparts. Again, particularly if you've studied mostly (or exclusively) “old earth” interpretations to date, Plaisted's article serves as an excellent introduction to the alternative “young earth” interpretation, without “attacking science” or diminishing the scientific method in any way.

>>But you are, at least trying to support your theory with “scientific evidence”, and you are misreading the “evidence”.<<

“Misreading the evidence” in what specific way? Without details, such a blanket accusation is meaningless.

>>Seriouly research the “evidence” that you at the present time believe points to a young Earth. Ask around. Talk to professors. Science does not support a young Earth.<<

Again, I suggest that you begin citing specific details, rather than issuing more blanket statements and telling me to “ask around.” Most, if not all, of the material on the true.origin site is accompanied by the requisite qualifying explanations and/or references. Challenges that lack any such support hardly qualify as reasonable criticism.

>>Ah! They [dating methods] are very very deeply embedded into science that is accepted as correct. If you don't find that science correct, that's fine.<<

“Accepted” by whom? And why just “accepted” and not “unequivocally proven”? The fact that radiometric dating methods are described as “accepted” is a good indication of their questionability. And it is not just “young earth” creationists who are raising the questions. Those who insist that radiometric dating methods are beyond dispute and who tout their “acceptance” are most often those who are least familiar with the hands-on application and variable nature of those same methods. See Plaisted's “Dating Game” page or geologist Harold Coffin's book “Origin By Design” for some good examples.

And just for example, since identical (and popularly “accepted”) dating methods have shown sedimentary strata at the top of the Grand Canyon to be much “older” than sedimentary strata at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, in what framework are these data “accepted”?

>>But that science says, based on that science, these methods are correct. If you say they are not, the science behind them must be wrong.<<

You are using a very generic term (“science”) where you should be much more specific. No one is saying that “science” is wrong. In fact, “science” cannot be wrong, since “science” is—by definition—knowledge.

A method used in scientific study can produce highly varied and inaccurate results, however, rendering as wrong (i.e., scientifically inappropriate) any reliance on that method for generating data. Just as weighing specimens with a faulty scale will generate bad data (no true knowledge, or science), so also using a faulty dating method will produce bad data (no true knowledge, or science). This does nothing to negate science (i.e., knowledge derived from the scientific method) itself, but disqualifies the use of the erroneous method for true scientific purposes.

>>But you are using that very science to support your own arguments. ie: If you say radio active decay rates may have changed, how on Earth do you know polonium halos are are even from Polonium??<<

First, this question is a case of faulty logic: changes in decay rates have nothing to do with the sources of decay artifacts. In asking why one and not the other you commit a logical error.

Second, the idea that decay rates may have changed is only one of the unknown—and unknowable—variables that bring radiometric dating into question. No less significant are the unknown—and unknowable—assumptions made in the application of every radiometric dating method that: 1) no past loss or gain of either parent or daughter element has taken place within the specimen being measured, and 2) the amount of daughter element originally present is knowable and known.

Third, can you cite any leading authority on “polonium halos” who disputes the notion that said halos “are even from polonium”?

>>You can't pick and chose what you want to use from the science without discreditting yourself.<<

That's absolutely correct, and it applies to more than just myself. Many radiometric dates are discarded because they don't match the presuppositional expectations of the (evolutionist) scientists involved. The data obtained by means of an accurate and reliable method wouldn't need to be treated this way.

Many other (non-radiometric) dating methods produce results at wide variance to all radiometric methods (though they are based on the same uniformitarianist assumptions); why are their results not published in either the (evolutionist) technical or popular science media?

Picking and choosing is indeed a discredit to those who practice it. Unfortunately for the uniformitarianist-evolutionists, it seems to be they who practice it most of all.

>>Are you saying that it will never be proven that *according to science* Earth is old, or that Genesis is wrong as even a parable type story?<<

I am saying that I have no reason to believe that the above will ever happen, and the more I learn, the more convinced I become of this.

>>Why can't Genesis just be a good story to illustrate some good points?<<

Why should it? That isn't the literary form in which it is written (the claims of modernist redaction critics notwithstanding). That isn't the context in which its contents fit. That isn't the context in which it is treated elsewhere by any old testament writer, new testament writer, or the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And to treat it as such is to effectively deny the meaning of the life and work of Jesus Christ. In short, there is simply no good reason that I know of for treating Genesis as “a good story to illustrate some good points.”

>>...God need not be scientific...<<

If He is God, then He both created and knows everything and anything that men (and women) may learn or discover—including all matters of Science. We discover the laws, majesty, and seemingly infinite wonder of nature—but it is all His handiwork.

If by saying “God need not be scientific” you mean to prohibit Him from knowing and accurately speaking to issues which touch on matters of Science where and as He pleases, then you are making yourself out to “know better” than Him what He can and cannot do or know.

>>...which is why I suggest trying to stop explaining a literal view of Genesis. If you believe it, that's one thing, but don't support it with “science”.<<

Once again let me say that a careful and objective examination of the scientific data does not preclude a literal view of Genesis. The pages of the true.origin site explain and document the basis of this position, and the books and links suggested at the site provide much more detailed—scientific—empirical evidence to support the same position. You will not refute this position with blanket statements and assertions about beliefs.

Any position on origins is a matter of belief and presupposition. The question is not what you or I believe, but which belief is best supported by the empirical data of science. I've studied both sides, and I am unreservedly convinced that there is no scientific reason to treat the Genesis record as anything but a reliable, historically and scientifically accurate account.

Kind Regards,
TW


Reply from yoho@execpc.com:

>>Again, I suggest that you begin citing specific details, rather than issuing more blamket statements and telling me to “ask around.” Most, if not all, of the material on the true.origin site is accompanied by the requisite qualifying explanations and/or references. Challanges that lack any such support hardly qualify as reasonable criticism.<<

Alright. Tis true. It might take a litle while to get around to it...

>> “Accepted” by whom? And why just “accepted” and not “unequivocally proven”?<<

Most of science isn't unequivocally proven.

>>And just for example, since identical (and popularly “accepted”) dating methods have shown sedimentary strata at the top of the Grand Canyon to be much “older” than sedimentary strata at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, in what framework are these data “accepted”?<<

Yah, and the lack of silt at the mouth of the Mississippi points to a young Earth too. Groan. I'll adress that in a bit.

>>changes in decay rates have nothing to do with the sources of decay artifacts.<<

Could you re-explain that? Lost me.

>>Third, can you cite any leading authority on “polonium halos” who disputes the notion that said halos “are even from polonium”?<<

I just meant that if the rates of decay have changed (as some say), the halos may be misrepresented.

>>Many radiometric dates are discarded because they don't match the presuppositional expectations of the (evolutionist) scientists involved. The data obtained by means of an accurate and reliable method wouldn't need to be treated this way.<<

Okay, if you scortch a batch of cookies do you throw them out? Does that mean that baking doesn't work? Granted, not that best example, but I'll readress that.

>> >>Why can't Genesis just be a good story to illustrate some good points?<<
>>
>> Why should it? That isn't the literary form in which it is written (the claims of modernist redaction critics notwithstanding). That isn't the context in which its contents fit.<<

>>...And to treat it as such is to effectively deny the meaning of the life and work of Jesus Christ.<<

Yah right! Why does it matter how He did it as long as we trust that He did it?? If science does point to an old earth it shouldn't matter!

>> >>...God need not be scientific...<<
>>
>>If He is God, then He both created and knows everything and anything that men (and women) may learn or discover - including all matters of Science. We discover the laws, majesty, and seemingly infinite wonder of nature - but it is all His handiwork.<<

Yup.

>>If by saying “God need not be scientific” you mean to prohibit Him from knowing and accurately speaking to issues which touch on matters of Science where and as He pleases, then you are making yourself out to “know better” than Him what He can and cannot do or know.<<

That is not what I said. I said He need not be scientific. He doesn't have to be anything. If you say He has to be scientific, wouldn't that be limitting Him?

I'll get back te ya about more specific “evidence”. :)

(name withheld)


Response from Timothy Wallace:

>>I've e-mailed about 15 or so [geologists] from universities... They were very helpfull.<<

Then do please share the details of their helpfulness, that we may both benefit from it.

>>Most of science isn't unequivocally proven.<<

Please don't put words in my mouth: I didn't say anything about unequivocal proof of science. I asked for unequivocal evidence to support the notion that radiometric dating methods are reliable and valid for true scientific analysis (i.e., repetition, observation, and measurement with consistent results).

>>Yah, and the lack of silt at the mouth of the Mississippi points to a young Earth too. Groan. I'll adress that in a bit.<<

Let's stick with one thing at-a-time, if you please. I suggest you finish (nay, BEGIN) defending radiometric dating methods, before we move on to other data-gathering techniques (which I will then be delighted to do).

>> >>changes in decay rates have nothing to do with the sources of decay artifacts. <<
>>
>>Could you re-explain that? Lost me.<<

Sorry. You stated: “If you say radio active decay rates may have changed, how on Earth do you know polonium halos are are even from Polonium??” The implication is that changes in decay rates must somehow be linked to whether polonium halos really came from polonium, since the suggestion of rate changes seems to make polonium halos of questionable origin in your mind. (At least, that's the way your question is framed.) A possible change in decay rates wouldn't make any difference with regard to whether or not polonium halos have been caused by polonium; they are two unrelated matters, one being the speed at which a process takes place, the other being the source of an effect.

>> >>Third, can you cite any leading authority on “polonium halos” who
>> >>disputes the notion that said halos “are even from polonium”?<<
>>
>>I just meant that if the rates of decay have changed (as some say), the halos may be misrepresented.<<

I'll take that as a no. Now, following your same line of argument, can you cite any leading authority on “polonium halos” who considers said halos to be “misrepresented”?

>>Okay, if you scortch a batch of cookies... Granted, not that best example...<<

Bingo! (Now, if someone were claiming that the scorched cookies were reliable scientific evidence for a particulat theory, we might have something to talk about.)

>>Yah right! Why does it matter how He did it as long as we trust that He did it?? If science does point to an old earth it shouldn't matter!<<

It only matters how He did anything if He says how He did it. If He says He did “X” and man says it must be “Y” guess who is wrong (no matter how “right” he may look at the moment - and in the popular view)?? Furthermore, I repeat: the true empirical data of Science do not by any means unequivocally point to an old earth. If you study both sides of this issue objectively, you will see what I mean. On the other hand, if you spend all your time scrounging for arguments for an old earth and against a young earth, you may become more and more convinced that an old earth interpretation is right, but you will not have arrived at that conclusion through a logical, objective, nor scientific process.

>> >>If by saying “God need not be scientific” you mean to prohibit Him
>> >>from knowing and accurately speaking to issues which touch on matters
>> >>of Science where and as He pleases, then you are making yourself out
>> >>to “know better” than Him what He can and cannot do or know.
>>
>>That is not what I said. I said He need not be scientific. He doesn't have to be anything. If you say He has to be scientific, wouldn't that be limitting Him?<<

I didn't say “He has to be scientific.” I said (in effect) that the world He has created will not contradict the Word He has spoken. Science is neither man's invention nor his exclusive domain; it is his means of studying the handiwork of his Creator in order to learn from Him, give glory to Him, and obey Him. The object of man's science (the creation) will not contradict that which has been communicated to man (the Scriptures) from the source of both (the Creator).

>>I'll get back te ya about more specific “evidence”. :)<<

Okay, I'll wait here :->

Kind Regards,
TW


[To date, nothing more has been heard from this individual: no specific evidence, no “helpful” documentation, references or data from the “15 or so university geologists”...]

Back to Top


From Brandon M. Gorte:

It's nice to see that the Talk.Origins Archive is such a good source that creationists will go out of their way to make their sites look like the real thing. Keep up the good work, you and others who copy the Archive only make creationism look less creative and sillier everyday.


Response from Timothy Wallace:

Thank you very much for taking the time to offer your feedback to the true.origin pages.

I find it noteworthy, however, that your only criticism was focused on the form of the site, and not its content. One couldn't be blamed, I suppose, for wondering whether this is because you are ill-equipped to take issue with the content.

Kind Regards,
TW


   Google     
 
Web TrueOrigin Archive  
Home | Feedback | Links | Back to Top

© TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
  powered by Lone Star Web Works