On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:09:22 -0500 "Mark Hubbard" <HUBBARD@cofo.edu>
writes:
> I found myself in a discussion last night with some friends who
> were very adamant about the earth being only a few thousand
> years old and provided me with a host of "proofs" straight from the
>
> Creation Research Institute.
>
> These included:
> -2nd law of thermodynamics (still not sure what that had to do with
> their argument?)
Mark,
Don't you _know_ that the _law_ provides that everything goes downhill,
that there is no way to increase order? Therefore, the increased
complexity required by evolution is _impossible_, This demonstrates gross
ignorance, but gets by because few people outside of physics understand
entropy. Other special pleading comes from ignorance of quantum effects.
Were they right, there is no way that anyone could clean a room, no way
that a baby could grow. This kind of argument is either patent evidence
of confusion or else is deliberate lying.
> -unreliability of carbon dating
Sorry I can't give you the reference, but I recall an article in the CRI
journal that showed the carbon dating was faulty by positing that the
bristlecone pines had many years when they produced multiple annual
rings.
> -dinosaur / man tracks in Texas
A display showing this, I understand, was removed from the museum in San
Diego many years ago because the CRI folks were convinced that it wasn't
veridical. The problem is that no one bothers to update the hoi polloi.
Can you imagine honest science that continued to propagate disproved
matter. I find continual corrections in _Science_, both immediate and by
later experimental reports.
A comprehensive report by Glen Kuban showed that the "human" prints were
not properly spaced for any human gait, and that they had the triple
depressions of the dinosaur toes, not the five of human toes. They were
made by swimming reptiles in shallow water pushing on the soft bottom.
> -Grand Canyon formation "proven" to be recent
> -ancient trees sticking up through multiple layers of rock
> - and others
>
> Being trained as a plant physiologist I had no problem discussing
> biological issues but found myself lost on the geological issues. I
> realize that a couple of these very topics were recently discussed
> here but I admittedly didn't follow it very closely as it was over
> my head.
>
> Would someone mind helping my basic understanding of geology
> in light of these young earth ideas by pointing me to a book or
> other references. For my sake as well as theirs, the simpler the
> language the better. Also, it may be better to post to me privately
> if you wish.
>
> I found it very interesting that these friends very unwilling to
> consider anything I had to say that might contradict their views.
> Almost as if it challenged their faith and maybe God!? It made me
> wonder what ideas or beliefs I hold to -that if shown to be in
> error-
> would weaken my faith. I'll have to think about that some more.
>
You have encountered the true-believer syndrome, also known as invincible
ignorance. No amount of evidence can change their minds--except about
accepting you as a brother. As someone noted, the greatest impediment to
learning is to know it all already. My prayers and best wishes are with
you as you face a challenge insurmountable except by divine intervention.
Dave
> On a somewhat related note, our college (College of the Ozarks in
> SW Missouri) will be hosting "Dr." Carl Baugh in November for
> lectures on intelligent design. Should be interesting. I will keep
>
> you posted on that one.
>
> Thanks for your patience and your help!
>
>
> Mark
> Hubbard@cofo.edu
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 19 2001 - 12:33:04 EDT