Everything You Know About Genesis is Wrong
Over on Best Syndication, there is an article by Herman Cummings. For those of us in evolution/creation issues, Cummings crops up from time to time, invariably to say the following things:
- Genesis has been misinterpreted by everyone.
- Only one person has figured out what Genesis actually says, and his name is “Herman Cummings”.
- Only one person is qualified and willing to tell others the truth about Genesis, for a fee.
This formula was not even broken when Cummings wrote his amicus curiae brief for the appeals court considering the Selman v. Cobb County case. Given the opportunity to overwhelm the appeals panel with the one, true interpretation of Genesis, all Cummings could do was hint at a possibility: maybe Moses was given visions of the first day of each geological epoch.
There is a sense of a relentless mercenary spirit in these messages, a willingness to plainly tell the world that nobody else either has, or can have, a clue about the interpretation of Genesis. Which makes me wonder whether Cummings insists upon a non-disclosure agreement with everyone who does pay that modest fee for his collected wisdom on Genesis, or whether he is still looking for his first student. Surely, any radical knowledge concerning Cummings and his view of Genesis would have leaked by now, unless we are dealing with the modern equivalent of “The Royal Nonesuch” from Twain’s Huckleberry Finn.
And the bulleted points above really are all that the Best Syndication article boils down to, as the final two paragraphs make clear:
This article is to inform all that a class on Genesis is available to science teachers. The title of the course is “Moses & Creation: Biblical Reality”. It is a 12-hour class that tells the truth about the first three chapters of Genesis, so that the teachers won’t be speaking in ignorance about what Genesis is saying to mankind. Neither theology nor secular science are anywhere close to knowing what advanced scientific knowledge is contained in Genesis.
Therefore, any attempt to formulate any “creation†curriculum without correct technical advice from the leading expert is foolhardy, and is distribution of misinformation.
Sorry, Herman, I’m not buying.
And to some extent, it appears that Herman is not selling, at least not effectively. I see no contact information to allow an interested party to sign up for one of the mentioned seminars. Nor is it apparent that there is any way to obtain the remaining chapters of his 1992 manuscript that are not yet online and which Cummings himself referred to as an “unpublished manuscript” in his amicus curiae brief.
CafePress Shop
June 26th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
In the 1950s such views where quite common. I own a little religious track by the Reverent George W. Wahlin, which was published in 1957. In it he synchronizes the epochs as seen in the Grand Canyon with the “days” of creation. It is quite nutty but in a delightfully naive way. As I said when I wrote a little post on it some time ago, “This effort to show that modern science and the Bible actually told the same story was very popular in some Christian religious circles at the time this track was written. In part it was an attempt to co-op science into the evangelistic mission of the church and in part is was an attempt to save religious revelations from the onslaught of scientific revelations. In the end, the effort was a failure.”
June 29th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Hello Mr. Elsberry.
Your email address of welsberr@inia.cls.org doesn’t work.
Please allow me to respond to “Everything You Know About
Genesis is Wrongâ€. Your reporting was over 90% accurate,
which is refreshing since the news media has proven to be very
biased concerning printing my articles for the past nine years.
However, I don’t know where you obtained “for a feeâ€.
Here are the reasons my “radical knowledge†of Genesis has
not leaked out to any great extent, in no particular order:
1) I have sent queries to over 165 publishing
houses twice over since 1992. Only two
asked for the first chapter, PublishAmerica
and Thomas Nelson. They both declined.
2) I have conducted 12 seminars, four in Pittsburgh
PA (1992), four in Charlotte NC (1994), and four
in Columbus GA (2004). Behind radio and leaflet
advertising, I reserved hotel meeting rooms in
Pittsburgh and Charlotte, charging $7. No one
came in Pittsburgh, six came in Charlotte. Behind
radio and newspaper advertising, I reserved space
at the downtown Convention Center, offering free
seminars at 10:00 AM, 12 Noon, 2:00 PM and 4:00
PM. None of the public came.
3) Over 2,600 churches and synagogues from Virginia
to Texas have been given flyers concerning my seminar.
None have hosted my seminar, even those that have
hosted “Creation Science†seminars that charge $30
or more. They throw my leaflets away.
4) When hearing of the pending district case of the Cobb
County “sticker trial†in GA, I wrote the school board but
they ignored me, and the inept law firm they hired also
ignored me, and lost the case which they should have easily
won.
5) I first wrote the Kansas State School Board in late
November 2004, concerning dropping Intelligent
Design and teaching the “Observations of Mosesâ€. Only
one member of the ten responded with any amount of
sincerity. Bobby Henderson writes that same group
about the “Flying Spaghetti Monsterâ€, and it makes
national news with “gospel†books being published.
6) I offered a movie script to Hollywood which explained
the origin of Satan….., but every producer and director
passed on it.
The only other news medium to publish my most recent article was
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/5884/. Best Syndication chose
not to print my contact information, however I’m just glad that they
decided to print the article. In the past month, I had submitted it to 68
newspapers around the world.
Humanity has a history of believing a lie, and refusing to learn the truth.
Nicolas Copernicus revealed the true view of the solar system (universe)
about a hundred years before Galileo invented the telescope, and even after
that the Catholic regime still refused to accept reality.
I read the response by Duane Smith, where he compares my “doctrine†with
that of the Reverent George W. Wahlin. Mr. Smith knows nothing of what
I teach. I first revealed part of the truth in October 2002, in a science class
at North Georgia College & State University in Dahlonega, GA. I’ve written
every college, university, and theological seminary I could find on the internet,
offering my seminar. Only one seminary in the Philipines (which I couldn’t go
to), and North Georgia invited me.
Below is a link to the only news medium to recently publish one of my articles:
http://americandaily.com/article/12649
(For Publication)
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
(706) 662-2893
Ephraim7@aol.com
August 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Is it any wonder that Adam was forbidden to eat from the “tree of knowledge”?!
I wonder if Herman Cummings is familiar with Argumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.
I’m sure he is….
Herman Cummings is the type of person that doesn’t care about anything but his religious agenda. He can’t reconcile with evolutionary science because it proves without a doubt that the Genesis account is nothing more than mythology.
In rational, intelligent human beings, when they learn a fact that is in direct conflict with a held belief, they reevaluate that belief and likely reject it as untrue. However, people like Herman Cummings act as if they do not want to be bothered with facts.
These are some of the most dangerous and psychologically unstable people on the planet. They’re willingly being controlled by a schizophrenic mind that allows both fact and fiction, truths and mythology to govern their actions. They knowingly let this unstable mind exist and use it to evaluate their friends and neighbors, other groups (religious or not) and other countries. Rather than seeking help for their condition, they seek others exhibiting these same characteristics and form groups with them.
Then they become 6 to 4 pro-creation on a state board of education and risk a child’s future for their religious agenda.
Good going Herman. You’re a real humanitarian.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I respond to Beemer’s post. I was a geology major at Ohio State University. Try as I might, I could not find the science behind the dating of geologic strata. It went round and round in circles using fossils to date the strata and strata to date the fossils.
As I pursued my science education I realized the folly of adopting a viewpoint and then trying to make scientific theory fit in. I also realized the issue of origins is not proveable because it is not observable, measureable, and repeatable. So all of evolutionary science is based on faith as much as is creation science.
It reminds me of the scientists who once unanimously agreed that the earth was flat and chastised the ignorants who thought otherwise.
Scientific study has flourished through the years by vigorous research and testing of that which is observable, measureable, and repeatable. If you oppose creationism, prove it wrong. Don’t take the lazy man’s way of denigrating your opponent and blindly accepting suppositions not supported by fact.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I seem to be in a snarky mood tonight, Julienne. If you are the sensitive type, you probably want to go looking at something else now.
Travelling last week, I was treated to a conversation between a nice older lady who was returning from Las Vegas, having gone there to learn about pitching some South Pacific-originated fruit drink concoction. She was regaling a couple of other travelers with the wonderful health benefits this new beverage had. I just stayed quiet. When she started going on about the second-hand testimonials concerning the recovery and remission of cancer in people drinking the stuff, I should have called bullshit on it, loudly and rudely. Because pseudoscience is killing people. Pseudoscience today, whether it is the peddling of snake-oil nostrums like my fellow traveler pushed, or the denial of HIV as the causative agent behind AIDS, or evolution denial, kills people. It encourages people to ignore medical advice or to forego treatment that has had some testing in favor of junk that may be worse than a simple placebo. It encourages governments to take up faith-based responses to epidemics. And it historically has been responsible for famine and resulting large-scale starvation when agricultural practice is de-coupled from evolutionary science. My silence on the aircraft was, in retrospect, complicity in the advancement of pseudoscience, and thus a bad thing.
Still here, Julienne? OK, here it comes.
What, is OSU’s library too chintzy to carry G. Brent Dalrymple’s book?
Since this is so obviously wrong, it calls into question that whole “I was a geology student at OSU” statement. OSU geology instruction, I’m confident, is better than that. Of course, maybe Julienne was a geology major for a few milliseconds to a few days. It surely couldn’t have been much longer, or she might have, heaven forbid, learned something about the subject.
The objection is a common one, included in the Index to Creationist Claims.
Bullshit. Why do you think that completely ass-backward statements like that could be considered, much less accepted?
This is yet another common claim found in the Index to Creationist Claims.
What makes you think that this hasn’t been done?
TalkOrigins Archive
Antievolution.org
TalkDesign.org
Right… have you castigated the ID advocates for this poor behavior?
It would help if you first took up St. Augustine’s advice:
That’s only been out there for, oh, 1600 years or so… seems like more people should have heard about it by now.
Given that you obviously don’t know squat about geology, evolution, philosophy, or even creationism, why is it that we should be paying attention to what you say?
May 25th, 2007 at 8:27 am
The Coming End of Current Creationism
Creationism, as the world knows it today, will soon come to an end. One by one, each creationist faction, which did not understand the Genesis text, is expected to “fall by the wayside”. On or before August 15 2007, the book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!!: is scheduled to be published. It is expected to “blow out of the water” all other creationist doctrines, which have not represented Genesis correctly.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
May 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Which publisher is debuting your book, Herman? I’ll write their media relations office and ask for a review copy.
That is assuming, of course, that you have a publisher rather than going the vanity press or print-on-demand self-publication route. If the latter, you can send a copy to me at
Wesley R. Elsberry
Visiting Research Associate
Michigan State University
Lyman Briggs School of Science
E35 Holmes Hall
East Lansing, MI 48825
July 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hi.
They will let me know as soon as it completes the
“Cover Design” phase. About every three days, take a look at http://hometown.aol.com/ephraim7/myhomepage/index.html
to keep abreast of the book’s progress.
Yes, the “wave of rebellion” has called me uncomplimentary names.
There are those that do not want Genesis to be true.
Herman
August 15th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Hello.
Much to my surprise, the book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!” is available on Amazon.com. The truth of Genesis is now available for all to see. Use the following link:
http://www.amazon.com/Moses-Didnt-Write-About-Creation/dp/1424182204/ref=sr_1_1/002-4508089-7775203?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187196517&sr=1-1
Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Hmmm. I just checked my mailbox a couple of days ago, and there was still no review copy.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Hi austringer,
I’m just a dumb-ass Christian, but can you explain to me why the finder of the the carbon dating method assumed that the c14 c12 ratio in the atmosphere is at equilibrium, when it’s actually not? (actually, I probably know the answer, because, like all evolutionists, they leave out results which don’t fit the results they want to acheive - wow that’s really scientific). You evolutionists just all dribble crap - give me some specific examples of species evolving from one into another, (not just variation within one species).
Hmm there seems to be an awful lot of c14 still present in coal samples these days, isn’t that supposed to be millions of years old? Funny that.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Well, as a Christian with a terminal degree in the sciences, I can point you to some resources.
In general, one of your first stops in looking up information on creation/evolution issues should be the TalkOrigins Archive. There you will find Mark Isaak’s Index to Creationist Claims.
There is a whole section there devoted to listing and rebutting creationist claims about radiometric dating. While that covers a lot more than C14, the following snippet shows several entries relevant to the arguments concerning C14:
And again concerning speciation there are several relevant entries:
Just for example, here’s the text that goes with the item on “No new species have been observed.”
April 8th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Hmm, interesting, I will have a read.
So you’re a Christian, but you don’t take Genesis in the literal sense?
What about the Gospel? Are you into that?
Cheers, Tripa.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I have read the material you posted, and I have concerns with it.
To add to my initial comments about C14, this isotope has been found in diamond - the hardest material known. How the heck did it get in there? (ie, how would it somehow get contaminated from an external source?) This external contamination is the explanation given for C14 presence by evolutionists.
But this argument is a real thorn in the side of other radiometric dating methods used by evolutionists, which apparently independently “support” their carbon dating ages. The assumption for these radiometric dating methods is that the system is a closed system, ie, the quantity or presence of radio isotopes in something are not a result of contamination - it is assumed to be a closed system, as it has to be for these dating methods to come up with a meaningful “result”. So if evolutionists argue that C14 presence is likely due to contamination (even in diamonds???), surely contamination is quite likely in the other radiometric dating methods, where parent/daughter isotope concentrations can be influenced by other environmental factors! But evolutionists wont make any mention of contamination here - it is quite detrimental to the results they are aiming to get!
This is what I mean about evolutionists being selective about what they use as “evidence”. They will use one thing like contamination to negate creationist views on C14, but discount this phenomenon when it suits them (like when putting forward ages calculated by other radiometric methods), because it could render the results completely meaningless.
So please don’t tell me you have “evidence” of your views, because I, unlike a huge proportion of the population who just accept what you say because the news reader reads it out, actually am not afraid to look further and challenge what you say.
I am very much unconvinced by the plethora of “evidence” you posted to answer my initial comments.
Tripa
May 21st, 2008 at 3:57 am
“So please don’t tell me you have “evidence” of your views, because I, unlike a huge proportion of the population who just accept what you say because the news reader reads it out, actually am not afraid to look further and challenge what you say.”
Yes, there is evidence for evolutionary science. What you are practicing is not challenge, but rather denial.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I thought of an analogy that I think is apropos. “tripa”’s objections to all of radiometric dating based upon certain claims about C14 amount to the same thing as saying that because sometimes people take inaccurate measurements despite using rulers and tape measures, that the concept of linear distance is scientifically problematic, and that some things that appear to be miles away really are only a few feet or inches distant.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Yes, there is evidence for evolutionary science. What you are practicing is not challenge, but rather denial.”
No! There is evidence of microevolution (adaptation and natural selection), but NOT macroevolution.
There is no evidence where genetic information has been ADDED, only re-sorted or reduced (as in adaptation or natural selection). Decreasing the gene pool, not expanding it.
I’ll tell you what denial is - the ’swatting gnats and swallowing camels’ mentality of evoutionists, who argue over lesser issues like which reptiles birds “evolved” from, but ignore insurmountable gaps in their “theories” such as conversion from non-living to living, which logically need validation before lesser issues are discussed. These large fatal flaws are skipped over, because there is nothing for you to put forward in argument. Me in denial?? Denial of what!!! What evidence of mud turning into molluscs am I in denial of???!!
Re analogy - how do you know it’s linear if you can’t measure it??? Oh that’s right, I forgot you would have made that assumption before you started.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Every speciation event is evidence of macroevolution by definition. And I already provided a number of references documenting speciation.
I think denial fits admirably the antievolutionist tendency to equate incomplete knowledge with inability to know anything at all. Certainly science has made the case that the earth is old, hundreds of thousands of times older than the oldest age young-earth creationists will admit. Even Paul Nelson, IDC advocate and third generation YEC, has stated that science teachers need not equivocate in science classrooms about the state of science supporting an old earth.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
tripa-”So if evolutionists argue that C14 presence is likely due to contamination (even in diamonds???), surely contamination is quite likely in the other radiometric dating methods, where parent/daughter isotope concentrations can be influenced by other environmental factors! But evolutionists wont make any mention of contamination here - it is quite detrimental to the results they are aiming to get!”
Don’t get me wrong I’m just a high school student, but wouldn’t contamination with carbon-14 make artifacts appear younger rather than older?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Matt, yeah, the maximum age of carbon-14 is about 50,000 years. Contamination would make something seem younger, if it was assumed the carbon-14 present resulted from when the object was created, when infact it was added at some later stage by contamination. The question is, is contamination even possible? Even in diamond? which is the hardest material known, ie, how would an external source get inside it? If you accept the carbon-14 present in diamond arose from when it was formed, then the diamond can only be around 50,000 years old - not millions of years old.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Let’s see, could it be [Option 1] that everything we know is wrong, or maybe [Option 2] the antievolutionists don’t have a clue how things work?
Taylor would be the guy to convince as a (1) radiocarbon expert who has (2) done research on radiocarbon in diamonds, and it sure doesn’t sound like Humphreys has managed it, does it?
I’ll go with Option 2.
The diamond industry woulda liked it if they coulda used C14 as a means of distinguishing between diamond sources, something that should be easy to do if all of earth history fit in the 6 to 20K history of YEC. Instead, they found that all diamonds have the same C14 characteristics:
That’s not surprising when one considers that C14 has been reduced to trace amounts by the passage of time.
If one puts something with carbon into C14 analysis, the resulting number is going to be somewhere between the present and around 50K years old. This doesn’t mean that older material doesn’t exist; this is a limitation of the technique.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
tripa wrote: “There is no evidence where genetic information has been ADDED, only re-sorted or reduced (as in adaptation or natural selection). Decreasing the gene pool, not expanding it.”
Actually, there are lots of such cases. Here’s a new one:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
June 10th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Jim, just because the bacteria can now do something different, doesn’t mean it’s more complex. What about not being able to do what it used to be able to do? Is that an advantage? Has it really improved? You might say that’s not the point - it has still changed and can now do something it couldn’t do before, as a result of mutation. Well that IS the point!!!! It has to be better!! If it’s not incrememtally better on a tiny scale, then how in hell is it ever going to be better on a massive scale!!! ie, “evolve” from simple creature into something intelligent.
My thoughts are summed up in this quote from someome who read the linked article.
“By Peter Sung
Tue Jun 10 21:30:41 BST 2008
That is really funny. A bacteria can eat “synthesize” something that it couldn’t eat and use previously.
Er didn’t need this guy to prove that bacteria mutates. Its a common fact. Thats what got a lot of doctors worried these days because of the mutations of bacterial strains.
Everything undergoes mutation. Even human beings. You do know that “cancer” is a mutation of rogue cells that starts doing something other than what it is supposed/programmed to do.
To call this “evolution” and say it shows proof that monkeys evolved into human beings is plain ludicrous.
Did the bacteria grow legs and start walking? Did it grow fins and start swimming?
Did it “evolve” even to a form of life that would equal a multicellular ogranism like a worm? slug? or even a phyto-plankton?
geez get off your rockers “evolutionists”. When the bacteria starts to grow legs or form gills, then I’ll pay attention ok?”
I know you would scoff at the above - claiming the time frame is way too small for such massive jumps. Well your the one saying that’s what happened NOT US!!! So provide some freakin’ evidence that it can happen!!!!!!! That is just as much evidence that mutations are useless or bad (it can’t do what it used to be able to do) than it is that they are good!!! Come on!!!
June 11th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Tripa, denial is not a river in Egypt.
Fortunately, convincing the committed evolution denialists is not the needed aim. Convincing the reasonable people who haven’t gotten acquainted with the evidence and who don’t have a precommitment to a particular religious doctrine is the aim.
It worked a treat in Dover, PA. We didn’t need to convince Michael Behe or Scott Minnich that they were wrong, we just needed to convince Judge Jones.
The study demonstrates that a particular argument used to promote antievolution is wrong. It corroborates evolutionary theories. It certainly is evidence for evolution, even if it isn’t evidence that delivers proof beyond unreasonable doubts, such as those spewed above by “tripa”.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Austringer,
“Tripa, denial is not a river in Egypt.”
Nice joke, that’s hilarious.
Also, why do you keep putting “tripa” instead of just tripa? is “Austringer” your name?
Getting back to your option 1 or option 2, while option 2 may be true for some creationists, it is arguably not the case with Baumgardner, who responded to a paper by Bertsche criticising the RATE findings. Baumgardner makes mention of the work of Taylor, whom you have quoted saying the RATE scientists dont know what they’re talking about.
Well that’s interesting that Taylor would say they don’t know what they’re doing, considering they got the same results when testing diamonds as Taylor did!
From Baumgardner;
“Taylor and Southon report results from eight individual natural diamonds and from six separate fragments cut from a single diamond. The 14C values ranged from 0.005 to 0.021 pMC for the eight individual diamonds and 0.015 to 0.018 pMC for the six fragments, with typical uncertainties of ±0.001-0.002 pMC. Note that a value of 0.015 exceeds the AMS system background value by a factor of 30.”
and then;
“What about the RATE diamond measurements? Bertsche alludes to the fact that the RATE team also tested diamond by placing diamonds directly into the AMS sample holder. Our tests were done in 2006 after the RATE book was published in 2005. We obtained results quite similar to those reported by Taylor and Southon in 2007. Our ten diamond samples displayed 14C values between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC.”
You are trying to discredit RATE or people like Baumgardner, because they expose nasty little evolutionary unexplainables (the camels you try to swallow I mentioned earlier), such as “in situ contamination” which has never been suitably explained with reference to AMS lab measurements.
Baumgardner explains;
“When researchers employ this term, they generally mean that the 14C they are detecting was already inherent to the sample when it reached their laboratory. Just how it got there, they generally refuse to speculate. Their job is to measure the 14C in the sample. Just what the sample history may have happened to be before the sample reached their lab, they say, is not their concern.”
and;
“For several labs, this standard background is about 0.8 pMC, corresponding to a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years. This standard background value is subtracted from the 14C value the lab actually measures in each sample. If the resulting 14C value is zero or less, the lab reports an ‘infinite’ radiocarbon age. Since vast majority of samples for materials that ought to be 14C-free, because of their location in the geological record, have values less than 0.8 pMC, this procedure saves the laboratory the awkward difficulty of explaining to a customer why a coal sample, for instance, has a non-zero level of 14C.”
and re-iterating;
“one needs to understand what this terminology means to an AMS insider. To an AMS insider, “contaminated in situ” means simply that the 14C measured by the AMS system was intrinsic to the sample before it arrived at the laboratory; in other words, such 14C is not a result of laboratory procedures.”
Once again, conveniently subtract away the “in situ” c14 so the result is…..WELL, LOOK AT THAT EVERYONE!! It’s zero!! No way this rock is young!
Again, Taylor should be mindful before he criticises RATE, etc, as they have referred often to his work. ie, are they stupid for quoting his work? Obviously they recognise him as up there in peer-reviewed type manner.
Again, with help from Baumgardner, I make my point about the impossibility of contaminating diamond. Furthermore, evolutionists and creationists get the same results!! Evolutionists just choose to ignore what is plainly in front of them;
“Finally, Bertsche seeks to dismiss the 14C we measured in diamonds also as contamination. He cites a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon. The paper describes the techniques the authors recently applied to measure 14C levels in natural diamond. As part of the background of their paper, Taylor and Southon list six potential sources of contamination for samples analyzed in AMS laboratories. At the very top of their list is “1 Pseudo 14C-free sample: 14C is present in carboniferous material that should not contain 14C because of its geological age.” By placing this item first, they acknowledge what has long been known by AMS radiocarbon specialists: namely, that the vast majority of samples that ought to be completely 14C-free because of their geological context display 14C levels far beyond what can be accounted for by sources attributable to laboratory procedures or equipment design.
Indeed, they implicitly acknowledge this in the first paragraph of their introduction by mentioning 14C ages of 47.9 ka for a marble sample and 52.1 ka for a Pliocene wood sample, both far beyond the AMS 100,000-year detection limit they mention in their first sentence. It is astonishing that these authors never attribute this discrepancy to any one of the six possible explanations they list later in the article. In fact, they are completely silent as to just what the correct explanation might be. This silence is all the more noteworthy since the 14C level in the marble sample is 546 times the detection limit of their AMS system.
The main point of their paper is that by using diamonds and mounting them directly in the sample holder, they are able to exclude items 2 through 5 in their list of six potential sources of contamination. These items are 2 Combustion/acidification background, 3 Graphitization background, 4 Transfer (to the sample holder) background, and 5 Storage background. The last item in their list, 6 Instrument background, involves a “14C signal registering in the detector circuitry when 14C-ion [is] not present.” This item is routinely and reliably tested by running the system with no sample in the aluminum sample holder. This test is the basis for the value of the ultimate AMS detection limit, about 0.0005 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 14C years. Therefore, by process of elimination, what these authors are measuring and reporting is their item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the diamonds! This is precisely what we claim for diamond samples we measured using the same technique.”
What ever other arguments you guys have, ie;
“It worked a treat in Dover, PA. We didn’t need to convince Michael Behe or Scott Minnich that they were wrong, we just needed to convince Judge Jones. The study demonstrates that a particular argument used to promote antievolution is wrong. It corroborates evolutionary theories”,
you are pretty screwed when it comes to C14.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:09 am
“Also, why do you keep putting “tripa” instead of just tripa? is “Austringer” your name?”
“Tripa”,
There is a way that one can read this very page and work out the information about who I am. It’s not that difficult, but it does require some minimal cognitive acumen on the part of the reader. That same situation does not appear to be true for linking the pseudonym “tripa” to a real name using just the information on this page. Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on this point.
“Again, Taylor should be mindful before he criticises RATE, etc, as they have referred often to his work. ie, are they stupid for quoting his work? Obviously they recognise him as up there in peer-reviewed type manner.”
Citation of an authority does not confer validity to the argument. The authority, as noted before, disagrees with them. That isn’t overcome by mere citation.
Nor does Baumgardner explain, rather than merely assert, how contamination factors (4) and (5) have been eliminated. Perhaps there’s something in the full RATE report that has more detail, but then again, perhaps not.
The same group of folks who proclaim paradigm-overturning validity for anecdotal 14C dating at the margins of the technique routinely dispute its validity well within the calibrated main operational region of 14C technique, as when the topics of dendrochronolgy, varves, ice cores, and the Shroud of Turin come up. Get back to us when there’s something approaching consistency in how antievolutionists deal with the evidence.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Well, I am known by this name by people that know me, if that’s what you mean, so it’s not realy a pseudonym.
“Citation of an authority does not confer validity to the argument. The authority, as noted before, disagrees with them. That isn’t overcome by mere citation.”
They’re not citing Taylor to use his authority to validate their argument. Just because they recognise him as an authority among his peers, doesn’t mean they consider him an authority. They are citing him because they disagree with how he interprets the same results.
“Nor does Baumgardner explain, rather than merely assert, how contamination factors (4) and (5) have been eliminated. Perhaps there’s something in the full RATE report that has more detail, but then again, perhaps not.”
Come on, how hard is it to dig something up, seal it, crack it open and test it? This detail is in the report, but I can’t be bothered cutting and pasting it. The contamination from 4 or 5 would be very small trace amounts, and sizeable samples are deliberately used, to counter this means of contamination. Claiming 4 or 5 could as possible contamination sources is clutching at straws a bit I reckon.
“The same group of folks who proclaim paradigm-overturning validity for anecdotal 14C dating at the margins of the technique routinely dispute its validity well within the calibrated main operational region of 14C technique, as when the topics of dendrochronolgy, varves, ice cores, and the Shroud of Turin come up. Get back to us when there’s something approaching consistency in how antievolutionists deal with the evidence.”
That’s Bull…t! Unless of course by ‘calibrated’ you mean after removal of “standard background” values of c14. Tell me where the argument is about numbers or quantities?? It’s about what the numbers mean.
Anyway, this has been fun, but this could go on for years and years at this rate. So by way of a closing remark, and in no more than 4 words, I’ll leave you with all the proof that I need that God designed and created the animals, world and universe (in it’s natural state, untainted by modern mankind) as described in Genesis;
it’s all too perfect
Cheers, Tripa :)
June 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
“That is really funny. A bacteria can eat “synthesize” something that it couldn’t eat and use previously.
Er didn’t need this guy to prove that bacteria mutates. Its a common fact. Thats what got a lot of doctors worried these days because of the mutations of bacterial strains.
Everything undergoes mutation. Even human beings. You do know that “cancer” is a mutation of rogue cells that starts doing something other than what it is supposed/programmed to do.
To call this “evolution” and say it shows proof that monkeys evolved into human beings is plain ludicrous.
Did the bacteria grow legs and start walking? Did it grow fins and start swimming?
Did it “evolve” even to a form of life that would equal a multicellular ogranism like a worm? slug? or even a phyto-plankton?”
The funny thing is that if a single bactrium (or a group of bactiria within even a few thousand generations) did any of the things you said it would blow evoultionary theory out of the water.
Also, cancer is sestemic (body cell) mutation, not a gamete (sex cell) mutation. Only gamete mutations can be passed on (however one can have genetic risk factors for cancer).
Finally no one with half a brain thinks that humans evoulved from monkeys, we evoulve from a common ancester to monkeys
June 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“Anyway, this has been fun, but this could go on for years and years at this rate. So by way of a closing remark, and in no more than 4 words, I’ll leave you with all the proof that I need that God designed and created the animals, world and universe (in it’s natural state, untainted by modern mankind) as described in Genesis;
it’s all too perfect”
If you have even a cursory knowelge of biology you would realise that the design of living organisms if far from perfect for instance: if people where specailly created why do we posses a spine built for walking on four limbs when we are a bipedal species? Why do we have a non-functioning piece of digestive system that is prone to infection? Why are our eyes “wired” in a way that leaves us with a blindspot that requires an optic trick in our brain just so we don’t see two holes in our vision (octopus eyes are “wired” without such a disability)? If we did evoulve from a tailed animal, why do we have the bone for a tail to attach to our spines?
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“The funny thing is that if a single bactrium (or a group of bactiria within even a few thousand generations) did any of the things you said it would blow evoultionary theory out of the water.”
As you admit, your theory of evolution can’t even explain if a single bacterium DID make some jumps into something more complex like a phyto-plankton. So how the hell does your useless theory account for something as amazing as a bat catching a moth in flight using sonar, or an athlete intercepting a ball in flight, and not falling over? Evidence of amazing design. Tell me how our spine could be better designed for walking on two feet than it is now?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Tripa your right evoultion couldn’t explain if anything like that happened, but that hasn’t happened. The evoultionary model (which pridicts gradual change) has been shown several times (Austringer pressented a very good list of actual examples of maco-evoultion).
Tripa can you explain why the any of the problems with human “design”?
July 7th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Matt,
When you say “but that hasn’t happened.”
How do you know what happened? Were you there? Was anyone?
What you mean is that your theory doesn’t predict that massive changes occurred, it predicts small changes (like the list Austringer provided, which I looked up) over massive time frames.
I accept that mutations have lead to other functions being enabled. But I don’t accept that it has lead to a more complex organism; I don’t accept that it is macro-evolution.
Even if the mutations are beneficial, do you know what the chances are of even getting 2 related beneficial mutations in a row is? (Let alone the amount needed for one organism to change into something else). The maths doesn’t even add up, it’s way way off the mark. I’ll use a quote to put it more eloquently,
“If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [i.e., by mutation and selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?” (Denton)
As to the problems with human design - earlier you mentioned the appendix as evidence of a lack of design, as it’s obsolete. Says who? Maybe in times gone by, it was considered obsolete, along with a number of other organs, which was an attempt to bolster evidence that we’re evolving. This list of apparently ‘functionless’ structures has gradually declined to almost zero. (while removal of an appendix may be surviveable, removal of most of the others on the list is definitely not surviveable!)
These days the appendix is recognised as having a function, and serving a purpose - a member of the lymphatic system. It is possible to live without it only due to the body’s ability to compensate after it’s removal. Gall bladder also has a function, but can also be removed and again the body compensates - kidneys, thymus (in adults) etc.
So why would have it been designed in the first place? I don’t beleive the world we live in is as it was supposed to be when it was designed. Although we are perfectly designed, the world is definitely not, and so we’re constrained by that.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Wow, “tripa”’s quoting of Denton’s passing along of Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger’s false assertions gives me a feeling of nostalgia. I used the antievolutionist fondness for M-PS’s stuff as a case study in my 1997 presentation at the NTSE conference. M-PS was, in fact, corrected right at the conference he presented at, as documented in the proceedings, but the antievolutionists have clung to the deluded notion that he had a point that withstood more than a couple of minutes’ scrutiny.
Genetic programming is a tough field, but people other than M-PS managed to succeed where M-PS simply declared his personal failure a universal attribute of Reality. I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer. So Denton’s quote actually goes the other way: given that evolution in fully analogous systems does happen, we have greater confidence in our other findings that show that biological evolution is well-supported.
Thanks for the great demonstration of shooting yourself in the foot, “tripa”.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hey “Austringer”
“I work day in and day out evolving programs on the computer.”
That’s great, it makes a lot of sense…”I work” doesn’t really amount to random processes - what did these computer programs just write themselves? And I suppose if it’s not working, you might stop it, and start it again with some changes? Now who’s shooting themself in the foot??
Do the math, man.
July 8th, 2008 at 5:48 am
I use the Avida artificial life platform. There’s no shooting in the foot going on on my part. Look it up, “tripa”, you might learn something.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Yes, that’s all very interesting - of note is that in order to get an evolving self-replicating program to not end up dead, it took a human’s design skills to limit randomly generated code from randomly and prematurely killing off digital organisms. To me it seems it needed to be helped along to the stage where it could then follow processes of selection and adaptation. (which is basically what I eluded to above, before I read up on it).
I’m not really interested in defamatory argument with you - all I’m saying is that the product of the probabilities of the required beneficial mutations enabling evolution is infinitely, immeasureably and unacceptably expansive.
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”"(1 Corinthians 3:19)
Seeya.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Yes, the digital organisms in Avida start as a self-replicator, and evolutionary processes do the rest of the programming. You do realize that that is what was at issue for Schutzenberger, that he declared that it was impossible for genetic programming to work at all?
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. That sort of thing gets noticed, though.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:44 am
Interesting thread, yet we examine the intricacies while ignoring the obvious large-scale conundrums?
Why would God create an expanding universe? What need is there for a universe which grows unchecked? If it’s true that nature abhors a vacuum, then surely intellect, much less a Grand Intellect, must abhor waste. And the greatest waste of space in the universe is the universe.
My book is called “the Secular Apologist,” available nowhere as of yet. It contains many more challenging questions to the supernatural, mystical universe primitive minds have fabricated over the centuries; addressed to the simple minds who embrace these out-moded concepts. If evolution is ever proven wrong, the proof cannot prove the Bible right.
There is more to this life than science or religion can ever possibly offer, but these two theosophies make for intriguing diversions. Please don’t go to my website unless you have a mighty crass sense of humor. I could have written a better bible than the one we ended up with. I would tend to surmise the creator of the universe got stuck with sub-standard scribes. I am not cowardly enough to meet Pascal’s wager. The energy expenditure to keep a paradise and an inferno maintained should be enough to occupy two deities, much less one.
That is all. Thank you for your attention.