Answers to Creationist Attacks on C-14 Dating

[_The CCC]

The Law of Parsimony works well in some area's. Not so much in others.

Like Laplace told Napoleon...no need for the hypothesis.

Tell me using simple arithmetic how many ways are there to get the answer 4?

[_The CCC]

It was natural selection a.k.a. common ancestor vs common designer. Natural selection is not a designer.
If god(s) intervene then the selection is not natural and the process is not evolution. It becomes genetic engineering.

God doesn't know about genetic engineering?
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk

[_spotlight]

God doesn't know about genetic engineering?
SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiZdhxkfBCk

Where did you get that from?
My comment was that if god(s) are involved, In other words theistic evolution is how it all went down, then it really is not evolution but it is genetic engineering. Certainly if that is how it happened then god(s) would know about genetic engineering.

Good link by the way. There is nothing that I disagree with and am not sure what part of it you wished to bring to my attention.

Since you didn't spell that out I will try to guess based upon the few comments that refer to theism. The first is:

Even if life on earth had been initiated by some divine or alien intervention that wouldn't affect the evidence for evolution which incidentally is accepted by people who believe in one or more gods as well as those who don't

This refers to the idea that god(s) created the first life form rather than it being the result of abiogenesis. This we have never had a discussion about. I have always understood your view to be god(s) intervening in the process of evolution itself after the initial life form is on the stage by direct control of either the mutation or the selection process. I merely pointed out that that is not acceptance of evolution. It is genetic engineering if controlling the mutation or artificial breeding if controlling the selection.

Selective breeding? Then artificial selection != natural selection. And the whole process is something other than evolution by definition.

I would direct your attention to the part that starts at 6:22 through 7:10 especially 7:00-7:10.
"No particular species is guaranteed to emerge through evolution."
So evolution can't be used by a creator to create man as an end goal. Evolution has no end goals else again it is not evolution we are discussing but something other than evolution. Perhaps a kind of genetic engineering or artificial breeding program etc that only has one thing in common with evolution, that being the fact of common ancestry.

[_huckelberry]

spotlight, I am unaware of any reason other than convenience in argument that the process considered for what actually happened must fit entirely into one model or the other, evolution with no design or change which has been manipulated. As a matter of considering abstractly what are possible scenarios a mix could be considered.

I understand that as a matter of scientific investigation no divine meddling is assumed. There is no way such meddling would be visible so whether it happened cannot be investigated. The idea does not add anything to the scientific study of relationships we can see. That same invisibility means that there is no evidence against a mixed process. That particular point means little to science but it might matter to religious faith.

[_spotlight]

There is no way such meddling would be visible...

We can see mutation in real time and study it and verify that the laws of physics and chemistry are not violated which they would need to be if an outside influence guided the process towards some goal. So are you then suggesting that god(s) only influence the process when no one is watching?

That same invisibility means that there is no evidence against a mixed process.

The question that comes to mind is why such a process would be necessary if god(s) have the ability to directly affect the outcome by bypassing the laws of chemistry and physics. They could accomplish their designs much more directly and quickly by foregoing hiding behind an apparent veil of natural processes.

That particular point means little to science but it might matter to religious faith.

Well of course it matters to those who wish to find an interpretation that maintains their faith in god(s). That is why it remains with them to invent such scenarios and find ways to wed them to the results obtained from natural science. To each his own. If the human condition for some is such that life is unbearable without indulging in some form of faith in an afterlife to comfort them then that is what they are going to hold on to. But it is a double edged sword and it does nothing to advance scientific discovery but has only gotten in the way of our moving ahead as far as I can tell. Generally we see the fruits of belief in people such as bomgeography who have to deny the veracity of much of the discoveries of solid science not because of any inherent inability to understand the science but because it assaults their particular brand of faith.

I don't know what the solution is for all mankind. Maybe there isn't one. Is the cure worse than the disease?

[_spotlight]

Huckleberry,
I don't know if maybe this is what you are looking for. I am referring to the discussion in the first answer about science and what the process is about. The one that has a score of 11. When you discuss faith you are talking about ultimate truth. That game has long since been dropped by science and most scientists simply hold to the idea that truth is unknowable. Some would say that the more we discover the closer we are to truth. I would say it is irrelevant and what we experience is all that matters. Certainly some forms of faith have been falsified by science. Is it beneficial to keep modifying faith to fit within the space that remains? Not to me. But if it benefits you then you will do just that. The fact that truth is forever beyond our reach will keep faith safe for the foreseeable future.

[_huckelberry]

So my faith is just a comfort because I am too weak to face the reality of my approaching death?

How young are you that you treat others awareness of the reality of death so cheaply. I have felt my dead parents bodily. I can see that I grow closer to death each year. I find the idea of life after death only uncertain. I am uncertain I would wish it.

I do find myself with some ongoing concern about life before death however.

[_huckelberry]

spotlight. Please forgive my grumble about the fear of death cliché.
I really am not wishing an adversarial thing here. But I do have a couple of questions.

How are you to observe what God may have done 10 million years ago to adjust to course of genetic changes?
Or 250 million?
Why do you think God making a change must involve breaking a law of physics?

[Guest]

You're evading the issues.

You are evading the issues! The issue is can God make a fully formed tree in one day? Absolutely! Does He care if you wish to think it took centuries of growth? Not in the least, as He explained the truth already in His Word. Can God turn 5 loves of bread and 2 fishes into a hearty meal for thousands? Absolutely! Does that go against science? What cares God for science? The Laws were designed for humans and not for God.

The entire Universe was created within a weeks time. What scientists observe is presently the ending results of that creation, coupled with the Fall of man, coupled with the Flood of Noah, compounded by thousands of years of degeneration/wear and tear...

Would God create an incomplete ecological system to house man? God created the entire Universe as an illustration of His glory and unlimited power and He fabricated nature for US! Would God create Adam and Eve without navels? They being the prototype for humanity --- it is highly unlikely. Would God create fully grown tree's without rings? Since they were the prototype of their kind --- it is highly unlikely!

And how exactly can a scientist leave out GOD from his equations and comprehend, fully understanding what GOD made originally, and what transpired afterward, and how it is all mixed together presently!

[_spotlight]

spotlight. Please forgive my grumble about the fear of death cliché.
I really am not wishing an adversarial thing here. But I do have a couple of questions.

How are you to observe what God may have done 10 million years ago to adjust to course of genetic changes?
Or 250 million?
Why do you think God making a change must involve breaking a law of physics?

I also felt the presence of my dead mother the day after I found her dead. But I don't attribute it to anything that reflects reality. And I am describing my views, not ridiculing you for your views.

What happened long ago is what happens today in a system of laws that are time invariant. See Noether's theorem for a more formal understanding if it is of interest. If there is a god then if he/she/it interferes with the normal operation of the natural law of evolution then it is no longer evolution as that term is defined by biologists. That was all I stated. If a putative god interferes with the process of mutation then this god is involved in what would be defined as genetic engineering rather than using evolution as a tool. Theistic evolution is a self contradictory term unless the god involved is a deist god.

So last question. We observe the normal operation of the laws of physics in the natural process of evolution on a daily basis. If a god was involved then that would not be the case unless the choices made by god happened to align perfectly with what would take place without god's involvement by virtue of those very same laws of physics. If we saw something other than that it would stand out as an outcome unpredicted by physics. Does that make sense? That's why I asked whether you thought god meddled when we weren't watching which could also be a version of god meddling before we were around to watch. But again then it is not evolution strictly speaking, it's engineering. It'd still be creation but not the kind that would impress most Bible thumpers. But this is an LDS forum and the LDS god simply rearranges matter rather than creating it from scratch since Joseph Smith read Thomas Dick and incorporated his ideas into his theology.