Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 08-11-2003, 08:16 AM

Kennedy's radio show comes on a local Xian station during my morning drive time. The last few days have beed dedicated to YEC (well, really anti-old earth/evolution).

His "big" arguments this morning were:

"There are 300 'geochronometers' used to date the earth. Of those, 99% indicate a young earth [thousands to at most a million or so years, though he believes the earth is at most 12,000 years old]. Only 1%, three, indicate an earth billions of years old."

And Fred Hoyle's seriously flawed argument from probability.

Weak.

Roland98 · 08-11-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Kennedy's radio show comes on a local Xian station during my morning drive time. The last few days have beed dedicated to YEC (well, really anti-old earth/evolution).

His "big" arguments this morning were:

"There are 300 'geochronometers' used to date the earth. Of those, 99% indicate a young earth [thousands to at most a million or so years, though he believes the earth is at most 12,000 years old]. Only 1%, three, indicate an earth billions of years old."

And Fred Hoyle's seriously flawed argument from probability.

Weak.

Huh? I'm way too familiar with Hoyle's argument, but what's up with the geochronometers?

Edited for spelling error. Damn, I hate that.

lpetrich · 08-11-2003, 09:14 AM

I recall that someone had come up with an abridged edition of the Origin of Species with some commentary on it; I forget the author and the title.

It would be interesting to evaluate Darwin's work and check on how well his views have held up over the last 150 years; has anyone done so?

Also, what were Mr. Kennedy's geochronometers? And did he seem to know the difference between a lower limit and a precise value? I suspect that the large majority of his "methods" yielded only lower limits.

Mageth · 08-11-2003, 09:26 AM

He didn't go into any detail on the geochronometers, mention what they were, or cite any references, apparently expecting the congregation and listening audience to accept his analysis without thinking too deeply about it.

He did rant a bit how "evolutionists" deliberately hide the fact that so many geochronometers indicate a young earth, though.

Roland98 · 08-11-2003, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
He didn't go into any detail on the geochronometers, mention what they were, or cite any references, apparently expecting the congregation and listening audience to accept his analysis without thinking too deeply about it.

Typical. Can you imagine how many followers these people would lose if the average Joe YEC actually did a bit of research into the claims?

Quote:

He did rant a bit how "evolutionists" deliberately hide the fact that so many geochronometers indicate a young earth, though.

Ah yes, since, as always, it's the job of "evolutionists" to date the earth...

OK, broke down and searched TO for "geochronometers," came up empty. Anyone else know anything about this tidbit of (I assume) misinformation?

Happy Wonderer · 08-11-2003, 10:16 AM

I found a reference: Geochronometers. Highly amusing.

Quote:

Non-radiometric Age Estimates

Rate Process: Estimated Age (years)
Erosion of the Continents 15� 5 million
Oceanic Sediment Buildup 75�25 million
Continental Sediment Buildup 199+47 million
Ocean Salinity Buildup 240+20 million *
Mountain Uplift <<1 million
Volcanic Ejecta Buildup 64�30 million
Human Population Growth 1,280 thousand #
Biological Evolution >>5 billion

(Throws tidbit onto floor of cage, slams door and runs away...

)

hw

Mageth · 08-11-2003, 10:21 AM

Ah yes, since, as always, it's the job of "evolutionists" to date the earth...

The point there, I believe, was that "evolutionists" need the time for evolution to happen, and therefore hide any "geochronometers" that conflict with an old earth.

Here's another link from the YEC perspective that talks about geochronometers. Note the passage:

Quote:

The evolutionist asserts that the Earth is billions of years old. He has no choice, of course, because without vast eons of time, evolution is impossible. R.L. Wysong, in his excellent work, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, stated:

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying �time did it� and the creationist saying �God did it.�"

Also:

Quote:

Third, there are many scientific methods that establish a relatively young age for the Earth. [For a partial listing of these methods, see Morris and Parker, 1987, pp. 288-293.] Why are these methods not published in children�s textbooks, even though they are as reliable (and in many cases more so) as the radiometric dating methods? The answer is obvious�if these methods were accepted, a young Earth would result, and students would realize immediately that evolution could not be true.

I suspect Kennedy may be referring to Morris and Parker's work, at least in part.

pangloss · 08-11-2003, 10:22 AM

Kennedy is an ignorant schmuck. I forced myself to sit through his video "The Case for Creation." It had the usual stupidity, complete with snippets form Huse, Thaxton, and the supposed "atheist" (who it appears is no such thing) Minnich.
One thing that I took from it to show the stupidity of the creationist propagandist was a little spiel about DNA. Kennedy "explains" that there is only a 1 in 10^87 chance of "any two" nucleotides binding to one another, and this statement was accompanied by a little cartoon showing a double helix with two complementary base bairs highlighted.

The stupidity of that alone should be enough for the intelligent viewer to reject the show - and Kennedy - and worthless.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2003, 08:16 AM	#11
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Kennedy's radio show comes on a local Xian station during my morning drive time. The last few days have beed dedicated to YEC (well, really anti-old earth/evolution). His "big" arguments this morning were: "There are 300 'geochronometers' used to date the earth. Of those, 99% indicate a young earth [thousands to at most a million or so years, though he believes the earth is at most 12,000 years old]. Only 1%, three, indicate an earth billions of years old." And Fred Hoyle's seriously flawed argument from probability. Weak.

08-11-2003, 09:14 AM	#13
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I recall that someone had come up with an abridged edition of the Origin of Species with some commentary on it; I forget the author and the title. It would be interesting to evaluate Darwin's work and check on how well his views have held up over the last 150 years; has anyone done so? Also, what were Mr. Kennedy's geochronometers? And did he seem to know the difference between a lower limit and a precise value? I suspect that the large majority of his "methods" yielded only lower limits.

08-11-2003, 09:26 AM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	He didn't go into any detail on the geochronometers, mention what they were, or cite any references, apparently expecting the congregation and listening audience to accept his analysis without thinking too deeply about it. He did rant a bit how "evolutionists" deliberately hide the fact that so many geochronometers indicate a young earth, though.

08-11-2003, 10:22 AM	#18
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Kennedy is an ignorant schmuck. I forced myself to sit through his video "The Case for Creation." It had the usual stupidity, complete with snippets form Huse, Thaxton, and the supposed "atheist" (who it appears is no such thing) Minnich. One thing that I took from it to show the stupidity of the creationist propagandist was a little spiel about DNA. Kennedy "explains" that there is only a 1 in 10^87 chance of "any two" nucleotides binding to one another, and this statement was accompanied by a little cartoon showing a double helix with two complementary base bairs highlighted. The stupidity of that alone should be enough for the intelligent viewer to reject the show - and Kennedy - and worthless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.