I received your pamphlet today on campus. I believe in God and I think that everyone should come to their own understanding through guidance of others. I appreciate the manner in which the pamphlet was give because so much of the Christian message is lost by those who bombard people with yelling. However, I do think that the information in your pamphlet is taken very selectively to fit your beliefs. I am a geologist and find your selection of some information quite ridiculous. In regards to the earth's magnetic field comments; Humphreys is biased because of his Creationism agenda and other scientist have criticized his theory because our direct observational data opposes it. Furthermore, information about the mechanics of the earth's magnetic field is poorly understood so numerous models can be made, though some more wild than others. As for the Carbon 14 statement, it is quite possible that carbon 14 was picked up in a fossil, however, the reason for this occurrence is not that the fossil contains it is that there was contamination during processing of the sample. During processing, contamination of samples can happen very easily if the proper precautions are not taken. You are dealing with data in the parts per million, ions from the air can ruin results if done improperly. If you want to use information similar to this you should have more than one source backing your opinion, single papers and single authored papers don’t mean much in the eyes of a scientist.
Thank you for responding to our American philosophy pamphlet and your kind words on its presentation.
I would appreciate a little more information on your "geologist" background. Number of degrees, from which unviersities and the area of your life's work.
It is interesting to note that you have selected two points of many from the evolution portion of the pamphlet. Would you mind explaining why you believe that geologists, other than yourself, consider the earth's magnetic field poorly understood. The lack of understanding does not actually refute anything we presented in the pamphlet.
Secondly, wouldn't your contention that fossil samples are easily contaminated render the entire field of "dating" suspect?
I received your pamphlet today on campus. I believe in God and I think that everyone should come to their own understanding through guidance of others. I appreciate the manner in which the pamphlet was give because so much of the Christian message is lost by those who bombard people with yelling. However, I do think that the information in your pamphlet is taken very selectively to fit your beliefs. I am a geologist and find your selection of some information quite ridiculous. In regards to the earth's magnetic field comments; Humphreys is biased because of his Creationism agenda and other scientist have criticized his theory because our direct observational data opposes it. Furthermore, information about the mechanics of the earth's magnetic field is poorly understood so numerous models can be made, though some more wild than others. As for the Carbon 14 statement, it is quite possible that carbon 14 was picked up in a fossil, however, the reason for this occurrence is not that the fossil contains it is that there was contamination during processing of the sample. During processing, contamination of samples can happen very easily if the proper precautions are not taken. You are dealing with data in the parts per million, ions from the air can ruin results if done improperly. If you want to use information similar to this you should have more than one source backing your opinion, single papers and single authored papers don’t mean much in the eyes of a scientist.
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding to our American philosophy pamphlet and your kind words on its presentation.
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate a little more information on your "geologist" background. Number of degrees, from which unviersities and the area of your life's work.
It is interesting to note that you have selected two points of many from the evolution portion of the pamphlet. Would you mind explaining why you believe that geologists, other than yourself, consider the earth's magnetic field poorly understood. The lack of understanding does not actually refute anything we presented in the pamphlet.
Secondly, wouldn't your contention that fossil samples are easily contaminated render the entire field of "dating" suspect?
Looking forward to your reply.