Thousands....Not Billions

Sky Angel Exclusive. Scientists examine dating methods and offer new research
that suggests that the Earth is thousands, not billions of years old.

Angel Two (9702)

Saturday, Jan 20, 2007 8:00pm - 9:00pm ET

Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 5:00pm - 6:00pm ET (Rebroadcast)

Wednesday, Jun 13, 2007 8:00pm - 9:00pm ET (Rebroadcast)

I predict

• it is not main-stream science
• it is not based on peer-reviewed published critiqued research

/Bevin

I'l pick #1...no #2...ah heck, both of them!!

As a famous person once said..surprise, surprise!

I predict the naysayers will not even watch it. One certainly cannot be fair to a person's presentation by condemning it before even hearing it. Such prejudice will never permit one to arrive at truth. I, for one, have a much more open mind.

If it is presented by a someone with a PhD in science that is main-stream enough for me. Even better when the PhD is earned at a secular univeristy.



I read an article Bravus wrote once explaining why this is an unfair criteria. Perhaps he could repeat that here. Why or why might not a creationist's research recieve equal exposure by peer-review that an evolutionist's research would?

I don't get Sky Angel, so can't watch it

Post a summary of their arguments here, and I'll gladly discuss them

/Bevin

A lot of members here do have SkyAngel. So this thread was more of an anouncement that this program will be on this afternoon. Of course, I will let everyone know what I think of it. However any summerazation of mine will not do it enough justice to serve as a basis for others to judge it.

For those that have already made up their mind, Christ arriving in the cloads of glory will not be able to convince them otherwise.

I had just made the point that maybe holding creationists to the 'peer reviewed' standard might be unfair, given the extent of anti-creationist sentiment among some scientists. I still think it's the ideal, but it's not necessarily an ideal world and the referees (peers) might not fully lay aside their assumptions in judging the quality of the papers.

Having said that, if this isn't the appropriate standard, then the standards relating to other kinds of evidence and support have to be much *higher* than for peer reviewed science. The claims need to be examined very closely and very critically if they are to be accepted.

I can't watch the show either, but I'd be interested to hear a precis of the claims.

(PS I'm using 'claims' in the technical sense of 'something to be tested', not to express skepticism going in)

I intended the above quote to apply to both sides of the debate. Not just evolutionists.

The programe was put together by The Institute for Creation Research. This video is not for sale on their website although a study guide is. Thousands . . . Not Billions

I was able to follow the information although I had to watch it twice and would probbally pick up more by watching it again. It is not a video for the simple-minded.

Now science is not my specialty so just because I might be able to follow a presentation doesn't mean I cannot be totally SPUN. Knowing this vunerability, and the idealogues in the field on both sides of the issue, I am always skeptical of such programs.

This is what I picked up from the program.

• The program touches on the death issue in regard to evolution.
• It reviews the history of creaion science's criticism of geological dating.
• Discusses discoveries of a team of creation scientists' experiements done on various rocks, coal and diamonds.
• Using different types of geoplogical dating, different ages result from different types of methods.
• Differing results may indicate that radioactive decay has not alway been at a constant rate.
• Helium-leak dating indicates a young age of rocks while neclear dating indicates a very old earth.
• Uranium and palomium radio halos in close proximity to each other may indicate the granite in which it is found, formed rapidly.
• Carbon 14 levels in coal samples are the same from the upper levels and lower levels.
• C14 has also been found in diamonds, which should not be detectable after 100,000 years.