Glo die Bybel

Johannes 17:17 ...U Woord is die waarheid.

Sindikasie

Glo die Bybel Glo die Bybel
Aanhalings - Ouderdom en Radiometriese datering PDF Afdruk E-pos
Geskryf deur Daniel Louw   
Saterdag, 28 Augustus 2010 10:30

Vir nog aanhalings, kyk Aanhalings in die Indeks.

*****************

B McKee

(B McKee is 'n evolusionis.)

One might imagine that direct methods [radiometric dating] of measuring time would make obsolete all of the previous means of estimating age, but these new “absolute” measurements are used more as a supplement to traditional methods [index fossils] than as a substitute. Geologists put more faith in the principles of superposition [strata are younger upwards] and faunal succession [evolution] than they do in numbers that come out of a machine. If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, “good” dates are those that agree with the field data [fossils, superposition, etc.]

Mens sou dink dat direkte metodes [radiometriese dating] van ouderdomsbepaling al die vorige metodes om ouderdomme te skat uitgedien sou maak, maar hierdie nuwe "absolute" metings word meer as 'n aanvulling tot die tradisionele metodes [indeks fossiele] gebruik as 'n plaasvervanger. Geoloë het meer geloof in die beginsels van superposisie [strata jonger opwaarts] en fauna opvolging [evolusie] as in die getalle wat uit 'n masjien kom. Indien die laboratoriumresultate die veldbewyse weerspreek, aanvaar die geoloog dat daar iets fout is met die masjiendatum. Om dit anders te stel, "goeie" datums is dié wat ooreenstem met die velddata [fossiele, superposisie, ens].

[B McKee, in sy boek Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 25, 1972. Kyk ook The supposed consistency of evolution’s long ages, TJ 15(3), bl. 3-4, 2001]

(Kyk bv Dating of “oldest pottery” from China is based on assumptions (Mungo man), The pigs took it all en Flaws in dating the earth as ancient)

*****************

Russell Humphreys

“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists—the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data. Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: ‘If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?’ The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!”

Daar is 'n minder-bekende ironie in die stryd tussen skeppingsleerders(kreasioniste) en evolusioniste oor die ouderdom van die wêreld. Die meerderheid wetenskaplikes - die evolusioniste - maak staat op 'n minderheid van die relevante inligting. En die minderheid van wetenskaplikes - die kreasioniste - gebruik die meerderheid van die relevante inligting. Om tot die ironie by te dra is die publiek se verkeerde indruk dat dit anders om is. Daarom vra baie: "Indien die getuienis so sterk is vir 'n jong aarde, hoekom glo die meeste wetenskaplikes anders?" Die antwoord is eenvoudig: Meeste wetenskaplikes glo dat die aarde oud is omdat hulle glo dat die meeste ander wetenskaplikes glo dat die aarde oud is!

[Uit Why Most Scientists Believe the World is Old en Is teaching creation the solution to violent crime?]

*****************

Creation-tydskrif

"Secular scientists employ many different techniques for determining the age of rocks and artifacts. The most important one is denial."

"Sekulêre wetenskaplikes gebruik verskillende tegnieke vir die bepaling van die ouderdom van rotse en artefakte. Die belangrikste een is ontkenning."

[Stelling uit Creation-tydskrif]

*****************

JE O'Rourke

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results."

"Die intelligente leek het lank reeds vermoed dat sirkelredenering gebruik word wanneer rotse gebruik word om fossiele te dateer en wanneer fossiele gebruik word om rotse te dateer. Dit het die geoloog nog nooit genoeg gepla om aan 'n goeie antwoord te dink nie, omdat hy voel dat die verduidelikings nie die moeite werd is nie solank as wat die werk resultate bring."

[JE O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.]

*****************

Ernst Mayr

(Ernst Mayr is 'n evolusionêre bioloog.)

[The Darwinian] revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.

Die Darwinistiese revolusie het begin toe dit duidelik geword het dat die aarde baie oud was, eerder as dat dit net 6000 jaar gelede geskep is. Hierdie bevinding was die sneeubal wat die hele sneeustorting begin het.

*****************

JO Brew

(Hy is ook deur T Säve-Söderbergh en IU Olsson aangehaal.)

If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.

As 'n C-14-ouderdom ons teorieë ondersteun, dan plaas ons dit in die artikel self. As die gemete ouderdom nie ons teorie heeltemal weerspreek nie, dan plaas ons dit in 'n voetnota. As dit heeltemal teenstrydig is, laat ons dit bloot uit.

[Uit Carbon Dating into the Future]

*****************

David Down
(Hy is 'n Bybelgelowige veldargeoloog.)

‘I’ve used carbon-14 dating’, David chuckled. ‘Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they’ve already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, “Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.” But if it doesn’t agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that’s the end of it. It’s only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions.’

"Ek het al koolstof-14 datering gebruik", lag David. "Om die waarheid te sê, onder argeoloë, is koolstofdatering 'n groot grap. Hulle stuur monsters na die laboratorium om gedateer te word. As dit terugkom en saamstem met die datums waaroor hulle reeds besluit het uit die styl van die pottebakkery, sal hulle sê: 'Koolstof-14 datering van hierdie monster bevestig ons gevolgtrekkings.' Maar as dit nie ooreenstem nie, sal hulle net dink die laboratorium het dit verkeerd, en dit is die einde van die storie. Dit is net 'n vertoonvenster. Argeoloë dateer nooit (laat ek dit beklemtoon) nooit hul ontdekkings met koolstof-14 nie. Hulle sal dit net aanhaal indien dit ooreenstem met hulle gevolgtrekkings."

[Uit Timing is everything. Kyk ook The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating.]

*****************

Robert Gentry

(Hy was voorheen 'n teïstiese evolusionis, maar vandag glo hy ook dat die aarde, soos volgens die Bybel, ongeveer 6000 jaar oud is.)

Being convinced about the uniformity of radioactive decay rates, I became just as convinced I had new truth about Earth's ancient history and the evolutionary development of life thereon. Thus I went forth to utilize the pseudoscience approach described above to convince whatever common man I might encounter that he was badly deceived if he accepted the literal reading of Genesis. Years later, I woke up to the fact that I had been badly deceived, and that in turn I had been badly hoodwinking others by conveying the impression I had the facts proving evolution.

This I had accomplished by learning to speak a language unknown to the common man. Such had no way to defend themselves because they couldn't speak the language; they didn't know enough to even inquire about the assumptions I was using. Indeed, I hardly understood them myself. Later I would realize this is exactly how evolutionists have gained control of the masses, and this is exactly the way they have managed to undermine and destroy the faith of Christians in the Bible. For me troubles began after I began to probe the decay rate assumption. I soon learned just how deeply it had become embedded in the psyche of modern physics — how it had become one of the predominant icons of modern physics, one that was not to be challenged. Physicists are trained to think objectively and diligently inquire — in theory, that is. But I soon learned there was a stringent, unwritten limit as to just how far this thinking and inquiring was supposed to go.

As I began studies on the question of the uniformity of radioactive decay I learned how strongly physicists in high positions can react against research that threatens to reveal the fallacies of this assumption. I experienced the fear that investigation of this topic engenders in the highest echelons of the physics community.

*****************

Michael Balter

"[T]he amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere varies with the sun’s solar activity and fluctuations in Earth’s magnetic field. This means that the radiocarbon clock can race ahead or seemingly stop for up to 5 centuries. As a result, raw radiocarbon dates sometimes diverge from real calendar years by hundreds or even thousands of years. Thus researchers must calibrate the clock to account for these fluctuations, and that can be a challenge."

"Die hoeveelheid 14C wat in die atmosfeer vervaardig word, wissel met die son se aktiwiteit en skommelinge van die aarde se magneetveld. Dit beteken dat die radiokoolstof horlosie vooruit kan jaag of skynbaar kan stop vir tot 5 eeue lank. As gevolg hiervan, wyk rou radiokoolstof datums soms af van die werklike kalender jaar met honderde of selfs duisende jare. Daarom moet navorsers die horlosie kalibreer om hierdie skommelinge in te reken, en dit kan 'n uitdaging wees."

[Uit Michael Balter, Radiocarbon dating’s final frontier, Science313(5793):1560–1563, 15 September 2006. Kyk ook Carbon dating into the future.]

*****************

Phil Currie
(Dinosouruskenner van Tyrell Museum in Alberta, Kanada)

"Fossilization is a process that can take anything from a few hours to millions of years..."

"Fossilering is 'n proses wat enigiets van 'n paar uur tot miljoene jare kan neem..."

[Kyk Diamonds in days (actually, minutes!)]

*****************