News

ICC 2013: Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Spread the love

Bribes are usually offered to get someone to do something dishonest, but in this case a bribe was offered to get someone to do something honest.

Shouldn’t a Darwinist be glad to receive a $10,000 donation from a creationist? Creationists offered to donate money to a Darwinist museum if they would merely subject dinosaur fossils to C-14 dating. Darwinists swear by C-14 dating except when C-14 gives them results that overturn their paleontology.

As pointed out previously, the presumption the Earth and Universe are billions of years old does not imply fossils are necessarily old. One does not have to be a YEC to appreciate what Bob Enyart is doing in this interview where he offers Darwinist Jack Horner $10,000 to date dinosaur tissue.

Evidence of the old age of the Earth and Universe do not immediately translate into fossils being old. A dog alive today getting buried tomorrow in 65-million-year-old rocks does not imply the dog died 65 million years ago! Yet such non-sequiturs are pervasive in paleontology. It is better to date the tissue of the dead organism rather than merely analyzing the rocks in which the dead organism is buried.

In addition to the $10,000 donation, the creationists offered to pay for the expense of sending the dinosaur fossils (plus a few more fossils of Jack Horner’s choice) to any lab which the Darwinists chose. Curiously, Darwinist Jack Horner declined easy money to do basic research and a donation to the museum on top of it.

Here is the Darwinist’s chance to prove the creationists wrong, and get $10,000 guaranteed money simply by subjecting the dino fossils to C-14 testing. If the tests come back negative, the Darwinists get $10,000 and get to humiliate the creationists. If the tests come back positive, they still get money. So why decline the offer?

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

NOTES:
1. Jack Horner is the supervisor of Mary Schweitzer who was mentioned in the report of Mark Armitage dismissal from California State University Northridge (CSUN):
http://logosresearchassociates.org/week-1/

Mary devised the experimental procedures which Mark Armitage adopted and duplicated at CSUN. Apparently Darwinsits are not completely comfortable with these recent discoveries.

2. HT: Bob Enyart,lifepsy, Steve Taylor ICC 2013
Steve Taylor featured this interview by Bob Enyart at ICC 2013

14 Replies to “ICC 2013: Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

  1. 1
    Genomicus says:

    Evidence of the old age of the Earth and Universe do not immediately translate into fossils being old. A dog alive today getting buried tomorrow in 65-million-year-old rocks does not imply the dog died 65 million years ago! Yet such non-sequiturs are pervasive in paleontology. It is better to date the tissue of the dead organism rather than merely analyzing the rocks in which the dead organism is buried.

    But we have good evidence that some fossils are in fact very ancient, and not only evidence based on radiometric dating. E.g., molecular clocks (either strict or relaxed). I’m not sure why UD is interested in entertaining semi-creationism, instead of being focused on full-fledged intelligent design.

  2. 2
    Pro Hac Vice says:

    If you were to ask Horner why he refused the “bribe,” what do you think he would say? I’m very curious to hear what you think his reasons would be, in your own words.

  3. 3
    scordova says:

    E.g., molecular clocks (either strict or relaxed).

    But that presumes the sequence divergence is the result of long ages rather than a design feature (Denton suggests the sequence divergence is a design feature).

    If the paleontological ages are wrong then there is even less time for evolution, which reduces the probabilistic resources.

    I’m not sure why UD is interested in entertaining semi-creationism, instead of being focused on full-fledged intelligent design.

    The question of available probabilistic resources for evolution is perfectly relevant to ID. For the last 7 years I’ve personally given the Darwinists a free pass on their paleontology. I can’t in good conscience say they deserve a free pass any longer.

    You mentioned molecular clocks. There are also clocks associated with dead biotic materials. Soft tissues with DNA and unracemized amino acids are inconsistent with accepted paleontological dates.

    FWIW, I don’t give a free pass on any idea put forward, not even ID, the number of proteins in the flagellum, or creationist use of thermodynamics. UD is a place to offer skepticism and objections to everything associated with ID.

    If the fossils are young, the design argument is strengthened. To be fair, the questioning of the fossil ages is associated with creationism, but guilt by association does not invalidate the basic empirical question.

    Jack Horner’s behavior in the interview was very telling, imho. If he felt he had a case, he should have easily accepted the “bribe”.

    UD readers are free to accept the mainstream paleontological timescales, but I feel they should be appraised of the C-14 in fossils which is at variance with the mainstream claims as well as the suspicious behavior of the Darwinists around the topic.

  4. 4
    JGuy says:

    Genomicus @ 1

    Regarding molecular clocks. How long ago was mitochondrial Eve? Are you allowed to pick and choose your clocks?:

    Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”–the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that’s the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?

    http://www.dnai.org/teachergui.....manovs.pdf

  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
    Barb says:

    The problem is that C-14 dating isn’t the most reliable method . Years ago, physicist R. Brown of Andrews University claims that this radiocarbon dating method is highly inaccurate. After a ten-year study, he concludes that radioactive carbon atoms did not exist in the earth’s atmosphere in significant amounts before 2000 B.C.E. and so cannot be used to date objects before then. Sometime around that date, he says, a major atmospheric change likely occurred, resulting in the buildup of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere.

    This method of radiocarbon dating was developed over a period of two decades by scientists all over the world. It was widely acclaimed for accurate dating of artifacts from man’s ancient history. But then a conference of the world’s experts, including radiochemists, archaeologists and geologists, was held in Uppsala, Sweden, to compare notes. The report of their conference showed that the fundamental assumptions on which the measurements were based had been found untrustworthy to a greater or lesser degree. For example, it found that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and that this method is not reliable in dating objects from about 2,000 B.C.E. or before.

    Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in The Fate of the Earth we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.” The Last Two Million Years states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.

    In this regard, note what Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers in radiocarbon dating, stated in Science: “The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold [a co-worker] and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”

  8. 8
    Alan Fox says:

    Here is a recent popular article explaining thelimitations of carbon dating and explaining a new source of indications of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide over the last 50 thousand years. Science is not static. Interestingly, I found when googling a remarkable coincidence of sceptical material on carbon dating and religious organisations.

  9. 9
    scordova says:

    There have been over 10,000 threads at UD, there have been less than 10 threads directly critical of the age of the geological timescales. Thus, threads such as these are hardly a major change in the direction of UD. But given the importance and relevance of the topic, neither is it right to be silent.

    Given what is happening to Mark Armitage, given Jack Horner’s obvious discomfort over the topic, given what appears to be deliberate suppression of information flow, I can sense a there is a news story developing that needs to be reported, and it is a story that has direct relevance to ID if indeed the geological timescales are suspect.

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    “Evolution happened?”
    “Yes.”
    “Even if recent findings show that there wasn’t enough time for it?”
    “Yes.”

    Science might not be static, Alan, but some scientists certainly are.

  11. 11
    scordova says:

    I’m not sure why UD is interested in entertaining semi-creationism, instead of being focused on full-fledged intelligent design.

    I’m providing some criticism to YEC creationism here. It also has relevance to ID.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....le-ground/

    Because the ID community is probably about 30% to 40% YEC, to the extent some YEC issues relate to ID, it is only fair to give such ideas a fair hearing.

    For example, few professional ID proponents would reject John Sanford’s work even though it is extremely YEC friendly.

    The work on C14 and soft-tissues in dinosaurs raise real empirical questions related to ID. Just because the association with YEC may cause embarrassment does not mean the empirical question it raises are illegitimate. They are legitimate question, and the data are making the case urgently important, imho.

    As far as the other YEC issues like distant starlight and radio active decay, I have some criticism of YEC views on distant starlight in the link above.

    I’ve tried to extend skepticism even to ideas I hold dear…it is the right thing to do, imho.

  12. 12
    lifepsy says:

    Genomicus (1),

    But we have good evidence that some fossils are in fact very ancient, and not only evidence based on radiometric dating. E.g., molecular clocks

    Just because evolutionists claim that their methodologies work, doesn’t mean they actually do.

    From the University of Pittsburgh 2006

    Do Molecular Clocks Run at All?
    A Critique of Molecular Systematics

    Schwartz, Maresca 2006

    …Molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption that degree of overall simi-larity reflects degree of relatedness… This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”

    http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/artic.....clocks.pdf

  13. 13
    lifepsy says:

    Young Earth Creation has powerful arguments and evidence. Just the global flood model alone, in terms of geology/paleontology has made tons of successful predictions. In my opinion the cards are easily stacked in YEC’s favor.

  14. 14
    Bob Enyart says:

    BTW, Mark Armitage chatted with us at Real Science Radio earlier this month about his firing and about his journal paper. He’s right of course: soft dino tissue (and soft biological material in fossils, generally) appears to be everywhere: in bone in museum exhibits, in feathers, in skin, eggshells, etc. So it’s not only buried DEEP into the recesses of bone as imagined by PZ Myers. (Hey, have you seen the PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge 🙂

    Armitage also gave us a high res previously unpublished photo of triceratops osteocytes. Stunning!
    http://rsr.org/armitage

    -Bob Enyart

Leave a Reply