Carbon 14 the radioactive nuclide used in dating fossils

The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else.This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say.Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof.One can always dream up possible scenarios that will contradict even the best scientific models.Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it.If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus.Such a view totally ignores the known forces at work within our sun.

As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight. I will refute every last "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago!

Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis.

Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture.

Even if such a "proof" were technically correct, it would likely shoot down only a weak model of the theory.

Deep truths are seldom grasped whole; early models are often flawed in some of their particulars.

Leave a Reply