Dr. Ron Carlson takes over for Kent Hovind
Ugh, I listened to a 10 minute rant by Dr. Ron Carlson. The video can viewed here. The number of factual errors in this 10 minutes makes me happy that they cut off the video. I do pity the people who had to listen to more of his nonsense. It seemed eerily reminiscent of a Kent Hovind seminar and proves once again that young earth creationism is built on a bed of lies. I e-mailed Carlson with the following points. We'll see if he responds.
Dr. Carlson,
I watched the video on Worldview and was surprised at how poorly you spoke about paleontology and geology. Your video contained many factual errors. I'd be surprised if you'll correct these, but I don't believe that it should be the duty of a Christian to misrepresent science in order to further a worldview. So here are some of the errors I noticed:
(1) The circular reasoning argument- False. You said fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and the layers by the fossils they contained. If true, it would indeed be circular reasoning. It's not true. The geologic column was assembled without knowledge of absolute (years) ages. It was based on the observation that the layers of rock seemed to be the same worldwide. For example, trilobite fossils are found in layers beneath dinosaurs and dinosaurs beneath fossils of humans. At the time, geologists like Lyell and Hutton made the assumption that the layers were in a correct relative order with the oldest rocks on the bottom. Rock layers are dated using radiometric methods. That's how the years were put into the geologic column, by actually using radiometric methods to determine their ages. What was so cool is that those age determinations confirmed the logic of Lyell and Hutton and the lower layers were found to be older than the upper layers. The correct argument is "Fossils are dated by radiometric dating of the rocks they are found in". Nothing circular.
(2) Lyell did not know how old the earth was and is not credited with the currently held age of 4.5 billion years. The age of 4.5 billion is based on work in the 20th century long after Lyell died. At the time of Lyell (or shortly thereafter), the earth was thought to be 20-70 million years or less (based on work of Kelvin, de Buffon and Joly).
(3) The Jurassic is not 65 million years ago. That date is the end of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic began around 199 million years ago and ended 145 million years ago.
(4) Lyell was trained in geology by William Buckland. He chose law as a first career and later decided to work in geology. He was, by all measures, a good scientist. It seems strange that you would criticize him for being a lawyer doing geology when you are a theologian speaking about paleontology. Do you criticize Einstein for being a 'dead patent clerk'?
(5) The Grand Canyon strata are in the correct order of the geologic column. There are some time periods missing, but the ordering of the strata is correct. Furthermore, the top layer in the Grand Canyon can be traced laterally to the bottom of the younger Zion Canyon and the top layer in Zion Canyon can be traced laterally into Bryce Canyon. The so-called "Grand Staircase" spans over 1 billion years of earth history.
(6) The geologic column has been found nearly complete in several places on earth. I suggest you google Glenn Morton and take a look at what this former young earth creationist and geologist has to say about this issue.
(7) Evolutionary events are not presented on every geologic column, but even if they are, so what? The layers were directly dated and thus have absolute ages. What such a picture shows is the history of life on earth. One can even deny that those organisms 'evolved', but their history on earth is accurately depicted. It's similar to creating a family tree based on date of birth.
I know that most creationists don't bother to correct facts. I corrected Kent Hovind and lo and behold, he never changed his spiel. However, at least I can remind you of this e-mail if I ever do hear your speech again.
Cheers
Joe MEert


23 Comments:
Thanks for that, Joe. It'll come in handy downstream, I'm sure.
Sorry Joe, I could not even sit through the whole 10 minutes.
And apparently they may not be publishing other comments to the web site anymore. I attempted almmost 24 hours ago and nothing has appeared. Among other things (similar to you) I pointed out that Archbishop Ussher was not a geologist (which seems to be an important issue with Ron Carlson)
Sorry Joe, I could not even watch the first 2 minutes. You have a stronger stomach than I do.
Joe,
I tried to send a trackback from Panda's Thumb but it failed for some reason. So here's the link.
Carlson based his claim of circular reasoning based on entries of of World Book encyclopedia -- nice source for middle school essays, but not for refuting modern science. He quotes it as saying that "The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils in them." He either doesn't know what the word "may" means or hopes his victims will not notice his b.s. Sure rocks might be dated if we find a fossil that has only been previously been found in rocks known to be x million years old. Or we might determine the age by another means.
I’m glad to see you’re up and running again. Your expertise in geology has informed me greatly over the years, not only in matters concerning creationist misrepresentations & lies, it has also helped in giving me a layman’s knowledge of geology in general. THANKS
I have just today been chastised (at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/the_genius_of_charles_darwin.php) that early 19th-century geology was not at all like the generally-accepted story of catastrophism vs uniformitarianism, by a clearly intelligent history buff citing recent books from Martin J.S. Rudwick.
Have you read Rudwick, and if so what's your reaction?
Joe, you have a stronger stomach than I do. I had to quit the video about 2 minutes in. It is so stupid, it defies description.
I don't think Dr. (Is he any kind of doctor at all?) Carlson provides the same showmanship and rollicking laughter than Dr. Dino did. But still, he'll sell plenty of books and videos. And that's the point, isn't it?
Arghh! I too saw the video clip and felt the same anger at the audacity of the lies. Either "Dr." Carlson is ignorant of the facts (which should immediately disqualify him to speak to the subject), or, worse, he is deliberately lying (which is reason for stoning to death if he were in an earlier age when lying was actually a violation of the commandments he seems to hold so resolutely ;-) Damn moral relativists! Too bad we can't hold him to account anymore (other than post these sorts of condemnations).
Joe,
You don't post frequently enough.
More, please.
Nice Debunking. I have a blog called "Answers in Genesis Busted" in which I debunk creationist claims and discuss evolution.
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
-Ryan
Wow, that guy is loony! It's just amazing how someone can have the nerve to get up there and lie to people like that. But, it's a guaranteed goldmine if you have no conscience. There's never been a cash cow more giving than the one with the credulous brand.
Sadly, I would have been one of those in attendance many years ago, nodding my head in agreement. But there are always some that will doubt and question like I did. So there is hope.
And isn't it remarkable how quickly the fundies have moved into Branson to cash in on the credulous that are loaded and in a spending mood?
Anyway, well done. Religionists and those that prey on them need to be taken to task for their attacks on good people of science and the truth.
I'm a bit confused. My understanding is that radiometric dating is not able to date the rocks that fossils are found in because that rock is sedimentary. From what I have read (I should admit here to being an interested layman), radiometric dating other than carbon 14 dating applies only to igneous rocks. From what I have gathered this is used to give upper and lower bounds for the age of the sedimentary rocks and that index fossils are frequently used to reference a layer in one location which is not so bracketed to the same layer in another location which is. If I am in error, I would appreciated being informed where my error lies.
Also, it might have been nice if you had brought up the fact that Lyell was not an atheist and was opposed to Darwin's theory. Further, he had come out with Principles of Geology before Darwin left on the Beagle. He certainly didn't come up with his theories to support a theory to which he was opposed and had not yet been published.
Howdy Joe,
I could not have listened to that whole thing if I didn't know that you had already done it.
Thanks, Joe. We can't let liars get away with it, futile though it may be.
Did he ever respond?
professor! you should really return back to blogging if your situation allows for that. greetings.
A professional London escorts agency booking service with more than 50 girls available 24/7 for high class elite girls for in call and out call availability. For professional dating of London escort girls.
I actually sat and listened to this walking turd for over an hour and a half in Austin at a Worldnut Weekend conference. He claimed that there is no evidence that the earth is over a few thousand years old. He didn't really seem to understand the concepts of radiometric dating or how it differed from Radiocarbon dating. His explanation of entropy would have gotten failing marks at a Texarkana middle school. He seemed shocked that Sir Charles Lyell (he misprnounced the name) and Charles Darwin were buried in Westminster Abbey (which he also mispronounced "Westminister").
Escort services are in great demand nowadays through out the whole world. And that is not the worst form of prostitution as I think.
I will pray for you and yours. My God is a God of order and His design and handiwork is evendinced throughout all the living. I wonder to Whom you will call out when you begin to take the last breaths of your life. Where did those breaths come from? Who kept your heart beating all these years? If happenchance is what you chose to BELIEVE, then I hope you are right. If others BELIEVE in the Creator God who loves His Creation, then one of us will be right. Unfortunately, against relative thinking, we both can't be right :(
If this brings offense to you, I trust it is the message and not the messenger, because My heart truly goes out to you all.
Leland Falde - Michigan - lfalde@gmail.com
Actually your god (which ever one that is) has not really shown much. Maybe he could help you with spelling and grammar. By the way, who is your god? I would guess Allah from your text, but I can't be sure Leland.
Post a Comment
<< Home