Thursday, December 01, 2005

Changing The Minds Of Scientists

I was reading an article about the battle against hookworm, a parasite that is second only to malaria in the number of people it kills worldwide, in the September/October issue of History Magazine. The article was discussing how treatment for hookworm was developed but...

"New knowledge in medicine rarely converts doubters; instead, students learn a newer practice, and over time the skeptics die out."

It takes the death of the current generation for new knowledge to gain full acceptance! If there is such resistance to new knowledge that will save lives, just imagine the resistance to other types of new knowledge.

Until recently, the knowledge that the earth was billions of years old was so entrenched, that scientists didn't even bother looking for new knowledge. I said "until recently" because in the last few months new research done by the privately funded RATE Team has been released. They researched areas never before studied, such as Carbon-14 in coal.

Coal supposedly comes from vegetation buried millions of years ago. The longest a measurable amount of carbon-14 can last is about 50,000 years. Thus it is impossible for carbon-14 to be found in coal--yet the RATE Team measured carbon-14 in coal. That means the coal is not millions of years old, and something else must have rapidly buried all that vegetation (think global flood).

The RATE Team has also found evidence that radiographic decay has not been constant throughout history. In the past radioisotopes decayed faster. That means, based on radiographic measurement, rocks will appear to be much older than their actual age.

If you'd like to learn more about what science is revealing, I recommend the book "Thousands... Not Billions" and the DVD of the same name. (The book, of course, has a lot more of the details.) They are available from the Institute for Creation Research.


1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one post you talk about bias, in another about pseudo-scientific results of creationists, in yet another you focus on scientific fraud.

The best chance creationists have to get their message accepted is to present it as objectively as possible.

Why do you editorialise? Your personal p.o.v. is unclear.

Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home