So your friend is a closet creationist...

[Bookworm]

We were talking about carbon dating in the class I'm taking on meteorites and something that struck me that fundies COULD argue with is that we assume uniformitarianism and it's, like, possible, that half-lives were different back eons ago. I mean, it's unlikely, but possible. But still, even if our exact dating system has flaws like that, it still doesn't negate the scores of other evidence that the universe did not form the way it's described in Genesis.

And of course I'm giving fundies too much credit. I'm sure they have not a fucking clue what a half-life is.

Actually, Pomology, the argument about half-lives being different farther back in history is one of the main things I remember hearing about it from AiG stuff. AiG is really a terrible organization because they have this way of really sounding like they know their science when you are a fundie kid reading their materials. So many homeschoolers I know had a sort of self-image that they were autodidacts and somehow AiG exactly pegs the market for that sort of faux-intellectualism.

I guess I just don't want people to automatically assume that all those lied-to Creationist homeschooled kids are destined to be stupid and closed minded adults. It's not always hopeless talking to us and while a lot of Creationists are certainly mannerless boors, many will change their mind with evidence and some time. I don't think the current fundies really have a sustainable thing going - a lot of my peers that have NOT rebelled are still doing things quite differently than their parents did - they drink, don't spank their kids, send them to some sort of Sunday school/daycare/PUBLIC school, watch TV, etc. There are quite a few people who have dropped off the radar who I strongly suspect are making new, entirely mainstream lives for themselves.

[AudreyE]

Thanks so much again for the input, everyone. I think that more than anything I needed to vent. I have been so excited about meeting someone here that I felt kind of depressed for a few days after she told me this. I was only discussing my views on creationism with her so freely, because I never imagined in my wildest dreams that she believed it.

My husband is a biologist, and he spends a lot of time on creationist forums, trying to talk reason to people. I tell him it's the biggest waste of time ever. It's true they have gotten good at sounding scientific, but the process of taking a premise and looking for evidence to prove it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of science.

And I am sorry again for the comment about college. It doesn't take college for someone to be very bright, to have an open-mind, and to avail themselves of information. On the other hand, scores of people get through college without being bright, or open-minded, or willing to do the work to gain knowledge. College is really about jumping through hoops to get recognized for what you've done, but you don't need a piece of paper to contribute valuable opinions to the world. I'm sorry my words implied otherwise.

[Constance Vigilance]

We were talking about carbon dating in the class I'm taking on meteorites and something that struck me that fundies COULD argue with is that we assume uniformitarianism and it's, like, possible, that half-lives were different back eons ago. I mean, it's unlikely, but possible. But still, even if our exact dating system has flaws like that, it still doesn't negate the scores of other evidence that the universe did not form the way it's described in Genesis.

And of course I'm giving fundies too much credit. I'm sure they have not a fucking clue what a half-life is.

For some reason I had it in my head that carbon dating was only used back to a certain point (?40,000 years ago?) for this reason -- because beyond that there were too many variables for it to be useful.

This is one area of evolution I know very little about (I am more the genetic/biology end of things) so could someone tell me if I made that up?

[Rosa]

Honestly, it would probably not be possible for me to be close friends with a creationist. I am a grad student and evolutionary concepts are the focus of virtually all my research interests. Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution would essentially be saying that all the work I am doing is useless and wrong, and I couldn't be friends with someone who felt that way. The ignorance about evolution in this country is astounding and continually depressing.

It seems like if a Creationist befriended you, they either would be obviously and pitifully trying to convert you, or would be somehow seeking to have their beliefs challenged or changed. Or their Creationism would be so unthought-through you woulnd't even notice it because they weren't thinking or talking about it. You know?

I think there's a big difference between people who just are Creationists as part of a big bundle of things they've never really thought through, and people who believe the underlying concept (that physical laws we see in action today weren't how things worked in the past - that concept makes lots of science, including carbon dating, "not reliable") and will try to argue on that basis. It's like the difference between the fundy-light women who will say they obey their headships, if you ask them, but don't actually ever do it and dont' criticize other families for not doing it either.

[synchroswimr]

For some reason I had it in my head that carbon dating was only used back to a certain point (?40,000 years ago?) for this reason -- because beyond that there were too many variables for it to be useful.

This is one area of evolution I know very little about (I am more the genetic/biology end of things) so could someone tell me if I made that up?

Quite true. Carbon dating is only useful for about 40,000 years. Any method of radiometric dating is only useful for about 8 half-lives, which is why Uranium/Thorium dating and other methods are used for older materials. Each method has its own restrictions and considerations, and is only good in certain circumstances.