Dr. Carter’s presentation on creationism has been misrepresented

I will try to answer your points.

1. Inferring that the bones, purportedly containing non fossilized remnants are not as old as all evidence indicates they are because one would have supposed those remnants degraded is not logical. One goes with the hard evidence. In this case the hard evidence indicates the age, and adds the new observation that under certain conditions encased non-fossilized material may persist.
2. No one would dream of using carbon dating for such a fossil, so your bringing it up makes no sense.
3. Radiometric dating has been verified and established as reliable. The rate of most radioactive decay is constant with those more susceptible to some variation only susceptible to a miniscule extent.
4. H.C. Dudley's work was shown to be false, and he discredited. Notwithstanding this, and the fact that he wandered off and tried to build a model of radioactivity to deny both relativity and quantum mechanics, his work was used by more recent creationists, whose work was similarly refuted and discredited. There is no evidence of any change of rate of radioactive decay, and basing thinking on false facts is sheer idiocy.
5. Steve Austin's famous blunders with radiometric dating of Mt. St Helens is also well documented, but the false reports of his bogus results are constantly being dragged up by creationists. You can find complete refutation of the lies you repeated by referencing dependable, scientific websites. These, unfortunately, are mingled among the mass of apologetic web sites repeating the same nonsense copied from one theistically corrupted site to the other. Of course, the usual canard is that the scientific ones are "biased" which is nonsense, since the sole goal of science is reliable fact, while that of apologetics is convincing people of the truth of scripture. Yes, there are a lot of non-believing scientists, some who are hostile to religion, but there are also religious Christians who are good scientists and can keep faith and fact separate. Its the facts however, that determine the strength of argument. The problem is that one needs to work to read and understand fact, which many people are too lazy or uneducated to do. Its so much easier to say "god did it". Easier isn't the same as useful or valid.

I suggest you check the reliability of your sources before spreading falsehoods. You might also read a good book on the philosophy of science and clarify your confused thinking, particularly regarding the nature of evidence, empiricism and what is proof.

For example, the commonalities between ape dna and our own are evidence for our common ancestry. No one claims it is proof. When however, one takes that in conjunction with a myriad of other data which are evidence for this theory one forms a rather powerful picture that requires perversity to deny. Such overwhelmingly large body of evidence, and the absence of any contrary evidence leads one to regard the common descent as fact. That, not via proof is how science works. That's true not only in biology, but physics, chemistry and biology.

It is important to note that evolutionists believe that at some point apes evolved into man. When there was both a man and woman (human), the population growth would have begun with just those two. So any reasonable evolutionist should not have a problem with the Bible claiming that the human race is descended from 2 people (just how those 2 people got there of course). The main issue is the apparent contradiction within the Bible, but this is usually posed by those who don't know the order of events in the Bible.

To clarify everyone, this is not my argument for how science confirms the Bible. I made some of those arguments before. I am not even making an argument now. I just wanted to answer the question and clear up some apparent contradictions that really aren't, and explain why the Bible doesn't dictate that the human race ought to be horribly deformed by now due to close marriages in the beginning.

That's a valid observation. But let me add a little detail to what I said before.

First, buildings don't make new buildings by mating and giving birth. So the "building" versus "life" comparisons don't work. Also, objects made by a designer (a building, for example) will have parts that are molded or fit for purpose. You don't see a building with remnants of parts that indicates it was once a car, but morphed over time into a building. But you do see vestial wings on flightless birds, vestigal legs on whale embryos, or eye sockets on blind fish.

And then there are atavisms...

And if a divine designer can just re-use parts, why are there scores of different ways of implementing the same feature in different creatures? The morphology of plants and animals in nature has all the characteristics of natural, evolutionary change and none of design and manufacture.

But here's the thing about human/chimp DNA. I doubt this will convince you of anything, but it is interesting nonetheless.

We know that sometimes people or animals are infected with retroviruses - retroviruses which stick a bit of DNA onto the DNA of the cell that they invade. Once in a while, a retrovirus infects a reproductive cell. Then this bit of DNA is passed on to the offspring created from that infected cell. Geneticists know what the markers left by these retroviruses look like, and they are highly unique. We can find several retrovirus "markers" in the human DNA.

But we also find some of the exact same markers in chimp DNA in the same spot. The only mathematically possible way these could be identical is that a common ancestor of chimps and humans contracted the virus, it infected a reproductive cell, and all ancestors carried the marker. And there isn't just one example of this, there are several.

This is just one example of proof for common descent.

But I think the biggest argument for common descent is this: If a team of scientists could disprove common descent while playing within the rules of science, they would win a Nobel Prize and become rich and famous.

The reason this hasn't happened is that the evidence doesn't disprove common descent - the evidence strongly supports common descent.

Now, if you want to say that God created everything just as it is, and he purposely created evidence to make it LOOK like everything evolved naturally - well, I can't really argue against that. But, neither could I argue against the theory that we're all living in a computer simulation like "The Matrix". But I don't feel that either is a rational starting assumption.

As for the similarity in the human and chimp genome being proof of common ancestry, think about this if you will. If you saw the construction of a new building early on, when only the footers had been poured and the foundation laid, could you tell me if the building would be a restaurant, a skyscraper, or a residence? No, you can't tell just from the foundation, because every building we construct starts with one. Why do we start all buildings by digging down in to the ground and laying a foundation? Because it works. It is a good starting point.

Now, let's assume that there is a God and that He created all things. Is it not logical that He would use some similar starting points, structures, shapes, etc? I find it very logical. He created some starting designs that worked, and from there shaped the unique features. That kind of thinking is an explanation of why certain creatures are similar in some ways, but you disregarded all options other than common ancestry. Obviously, I reject your belief of common ancestry, and you reject my belief of a divine creator. But I acknowledge yours as a possible explanation on the base level, and you don't return the same fair thinking. A common ancestor that changed in different ways to produce some different yet similar creatures is an explanation indeed. I acknowledge your theory as one possible explanation. Different creatures designed using similar blueprints or foundations that work is also a possible explanation. Notice that if we don't get into any evidence, both are possibilities that a logical thinking being could come to. It is a common evolutionist tactic to disregard anything the Bible has to say as an option at all, and it clearly is. If one really wants to, one can make anything proven by disregarding anything alternative.

I didn't ask for an example of supernatural intervention in the Bible. If you're going to answer my question with your own question, at least do me the courtesy of actually reading my question.

As for using full names - the first time I used my name in a discussion like this, I received a mail from a very nice Christian lady in Australia telling me that I should be killed. This is true - my friends were amazed and my wife was appalled. Creationist Jon A Davison dismisses any online argument from anyone who won't use their real name. But when he got into an online argument with PZ Myers, Davison started writing letters to people all over PZ Myers's university trying to get PZ fired.

Am I afraid of people who have blind faith in some 2000 year old scrolls? Am I afraid of people who take moral guidance from the Old Testament??? You're damned right I am. I don't stop every day and talk to an imaginary friend, and I'm more than a little nervous around people who do.

To paraphrase a well-known quote: "I've never seen faith move a mountain, but I've seen what it can do to a skyscraper."

So I will keep my family out of your line of fire, thank you very much.

From your remarks here, there are a couple of points worth noting. Your "freedom of speech" means only that the government can't intrude on your expression. It doesn't imply that what you say must be respected, though that would be the polite route, nor that contradiction be in civil terms, though I would agree its preferred. I didn't see any suggestion that the government censure you for your views, so I don't think your point on that score is valid.

I'm sure you are a very fine and kind person, and haven't a doubt in the world that you care for your children, and even wish everyone's children well. The point made about child abuse is hyperbolic but, though greatly stretching a point, brings up a point for consideration. That is, that it is customary among the religious to start indoctrinating children in religious views far before their minds have developed critical thinking skills and ability to evaluate what is being taught. This puts a child in a state in which an emotional attachment to propositions not demonstrable by evidence or logic is formed and therefore difficult to reconcile when critical thinking skills are attained. The push and pull of loyalty, attachment to family and community, against the, hopefully, emerging intellectual skills and training via education in intellectual integrity, can induce pain and more often than desireable, intellectual limitation. This stress is not minor, and shouldn't be underestimated. Moreover, one would imagine many whose intellects would enable them to be scientifically productive may fail in light of such stress. Some of those scientists referenced on the Creation Ministries and AIG web sites are undoubtedly some of those whose emotional commitment overcame reason.

But I do not, nor do I think anyone here, would think you woud, in any way, intentionally harm your children. Of course, people do inadvertent harm all the time.

Lastly, your baseless argument that morality can only be derived by a supernatural lawgiver is naive, unthoughtful and reflects a simplistic view. Morality, the rules of behavior, are derived largely from social experience, history and tradition, and are in the main, pragmatically derived. The supposed "laws" which religion teaches are merely reflections of these, and religion, being a social technology of social manipulation is the usual promulgation device. One posits useful rules of the time, ascribes them to the deity who is now in the role of a magical enforcer. Since it is obvious the enforcer doesn't punish in real time, an imaginary after life is then invented as the aggregated reward or punishment for compliance.

True ethical thinking derives from the inter-subjective social wishes of the benefit of our species and mankind and allows a more rational derivation of morals and principals. The usual argument of such thinking's flaws, which are evident in every human endeavor, are countered by pointing out that knowing the supposed diety's wishes is even more uncertain, and less reliable since the diety's existence is questionnable, but not the existence of humanity or its suffering or joy.

"whereas creation, by definition, is said to be "religion".
If it involves anything, whether data or cause which is supernatural, it is.

"Everything, by definition, must have a naturalistic explanation."
Only things claimed to be scientific assertion. You may explain angels and fairies theologically if you wish. Just don't pretend its science.
"All that does, however, is marginalize creation so that it doesn't have to be considered in public debate, it doesn't refute it."
It refutes it as science. Its fine as apologetics, which is what creationism is, except its more susceptible to ridicule since it ties its core to the railroad tracks of facts with the oncoming locomotive of science.

" Search "scientists" under the Answers in Genesis website and you will find an extensive list that includes many former evolutions including Dean Kenyon who had written the definitive work on chemical evolution years ago and now says that statistically impossible."
Anyone who abandons the tenets of scientific inquiry can no longer be counted a scientist, any more than a person denying there are dieties can be considered a theist. Its a contradiction in terms. There are people on AIG who have been scientifically trained. Most of this are jokes, like Newton and others whose work preceded evolution or modern science. However, the more recent ones are usually out of their area of expertise, and are clearly wrong factually or besotted in their reasoning. Its fun reading the easy refutation that their writings experience when they come up against real scientists. They're a sorry bunch.