Morning Read: Creationism offered as science in Canton
The Watertown Daily Times reports on the sermon preached over the weekend in Canton by noted Creatioism advocate Jonathan Sarfati.
“You can’t compromise on Genesis,” Mr. Sarfati told his audience. “It’s like having an instruction manual where the first page is torn out.”
Mr. Sarfati, and his group, Creation Ministries International, believes that the creation of the universe as described in Genesis is literal fact — God created the world and all its inhabitants in six days — and that evolution is impossible.
A slew of PowerPoint slides helped him make his point Sunday morning. Fossil records, he said, are proof of a great flood, as described in the story of Noah and his ark in Genesis. So is the topography of the Grand Canyon.
And DNA is no proof of evolution, Mr. Sarfati said.
DNA is like a book, he said, and “a book requires an author.”
Sarfati’s talk drew extra attention because it was held in Canton’s public high school.
School officials noted that they were simply allowing the space to be used for a public event, as their policy dictates, without sanctioning the message.
I attended the lecture.
Interesting comments include: “Darwin made it intellectually acceptable to be an atheist”.
Also, a reminder that at the heart of the Scopes trial was the state of Tennessee requiring the use of the book “Civic Biology”.
The book listed five races, with the white race as the superior one.
Here’s an excerpt:
These are the Ethiopian or negro type, … the Malay or brown race, … The American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, …, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
So what is the point of the post Brian? That someone has an opinion that you don’t agree with? That “some religious nut” actually got to use a school building? What is the point you are trying to make?
Dumbing down of America. Was there a question and answer period?
JDM –
It’s only air to point out that the Bible, which Mr. Safarti offers as an infallible text, also embraces the notion of racial superiority, slavery, the dominance of men over women, etc.
Jefferson Davis specifically cited the Bible as “sanctioning” slavery in his argument for enslaving black Africans.
“It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”
In the New Testament, Paul meets and converts to Christianity a slave named Onesimus.
But after converting this man to “the good news” he sends him back to his owner, nudging the man to set him free but not demanding it.
Paul also commands “servants” to obey their masters “with fear and trembling.”
Science, to borrow a phrase, has “evolved” since the early 1900s. So has the reading of the Bible on the part of many scholars an Christians.
But it’s unclear how Mr. Safarti and other literalists can square their reading of an infallible Bible with its clear endorsement of slavery.
-Brian, NCPR
I didn’t attend but beforehand I read in the Watertown Times that the title of the lecture was “Leaving Your Brain at the Church Door”. A pretty apt description of belief in creationism. I have been a student of the history of religion for many years and the Jews, whose literature it is part of, regarded Genesis’ description of creation as metaphor, not literal fact. Nor did Christians believe it was literal truth when they first appropriated the books of the old testament for their Bible. The notion that Genesis is literal history did not arise until the 18th century.There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Genesis’s versions (there are two in separate chapters and they contradict one another) are literal fact.
As for “DNA is like a book and a book requires an author” I would note that mere existence of books required development of language and writing, invention of paper, writing instruments and printing presses. Those are processes of evolution. I would also observe that no book is written (evolves) without research, rough drafts, editing and revision, except perhaps badly written fantasy stories.
To each his own. Freedom of Speech and so forth and so on. Smile, smile.
People will believe what they want to believe. What they believe or what they say they believe proves nothing.
Bullard brings up a point when he mentions that their are two books on Genesis.
Personally, I have always found the book that has two trees Adam and Eve are told (advised) not to eat the fruit from.
Of course there is the standard: don’t eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Really good advice because if you don’t know the difference between good and evil, you can never sin!
Then there is the other tree: the Tree of Life.
If you think about it, it was only natural that the dummies would first try the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their brains stopped working when they heard the word “knowledge.” It would have been much smarter to first try the fruit from the Tree of Life because that would have given them immortality, which they did not have. This was why God had them tossed out of the Garden of Eden because, as God explained, if they were allowed to stay and eat the fruit from the Tree of Life, they would certainly be of the opinion that they were gods.
You need to appreciate these little jokes when you read the Bible. Otherwise you will never appreciate life.
I believe that God created everything and all existence and Genesis gives an outline of how He wanted us to understand His power. The process of evolution can fit within God’s plan this is where I would disagree with Mr. Safriti somewhat, but that is fine that is what religious diversity is all about, it is what diversity is all about.
I find the slavery arguments a straw man. Slavery existed in the ancient world it existed in the modern world; it exists today on a large scale. Christianity takes the unprecedented point among ancient faith’s that slaves could be redeemed and have equal spiritual footing with all human beings. Christ often spoke that a slave is not greater than His master He spoke to slaves; there is nothing more intimate than to pray with someone else to be together in eternity.
It is one of the reasons that scripture provided such a rock and hope to slaves in the United States and continues to provide hope to people who are in slavery today. Sure it could have whitewashed slavery pretended it didn’t exist or it could have been a political tract, but scripture is about our Souls something far more important than what is happening on this sinful world. His chosen people were slaves, is this by His choosing or to give hope to slaves throughout the world and throughout time? I don’t know but acknowledging slavery as a human condition is not endorsing slavery. I think it comes from confusion about what Christian scripture is, the thinking today is that somehow faith and scripture in general are supposed to be some sort of social program or political program.
Whether or not you believe the creation account in the Bible, here is a noteworthy comment.
The evolution theory is full of holes and it was easy for the presenter to show evidence of its fallacies.
Many of the teenagers present commented that they cannot believe they still teach evolution as truth. It requires more faith to believe that than to believe the Bible account.
Bigotry runs amuck here it seems. Religious bigotry especially. Yet, the same bigots will rush to protect their little favorites. Bigotry and hypocrisy.
What’s the matter Bret? Close-minded to the possibly of theories other than your own?
The duality of Genesis includes two stories of the creation of Adam and Eve. In one, they are created together. In the other, Eve is created from Adam’s rib. With all of the selective editing that has been done over the years, I’ve always wondered how this particular dichotomy managed to survive. it’s difficult to accept something as letiral truth when it doesn’t even agree with itself.
i have to (gasp!) side with bret’s first comment and say, so what? i think public spaces should absolutely be available to any group, including religious groups. and while i don’t agree with creationism, it’s hardly a novel idea.
and bret, where exactly is the bigotry here?
One of the problems in the discussion of Creationism vs evolution is the use of the word “theory”. In science an explanation which is based on speculation is called a hypothesis. It does not warrant the title “theory” until it has been tested against evidence and shown probability of being true. Even then it is not deemed absolute truth as there are generally aspects which are still unexplained and further study is required to reach a full explanation. Something that reaches that level is “law”, i.e. the law of gravity.
Creationists, on the other hand, use the word theory to describe any explanation or speculation about the subject at hand without regard to evidence and accord equal weight to unproven speculation. To the faithful, acceptance without proof is the highest virtue. Aside from choosing to believe that the Genesis explanation for the origin of the Earth is the “word of God” and thus inerrant, I have yet to encounter any rational evidence to support the notion that it is literal truth. Your mileage may vary.
James: “I have yet to encounter any rational evidence to support the notion that it is literal truth.”
This was the presenter’s point about evolution as well. Many of its precepts are supported without evidence, and some of the presented “evidences” are scientifically (and this is an intentional modifier) flawed.
I am not saying that the flaws in evolution theory PROVE the Bible account.
I am saying that the same arguments AGAINST the Bible account are present in evolution theory.
One could then determine which has the most evidence for and against.
Beliefs about how God created existence are fine and I think expected of a faith. Using Canton High School was also fine.
For me I think it is kind of a waste of time to try to pick holes in scientific theory for religious reasons. I believe Christ rose physically from the dead, that His dead body became literally alive in every way. So what would scientific theory say about that? Do I have to pick holes in how biological science is currently understood to allow for raising of the dead? That seems exhausting and not required of Christians. For me the eyewitness accounts are enough and they are enough because of faith a faith I did not ask for but was given by grace and the Holy Spirit. That has nothing to do with the scientific method and that is fine, the scientific method was created by human beings.
NYS Education law allows schools to be used for religious purposes under certain circumstances. I would have loved to attend the lecture (sermon). Of course, as soon as I realized the speaker was a “young Earther”, all bets would have been off. Seriously, how many people that post on this blog actually accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
“DNA is no proof of evolution”. I don’t even know what that statement means. Every cell on Earth contains DNA and the genes encoded in DNA are interpreted using same genetic code. At its heart, evolution is the change in gene frequency in a population. Evolution occurs when gene frequencies change. Of course the existence of DNA supports the theory of evolution.
I don’t see any bigotry being expressed here either. I choose not to believe in god, but I have no problem with people who do choose to believe.
As I said before, people will believe whatever they want to believe – at least until they change their mind and believe something else.
I just wish people would understand that belief doesn’t make it true. There ether is or isn’t a god. It doesn’t matter whether one believes or doesn’t believe. There either is or isn’t a god no matter what anyone believes.
It’s personal, pure and simply personal. And all the arguments presented by either side will not change the reality of what is or isn’t.
It may be fun but it is pointless to argue for or against the existence of a god.
I happen to believe but I am willing to say I don’t know.
Humans don’t like to say that they don’t know. They are afraid someone will call them stupid if they say they don’t know.
PNElba: “Seriously, how many people that post on this blog actually accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old?”
Actually, I put it at around 10,000 years, for my own interpretation reasons, but you make a point that I would like to elaborate on.
This blog does tend to be a little close-minded with points of view different than the “consensus”, for lack of a better term.
I have tried to point out that name-calling and labels are usually assigned to conservative thinkers, and yet I find that when I post a point of view that leans conservative, out come the name-callers and the labelers.
Maybe a little more open-mindedness would permit a wider range of views to be discussed.
Or do liberals only like to discuss things with other liberals and not have anyone challenge their beliefs?
Dan3583 said:
I would suggest you are reading into it more than is there. The first account where you assert they were created together is not supported (Gen 1:27). They were created on the 6th day which implies a time frame. I could say I created breakfast and lunch today which would not mean I created both simultaneously. Being created on the same day does not precluded one being created before the other.
JDM said:
This could be said about all science. The theory of relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and logically at least one of them has to be wrong. Science is self correcting although it often takes decades for a flawed hypothesis to be overturned.
JDM, respectfully, I find it hard to believe that anyone living in a modern industrial (or in our case service) society believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old (did Bishop Usher make a calculation mistake?). I’m really interested in why you accept the Earth is young in spite of the massive amounts of scientific evidence that shows otherwise.
PNElba:
You ask a legitimate question.
I believe that Adam was about 30 years old, on the day he was created.
I believe that trees were fully grown as well, on creation day.
I, therefore, don’t find it a stretch to believe that objects that appear old (stars, etc.) had age, on the day that they were created.
That’s my objective look at the Bible. I also believe in the Bible by faith.
JDM: “Many of its (evolution’s) precepts are supported without evidence…”.
This is why I pointed to the distinctions between hypothesis, theory and law. When significant elements (though not necessarily all elements) of a hypothesis are demonstrated through evidence, it is called a theory. Elements which cannot be proven but ‘fit’ the overall theory are retained until such time as they are proven or disproven. Theories ‘evolve’ as new evidence shows the way and as I said before only when the entirety can be proven is it scientific law.
The problem with faith is that it assumes that the matter is settled, there is no need to question or seek proof, only to accept and believe. “The Bible says so, therefor it’s true.”
So I ask, which approach is the more “open minded’ one? I am open to demonstrable proof of the Genesis account as historical fact but I’ve still yet to see or hear any. OTOH Enough of evolution has been shown true that I am inclined to believe that even if they don’t have all the details worked out yet. That’s why scientists continue to do research.
JDM, you give “religious” evidence for a young Earth. You are telling me what you believe. What is the scientific evidence for a young earth?
James:
The presenter had many scientific proofs of the Genesis account. For example, there are fossilized evidences that are ignored in science text books, for obvious reasons.
I can’t begin to elaborate on all that he presented, but I’m sure any interested person can google “scientific evidence of Genesis” and come up with a lot.
I think that the Bible cannot be believed without faith. No question.
I also think that evolution is not as scientific as it is made out to be. It is a shame for evidence to the contrary to be ignored or even hidden, however.
James Bullard said:
Nothing in science is ever “proven”, a hypothesis, theory or law can only be disproven when it predicts something that is inconsistent with the physical reality. For it to be science it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it has to be testable against reality.
Not, You make a good point. Unfortunately, there are no primary sources to examine to see if translation has anything to do with it. I’ve seen enough variation through different versions of the Bible to agree that there very well may be no discrepancy, except in how different meanings were chosen by various transcibers.
I just wonder why someone long ago hadn’t cleaned up the two verses so they were less likely to be seen as contradictory. Whole books were relegated to the Apocrypha to avoid “confusion”.
Let’s agree to disagree. I’m never going to swallow Genesis as being remotely plausible, and creationists aren’t going to accept the best information and theories developed by the best minds in science. (Science has served us pretty well judging from our advances in medicine, space travel and the rest of human endeavor.) The scary thing for me is that kids become political footballs in this debate. Please, don’t handicap young students by closing their minds to scientific investigation and progress. We are falling behind the Chinese and the rest of the developed world fast enough without running backward because we adhere blindly to some metaphors written thousands of years ago and copied with dubious accuracy hundreds of times since. Psychologists believe that some people are just “wired” to need god stories. Some people, like me, are not. Leave it for your church on Sunday. Don’t meddle with education.
Notinthevillage: “For it to be science it has to be falsifiable. In other words, it has to be testable against reality.”
What you are saying here is that science only deals with a physical reality which can be tested and verified by physical means. True enough, but the age of the Earth is a physical reality and it is something that can be tested. Likewise history, as a collection of facts, can be verified to some degree by corroboration between multiple sources and artifacts. Myth is that which cannot be verified. It may or may not have some basis in fact but the more extraordinary the myth the less believable it is as fact and the more probable that it falls into the category of the “Just So Stories”, made up stories intended as allegory.
Dan: The books of the Old Testament (The Torah) were oral tradition for centuries before being written down around 200-150 B.C.E. There are several instances of stories being repeated with contradictory details just as the gospels later differ on the details of both the birth and death of the man we call Jesus. It is important to remember that the Bible is not one book, it is a anthology, a collection of writings from various authors at different times and places with different motives. Often when those who collected the writings together could not reconcile disparate accounts they simply included both or multiple accounts. Some writings are now apocryphal because of theological and political disputes in the years 150 to 350 C.E. The winners of those disputes owe their theological victory primarily to the Emperor Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of his empire in a move to unify the empire. He charged a group of church leaders to decide what was accepted belief and what was not. The apocryphal books were the losers in a political battle for control of the church and the empire.
For those who are inclined toward an open minded approach I recommend “Remedial Christianity, What Every Believer Should Know about the Faith but Probably Doesn’t” by Paul Alan Laughlin. There’s lot’s more that you can read but that is a good start.
Dan3583 said:
I have 6 translations and don’t see anything remarkably different between them with respect to the creation on day six. The “primary sources” is a different issue and not what you based your original assertion of inconsistency on.
They are only seen as contradictory if you assume something is there that isn’t. Both sides do it which isn’t surprising to me. The fault is not with the writer who’s culture and world was without doubt far different from ours. It is with us, the reader, trying to add something that isn’t there.
Not and James:
I could be mistaken, but I think you accept the Genesis accounts (and the Bible in general) as literally true, so Divinely Inspired, correct? Forgive me if I’m wrong on that. I do find discussion/debate about these topics quite interesting.
James, it seem to me that the oral tradition arguement leading to contradictions makes it difficult to accept the Bible as revealed truth. Divinely Inspired scripture shouldn’t be subject to the vagaries of interpretation, should it?
Not, I don’t think I could make my assertion if not for a perceived discrepancy from primary sources, even if those sources are oral. Somewhere along the line, the confusion between the two verses made it ino the tradition. Again, this does’t fit with Divine Inspiration, does it? Even though some of those traditions are two thousand years old prior to being written down, the most recent written interpretation should be exactly the same as the first oral tradition.
I know…I’m a pedant.
James Bullard said:
James,
The point I was making is one that many people don’t seem to understand about science. Science does not prove anything to be true, it only proves that something is false. The 6000 year old earth hypothesis is easily falsified. The age of the earth is estimated at roughly 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating of the oldest known rocks. If someone were to find a rock that dated 5.5 billion years then the 4.5 billion year old earth would be falsified. The age of the universe is almost 14 billion years putting an obvious upper limit on the earth’s age. What we now believe the age of the earth is was not arrived at by proving what age it is but rather falsifying numbers that are either too large or too small.
On the six day thing –
Under the teachings of the Catholic Church, the six days of creation are viewed as time periods, evolutionary time periods if you will, and have nothing to do with 24 hour days.
If seen this way, it is interesting in how closely the time periods correspond to the first this then that in evolutionary theory.
But more importantly, I think, is how the idea of creation taking place over a six day, 24 hour time period, some six or ten thousand years ago really calls into question everything else we are told we should believe about God.
Under the Creationist idea we have an infinite and eternal God sitting around and doing nothing for just about forever, who then suddenly decides to create everything in six days (why not six nano-seconds) then goes back to doing nothing until the end of the Earth, at which time this God goes back to doing nothing forever and ever while some humans get to sing Hossana forever and ever while the others get to burn in Hell forever and ever.
The very idea of God doing nothing is distasteful. The idea that God “sits” anywhere seems absurd because to sit requires someplace and nothing existed until everything was created in six days – at least according to what is being said here.
And worst of all is the idea of God deciding to finally getting around to creating after doing nothing forever, with the plan of doing nothing after this universe gets wasted seems to me to be an affront to the dignity of God.
What I see here in the Creationist idea of creation is the pride and presumption of human nature. It’s all about us. It’s always all about us. Nothing matters but us. If this isn’t the sin of pride, I don’t know what is.
N.I.T.V.: “The age of the earth is estimated at roughly 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating of the oldest known rocks. ”
One thing the presenter dealt with was dating methods. There are many assumptions that go into dating methods. Obviously, when you are dealing with assumptions you can make an …. (well, you know the rest).
A brand new rock from Mount St. Helens was tested using standard testing that you refer to. It was found to be 2.8 million years old.
Dan3583 said:
You are absolutely mistaken. I see the Bible as a user manual for human behavior with historical examples of what can go wrong if you ignore its instruction. I have found that advice, through some hard learned lessons, pretty damn good. I don’t see the Bible as geology, biology or any other type of science text book.
Dan, the “perceived discrepancy” is your bias. That bias is evidenced by your assumption that I would take the Bible to be literally true as there is nothing I have said that should have lead you to make that assumption. We all have bias. It is totally human. The scientific method is the antidote to that long recognized bias inherent in all humans.
What “standard test” are you refering to? Radiometric dating methods are based on solid physics and there are a number of them. Impurities in the lava, oh say olivine, could totally screw your results. Obviously, when you are dealing with assumptions that your sample isn’t contaminated you can make an …. (well, you know the rest).
N.I.T.V.
You apparently believe in your science and no one is going to convince you otherwise.
But here is logic: If the earth is 6000 years old, then any scientific methods that indicate otherwise are in error.
As to the dating issue. There are at least three “solid physics” assumptions, and any may be terribly in error.
1) the rate of decay over time remains constant
2) there has been no contamination in the sample
3) we can know how much of the isotope was in the sample to begin with.
Any of these three assumptions can have a great deal of error. You must have great faith to rely on these assumptions to all go your way.
JDM,
You are projecting. You are the one that refuse to be convinced. You will not convince me with a unsupported claim especially if you can’t supply the details. You didn’t answer the question. What “standard test” are you referring to?
here’s a highly critical take on the research behind this purported 2.8 million year old rock mentioned by jdm. unfortunately i know essentially nothing about this stuff myself!
No Dan, I do not take the Bible as literally true. I cannot fathom how you got that idea from what I’ve written here. I am interested in the history of the Bible and how it came to be.
JDM, I’m a bit disappointed you didn’t start with the rotational speed of the Earth argument first. Instead you write A brand new rock from Mount St. Helens was tested using standard testing that you refer to. It was found to be 2.8 million years old. I have two questions for you. First, ever hear of a xenolith? Second, do you believe the rock was 2.8 million years old? I thought you believed the Earth was 10,000 years old.
JDM, I was backing the guy for taking an interesting point of view, not coming down on you.
HT- “…title of the lecture was “Leaving Your Brain at the Church Door”. A pretty apt description of belief in creationism… ” Religious bigotry and the hypocrisy follows, “…As for “DNA is like a book and a book requires an author” I would note that mere existence of books required development of language and writing, invention of paper, writing instruments and printing presses. Those are processes of evolution. I would also observe that no book is written (evolves) without research, rough drafts, editing and revision, except perhaps badly written fantasy stories.” It’s hypocritical to try and make this argument while dismissing the possibility of intelligent design a few sentences before.
Bret:
I apologize to you. I thought it was an odd comment, and it’s hard to tell what someone’s point is when all we get are the words, and not the expression behind them. Please forgive me for my comment.
PNelba: my point was that the rock was only about 15 years old, and it was measured to be 2.8mil, incorrectly. I do believe the earth to be about 10,000 years old.
As far as xenolith, I’m not sure what you are getting at. It may fall into one of those three areas of assumptions I mentioned earlier.
N.I.T.V.: By standard test, I meant one that follows the standard assumptions that I enumerated. Also, you said, “You are projecting. You are the one that refuse to be convinced. ”
Yes, I am convinced of my opinion, and I admitted in my comment that you are probably convinced of yours.
Therefore, we simply state our opinions here, with various comments and facts, and we sharpen each other. That is how we temper our views.
Winner and still champion: The Unshakeable JDM!
When ready to stop arguing but not willing to concede defeat, just say, “Well that’s your opinion,” and let it go at that.
Socrates would not approve.
well bret, i have to concede at least some of the point. i’m not sure if the quotes you’ve cited truly rise to the level of bigotry or not (and by that i’m being totally honest here, my initial reaction is that it’s borderline and i just can’t tell), but they’re clearly not very nice and disrespectful of certain people’s faith.
as for the hypocrisy stuff, huh? i don’t get it. the only mention of intelligent design i’ve found in this thread is yours.
and speaking of hypocrisy, how do you square being against gay marriage on the one hand, while being against special privileges on the other?
JDM, I read Steve Austin’s paper at the Institute for Creation Reseach (did you?). You have to ask why Austin asked for the sample to be dated using the K-Ar method which can really be used to measure only very old rocks due to its 1.2 billion year half-life and 600,000 year margin of error rate. The method is notoriously inaccurate when used on samples less than 10,000 years old. You don’t need “faith” in a method, you only need choose the correct method to be used. Since I read Austin’s paper it’s only fair that you read this explanation, by science writer Brian Dunning.
Bret: You miss the point of “…As for “DNA is like a book and a book requires an author”. Creationists frequently argue for their 6 day creation theory and “instantaneous” creation of everything arguing that it is obviously the product of intelligent design. Another analogy for the intelligent design advocate is that if you had never seen a watch but suddenly came upon one you would logically conclude that it was the product of intelligent design. They then LEAP from that to the argument that since humans are complex they must have been designed by a supreme intelligence instantaneously. Note JDM’s belief that Adam was 30 years old when he was created. There was no evolution. He was created fully grown and complete.
But neither a book nor the watch simply appear from nothing. Both have back histories of evolution. Extensive back histories. Assuming that “man was created in the image of God” why would you then assume that God creates differently than man? Why would you not assume that the creation of an extremely complex organism would take millions of years, in other words, evolve. But creationists instead go for the wave of a magic wand and instantaneous creation. To leap from an assumption that may be reasonable to a conclusion that is magical is not logical. Everything that is created goes through a long process of trial and error. If anything the assumption that man is the product of intelligent design supports evolution not instant creation.
There are a number of dating methods such as K-Ar, U-Pb , and Rb-Sr. You are apparently unaware which method was used and whether it was the appropriate method.
1) the rate of decay over time remains constant
The decay rate is determined by measurement. Unstable elements emit ionizing radiation which is easily measured. We know the decay is constant because we can measure the amount of ionizing radiation. If you know the mass of the unstable element you can calculate what the value of the ionization radiation is. If the decay rate was not constant over time then the above calculation simply would not work as you would get different results for different samples.
2) there has been no contamination in the sample
Which appears to be a leading candidate for the 2.8 million years old rock you cite. Making a bad measurement does not discredit the method.
3) we can know how much of the isotope was in the sample to begin with.
We don’t need to know how much of the isotope was there to begin with because the dating is not based on the initial amount of the isotope, it is based on the parent – daughter ratio. The unstable element is the parent and what it decays to is called the daughter. For example Potassium 40 decays to argon 40. If we know the ratio of Potassium 40 to argon 40 we can calculate the age.