young creation?

[Bread_of_Life]

Budman,

I've seen these before, so I've got kindof a stock response.

What the creationists here are saying is that their data for helium diffusivity shows that a sudden and short acceleration of radioactive decay in the recent past (within the last 6000 years) has produced apparantly 1.5 billion years worth of decay. The reason they say this is that, according to their calculations, too much helium is retained within the zircon crystals for them to be old - the helium should have defused out, especially given the temperatures of the zircons under the groud.

There are several problems with this hypothesis to explain the ammount of helium remaining in these zircons:

1. Radioactivity generates heat. In fact, a lot of heat, ask the residents of Hiroshima. In fact, radioactive decay generates to much heat that it keeps the core of the earth molten. A sudden million fold increase in radioactive decay rates would not only have melted the zircons in question and thus released the helium retained in them, it would have melted and vapourised large sections of the earth. Since we know that this has not happened, the hypothesis must be false. Furthermore, this heat would have melted rocks and thus reset many radiometric dates - we still be dating the earth as young by many methods, in other words.

2. There are several ways of testing what radioactive rates were in the past 3 million years. The most popular is called "decay series" dating. Uranium does not decay to lead directly, but goes through a series of intermediates. These intermediates form a "decay chain". This decay chain takes about 3 million years to come into equilibrium - for the proportions of each element to be fixed. If the decay rates suddenly change, the sample would go out of equilibrium, if the decay rates then changed back, they would take 3 million more years to come into equilibrium.

A very simple test for creationists to test this hypothesis would be to take a uranium sample from the area and test if the decay series was in equilibrium or out of it. All data should show uranium decay series out of equilibrium if they are right. Of course, they didn't do this test, presumably because they know that most uranium decay series found worldwide *are* in equilibrium, and they feared that this would invalidate their theory.

3. C-14 is an element with a short half life (5730 years), that is produced naturally in the atmosphere. There is about 5,000,000 moles of C-14 on earth at the moment, and it is produced at 500 moles per year.

If a period of sudden radioactive decay had occured 6000 years ago, the C-14 level on earth should have been reset to zero. It would take about 20,000 years to reset to it's current level.

Also, dendochronology (the measure of tree rings and C-14 in tree rings) and C-14 calibration data from varves and stalactites should show a sudden decrease in C-14 levels 6000 years ago, followed by a gradual increase thereafter if the creationists are correct. However, they show the opposite. C-14 levels have been falling for 50,000 years at a fairly constant rate. At no point have they increased, or been reset to zero. This disproves the creationist hypothesis.

4. Notice in the article the area has a very complex geothermal history, it was being mined to estimate the potential for geothermal energy production in fact. This means that it is impossible to assume constant temperature for each sample, which the creationists did.

5. The creationists (and I have read the original paper on this) used points from only 6 samples, 2 of which were very very near the bounds of experimental error. These 2 samples showed the most percentage helium - the 58% figure is quoted from a sample that should be rejected because the error was too high. That leaves 4 samples. Also, some of the data they used as a reference for diffusivity in zircons was taken from zircons that were heavily radiation damaged, and thus where diffusivity was much higher.

Furthermore, the creationists explore no other possible explanations for the phenomenon other than their own, which as we have shown is not possible, as a hypothesis a sudden increase in radioactive decay does not conform with masses of other fairly simple data that is known. They also make no attempt to test their hypothesis, even though extremely simple dendochronological tests, or uranium decay series tests were possible in the surrounding area, and would have been pretty cheap to do. This does not suggest a serious attitude to finding out the truth from the creationists.

Sorry, but decay rates have not increased dramatically for at least 3 million years. In fact, recent data from the Oklo reactor (a natural nuclear reactor in Russia) has shown that decay rates have not varied much in the last 2 billion years). This is the last gasp of young earth creationism I'm afraid, they've gotten pretty desperate here and are going for more and more basic scientific facts, like the constancy of radioactive decay to support their beliefs. Unfortunately, science is too well covered with evidence

[nebula]

I appreciate your answer, although it doesn't answer the basic epistemological question of why evolution is different scientifically to say, radiometric dating. I understand that theologically you have greater problems with it - what I was asking is about why the method we used to find out it was true was different from anything else. If the method wasn't different, and the method is generally sound at finding out truth, then we have to accept evolution, even though we may not like it.

The hardest concept I have found for athiests to understand in dealing with these debates is how a core belief influences how you interpret the evidence.

Sure, evidence can be found and observed for evolution on the species level, maybe even the genus level.

For evolution to occur as is proclaimed, then such changes would have to occur on levels of family, order, class, and even phylum at some point in time.

For instance: The athiest points to what great changes one mutation in a developing embryo can have on an organism.

A mind prone to view such claims with a skeptical eye however notes a few things.

1. The athiest in interpreting the evidence assumes there is no greater "force" or controlling power behind all that is and treats what is seen as such.

2. Yes, a great change can occur with even one mutation, but will this one change be viable to the life of the organism?

Such evolution requires a string of such changes to occur, where such a mutation doesn't affect the organism's ability to survive and reproduce, to be passed down, and the offspring with this mutation to likewise survive and reproduce and pass down this trait - and then for the cycle to be repeated in a decendent (to again have a mutation that doesn't prevent it's viability and ability to reproduce viable reproducing young that the trait is carried on down to).

Whenever challenged with this, the athiest will always say, "Given enough time . . . ."

The skeptical mind will marvel at the "leap of faith" that the variable of time seems to act as the magical factor that always play into the athiest's view of the past - how such a series of random mutations can lead to a population of organisms with such different characteristics from the "original" that even diet and physiology have been altered - that this "new" population actually fills a niche to match other populations that have resulted from such massive series of mutations.

The athiest says, "It is logical for it to be so."

The skeptical mind wonders, "What makes for logic?" Is it not much easier for chaos to develop from randomness than for order to be maintained? For logic to occur, does not there need to be a force behind the logic? Is logic dictated by randomness and haphazard circumstances?

Again, a core belief does influence the interpretation of the evidence.

If science operates on the principle that everything happened without a controlling mind or force behind it, then all that is seen is interpreted to "just be that way."

If science would even allow for the acknowledgement of a creating mind and power behind the observable evidence (and without trying to manipulate any data, just acknowledging "the great engineer" if you will), the picture does take on an alteration to the conventional scheme of things.

[nebula]

This is exactly why Say Anything keeps putting pretty much everyone on this board to shame. He is smart enough to get you to contradict yourself by agreeing with one lie that you are not familliar enough with the whole scope of things, and particularly the Bible, to discern, then once you do that, you fall for another one, and another because he gets you trapped in your own words. . . .

He loves his science more than Christians love God. . . .

Accusations like this are not going to get you anywhere, nor win any arguments, nor give you any credibility.

Do you say this kind of stuff to people who don't agree with you on other doctrinal issues and/or on the End Times Prophecies? That they "just don't know Scripture?"

[Botz]

I basically agree with most of what Whysoblind (and Old Timer )has said but I agree with Nebula that the method of delivery is pretty unpleasant...I believe in a literal 6 day Creation and that the age of the Earth is approx 6,000 years old and that we certainly descended from Adam and Eve...so the most that I can get accused of by an Atheist is being consistant in my ignorance and disdain of so called Scientific facts...which is not exactly true.

The difficulty arises for other Christians...as aptly demonstrated in Scientific Atheists brilliant retort to Shiloh...when they appear to agree with one aspect of Evolutionary Science such as the age of the Earth but dismiss the logical conclusions of the rest of it...being descended from Apes.

This is a very interesting discussion and raises some important issues for Christians as postulated by the Scientific idealism of several Atheists...and I for one am mainly listening and weighing things up...and I hope Whysoblind can be more charitable and feel less threatened and not believe the whole of Christendom is going to undermined by the salient points of a few scientifically minded Atheists....who have shown rather more decorum.

Listening attentively. Botz

[Guest shiloh357]

The difficulty arises for other Christians...as aptly demonstrated in Scientific Atheists brilliant retort to Shiloh...when they appear to agree with one aspect of Evolutionary Science such as the age of the Earth but dismiss the logical conclusions of the rest of it...being descended from Apes.

Listening attentively.

[Botz]

Just because the earth is millions of years old, it does not follow that man came from apes. Evolution is not necessarily a logical conclusion to an old earth belief.

I was not suggesting that it did follow...I do understand the position many Believers have about the Earth being Billions of years old or appearing Billions of years old...and yet not believing they had a chimp for a forefather.

My point/observation was that as soon as a Christian starts to believe some of the theories propounded by Atheistic Science because it is appears logical/provable scientifically then they will be accused of being unscientific and illogical when it comes to the scientific theory of evolution of the species. At least this is what I understood from Scientific Atheists specific post to you.

Can you have your cake and eat it?....hmmmm.

(PS. I would have worded it...Just because the earth is possibly millions of years old...)

[Guest shiloh357]

Just because the earth is millions of years old, it does not follow that man came from apes. Evolution is not necessarily a logical conclusion to an old earth belief.

I was not suggesting that it did follow...I do understand the position many Believers have about the Earth being Billions of years old or appearing Billions of years old...and yet not believing they had a chimp for a forefather.

My point/observation was that as soon as a Christian starts to believe some of the theories propounded by Atheistic Science because it is appears logical/provable scientifically then they will be accused of being unscientific and illogical when it comes to the scientific theory of evolution of the species. At least this is what I understood from Scientific Atheists specific post to you.

Can you have your cake and eat it?....hmmmm.

(PS. I would have worded it...Just because the earth is possibly millions of years old...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My basis for believing the Earth is not necessarily 6,000 years old does not come atheistic science. I don't believe that Genesis 1 necessarily calls for a young earth. I believe in a phenomenon called time dilation. The earth was created in six days... AND this creation took billions of years.

[Botz]

Shiloh...

My basis for believing the Earth is not necessarily 6,000 years old does not come atheistic science. I don't believe that Genesis 1 necessarily calls for a young earth. I believe in a phenomenon called time dilation. The earth was created in six days... AND this creation took billions of years

Thanks for the clarification Shiloh...I can understand that a little better now...I think the impression that you gave and that SA picked up on was that you DID go along with Atheistic Science up to a point...it was a little tricky to work out especially for a non-scientific chap like myself.

A friend of mine has informed me that I have got it wrong and that evolution does not teach man evolved from the Apes but that man evolved alongside the Apes...they just happened to have come from the same gloopy stuff as we did...I didn't realize that this was the Darwinian suggestion...is that correct?

[Bread_of_Life]

WhysoBlind

It matters not that SA is blind to the falsehood of his own information. Also, because nobody else directly confronts him about it, besides Old Timer and one or two others, he can get away with just outright lying or twisting the facts until you are helpless, and why not?

Firstly, these two statements are contradictory. If I am blind to the falsehood of my own information, then I am not outright lying. Lying is the process of telling a deliberate mistruth, saying something I know to be untrue and claiming that it is correct. Therefore if I am myself unaware that what I am saying is false, I cannot be lying.

Secondly, you are yet to show one instance where I have lied on this board. When I said that you had invented things, I gave evidence of such, you simply claim it without actually giving examples or evidence that people can investigate. Could it be that such evidence doesn't exist, and that you are trying to sully my name unfairly?

Its because they had enough discernment to know to leave and just ignore liars.

Perhaps they should also have enough discernment to actually present evidence that they really are liars, rather than just saying it over and over.

Give the devil an inch and he'll take a mile.

Here goes with Satan again - do you really hate me that much for having exposed you on C-14 dating and half lives?

Nebula

Sure, evidence can be found and observed for evolution on the species level, maybe even the genus level.

For evolution to occur as is proclaimed, then such changes would have to occur on levels of family, order, class, and even phylum at some point in time.

Perhaps nebula, you simply havn't examined the evidence? I am not saying that you are generally ignorant of things, or willfully so - but from my experience I find very very few laymen who are actually aware of the evidence for common ancestry and evolution. It is either taught very poorly in schools, or not at all - and this is a sad testament to our education systems. Perhaps you could start another thread, and tell me of all the forms of evidence that you know of, and we could start from there?

1. The athiest in interpreting the evidence assumes there is no greater "force" or controlling power behind all that is and treats what is seen as such.

If science operates on the principle that everything happened without a controlling mind or force behind it, then all that is seen is interpreted to "just be that way."

In these two quotes you are assuming that science is the same as atheism, that all scientists are atheists, and therefore they all make the assumption that no greater power was at work. Of course, this isn't true at all. I know many scientists who are also theists, who believe strongly that God's guiding hand was involved in either setting up or directing the process of evolutionary change.

However, the fact that evolution occured, that we are all related through common ancestry, is something that theists and atheists in science can agree upon, because the evidence for this is firm and solid. Exactly how evolution occured, what selection pressures were involved at each stage, whether God was involved - will always be to a certain extent hypothetical, and thus open to different interpretations.

Accusations like this are not going to get you anywhere, nor win any arguments, nor give you any credibility.

I disagree with this. If he could evidence his accusations they might be fruitful. After all, if I am really a liar, and I am willing to make things up, then there is good reason not to trust me, and it is better that I am known as a liar so that people can treat my posts according (with skepticism, and always with reference to the evidence).

However, WhysoBlind has been completely unable to evidence any of his accusations against me - and they are becoming more and more florid (some would say rabid). Furthermore, I have never on this forum or any other demanded that people believe my word because I am trustworthy, or because of my qualifications. I expect discerning people to check the evidence and data behind what I say before believing any of it, which would make me a pretty ineffective liar!

Botz

The difficulty arises for other Christians...as aptly demonstrated in Scientific Atheists brilliant retort to Shiloh...when they appear to agree with one aspect of Evolutionary Science such as the age of the Earth but dismiss the logical conclusions of the rest of it...being descended from Apes.

This is not quite what I am saying. As Shiloh rightly points out:

Just because the earth is millions of years old, it does not follow that man came from apes. Evolution is not necessarily a logical conclusion to an old earth belief.

An old earth does not necessitate evolution. I was arguing an epistemological point - that is science as a process of discovery is sound and to be trusted, then why accept one scientific fact and not another. If both facts were derived from the same process, and we know the process is sound, then why reject one as false, as accept one as true?

My point/observation was that as soon as a Christian starts to believe some of the theories propounded by Atheistic Science

Since when did science become an atheistic pursuit? Have you ever visited a science laboratory, have you ever talked to scientists? If you do, you will find a wide variety of religious beliefs.

Science is neither a pursuit for atheists, nor is it an essentially atheistic thing to do. Science is the study of nature and natural causes. It investigates why things happen on earth and in the universe the way that they do. While this is not theological, because it is the investigate of natural causes, it is also not atheistic, because it can run in parallel with theism - rather it is secular.

A friend of mine has informed me that I have got it wrong and that evolution does not teach man evolved from the Apes but that man evolved alongside the Apes...they just happened to have come from the same gloopy stuff as we did...I didn't realize that this was the Darwinian suggestion...is that correct?

It's almost correct. We didn't evolve from monkeys, rather our lineage and the monkey lineage split millions of years ago and evolved seperately, one into us, and one into monkeys.

In other words, if you go back several million years, you will find a "common ancestor" of monkeys and us. This creature's population split in two, one forming the monkey lineage, and one the human lineage, in a process called "cladogenesis".

So, yes, we all come from the same gloop, as it were, but actually we and monkeys are much more closely related - we don't have to go all the way back to the gloop to find our common ancestor. There is a similar story with every lineage, if you go back from enough in the human and giraffe lineage, probably around 90-120 million years back, you'll find a common ancestor, a creature that we are both related to, and eventually both came from. If you take a lizard and a human, and trace their family trees back a couple of hundred million years, you'll find a therapsid reptile that we're both related to. If you take a frog and a human, and trace back further, perhaps even as far back as 350 million years, once again you'll find a common ancestor, some sort of early amphibian. For fish, you'd have to go back at least 450 million years, maybe more.

In other words, all lifeforms are really distant cousins. In the case of fish, very distant, abotu 450 million years of generations have gone by since we can point to our common great great great great etc etc etc grandmother.

Shiloh

My basis for believing the Earth is not necessarily 6,000 years old does not come atheistic science.

Shiloh, this is not what has been asked. The question isn't "why don't you believe the world is necessarily 6,000 years old?". The question is: "why do you believe that it is actually much much older?"

The answer to this is, of course, that "atheistic?" science tells you so, whatever that is.

[nebula]

Nebula

Sure, evidence can be found and observed for evolution on the species level, maybe even the genus level.

For evolution to occur as is proclaimed, then such changes would have to occur on levels of family, order, class, and even phylum at some point in time.

Perhaps nebula, you simply havn't examined the evidence? I am not saying that you are generally ignorant of things, or willfully so - but from my experience I find very very few laymen who are actually aware of the evidence for common ancestry and evolution. It is either taught very poorly in schools, or not at all - and this is a sad testament to our education systems.

No, I'm aware.

Hey, here's a thought question that just popped in my head (just for fun - doesn't have to be related to the debate):

If birds are dinosaurs, or an evolved form of dinosaur, or evolved from dinosaurs, or however the wording is most suitable - how did they manage to survive the K-T extinction?

Perhaps you could start another thread, and tell me of all the forms of evidence that you know of, and we could start from there?

Trying to get me killed or something?

1. The athiest in interpreting the evidence assumes there is no greater "force" or controlling power behind all that is and treats what is seen as such.

If science operates on the principle that everything happened without a controlling mind or force behind it, then all that is seen is interpreted to "just be that way."

In these two quotes you are assuming that science is the same as atheism,

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that.

I wan't trying to change your mind; I was hoping to find a way for you to understand why many so many Christians cannot even allow themselves to question, to make the effort to just understand what is actually being said about origins, to see why people like WSB are accusing me of siding with the Enemy. If it is in your heart to dispel fears, you need to really understand that fear.