Question for evolutionists: “If fossils are actually young, would you find ID more believable?”

_{Salvador Cordova

August 21, 2013

Evolution, Geology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The question of the fossil ages is comparable to a central problem in forensic crime investigation, namely establishing the time of death. Did the creatures in the fossil record die tens of millions of years ago or did they die recently (say less than 50,000 years ago). It is mildly unfortunate that criticism of accepted mainstream fossil ages are conflated with YEC, because strictly speaking the age of the fossils is a formally distinct question from the question of Young Earth Creation (YEC) and the age of the Earth.

One reason that criticism of the geological record has been resisted (even within ID circles) is the affiliation of such criticism with YEC. But this does not have to be the case. For example, Richard Milton, who is not a creationist and is an agnostic, believes the accepted mainstream geological ages are false.

And it’s not even all geological ages, but the relatively “small” section of geological timescales known as the Phanerozoic (back 541 million years to the present).

[To see the graphic below more clearly, you might be able to zoom into it here:
Geological Timescales]

geological timescales

Now, a question for defenders of mainstream evolutionary theory, “suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?”

I’m asking because critics of ID have demanded more evidence. The irony is that some of the most unsavory and scandalous players in the ID big tent (the YECs) might be delivering a death blow to evolutionism in the minds of those willing to deal fairly with the facts at hand.

NOTES
1. HT Mike Gene for the idea of asking this question in 2005:
A nagging question about MN

According to the Decree, MN “is the foundation of the natural sciences.” But let’s do a thought experiment.

MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all “without reference to supernatural beings or events?”

2. Here are a few empirical considerations in favor of revising the ages of the fossils (revising the time of death estimates)

Cocktails! C14, DNA, Collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Cocktails! ICC 2013 C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous Era dates 300 million years ago

Cocktails! Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column

Cocktails! Astrophysics vs. Darwinist Paleontology

ICC 2013 Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Expelled Microscopist Mark Armitage responds to his critics

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Distant starlight the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism

These links are pretty much all the pro-YEC stuff at UD out of the nearly 11,000 threads at UD. But given the possible payoff for ID if indeed the Phanerozoic is younger than thought, and in addition that the YEC community constitutes about 30% at least of the ID community, the discussion of these topics have to be explored, especially now that the Darwinist Inquisition is now possibly affecting YECs not just the general ID community.

3. My usage of “unsavory and scandlalous players” was a reference to Dembski’s essay referenced here:

Scoundrel Scoundrel, I like the sound of that

supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

Bill Dembski

4. photo credits
http://www.iupui.edu/~geol110/assets/02_geotime/EOG_11e_Figure_18_21.jpg

5. It might be interesting to explore the Ediacaran (635-541 million years back) where there were some life forms in evidence.

Comments

#182 Collin That sounds good until you discover that it is part of the definition of irreducible complexity that it is most unlikely to be created by natural means. But this is where the debate gets repetitious and I haven't the heart to go over it all again.Mark Frank_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

It wasn’t an “admonition” :) I was simply sharing something I’ve found very useful.
I'm glad you pointed it out, I learned something. By the way, I am amazed at your forbearance in this discussion since you apparently feel the matters discussed are settled, it must seem strange that to you that it is being brought up. I would estimate about 1/3 of the YECs I know with some education were like me, we accepted the mainstream accounts at one time. John Sanford's progression was from Atheist, to Christian, to Theistic Evolutionist, to Old Earth Creationist, to Young Earth Creationist. Maybe the only benefit you might get reading our offerings at UD is you'll get a better understanding of various perspectives. The YECs and OECs in the big tent are on moderately friendly terms. I once did get into a fierce argument with a fellow YEC when I felt he used straw man arguments against the Big Bang at a YEC astronomy conference. I didn't disagree with his conclusion, I disagreed with his methods of deduction. We aren't on speaking terms to this day. He took serious offense to what I had to say...scordova_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Axel @ 169 & 170 Be clearer. I have no idea what you are alluding to. What contradiction?Alan Fox_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Sal:
Thank you for the admonition, I will try to bear in mind your concerns. E-prime isn’t used in mathematical reasoning, nor very much in physics since premises are assumed for the sake of argument. Many times it is already known up front that certain idealizations used in physics are formally inaccurate (Newtons 2nd law being the foremost), but they are used any way because they make problems tractable. In math and physics, a conclusion must follow from a premise. The premise could be wrong.
It wasn't an "admonition" :) I was simply sharing something I've found very useful. And yes, it is used in physics - and indeed any empirical science, when you write up your report. It forces you to make your assumptions explicit. For example, instead of writing: "A is a measure of B" you have to write "we assumed that A values approximate to B values". Sometimes what you end up with is wordier, but often not, and you get much more information bang for your buck. Assumptions are fine, but you need to make sure you've spotted them :)Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Mark, I admit that if someone said, "That thing is designed, prove me wrong" then that would be impossible to disprove. But if someone said that something is designed because it exhibits irreducible complexity and irreducible complexity cannot be achieved by natural means, then you could prove it wrong by demonstrating that nature can create irreducible complexity. Indeed, I think that some people have attempted to do so.Collin_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

The paper from which the (almost certainly inflated) rate of 140,000 measures extinction rate in extinctions per million species-years, and finds the modern rate is thousands of times greater than historical rates. If you crunched all of biological time into 50,000 years the relative difference wouldn't change wouldn't change.wd400_{August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

#173 Collin
Mark, You can never prove a negative no matter what hypothesis you have. At least if you believe in logical positivism.
You cannot prove a general negative of the form "There are no black swans". However you can for most scientific fields disprove a specific causal statement or at least have a way of examining its plausibility. So I can examine the hypothesis that MMR vaccines causes autism - I can show there is no plausible physical link, I can do statistical tests showing no correlation etc . But how on earth do I show that a specific event or series of events was not designed - given that the designer has undefined powers and motives and could easily have decided to make it look as though the events had natural causes?Mark Frank_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Do you think the modern extintion rate could, just possibly, have something to do with the widespread destruction of habitat, introduction of alien predators and hunting of megafauna?
Yes, if you mean by modern 2013 or there about.
If that’s the case then your extinction rate argument is obviously wrong, isn’t it?
No, because there were worse destructions of habitats in the past and greater extinctions, a fact that both evolutionists and creationists agree on. The presumption is the extinction events happened and then were followed by long periods of stasis. But the long periods are the very thing in question! So the background rates are circularly reasoned, and if we admit shorter time frames (say 50,000 years) for the fossil record, the current (2013) extinction rates are not that anomalous given mother nature was far more cruel than human industrialization. But I'll add to my original argument in the following: What we do see is the lack of evolution of new biological novelty (like orphan genes or taxon specific genes). Coyne's notions of incipient species are a flimsy measure of true integrated novelties. You can't blame the lack of evolution of new novelty on human activity. Further from wiki:
The Holocene extinction includes the disappearance of large mammals known as megafauna, starting between 9,000 and 13,000 years ago, the end of the last Ice Age. Such disappearances are considered to be results of both climate change and the proliferation of modern humans. These extinctions, occurring near the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, are sometimes referred to as the Quaternary extinction event. The Holocene extinction continues into the 21st century.
The rate of new species emerging today is probably zero (where I define emergence of new species in terms of emergence of taxon specific genes, not Coyne's flimsy "incipient species"). So prior to industrialization, 9,000-12,000 years ago (well within the C14 dating methods), species were going extinct at a rate of 140,000 per year. The point being, more species go extinct in the present and recent past than new species emerge. On what basis then can we expect this fact of high net extinction rates in the present and recent past (9,000 to 12,000 years back) to be different in the deep past (tens of millions of years ago) except through assuming there was a deep past to begin with!scordova_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Do you think the modern extintion rate could, just possibly, have something to do with the widespread destruction of habitat, introduction of alien predators and hunting of megafauna? If that's the case then your extinction rate argument is obviously wrong, isn't it?wd400_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

(Assuming modern extinction rate is indiciative of this historical background (which can be measured…)
Circular reasoning because you're assuming the historical background according to old fossil ages is correct, whereas the best data we have is real time. So we really don't know if the present is anomalous or whether it's our interpretation of the past that is anomalous.
in the first case, and ignoring genetic recombination in the second).
Recombination is assumed, if the mother and father each have a mutation, recombination will not on average decrease the mutations appearing in the next generation. And I cited 4 authors: Nachman, Crowell, Eyre-Walker, Keightly. I'm not deriving any new observation that isn't in the literature, I'm merely highlighting what is obscure to some.
You continually refer to your past posts, but don’t seem to have taken a single criticism of those posts on board.
Your rebuttals are still recorded in those discussions. Readers can decide for themselves if the case you laid out has more force than the case I laid out. Thanks for comments.scordova_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

At UD I have provided two lines of genetic entropy arguments ... and they both have major flaws. (Assuming modern extinction rate is indiciative of this historical background (which can be measured...) in the first case, and ignoring genetic recombination in the second). You continually refer to your past posts, but don't seem to have taken a single criticism of those posts on board.wd400_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Mark, Re: #168
Well all you have to do is answer a simple question: How can I set about determining that something not designed?
Writing for myself, all you have to do is demonstrate that some particular situations that obtain (such as the existence of living things in all their glory) are likely enough to have occurred via natural law and/or chance causes so that I would not be completely unwilling to "bet the farm" on it. I observe things on a regular basis that I cheerfully attribute to natural law and/or chance causes. There are a numerous things about the world, however, that the "consensus" scientific community has not demonstrated that natural law and/or chance causes by themselves are even remotely likely so have brought about but I know could have been accomplished with the help of an adequately intelligent agent (note the lack of a negative in the preceding clause. Until you can demonstrate that natural law and/or chance causes are reasonably likely enough to make me willing to consider "betting the farm" then I am justified in inferring that an intelligent agent is part of the mix of causes for the world which currently obtains. Take note. I know positively that an intelligent agent can make the very unlikely, sometimes, even the impossible, to be very simple to achieve. If you wish to make a convincing case to me, you must positively demonstrate that the very unlikely, is not really as unlikely I seem to think it is by showing me the natural mechanisms that can actually make it likely. All this nitpicking about professor vs. instructor, science vs. non-science, whose definition of CSI is to be the standard, I don't see no CSI, is it shannon information, so-and-so said such-and-such yesterday but doesn't say that today, and other such is entirely irrelevant to me. Demonstrate that natural law and/or chance causes alone are likely to have done the deeds, please! StephenSteRusJon_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Didn't you know that IDers' evidence is negotiable, TSErik? Although their own proof is 'common knowledge', and immutably established.Axel_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Mark, You can never prove a negative no matter what hypothesis you have. At least if you believe in logical positivism.Collin_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

Rather than discuss in the information, they love to try and argue that ID is invalid, and therefor, so too must all arguments or evidence for it. That way, you never have to actually address counter-arguments. A lovely fallacy to which the NDEs stick.TSErik_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
How can I set about determining that something not designed?
Exactly as scientists have been doing it for centuries, Mark, by demonstrating nature, operating freely, is sufficient to account for it. It's as if not one anti-IDist has ever conducted an investigation in their lives...Joe_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

Apologies, Joe's #158.Axel_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, why did you contradict yourself brazenly, as cited in Joe's #180?Axel_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

#166 Collin Well all you have to do is answer a simple question: How can I set about determining that something not designed?Mark Frank_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Daniel King, Calvin'sBulldog, Thank you for your contributions. I must admit I am surprised that a lake can be laying down sediment for 5 or 12 million years. It must be a very deep lake or the varves are very thin.Collin_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, I think you are making a mistake. You are assuming that ID claims that it can show that all things that are designed are indeed designed. Michael Behe has been clear when he has said that not all designed things will exhibit irreducible complexity. In other words, with his test, there will be false negatives. But it is his contention that all things that exhibit irreducible complexity are very likely designed. This is an inference to the best explanation which scientists do all the time. I think you also make the mistake in thinking that ID tests for the designer rather than the presence of design. This is a subtle point and I admit that I am not sure that ID fully resolves this issue, but ID claims that there are objective tell-tale indicators of design, no matter who designed it. Not that some fairy may have designed some things. Again, there will be false negatives in any ID test, but hopefully not any false positives. ID is also a "first step." It is not bad science just because it cannot answer all questions or identify the "thetans" as you put it. If it can show objective indicators of design, then we are justified in doing further exploration.Collin_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

CalvinsBulldog, For a fairly recent study of the Lake Baikal varves that provides detailed methodology (and does not quote Douglas Williams), see: Orbit-related long-term climate cycles revealed in a 12-Myr continental record from Lake Baikal, Nature 410, 71-74 (2001) 12 million years!Daniel King_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Welcome CalvinsBulldog to our humble blog.scordova_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

It's been mentioned several times in the above thread that the varves in the cores from Lake Baikal have a 5 million year history. After substantial effort, I have been able to trace this claim back to a small collection of documents and research led by Douglas F. Williams. The claim seems to have arisen from climate research done on cores in 1997 (the cores were extracted in 1996). Professor Williams was involved in both the extraction and analysis of these cores, and his name is prominently displayed on its (dated) website as the head of the enterprise. However, I have yet to be able to find any peer-reviewed information on the methodology used to actually date the cores. I do not wish to impugn Prof. Williams however I cannot help wondering whether a "Chinese whispers" type scenario is in play: everyone keeps referencing the same person as an authority on these varves and assuming that the long dating is correct (because it is in their interests for it to be correct). The nuts-and-bolts of the dating seem to be obscure, partially because the main interest is climate research, and the long dating is simply taken for granted from the outset.CalvinsBulldog_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

Even if the YECs are wrong, being able to remediate radioactive waste from our nuclear reactors will be a good thing. :-) Acceleration nuclear decay work, that’s the sort of work YECs can pursue hand-in-hand with the mainstream and actually do some serious good for society.
I started a separate discussion on the matter: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/scientific-reaserch-which-yecs-and-the-mainstream-can-do-for-the-benefit-of-society/scordova_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

I am a great believer (heh) in using E-prime to clarify questions and expose (in my own writing as well as that of others) hidden lurking assumptions. Translating Sal’s question into E-prime is useful, I think. He asked: suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation? In E-prime you can’t use the verb “to be”. So we need to replace the bolded. Suppose for the sake of argument that the fossils are young some scientists found strong evidence to suggest that all fossils were formed fairly recently (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?
Thank you for the admonition, I will try to bear in mind your concerns. E-prime isn't used in mathematical reasoning, nor very much in physics since premises are assumed for the sake of argument. Many times it is already known up front that certain idealizations used in physics are formally inaccurate (Newtons 2nd law being the foremost), but they are used any way because they make problems tractable. In math and physics, a conclusion must follow from a premise. The premise could be wrong. If the fossils are young, what does that imply? It is formally possible dinos could still have lived a millions of years ago and the fossils we have in hand had a recent time of death. One could then say, "the time of death of the fossils was recent, but that doesn't mean the entire species had recent origin." In such case I respond, "hypothetically if all life is young because of genetic entropy, would you find ID more believable." At UD I have provided two lines of genetic entropy arguments: 1. Empirical: rapid extinction today and in recorded history: The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism. This is also a testable prediction. 2. Theoretical, particularly in the case of human evolution: Death of the Fittest. In fact the U-paradox (derived from the Poisson distribution) is a testable prediction of genetic deterioration hypothesis. There have been a few peer-reviewed papers that YEC have snuck into the mainstream which I will not mention. You'll have to find them. :-) They basically demonstrate the predictions of the Poisson distribution, but to give you a hint, notice the linear accumulation curve predicted in the Cornell Paper: Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? (Paul Gibson, John R Baumgardner, Wesley H Brewer and John C Sanford). (Sorry I don't immediately have the link, but that conversation will come up at UD as Denyse is systematically going through the papers). Gibson is a geneticist, Baumgardner a graduate of Princeton, Brewer PHD from MIT, and Sanford a professor at Cornell. All PhD scientists, not exactly a shabby group! The formulas they used are well-known and used in the molecular clock hypothesis, but the clock hypothesis can be slightly modified to demonstrate genetic deterioration if one merely recognizes that the genomes are poly-constrained as described in the another Cornell paper (which I criticized for use of the Darwinian notion of beneficial, but praised for its fundamental conclusion). The link is here: https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/open-mike-cornell-obi-conference-chapter-7-probability-of-beneficial-mutation-conclusion/ In my view, the dismissals of these arguments by the evolutionists seem a bit too glib. Reminds me of their dismissal of those that question Darwinian evolution. Even admitting that I and other YEC are extremely biased, the problem is some of the questions have not been properly answered, and the doubts remain. I'm quite willing to change my mind on scientific matters. I have done so even when it was costly to my reputation and that of a dear friend: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/admitting-significant-errors-in-my-understanding-of-physics-speed-of-light-theories/ My issue with Darwinian evolution is that I think it is theoretically and empirically falsified. The question of the fossils I too had dismissed once upon a time, but I can't just turn a blind eye to it anymore, the anomalies are too great. The problem for YECs is that the YEC case too has equally bad challenges. The middle ground is to accept irresolution until more data come in. Is it so bad to say, "I don't know, maybe we need to look a little further and follow the evidence where it leads." I think it is premature to declare the fossils old. I can't in good conscience dismiss the anomalous data. And FWIW, the electrical, chemical, mechanical, and biological effects on nuclear structure are fascinating topics in their own right independent of YEC. These are topics that are more fun to investigate than me just teeing off on evolutionary theory. The term paper I mentioned gave me hope that maybe the problem of radioactive decay could be resolved in the future experimentally. The fact U-232 can be decayed by a factor of 6 trillion was quite heartening. I was quite serious about the rock experiments, and I will be talking to Physicists and Geologists in the YEC community to pursue the matter... Even if the YECs are wrong, being able to remediate radioactive waste from our nuclear reactors will be a good thing. :-) Acceleration nuclear decay work, that's the sort of work YECs can pursue hand-in-hand with the mainstream and actually do some serious good for society.scordova_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Of course it is. If ID makes the claim that blind and undirected causes cannot produce something and thety are observed producing it, then the claim is falsified. Not all rocks are artifacts, not all deaths are murders and not all fires are arsons. lifepsy:
A 5 year-old could easily grasp this concept.
That's why Alan, Lizzie and Mark are having difficulties. They have a cumulative IQ of a moron.Joe_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
ID is, I guess, a belief system for many.
Nope, ID is a belief system just to people like you.
That an omnipotent deity is the creator of all things.
ID doesn't say anything about any deity- omnipotent or not.
ID as Science.
Yes, especially when compared to evolutionism.
There’s no theory, no hypothesis, no clear thinking, no attempt at seeing things as they are and working forward.
That's evolutionism for ya!
And what if fossils are young? But they’re not.
Typical Alan Fox- just spew bald assertions as if they are supported.
No new ID ideas seem to have emerged that have not already been beaten to death at ARN.
Beaten with what? Your limp noodle couldn't beat anything...Joe_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank:
Modern evolutionary theory is certainly open to testing.
And yet you cannot reference this alleged theory so we can check out if what you say is true.
How do I set about testing whether something was designed?
Exactly as we have been telling you. Why do you think that your willful ignorance means something?Joe_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS:
But you cannot prove, scientifically, that all rocks, deaths and fires were not intelligently willed into existence by scientology thetans. And ditto for all manner of other spooks and disembodied intelligences.
Science doesn't seek to prove. And again all you are doing is trying to show that all of science is bogus.Joe_{August 24, 2013
August
08
Aug
24
24
2013
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply