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

_{scordova
August 21, 2013

Evolution, Geology

4}_{Categories
Evolution
Geology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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]

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

Mark Frank, You cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position. And without that it is obvious that you don't know what a testable hypothesis is. So either ante up- so we can compare- ours to yours- or shut up- really.Joe_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST}

MF: resort to dismissive labelling, strawman caricatures and denigratory dismissal. It seems, par for the course. Why not simply actually seriously address the matters on the merits? KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PST}

F/N 2: Let's fix yet another sneeringly dismissive caricature. FSCO/I is easily evident from string data structures bearing coded functional info, and in cases of structures that to work have a specific arrangement of coupled parts, where other arrangements or scattering of the parts would be possible. The second, thanks to AutoCAD etc, is readily reducible to the first, in a DWG file or equivalent. Analysis on strings is thus WLOG. We readily observe and can measure and tabulate such, intelligence giving rise to FSCO/I. Massively evident empirical fact, where observation, measurement and tabulation are notoriously used in science. But, common sense gives the same result, and no honest, fair minded person would deny, dismiss or denigrate the fact that this is routinely seen, with billions of cases, that design gives FSCO/I. Trying to label such a massive observation not scientific is a resort to rhetoric of denigration. Next, we do know and can -- have-- studied blind chance and mechanical processes relevant to spontaneously generating FSCO/I in test strings and in warm ponds or by cumulative mutation. Never have we seen FSCO/I arising from blind chance and mechanical necessity. FACT. We can analyse config spaces and sampling to see why. The same basic analysis that statistically grounds 2nd law of thermo-d. relevantly scaled samples up to solar system or observed cosmos can only be expected to reflect the vast bulk of possibilities, for needle in an astronomical haystack grounds. Note, sampling, not probability, the broad brush result is good enough and not subject to talking points on how to estimate probabilities too often used to cloud the issue. The well warranted inductive conclusion -- and science [as opposed to scientism] is in the key parts about inductive reasoning -- is that intelligence best explains FSCO/I and FSCO/I is an empirically reliable, observable sign of design. The problem is, this cuts across a dominant and entrenched ideology, a priori materialistic radically secularist and scientistic evolutionism. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST}

KF You certainly have posted a great amount of repetitive verbiage over the years. Repeating it does not make it any more correct.Alan Fox_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PST}

MF: You are discussing with someone you have interacted with -- or dodged -- for years, who has explicitly set the world of life case in the context of OOL and OO body plans. That context is literally a click away from my handle, also cf. here on in context, which I have linked hundreds of times over the past several years. Moreover, you must be aware of the similarity to Meyer 2009 and 2013. So, you are again setting up and knocking over a strawman. As it turns out, sight unseen, I put up a F/N that gives the next outline level of detail. While I have little time or energy for long blog exchanges just now, I think you need to do some very serious diligence on duties of care to fairness and accuracy -- a commonplace challenge for too many objectors to design theory. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PST}

F/N: Where both intelligence and design are observed phenomena (in simple terms, intelligence often manifests in goal oriented insightful manipulation of materials and components to yield useful, functional structures, that goal directed process being design . . . ], so that reasonably close family resemblance is applicable. In the OoL case, chance processes include random distributions of energy at molecular scale studied in stat thermo-d, the effect of these on activation processes and resulting stochastically distributed outcomes. Radioactive effects would play a similar role (and not the only one) in mutations, basically by ionising water triggering odd reactions at random points. [I here compress a lot of radiation physics.] Chemicals giving rise to notorious free radicals would have similar effects, and the close connexion to cancer should tell us something. Mechanical necessity, would cover lawlike processes similar to F = m*a and the like. Blindness means, no intelligent, purposeful direction or guidance -- more or less, what Dawkins advocated in his Blind Watchmaker. It is easy to show that on the gamut of the solar system to the observed cosmos, 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity is a threshold that marks a major search capability barrier for blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Watches are in observation, not made by blind chance and necessity, backed up by the analysis of sampling config spaces where function depending on complex, specific combination and arrangement naturally leads to isolated islands of function in config spaces. And if Darwinists would do Paley the due diligence of addressing his NT Ch 2, 1804, they would -- with help from von Neumann -- also see why a self replicating watch actually multiplies the force of the point. And the notion that such a watch would across time spontaneously develop into a self replicating car, by chance increments and differential reproductive success, is equally problematic. (That's why the UD pro Darwin Essay challenge now stands at eleven months without a serious answer.) It is high time to wake up and smell the smoke from the flames of an entrenched evolutionary materialist paradigm burning itself down. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PST}

#119 KF By an ID hypothesis I mean a hypothesis about the origin and development of life. Your example does not even mention life. In addition FSCO/I is a mathematical way of expressing that something is unlikely to arise from chance. The assertion that "something that is unlikely to arise from chance is empirically observed to arise from design" is not a scientific hypothesis. Your comment looks like yet another attempt to avoid this obvious problem despite numerous correctives and thus create a well-poisoning and divisive atmosphere leading to unmerited fear of evolutionary/materialism. You should know better. Kindly stop it.Mark Frank_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PST}

Re MF:
. . . without a ID hypothesis
What part of: "FSCO/I (etc) is empirically observed with billions of cases and is uniformly observed to result from intelligent design; where this is backed up by config space and blind search analysis, thus it is a testable hyp that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design" . . . is not a testable scientific assertion? This looks like yet another manufactured strawman caricature of ID [made up by those who at minimum should or worse do know better], being promoted in order to taint and dismiss. Kindly, stop it. KFkairosfocus_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PST}

So have you guys dropped the "light has slowed down" nonsense?Alan Fox_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PST}

Sal. Any novel idea's on how to resolve the heat issue if all that material is actual decay product? That said, I'm not even sure there's enough radioactive decay products to melt the surface of the earth (or at least boil off the oceans) if it had decayed within a YEC scale. If it is a problem, I like the idea of an expansion of the fabric of space to absorb it. Kinda like W.Brown describes how super-critical water would cool off fast from expansion.JGuy_{August 23, 2013
August
08
Aug
23
23
2013
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PST}

#3 on the 11 unanswered question in physics:
How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made? Both dark matter and possibly dark energy originate from the earliest days of the universe, when light elements such as helium and lithium arose. Heavier elements formed later inside stars, where nuclear reactions jammed protons and neutrons together to make new atomic nuclei. For instance, four hydrogen nuclei (one proton each) fuse through a series of reactions into a helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons). That's what happens in our sun, and it produces the energy that warms Earth. But when fusion creates elements that are heavier than iron, it requires an excess of neutrons. Therefore, astronomers assume that heavier atoms are minted in supernova explosions, where there is a ready supply of neutrons, although the specifics of how this happens are unknown. More recently, some scientists have speculated that at least some of the heaviest elements, such as gold and lead, are formed in even more powerful blasts that occur when two neutron stars—tiny, burned-out stellar corpses—collide and collapse into a black hole http://discovermagazine.com/2002/feb/cover
Supposedly we know that the heavy elements like Uranium came from supernova, even though we really don't know for sure they came from supernova! And further the uranium is 4 billion years old. Do we really need the power of supernova? Proton-21 laboratory made Uranium from copper with a little bit of focused electricity? :-)scordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PST}

JGuy, I don't know the answer to your question about the increase in dates as we dig deeper. The helium/zircon dates don't seem to change with depth however. :-) Speaking of electrical acceleration other scientists used lasers to focus electromagnetic energy on Uranium-232. It accelerated the decay from a half-life of 69 years to 5 microseconds! A factor of 6 trillion.
In other words, the half-life of 232U in the laser field is 5 μ s instead of 69 years. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.6276.pdf
and
Laser-induced accelerated alpha-decay of 232U nuclei under laser exposure of Au nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of uranium salt has been experimentally studied. It is demonstrated that the decrease in the alpha-activity depends strongly on the peak intensity of laser radiation in the liquid and reaches a maximum at 1012–1013Wcm?2. The decrease in the alpha-activity of the exposed solutions is accompanied by deviation of gamma-activities of daughter nuclides of 232U from their equilibrium values. Experimental data on the accelerated alpha-decay of 238U under similar experimental conditions are also presented. Possible mechanisms of laser effect on the alpha-activity are discussed in terms of the amplification of the electric field of laser wave on metallic nanoparticles. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3103%2FS1541308X13010068.pdf
Cool beans, eh! So much for incontrovertible ideas. And even back in 1990 there was electromagnetic energy (light) being used to accelerate nuclear decay:
It is shown that, using laser irradiation, it is feasible to accelerate nuclear transitions in U-235m by several orders of magnitude. A novel internal resonance conversion mechanism is proposed, which involves the excitation of an electron to a discrete level. The differences in resonance between the electron and the nuclear transitions can be compensated by a suitable choice of the laser-radiation frequency. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ZhETF..97..401Z
So the trick is to be able to synthesize some sort of rock and then try to make it look old. That will inch the YEC case a little forward. The nucleus might be a bit more pliable than we suppose! Bwahaha!scordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PST}

p.s. Sal.... one note I think the RATE team made... or a part of the RATE team... was that there did seem to be an "aging up" in the appearance of radioactive decay as you went deeper into the strata. If it's not a confirmation bias or date picking among geologists, but rather generally true, then how might the "aging up" be explained (at least in part) by soem process that was intense & electrical?JGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PST}

Sal @ 120
I meant to extend my apologies to you and others for possibly leading you all down the wrong track of c-decay. I say possibly, because we really don’t know what the right answer is. I feel bad if I’ve taught you the wrong things…
No need to apologize at all... I'm pretty sure c decay already had an intuitive appeal to me. I think the most "damage" you did was introduce me to Setterfield's work, which is still not a bad thing to consider, imo. For what it's worth, with some ignorance on specifics when we discussed this long ago, I recall making a type of prediction in mind about cdk, as it related to Pioneer. It was vague, but enough I think to count: predicting that we should find something from Pioneer to help confirm a cdk has occurred since it's launch. Afterwards, I learned of the Pioneer anomaly which read consistent with the notion. This doesn't prove anything, but this is something I would have looked for... isn't the predictive power of a risky idea the best confirmation for it? :P Just saying... so, I already had ideas in mind that egg me on. I'm not dogmatic or sold on cdk, but it has a strong intuitive appeal -- why wouldn't it? It would solve so much if it was true (even in secular theories). What would be interesting & helpful for YEC and cdk, is if you collated all the problems you personally see with cdk, especially in the sense of how it would impact physics of the past. e.g. You said there are bad juju's about compensating some things using a changing Planck's constant. However, I am not sure I understand the butterfly effect of issues you see. Are they insurmountable issues?JGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PST}

JGuy, I meant to extend my apologies to you and others for possibly leading you all down the wrong track of c-decay. I say possibly, because we really don't know what the right answer is. I feel bad if I've taught you the wrong things... That said, here is an interesting development. It would elude notice for most but it cannot be minimized:
Where Is Earth’s Radioactivity? Three types of measurements each show that earth’s radioactivity is concentrated in the relatively thin continental (granite) crust. In 1906, some scientists recognized that just the heat from the radioactivity in the granite crust should explain all the heat now coming out of the earth. If radioactivity were occurring below the crust, even more heat should be exiting. Because it is not, radioactivity should be concentrated in the top “few tens of kilometers” of the earth—and have begun recently. The distribution of radioactive material with depth is unknown, but amounts of the order of those observed at the surface must be confined to a relatively thin layer below the Earth’s surface of the order of a few tens of kilometers in thickness, otherwise more heat would be generated than can be accounted for by the observed loss from the surface.42 Later, holes drilled into the ocean floor showed slightly more heat coming up through the ocean floors than through the continents. But basaltic rocks under the ocean floor contain little radioactivity.43 Apparently, radioactive decay is not the primary source of earth’s geothermal heat. A second type of measurement occurred in Germany’s Deep Drilling Program. The concentration of radioactivity measured down Germany’s deepest hole (5.7 miles) would account for all the heat flowing out at the earth’s surface if that concentration continued down to a depth of only 18.8 miles and if the crust were 4 billion years old.44 Walter Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html
and here are the references in Brown's bibliography
As explained on pages 150–183, other heat sources are generating heat within the earth, so these thicknesses of granite would be even thinner. The granite crust is generally estimated to be at least 50 km (30 miles) thick. Therefore, steady state has not been reached. In other words, radioactivity is concentrated in the crust but has not been there long enough to reach steady state. u “Surface rocks show traces of radioactive materials, and while the quantities thus found are very minute, the aggregate amount is sufficient, if scattered with this density throughout the earth, to supply, many times over, the present yearly loss of heat. In fact, so much heat could be developed in this way that it has been practically necessary to make the assumption that the radioactive materials are limited in occurrence to a surface shell only a few kilometers in thickness.” Leonard R. Ingersoll et al., Heat Conduction: With Engineering, Geological and Other Applications, revised edition (Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1954), p. 102. u “Uranium, thorium and potassium are the main elements contributing to natural terrestrial radioactivity. ... All three of the radioactive elements are strongly partitioned into the continental crust.” J. A. Plant and A. D. Saunders, “The Radioactive Earth,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 68, 1996, p. 25. 43. “... the molten rock oozing from midocean ridges lacks much of the uranium, thorium, and other trace elements that spew from some aboveground volcanoes.” Sid Perkins, “New Mantle Model Gets the Water Out,” Science News, Vol. 164, 13 September 2003, p. 174. 44. “... 90% of uranium and thorium are concentrated in the continents. In general, the heat production rate must decrease with depth. Otherwise, surface values would imply zero or negative mantle heat flow.” Dan F. C. Pribnow, “Radiogenic Heat Production in the Upper Third of Continental Crust from KTB,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, 1 February 1997, p. 349. Continents contain less than 1% of the earth’s mass (actually 0.35%), so why do they have 90% of earth’s uranium and thorium?
If the Earth evolved via accumulation of matter from space (exploded supernova) why is there this phenomenon where the radiation is a surface feature? Could it be the radiation is of recent origin? Brown speculates the radioisotopes were not created originally but created by mechanisms associated with the flood. The important thing is this leads to testable predictions and experiments. Relevant experiments were listed here: https://uncommondescent.com/physics/vodka-can-nuclear-structure-be-affected-by-electrical-chemical-and-biological-means/ Unfortunately, I think the speculation is still premature, but if Brown is right, that radio isotopes were of an electrical origin, then a new day has dawned! Irrespective of whether YEC is true, this is an anomaly that needs explanation. How can radio isotopes be concentrated only in the crust. Amazing. :wink: An appropriate experiment is to see if we can use electricity to synthesize the kind of "old age" rocks from relatively "new rocks". I like testability and experiments. Thankfully the Proton-21 lab and their staff of 120 workers are doing the sort of work necessary for creation science and not even meaning to do so... That may solve the discordant date problems between the C14 and the rock dates. I don't think that we should say that radiometric dating is unreliable, we have unreliable interpretations of the data. The data are there and they are telling a story, we just need the right rosetta stone to decode the true story... By the way, the presumption that matter of the solar system is the product of a supernova is being questioned. Maybe more on that later...scordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST}

Elizabeth,
Because the data do corroborate each other. It’s as simple as that. For instance take lake varves. We know that they are laid down annually because we see them being laid down annually.
You don't know that. That's your interpretation. It sounds like you're assuming the varving pattern could only result from annual seasonal effects. I have found a study on the varved oil shale of the Green River Formation, in which the authors admit that there has been much debate over whether the varves were even due to the presence of lakes at all. (Cyclicity in the Green River Formation. Fischer 1994 http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/content/61/7/1146.abstract *Had to purchase the article) Yet since then varving has somehow become a unquestionable process and irrefutable evidence for millions of years? (interestingly, I see that TalkOrigins is using the Green River Formation as positive evidence for old-earth alongside Lake Baikal. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html) In the case of Lake Baikal, you're dealing with more coarse silt, and the finer clay sediments. So the assumption is that the larger/coarser sediment is deposited in warmer times of the year when there is increased meltwater flow, and the finer sediment increased at colder times with less flow, thus creating the varving pattern. I'll refer you to empirical experiments done on rapid deposition of particles. The lamination effect being described here is the same thing as Varves, that is, lamination of glacial lake deposits. Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures Julien, et al. 1994 Bulletin of the Geological Society, France http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~pierre/ce_old/resume/Paperspdf/Julien%20et%20al.%20France93.pdf Lamination essentially results from the mechanical segregation of heterogeneous particles in a moving layer. Lamination is possible without turbulence and without the migration of low amplitude bedforms. Through lateral movement of particles of constant mass density, finer particles fall within the interstices of rolling coarser particles. Coarse particles then roll on top of fines and microscale segregation of particles is then obtained. The degree of segregation depends on particle size distribution, density, and possibly angularity of heterogeneous sand mixtures (see Figure 2). Repetitive segregation is also possible in settling columns where lamination is clearly observed both in air and water. Sufficient space, or rolling distance, is required for clear lamination to develop in moving layers of heterogeneous particles. Particles of comparable size but different densities segregate similarly, with heavier particles falling between lighter particles. (AiG features this study as well: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/sand) So here is empirical evidence that the Varving effect could just as easily be created rapidly within minutes/hours/days/weeks. Yet you assume each varve layer must represent an annual cycle. I don't know if this experiment is by the same researchers, but you can clearly see the Lamination/Stratification process in action yourself: Drama in the Rocks part 4/4 Sedimentology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NrL_IOeTfU And there is a second line of evidence supporting this idea of rapid deposition, and that is the lack of bioturbation. Were these environments really completely free from burrowing animal life for millions of years? Or were the sediments laid down rapidly? (this apparent bioturbation mystery is acknowledged in that same Green River Formation paper by Fischer et al.) Lack of bioturbation in general is a powerful argument for a Young Earth. Evolutionists may have their questionable 'anoxic conditions' excuse, but on the other hand, lack of bioturbation is a direct prediction of rapid stratification. (global flood)
They can be carbon dated, and the carbon dates corroborate the counts. So we know we can rely on carbon dating, which goes back 50,000 years, and we know that it corroborates lake varves. And the varve record in some lakes (Lake Baikal for instance) goes back millions of years – millions of annual varves. ...The Lake Baikal varves go down for 5 million years. There are fossils in those 5 million year old layers..
Okay, I've found a couple papers on C14 - Varve data. Here's one: ATMOSPHERIC RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION BEYOND 11,900 CAL BP FROM LAKE SUIGETSU LAMINATED SEDIMENTS https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/3829/3254 For one thing, the C14 dates do not directly corroborate the assumed Varve dates. Each one is a thousand to a few thousand years off of the assumed Varve dates. What is really represented here is a pattern, and there may be more than one explanation for it. Instead of so many thousands of years, the C14 measurements may be correlating to the depth of sediment, or some process of carbon contamination due to the order in which they were layered, which would also reveal a depth-C14 correlation pattern. But anyways, Elizabeth, I don't find your claim of irrefutable varve dating convincing.lifepsy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PST}

Sal @ 105
To be fair, when the YECs sent these rocks of to labs, and to their credit, the YECs were forthright in saying the dates still indicated long ages.
Also contrary to what some skeptics of YEC scientists might expect, the YEC scientists on the RATE team actually went a step further than that in the He-diffusion/zircon testing they did. Howso? They did the additional research to support the idea that the decay that appears to have occurred in the zircons, actually did occur (in this case counting fissure tracks). That is, they did not just stop the lab work and say it was a result of contamination. This is included their final papers.JGuy_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST}

Mark Frank:
If design is so open as to include a process that is utterly incomprehensible in principle then there is no way to know if it is operating or not.
You could either A) observe it or B) observe its effects. Again a native tribe of the Amazon which has never seen our technolgy comes across a laptop some observing scientist left and although the laptop and how it came to be would be totally incoprehensible to them they could still tell that it wasn't from nature. And if given a choice between our existence being an accident or by intention/ design, only one offers any hope, any real impetus for investigating- intention/ design. That tells us their is a purpose to our existence and it is time to A) figure that out and B) get with the program. OTOH if we are just an accident then all we are doing wrt science is fumbling around in the dark just to give ourselves a sense of self-worth. Nothing is right, nothing is wrong and nothing really matters. We are the optimists and you are the wrongly named skeptics. The choice seems obvious given the fact that science can only allow for so much luck and the chance position is nothing but sheer dumb luck...Joe_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PST}

@Collin My mom taught me: If you don't have anything nice to say, then say something with a great deal of rhetorical skill that could be taken as nice. ;)Phinehas_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST}

COLLIN: You seem to have dropped off this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/ba77s-off-topic-thread/ I wanted you to know that I answered your question about Denton in comment 75 there.Timaeus_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST}

ID should be a Big Tent, but OEC/YEC tensions remain. YECs are valid members and I think this is a good place to have the discussion. YEC discussions are at least as relevant as Climate Change discussions.bevets_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PST}

What would cause us to throw out an entire consilient model would be a pattern of data points that show a consistently discrepant pattern and cannot be explained by contamination or other measurement error.
Like many things, there are nuances. Rocks dated via long term radiometric methods show conflicting dates. The same rock will show different dates. To be fair, when the YECs sent these rocks of to labs, and to their credit, the YECs were forthright in saying the dates still indicated long ages. But we can't dismiss such anomalies of discordant dates (beyond the presumed accuracy of the each method). It may indicate some important physical process which we are not accounting for. There are non-consilient indicators: 1. C14 dating 2. biological dating 3. erosion dating 4. faint young sun paradox (not withstanding the link provided by VJTorleys) 5. genetic entropy and the rapid extinction of species observed in the present day YECs have found C14 in diamonds. Also helium diffusion conflicts with certain dates: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm These are real anomalies that should not be dismissed out of hand. YEC has its challenges, but so do the old-fossil theories. Here is another anomaly:
Helium-3 (3He). 3He is apparently produced only by nuclear reactions, so why is so much of it inside the earth, and why does the ratio of 3He to 4He vary so widely inside the earth? Walter Brown
Brown describes how mainstream theories try to account for this:
The earth grew and evolved by meteoritic bombardment. Therefore, 3He must have been produced in outer space and brought to the earth as it evolved by meteoritic bombardment. [Response: Never explained is how helium, a light, inert gas, could have been trapped in meteoritic material or in a supposedly molten earth, where it would bubble to the surface. Even if helium became trapped in an evolving earth, why would the ratio of 3He to 4He vary so widely from location to location? One theory, which has gained little support, claims that a natural uranium reactor, 5 miles in diameter, has been operating at the center of the earth for 4.5 billion years. The lighter fission products from that reactor, such as 3He, supposedly migrated up 4,000 miles, primarily through solid rock. One problem with this idea is that any 3He produced near a neutron source would readily absorb a neutron and become 4He. The hypothetical reactor would itself provide those neutrons, as would any fissioning material (such as uranium or thorium) near the 3He’s 4,000-mile upward path. Likewise, 3He atoms that somehow fell to the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago would have to avoid free neutrons for a long time.]
What was one reason I began to suspect special creation of planets. It was a book written by someone defending solar system evolution. Every chapter ended with: "this is major unsolved problem". It wasn't the sort of problem that implied future discoveries would solve the problem, but one of a problem in principle for evolutionary mechanisms. I thought creationists were exaggerating the problems until I read that book! The book was: Solar System Evolutionscordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PST}

Sal, I think this is an interesting discussion, but not for the same reasons you do. Although I think all of the foundational arguments for ID are deeply flawed most ID advocates are very knowledgable and have a great deal of rhetorical skill. This makes their arguments fun and challenging to refute. This is not the case with the discussion above. Many opponents of ID claimed that the Dover decision was the ‘death knell’ of ID. I, on the other hand, think ID is thriving. I remember in the early years of ID how cautious IDers were in what they claimed. In recent years they’ve thrown caution to the wind. Not only are we hearing sophisticated versions of standard creationist argument on the age of the earth (or fossils in this post), the second law of thermodynamics, common descent etc but many IDer are making much less effort to hide their religious motivations…and there are routine posts on this blog that with a snarky tone attack science in general or ‘know-it-all’ scientists. I take this as a sign that IDer have been emboldened by confidence. The culture has become somewhat receptive to ID, even if scientists continue to ignore it. RW
Thank you for sharing your perspective and your civil tone. I do not think the ID side is so much winning as much as there is polarization. The middle ground is disappearing, namely the Theistic Darwinists. It's not just about theology, but the general prejudice to non-conformist ideas. I recall the atheist Boltzmann committed suicide because he championed atomic theory. What a tragedy.... Even if creation and ID are false, it does not make existing evolutionary theories correct. Part of the emboldening of the ID and YEC community has been dissent in secular quarters from the Big Bang to basic physics to geology to even basic biology (like the question of Junk DNA and conflicting phylogenies) and emergence of anomalous data in the geological record. I don't really see the theists winning the cultural war. Most creationists I talk to feel we live in an increasingly post-Christian culture while at the same time they feel new data are strengthening their empirical case.scordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST}

Phinehas, Did you just tell RodW that his post was clever-sounding bull****? If so, then I think it was done with a great deal of rhetorical skills. :)Collin_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST}

RodW: I found your post #100 written with a great deal of rhetorical skill.Phinehas_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST}

Sal, I like this thread and I hope to see more like it. It is the controversial ideas and the "what-ifs" that are fun. But I also really like the occassional thread returning to the basics. For sample, I really liked this post which has a video of Michael Behe that goes over a lot of the basis for ID that I had forgotten about: https://uncommondescent.com/news/video-evidence-of-design-from-biology-a-presentation-by-dr-michael-behe-at-the-university-of-toronto/ I also really liked this sophisticated summary of ID that kairosfocus did. It got 284 posts so you know people are interested. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/optimus-replying-to-kn-on-id-as-ideology-summarises-the-case-for-design-in-the-natural-world/Collin_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST}

Sal, I think this is an interesting discussion, but not for the same reasons you do. Although I think all of the foundational arguments for ID are deeply flawed most ID advocates are very knowledgable and have a great deal of rhetorical skill. This makes their arguments fun and challenging to refute. This is not the case with the discussion above. Many opponents of ID claimed that the Dover decision was the 'death knell' of ID. I, on the other hand, think ID is thriving. I remember in the early years of ID how cautious IDers were in what they claimed. In recent years they've thrown caution to the wind. Not only are we hearing sophisticated versions of standard creationist argument on the age of the earth (or fossils in this post), the second law of thermodynamics, common descent etc but many IDer are making much less effort to hide their religious motivations...and there are routine posts on this blog that with a snarky tone attack science in general or 'know-it-all' scientists. I take this as a sign that IDer have been emboldened by confidence. The culture has become somewhat receptive to ID, even if scientists continue to ignore it. RWRodW_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST}

RodW, Thank you for your comment. Sal =============================================== This raises an interesting discussion, I'd like UD readers to offer their opinion whether they like discussions like this at UD. We could of course go back to the "Darwin is wrong" postings of the last 8 years, or have a little more variety like this discussion. The "Darwin is wrong" discussions are just getting too repetitive. 8 years and 10,000 threads? I like talking about physics and chemistry. I find evolutionary biology a bit tiresome. Even if the YEC ideas are wrong, the questions raised make us think. For example, the question of distant starlight was interesting. It at least explores how we know things are far away and what data there is to argue for and against the constancy of the speed of light. I find this far more compelling than criticizing phylogenies that can't be resolved even by evolutionary biologists. I really find little to learn by learning more about the fossil Lucy. If that's your cup of tea, that's fine, but I much rather talk about physics and chemistry and non-evolutionary biology (like molecular biology). So if you like these discussions, speak up. I also mention this is that there is another website that is really pure ID, namely EvolutionNews.org by the discovery institute. UD needs to differentiate itself a little from that very excellent venue... We could always go back to "natural selection fails" type posts for the next several thousand threads.scordova_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST}

Sal, I'll answer your question directly: If 'all' the fossils, including the precambrian were shown to be less than 50,000 years old then yes, evolution couldn't possibly have happened. Then ID and special creation ( which are pretty much the same thing) would start to look much better. I'm not sure what form this revelation would take; what kind of evidence could demonstrate this because whatever it would be it would also have to explain away the mountain of mutually supportive evidence that the fossils are old.RodW_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST}

vj #92 It is always a relief to see something written by you. If you look at your assertions (a) through (d) they all about the difficulties of unguided processes – there is nothing about the ease or difficulty of guided processes. That is what I mean by ID being to too vague. There is no way to examine to the ease or difficulty of the hypothesis.
I would disagree with your statement that CSI/FCSI is just “short hand for current chance explanations don’t work.” It actually says something about probabilities of unguided processes in Nature. What it says is that for the simplest biologically functional molecules, the principle of indifference holds in Nature (think of amino acids and proteins). And what the stronger version of ID says is that there are certain kinds of biological information (codes and programs) that unguided natural processes are incapable of generating, even over eons of time.
Again your whole paragraph is about CSI measuring the difficulties of unguided processes.
You fault Intelligent Design because it is “not interested in how or when.” I don’t think that’s a sufficiently strong objection, as it assumes that the Designer is an entity like ourselves.
If design is so open as to include a process that is utterly incomprehensible in principle then there is no way to know if it is operating or not. All we can do is say – “well I can’t see how any other method would do it – so it must be something incomprehensible” – in which case we might as well say it is an unguided incomprehensible process as a guided one.
I might add that your objection has the odd entailment that whereas Intelligent Design is not science, Biblical creationism could indeed be science. ….. Do I read you aright?
You do. YEC makes an absurd claim that is easily falsified but it counts as an attempt to do science.
I don’t think your mock parallel argument for a chance-based origin of life works, but not because it is too vague. Indeed, I could imagine a very good argument for a chance-based origin of life, based on the premise that chance-based Markov processes are the only processes known to be capable of generating a nested hierarchy, such as we find in living things. If that were indeed the case, it would be powerful evidence in favor of naturalism, even if it said absolutely nothing about “how” or “when.” (I have argued elsewhere, however, that there are good reasons why an Intelligent Designer not only could generate, but would generate, a nested hierarchy of living things.)
Two interesting things there. First you have started to say how the unguided process would work simply by proposing it is a Markov process which immediately opens it to evaluation. Second you then admit that an unspecified designer could produce exactly the same result (or indeed any other).
Finally, I think that the premise in your mock argument, that all known designers are complex in no way parallels the premise in the ID argument that all known unguided natural processes are incapable of generating (or very unlikely to generate) functional proteins.
I will leave the first premise for the moment. It was not central to the mock argument.Mark Frank_{August 22, 2013
August
08
Aug
22
22
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next