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

Hi everyone, On the faint young sun paradox, the following articles may be of interest to some: Claim: Faint Young Sun Paradox solved by Anthony Watts at WUWT (July 9, 2013) A Closer Earth and the Faint Young Sun Paradox: Modi?cation of the Laws of Gravitation, or Sun/Earth Mass Losses? by Lorenzo Iorio, in arXiv:1306.3166 [astro-ph.EP]vjtorley_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

So your view is that the universe, and possibly the earth, are old, but life is young? All life? Including the microfossils trapped five million varves down in Lake Baikal?
I really don't know. I'm convinced that we ought to be willing to occasionally drop our priors and think out of the box as to whether we're right. I'm a doubting Thomas YEC. My belief level: 1. ID, almost 100% 2. special creation of humanity 99% 3. recent creation of humanity 99% 4. special creation of the first life 100% 5. recent creation of all life 90% 5. youth of fossils 80% 6. youth of the Earth 50% 7. youth of the universe 30% Numbers subject to change. The objections both you and I put forward regarding the YEC models are my root of doubts. But I hope the YECs are right. Future discoveries may change my mind. I don't defend every aspect of the YEC model even though I hope privately is true, some parts look pretty challenging... Critical analysis of evolutionary theories? That's fair game for sure. I feel comfortable offering such criticisms publicly, but my defense of YEC models is limited to the considerations laid out I the links in the OP. Thanks for answering my question in the OP, I felt it was right to answer similar questions by you.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Barb:
(2a) That the number of carbon-14 atoms has been constant; this means that the cosmic rays that form them must not have varied in the past 15,000 or 20,000 years.
This is not an assumption, and is not true. We know it is not true because of cross-checking against annual phenomena including varves, ice cores, tree rings and coral (all independent). All give the same answer for the degree of fluctuation from the mean. This means that carbon-dating can be calibrated in order to take into account these known fluctuations. But your other points are important, and must be taken into account when reaching an age estimate, as well of course as the issue of contamination. And machine background.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

So your view is that the universe, and possibly the earth, are old, but life is young? All life? Including the microfossils trapped five million varves down in Lake Baikal?Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Humbled # 24: I recognize that quote; it’s from a scientist attending a conference in Uppsala, Sweden, that focused on C-14 dating. The relatively simple theory was based on the following assumptions: (1) That carbon 14, the radioactive component of natural carbon, decays with a half-life of 5,568 years. (2) That the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to the stable carbon-12 atoms in “live” carbon has always been the same as it is today. This depends on two other assumptions (2a and 2b). (2a) That the number of carbon-14 atoms has been constant; this means that the cosmic rays that form them must not have varied in the past 15,000 or 20,000 years. (2b) Also, that the total amount of stable carbon in the “exchange reservoir” has been constant during the same time. This includes the carbon dioxide in the air, as well as the organic carbon in living things, because they are continually taking up carbon dioxide by photosynthesis and releasing it by respiration. Also, carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, where it forms carbonic acid and carbonate, which becomes mixed with the dissolved carbonate in the ocean. This process also is reversible, although it may take fifty years. Mineral carbonate in the rocks is, of course, not considered to be part of the exchange reservoir. (2c) Related to number two is the assumption that the production of carbon 14 has continued steady all this time, and this implies that its decay, on a worldwide basis, is in balance with its production. (3) That any living thing, plant or animal, incorporates radiocarbon in its tissues while it is alive; then, after its death, the activity decreases mathematically according to the natural radioactive decay; it does not pick up radiocarbon through contact with younger materials, nor lose it by exchanging atoms with older carbon. (4) That for practical use of radiocarbon dates, the sample must be contemporaneous with the event that it marks, and not something that grew a long time before. Now let us keep in mind that, if the radiocarbon clock is to give correct dates, all of the above assumptions must be true. If even one of them is untrue, the method breaks down and will not give the correct age.Barb_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Sal:
Darwinists have incentive not to do the tests.
Nobody has an "incentive" not to do an honest test. It would be stupid. Why kid yourself that the data is other than it is? And your example betrays a lack of understanding of fossilisation. Fossils are not dead organisms buried in rock. They are rock. There may be some traces of the original material of the organism, but most of the form of a fossil is the same stuff as the surrounding rock. It all has the same date. And we can date that rock. What we can't do is date it by carbon dating, because the rock is far too old. Any C14 in that rock will be contamination. We know that because it will be at constant background levels. We can date it by radiometric dating (not carbon dating) on higher and lower igneous layers. And that dating shows the layers containing dinosaur fossils is far older than anything measurable by C14 methods. Your attempts to find holes in dating methods is wishful thinking, Sal. Palaeontologists are honest, as are geologists. All measurement systems have their limitations and C14 is one of them. It can only be used for samples less than 50,000 years old, and because it measures atmospheric C14, and because CO2 is a soluble gas anything wet by rainwater will have background levels of C14, even if the bulk of the carbon contains none. Plus, C14 is produced at a slow background rate from Nitrogen in the ground, just as it is in the upper atmosphere. So C14 will always be present at background rates. If dating methods are used inappropriately they will give erroneous answers. This doesn't mean they aren't reliable - it means that in order for them to give reliable answers the methodology has to be very careful.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

The Lake Baikal varves go down for 5 million years. There are fossils in those 5 million year old layers. How would you start to account for that?
Irrelevant, assume it's 5 million years old, it doesn't mean the dinosaurs are 65 million years old nor the carboniferous layer is 300,000,000 years old. Thanks, however for the other data points and giving the argument your best shot. The readers need to have each side of the argument represented as well possible. Thanks for the effort.
What is “biological dating”? What is “erosion dating”? As for the “faint young sun” paradox; given the really overwhelming and consilient evidence from independent sources for the age of the earth and solar system, the first thing to look for is an alternative explanation, and there are many possible explanations.
DNA and amino acids have half-lives in certain characteristics. Amino acids for various proteins will racemize over time. Even if the half-life is variable, if we assume even the most favorable conditions, the racemization cannot be arrested. Similar consideration with depurination of DNA. Erosion, measured erosion rates are inconsistent with the Phanerozoic even existing, with an erosion rate of 6cm per 1000 years, the layers would have been erased even within a few million years. The faint young sun pardox remains, even Nature reported it. If the Earth was an iceball, no life, much less a Cambrian explosion. The links I provided go into a bit more detail with some details in the comment section.
But perhaps the simplest single piece of evidence that the universe is old is the evidence from the supernova SN1987A. But that’s only one. There are so many, and it’s the consilience between so many independent sources that is so striking.
You're conflating fossil ages with age of the universe, this is illogical and a non-sequitur. If the universe is old, it doesn't imply a living organism is old nor does it imply a fossil is old. Even I pointed out evidences supportive of an Old Universe here: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism/distant-starlight-the-thorn-in-the-side-of-yec-can-there-be-a-middle-ground/ Am I saying the fossils are necessarily young. Let's for the sake of argument say they are old, the problem here is that the questions put on the table haven't been properly addressed, they are dismissed out of hand. That is wrong. Its a matter of due process as well... We won't settle the issue in the course of this thread, but I will say, I was a convinced Old Earth Creationist 10 years ago, as of now, I don't think any idea about origins is settled science... And look at it from my perspective, my friends and associates have been genuinely harmed by the establishment. Even myself, its a matter of public record, attempts to have me expelled from grad school were being plotted at Wesley Elsberry's website. I was invited to join Robert Marks, and then I witness the abuse he suffered. Doesn't exactly make me feel the mainstream narrative is supported with unbiased, dispassionate, impartial institutions. Sorry, it doesn't look incontrovertible, actually the opposite -- more like active suppression of reasonable skepticism.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Sal
Exactly. Elizabeth cited C14 confirms Varves are young, but the same test run on coal, oil, dinosaurs — if it indicates youth, it must be a contamination error. Double standards a plenty!
No, there are absolutely no double standards here, Sal. And you are accusing an entire profession of systematic incompetence and dishonest here. All measurement systems have to be calibrated. The lake varves can be aged by simple counting - a year per varve. We know they are laid down annually because we can watch them being laid down, and we can also observe evidence of volcanic eruptions, independently historically recorded, by eye witnesses, at the right layers. And we can also carbon date them. The carbon dates using a constant assumption for atmospheric C14 give slightly erroneous dates, as checked against varve counts. Why? Well, possibly because CO14 levels fluctuate slightly. How to test this? See if other annual phenomenon show the same fluctuations. They do. So we can calibrate C14 measures against independently aged sources (corals, tree rings etc). And then they match up perfectly. So we know it is reliable. But it is only ever as reliable as the methodology used to purify the sample. Obviously. So if a piece of ancient coal is wet, and the water contains carbonic acid, as much groundwater does, then modern atmospheric carbon will be found in the coal. Giving an erroneous date. So just as with the varve dating, scientists have to be very careful to measure properly and allow for measurement error due to contamination, just as they allowed for measurement error due to non-constant C14 levels. You, and I've seen other creationists do the same, seem to think that scientist just gaily chuck out data that doesn't fit. It doesn't work that way. We don't get to ignore data we don't like. But if a datapoint doesn't fit a pattern (is an "outlier") then we don't just dismiss it - we have to find out why. The principle is: something that we have not modeled is affecting this sample - what is it? Sometimes it is simply an error in data entry. Sometimes it's contamination. Sometimes it's something really interesting. But you have to find out what it is. What you don't do is throw out your original model. You find out why this piece doesn't fit the model. And if it's contamination, then you revise your methodology so as to avoid, or adjust accurately for, contamination.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Sal:
And if C14 is reliable, it shows dinosaurs are young, and the entire carboniferous layer for that matter.
No, read the context. What I mean is that calibration of CO14 by annual data from independent sources means that we have a reliably calibrated scale that takes account of periodic fluctuations in atmospheric CO14 It doesn't show the dinosaurs are young, nor that the carboniferous layer is young, because however well calibrated your scale it's not going eliminate the kind of background noise we see in, say, coal. Wet coal will contain some modern carbon. That's why you have to take a cross-checking approach to dating, and be aware of noise sources.
Again, we don’t even need to assume the Earth is young to make this argument. We can assume for the sake of argument the Earth is old and so are the rocks, but that doesn’t mean the fossils are old.
Sal, you are clutching at straws. The Lake Baikal varves go down for 5 million years. There are fossils in those 5 million year old layers. How would you start to account for that? Just because some dating methods can give wildly discrepant dates is not a reason to reject the dating methods. All measurement techniques come with measurement error and confounds, especially contamination and background noise. I realise you are unconvinced that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is old, but I think that is because you have been reading some very unreliable and highly biased sources. I've read some of those sources, and some of them are frankly dishonest (AiG for instance). The genetic entropy story is easily shown to be based on misunderstandings of sources and in any case is self-contradictory (why aren't mice extinct? Why is the human population exploding?) What is "biological dating"? What is "erosion dating"? As for the "faint young sun" paradox; given the really overwhelming and consilient evidence from independent sources for the age of the earth and solar system, the first thing to look for is an alternative explanation, and there are many possible explanations. But perhaps the simplest single piece of evidence that the universe is old is the evidence from the supernova SN1987A. But that's only one. There are so many, and it's the consilience between so many independent sources that is so striking.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Hi Mark Frank, Regarding your assertion (#16) that "'design' is far too generic to count as an explanation", what level of detail do you think is required for something to count as a legitimate explanation? Do you have a list of criteria?vjtorley_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

So far the answers to the question: 1. Mark Frank: No 2. Elizabeth: don't know since she believes the fossils are incontrovertibly old I'd like to thank them both for their response, other evolutionists are welcome to respond. Thanks again Mark and Elizabeth.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Huh?
Exactly. Elizabeth cited C14 confirms Varves are young, but the same test run on coal, oil, dinosaurs -- if it indicates youth, it must be a contamination error. Double standards a plenty!scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

I came across this piece many years ago. It turned my world, at least what I thought I knew about the world on its head. In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words: "C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ." Huh?humbled_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Get everyone together go get samples test the damn things and record the level of accuracy and be done with it. This debate can be put to rest within days.
Darwinists have incentive not to do the tests. Reported examples: Jack Horner even after an $20,000 "bribe" to do an honest C14 test: https://uncommondescent.com/news/icc-2013-creationist-bob-eynart-attempts-to-bribe-darwinist-jack-horner/ With respect to the entire Carboniferous layer (oil and coal deposits throughout the world) there isn't even question there is C14 that is there, which indicates much of the layer is 50,000 years old or less versus 300,000,000 years.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

So we know we can rely on carbon dating, which
And if C14 is reliable, it shows dinosaurs are young, and much of the carboniferous layer for that matter. Another issue is the persistence of biotic material. The proteins are not fully racemized and the DNA's are depurinated. The photos by Armitage only reinforce what has been published elsewhere, the fossils look young.
Life’s too short to be skeptical about things that are demonstrable far beyond reasonable doubt.
I do not agree it is beyond reasonable doubt that the fossils are that old (like dinos that 65 million years old).
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 an entire geological layer (the carboniferous), not just isolated instances. Every dino fossil tested for C-14 by one creationist group indicates C-14. Why isn't the secular world doing this! Talk about closing ones eyes to maintain a paradigm. How about the insects in amber or any other fossil for that matter. Research into the question isn't being done because of exactly the presumption of "beyond reasonable doubt". Reasonable doubt may become obvious truth if one is willing to follow the evidence where it leads, but we won't have evidence if don't even want to look. The old age of fossils disconfirmed by: 1. C14 dating 2. biological dating 3. erosion dating 4. faint young sun paradox 5. genetic entropy and the rapid extinction of species observed in the present day What do Darwinists have in the favor for the time of death being 10s of millions of years? Igneous rock and sedimentary rock? I showed the illogic of using old rocks to date biological tissues : a live dog today buried in 65 million-year-old rock does not imply the dog died 65 million years ago. It's illegitimate reasoning.... The one piece of evidence you cited was Varves and you affired C14 works within the 50,000 year time frame. Saying C14 is reliable actually supports the case for recency of the time of death for fossils. Again, we don't even need to assume the Earth is young to make this argument. We can assume for the sake of argument the Earth is old and so are the rocks, but that doesn't mean the fossils are old. I know we'll disagree, but its a conversation that needs to happen. I respect your attempts to quell doubts, but I was an Old Earth Creationist until I began to consider the data.... Thanks for your response. The readers need to be appraised of how credible the claim of old-age fossils really is.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Why can't this just be simple? It is or it isn't. Get everyone together go get samples test the damn things and record the level of accuracy and be done with it. This debate can be put to rest within days.humbled_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

lifepsy
Don’t you mean the data always supports an old earth, except when it doesn’t, and in those cases it’s error/contamination/anomaly. (or “results we could not fathom as a possibility, yet *must* occur over millions of years because we know evolution/geologic time is a fact,fact,fact.”) Such as the extent of organic preservation in dinosaur fossils.
No, lifespy, I meant exactly what I said. Clearly there are anomalous data points, and those need to be investigated. Contamination is a possible cause, as are calibration errors. But it is not the case that such data points are simply thrown out without investigation. Nor would it be sensible in anycase to throw out an entire consilient model because of one datapoint that doesn't fit. 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.
When have evolutionists ever stepped back and honestly asked whether or not their theory of time is correct? We all know that to even whisper such a thing would be an utter blasphemy, and we also know that your church of darwinian mysticism will never, ever, be forthcoming about the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your logic and methodology. You will keep repeating this mantra: “All the data corroborate each other. There are no problems.”, that evolutionists have always said about everything even though such a claim is blatantly false. What skeptical person can take you guys seriously any longer?
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. They can be carbon dated, and the carbon dates corroborate the counts. Not only that but specific layers can be correlated with historical accounts of volcanic events, for example. And that that slight fluctuations in atmospheric CO14 levels inferred from the matching of count years to date years match the fluctuations observed in other independent annual phenomena, including ice cores, coral and tree rings. 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. And each layer contains billions of microfossils. So that alone is a set of consilient independent data that shows that life is millions of years old, falsifying YEC. Other consilient data show that it is billions of years old. So it is true that people who accept an old earth don't regularly wonder whether it's young, any more than people who accept a spherical earth regularly wonder whether it is flat. Life's too short to be skeptical about things that are demonstrable far beyond reasonable doubt.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Liddle,
I think what you are missing here Sal is the consilience of the models that make up the old-earth old-universe model. They corroborate each other. They make predictions about each other that are subsequently confirmed by new data.... the data all, intercorroboratively, indicate the standard timeline for the universe, the earth, and the origins of life.
Don't you mean the data always supports an old earth, except when it doesn't, and in those cases it's error/contamination/anomaly. (or "results we could not fathom as a possibility, yet *must* occur over millions of years because we know evolution/geologic time is a fact,fact,fact.") Such as the extent of organic preservation in dinosaur fossils. When have evolutionists ever stepped back and honestly asked whether or not their theory of time is correct? We all know that to even whisper such a thing would be an utter blasphemy, and we also know that your church of darwinian mysticism will never, ever, be forthcoming about the weaknesses and inconsistencies in your logic and methodology. You will keep repeating this mantra: "All the data corroborate each other. There are no problems.", that evolutionists have always said about everything even though such a claim is blatantly false. What skeptical person can take you guys seriously any longer?lifepsy_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

"was" not "wash"Collin_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Mark, I think you make a very interesting point. To answer you question, yes, I would, if I were shown something that truly appears to produce a random result. In Physical Science 101 I wash told that an electron's position is random.Collin_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

#9 Collin
Do you mean that ID-ers rely on the unlikelihood of evolution to show design?
I do believe this - but it is not exactly what I meant in #2. I mean't simply that "design" is far to generic to count as an explanation. Would you accept "chance" as an explanation of a phenomenon?Mark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

#5 Phineas
Follow up question: If fossils are actually young, would you find Darwinism less believable?
Yes. Famously Darwin himself doubted his theory because Kelvin seemed to show that the earth must be too young (later Kelvin was shown to be wrong because he did not know about radioactivity). Incidentally this demonstrates a) Darwinism is falsifiable b) Darwinism making a major prediction in the face of current science which turned out to be rightMark Frank_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Radiometric dating is used to data igneous rock, from which lower and higher sedimentary rock can be dated
Radiometric dating can be applied to fossil tissues in addition to rocks, particularly the use of C-14, which indicates: 1. dino fossils are young 2. carboniferous layer (300 million years ago) is young 3. who knows what else, because no one is bothering to actually try to date fossils that old (Jack Horner is a good example).scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Radiometric dating is used to data igneous rock, from which lower and higher sedimentary rock can be dated
Dates of rocks don't imply fossils are old any more than if I buried a dog today in 65 million year old rocks would imply the dog died 65 million years ago. That is a non-sequitur.scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Sal
Empirically the fossils look young by: 1. radiometric dating 2. biological decay dating 3. erosion dating
No, they don't. Radiometric dating is used to data igneous rock, from which lower and higher sedimentary rock can be dated. These give unambiguous ages for sedimentary fossil-bearing layers that are millions of years old. And that is only one of countless corroborative pieces of evidence that indicate that living things have been around for more than 3 billion years. Finding the odd fossil that is younger than the youngest known population doesn't do anything to alter the evidence for the age of the earth or the timeline of living things, whatever you think of the role of an IDer in guiding evolution.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Saying: what if all the fossils were young? is like saying: what if everything we knew was wrong? It’s impossible to answer. I have no idea what I’d think. But I don’t have to because the data all, intercorroboratively, indicate the standard timeline for the universe, the earth, and the origins of life. YEC is simply wrong. ID may be true, but YEC clearly is not.
Thank you for responding but the question of "the time of death (or date of death)" is not strictly a YEC question. YEC can false but the fossils could be young. Jack Horner's interview was symbolic of the fact, indeed everything we presumed about the age of fossils could be wrong. This is a Skeptical question after all, and it should be welcomed.
But I don’t have to because the data all, intercorroboratively, indicate the standard timeline for the universe, the earth, and the origins of life.
But this isn't a time line for the universe, Earth, and OOL, it is a timeline question for the Phanerozoic. The timeline for Universe and Earth could be true but the timeline for the Phanerozoic wrong. I couch the argument that way so as to focus on what I believe is not incontrovertible evidence! Empirically the fossils look young by: 1. radiometric dating 2. biological decay dating 3. erosion dating I would have suspected something was up given Jack Horner's interview by Bob Enyart. The illusion of incontrovertibility can be sustained to some degree by active suppression of dissent such as that offered by Mark Armitage and others. I have to respectfully disagree and say that the interpretation of old fossils is not incontrovertible. Shouldn't a skeptic be a little reluctant to say an idea about pre-history is incontrovertible?scordova_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
Follow up question: If fossils are actually young, would you find Darwinism less believable?
Depends what you mean by "Darwinism". We can observe Darwinist processes taking place in real time, so we know they work. And Common Descent is extremely well supported. But if the earth is only 50,000 years old, virtually everything we know about physics and chemistry is wrong, so essentially the whole of science would be up for grabs. However, there is no evidence that the earth is only 50,000 years old, and if a fossil is found to be younger that previously thought, that is not an issue in itself at all. After all, there are living organisms that are largely unchanged, at least outwardly, from their[putative] ancient ancestors. If a plesiosaur actually turned up in Loch Ness that wouldn't falsify Darwinian evolution at all. It would be cool though.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Mark, Do you mean that ID-ers rely on the unlikelihood of evolution to show design? Scordova, You seem to know something special about David Coppedge. lifepsy, I completely agree. I had a friend who had a degree in geology. When arguing evolution with me he said, "You don't know what time can do." I thought he should just say "with Time all things are possible" and open a new church, if you catch my drift.Collin_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Sal:
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?”
This is a very odd question Sal. For a start, if a fossil were younger than previously thought, all it would tell us is that the populations had lasted for longer than previously thought. But it would depend on why the age was revised - because the strata it was found in had been redated? Or because it was realised to be an out-of-place fossil (a rabbit that had died in a hole in Cambrian rock, for instance). or do you mean if all the fossils were found to be young? In that case you are presumably suggesting that all the rocks in which they are found are young too? Well, that would certainly cause me to revise almost everything I know about the way the world works, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology as well as biology. But what if they gave the same answer as they always did? Well, I guess I'd conclude that whoever had redated the strata had got something seriously wrong. I think what you are missing here Sal is the consilience of the models that make up the old-earth old-universe model. They corroborate each other. They make predictions about each other that are subsequently confirmed by new data. Saying: what if all the fossils were young? is like saying: what if everything we knew was wrong? It's impossible to answer. I have no idea what I'd think. But I don't have to because the data all, intercorroboratively, indicate the standard timeline for the universe, the earth, and the origins of life. YEC is simply wrong. ID may be true, but YEC clearly is not.Elizabeth B Liddle_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Geologic Time is more important to Evolution than any kind of theory of supposed biological driving mechanisms. It is absolutely unacceptable to consider that it may be incorrect. They will give up everything before they give up the time. Meanwhile their primary methodology for determining geologic ages is based on processes that have been empirically demonstrated to produce wildly inaccurate results. Nuclear Chemistry PhD Dr. Jay Wile on the problems with radiometric dating http://kgov.com/jay-wile-phd-in-nuclear-chemistry-on-radiometric-datinglifepsy_{August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply