Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Nye-Ham and how evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field and theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Even if Ken Ham may have fumbled on presentation, the facts may show him possibly closer to the truth on some matters. Rather than focus on the immense claims that are part of most YEC models (young universe, young stars, young planets, intelligent design of life, Noah’s flood, the tower of babel, created kinds, etc.), let me focus on the question of lab and field reporting in historical geology and paleontology, and something Nye said would change his mind. He said something to the effect:

Why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers

He suggested if we found such things he might change his mind. The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!

It is true that the fossils tend to cluster in certain ways, but let me point out, even in ecosystems present today, limited sets of species tend to cluster around certain geographic areas. Some have argued that the clustering of fossils to particular “layers” (banks or strata is the better term) is due partly to eco-systems. This is sensible, and an occasional exception to a general pattern is what might be expected in the actual physical record versus the imaginary one.

So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!

Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.

We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”8

Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.9

So called age of the dinosaurs

So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras.

This would then admit the possibility at least some (not all) “old” fossils are actually young. Note, this doesn’t not necessarily refute the claim of long ages, it may only demonstrate we are hasty in our conclusions. But to say, “we possibly made a mistake, we possibly don’t know the real age” is heresy in the world of Darwin. Further:

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

Nye also asked how layers could be formed so quickly.

The following video explains why even in principle layers are unlikely to form slowly! Watch the actual lab demonstrations of fast stratification and the vizualizations. You can even see one lab experiment where layers are formed in a matter of minutes 😉 It crushes Nye’s claims about Grand Canyon formation.

In the video Dr. Julien uses the following impressive analysis using a simple physics equation

E = 7/10 m V^2

to explain sedimentary particle segregation. But you don’t need to understand the equation, you just need to watch the video. IMPRESSIVE! Physics crushes Darwinism. 😎

[youtube PL886FFE0E3EA557BE]

HT: JGuy

There you have it. Real but taboo empirical and theoretical science that you won’t get in school. Why? Evolutionism possibly poisons science in lab, field, and theory. Falsehoods are perpetuated, and truth is rarely known.

NOTES

1. Picking out only certain fossils and throwing out others in a dig site is cherry picking. This is yet another area of cherry picking in addition to one I reported on at UD earlier:
The Price of Cherry Picking for Addicted Gamblers and Believers in Darwinism

2. HT JGuy

3. See previous articles at UD that support what I laid out above:
DNA half life only 521 years, so is dino DNA and insect amber DNA young?

C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous era dates 300 million years ago

Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Astrophysics vs. Darwinists Paleontology

Collagen in Dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Falsifying Darwinism by Falsifying the Geological Column

4. CMI lists Bill Nye’s other “science lies” (Note, I’m not saying Bill is really lying, just mistaken, but “lie” rhymes with Nye:)

http://creation.com/ham-nye-debate

He said that in Kentucky, the Creation Museum stands on many layers of limestone with coral fossils. He claimed there would not be enough time in a creationist timeframe for these creatures to grow, die, and then be fossilized. However, creationist marine biologist Dr Robert Carter has addressed the existence of fossil corals.

The next argument was that there are ice cores with 680,000 layers, each formed in a summer/winter cycle. Again, he claimed that this disproves a creationist timeframe. However, creationists have also answered this, see Greenland ice cores: implicit evidence for catastrophic deposition.

He also claimed that there are trees older than a biblical timeframe allows for. However, dendrochronology is not an exact science; see plant biologist Dr Don Batten’s article on dendrochronology. Nye specifically mentioned bristlecone pines, but there is evidence that they may have more than one growth ring per year as argued at Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines.

His next challenge related to geology. He asked, if the Grand Canyon was the result of a catastrophic global flood, why are there not grand canyons everywhere? But as flood geologists have demonstrated, the Flood would have involved a number of different mechanisms at various stages as the waters drained off the continents. In fact, many erosional features are best explained by a global flood. There is a vast body of creation information in this area; we would send interested readers to our Geology Q&A page.

Nye asked a number of times, why do we not have examples of fossils mixed between layers; for instance, a mammal in trilobite layers. But to the surprise of many, ducks, squirrels, platypus, beaver-like and badger-like creatures have all been found in ‘dinosaur-era’ layers along with bees, cockroaches, frogs and pine trees. See The so-called ‘Age of Dinosaurs’ and Evolution exams and fossil fallacies.

Photos by Ian Juby
Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree Polystrate tree trunks.

Nye tried to rebut the idea that there is one human race by showing a graphic of all the different types of hominid skulls that have been discovered to argue that there was a progression in human evolution. However, we know that there is a huge amount of variability in the human race, and many of the skulls in Nye’s graphic were undoubtedly within that range. For more information about how creationists interpret this evidence, see our Anthropology Q&A.

Nye noted that there are no kangaroo fossils showing a migratory path from the Middle East to Australia. However, absent catastrophic, rapid burial, fossilization of a land creature would be a rare event; thus, lions roamed what is now Israel in historical times, but no lion fossils have ever been found there. In addition, marsupial fossils are actually a huge problem for evolutionists, because their fossils are not in Australia, but in Europe and South America. See Biogeography.

Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. Those 14,000 animals only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible.
The Ark was claimed to be too big to be made from wood, yet too small to fit all the animals required. However creationists have answered these challenges, see Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers.

Nye claims that evolutionists made the prediction that there would be an intermediate species between fish and tetrapods, and that Tiktaalik fills this gap. However, footprints from a tetrapod were found in a layer dated millions of years older than Tiktaalik, so the intermediary cannot be younger than what it gives rise to. See Is the famous fish-fossil finished?

Nye claims that sexual reproduction arose because it granted superior immunity to disease. However, an explanation of how something is beneficial is not the same as explaining how it came to be in the first place, and this is a common fallacy brought up by evolutionists. It doesn’t matter how beneficial something is, you still need a mechanism to explain how it came to be in the first place, and that is a huge problem for evolution. See Episode 5: Why Sex?

Nye seemed to misunderstand a key creationist argument when he claimed on multiple occasions (even after Ham corrected him), that creationists think that natural laws were different in the past. However, creationists actually think that natural laws are constant, but that God has intervened at various times in events that cannot be explained by uniformitarianism.

Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.

Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.

Nye appealed to distant starlight, but see How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years?

Comments
Whatho each and all. An entertaining discussion to read with many a “well I never!” moment to be had along the way. Our esteemed commenter Mapou, at #82, made a remark about pole reversals. This got me to thinking about an experiment I happened to have browsed over some time ago, which I think may even be relevant to this thread. Here is the link http://tinyurl.com/nrb6qb4
What I do know is almost all the most prominent YEC physicists accept some pole reversals and also supposed evidence for some pole reversals. Beyond that I know nothing. Sorry! But on the topic of the Earth's magnetic field, we do know it is decreasing, and possibly in a way that suggests the Earth cannot be old. Even if right, I think it is a bit too hard to tell. Forget Global Warming, Worry Magnetosphere
Earth's magnetic field has weakened by 15 per cent over the last 200 years Could be a sign that the planet's north and south poles are about to flip If this happens, solar winds could punch holes into the Earth's ozone layer This could damage power grids, affect weather and increase cancer rates Evidence of flip happening in the past has been uncovered in pottery As the magnetic shield weakens, the spectacle of an aurora would be visible every night all over the Earth
So that's all I know. PS Talk of magnetosphere catstrophes reminds me of a total aside, Carrington Flares.
On September 1–2, 1859, the largest recorded geomagnetic storm occurred. Aurorae were seen around the world, even as far south as the Caribbean; those over the Rocky Mountains were so bright that their glow awoke gold miners, who began preparing breakfast because they thought it was morning.[3] People who happened to be awake in the northeastern US could read a newspaper by the aurora's light.[5] The aurora was visible as far from the poles as Cuba and Hawaii.[6] Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases giving telegraph operators electric shocks.[7] Telegraph pylons threw sparks.[8] Some telegraph systems continued to send and receive messages despite having been disconnected from their power supplies.[9] On Saturday, September 3, 1859, the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser reported, "Those who happened to be out late on Thursday night had an opportunity of witnessing another magnificent display of the auroral lights. The phenomenon was very similar to the display on Sunday night, though at times the light was, if possible, more brilliant, and the prismatic hues more varied and gorgeous. The light appeared to cover the whole firmament, apparently like a luminous cloud, through which the stars of the larger magnitude indistinctly shone. The light was greater than that of the moon at its full, but had an indescribable softness and delicacy that seemed to envelop everything upon which it rested. Between 12 and 1 o'clock, when the display was at its full brilliancy, the quiet streets of the city resting under this strange light, presented a beautiful as well as singular appearance."[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Sal. On the topic of genealogies. Have you seen this before? I've confirmed 6 of the 10 names to be correctly transliterated. I didn't find information on the other four, yet.: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/ Hebrew English --------------- Adam Man Seth Appointed Enosh Mortal Kenan Sorrow; Mahalalel The Blessed God Jared Shall come down Enoch Teaching Methuselah His death shall bring Lamech The Despairing Noah Rest, or comfort.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
I'm not exactly an Answers in Genesis type person at the root, in terms of my belief, I'm an answers in Jesus type. That is, I came to accept Jesus as real first before accepting the rest of the Bible, and because Jesus appealed to Genesis, I accept Genesis. It began because, like a child, I called upon his name when I had nowhere else to turn, and it seemed prayers were answered. So then how do we know which Gospel is really from Jesus since, even the NT says there will be false gospels. I accept the transmitted Gospels as from God, for the reasons I've mentioned at UD. The genealogy of Christ is probably my favorite passage in the Bible because it would seem the geological record, possibly all nature seems to affirm his advent through the genealogy. We are indeed in special place in the universe living on a privileged plant in privileged time in all eternity. Nature is telling us we live in special time, and the fossil record is pointing us to Luke 3 as a special oracle. As Bill Dembski said:
Predictive prophecies in Scripture are instances of specified complexity, and signal information inputted by God as part of his sovereign activity within creation. Bill Dembski http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_actofcreation.htm
How about outrageous claims that superficially look like fables of ignorant people but end up through modern scientific discoveries thousands of years later to be true? Does that count a specified complexity? This almost as powerful as prophecy as if to say, "this outrageous claim will find confirmation in ways you never imagined." The genealogy is glossed over in church, but for me it is the central point of the Bible because it makes God real and involved in human history, not some philosophical abstraction. The events of the whole world and life seem orchestrated to point to the genealogy, and if one really wants an explanation, imho, as to why the patterns of life and the fossil record are structured in the way they are, I'd say so as to affirm the Gospel: "confirming their word with signs and wonders" and now in the present day, with empirical science.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
A recent contributor alluded to the fact that ID-Creationism needs to come to a consensus regarding 'doctrine'. I believe that a certain version of creationism is partly true (probably old earth), a certain version of evolutionism is partly true (probably teleological), and a certain version of ID is partly true (probably a mindful personal designer involved). But come to agreement of what that involvement was and to what extent. A integration of the truisms of each of these distinct disciplines is probably in order. Otherwise, we will continue to look exactly as we are- disorganized and divided, or as one contributor concluded, running a fools errand. Perhaps a forum opened on this blog may be useful in getting such an endeavor started, getting more organized, consistent, and precise in the delivery of the science and evidence of ID. I also suggest advocating evolution as evidence of design, rather than playing into the hands of the enemy by fighting against certain facts. Take evolution away from the enemy by adopting it as our principle weapon. We own it, so take what is rightly ours.littlejohn
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
I think Ian Juby discusses these in this video. They apparently have a replica of the genealogical scroll in their small museum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwCSg9MIgQY The evidences converging with the ancient Chinese are also very thought provoking if not compelling regarding the bible and historical accuracy.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
In fairness to the reader however, the Saxon genealogies would conflict with Luke's genealogies in the following way. Assuming Luke's genealogy (which correspond to 1 Chron 1 and Genesis genealogies) are a benchmark, the Saxon genealogy would have to be riddled with about 28 generation gaps from Noah to Woden! So I take that part of the genealogy from Woden and back with a grain of salt, but it would be cute if it is just a gap riddled genealogy that is essentially correct to say Woden is a descendant of Noah. What would make this credible is if the descent from Noah was part of the culture that asserted Woden's royalty, otherwise, it probably was just something a newly converted pagan monarch decided to claim by saying he was a direct descendant of Noah. But the detail that "Scef was born on the ark" suggests weakly that the claim of ancestry from Noah did not originate from Christian conversion but was embedded in the pagan culture and thus we have independent witness outside of the Bible of Noah's historicity. A Christian would say, Noah did not have a son name scef. So it seems we may have a pagan culture that has a real historical (slightly distorted) roots in Noah. It would be cute if the Saxon genealogies legitimately are born of handed down wisdom, but I wouldn't count on it.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
JGuy, I'm a professing YEC now, finally came around in November 2013. But why burden people un-necessarily with YEC, when the genealogy of Christ in Luke 3, the recency of human life is central issue. I would hate that someone hung up on the distant starlight issue causes him to dismiss evidence of the recency of humanity and the fact it affirms the gospel of Luke. I propose OLD EARTH RECENT FLOOD (not even recent life) as a model to help learn the facts so that people are not so put off by other complications and reading of the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Genesis 10, the table of Nations cannot, to my mind be read allegorically. But something cute, maybe not a great proof, but would be amusing if true would be the fact that some wanting to affirm their royalty seem quite eager to preserve their royalty by appealing to their ancestry from Noah. Competing Royal lines (sometimes at war) could not have colluded to preserve their recorded family tree Noah. I speculate there are some huge gaps from Sceif to Woden, but get a load of the royal succesion (not genealogy) that traces Queen Elizabeth, Prince William (husband of Kate Middleton), all the way back to Noah. Well some of our UK and Australian associates might help fix some of the details of the way I described the succession. I'm a little confused about William the Conqueror. Any way it seems if you trace Queen Elizabeth back to William the Conqueor, you then have William succeeding (by force) the throne that was from Alfred the Great who traces all the way back to Noah. :shock: The Saxon Royal Genealogies Salscordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
“After the Flood” table of contents: http://ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.htmlJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
For any history buffs interested in the flood etc... Especially, those in the UK or Europe. There's a book by Bill Cooper called "After the Flood". You can read a copy on the following website: http://ldolphin.org/cooper/ It seeks out and documents evidences of the migration of Noah's family after the flood. Particularily, the lineage that migrated into Europe and the northern parts thereof.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Sal. What you seem to be describing, for folks not familiar with the term, is a young life creationism. That is, an old earth with young life. Is this more of your view, or are you still considering yourself towards the YEC end of things? BTW, having resourced his great materials, I'll comment j.f.y.i. that I think (though not fully certain) that Sean Pitman is a YLC.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Mapou
I am not one of those Christians who blindly worship the Bible as the inerrant word of God. That would be idolatry, in my opinion.
In a similar tone, one scholar I know of, if indeed he was a scholar, thinks this is a reason we don't have the originals. To mitigate or prevent that from happening. That is, originals would perhaps be idolized as such... missing out on the message sender for awww with the medium of the message. Not sure how to evaluate that notion - it does make some sense. But believing the bible contains God's word, and honoring that word as such, is not the same as worshiping or idolizing a book. One must obviously distinguish the source from the medium.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
scordova:
The first point is old rocks do not imply young fossils because, you can bury a live dog today in 500 million year-old rocks, it doesn’t make the dog 500 million years dead, it just kills it today. So on those terms there is not an immediate incongruity unless one wants evidence of Young Earth as well, but the question for the sake of this discussion is the age of the fossil record, not the age of the Earth.
This is a lame argument, Sal. And I won't even go into why it is lame. It should be obvious to all.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
When I came to the ID debate 13 years ago, I couldn't bear to read all the criticisms of radometric dating by YECs that read like sophistry and salesmanship. I thought it might be persuasive enough to some with no physics background, but I had a physics minor at the time to pick out flimsy arguments, and I felt some were quite flimsy. So for a season I stopped reading YEC literature altogether and focused on ID. But that changed partly because we have more data now, better methods and procedures, and good critiques are finally available. The difficulties of long-term dating cannot be completely solved, but reasonable doubt can be introduced to defend an idea of : OLD EARTH, but recent flood. That will suffice for the current discussion regarding Nye's claims about the fossil record. I'm told, with respect to layers and rocks containing fossils (not fossil-free rocks), the dominant method for dating is K/Ar dating. The first point is old rocks do not imply young fossils because, you can bury a live dog today in 500 million year-old rocks, it doesn't make the dog 500 million years dead, it just kills it today. So on those terms there is not an immediate incongruity unless one wants evidence of Young Earth as well, but the question for the sake of this discussion is the age of the fossil record, not the age of the Earth. The sword of K/Ar dating cuts both ways. C14 dating is easy to conceive of, the less of it in the fossil, the older it is. K/Ar is not so simple. Basically the more AR-40 in a sample relative to K-40, the older it is. But for starters there is simply too much AR-40 to be due to K-40 to begin with. There is no way to distinguish naturally occurring AR-40 from AR-40 that was created from K-40, in fact that assumption leads to a contradiction: Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate
2. There is far too much Ar40 in the earth for more than a small fraction of it to have been formed by radioactive decay of K40. This is true even if the earth really is 4.5 billion years old. In the atmosphere of the earth, Ar40 constitutes 99.6% of the total argon. This is around 100 times the amount that would be generated by radioactive decay over the age of 4.5 billion years. Certainly this is not produced by an influx from outer space. Thus, a large amount of Ar40 was present in the beginning. Since geochronologists assume that errors due to presence of initial Ar40 are small, their results are highly questionable.
Darwinists have said the C-14 in fossils is due to contamination. Curiously, they will desperately insist there is no possibility of contamination with AR-40! More AR-40 means higher indicated "age". Suppose a rock becomes molten and all the argon is gased out of it, surely some of the AR-40 abundant in the environment can diffuse back in. A little crack here, a little crack there in the sampled rock, and you've increased the AR-40 concentration. C-14 is not in high concentration in the atmosphere, but AR-40 is, 99.6% of AR in the air you breath is AR-40 so there is plenty of opportunity for contamination, unlike C-14. A little atmospheric C-14 in the air will not contaminate fossil samples because of the high density of a solid relative to air, but that same argument doesn't hold with AR-40, since even a little AR-40 gas can pollute a K/Ar date. How little? :-)
To get one part in 10 million of argon in a rock in a thousand years, we would only need to get one part in 10 billion entering the rock each year. This would be less than one part in a trillion entering the rock each day, on the average. This would suffice to give a rock having an average concentration of potassium, a computed potassium-argon age of over 500 million years!
You see, a little C-14 in the air won't be sufficient to contaminate a fossil sample since were are comparing highly dense C-14 in a solid to highly dense C-12 in solid. But that is not the case with Ar-40. A little AR-40 gas get in the wrong spot, and kaboom, it's 500 million years old. Another issue is that if the lava rock is cooled quickly, say by abundant water, AR-40 that was already there can get trapped and thus indicate a false age. There is a double standard in play, Darwinists will make every dubious contamination-and-alternate-mechanism for C14 presence in fossils from the Cambrian to Jurasic, but will turn a blind eye to the obvious contamination of A-40 from the air we breath and trapping mechanisms in from cooling by water. Now revisiting one question I posed earlier about long-term dates being higher the deeper we go.
In general, potassium-argon dates appear to be older the deeper one goes in the crust of the earth. We now consider possible explanations for this. There are at least a couple of mechanisms to account for this. In volcano eruptions, a considerable amount of gas is released with the lava. This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption, some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age. Thus the decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger. This could account for the observed distribution of potassium-argon dates, even if the great sedimantary layers were laid down very recently. In addition, lava emerging later will tend to be hotter, coming from deeper in the earth and through channels that have already been warmed up. This lava will take longer to cool down, giving more opportunity for enclosed argon to escape and leading to younger radiometric ages. A discussion of these mechanisms may be found at the Geoscience Research Institute site.
The rest of this material by Dr. Plaisted can be found at: Why K-Ar Dating is Inaccurate Plaisted made a defensible case for Old-Earth recent flood and combined with Sanford's work, for my personal (not scientific) interest, it supports Luke 3, and thus it would appear the fossil record affirms the Christ, it points to his advent.scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
On a tangential note, I just read the following in the Wikipedia article on Ussher's chronology (emphasis added):
By the end of the 19th century, Ussher's chronology came under increasing attack from supporters of uniformitarianism, who argued that Ussher's "young Earth" was incompatible with the increasingly accepted view of an Earth much more ancient than Ussher's. It became generally accepted that the Earth was tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of years old. Ussher fell into disrepute among theologians as well; in 1890, Princeton professor William Henry Green wrote a highly influential article in Bibliotheca Sacra entitled "Primeval Chronology" in which he strongly criticised Ussher. He concluded: We conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.[9] The similarly conservative theologian B. B. Warfield reached the same conclusion in "On The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race",[10] commenting that "it is precarious in the highest degree to draw chronological inferences from genealogical tables".
Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Box:
Mapou, you zero in on Maggie’s petty introductory talk while ignoring the important point being made in the Nature article: several properties of the solar system are undeniably young. Why ignore the real issue?
What real issue? You mean that things happened recently in the solar system and therefore the solar system is only 6000 years-old? I don't think so.
BTW you mentioned the “evidence of science” – contrary to YEC. In post #71 I have asked you what the best evidence of modern science is. Would you care to respond?
Box, I'm sorry but I will not spend my time to iterate all the overwhelming scientific evidence for an old earth. Use Google or something.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Personally, I don't trust the gospel of Luke because it looks like a forgery of the early Church. I am not one of those Christians who blindly worship the Bible as the inerrant word of God. That would be idolatry, in my opinion. The history of the Christian Church is not worthy of praise. In fact, Christianity has been extremely evil over the centuries and many of its leaders have been world class buttholes. At one point, the church was such a pain in the asteroid, they were kicked out of Avignon (France) and forced to retreat to Rome. And of course, nobody can ignore the so-called Spanish Inquisition and all the bloody religious wars of Europe. The devil has had its filthy paws in the Church from day one. The apostle Paul complained about the emissaries sent by the Jerusalem church (headed by James, the half brother of Jesus) to spy on their liberty. Paul even had a spat with none other than Peter who was being his usual hypocritical self. Afterwards, Paul kept his distance from the jackasses in Jerusalem. Good for Paul. My main concerns with the gospel of Luke is that it gives a useless (and thus highly suspect) genealogy of Jesus via Joseph who was not Jesus's father. The old testament prophecy was that the savior would be a descendent of David of the line of Judah. Luke, for some strange reason, thought that the genealogy of Joseph was important (it was not) and saw it fit to compile a list that goes all the way up to Adam whom he identifies as the son of God. I don't buy it.Mapou
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Mapou #82: That Nature article makes no sense. Geologists have known for centuries that there were many upheavals in Earth’s history over millions of years.
Mapou, you zero in on Maggie's petty introductory talk while ignoring the important point being made in the Nature article: several properties of the solar system are undeniably young. Why ignore the real issue? BTW you mentioned the "evidence of science" - contrary to YEC. In post #71 I have asked you what the best evidence of modern science is. Would you care to respond?Box
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Whatho each and all. An entertaining discussion to read with many a "well I never!" moment to be had along the way. Our esteemed commenter Mapou, at #82, made a remark about pole reversals. This got me to thinking about an experiment I happened to have browsed over some time ago, which I think may even be relevant to this thread. Here is the link http://tinyurl.com/nrb6qb4 Would anybody like to assess this article for me and judge its merits and failings? If it is accurate in its conclusions it would raise ones eyebrows right back to the occiput. I have often wished to ask about this article and lo, the scene is set to ask it. Just as Brutus said what? There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood ... and so forth. Thank youHo-De-Ho
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
An important point made by Ken was that both worldviews had the same evidence. IMHO, in the end a seeker of truth will work diligently,truthfully and honestly to interpret this evidence. Learnt a lot from posts by KF and Sal. Greatly and deeply informative! God bless!Chalciss
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Scordova #80 & #83, I'm glad I was able to help. However you have to thank Ian Juby who talks about the article at nature.com in Genesis Week Ep.23 season 2Box
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
F/N: Openings of Lk-Ac:
Luke 1 English Standard Version (ESV) Dedication to Theophilus 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly* account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty** concerning the things you have been taught.
_________ Thayer's Lexicon: * G2517 ??????? kathexes (kath-ex-ace`) adv. 1. thereafter, i.e. consecutively 2. (as a noun, by ellipsis of noun) a subsequent person or time [from G2596 and G1836] KJV: after(-ward), by (in) order Root(s): G2596, G1836 **- Original: ?????????? - Transliteration: Asphaleia - Phonetic: as-fal'-i-ah - Definition: 1. firmness, stability 2. certainty, undoubted truth 3. security from enemies and dangers, safety - Origin: from G804 - TDNT entry: 09:26,9 - Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine
Birth of John the Baptist Foretold 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah,[a] of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. 8 Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense . . .
Luke then continues at the beginning of Ac:
Acts 1 English Standard Version (ESV) The Promise of the Holy Spirit 1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach [--> thus by implication this is what he continued to do and teach through his apostles and others], 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying[a] with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” The Ascension 6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven”. . .
In short, Luke claims to be writing a two-volume, accurate, essentially consecutive history under sponsorship/commission of/ on the behalf of Theophilus; probably an eminent Roman who may here be given a pseudonym, meaning "Friend of God." The history covers the period c. 4 - 7 BC to c. 62 AD, and is focussed on Jesus as Christ come in fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, as suffering servant [in Ac 8 he makes explicit use of Isaiah 53 through judiciously chosen example, a characteristic pattern of how he teaches by example . . . ], and through him the birth and establishment of the church, from Jerusalem to Rome, with an eye onwards to Spain, where of course we find Cape Finisterre, the end of the earth. it is to be noted that his detailed, habitual accuracy on even minor matters has been repeatedly, abundantly vindicated in the teeth of the skeptical dismissals of ever so many learned critics, especially from the days of William Ramsay's archaeological investigations in Anatolia. (Read his classic, St Paul, Traveller and Roman Citizen.) I would be very slow to be dismissive of the veracity of Luke. Especially on the all too usual grounds of antisupernaturalistic prejudice and cavalier dismissiveness. KF PS: I think we may all profit by reading here on in context.kairosfocus
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
Sal. Perhaps, it satisfies my mild o.c.d., but I found myself counting that genealogy a couple weeks ago... don't ask... anyway, it's 77 generations... nice and orderly! :) One might say 78 if you count God at the start, but God is one. :D It starts with God... then Adam etc... and ends with God in the flesh (Jesus) - the Alpha and Omega form. http://www.ldolphin.org/2adams.htmlJGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
Sal: Thanks for the kind correction. Mapou: Sorry, I stand corrected - obviously - about the point on Luke being a disciple. I reacted too fast and thought I saw low hanging fruit being that it was a Gospel. This doesn't mean I have no remaining reason to think Luke's writing is not inspired. But I see why there might be contention on that with some.JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT
JGuy, Luke was not an Apostle, further he was the only Gentile God allowed to be an author of a book of the Bible. He did have a special relationship with Paul. His account was held in high, high esteem by the church. Further, the essentials of that genealogy are repeated in Matthew going back to Abraham, which is traceable to Noah via other genealogies in the Old testament aside from Genesis like 1 Chron 1:
1 Adam, Seth, Enosh; 2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; 3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
scordova
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Mapou
The problem with this is that you are taking Luke’s opinion at face value as if it were coming directly from God. How do you know that Luke was not just as mistaken/deceived as Ken Ham and the YECs?
Luke was a hand-picked by Jesus as a disciple and as one of only twelve apostles that were personally sent out by Jesus. I think it's safe to call his writing as inspired of God and true. And of course he had better information than we have. Investigate the scriptures...but keep in mind, as scripture, it is inspired of God...and causing one to question God's word was the first device used by Satan: Genesis 3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said[...]?" .... You claim to speak only your opinion, yet seem to wield that opinion as fact when you assert that Ken Ham is mistaken & deceived. Or..do you have solid evidence that Ken Ham is deceived? I realize you wrote your basis for your views earlier, but it almost all amounted to an admitted opinion... as such, I can't see that being used as evidence that Ham is deceived.
Did Luke have access to better information about the book of Genesis than you and I do? I doubt it.
Let me think.... should a person trust yours (or anyone's ) skepticism on Luke's information... or should a person trust the God of the universe that literally hand picked Luke to be one of only twelve apostles,that walk with Jesus during His ministry, that learned truth from Jesus and be sent out by Jesus, on the truth nature of Luke's writing?JGuy
February 7, 2014
February
02
Feb
7
07
2014
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Box, I posted this and mentioned you in the acknowledgments: https://uncommondescent.com/privileged-planet/nature-makes-an-id-friendly-report-on-the-solar-system-officially-its-not-yec-friendly/ Thank you. Salscordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
scordova @80, That Nature article makes no sense. Geologists have known for centuries that there were many upheavals in Earth's history over millions of years. They know about many catastrophic climate changes and pole reversals. So they certainly don't presume that things have always been the way we observe them today.Mapou
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Sal, It often happens that organic matter sinks to the bottom of a deep body of water where it can last for a very long time (centuries) because there is no oxygen at lower depths to sustain microbial life. The slow piling of sediments will eventually fossilize the organisms and, over a long time, the layers turn into solid rock. The anoxic waters in the Black Sea, for example, are known to preserve wooden artifacts such as boats and even flooded human structures for centuries. Look it up.
the son of Adam, the son of God
I suppose that you believe that this means that this Adam was the first human and thus, by counting the years of the genealogy, one can infer the age of humanity. The problem with this is that you are taking Luke's opinion at face value as if it were coming directly from God. How do you know that Luke was not just as mistaken/deceived as Ken Ham and the YECs? Did Luke have access to better information about the book of Genesis than you and I do? I doubt it. When Jesus said, "search and you shall find", he did not mean that everything was going to be handed to you on a platter. Nothing is that easy. Besides, if everything is so easy to find, why search at all?Mapou
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
Box,
Interesting article at nature.com by Maggie McKee. Excerpt: What observers see now, they presume, has been going on for billions of years — and will continue for eons to come. But observations of the distant reaches of the Solar System made in the past few years are challenging that concept ….
I'm going to post it as a separate thread. I know you said you aren't a Christian, but I hope you won't be offended if I say "God bless you" for putting me in touch with this article. Salscordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
(1)What the scripture says is certain. (2)What the evidence of science says is not certain. Therefore,
Over the years I developed a keen distrust and skepticism for religious ideas. I struggled believing the Bible, I trust facts I have access to more than extraordinary claims coming from religious institutions. Moreso when I had friends risking death to preach the gospel. I felt a moral obligation that if Bible was false, I had to find out and keep my friends for throwing their lives away for a lie. So, it was more than an intellectual curiousity for me... If I found circumstantial evidence: 1. that life needed an intelligence to bring it to life from dead chemicals 2. that the intelligence needed was almost beyond comprehension then I could believe in God. If I found reasonable evidence: 1. the gospels being faithfully transmitted from the time of Christ 2. that humanity (not necessarily the Earth or Universe) was young, then it suggests God himself was helping write the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter 3, and then I could believe in Jesus Christ. The evidence is clear to me that the human genome is slowly deteriorating and that humanity could not have been on the planet very long. Our genes are wearing out, it is blatantly obvious except to those who are blind to it. Thus I accept the gospel of Luke. In addition to this, I've sensed Jesus' work in my life and that of others. For several years, I said, there is so much about the Bible I don't understand, nor ever will understand, but if there is physical evidence that the geological column is young, or any other evidence that the planet, solar system, and beyond is young, then the Design Inference will be even more obvious than it is, and that at a personal level, God would be more real to me, and Jesus will be more real to me because it would appear so much of nature will affirm these words in Luke:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas ... 23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,[e] the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Bible Gateway, Luke 3
Those verses insufferably boring to most, are the ones I treasure, and Chapter 3 as a whole is my favorite book because it makes incredibly bold claims about physical facts, so bold and outrageous, that if the facts accord with it, it would be enough to persuade me the message came from God himself. One additional note, the first few versus relating to Tiberius Caesar combined with the book of acts converted an atheist archaeologist to Christianity, his story is here. From Wiki: Sir William Ramsey
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906. .... William Ramsay paid a lot of attention to the New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: 'Further study . . . showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement' (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, 'I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment...'
And now, we may the chance in the current day to determine if the genealogy of Jesus is attested to by nature and the geological record itself. It was at the point the circumstantial evidence, though not airtight, was too formidable to dismiss. There are a few areas that offer formidable difficulties, but on balance I the geological record for life is young. Beyond that, it takes some faith, and I could change my mind when all reasonable avenues of a solution are exhausted, but at this time, I'm accepting a coherent model is possible... A simple fact: if a given geological layer, say the Mesozoic, takes 186 million years to form, the dead creatures will become decomoposed, devoured, destroyed before they fossilize. For the fossils to be preserved, it is well acknowledge that they must be buried rapidly. For example, from the pages of Darwin loving wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
Permineralization Permineralization is a process of fossilization that occurs when an organism is buried. The empty spaces within an organism (spaces filled with liquid or gas during life) become filled with mineral-rich groundwater. Minerals precipitate from the groundwater, occupying the empty spaces. This process can occur in very small spaces, such as within the cell wall of a plant cell. Small scale permineralization can produce very detailed fossils. For permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decay process. The degree to which the remains are decayed when covered determines the later details of the fossil.
There are other fossilization mechanisms, but they also require speed, and millions of years will prevent this form happening. So like many things in the world of Darwin, obvious contradictions are ignored, and pretended to not exist, and expressions of doubt are greeted with contempt. Nye says, "how can you explain how these layers formed so quickly?" WRONG! The real question should be Mr. Bill Nye who promotes the Science Lie, "how can you explain how these layers formed so slowly since they have preserved fossils in them?"! I've never gotten a satisfactory response because maybe there isn't one, the layers had to form quickly as a matter of principle.scordova
February 6, 2014
February
02
Feb
6
06
2014
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply