From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Species and creation
Topics:
}No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today.
}Slight variation can't turn one kind into another.
}Just because two animals LOOK similiar does not mean there is "common ancestor
}Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear
}Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed.
}The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe.
}"impossible gulfs"
}The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.
}No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
}The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve
}Many species have remained absolutely fixed throughout geologic time.
}A great many modern species are very evident degenerate
}All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record.
}Selection cannot change the frequency of variants
----------------------------------------------------------------------
==* NO_NEW_SPECIES SPECIES SPECIATION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the
United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within
a few decades their populaltions expanded and began to encounter one another
in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied
interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in
the late Fourties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman,
Washington. Although the new species were similliar in appearance to the
hybrids, they pproduced fertile offspring. The evollutionary proces
had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with
the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of
_Scientific_American_. It's called "A Breed Apart."
It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly,
Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn
tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn
apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began
infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed
on either apples or thorn apples, but not both.
There's enough evidence to convince the scientific
investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action.
Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that
speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them
otherwise.
In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived
and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller
and more lightly colored than the Aussie wallabies. They eat Hawaiian plants
that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies, because they evolved a new liver
enzyme to detoxify them. They can no longer breed with the Australian
wallabies, so they qualify as a new species. [Note - the science digest
reference does not indicate that they can no longer breed, although another
reference I have examined indicates that wallabies under similar situations
often do. Anybody got the ref for this specific case? - Max G. Webb]
Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
How can you say that no new species have arisen when dozens of previously
undiscovered species are found each year in Costa Rica alone?
Also, isn't the latest evidence that maize evolved about 4000 years ago?
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Just a smattering of a HUGE database of articles:
(1991 only)
1) Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization
in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume
68(8), pages 1747-1760.
2) Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism,
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
3) Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogony, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal
of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
4) Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric,
speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate-
gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.
5) Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination
of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum-raphanifolum, Evolution,
Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.
6) Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated
introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisana Irises, P-NAS-US,
Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.
7) Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation
and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi
superspecies, in Isreal, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
.... on and on to about #50 if you like...
There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my
database....
==!
==* LIMITS VARIATION KIND
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- Slight variation can't turn one kind into another. "One lion may be fitter
} than another lion, but ... all his offspring will still be lions."
What is a "kind"?
==!
==* COMMON_ANCESTOR SIMILARITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}Just because two animals LOOK similiar does not mean there is "common
} ancestory"
The interesting point is that, when checked, there IS.
Genetic comparisons reveal (objectively) a kinship where it was before
predicted on evolutionary grounds.
I believe the error rate is less than 1%. What is facinating
about the comparisons of the numbers of genes shared between
species is that when you draw a genetic tree of what species
are related to what, it looks almost identical to the tree
drawn by anthropologists who make their tree based on comparisons
of morphology (humans look more like chimps than turtles therefore
chimps are more closely related). This is the beauty of science that
a hypothesis (relatedness of species) is shown by two completely
differing mechanisms just as the age of artifacts can be
determined by rock layers (those on top are newer) and carbon
and other radioactive dating techniques.
How is this done?
In brief: DNA similarity is measured by mixing fragments of DNA from
the two species and measuring the thermal stability of the resulting
hybrid molecules, which is proportional to the degree of matching.
It can be calibrated by using DNAs of known composition, for example
the genomes of completely sequenced viruses. Accuracy is limited by
the ability to measure the melting temperature and by the slight
difference in stability between A-T base pairs and C-G ones. There
has been heavy theoretical debate (ending in an amazing shouting
match at a meeting last summer, alas--I was there, and it was embarrasing)
about whether the method is accurate enough to resolve the chimp/
human/gorilla trichotomy.
DNA similarity does measure overall composition, and two organisms
could be very different morphologically while still having high DNA
similarity (indeed, chimps and humans are much more dissimilar than
most pairs with the same DNA distance). However, overall composition
is probably a better guide to relatedness than specific genes, which
are likely to be under different selection in humans and chimps.
What is the noise, and what is the signal? "Junk" DNA is the most
useful for determining phylogeny, because it is more likely to
evolve in a gradual time-dependent fashion. Coding and controlling
regions are interesting in that they tell us about the differences.
==!
==* REGRESSION RECESSIVE APE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear, and thus we
} should expect humans with characteristics of apes.
They do. Tails, for instance.
And other "ape" traits that happen to also be "human traits".
Like toes, body hair, simian crease (XRHAH@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov for
instance),...
This disregards the basic mechenisms of natural selection and
genetics. It makes the wrong assumption that ape-like
characters are recessive and that all of the traits in the
ancestor population are present but usually unexpressed in the
supposed descendant population. Neither idea is true.
==!
==* HYBRID INFERTILITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed.
Hybrids are often not fertile or robust. They may be desirable to
man if man amde, but they may not succeed in an evolutionary
sense.
The premise is incorrect. First, what is meant by "hybrid" is unclear
in this context - is it a hybrid only if it is infertile? And even in
those cases in which the offspring is usually infertile, that is not
always the case. As witnessed the horse and the donkey.
==!
==*
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- There exist "impossible gulfs" between animal/vegetable,
} invertebrate/vertibrate, marine animals/amphibians, amphibians/reptiles,
} reptiles/birds, reptiles/mammals, mammals/humans.
} Eight impossible gulfs:
Impossible to find gulfs.
} 1) Between the living and non-living or dead matter;
This is the abiogenesis debate.
The rest is a taxinomy of man with the similarity argument turned
into the gaps argument. Is the glass half empty or half full?
What is this gulf? I have yet (despite looking and asking many) found it at all,
let alone found it to be an impossible gulf.
The spectrum between clearly living and singular elementary particles
is wide, and not linear (few things really are) but it appears to be
continuous.
}} 2) Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;
Animal cells have some similarity with plant cells, and indeed there
are forms, euglena, with cloroplasts and flagellae, that look like
intermediates. Cells from both kingdoms are eukeryots that are distinct from other cell types belonging to at least three other kingdoms.
There are quite a few plant/animals in the same creature. Most microscopic
because a plant doesn't collect enough energy to be mobile in large scale.
But there are plenty of small ones.
What is a euglena? And where do protista & viri fit in here?
} 3) Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;
The vetebrates are biochemically closest to the echinodermata, and
urochordates. The free swimming soft chord animals are similar to
the sessile forms.
See also sharks and squids.
} 4) Between marine animals and amphibians;
A steady change from fish to lobefined air breathing fish to amphibians with fish like larval stages can be observed in extant species
and in the fossil record.
See also mudpuppies and frogs. An amphibian that never leaves the water is a
marine animal. This gulf is not only impossible, it is non-existant.
} 5) Between amphibians and reptiles;
Amphibians predate reptiles in the fossil record. The development
of the amneonic egg, with shell and the difference in the skin of
extant reptiles and amphibians suggests that the reptilian characters
were adaptaions developed on amphibian ancestors. The time in
the fossil record when the reptiles became important was one when
amphibian habitats were being reduced and when reptiles could have
succeeded on drier continents.
What is this gulf, and what was a dinosaur? (warning: trick question!
Specifically what is the impossible gulf between, for instance, a salmander
and a chamelion?
} 6) Between reptiles and birds;
The ornithischia, with bird-like pelvises appeared before the modern
birds, whch began to appear in Cretaceous time. Intermediates are
known.
} 7) Between reptiles and mammals;
The therapsida in permean time, Mammal-like reptiles appear before
the first mammals, but intermediate forms are known, and a fairly
complete record of the changes in the facial bones between these
reptiles and true mammals is known from Permean time. Does anyone
know if mammalian dentition is documented into this time. Did the
Therapsida have differentialted dentition?
} 8) Between mammals and the human body;
The distinguishing characteristic of living MAMMALS is lactation.
Despite the invention of baby bottles, human females still lactate.
==!
==*
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.
If it passes the selection filter, no change required. These
organisms are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment. (like sharks: the "perfect eating machine", right?)
Like the brachiopod Lingula, and the cockroach, identifiable through
most of the phanerazoic and still with us. If an organism is well adapted
to a niche it can readily occupy, then why should it evolve?
==!
==* NO_NEW_PHYLA
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
Subsequently to what?
Trees of descent for organisms are drawn by grouping organisms together
based on common features. Twigs which are close together are organisms
which differ only in few and minor respects. Main branches, down at
the bottom of the tree, are groups of organisms that differ in many and
major respects. One of the main premises of evolution is that this
tree is (more or less) proportional to time.
Asking for a phylum to appear today is asking for
a major branch to be up at the tip of the tree--it makes no sense,
considering the way such trees are drawn!
It is perfectly possible that in several million years there will
be recognizable phyla which were just differentiating today, but
there is no way to recognize a "new phylum" in the bud. For example,
modern plants use two different photosynthesis reactions. It is
quite possible that those two groups will eventually be so different
that we will call them seperate phyla, because the two reactions
probably favor different evolutionary pathways. But how can we
know in advance whether or not this will happen? That's what you're
asking for when you want to see a new phylum arise today.
This is just not true. while most of the phyla present today
were present at the beginning of the Cambrian, and their origin is shrouded,
there is enough of a fossil record from the so-called eo-cambrain to suggest
that some of the animals found in Australia are different phyla that became
extinct by the time fossils became abundant. The affinities of several
Cambrian groups is by no means clear, and they might be separate phyla,
such as the archeocyathids. Our phylum, Vetebrata (Chordata), appears
no earlier than Ordovician, and then only the cartilagenous and jawless
fish are known. All the other classes appear later than that.
Vascular plants, and all more advanced plant phyla appear no
earlier than Silurian time.
There are now five kingdoms known, based on their biochemistry and
there are enough precambrain microfossils to document their appearence.
The geochemistry of sediments in Precambrain rocks is understood well enough
to establish when the oxygen level of the biosphere was high enough to
support modern plants and animals, that comprize two of the five kingdoms.
Before this date it can be infered that the Plant and Animal kingdoms did
not exist. I am not faliliar with Precambrain events to fix this date,
1.8 billion years B.P. ?, or to document the micro fossils that might
bear this out.
==!
==* CONVERGENT_EVOLUTION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve
} in quite different circumstances.
If you start with the same ancestor, they can only vary so much. Also, what
he thinks are "different circumstances" are not necessarily so. Physics
has an interesting set of constraints...
==!
==* LIVING_FOSSIL
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}Many species have remained absolutely fixed throughout geologic time.
There are no known examples of organisms that have not evolved
over a period of time and this includes cockroaches, lungfish,
lampreys, sharks, bacteria, and all other organisms that some
people claim are "frozen in time". Some of these species appear
to be morphologically similar to ancestors that lived in the
past but evolution is much more than external appearance. When
the structure of their genes and proteins are examined it becomes
obvious that they have evolved at the molecular level. In fact
the rate of evolution of these species is similar to that of
species whose external appearance has changed more drastically.
It is incorrect to claim that some organisms have not evolved
simply because their external morphology has not changed.
The problem here is that the fossil record only
preserves some parts of an organism. The fact that these parts
have not changed very much doesn't mean that the species has not
evolved.
==!
==* HIGHER
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}A great many modern species are very evident degenerate, rather than
}higher, forms of those found as fossils.
There is no hierarchy to evolution. There is no reason to suppose
that modern organisms should be "higher" than extinct ones. Loss
of a structure is just as much evolution as gain of one. If
Creationists admit that some organisms have become "degenerate"
then they are admitting to evolution.
==!
==* SUDDEN_APPEARANCE PHYLA
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record.
Marvelous. As long as he gets to pick which ones he wants, they do.
Collect the data to support you conclusion. Keep throwing out the
outliers (97% discarded?) till it fits.
==!
==* SELECTION VARIATION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}Selection cannot change the frequency of variants
Since evolution is, by definition, a change in the frequency of
genes in a population, then this statement is equivalent to
saying that selection cannot cause evolution. There are many
experiments in the literature that directly demonstrate how
false and ridiculous this statement really is. Perhaps the
easiest examples for the non-biologist are those that involve
human selection, as in breeds of dogs or cattle. In those cases
selection for distinct characteristics has led to populations
with differing frequencies of alleles (variants). Thus selection
has been PROVEN capable of changing the frequency of variants or
alleles in a population and we have every reason to believe that
it did so in the past as well.
Directional selection (selection "for" or "against" something) in a static
environment will lose variation. To get a more interesting result, you
can look at either of two things:
1. Selection which is not directional. Here are some examples:
Frequency dependent selection. Forms which are rare are at an advantage.
There are several decent real-world examples of this; female fruit flies
prefer males who look "different", and animals which have immune system
genes different from their neighbors' seem less likely to get
diseases from them.
Heterozygote advantage. The organism with two different forms of the gene
has an advantage over others. The classical example is sickle-cell
anemia in humans, where the person with one sickle and one normal allele
is protected from malaria.
Two kinds of selection pulling in different directions. For example,
females may prefer brightly colored males, but so may predators. Some
values for the parameters here will give a balance of different
forms in the population.
2. Non-static environments. This is much harder to model, but interesting.
You can easily get frequency-dependent selection out of an environment
with two food sources, both subject to overexploitation. Environments
which change over time either randomly or in a cycle can also maintain
variability.
***
The simplest model I know in which something like speciation can be seen
to happen is one that contains two factors:
There is a gene with two variants, and the heterozygote is worse than
either homozygote.
There is the possibility for evolving reproductive isolation based on the
first gene.
Reproductive isolation could be modeled in several ways. You could
explicitly add a gene that controls mate recognition. You could arrange
your simulated organisms on a grid and restrict most mating to near
neighbors, and see if two populations seperated from an initial mixture.
Don't forget that if you use random rather than strictly proportional
selection (that is, if you use a random number to see who lives
and who dies), population size makes a huge difference. It is almost
impossible to maintain high variability in a tiny population, even
with strong selection.
==!
==* SPECIATION REFS
Article 27165 of talk.origins:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: two new species
Message-ID: <88247@bu.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 00:31:12 GMT
References: <9206051421.AA17885@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> <87999@bu.edu> <1992Jun8.193628.29035@aeras.uucp>
Sender: news@bu.edu
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome
Lines: 26
Two new species that have arisen within the past 110 years
are: _Senecio cambrensis_ and _Spartina townsendi_. I found out
about them today when I ran across an article in Heredity. It
also give refs to other speciations in _Asplenium_ as well as
in Louisiana Irises and _Tragopogon_ (the last two have been
discussed on t.o. before).
The gist of the paper was that the species has been
formed more than once (as with the _Tragopogon_ example I
give in the FAQ and with _Aspenium_).
I'm not sure how long it has been since _Asplenium_
speciated (calling Kay Klier -- are you out there?).
Here's the ref:
Ashton and Abbot, 1992, Multiple origins and genetic diversity
in the newly arisen allopolyploid species _Senicio cambrensis_
Rosser (Compositae), Heredity 68:25
Chris Colby --- email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
==!
==* GENUS GENIATION SPECIATION REFS
Article 27620 of talk.origins:
From: RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Genus evolution
Message-ID: <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 92 13:34:38 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 6
It looks like there are several examples of contemporary species
level evolution. Lets back up a level, are there any such examples
at the genus level?
Bob Grumbine
Article 27629 of talk.origins:
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genus evolution
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 14:52:00 GMT
References: <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Lines: 12
In article <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> It looks like there are several examples of contemporary species
> level evolution. Lets back up a level, are there any such examples
> at the genus level?
Only with a little chemical help. Triticale is an artificially bred
genus of plant created by cross-breeding of wheat and rye. (See
Hulse and Spurgeon, 1974, "Triticale", in _Scientific American_,
Vol. 231, No. 2, pp. 72-80.)
--
Chris Stassen stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER: My employer's account, but not their opinions.
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Religion and creation(was bible and science)
Topics:
}Creationism deserves equal time because evolution is only a theory.
}The doctrine of evolution is atheistic and therefore immoral.
}Competition for survival implies "strife, hatred, war, and death."
}The great complexity of nature shows it was designed.
}The Bible says so.
}The Bible is accurate on other points, so it must be accurate on creation.
}(referring to a genesis "day")
}Later Biblical characters (Moses & Paul) refer to the fact of creation
}Even Jesus Christ believed in the Genesis record of creation.
}It is imposssible to believe the Bible and to believe in evolution.
}it is almost impossible to believe in God if one believes in evolution.
}many evil social doctrines it has spawned.
}Fall of man: Records say civilization was man's original condition.
}Place of man's origin: Evidence confirms origin in one locality.
}Order of events in creation matches what an observer would have seen:
}Earth is unsupported (Job 26:7)
}Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)
}Water cycle is described (Eccl. 1:7)
}History is accurate.
}The Bible is harmonious throughout.
}Numerous prophecies fulfilled.
}Religion's views on creationism:
}The Bible Has Two Creation Stories
}bible is always right
==* EQUAL_TIME
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Creationism deserves equal time because evolution is only a theory.
But a theory in the scientific sense of the word, meaning that it explains
a wide range of phenomena and that there's lots of data to back it up.
Creationism, on the other hand, isn't even a theory; it's an assertion.
"Equal time" in what? In schools in general, or in science classes?
Science classes are suppose to teach science. There are two criteria
for this:
1. It must be falsifiable i.e. there must be some way to show that the
theory is incorrect. The theory must be testable. Evolution is,
in that there can be things specified which, if they can be verified,
would disprove evolution. Creationism allows no such test.
2. It must be able to make predictions i.e. it must be able to tell
you how something WILL occur (and then you must be able to verify
the accuracy of the prediction). The theories which compose
evolution are useful in this regard in that they have made predictions
concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil
find forecasts,... Creationism does none of this. At best, its
"predictions" are either in the past (already happened) or
unverifiable.
As a BTW: A Creationist posting was made on talk.religion.christian,
(a moderated group) but no rebuttal was allowed from any evolutionist.
==!
==* ATHEISM
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- The doctrine of evolution is atheistic and therefore immoral.
Unlike creationism, evolution doesn't require the acceptance or rejection of
any religion. In fact, many theists believe in evolution.
The doctrine that atheism is immoral is bigotry, and therefore immoral.
Competition doesn't imply hatred or war.
==!
==* EVOLUTION_BAD
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} Competition for survival implies "strife, hatred, war, and death."
The Soviets did have a problem along these lines. Lysenko in particular
disbelieved in natural selection for these reasons. He got charge of the
Soviet Union's grain production. Their agricultural industry has almost
recovered...
==!
==* DESIGN
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- The great complexity of nature shows it was designed. Laws require a
} lawmaker; organization requires an organizer.
No, it doesn't. The patterns within a kaleidoscope are very complex,
and extremely organized (in the sense of symmetrical patterning) but
are not designed.
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- The Bible says so.
In the resolution from the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church
acted in September 1982 to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability
of God to create in any manner," rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the
'Creationists' movement," and supported "scientists, educators, and
theologians in the search for truth in this Creation that God has given
and entrusted to us."
Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences before its meetings on
Cosomology and Cosmogony in October 1981, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed
the statement of Pope Pius XII that the universe was created "millions
of years ago" directly contrary to creationists views. The Pope declared
that "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise..."
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- The Bible is accurate on other points, so it must be accurate on creation.
Leviticus 11:113,19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 list fowl, and both have bats
in the list with heron, lapwing, and bat closing off the list.
The bat is not a bird.
Leviticus 11:6 has a hare chewing its cud.
Rabbits do no such thing.
reminder for Barry: "cud" is not "shit".
BTW:
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and
also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think
that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean
dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which
could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud'
in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring
up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again.
The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that.
Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and
chew on it.
thanks to Robert Low
Leviticus 11:21-23 lists things with four legs. Among the list are locust,
beetle (cricket in some translations), and grasshopper.
Psalms 58:8 says "as a snail melts..."
Snails do not melt.
Gen 1:20-21 has the waters bringing forth
Gen 2:19 has them coming from the ground.
Maybe some one should tell them about eggs?
Genesis 30:39 cattle looking at pilled rods conceive and bring forth
ringspeckled, speckeled and spotted calves.
changing the characteristics of a descendant by showing them a rod
just doesn't work...
Matthew 4:8 ..took upon a high mountain and shewed all the kingdoms of the
world.
1. Geology - rock simply isn't strong enough for such a megamountain.
2. astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior
surface from anyplace.
Genesis 3:14 "...and dust though shalt eat all the days of thy life."
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt.
==!
==* BIBLE GENESIS_TIME
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}(referring to a genesis "day") it ALWAYS (Morris's stress) refers to
}a twenty-four-hour day.
So much for the appologists...
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}Later Biblical characters (Moses & Paul) refer to the fact of creation, not
}the myth.
Are we to take people that we have no independent record of as authoratative
references in the only document they ARE mentioned in? This is like
Santa Claus in _The Night Before Christmas_ testifying as to the veracity
of the "visions of sugarplums".
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}Even Jesus Christ believed in the Genesis record of creation.
ibid, though this is clearly an attempt at pleading from authority.
==!
==* BIBLE DUALISM
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}It is thus absolutely impossible to believe in the Bible as the complete
}and literal Word of God and to believe in the theory of evolution. But,
}more than that, it is almost impossible to believe in a personal God of
}any sort if one believes in evolution.
The Pope doesn't agree with this statement. Nor do many other leading
religious figures. They will be glad that this civil engineer pointed
it out for them...
==!
==* EVOLUTION_SATANIC
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}The atheistic and satanic character of the doctrine is evidenced in the
}many evil social doctrines it has spawned.
What?!?! Talk about irrelevant mud-slinging!!!
==!
==* THE_FALL BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Fall of man: Records say civilization was man's original condition.
Which records are these? The Old testiment? And of course. Without
the civilization you don't have the records.
So "as far back as they go" is civilization. When there isn't civilization,
the records quit going.
This one is very interesting, it reveals the core prejudice of
christian, and other, origins, that man is fallen from some primordial grace.
The evolutionary evaluations of origins avoids the opposite prejudice as well,
that evolution is always progressive. It says that the idea of progress in
the condition of a lineage is misleading; change is reflected in adaptation
and specialization which may be by turns sucessful or lethal.
==!
==* BIBLE SINGLE_SOURCE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Place of man's origin: Evidence confirms origin in one locality.
Observing population distributions takes divine inspiration? One successful
group spread and killed off the less successful ones. Supports evolution, too.
OK Bible scholors, where does Moses say man came from? The claim here of
proof of God's inspiration is wrong, even if Moses got it right. Man came
from Africa, despite years of searching for human ancestors in Europe and Asia.
Evidence says Man came from Africa, despite years of searching for human
ancestors in Europe and Asia.
==!
==* BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Order of events in creation matches what an observer would have seen:
} 1: Beginning, 2: an earth in darkness, 3: light, 4: atmosphere, 5: dry
} land, 6: plants, 7: discernable sun, moon, stars, 8: sea and air
} creatures, 9: beasts, 10: man.
The actual order should be more like 1: beginning, 2: light, 3: sun, stars,
4: atmosphere, 5: earth, 6: dry land, 7: sea creatures, 8: moon, 9: beasts
(amphibians and reptiles), 10: fruiting plants (which is what Genesis
specifies), 11: air creatures, more beasts, 12: man. I'm not sure the order
is exact (the moon may have come earlier, for example), but it is more
accurate than the Genesis version.
==!
==* BIBLE EARTH
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Earth is unsupported (Job 26:7)
Job 38:4 says Earth has a foundation. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by
pillars.
==!
==* BIBLE FLAT_EARTH
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Earth is round (Isaiah 40:22)
Matthew 4:8 ..took upon a high mountain and shewed all the kingdoms of the
Not on a round surface he didn't...
==!
==* BIBLE WATER
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Water cycle is described (Eccl. 1:7)
Job 38:22 says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses.
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Good sanitation practices are given (Deut 23:13, Num. 19:11-22, etc.)
People aren't stupid. They could have figured these out without divine aid.
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - History is accurate.
Not unsurprising. It was written while the history was current events.
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - The authors admit their human failings (Deut 32:50, Acts 19:20, etc.)
This is true of lots of writings, even some USENET articles. Besides, does
it make sense to claim that a book is infallible because its authors admit
that they are fallible?
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - The Bible is harmonious throughout.
Given the amount of editing it went through, you would expect it to be
reasonably harmonious, but it still contains contradictions. For example,
Matt. 27:5-8 vs. Acts 11:18-19 and Matt. 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23.
==!
==* BIBLE PROPHECY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Numerous prophecies fulfilled.
Prophecies weren't meant to predict the future. The word originally meant
"divinely inspired speech." Not until 1300 did it come to mean "predicting
future events." [Oxford English Dictionary]
Besides, there are lots of mundane ways to predict the future:
(a) Make the wording sufficiently vague that, with proper interpretation,
it could apply to practically anything.
(b) Predict something which has already happened.
(c) Rewrite history to say that your prediction was actually fulfilled.
(d) Give no time limit for the prediction.
(e) Predict something which is extremely likely to occur.
(f) Make so many predictions one of them is bound to occur. Later, edit
out those that failed.
(g) Predict something that you yourself can cause to happen.
All of the predictions below can be fit into one or more of these categories.
Religion's views on creationism:
================================
In the resolution from the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church
acted in September 1982 to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability
of God to create in any manner," rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the
'Creationists' movement," and supported "scientists, educators, and
theologians in the search for truth in this Creation that God has given
and entrusted to us."
Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences before its meetings on
Cosomology and Cosmogony in October 1981, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed
the statement of Pope Pius XII that the universe was created "millions
of years ago" (in european millions is american billions.
directly contrary to creationists views. The Pope declared
that "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and
its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise..."
>From _Theology Today_, October 1982, 39(3):249-59
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately
interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of
creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again.
Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to
an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have
declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable."
...
"Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny
physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how
overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil."
(writer is a Presbyterian layman who has organized conferences on Genesis
and Geology held at Ghost Ranch, New Mexico)
"Christianity and Crisis" (April 26, 1982) 42:108-15
(referrring to the absure (widely held opinion) Arkansaw law)
The authors of the rkansaw law sought to separate the Creator implied
by Creation-Science from the notion of "religion". This is an
approach to the "first and worst" Christian heresy - the denial of monotheism.
...
Clever - if it is a religion, it is not a science and should not be treated
as one. If it is a science and not a religion would be a Christian
heresy. If they use the Bible to support their "science", by the
words of their Bible they shall burn.
By Fasther Bruce Vawter, a Roman Catholic read this paper at the
Conference on Creationism inAmerican Culture and Theology held
at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago on October 9, 1982.
(extracts summarized - you go read the whole thing if you want)
His objections are:
1. creationism seriously misconstrues the meaning and purpose of the Bible,
both in part and in whole.
2. creationism introduces a false dichotomy between religion and science by
assuming that belief in a Creator God is incompatable with an
acceptance of the scientific hypothesis that existing life-forms
came into being through an evolutionary process.
3. So called creationism or creation science is a concept both theologically
and philosophically unsound, derived from bad premises.
He then proceeds to preach on these points. Some relevant points:
a. "Biblical inerrancy" - definitely not one of the authentic heritages
of mainline Christianity
b. Creationists appear to be as unqualified to talk about science as
Scientists are to talk about religion (to wit, almost none)
by Nahum M. Sarna. Was teacher at University of London, the Jewish
Theological Seminary in New York, and since 1967 has been Dora Golding
Professor of Biblical Studies at Brandeis University.
extracted from his "UNDERSTANDING GENESIS"
The first biblical account of creation may be found in Genesis 1:1-2:4a.
Within the literary framework are described the divine activities within a
seven-day period
The second biblical account of creation (2:4b-24) opens with "When the
Lord God made ..." and goes through how the entire surface of the earth
was watered by a flow that owuld well up through subterranean springs.
The main topic of this account is the formation of man and his placement
in the garden of Eaden.
(my note: -2- accounts.)
"Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual endowments,
did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the critical use
of empirical data
(my aside - ie.e not scientific method)
Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and his expressions of thought
were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic
(my aside - get thee behind me, literalists!)
Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the
biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science. Any
correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously established
between the two must surely be nothing more than mere coincidence."
#> the Creationist young-earth agenda does great damage to
#> Christianity itself, because it makes Christianity seem ridiculous to
#> many intelligent and informed people.
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to
the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem
to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize
that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology
creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in
accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must
be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The
persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their
points of view established in educational institutions can
only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously
expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a
respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand
of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the
forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend
credence to the idea already entertained by so many
intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its
modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear
that it will."
[_Christianitiy and the Age of the Earth_, by Davis Young,
Zondervan 1982. p. 163.]
#> When I made my comment about "anybody" being able to interpret Scripture
#> in his own way, I was stating a fact of life. In our society, thank God,
#> we have a First Amendment that gives Joe, me, you, and everyone the
#> _right_ to interpret Scripture in any way that conscience dictates, no
#> matter how foolish or inconsistent it might seem to others.
#
#And the right to "engage in Science" no matter how foolish or inconsistent
#it might seem to others? Absolutely .... but that don't make it science
#does it, nor absolve Dr. Gish from being labeled a cretan here.
Dr. Gish also has the RIGHT to submit his scientific ideas for
publication in refereed journals. He chooses not to do so. Joe
Applegate (and Snake Handlers, and you, and I) also have the RIGHT
to submit our ideas on Biblical interpretation for publication in
scholarly journals.
These journals have the RIGHT to reject articles that do not
measure up to the standards of the field. I certainly agree with
you that scholars have standards that they apply in their fields.
Not any interpretation of Scripture would be acceptable to a
scholarly journal. But the point is, scholars do not and should
not dictate people's personal beliefs about religion.
#The lesson may be to clearly indicate that the basis for your position when
#unsupported by sufficent evidence is one which is arrived at through certain
#metaphysical and philosophical assumptions (faith). You may then specify
#why you believe that your assumptions (faith) are reasonable .... you may
#not preceed your statements with, "We know ..... ". When evolutionary
#scientists (at least many of the ones I've read or encountered) master
#this discipline perhaps then ....
Science has nothing to do with "faith." Science makes no claim
that the conclusions that it arrives at are "true," NO MATTER HOW
STRONG THE EVIDENCE MAY BE. On the contrary, it ASSUMES that they
may not be true and has invented a procedure to test these
conclusions, the only possible results of which will either be to
show that they are NOT true or to determine that "further research
is required." If someone says that science has "proved" that such-
and-such is true, then that is indeed "faith," but it has nothing
to do with science.
Religious aspects of the Creation/Evolution controversy are
appropriately directed to this group, I believe. I've no interest
in debating this issue, but only want to suggest some reading for
those who are interested in pursuing the topic. Relatively few
books discuss the religious (rather than the scientific) side of
the controversy, and I believe that this short list includes the
best of them.
_Is God a Creationist?_, edited by Roland Mushat Frye (New
York: Scribners, 1983), is a collection of essays by
people of various religious persuasions: Conservative
(Davis Young, mentioned by Rob Day), Roman Catholic
(Pope John Paul II), Middle-of-the-Road (Conrad Hyers)
and others. Although none of the contributors takes the
young-Earth Creationist side, it is a relatively well-
balanced book on the whole. The editor is Schelling
Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania
and a member of the Center of Theological Inquiry at
Princeton.
_The Meaning of Creation_, by Conrad Hyers (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1984). Hyers is a middle-of-the-road
theologian who argues that Creationism is not only bad
science, but also poor theology. I found it provocative
reading. The author is Professor and Chair of the
Department of Religion, Gustavus Adolphus College,
Minnesota.
_Science and Earth History_, by Arthur Strahler (Buffalo:
Prometheus 1987) is probably the most authoritative and
complete discussion of all aspects of the C/E
controversy. Although most of the book is devoted to
scientific issues, the first 80 pages or so discuss
philosophical and religious aspects. This book has an
excellent index and exhaustive references, and is the
book I recommend to those who only want to read one book
on the subject. Strahler is Professor Emeritus of
Geology, and former Chair of the Department of Geology,
Columbia University.
_Evolution and the Christian Doctrine of Creation: A
Whiteheadian Interpretation_, by Richard H. Overman
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967). This you may
have to look for. I found it in the university library.
Liberal theology.
Finally, I want to second Rob Day's recommendation that Christians
who are concerned about the effects of Creationism on Christianity
ponder what Davis Young says in his book, _Christianity and the
Age of the Earth_. Mysteriously allowed to go out of print by its
publisher (the religious house Zondervan) soon after it came out,
the book is now available again from Artisan Sales, PO Box 2497,
Thousand Oaks CA 91360 for only $8.50 postpaid. Young is a
knowledgeable geologist who, although doubting evolution itself on
religious grounds, nevertheless firmly opposes young-Earth
Creationism as scientifically invalid.
>New Catholic Study Bible, Saint Jerome Edition, Literary Forms of the
Bible, pages 1360-61:
"The first eleven chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical
forms of writing. Myth, in this case, must not be understood to mean
that the events told were fictional or untrue. A myth is a profoundly
true statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality.
It is a statement whose meaning rises above time and space. Although
biblical myths were influenced by other mythical statements of the
ancient world, they are used by the biblical writers to express
history's relationship to God. They point to history's origins at the
moment of the world's creation. They speak of the beginnings where
history touches eternity, and, therefore, to moments which cannot be
historically described. Myth is thus essential to biblical faith. We
do the Scriptures a serious injustice if we read myth as though it
were history. Such a tendency must be resisted along with the
opposite tendency to read biblical history as though it were mythical.
By reading the early chapters of Genesis with sensitivity to poetic
symbol and imagery, we can easily avoid such temptations."
==!
==* BIBLE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}The Bible Has Two Creation Stories
A close reading of the first few chapters of the Bible reveals
not one, but two different -- and contradictory -- stories of
creation. These are from two of the (at least) four traditions that
are interweaved in the first books of the Bible, the Priestly and
Yahvist traditions, out of the set that includes the Elohist and
Deuteronomist traditions. This conclusion is reached by consideration
of stylistic elements (for example, the Priestly tradition is heavy on
statistics, the Yahvist and Elohist traditions refer to the Deity as
"Yahweh" and "Elohim", respectively, and the Deuteronomist tradition
is found in the Book of Deuteronomy), and is generally accepted by
non-literalist Biblical scholars (for a good introduction to the
historical background behind the Bible, see _Asimov's Guide to the
Bible_, both volumes).
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals,
creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before
the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which
is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale,
the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each
step that "it was good".
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Then, there follows the story of the serpent leading Eve, and
Adam, to eat that (unspecified) fruit, and get expelled from the
Garden of Eden, whereupon that serpent was ordered to crawl on its
belly (no mention of how it moved about before that). The Deity is
referred to as "Yahweh" here, and creates plants, animals, and finally
Eve for a lonely Adam. Yahweh seems to be trying to fix his creation
as he goes, with not too satisfactory results -- his prime interest
commits a big no-no (why not simply create a psychological inhibition
to eating forbidden fruit? It would probably be more reliable).
Neither tale, it must be said, has much resemblance to the
geological record, but in all fairness to the inventors of these
tales, the geological record only became clear in the nineteenth
century. I am not denying that one can come up with a Bible
interpretation that somehow harmonizes these two tales, but such an
interpretation would require rejection of the dogma of the literal
truth of the Bible -- two contradictory statements cannot be true at
the same time.
The first of the two stories is sometimes claimed to be a good
match; "Let there be light" supposedly means the Big Bang. But the Big
Bang happened well before the Earth even existed. There are other
discrepancies. The Sun is almost certainly slightly older than the
Earth, and the Moon is as old as the Earth, or a bit younger (from
current theories of planetary formation; the time differences are ~100
million years out of 4.6 billion years). The stars have no single
age, but have been forming ever since the galaxies came into existence
(or even before!); some are older than the Earth, some younger. The
order of appearance of various is terribly mixed up. Though blue-green
algae are much older than any multicelled animal, the first land
plants appear ~400 m.y. ago, as opposed to the first sea animals ~600
m.y. ago. Flowering plants (the most common land plants) appeared
about ~120-150 m.y. ago, well after the first land animals appeared,
appox 400 m.y. ago. Also, flying animals appear after closely related land
animals appear; flying insects after early wingless ones, pterodactyls
after proto-dinosaurs, birds after certain small carnivorous
dinosaurs, and bats after early placental mammals. Some sea animals
are descendants of land animals; consider (partially aquatic) otters,
seals and sea lions and walruses, penguins, alligators and crocodiles,
and sea turtles and (completely aquatic) whales and dolphins, sea
snakes, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs.
The second of the two stated that humanity originated in the
Garden of Eden or a garden in Eden (depending on which translation you
read). "Eden" turns out to be some marshland near where the Tigris and
the Euphrates Rivers flow into the Persian Gulf. And where did
humanity actually originate? Charles Darwin proposed Africa because
that's where our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees and
gorillas, live. This hypothesis turns out to be correct for nearly all
of the hominid species, including _Homo sapiens_. All the earlier
hominid species, the Australopithecines and earliest _Homo_, are found
only in Africa; later species, like _Homo erectus_ and _Homo sapiens_,
seem to have originated in Africa and spread to other parts of the
world.
And from the "Master Blaster":
I have received the response to my article on the two creation
stories in the Bible that one can somehow fit the Adam-and-Eve story
into the Sixth Day of the first story. But I believe that this fit
cannot be made. Why? Look again at the orders of creation:
The Six-Day Story:
Day 3: Plants
Day 5: Sea animals and flying animals
Day 6: Land animals, then humanity (both sexes)
The Adam-and-Eve Story:
The first man (Adam)
Plants
Animals (both land and air)
The first woman (Eve)
The contradiction between the orders of creation between the
two stories is rather glaring. There are other contradictions. As I
mentioned earlier, in the first story, God creates according to a
carefully laid-out plan, one set of entities at a time. He says after
each episode of creation that "it was good," indicating that he is
very satisfied with what he has done. On the seventh day, he rests
from his labors (though we are not told why an omnipotent being might
need to rest). In the second story, he seems to be fixing up as he
goes, only to see the principal objects of his attention commit a
grave no-no. Here goes: I create the first man, but he's all lonely. I
create some plants for him. He's still lonely. I create lots of
animals for him. He's still lonely. I create a woman for him, and he
seems satisfied. I tell those two not to eat any fruit from that Tree
of Knowledge, but that pesky snake talks them into eating some of its
fruit anyway. I kick those two out of that garden, and I order that
snake to crawl on its belly. Creating a Universe seems more trouble
than it's worth!
Methods of creation differ; in the first story, God "says"
"Let X be!" and X comes into existence; while in the second story, God
uses a more physical approach, molding the first man out of dirt
(yecch!) and then breathing on it. And likewise for the first woman.
One doesn't have to know much chemistry to tell the difference between
human flesh and typical dirt. The level of anthropomorphism differs;
the second story features God "walking" in the Garden of Eden; while
the first story says that the first people, at least one of each sex,
were made "in his image" (nothing on which of the two sexes resembles
God more). I have always suspected that it is really the other way
around.
I am not sure what the "traditional" answer to this conundrum
is (maybe it's simply "shut up and believe, you rotten infidel!"); but
whatever it is, I'm sure that this analysis will hold up despite of it.
There are other curiosities. The Exodus of the Israelites from
Egypt is an event not mentioned in any Egyptian chronicle; they barely
mention Israel. There isn't even a "prettified" version like "Our
great Pharaoh went on an expedition to chase down those rotten
rebellious slaves and died a noble death in a big flood." It has been
suggested that some of the Exodus events are garbled memories of the
explosive volcanic eruption of Thera ~1400(?) BC (see Sagan on
Velikovsky).
And the Joshua miracle (he told the Sun and the Moon to stand
still just so he could win one of his battles) -- it is not mentioned
in _any_ other contemporary chronicle. If it happened, it would have
took place in ~1200 BC. But Egyptians and Mesopotamians (in what is
now Iraq) had had written language for over two thousand years, and
their chroniclers would have written at length on this event, had it
have happened. But they say NOTHING about this alleged event. There is
the question of why the Earth's rotation and the Moon's motion were so
carefully restored afterwards. That is evident from the study of such
pre-Joshua monuments as the Great Pyramid of Egypt (check out _Science
and the Paranormal_, Abell and Singer, eds.). It was constructed
according to some precise astronomical alignments. The edges of this
pyramid were aligned on north-south and east-west directions, as
determined by post-Joshua surveying. And one tunnel is aligned to
point at the star Thuban in Draco, while another points at the
constellation Orion, as determined by extrapolating post-Joshua
measurements of precession. The Milankovitch climate cycles over the
last couple million years have a component due to precession; its rate
seems unchanged from its post-Joshua value. So, if this miracle
happened, the Earth must have started rotating again with exactly the
same position of spin axis, relative to itself and to the stars, and
at exactly the same period as before. The Moon must have started
orbiting at exactly the same distance as before. A simpler hypothesis:
this alleged event never happened.
Immanuel Velikovsky certainly understood these problems with
these alleged Biblical events, which is why he proposed his
bouncing-planets hypothesis. He claimed that these catastrophes were
remembered not only in the Bible, but in a host of other ancient
legends. Carl Sagan has written a truly devastating criticism of his
theories (check out _Scientists Confront Velikovsky_ or _Broca's
Brain_ or _Science and the Paranormal_). I wonder, where is the
Velikovsky cult now? Have they been claiming that the recent flyby of
Neptune (and the not-so-recent one of Uranus) provide yet more
evidence for the correctness of Velikovsky's theories? That would be
in line with what they have claimed for _every_ other Solar System
discovery since Velikovsky published _Worlds in Collision_.
==!
==* BIBLE INERRANT
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}bible is always right
There are further scientific difficulties in the Bible, In one
of the Books of Kings, there is a reference to a "molten sea" with a
diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits. This
would imply that pi = 3. Though this is certainly a convenient
approximation (5% too small), it is not exact. Thus, one part of the
Bible is not "absolute truth". In the part of Leviticus which lists
proscribed animals, we find that rabbits (or hares, depending on the
translation) chew the cud and that grasshoppers have four legs. Since
rabbits twitch their noses, that might lead to the misunderstanding
that they are ruminants; but the number of legs possessed by
grasshoppers should have been easy to find, since several people in
the Bible reportedly ate grasshoppers, and one can always count the
number of legs a grasshopper has before eating one. But this may have
been an extrapolation from knowledge of larger multi-legged animals.
There is also the classification of bats as birds, even though a bat
looks a lot like a mouse with front legs turned into wings, and most
other "birds" don't.
Finally, I note that the New Testament contains the view that
disease is caused by demonic possession and can be cured by exorcism.
Jesus himself was something of an exorcist. He drove some demons into
the Gadarene swine, and drove them into a lake, which suggests that he
may have been unable to destroy these demons. He even states in his
Sermon of the Mount that his followers ought not to brag about such
accomplishments as how many demons they exorcised. Maybe the reason
that crucifixes are supposedly so effective in driving out demons is
because they duplicate the effect of Jesus the Exorcist. One wonders
what effect the symbols of other religions would have -- has anyone
ever tried exorcism with a Star of David or a star and crescent or a
Hindu mandala or a Yin-Yang symbol or a statuette of the Buddha or a
miniature Greek temple column or an Egyptian ankh or a Hammer and
Sickle?
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:12:48 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Physics and creation
Topics:
}Creationism deserves equal time
}Evolutionists themselves admit they have no proof
}evolutionists themselves have admitted to flaws in their arguement.
}some scientists don't agree
}Evolution isn't a science
}Life is too complex to have happened by chance.
}Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
}Methods of dating the earth are inaccurate.
}Radioactive dating can't be calibrated.
}radioactive decay rates did not remain constant
}the creation of matter or energy is not now taking place,
_______________________________________________________________________
==* EQUAL_TIME THEORY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Creationism deserves equal time because evolution is only a theory.
But a theory in the scientific sense of the word, meaning that it explains
a wide range of phenomena and that there's lots of data to back it up.
Creationism, on the other hand, isn't even a theory; it's an assertion.
"Equal time" in what? In schools in general, or in science classes?
Science classes are supposed to teach science. There are two criteria
for this:
1. It must be falsifiable i.e. there must be some way to show that the
theory is incorrect. The theory must be testable. Evolution is,
in that there can be things specified which, if they can be verified,
would disprove evolution. Creationism allows no such test.
2. It must be able to make predictions i.e. it must be able to tell
you how something WILL occur (and then you must be able to verify
the accuracy of the prediction). The theories which compose
evolution are useful in this regard in that they have made predictions
concerning population densities, physiologies, chemistries, fossil
find forecasts,... Creationism does none of this. At best, its
"predictions" are either in the past (already happened) or
unverifiable.
[I like the three-part criteria of Ruse (which is also evident in Kuhn),
the a scientific hypothesis or theory will 1) postulate natural mechanisms
of action, 2) be testable (insert "falsifiable" here if you wish, and
3) demonstrate explanatory or predictive power. SciCre fails on all
three, natural selection meets all three. -- WRE]
==!
==* PROOF
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Evolutionists themselves admit they have no proof.
That is because science doesn't "prove": it shows possibilities and disproves
things and makes predictions.
Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence. Evolution has LOTS of
evidence.
==!
==* FLAW
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} Twenty objections admitted: evolutionists themselves have admitted
} to flaws in their arguement.
Isn't it nice to have a system that you can criticize and test?
The only system which has no flaws is one in which those flaws are either
defined away or ignored. We call this "dogma". The presence of these
flaws reveals the presence of active investigation into the limits.
We call this "science".
==!
==* SCIENTIST
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} Scientists condemn evolution: some scientists don't agree etc. ....
Then the same argument disproves Creationism, too, since many (most?)
theologians don't agree with it.
What else has 100% concurrence? Gravity is not 100% concurred with, either.
==!
==* HISTORY OBSERVATION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Evolution isn't a science because you can't observe things that happened
} millions of years ago.
Buy you can observe the RESULTS of things that happened millions of years
ago. And then, by using basic scientific knowledge, extrapolate back.
And by observing trends within the period you can derive general rules
which may then be used for predictions into the future.
Just the historical observation is not evolution.
[But if we use the definition of evolution popular among biologists of
"evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population", then we
can say that we don't need to observe events millions of years ago;
the current events provide plenty of evidence that evolution does,
indeed, occur. -- WRE]
==!
==* PHILOSOPHY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}Evolution is not so much a science as it is a philosophy or an attitude
}of mind... it is manifestly impossible to prove they (evolutionary
}changes of the past) actually did take place.
I suppose that, if he saw a open square in the wall and pieces of glass
by it and a rock sitting amongst the glass that he could draw no conclusions
about the possible presence in the past of a window...
==!
==* DESIGN CHANCE COMPLEXITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Life is too complex to have happened by chance.
Another is the "randomness argument". What is "random",
anyway? We are never told. It says that self organization cannot
occur because the process is "blind" and "random" that is supposed to
drive it. Never mind that the system has a finite number of states it
can occupy and its history can constrain its future states. This
borrows from the thermodynamic argument the confusion over entropy and
open system states.
The theory of evolution doesn't say it did happen by chance. This argument
completely ignores natural selection.
Please read:
Life in Darwin's Universe
G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79
The Evolution of Ecological Systems
May, Scientific American, Sept 1978
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life
Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of the Earliest Cells
Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals
Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978
It is easy to get VERY complicated systems
containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple,
low information systems. Two methods:
1. fractal structures - start with a very simple rule and repeat it over
and over and over. The resulting structure can be (usually is) VERY
complicated, but the formation equations can be very, very simple. And
the universe has had a long time to do so. Example: Look at a snowflake.
2. chaos - You can get very, very complicated systems if you use nonlinearities
in the progression. That is why weather forecasting doesn't work.
Complexity does not imply design. Recursion or nonlinearity work quite well.
And the word is recursive and very non-linear.
==!
==* SECOND_LAW
}- Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Not true. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems. The
Earth is not a closed system.
That if thermo could somehow forbid evolution, then it would also
forbid babies from growing to be adults, and parents from having children.
In fact, we are agents of entropy: we organize our bodies at the expense
of the organization of our environment, which we digest and burn.
Creationists often (ab)use
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, apparently not realizing that it explicitly
states, "...in a closed system...". By definition, a closed system cannot
contain anything external to itself. A Creator who is entirely bounded by
His own creation seems non-sensical, and I can't imagine that many creationists
would accept such a limited God anyway. Thus, God and Thermodynamics are
mutually exclusive; to invoke the Second Law is to claim that God left!!!!!
A subsequent portion of the outline again invokes entropy, stating that
"all species are degenerating, since disorder must increase".
Ignoring the Theological arguments for the moment, we reiterate,
"...in a CLOSED system...". Earth is hardly a closed system. To find a
*LARGE* source of negative entropy, one need only look upward on a clear day.
The sun delivers approximately 1 horse-power per square meter (sorry for the
mixed units, I don't recall the conversion factor to joules/sec)
of free energy to the biosphere. Likewise, meteors shower us with several
tonnes per day of extra mass, some of it in pre-biotic form - i.e. complex
carbon molecules such as formaldehyde and others. Larger objects such as
comets and Icarus class asteroid strikes transfer huge amounts of mass,
energy, and momentum to the earth. Orbital perturbations and decay, friction
from the moon's gravity, and radioactive decay, all add to the total.
Sorry, entropy as a disproof of cosmological and biological evolution simply
won't wash. Spread the word.
[It appears that, more recently, the creationists have been hammered enough
with the inapplicability of the Second Law of Theormdynamics that they
have modified it slightly -- the reference is now to a closed *universe*,
not a closed Earth; the rest of the argument remains essentially
unchanged.]
Creationists say that systems cannot self-organize because that would violate
the second law of thermodynamics, never mind that such systems are not at
equillibrium and are open systems.
==!
==* DATING
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}- Methods of dating the earth are inaccurate.
Exactly what is meant by "inaccurate" leaves much to be desired.
Please see the August 1989 Scientific American article on the Age
of the Earth. (page 90, by Lawrence Badash, "The Age-of-the-Earth
Debate")
==!
==* RADIOISOTOPE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} - Radioactive dating can't be calibrated.
You are in this case Dead Wrong. Dating of ancient rocks by
radiometric methods (e.g., Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-
Strontium) does NOT, repeat NOT depend upon our having available a sample
of known age to calibrate the method. Indeed, this is PRECISELY WHY these
methods are so useful. The only calibration required is the measurement
of decay rates, which can be done IN THE LABORATORY. Furthermore, these
methods can be used in ways that do NOT, repeat NOT depend on any
assumptions about the initial amounts of the various isotopes involved.
Please read the section in Chapter 17 of Strahler's book, _Science and
Earth History_.
It is true that Carbon-14 dates must be calibrated for variations in the
amount of 14C produced in the atmosphere; however, the corrections are
small (~10%) and affect only recent ages (~50,000 years). This method is
not used to date rocks.
- The guy who thought that radioactive dating required knowing the
initial amount of lead. He apparently had never heard of isotopes,
either. He made a big thing about a science he was a master of: he wrote
its name on the blackboard: "numerical analysis". He indicated how this
allowed him to "proved" that radiodating was wildly inaccurate. No
mention of the fact that the earth was still real old. He encouraged
people to go buy a book on numerical analysis: he gave its name. He
didn't bother to encourage people to buy a book on dating, perhaps
because he hadn't read one himself ?
==!
==* DECAY_RATES
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
} radioactive decay rates did not remain constant, so you can't
}accurately date things
If radioactive decay rates were to change, the structure of stars
would be affected. But even very distant stars (whose light has been
travelling towards us for very long times) have the structure that is
predicted by theory assuming present decay rates. They do not have
the structure that would be predicted for them if the decay rates
were many orders of magnitude larger.
There are two major kinds of radioactive decay, alpha decay and beta
decay. They are due to different physical processes and are governed
by different natural constants. If the decay rates were to change in
time, this would produce discrepant dates in rocks that can be dated
independently by several different decay series. These discrepancies
are not observed.
If the decay rates were large enough to produce 4.5 billion years' of
apparent ageing in only 6000 years of wall-clock time, the decay
rates would have had to have been millions to billions of times as
large when Adam and Eve were around as now. The heat generated would
have melted the earth, which would still be molten. Furthermore, the
earth would have been too radioactive to support life then. Adam and
Eve would have glowed for other reasons than their nearness to God.
==!
==* MATTER
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:12 1992
}These laws affirm the fact that the creation of matter or energy is not
}know taking place, and, in fact, that the available energy of the universe
}as a whole is continually running down rather than building up.
Point of fact, matter IS being created currently. Also destroyed.
See "virtual particles". And the "available energy of the universe
as a whole" says nothing about localities within it...
==!
==* REFS
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:12:31 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Scientific Origins
For those who say "but it can't just be so", the following references have
been collected to demonstrate that the proposed processes COULD produce
the expected results with no "miracles" involved, using understood
processes.
Also note that the "Creationists" time errors based on interrupted systems
(i.e. helium buildup, ocean salts,...) do not stand up if you bother to
look at the entire system. Also note that the "it is so unlikely" does
not stand up very well, either.
I have personally read all of these. Creationists feel free.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -
Stellar System Formation:
Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems by S. Dole in
Icarus 13, 494-508 (1970)
Extra-Solar Planetary Systems: A Microcomputer Simulation
Fogg, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS) Vol 38
pp 501-514 (1985)
Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets
Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10
May 15, 1969 p 2494
The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals
Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981
Fractionation of Iron in the Solar System
Harris & Tozer, Nature vol 215, Sept 30, 1967
Formation of the Sun and Planets
A. G. W. Cameron, Icarus 1, 13-69 (1962)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Planet formation:
On Volcanism and Thermal Tectonics on one-plate Planets
Solomon, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 5, no 6 June 1978
Equation for Thermal Expansivity in Planetary Interiors
Anderson, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 72 no 14 July 15, 1967
Internal Processes Affecting Surfaces of Low-Density Satellites: Ganymede
and Callisto
Parmentier & Head, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 84 no B11,
Oct 10, 1979
The Supercontinent Cycle
Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988
Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift
A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975
Hargraves, R.B., "Precambrian Geological History", Science 193,4251
(30 July 1976), pp 363 - 371
Goldreich, Peter, and Stanton Peale, "Spin - Orbit Coupling in the
Solar System", Astron. J. 71, 6 (August 1966), pp 425- 438
Cloud, Preston E., Jr., "Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on
the Primitive Earth", Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736
Hart, Michael H, "Habitable Zones About Main-Sequence Stars",
Icarus 37 (1979), pp 351 - 357
Mart, Michael H, "The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of
its Atmosphere", published in some conference or another; I
got a copy from the author. (ave Allen )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Habitability Development:
Planets for Man
Dole
Our Evolving Atmosphere
Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov
Second Planet, Second Earth
S. L. Gillett, Analog Dec 84
The Postdiluvian World
S. L. Gillett, Analog Nov 85
The Galaxy Before Man
T. M. Donaldson, Analog Sept 84
The Steady State of the Earth's crust, atmosphere and oceans
Siever, Scientific American, May 1974
The Prevalence of Earthlike Planets
Pollard, American Scientist, vol 67, nov-dec 1979 p 653
Extra-solar planetary systems II: Habitable Planets in the Galaxy
Fogg, JBIS vol 39, pp. 99-109, 1986
Problem of habitation on planetary systems of red-dwarf start
Ksanfomality, JBIS vol 39, p 416-417, 1986
The Number of Inhabited Planets in the Galaxy
Tang, JBIS, vol 37, p 410-413, 1984
The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth
Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978
Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans
Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986
World Builder: A modest Program for designing strange new Worlds
S. Kimmel, Creative Computing, June 1983
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Atmospheric development:
A Similarity Approach to the General Circulation of Planetary Atmospheres
Golitsyn, Icarus, 13, p 1-24, (1970)
The Atmosphere of Venus
Schubert & Covey, Scientific American, July 1981, p66
The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere
Rasool & Bergh, Nature, vol 226, June 13 1970
The Volcanoes and Clouds of Venus
Prinn, Scientific American, Mar 1985
Structure of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus
C. Sagan, Icarus 1, 151-169 (1962)
The Energy Budget and Atmospheric Circulation on a synchronously
Rotating Planet
Mintz, Icarus, 172-173 (1962)
The Carbon Dioxide Question
Woodwell, Scientific American, Jan 1978
The Energy Cycle of the Earth
OOrt, Scientific American, Sept 1970
Heat and Helium in the Earth
O'Nions & Oxburgh, Nature, vol 306, 1 Dec 1983
The Atmosphere
Ingersoll, Scientific American, Sept 1983
_Advances in Geophysics_, Academic Press, a yearly publication. The 1983 volume
(ISBN 0-12-018825-2, volume 25 in the series, edited by Barry Salzman) is
entitled Theory of Climate. Volume 28 A and B (ISBN 0-12-018828-8 and
0-120018849-X, 1985, edited by Syukuro Manabe) is entitled Issues in
Atmospheric and Oceanic Modelling. My library has them under QC801.A283.
The Circulation of the Upper Atmosphere
R. E. Newell, Scientific American March 1964
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Climatic development:
Enhanced CO2 greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity on early
earth
Owen & Cess, Nature, vol 227, 22Feb 1979
The Warm Earth
Toon & Olson, Nature, october 1985
How climate Evolved on the Terrestrial Planets
Kasting, Toon, & Pollack, Scientific American, Feb 1988
The Climate of Mars
Haberle, Scientific American, May 1986
Climate Modeling
Schneider, Scientific American, May 1987
The Climatic Effects of Nuclear War
Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack & Sagan, Scientific American, Aug 84
The Lost Seas of Venus
W. J. Kaufmann, Science Digest Sept 1982
Climatic Changes of the last 18,000 years: Observations and Model Simulations
COHMAP members, Science vol 241, 26 Aug 88, p 1043-1052
The Surface of Ice-Age Earth
CLIMAP, Science vol 191, 19 mar 76 pp 1131
Components of the Ice Age Circulation
Rind, J. of Geophysical Research, vol 92 p 4241-4281, 1987
The Influenc of Continental Ice Sheets on the Climate of an Ice Age
Manabe & Broccoli, JofGR vol 90, p 2167-2190, 1985
The Role of Earth Radiation Budget Studies in Climate and General
Circulation Research
Ramanathan, JoGR vol 92, p 4075-4095, 1987
A Study of the Radiative Effects of Enhanced Atmospheric CO2 and CH4 on
Early Earth Surface Temperatures
Kiehl & Dickinson, JofGR vol 92, pp2991-2998, 1987
A Quasi-Three-Dimensional Climate Model
Sellers, Journal of Climate and Applied Meterology, vol 22, sept 83,
pp 1557
Atmospheric Effects of Nuclear War Aerosols in General Circulation Model
Simulations: Influence of Smoke on Optical Properties
Thompson & Ramaswamy, JofGR, vol 92, pp10942-10960, Sept 1987
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Development of Life:
Life in Darwin's Universe
G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79
The Biosphere
Cloud, Scientific American, Sept 1983
The Energy Cycle of the Biosphere
Woodwel, Scientific American, Sept 1970
The Probability of Contact with extra-terrestrial Life
Langton, JBIS, vol 29, 465-468, 1976
The Physical Appearance of Intelligent Aliens
Spall, JBIS vol 32, 99-102, 1978
Evolutionary Objections to 'alien design' models
Coffey, JBIS, vol39 #1, Nov 86
The Evolution of Ecological Systems
May, Scientific American, Sept 1978
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life
Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of the Earliest Cells
Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Ani als
Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Behavior
Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Man
Washburn, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins
Computer-simulated Plant Evolution
Niklas, Scientific American (last couple of years)
(my copy doesn't have the date in it. GREAT article)
Extraterrestrial Zoology
R. A. Freitas, Analog July 81
Xenobiology
R. A. Freitas, Analog Mar 81
Xenopsychology
R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81
Huminoids on Other Planets
R. Bieri, American Scientist, August, 52, 1964
Alien Sex
R. A. Freitas, Analog, June 1982
Making Sense of Extraterrestrial Senses
K. J. Rose, Analog Jan 1979
Those Halogen Breathers
S. L. Gillett, Analog, Oct 1984
Electronic Ecosystem
John Travis, Science News, vol 140, August 10, 1991
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And finally, for those who like to keep track of developments after Man
without requiring divine interference...
Sociological & Cultural development:
Numbers, Predication & War
Dupuy
Simulated International Processes
Guetzkow & Valadez
SOVMOD I: A macroeconomic Model of the Soviet Union
Green & Higgins
Presidents, Secretaries of State, and Crises in U.S. Foreign Relations:
A Model and Predictive Analysis
Falkowski
A World Model
The Club of Rome
World Modeling: The Mesarovic-Pestel World Model in the Context of its
Contempories
Hughes
Forecasting in International Relations
Choucri
Simulation in International Relations
Guetzkow, Alger, Brody, Noel & Snyder
Simulated Worlds
Bremer
Directly Interacting Extra-terrestrial Technological Communities
Viewing, JBIS, vol 28, pp 735-755, 1975
Extra-Solar Planetary Systems III: Potential Sites for the origin and
Evolution of Technical Civilizations
Fogg, JBIS, vol 39, pp. 317-324, 1986
Computer Simulation of Cultural Drift: Limits on Interstellar Colonization
Bainbridge, JBIS, vol 37, pp 420-429, 1984
The Improbability of Bahavioural Convergence in Aliens - Behavioural
Implications of Morphology
Coffey, JBIS, vol 38, pp 515-520, 1985
The Human Analogy and the Evolution of Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Wertz, JBIS, vol 29, pp 445-464, 1976
The climatic background to the birth of civilization
Lamb, Advancement of Science vol 25 pp 103 - 120 1968
AN INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL MODELS IN THE SOCIAL AND LIFE SCIENCES
Michael Olinick
vol. 2 of the global 2000 report.
April and May 1988 Analog articles on Psychohistory
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Mathematics and creation
Topics:
}rift between mathematicians & biologists
}exponential population growth
}Various conceivable patterns fail to emerge
}Complexity from Simplicity
==* RIFT WISTAR MATHEMATICAL_CHALLENGES
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
}rift between mathematicians & biologists
> Here's an interesting story... (I think)... In 1967, a few
> mathematicians and biologists were chatting over a picnic lunch
> organised by Victor Weisskopf, prof. of physics at MIT. A "weird"
> discussion took place as the conversation turned to the subject of
> evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by
> the optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by
> chance. The wide rift between the participants led them to organise a
> conference on "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of
> Evolution"...(skip to the conference)... which opened with a paper by
> Murray Eden, Prof. of Electrical Engineering at MIT, entitled "The
> Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory". Eden
> showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an
> adaptive change, this would occur by chance only once in a billion
> years --while, if two dozen genes were involved, it would require
> 10,000,000,000 years, which is much longer than the age of the earth.
> (See Gordon R. Taylor's "The Great Evolution Mystery"). "Since
> evolution does occur and has occured, something more than chance
> mutation must be involved."
> Von Neumann & complexity
It's hard to see how the described "wide rift" between biologists and
mathematicians could exist, since most of the population geneticists
I know *are* mathematicians--like my thesis advisor, a PhD in Statistics.
Population genetics is an intrinsically mathematical subject, as
my students found with great dismay about 2 weeks into the course
I TA'ed on the subject.....
I get a little angry when people seem to be implying that evolution is
casually refutable and was refuted (by a professor of electrical engineering?)
decades ago. Do they really think that two decades of bright,
dedicated biologists would stick to a theory that this kind of argument
could refute?
Adaptive change by mutation has been shown in the laboratory and is
not in question. It is quite easy to demonstrate in bacteria, and
advantageous forms which were generated by the co-occurance of multiple
mutations are quite possible. Three points are usually being missed
by people who make Prof. Eden's mistake:
1. Disadvantageous forms can persist in the population for a long time;
2. Multiple ways to the same end (multiple mutations giving the same
result) are not only possible but common;
3. Intermediate steps often have an inobvious advantage in themselves,
making them targets of natural selection.
Seriously, there is something badly wrong with the mathematician's
models if this story is true. In the first place, there isn't really
a necessity for each mutation to occur from a blank slate - virtually all
species have a fair amount of diversity. In the second place, there is
a considerable amount of recombination - even with base pairs on the
same chromosome (crossover) (or maybe the mathematician has never heard
of sex :-). Thirdly, the rate of mutations can be measured and is
significantly higher than what appears to be implied by the fixing of 6
mutations in 1 billion years. Fourthly, if any intermediate forms have
any slight advantage (due to partial implementation of the feature),
then those forms will be selected -- and selection is NOT a random process.
Fifthly, many single point mutations have similar/identical effect (that is,
it wouldn't be necessary for 6 specific mutations to occur but one from
each of 6 different sets, a much easier problem).
All I can figure is that the model assumes a population of a single
homozygous individual whose progeny never exchange any genetic material
and in which the mutated genes never recombine by crossover during mitosis.
In other words, sort of like analyzing the aerodynamics of racehorses by
assuming a spherical horse
Sounds like he's talking about six simultaneous mutations, which may
very well be statistically phenomenal. Not required they be simultaneous
by evolution however, and once one mutation is replicating throughout
a group of related organisms, the odds then go up that one of them might
develop another significant mutation in addition to the one they are now
carrying.
==!
==* POPULATION_GROWTH
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
} - exponential population growth
And by the same exponential growth law we are up to our armpits in roaches.
This does obviously not happen, therefore there are other constraints.
What leads Creationists to conclude that the exponential growth constants for
a 50 year sample apply to 5000 years? This is known as "extrapolating beyond
region of known fit".
The growth curve is exponential. The population origin can
be extended back much further in time, and the recent doublings
are bunched together.
I love exponential growth when used by those unaware of the basics for the
derivation. You can use the same system to show that we are up to our
armpits in fruit flies every 3 years or so...
According to U.N. figures, the world population in 1650 was 508 million,
up from 200-300 million in 1 AD. This corresponds to a growth rate of
0.032 to 0.057% per year during much of recorded history, far lower than
the "sickly 0.5%" used here.
5000 years of growth at 0.057% would increase the population by a factor
of 17, much less than the 7*10^10 implied by a rate of 0.5%.
==!
==* DIVERSITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
}- Various conceivable patterns fail to emerge, despite an overwhelming
} tendency to diversify.
There is always luck. If the mutation does not occur, you cannot select
for it. Evolution is not aimed. That's a deity's job. Evolution handles
the current entity, not some future not-yet-conceived entity for some
not-yet environment.
==!
==* SIMPLICITY COMPLEXITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
} Complexity from Simplicity
There was no primordial chaos before the big bang - not really. Instead,
everything was neatly concentrated in one location. Then it scattered,
and is still scattering, a disorderliness far exceeding the structural
order of galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms which have appeared in
the course of the process.
Poul Anderson
"Science & Creation"
Analog, Sept 1983
ref the information example. It is easy to get VERY complicated systems
containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple,
low information systems. Two methods:
1. fractal structures - start with a very simple rule and repeat it over
and over and over. The resulting structure can be (usually is) VERY
complicated, but the formation equations can be very, very simple. And
the universe has had a long time to do so. Example: Look at a snowflake.
2. chaos - You can get very, very complicated systems if you use nonlinearities
in the progression. That is why weather forecasting doesn't work.
Complexity does not imply design. Recursion or nonlinearity work quite well.
And the world is recursive and very non-linear.
I went and got "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata" by Von Neumann.
You know that it was done in 1966 before most of the chaos & fractal work?
As an initial look, I see how this is NOT applicable to life as
Micha tried to do in <10541@dasys1.UUCP>. Looking at section 5.3.2
"Self-Reproducing automata" we find that, under his constraints, the
secondary (initially quiescent) automaton is identical to the parent,
except that the constructing automaton is larger, and in a sense more
complex, because the construction automaton contains the complete
plan and a unit which interprets and executes this plan. This should
NOT apply to biological forms as discussed here because:
The plan IS the unit that executes itself. In Mary's term, the life is
the language.
and, what I consider more relevant
The constructed automaton IS NOT A DUPLICATE of the constructing automaton.
No parent unit that I am aware of (excluding fission reproduction, in which
the parent unit cannot be identified afterwards) is the child a
duplication of the parent. In every case that I am aware of the constructed
unit is a simpler and much smaller unit, which grows OF ITSELF into a
near-copy of the original. Since the complexity is added AFTER the
reproduction process, the reproduction process should not be a limiting
factor. Proof: watch almost ANYTHING grow up.
Therefore, while the descent is INITIALLY simpler than the parent, its
final state can be more complex. Therefore, the argument that information
theory proves that life could not have come from non-life is invalid.
BTW: New systems of cooperating parts have evolved, and they are not even
biological. See "The Evolution of Cooperation", in particular the
computer simulations in which the routines "decide" ON THEIR OWN that
cooperation is "better".
==!
==* SIMULATION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:41 1992
}simulations cannot produce effects
>> And I am as sure of
>>the statement "Selection can change the frequencies of variants",
>>since I've done computer simulation to test it. That's most
>>of evolutionary theory right there.
>
>Mary, that is very interesting. Could you describe how you modeled selection
>pressure. Any thing that I have seen (i.e., non techinical info) is so
>vague about what selection is that I have no idea how to model it.
>Examples like the light vs dark moths seems too simplistic to me. It shows
>how the number of species (or the amount of variation) can decrease but it
>gives me no hint as to how the number of species can increase.
Directional selection (selection "for" or "against" something) in a static
environment will lose variation. To get a more interesting result, you
can look at either of two things:
1. Selection which is not directional. Here are some examples:
Frequency dependent selection. Forms which are rare are at an advantage.
There are several decent real-world examples of this; female fruit flies
prefer males who look "different", and animals which have immune system
genes different from their neighbors' seem less likely to get
diseases from them.
Heterozygote advantage. The organism with two different forms of the gene
has an advantage over others. The classical example is sickle-cell
anemia in humans, where the person with one sickle and one normal allele
is protected from malaria.
Two kinds of selection pulling in different directions. For example,
females may prefer brightly colored males, but so may predators. Some
values for the parameters here will give a balance of different
forms in the population.
2. Non-static environments. This is much harder to model, but interesting.
You can easily get frequency-dependent selection out of an environment
with two food sources, both subject to overexploitation. Environments
which change over time either randomly or in a cycle can also maintain
variability.
***
The simplest model I know in which something like speciation can be seen
to happen is one that contains two factors:
There is a gene with two variants, and the heterozygote is worse than
either homozygote.
There is the possibility for evolving reproductive isolation based on the
first gene.
Reproductive isolation could be modeled in several ways. You could
explicitly add a gene that controls mate recognition. You could arrange
your simulated organisms on a grid and restrict most mating to near
neighbors, and see if two populations seperated from an initial mixture.
Don't forget that if you use random rather than strictly proportional
selection (that is, if you use a random number to see who lives
and who dies), population size makes a huge difference. It is almost
impossible to maintain high variability in a tiny population, even
with strong selection.
> Von Neumann clearly chown that more complicated systems cannot come
> from less complicated systems. Information gets downgraded
I got the Scientific American article (September 1964, vol 211) on interlibrary
loan (too early for local holdings) to read Mathematics in the Biological
Sciences. The lead in is:
"Biologists use mathematics, but the complex systems they study resist
mathematical description. The kind of description that might someday
be helpful is suggested by the abstract analysis of self-reproduction."
Note that this was before most of the developments in Chaos Theory, which
does what they are talking about. Most of the examples in the article are
concerned with modeling specific systems (neurons primarily), cellular
automaton (see newsgroup comp.theory.cell-automata) and a couple of other
systems. The relevance to evolution is not brought up until the last
column on the last page. The applicability of the approach at all is
questioned by the author, though the specifics are said to probably be
possible. The last sentence:
"Nobody has yet done the engineering design work required to build such a
machine, but I think it will someday be built."
Not exactly the posture of one "disproving" the concept, is it?
I checked out the Von Neumann book _Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata_
and am currently reading ther fth lecture "Re-evalutation of the Problems
of Complicated Automata - Problems of Hierarchy and Evolution". The third
lecture: "Statistical Theories of Information" brings in the thermodynamics
issues as it related entrophy, enthalpy, and information. A worthwhile
note is that Von Neumann points out that no local system is closed, and that
local increases are easily accomodated by decreases elsewhere.
A major disagreement that I have so far is the difference between the
automata discussed and actual systems.
1. The cellular automata discussed are assumed to be in their final state.
No further increases in complexity are apparently allowed. This is
blatently false in actual systems which continuously grow.
2. The descendants are perfect copies of the parents. In fact, this is one
of Von Neumann's criteria in self-reproduction. In reality, (with the
exception of very few EXTREMELY simple systems) the "child" is nowhere near
as complex as the parent. As a major difference, the child is not capable
of reproduction. Therefore, actual biological systems do not fit within
the Von Neumann's definitions for self-reproducing automata.
These two differences alone can account for evolutionary change without
the need for a parent to produce (directly) a more complex child. The
parent simply produces a LESS complicatd child, which is NOT a replication
of the parent, which then grows to a more complicated system than the
parent. This can be observed happening when a tree produces seeds
(which as-is are incapable of reproduction and are plainly NOT a duplicate
of the tree) which in turn develop of themselves into a grove, which is
more complicated (see Von Neumann's book on how he measures complexity -
the editors introduction covers it in one place with examples as opposed to
across numerous lectures for those in a hurry).
Did you bother to read _Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata_? The
fifth lecture is entitled "Re-Evaluation of the Problems of
Complicated Automata - Problems of Hierarchy and Evolution". After
a good bit of evaluation & discussion Von Neumann writes:
"There is thus this completely decisive property of complexity, that
there exists a critical size below which the process of synthesis
is degenerative, but above which the phenomenon of synthesis, if
properly arranged, can become explosive, in other words, where
synthesis of automata can proceed in such a manner that each automaton
will produce other automata which are more complex and of higher
potentialities than itself."
Further down this same page he discusses why a system of "less than
a dozen kinds of elements are needed.".
That system could come into being other than being constructed by
a system designed to do so. Luck, for instance.
A close comparison with Turing's machine is done on the next page.
And one page further we get what appears to be an analogy to Mary's
definition of life: "it might be quite complicated to construct a
machine which will copy an automata that is given it, and that is preferable
to proceed, not from original to copy, but from verbal description
to copy." This "description" almost appears to be Mary's "language".
Therefore, this entire string is fallous.
First, Von Neumann was not talking about the development of systems like
those we observe (he said that was the case early in the quoted chapter),
and those differences make the development trivial. And it turns out that
EVEN WITH THESE AUTOMATA evolution (once past the simplest stage) is
possible.
==!
==* ICECORE
From BRINKMAN@EDSEQ4.LLNL.GOV Mon Feb 24 22:05:41 1992
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 22:05:27 -0800 (PST)
From: BRINKMAN@EDSEQ4.LLNL.GOV
Message-Id: <920224220527.20600299@EDSEQ4.LLNL.GOV>
Subject: RE: Ice-core-dating techniques
This is a repost of the ice core dating technique article. I have
followed in the leadership of Jim Meritt by giving this a subject name
starting with FAQ. I have made a couple of corrections/additions/
clarifications to the original.
******************* Start Ice-Core Dating Technique Article*****************
This post comprises the bulk of knowledge I have obtained in the last day of
study on methods of ice-core dating.
Outline
I. Methods of Dating Ice Cores
A. Counting of Annual Layers
1. Temperature Dependent
2. Irradiation Dependent
B. Using Pre-Determined Ages as Markers
1. Previously Measured Ice-Cores
2. Oceanic Cores
3. Volcanic Eruptions
4. Ph Balances
5. Paleoclimatic Comparison
C. Radioactive Dating of Gaseous Inclusions
D. Ice Flow Calculations
II. The Vostok Ice-Core
A. How It Was Collected
B. Experimental Methodology
C. Results
III. Conclusions
A. Minimum Age of the Earth
B. Worlds in Collision?
IV. References
A. Method of Collecting
B. References
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Methods of Dating Ice Cores
Of the four distinct methods for determining the ages of ice cores, the first
three are direct experimental tests and the fourth rests on somewhat uncertain
theories.
I.A. Counting of Annual Layers
The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the
seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the
temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience
(less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal
variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the
ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree
rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are
extremely time consuming.
I.A.1. Temperature Dependent
Of the temperature dependent markers the most important is the ratio of 18O
to 16O. The water molecules composed of H2(18O) evaporate less rapidly and
condense more readily then water molecules composed of H2(16O). Thus,
water evaporating from the ocean it starts off H2(18O) poor. As the water vapor
travels towards the poles it becomes increasingly poorer in H2(18O) since the
heavier molecules tend to precipitate out first. This depletion is a
temperature dependent process so in winter the precipitation is more enriched
in H2(16O) than is the case in the summer. Thus each annual layer starts 18O
poor becomes 18O rich and then ends up 18O poor again.
CORRECTION: Since Antaractica is below the equator, January is a summer
month in Antaractica. Thus, the last sentence should read
"Thus, each annual layer starts 18O rich, becomes 18O poor,
and ends up 18O rich."
This process also depends on the relative temperatures of different years,
which allows comparison with paleoclimatic data (see I.B.5). For similar
reasons the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen acts the same way.
The major disadvantage of this dating method is that isotopes tend to diffuse
as time proceeds.
I.A.2 Irradiation Dependent Markers
Of the irradiation dependent markers the two most important are 10Be and
36Cl. Both of these isotopes are produced by cosmic rays and solar irradiation
impinging on the upper atmosphere, and both are quickly washed from the
atmosphere by precipitation. By comparing the ratios of these isotopes to their
nonradioactive counterparts (i.e. 9Be and 35Cl) one can determine the season of
the year the precipitation occurred. Thus each annual layer starts 10Be and
36Cl poor, becomes 10Be and 36Cl rich, and then becomes poor again.
CORRECTION: I really mucked this one up. Although what is said above is
true, this is an exceedingly minor effect. Both 10Be and 36Be
are formed as charged ions in the ionosphere. The Earth's
magnetic field then traps them, with only a slight "leakage" of
the isotopes to the lower atmosphere. The amount of "leakage"
depends on the height of the ionosophere, which changes
primarily in response to the Solar cycle, with periods of
maximum solar activity corresponding to the highest extent of
the ionosphere.
It should be noted that the 10Be/9Be ratios for some ice cores
have been compared with the known solar cycle and are in
excellent agreement with what is known (accurately showing the
time of the European Little Ice Age, which corresponded with
a remarkably low amount of solar activity).
The major disadvantage of this dating method is that these isotopes also tend
to diffuse over time.
I.B. Using Predetermined Ages as markers
In these methods, one uses the age of previously determined markers to
determine the age of various points in the ice-core. The major advantage of
these methods is that they can be completed relatively quickly. The major
disadvantage is that if the predetermined age markers are incorrect than the
age assigned to the ice-core will also be incorrect.
I.B.1. Peviously Measured Ice-Cores
In this method one compares certain inclusions in a ice-core whose age has
been determined with a seperate method to similar inclusions in an ice-core of
a still undetermined age. These inclusions are typically ash from volcanic
eruptions (see I.B.3) and acidic layers.
The major disadvantage of this method is that one must have a previously
age-dated ice core to start with.
I.B.2. Oceanic Cores
In this method one compares certain inclusions in dated ocean cores with
related inclusions found in the ice-core of a still undetermined age. Examples
of such inclusions are a decrease (or increase) in temperature over a period of
years that can be determined from flora and fauna found in the oceanic core and
a decrease (increase) in the 18O enrichment over this same period of years.
Another example is volcanic ash.
ADDITION: R. Hyde has posted separately some of the relationships between
ocean core data and their astronomical causes. These are the
primary "inclusions" that are compared. I apologize for my use
of nondescript terminology here.
The major disadvantages of this method are that one must compare different
signatures of climatic change that correspond to the same event and that one is
not certain of the lag times (if any) between oceanic reactions and glacial
reactions to the same climatic changes
I.B.3. Volcanic Eruptions
After the eruption of volcanoes, the volcanic ash and chemicals are washed
out of the atmosphere by precipitation. These eruptions leave a distinct marker
within the snow which washed the atmosphere. We can then use recorded
volcanic eruptions to calibrate the age of the ice-core. Since volcanic ash is
a common atmospheric constituent after an eruption, this is a nice signature to
use in comparing calibrated time data and an ice-core of undetermined age.
Another signature of volcanism is acidity.
The major diasadvantage of this method is that one must previously know the
date of the eruption which is usually not the case. Furthermore the alkaline
precipitants of the ice ages (I.B.4) limits this measure to approximately 8000
BC.
I.B.4. Ph Balances
One unique marker of periods of glaciation is that precipitation during the
ice ages are markedly alkaline. This is due to the fact that the ice ages tied
up a large quantity of the available water thus exposing a larger portion of
the continental shelves. From these shelves huge clouds of alkaline dusts
(primarily CaCO3) were blown across the landscape.
The major disadvantage of this method is that it gives only very approximate
age ranges (i.e. this ice was laid down during the ice age). Furthermore, the
lag time between the onset of glaciation and increased alkalinity are uncertain.
I.B.5 Paleoclimatic Comparisons
In this method, one compares long range climatic changes (e.g. ice ages and
interglacial warmings) with markers (such as the 18O/16O ratios) found within
the ice-cores.
I.C. Radioactive Dating of Gaseous Inclusions.
In this method one melts a quantity of glacial material from a given depth,
collects the gases that were trapped inside and use standard 14C and 36Cl
dating.
The major disadvantage of this method is that a huge amount of ice must be
melted to gather the requisite quantity of gases.
I.D. Ice Flow Calculations
In this method, one measures the length of the ice core and calculates how
many years it must have taken for a glacier of that thickness to form.
This is the most inaccurate of the methods used for dating ice-cores. First
one must calculate how the thickness of the annual layer changes with depth.
After this one must make some assumptions of the original thickness of the
annual layer to be dated (i.e. the amount of precipitation that fell on the
area in a year).
II. The Vostok Ice-Core
To demonstrate the methods used in dating ice-cores I will use the Vostok
ice-core as an example because I found plenty of literature on it and because it
is an Antarctic ice-core which was what the original post was about.
II.A How It Was Collected
The Vostok Ice-Core was collected in East Antarctica by the Russian Antarctic
expedition. The Vostok Ice-Core is 2,083 meters long and was collected in two
portions: 1) 0 - 950 m in 1970-1974, 2) 950 - 2083 m in 1982-1983. The total
depth of the ice sheet from which the core was collected is ~ 3,700 meters.
II.B. Experimental Methodology
The ice core was sliced into 1.5-2.0 meter segments. A discontinuous series
sampled every 25 meters and a continuous series from 1,406 to 2,803 meters were
then sent in solid form to Grenoble, France for further analysis.
At Grenoble the ice was put into clean stainless steel containers. The
samples were crushed and then melted with the gases given off collected and
saved for further analysis. The melt water was tested for chemical composition
and then electrolysised.
The methods used in the determination of the ages include 18O/16O isotopic
analysis [1], independent ice-flow calculations [1], comparison with other ice
cores [1], paleoclimatic comparison [1], comparison with deep sea cores [1],
10Be/9Be isotopic analysis [2], deuterium/hydrogen isotopic analysis [3],
comparison with marine climatic record [3], CO2 correspondances between dated
ice-cores [4] and CO2 correspondances with dated oceanic cores [4].
The results determined from these various samples were consistent between the
continuous and discontinuous slices within the sections that overlapped. They
were also consistent with Greenland ice-cores, other Antarctic ice-cores, dated
volcanic records, deep sea cores, and paleoclimatic evidence.
II.C. Results
While unable to provide specific dates (within a millenia), the analysis show
definate evidence of the the last two ice ages. Using the methods listed above
the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago. It should
be noted that all of the methods listed above were consistent with the above
results.
III. Conclusions
In this section I will provide a brief review of how the ice-core data
effects both the age of the earth question and the Velikovskian catastrophism.
NOTE: This original post was written at a time when both Bob Bales and Ted
Holden were frequent posters to talk.origins. Bob Bales has argued
that the age of the Earth is ~50,000 years, and you are probably
aware that Ted Holden is a proponent of the Velikovskian Catastrophism.
Thus, these conclusions are reader specific.
III.A. Minimum Age of the Earth
From the data gathered from the Vostok ice-core indicates that the MINIMUM
age of the earth is 160,000 +- 15,000 years. Furthermore there exists ~ 33%
of additional ice below the core sample which would hold a disproportionate
number of years due to thinning of the ice layers under the tremendous pressure
of the ice above it.
To maintain an age for the earth of 50,000 years, one would need to
describe a mechanism that allows more than 2 false ice layers to form per year.
It should be noted that one also needs to describe why this mechanism has ceased
to function in historic times since the Vostok ice-core demonstrates a number of
the historically recorded volcanism at the correct periods of time.
ADDITION: "To the list of things excluded, you can add miles-high tides or
floods. (Velikovsky and the Noachian deluge). Such a mass of water
would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off
their beds. No way to drop them _exactly_ back onto their original
location, _or_ to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap
would _not_ regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.)"
--Bob Grumbine rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu
III.B. Worlds in Collision
The Vostok ice-core shows no effects of catastrophic geological changes. By
this I mean no petroleum, no vermin, no weird Venus gasses, no red snow, no
manna in amongst the layers. Also no evidence for rapid rotational changes in
the earth, no floods, no major asteroid bombardments. Finally, there is
absolutely positively fur-darn-tootin no evidence of the earth ever having
occupied any position in the solar system other than that which it holds now.
IV. References
A brief note on the references I used.
IV.A. Methods of Collecting
When I went to look for references on the dating of ice-cores, I decided to
follow a simple philosophy...as simple as scientifically possible. I chose to
do this to demonstrate that there is no excuse for someone to make the blatantly
ignorant attack that Ted made when answering Sue Bishop's original post on
ice-core data.
NOTE: Ted originally claimed that the Antarctic ice cores resulted from
lotsa snow, not lotsa years.
The above sections on the Vostok ice-core was taken from references 1-4.
The general information on dating methods comes from references 5-8. The last
two references are about Greenland ice-cores, and are included for further
reading pleasure. Reference [8], if you can find it, is an exceptionally
lucid piece of scientific writing (even though it was a dissertation).
IV.B. References
[1] C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
[2] F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
[3] J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
[4] J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
[5] van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
[6] THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[7] E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
[8] Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
[9] W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
[10] C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235.
********************End Ice-Core Dating Techiniques****************************
Any questions, comments, corrections, and so forth would be gladly accepted.
Matt Brinkman brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Disclaimer: I am not a ice-core warrior, though I play one on TV.
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Geology and creation
Topics:
}There are gaps in fossil record
}Methods of dating the earth are inaccurate.
}K-Ar dating of Hawaiian lava is wildly inaccurate.
}Erosion should've dumped at least 30 times more sediment in the sea.
}Top soil
}Mississippi delta would have formed in 5000 years.
}Niagara Falls-the rim is wearing back
}Deterioration of earth's magnetic field
}Not enough dissolved minerals in oceans.
}Other "geological clocks" that suggest a "young" earth
}Polonium halos
}The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe.
}Lewis Overthrust, Northern Montana, Glacier Nat'l Monument.
}Heart Mountain, north of Cody WY
}Unexplained by uniformitarian model on which the evolutionary model is based
}A near planetary collision
}Shifting the poles rapidly over Hapgood's waveguide zone
}"carcasses deposited in icy mucky dumps"
}evidence of rapid removal and deposition of soil, forest in arctic.
} the are no layers which require more than 6000 years to build up
}no more fossils being made
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
==* GAPS FOSSIL_RECORD
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}- There are gaps in fossil record where you'd expect intermediate forms.
There are more fossils than Creationists will admit. Many intermediate forms
are known--for example, the development of the mammal skull characteristics
from the therapsida of Permian time.
What gaps remain can be explained by erosion, lack of proper conditions
for fossilization, the punctuated equilibrium model, or simply not looking in
the right places yet.
==!
==* DATING
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}- Methods of dating the earth are inaccurate.
Exactly what is meant by "inaccurate" leaves much to be desired.
Please see the August 1989 Scientific American article on the Age
of the Earth. (page 90, by Lawrence Badash, "The Age-of-the-Earth
Debate")
In an abstract from _Nature_, Vol. 341, p. 518 (12 October 1987).
"Direct dating of Phanerozoic sediments by the 238U-206Pb
method," by Patrick E. Smith & Ronald M. Farquhar, Geophysics
Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Toronto,
Ontario, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A7
"Direct radiometric age determination of Phanerozoic carbonates
has been a long-standing problem in geochronology. Rb-Sr and
K-Ar dating schemes, commonly used to constrain the chronology
of Phanerozoic sediments, have so far proved to be unsuccessful
in dating these rocks because of their poor enrichment in radiogenic
87Sr and 40Ar and also because of analytical difficulties. Recent
studies have demonstrated that large amounts of radiogenic Pb
exist in some carbonates and that they could be dated by the
Pb-Pb method. However, the precision of this method is severely
limited to samples having very high uranium to lead ratios because
by the beginning of the Phanerozoic (~590 Myr ago) 98% of 235U
originally present in the Earth had decayed to 207Pb. Here we
report the first isochron age of carbonates using the 238U-206Pb
method on corals. This method, which gives good accuracy even
for low U concentrations, has great potential for the direct dating
of sedimentary sequences and should be valuable for refining the
Phanerozoic timescale."
==!
==* ARGON DATING
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - K-Ar dating of Hawaiian lava is wildly inaccurate.
That's why geologists don't pay much attention to analyses of rock
samples unless their geological context is well understood. Since
Hawaii is built on oceanic crust that is about 80-100 million years old
(the age is known more precisely than this; I don't have the references
handy), it was immediately obvious that the observed isotopic ratios
didn't represent the ages of the rocks.
Our confidence in radiometric dating techniques comes from years of
careful comparisons to other radiometric techniques and to relative
age determinations from biostratigraphy (fossils in layered rocks).
In some cases, there are multiple isotope systems that may be analyzed
in the same sample. Since these different systems react differently
to the processes that disturb age recording, if the systems disagree
with one another the age significance of the data is suspect.
Geoscientists try to use all available tools in combination to make
sure that they're not fooled by a single spurious analysis. In
some journals, analytical results aren't publishable unless they're
backed up by field relations and/or by other analytical methods.
The particular case of young Hawaiian volcanic rocks is interesting for
reasons other than the absurd age interpretations. Since these rocks
are very poor in the potassium from which radiogenic argon decays,
their argon content is determined largely by the composition of the
argon in the rocks from which the Hawaii lavas were derived. The data
tell us something about the composition of the mantle down to
about 150 kilometers below the surface, where earthquake data tell us
the lavas originate.
The example of the Hawaii rocks is a Red Herring, as I will demonstrate
momentarily. However, the answer to your last question is very simple. If
you can date a rock by a number of different methods, involving different
decay series, and if you arrive at the SAME AGE using any of a half-dozen
different and completely independent methods, then you can be quite
confident that the age you have measured is reliable.
If you wish to dispute these ages, you have to come up with EVIDENCE that
they are unreliable. It is not sufficient to wave your hands and express
your skepticism. We all know you are skeptical, but saying "how do we
know," without EVIDENCE to suggest that there is a problem, is just
whistling past the graveyard.
And now for the Red Herring. Creationists often bring up the example of
the Hawaiian pillow basalts with anomalous K-Ar ages, but they neglect to
mention that geologists _already thought_ that rocks formed under THESE
PARTICULAR conditions would give unreliable K-Ar ages because they would
trap argon before it can escape. The studies in question were performed
to confirm this under controlled conditions, and thus to confirm to the
scientific community that THIS PARTICULAR type of rock is unsuitable for
radiometric dating. The misuse of this work by Creationists is
particularly despicable, IMHO.
==!
==* EROSION DATING
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Erosion should've dumped at least 30 times more sediment in the sea.
}and all the continents would be worn to sea
}level in just 14,000,000 years.
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
Please read:
On Volcanism and Thermal Tectonics on one-plate Planets
Solomon, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 5, no 6 June 1978
The Supercontinent Cycle
Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988
==!
==* TOPSOIL DATING
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Top soil--6 inches form in 5,000-20,000 years, but earth averages 7 to 8
} inches.
Or erosion.
Your county Soil Conservation Board will be happy to tell you why your
topsoil is getting shallower, and what you can do to curb the problem.
==!
==* DATING MISSISSIPPI
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Mississippi delta would have formed in 5000 years.
So? You have (given a steady-state system which it is NOT) identified a
possible geographic feature less than 5k years old.
==!
==* DATING NIAGARA
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}Niagara Falls-the rim is wearing back at a known rate and taken ~5,000 years
}from its original precipice.
That's neat - and the steady-state assumptions are? And how did you get
the "original precipice" without deciding up front how old you wanted it?
The Niagara River HAS been where it is for only a few millenia (or tens of
millenia). Before that, the whole area was under glacial ice! (And it
some millenia after the ice retreated for the land to reach its present
level and the drainage paths to reach their present alignment.
I'd love to see what happens in the year the falls erode back to Lake Erie!
At the present rate of erosion, I think that's supposed to be ~100,000 AD.
==!
==* DATING MAGNETIC_FIELD DIPOLE_MOMENT
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Deterioration of earth's magnetic field, at present rates, implies an
} excessive field 10,000 years ago.
The decay is not a steady state (you love this - Morris does, too). In fact,
there is considerable evidence for reversals. The atlantic ocean floor
as it spreads shown the weakening - reversing - strengthening recorded in
its stone as the contenents spread from the mid-atlantic ridge.
The usual creationist assumption behind this extrapolation is that the
decay is exponential, which excludes the possibility of field reversals.
The limited existing measurements cannot yet distinguish between
exponential, linear, or other decay patterns.
The source of the earth's magnetic field remains uncertain. A good
summary of what is known is found in "Ancient Magnetic Reversals: Clues
to the Geodynamo", SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May 1988, p. 76-83.
The field is expected to reverse sometime in the next few thousand
years. A time scale on page 78 shows the reversals over the past 170
million years, as deduced from the magnetic patterns in oceanic crust.
I counted about 200 reversals on the chart.
The sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years in a 22 year cycle.
==!
==* DATING OCEAN_MINERALS
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Not enough dissolved minerals in oceans.
dissolved minerals - the stuff moves in cycles, and as such most of the
minerals are very close to their balance levels. Remember "carbon cycle"?
The same general idea holds for everything else. Remember the space shuttle?
Except for the last time, it has been landing on salt. Like from the
oceans, remember?
==!
==* DATING CLOCKS
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}Other "geological clocks" that suggest a "young" earth-
}13-16) juvenile water (from volcanoes), oil deposit pressure, Stalactite Growth
}(limestone)
juvenile water is covered in those same computer models, and again nothing
tricky is involved at all.
oil deposites themselves require a time well over 6000 years to exist, so
try again.
stalactite growth - of some, perhaps. You are still identifying merely
temporary features
The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals
Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981
The Steady State of the Earth's crust, atmosphere and oceans
Siever, Scientific American, May 1974
The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth
Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978
Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans
Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986
Enhanced CO2 greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity on early
earth
Owen & Cess, Nature, vol 227, 22Feb 1979
How climate Evolved on the Terrestrial Planets
Kasting, Toon, & Pollack, Scientific American, Feb 1988
Climatic Changes of the last 18,000 years: Observations and Model Simulations
COHMAP members, Science vol 241, 26 Aug 88, p 1043-1052
==!
==* DATING HALOES
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - Polonium halos indicate granite-producing magma cooled suddenly, not
} over millions of years.
Gentry's work is of particular importance because it involves actual
field and laboratory work followed up by papers appearing in refereed
scientific journals, offering some credibility to the field of
"creation research."
There is, however, a serious weakness in Gentry's work. It has been
devoted almost entirely to the physics of the polonium halos, thereby
neglecting the geological setting of the samples in which the halos are
found. Because of this neglect, Gentry makes unwarranted generalizations
about the nature of the world's Precambrian rocks.
THE BASIC PREMISE
Polonium halos are small spherical "shells" of radiation damage that
surround radioactive inclusions within certain minerals in rocks, which
Gentry has described in his book "Creation's Tiny Mystery." [1] The halos
are formed by alpha particles released during the decay of an isotope.
As an alpha particle nears the end of its path and slows, it causes
disruption of the crystal structure leaving a small damage track.
Over time, repeated decays from the parent isotope will leave
a spherical halo of discoloration. The distance that an alpha particle
travels depends upon the energy of the decay and that, in turn, is a
function of the particular nuclide that decays. Theoretically, then,
the radii of a series of halos that surround a radioactive inclusion
permit identification of the specific decaying nuclides.
Gentry has claimed that certain of these halos indicate that the
granite "basement rocks" of the earth are "the primordial Genesis rocks"
and were created instantaneously about six thousand years ago.
Essentially, Gentry has found that in certain samples of Precambrian
biotite (a mica) the inner ring halos for uranium and other nuclides
in the decay chain which should be producing Polonium 210, Po214 and
Po218 are missing; only the polonium rings for these three isotopes
are present. In addition, Gentry observed little or no uranium
in the radioactive inclusion. His conclusion is that the polonium
must have been primordial and, because of the short half-lves of
the polonium isotopes (138.4 days , 0.000164 sec. and 3.04 minutes,
respectively), the granite, therefore, must have been created in the
solid state in "only a brief period between 'nucleosynthesis' and
crystallization of the host rock." [1, p. 270]
The fact that Gentry has published in Nature, Science and Medical Opinion
and Review leads one to believe that there is a fair amount of support
for his work, but Gentry avoids making direct creationist statements
in these works -- it seems he is only cautiously trying to link the rocks
of the Precambrian to the rocks that existed right after the Earth's
formation - or creation. His book, however, leaves no doubt on his
position:
"Were tiny polonium halos God's fingerprints in Earth's primordial
rocks? Could it be that the Precambrian granites were the Genesis rocks
of our planet?" [1, p. 32]1
THE GEOLOGY
The first curiosity that Wakefield uncovered was that the sites from
which Gentry obtained his samples were not in the older Archean era of
the Precambrian, as one would expect, but in fact were in the
considerably younger (as dated radiometrically and structurally)
Proterozoic era; specifically, the Proterozoic Grenville Supergroup of
the Grenville Province, here in Ontario. This misunderstanding came
about because Gentry is annoyingly vague on exact sites in his book.
One mine, the Silver Crater Mine, is mentioned specifically, while the
remaining sites are described only as being in Madagascar, New Hampshire
and Norway. This tendency towards vagueness also occurs in his Medical
Opinion and Review article, in which he refers to "the Wolsendorf (Bavaria)
fluorite." [2]
After some research, Wakefield tracked down the three sites, all near
Bancroft in southern Ontario. Regarding the first site, the Fission Mine,
it appeared to Wakefield that this was where Gentry obtained his fluorite
samples and some of his biotite. Gentry denied this, saying they had
come from Germany, but Louis Moyd of the Mational Museum in Ottawa indicated
that samples from the Fission Mine were in fact sent to Gentry. I will
break tradition briefly and quote Wakefield exactly,
"it is clear we are dealing with intrusive calcite vein dikes (rocks
containing mostly the mineral calcite and other minerals, such as mica)
that are small in length and width and cut metasedimentary rocks which
still retain bedding planes. Radioactive minerals abound in this
locality. Percolating water from the hill the deposit occupies is strongly
radioactive and was sold in the 1920s for therapeutic purposes."
The second site, the Silver Crater mine, is related to the Fission mine
and is a calcite intrusive of the same origin. Neither of these mines are
in fact granites, a fact Gentry gets wrong. In addition, while Gentry
claims that "halos occur in many mica samples which have not undergone
metamorphism of any kind," the micas of the Silver Crater were indeed
formed during metamorphism under the load of moderate-depthed overburden,
whch has since been eroded off. Gentry's primordial biotite was in
fact metamorphically derived.
The third site, the Faraday mine, I will touch on only briefly.
Gentry emphasizes that the oddity of the halos is that there is no
uranium or thorium in the nucleus at the center of the polonium halos.
Unfortunately for him, the Faraday pegmatite was mined for uranium --
a total of some four million tons of U(3)O(8) ore were mined for a total
of 7.3 million pounds of uranium oxide until the mine's closure in 1984.
The most common radioactive mineral was uranothorite, hence lots of
uranium and thorium.
Gentry's case rests heavily on a "God-of-the-gaps"
approach to the halos; that is, it requires that there be no acceptable
naturalistic explanation for the halos. Once such an explanation is
found, Gentry's case crumbles. One paper that proposes such a
naturalistic explanation is by N. K. Chaudhuri and R. H. Iyer [3].
I make no pretense about being able to understand the model they
present; perhaps those with the necessary background will help out here.
Gentry also has problems with accuracy in his quotation of other
scientific sources. In one case, Gentry (p. 71) refers to a paper by
N. Feather [4], saying that Feather discusses "clear mica (without any
conduits)," but there is no reference to this in Feather's paper.
In another instance, Gentry quotes Steven Talbott for scientific
support and provides a copy of Talbott's article in the appendices
of his book, but Talbott himself states that he has relied on two
sources for HIS information: phone calls with Gentry and "the available
technical literature", which turns out to be based on Gentry's own articles.
What Gentry has in essence done is to reference himself and attempt
to pass this off as independent corroboration.
[1] Gentry, R.V., 1986. Creation's Tiny Mystery. Knoxville, Tenn.
Earth Science Associates.
[2] Gentry, R.V., 1967. "Cosmology and the Earth's Invisible Realm."
Medical Opinion and Review. October, p. 79.
[3] N.K. Chaudhuri and R.H. Iyer, "Origin of Unusual Radioactive Halos,"
Radiation Effects, 1980, vol. 53, pp. 1-6.
[4] N. Feather, "The unsolved problem of the Po-halos in Precambrian biotite
and other old minerals," Comm. to the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh,
no. 11, 1978.
And for a more recent:
In the 6 October 1989 issue of SCIENCE magazine (Vol 246, #1 pp 107-109),
there is a report on work with Radiation Induced Color Halos (RICHs) in
quartz, suggesting a mechanism for the "Po halos" that removes their utility
as Creation Science evidence.
The abstract and first two-and-a-half and last one paragraphs of the report,
giving a summary of the problem and the authors' conclusion:
ABSTRACT
"The radii of radiation-induced color halos (RICHs) surrounding
radioactive mineral inclusions in mica generally correspond closely to
the calculated range of common uranogenic and thorogenic alpha particles in
mica. Many exceptions are known, however, and these variants have led
investigators to some rather exotic interpretations. Three RICHs found
in quartz are identified as aluminum hole-trapping centers. Whereas the
inner radii of these RICHs closely match the predicted range of the most
energetic common alphas (39 micrometers), the color centers observed
extend to 100 micrometers. Migration of valence-band holes down
a radiation-induced charge potential might account for these enigmatic
RICHs. Such RICHs provide natural experiments in ultraslow charge diffusion.
"In 1907 Joly pointed out that microscopic color halos commonly observed
surrounding small inclusions of radioactive minerals were caused by damage
produced by alpha particles emanating from the inclusions. Shortly afterwards,
Rutherford noted a close correspondence between the radial size of halos and
the energies of the alpha particles. A number of workers have described
and measured these radiation-induced color halos (RICHs) and, from their
sizes, have tried to match them with specific radionuclides in the inclusions.
Although it seems possible to relate the sizes of most of the described halos
to alpha emitters in the U and Th decay chains, there are many exceptions.
Particularly controversial have been two (perhaps artificial) classes of
RICHs referred to as Po halos and giant halos.
"The Po haloes are RICHs that have a size and ring structure apparently
comparable with the range in silicate minerals of alpha particles emmited
by uranogenic Po radioisotopes of mass 210, 214, and 218, although this
interpretation has been challenged. Significantly, rings that can be
attributed to the other five alpha decays in the 238-U seroes seem to be
lacking. That the half-life of 218-Po is 3 min has not deterred some
investigators from proposing separation of Po from its radioactive progenitors
before its inclusion in minerals. Indeed, Po halos have even been offered
as possible evidence of an instantaneous creation.
"Giant halos are anomalous RICHs that have radii extending more than
approximately 47 um from the edge of the inclusion..."
[Their proposal is that aluminum inclusions can create a semi-conductive
area where beta particles can cause diffusion and discoloration over a
very large area]
"...We strongly suspect...that the sizes and structure of giant and Po
RICHs in mica are also artifacts of radiation-induced conductivity and their
explanation requires neither unknown radioactivity nor an abandonment of
current concepts of geologic time."
==!
==* DATING DISTRIBUTION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}- The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe.
This is written at the time Wagener proposed Continebtal Drift
for the first time. He is rejected by the geologists of the day,
but now Plate Tectonics is well accpeted among geologists and
is used to construct paleobiogeography that explains fossil
distrubutions.
And like horses (that man transported), camels, pandas, kangaroos,
marsupials,.. In fact, this supports the evolutionary postulates in that
the distribution matches transportation capabilities.
What is more interesting is why are not animals everywhere? If they all
got themselves originated from one place (did this twice, supposidely -
everyone was originally present in Eden for the naming and everything
was together again in the ark) why are not marsupials found everywhere?
Ibid old world vs. new world species.
The Supercontinent Cycle
Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988
Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift
A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975
==!
==* DATING OVERTHRUST
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}- In some places older fossils appear above young ones.
} - Lewis Overthrust, Northern Montana, Glacier Nat'l Monument.
}Lewis Overthrust, Northern Montana including Glacier Nat'l Park
}Here inorder to explain the problem of much older fossils superimposed
}on much younger rocks we have a massive sheet of rock 6000 ft+ thick
}and 100+ miles long moving some 65 (or more) miles with no trace of friction
}or distortion... EVEN THOUGH THE ROCKS THEY REST ON ARE CRETACEOUS SHALES
}AND MUDSTONES WHICH WOULD SHOW DISTORTION QUITE EASILY!
In "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Monument", U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 294-K (1959) C. P. Ross and Richard Rezak note:
Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the
impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost
as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished
so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and in
certain places, they are intensely so. From points on and near
the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where
the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs and
canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as
the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and
in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east.
Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in
the thrust fault are:
The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity
of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near
Marias Pass, (shown in figure 139), must have taken place when
the heavy overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks
beneath...
In some places only a single fault surface formed, with crushed
and crumpled soft rocks beneath...
Rocks between these faults were crumpled and crushed in a
variety of ways. In some places the zone in which fracturing
occured was as much as 2000 feet thick; generally it must have
been at least several hundred feet thick.
The statements made by you that there exists "no indication of
friction [?] or structural distortion in either the Lewis thrust
plate or overridded [sic] surface!" and "In order to explain the
stratigraphic imposibility [sic] of such older rocks over younger
rocks thrust model is invoked" (don't they teach grammer at the
Colorado School of Mines?) is misleading at best and an outright lie
at worst. I'm trying to decide if you are ignorant or just plain
dishonest. If you'd like to see photographs of the actual thrust
fault which we are discussing, may I suggest that you examine the
December 1988 issue of the _Geological_Society_of_America Bulletin_?
I'm sure your library receives it. While it is true that the thrust
fault is often described as being "knife sharp" and there is little
structural distortion above and below it, the fault is undoubtably
present. You can walk up to it in places and place your hand on it.
The thrust model, as you put it, was not just invoked without any
supporting evidence. Geologists, unlike creationists, gather data and
use it to support their theories. While the actual mechanics of
overthrusting may still be poorly understood, geologists are making
progress in understanding it (there have been hundreds of papers
published on it).
==!
==* DATING SUPERPOSITION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}Heart Mountain, north of Cody WY
}If you believe that a large block of limestone could be moved uphill
}for that distance without becoming pulverized I have some land in Fl. you
}would be interested in... Or would you be more interested in the Brooklyn
}Bridge?
aka
}Heart Mountain, north of Cody WY
}A huge mountain of Paleozoic limestone setting on top of Eocene/Miocene
}clastics... no indication of friction... no indication of pulverization...
}yet in order to avoid the failure of uniformitarianism geologists predict
}that this "block" of material was broken off from Sunlight Basin and moved
}by the vibration of volcanic eruptions over a 3000 ft. structure (the Dead
}Indian hill block fault) for a distance of over 25 miles.
"in order to avoid the failure of uniformitarianism" is a biased judgement
that does not address the issues, I will ignore it. William G. Pierce
in his article "Heart Mountain and South Fork Detachment Thrusts of Wyoming"
in American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin Vol. 41 (1957),
notes that the level Cambrian strata broke off along a bedding plane,
and slid downhill. The thrust block slid over younger rocks, parts of
the thrust block eroded away, and a volcano finally deposited some debris
over the area where a piece of the block had once stood. The volcanic
debris, not being a part of the original thrust block, never slid.
Pierce also notes that the thrust block strata are often grossly
deformed even when the underlying strata are not. He shows how
the strata from one piece of the thrust block are often sliced across
at a slant, forming an angle with the horizontal strata underlying the
thrust fault.
If you will allow me to quote from Strahler's book _Science and Earth
History_ (Note: Bill Jefferys mentions this book frequently. I advise
everyone who reads this group to run not walk to the library and GET
it. It would be most useful for Bob Bales and Joe Applegate to read
this. Challange to Bob Bales. I will read any creationist book you
wish me to, and post a critique to the net if you will read this book
and post your critique of Strahler. Why do I think Bob won't take up
the challenge?)
>From Chapter 40 page 393:
For reasons as yet undertermined, the entire layer of post-Cambrian
strata simply began to glive as a unit southeastward over a bedding
surface located immediately under the massive Bighorn dolomite
formation of Ordovician age and above the topmost Cambrian formation.
This layer detached itself along a vertical breakaway fracture shown
at the left. Movement was evidently on a very low downgrade, decling
some 650 meters in elevation from the breakaway fracture to the end of
teh bedding slip zone, a horizontal distance of some 50 km. As the
rock sheet traveled, it broke up onto blocks on a sucession of
vertical tension fractures. The blocks thus became separated by open
gaps, in which the bedding plane of gliding (identified as the Heart
Mountain fault) was exposed at the surface. Geologists have applied
the term "tectonic erosion" to the surface exposure of a fault plane
by sliding away of the overlying mass.
End quote.
So it seems 1) it didn`t move uphill as you claim. and
2) there was pulverization of the rocks.
==!
==* DATING UNCONFORMITY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}These just two of the unconformities which are unexplainable by the
}uniformitarian model on which the evolutionary model is based...
But the point is, whenever one small area is undisturbed, its fossils
are found in a very definite order from top to bottom. The fossils
close to the top resemble modern species far more than the fossils
closer to the bottom. When fossils are occasionally found in the
"wrong" order, one finds that the rocks are in disturbed areas like
mountain ranges, where the sediments are being squished up and out
over the surface of the earth like an ice cream bar crushed in a
vice. These mountain sediments show plenty of physical evidence of
overturning and overthrusting that has nothing to do with fossils.
Therefore, geologists who avoid overturned rocks when they determine
the fossil sequence are not commiting circular reasoning.
William Smith, a canal engineer, was the father of modern stratigraphy.
He was the first to notice that the higher rocks consistently had different
fossils than the lower ones did. He was also a creationist, and used
his discovery only to make money, yet the whole of geology today is
based on his discovery.
Geology is self-correcting, so of course, there is always an
infinitessimal chance that it will someday contradict evolution, or
perhaps render evolution a poorer explanation of the evidence than
creationism. It will no doubt take something a bit more serious than
the anomalies Joe mentioned here. We're still waiting.
==!
==* ASTEROID
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
}A near planetary collision or an asteroid impact could do a lot of geomorphic
}change! And geologically overnight!
yeah, and it would probably kill everything, given the size it would have
to be. see national geographic, june 1989, 'the march toward extinction',
p. 662, especially the chart starting on p. 666.
>Shifting the poles rapidly over Hapgood's waveguide zone would be just as
>effective and fast!
what's wrong with the possibility of shifting them slowly?
==!
==* DATING FROZEN_CARCASSES
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} - "carcasses deposited in icy mucky dumps"
} - evidence of rapid removal and deposition of soil, forest in arctic.
}No, the evidence plainly points to the removal of large areas of soil and
}forest along with their rapid deposition and freezing in the artic... now
}what besides a tidal surge of immense proportions would do that... and if
}such a surge wiped the face of Asia and Alaska, why is it unlikely to extend
}it to Mesopotania, where it would have depositied it's debris in the vicinity
}of Ararat!
Severe temperature changes are known to be responsible for great
catastrophic mortalities. Such mortalities are typically associated
with unusually cold spells or severe winters. Severe storms are
also responsible for catastrophic kills and quick seimentary deposition.
During hurricanes and other severe stormes, bottom sediment can be
stirred up to a considerable depth and easily bury animals.
There is absolutely no question that modern day catastrophes are
constantly occuring and that many of these can result in catastrophic
kills and rapid deposition of sediment. In short, fossils and fossil
graveyards are being formed today. You may be correct in assuming that
the evidence of rapid deposition you cite is generally evidence for
some catastrophic mode of formation, but you are incorrect in
assuming that only the Genesis Flood can account for such deposits.
Especially in the face of the great amount of other evidence in
direct conflict with the Genesis Flood hypothesis, evidence of slow
deposition, evidence in coral reef formations, evaporite deposits,
fossil lake deposits, glacial deposits, and desert deposits. When
we look at the sedimentary rock record we find some deposits that bear
evidence of having been formed by moving water and could have been formed
in flood water, but by no means are all rocks like that, in fact there
are a considerable number of formations that could not have formed in
surging flood waters at all.
==!
==* DATING STRATA
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} the are no layers which require more than 6000 years to build up
- the abyssal plain ?
- the Greenland icecap
- Green River
Plus, at the statellite-measured recession rate of the NA
continent, the Atlantic gets a Real Big age. This is consistent
with the mag stripes alongside the mid-Aatlantic ridge.
==!
==* DATING FOSSILIZATION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} A while back I heard a Southern Baptist preacher declare that
}no more fossils were being formed because the rate of sediment deposition
}today is too slow to capture and preserve anything.
} This, he said, is proof that the flood happened because that
}would have been the only time the rate of sediment deposition would
}have been high enough to make fossils. (I didn't bother to ask him how
}he explained the layering of fossils, but I'm sure he would have used
}some variation of the idea that the larger fossils naturally floated
}to the top and the small ones settled to the bottom.)
There was a bit of wondering going on amongst the dinodiggers on why so many
fossils of a particular type had a specific distribution, especially when
that distribution was of a single kind, large numbers, and not uncommon.
A light flashed when it was realized that herding animals today, when fording
a river, sometimes panic. The stampede occurs IN the river, and many drown.
The distribution of animal bodies downstream appear to be the same as those
dinosaur distributions. Thats one.
Tar pits work quite well today. That's two.
I've seen stuff deposited in marine sediments. That's three.
There are about a dozen cars mostly buried about 9 miles from here where a
parking lot caved in into the drainage ditch/river feeder caved in. I have
little doubt that any small animals in the parking lot went with them. That's
four.
Sedimentation rates look like they are going like gangbusters to me. Look
at the estuaries filling in. Look at the marine channels filling in. You
don't get sedimentary build up on top of hills.
==!
==* FLOOD STRATA RAPID_DEPOSITION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:36 1992
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
}He next stated that when you hit something that's hard, it breaks or
}shatters. These folds are smooth, so it must be that the rock (he
}showed and mentioned sandstone) was still forming from mud, and was
}still soft. This means that the layers formed very rapidly, to still
}be soft (down at the bottom layer) when the whole shebang got
}faulted.
}
}His (inevitable) conclusion: it all formed during Noah's flood.
Rebuttal: nothing "hit" that rock. Conventional geology understands
the strength and brittleness of these things: they can and have been
measured in labs. Note, I'm not saying that rocks of a given type
are identical. The point is that science has dealt with all this
quantitatively. The rocks got folded by compression, not by sudden
impact: and in fact some rocks do shatter. I've seen examples - for
instance, hard black fragments embedded in a softer gray rock. The
gray rock had flowed while the black shattered.
Folding can happen in a lot less than geological time. If you
go to the Roman dig at the Fort at Housesteads, in Northumbria,
you can see the remains of Roman barracks which now lie in definite
waves, because of the movement of the earth beneath them. The
mortar between the stones is still intact.
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:12:14 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: gaps in the fossil record
==* GAPS FOSSIL NO_TRANSITION
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:12:14 1992
} the evidence from the fossil record to support evolution is largely
} missing and that critical gaps indicate a single creation of life
} as it is today.
}The fossil record is incomplete and there are no transitions evident
Such a prediction by creationists is rare. The implication of this
is that if gaps in the fossil record are ever filled, creationism
is falsified.
Those outside professional paleontology often find it difficult to
access what the fossil record does and does not show. As someone who
works within the field of human paleontology and human evolution, I
often find it odd when I am told that the number of human fossils is
much too meager to allow the sort of extrapolation claimed by
biologists for human ancestry. This may have been true 20 years ago,
but it certain is not the case now.
This might lead one to wonder if the fossil record is not also underrated
in the are of other organisms as well. An article in the book _Science
and Creationism_, edited by Ashley Montagu, addresses this point. The
article is by noted paleontologist Roger J. Cuffey, one of the witnesses
called to testify in the now famous Arkansas creation science case in
1982. Allow me to quote form the article, entitled "Paleontological
Evidence and Organic Evolution,":
"If we read the paleontologic literature (especially if with the
background of professional paleontologic training and experience)
we find that the fossil record contains many examples of such
transitional fossils. These connect both low-rank taxa (like
different species) and high-rank taxa (like different classes),
inspite of the records imperfections and in spite of the
relatively small number of practicing paleontologists. Because
of the critical role which transitional fossils played in
convincing scientists of the occurrence of organic evolution,
paleontologists have been appalled that many otherwise well-
informed persons have repeated the grossly misinformed assertion
that transitional fossils do not exist."
Cuffey the goes on to list no fewer than 185 references in the paleontologic
literature documenting such transitional forms. One of my favorites is
the fossil Therapsid, Diarthognathus. In the fossil record, reptiles are
distinguished from mammals by the number of bones that form the lower jaw.
This is not a trival distinction, since the musculature of the reptilian
jaw is different from that of mammals and would require such a re-design.
Essential, reptiles have a lower jaw made of three bones (dentary, articular
and quadrate) while mammals have only a single bone (the dentary), with the
articular and quadrate relocated to the middle-ear (reptiles have only one
ear ossicle, mammals have three. The relocation of this bones is observable
embryologically in modern mammals).
Therapsids are "mammal-like reptiles" and have a number of traits that
put them midway between mammals and reptiles. The skull is larely reptilian
but the dentary is much larger than in modern reptiles and other fossil
reptil groups. Also, the therapsids have heterdont teeth (different shapes
for different functions as in mammals) and limbs located underneath the body,
rather than out to the side (not as far underneath as in mammals, however).
Diarthrognathus is a therapsid with both a mammalian and reptilian jaw joint.
Both are functional, but the mammal-like joint seems to have been the most
functional. The quadrate and articular bones are very reduced. The animal
is literally hafe-way between a mammal and a reptile.
One more thing. I think it unfair to list Denton with other respected
biologists. Denton is not a biologists and, while not religious either,
had his own philosophical axe to grind against what he felt are the
dehumanizing implications of evolution. A recent review of Denton's
book appears in the July-August Issue of the NCSE Reports (published by
the national center for science education ). The review, by biologists
William M. Thwaites, points out the numerous errors, misintepretations
and misrepresentations in Denton's book. Denton, as do many religious
creationists, relies on outdated material often quoted out of context,
and does not seem to understand the implications of the examples he
uses, especially those using biochemical evidence. Thwaite concludes:
"...Denton's book is just another typical anti-evolution tract. It
shows that Dento is motivated, not by a desire to understand the
workings of nature, but by apparent fear of "agnostic," "materialistic,"
and "skeptical outlook of the twentieth centure."
==!
==* NO_TRANSITION FOSSIL
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:12:14 1992
}The fossil record is incomplete and there are no transitions evident
The fossil record will never be complete, but it is certainly more complete
than it was in Darwin's day. Darwin`s prediction that the "holes" would be
filled has come true. Transitional fossils now exist for all vertebrate
groups. Transitional forms also exist for most major invertebrate groups
and for most groups of plants.
For those of you without the fortitude to wade through the paleontological
literature, a wonder source of information is an article by Roger J. Cuffey
in the book _Science and Creationism_ (edited by Ashley Montague). This
book should be fairly easy to obtain. In the article, entitled "Paleontologic
Evidence and Organic Evolution" Cuffey lists no less than 220 references from
various scientific journals documenting these transitional fossils. These
transitions include connections between low rank taxa (like species) as well
as high-rank taxa (like classes).
It is interesting that much is made of the "evolution should not be
treated as a fact" when the same people often talk about a lack of
transitional forms between various taxa. Taxonomic groups are not
facts. Taxonomy is an order imposed on the living world by scientists
to make the diversity of life easier to deal with. Nonetheless,
creationists and fellow travellers refer to it like it is written in
in stone.
>From stassen@netcom.UUCP (Chris Stassen):
For those interested in evaluating "intermediate forms", I'd recommend
Chris McGowan's _In The Beginning_ (Prometheus). It's a "good place to
start" for the layman (but by no means sufficient all by itself). He
devotes two chapters (pp. 110-141) on detailed study of Archaeopteryx
and the Cynodonts, comparing their features to those of the two groups
which they fall between.
While Archaeopteryx appears too late to itself be the transitional form
between reptiles and birds, it does fall between the two categories. The
Creationists contend that it is a bird - but a detailed study of features
shows that it has less in common with birds (feathers, wishbone) than it
does with Theropod dinosaurs (pubic peduncle, bony tail, no pygostyle, no
bony sternum, three well-developed fingers, three well-developed metacarpal
bones, metacarpal bones unfused, metatarsal bones separate, no hypotarsus,
abdominal ribs). The first specimen found was accidentally classified as
a reptile because the feather impressions were too faint to discern (until
the fossil was specifically examined for them).
I'll deal with Cynodonts more briefly, but when evaluated in 14 main areas
where reptiles and mammals differ skeletally, they are clearly intermediates.
They share five of the features with reptiles, five with mammals, and are
somewhere in between on the other four. Since they appear in the fossil
record at the proper time, and are connected by many other "transitional"
fossils in a very detailed sequence, they represent one of the most
well-documented transitional forms. (It should be no surprise that more
recent transitions are better documented. More fossils are available,
and more complex creatures probably change more slowly.)
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Fossil and creation
Topics:
}There are gaps in fossil record
} Oldest living things
}Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
}The suddenness with which major changes
}Many extinctions lack obvious reasons.
}"carcasses deposited in icy mucky dumps"
}evidence of rapid removal and deposition of soil, forest in arctic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
==* GAPS FOSSIL INTERMEDIATES TRANSITIONS
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
}- There are gaps in fossil record where you'd expect intermediate forms.
There are more fossils than Creationists will admit. Many intermediate forms
are known--for example, the development of the mammal skull characteristics
from the therapsida of Permian time.
What gaps remain can be explained by erosion, lack of proper conditions
for fossilization, the punctuated equilibrium model, or simply not looking in
the right places yet.
[For a list of intermediate forms at several different taxonomic levels,
see Roger A. Cuffey's 1973 article, which is reprinted in Montagu's
"Science and Creationism". -- WRE]
==!
==* BRISTLECONE_PINE OLD
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
} - Oldest living things, bristlecone pines, are younger than 5000 years.
Sure. In fact, if you go for grove instead of individual tree and match
similiar growth rigns (similiar events in overlapping lifespans) it goes
well over 11,000 years.
==!
==* COEXISTENCE MAN DINOSAUR
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
}- Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
(Creationist Institute of California).
Refuted. Institute discredited and licence (to grant science
degrees) recently revoked.
[The Institute for Creation Research, while pushing a number of
factually unsupported claims (that is, lying), recently regained the
privilege of conferring science degrees under the auspices of TRAC, a
Christian "accreditation" organization. This is not the same kind of
accreditation that public schools must undergo. -- WRE]
BTW: Those "footprints" in the Paluxy river bed are NOT human. A simple
observation of the tracks reveal that while an arch is present forward of
the heel, there are only three toes. If a track is observed which is
uneroded, webbing is visible between the toes. A special on NOVA allowed
these tracks to be visible to millions.
Dr. Walter Brown, now director of the Center for Scientific Creation
in Phoenix, AZ.
Brown, may fall back on a rather novel technique that he has employed
in the past -- denying having ever supported the idea. Brown first
used this tactic not long after the Paluxy River tracks were shown
conclusively to be either dinosaur tracks or erosion marks. When
asked for his opinion, Brown claimed that he had NEVER supported the
Paluxy River tracks. However, he was forced to 'fess up when shown
the transcript of a local Ontario TV program, "Speaking Out," when he
stated that Paluxy River was very good evidence for creationism.
[This resembles, in the words of Betty Ann Stout describing White
House personages during the Iran-amok scandal, "Republican Forgetful
Syndrome". The Japanese "plesiosaur" flap back in the seventies
relates to an incident where a fishing vessel landed a partially
decayed basking shark. Even if a dinosaur species previously thought
to be extinct were found to have a population extant, this would not
threaten EMTs. -- WRE]
==!
==* SUDDEN FOSSIL APPEARANCE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
}1) The suddenness with which major changes in pattern occurred and the
} virtual absence of any fossil remains from the period in which they
} were alleged to be evolving.
This can be explained by punctuated evolution, in this regard
it is important to note that not all suggested lineages in the fossil
record have such abrupt changes and gaps. There are several fossil
sucessions that record critical evolutionary steps and at a fine
taxinomic resolution. The development of the modern horse is a fairly
complete sucession, as is the development of mammal skull
characteristics from the therapsida of Permean time. Other examples of
pretty gradual evolution?
Instantaneous changes of taxa, on a geologic time scale,
between long periods of stability does not pose insurmountable
problems for neo-evolution since it is genetic equillibrium that
allows long stable periods and stressing the gene pool into metastable
states that allows for punctuated evolution.
==!
==* EXTINCTION NO_CAUSE
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
}- Many extinctions lack obvious reasons.
The "obvious reasons" are obvious to him, and do not necessarily have anything
to do with reality (i.e. 'cause he don't see it don't make it gone)
This may be a problem for compiling a history of life, but the
existence of extinctions at all poses problems for anyone claiming life
has teleology. If a divine creator is calling the shots then finding
extinctions casts doubt on the perfection of his plan, or even the
existance of a plan.
As for finding causes for extinctions, this is going to be
an area of some debate for years to come. The ideas that have been
advanced find some common collapse of habitat that is consistant with
evolutionary biology. The suddeness, or seeming catastrophe of proposed
events do not really threaten uniformatarianism because they are changes
of rate, but not of process.
The "Lack of Obvious Reasons", may overstate the problem, for
a series of events such as asteriod impact, continental colissions,
destruction of barriers between habitats, all have been advanced and
all point to the destruction of habitat and with it mass extinctions.
==!
==* CARCASSES FROZEN
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:11:46 1992
} - "carcasses deposited in icy mucky dumps"
} - evidence of rapid removal and deposition of soil, forest in arctic.
}No, the evidence plainly points to the removal of large areas of soil and
}forest along with their rapid deposition and freezing in the artic... now
}what besides a tidal surge of immense proportions would do that... and if
}such a surge wiped the face of Asia and Alaska, why is it unlikely to extend
}it to Mesopotania, where it would have depositied it's debris in the vicinity
}of Ararat!
Severe temperature changes are known to be responsible for great
catastrophic mortalities. Such mortalities are typically associated
with unusually cold spells or severe winters. Severe storms are
also responsible for catastrophic kills and quick seimentary deposition.
During hurricanes and other severe stormes, bottom sediment can be
stirred up to a considerable depth and easily bury animals.
There is absolutely no question that modern day catastrophes are
constantly occuring and that many of these can result in catastrophic
kills and rapid deposition of sediment. In short, fossils and fossil
graveyards are being formed today. You may be correct in assuming that
the evidence of rapid deposition you cite is generally evidence for
some catastrophic mode of formation, but you are incorrect in
assuming that only the Genesis Flood can account for such deposits.
Especially in the face of the great amount of other evidence in
direct conflict with the Genesis Flood hypothesis, evidence of slow
deposition, evidence in coral reef formations, evaporite deposits,
fossil lake deposits, glacial deposits, and desert deposits. When
we look at the sedimentary rock record we find some deposits that bear
evidence of having been formed by moving water and could have been formed
in flood water, but by no means are all rocks like that, in fact there
are a considerable number of formations that could not have formed in
surging flood waters at all.
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:15:53 1992
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: The Flood and creation
Topics:
}Religion's views
}Science's views
}Parallel myths
}Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems
}What to leave behind
}Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind
}The Noah's Ark Myths
}misc concerning the flood
} hydraulic sorting
} timing problems
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
==* FLOOD OBJECTIONS THEOLOGICAL
By Davis A. Young, a conservative evangelical writer who is also a
geologist. Author of two books devoted to separating evangelical
theology from young-earth and creation-science theories.
"What is much more likely to undermine Christian fath is the dogmatic
and persistent effort of creationists to present their theory before
the public, Christian and non-Christian, as in accord with Scripture
and nature, especially when the evidence to the contrarty has been
presented again and again by competent Christian Scientists (e.g.
Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood, D. E. Wonderly's God's
Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, and numerous articles published
over the years in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation) It
is sad that so much Christian energy has to be wasted in proposing and
refuting the false theory of catastrophic Flood geology. But
Christians need to know the truth and to be warned of error."
"The faith of many Christian people could be hindered when they
ultimately realize that the teachings of the creationists are simply
not in accord with the facts."
"Furthermore, creationism and Flood geology have put a serious
roadblock in the way of unbelieving scientists. Although Christ has
the power to save unbelievers in spite of our foolishness and poor
presentation of the gospels, Christians should do all they can to
avoid creating unnecessary stumbling blocks to the reception of the
gospel."
In closing:
"We are all dealing with God's world and with God-created facts...We
must handle the data reverently and worshipfully, yet we should not be
afraid of where the facts may lead. God made those facts, and they
fit into His comprehensive plan for the world."
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost
and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is
time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this
modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful.
It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given.
Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The
persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of
view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to
the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational
leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching
the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the
forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to
the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that
Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual
obscurantism? I fear that it will."
[_Christianitiy and the Age of the Earth_, by Davis Young,
Zondervan 1982. p. 163.]
This is from G.T. Bettany, _Encyclopedia of World Religions_, a
reproduction of an 1890 manuscript. My copy is (partially) copyright
1988, Dorset Press, New York. This is all direct quotes, with my
comments in square brackets. Keep in mind that this predates many
important discoveries, including, I think, the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Book V., Egyptian and Semitic Religions
Ch. 2, The Babylonian, Assyrian, and Phoenician Religions
p. 493
[discussing the find, in 1872, of a set of Chaldean cosmology tablets
by one George Smith. No dates attached, other than they represent
comparatively late versions of a very early set of legends]
But while there is great interest in finding a Chaldean legend
agreeing in some features with that of Genesis, there is no warrant
for saying that either of the accounts has given rise to the other;
but that they have some connection is very possible. They are of
special importance, however, in anthropology as examples of the ways
in which the human mind has explained creation...
.
.
. Among other early Chaldean fragments is one which appears to
describe a parallel incident to the confusion of tongues at Babel...
.
.
.
p. 494 In the great Epic of Izdubar or Gishubar, also discovered by
Mr. Smith in 1872, we have a Semitic translation of the exploits of
an early Accadian king or primitive Hercules, arranged on a solar plan
[reference to the format of the tablets? not sure], which accords with
the representation of the hero as sun-god. In many ways the events
recorded in the epic corespond to the twelve labours of Hercules; and
it may be that the Izdubar legend is one of the early forms from which
Phoenicia and then Greece derived the famous myth. The most perfect
tablet is that which describes a deluge, which has been very generally
identified with that of Noah. The character of Izdubar corresponds
exactly to that of Nimrod in Genesis; and it is not certain that the
names may not be identical, for Izdubar is but a provisional
rendering.
The deluge, according to the Chaldean epic, was due to the judgment of
the gods Anu, Bel, and Ninip, and Ea told the "man of Surripak",
Samas-Napiati (the living sun), to build a ship to preserve plants and
living beings; it was to be 600 cubits long, and 60 broad and high.
Numerous details of the building and construction are given; and
Xisuthrus with his people, and animals, and plants, and food had
entered the ship, "the waters of dawn arose at daybreak, a black cloud
from the horizon of heaven. Rimmon in the midst of it thundered, and
Nebo and the wind-god went in front." The earth was covered, and all
living things destroyed. Even the gods were afraid at the
whirlwind,and took refuge in the heaven of Anu. After six days and
nights the storm abated, and the rain ceased, and the wind and deluge
ended. "I watched the sea making a noise, and the whole of mankind
were turned to clay, like reeds the corpses floated...In the country
of Nizir (east of Assyria) rested the ship; the mountain of Nizir
stopped the ship,and to pass over it it was not able...On the seventh
day I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went, it returned, and
a resting-place it did not find, and it came back." Later a raven was
sent forth, and it did not return. Then the ship was opened, the
animals came forth, sacrifice was offered to the gods, and Xisuthrus
became the father of Izdubar, himself being later translated to live
as a god. We cannot attempt a detailed comparison of the Chaldean and
Noachian floods, for which reference must be made to Professor Sayce's
edition of Mr. Smith's "Chaldean Account of Genesis"; but we may
remark that this deluge narrative, perhaps more than anything else,
shows how closely the narratives in Genesis are related to Chaldean
traditions or sources of information.
Book VI, The Jewish Religion
Ch. 1, Early History - Moses
p. 586
...There are many indications in the Pentateuch that it was at least
extensively revised long after the date of Moses; and indeed, there is
nowhere in the Pentateuch any assertion that Moses wrote the books
which have generally been attributed to him, and which speak of him in
the third person...
A most conspicuous result of modern criticism of the Pentateuch, is
the discernment of at least two authors or documents, one describing
the supreme God as Elohim, "the Mighty", a plural title which well
understood by the peoples surrounding the early Israelites, and among
whom the briefer El was a common designation for their own chief
deity; the other using the term Jehovah, or Jahveh, translated "the
Lord". A third variation is found when the names are coupled together.
The passage in Exodus vi.3...appears to fix all narratives in which
the name Jehovah is used as later than that revelation to Moses; but
this is by no means agreed upon by critics. We may, however, study the
religious development of the Jews in two periods -- that in which the
name of the Deity was some form of El or Elohim, and that in which it
was Jehovah.
.
.
[stuff of some interest on the Creation descriptions in Genesis, I
hope to get back to this later]
.
.
[The preface to the Pentateuch in my New Scofield Reference Edition,
1967, say in part:
Certain critics have denied that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy
despite the fact that they were attributed to Moses by the Lord Jesus
Christ (where did he say that? I'm curious and haven't been able to
find it). The arguments against Moses' authorship are chiefly based on
the variation of the names of God (Elohim and Jehovah), the
differences in style and vocabulray, and the presence of more than one
account of the same event, e.g. the creation of man Gen. 1:26 and 2:7.
These contentions have been adequately answered in that the variation
in divine names is for the purpose of revealing certain aspects of
God's character; the style is dependent on the subject matter; and the
so-called parallel accounts, well known in ancient Near Eastern
literature, are intended to add details to the first account.
]
[Pretty weak arguments, to me, remembering that authorship was
considered relatively unimportant until recent times. We now return
you to your regularly scheduled Bettany.]
p. 590
In the history of Noah we come into closer contact with the traditions
of other nations, and especially with the Chaldean deluge story,
already referred to (p.494). Moral evil had risen to a great height,
owing, as the early Hebrews believed, to an intermixture of the
daughters of Adam with a powerful race, the sons of Elohim, or the
mighty ones, giving rise to "giants". [why haven't we seen fossils of
these giants?]...We need not follow the details of the Flood...The
conception of a plain only broken by comparatively low hills, covered
by water as far as the eye could see, suffices to adequately fulfill
the conditions really demanded. The "mountains of Ararat" are rendered
the "mountains of Armenia" by many, and it is nowhere said that the
highest mountains were meant...
[Weren't the other races supposed to have been descended from Adam's
other children? How did they survive the Flood?]
...The rainbow was to Noah the sign of this covenant, a fact by no
means implying, what so many have imagined, that the rainbow then
first appeared...
The next great cosmological conception in the Book of Genesis is in
the story by which the variety of languages was accounted for. It is
closely paralleled by some fragments of Babylonian tablets in which
are described the anger of Bel at the sin of the builders of the walls
of Babylon and the mound of the towerr or palace. The builders, whose
attempts were directed against the gods, were confounded on the mound,
as well as their speech...
[Bettany goes on to say that accurate historical accounts, in his
opinion, begin with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.]
Book III, Brahmanism
Ch. I, The Early Vedic Religion
p. 189
In the Satapatha-Brahmana, perhaps the most interesting of all these
books, there is found an early tradition of a flood. Manu, a holy man,
was warned by a fish that a flood would sweep away all creatures, but
he would resce him. He was directed to build a ship and enter it when
the flood rose; he did so, and fastened the fish to the ship, and was
drawn by it beyond the northern mountains. When the flood subsided
Manu was the only man left; a daughter was mysteriously born to him by
virtue of religious rites, and ultimately the world was peopled with
the sons of Manu. In later times it was said that the fish was an
incarnation of Brahma, who assumed that form in order to preserve
Manu.
[I seem to also recall, from my days as a Boy Scout learning Indian
history, that some American Indians (who are underrepresented in
Bettany's book, IMHO, getting only about eight pages total) (Iroquois,
perhaps? certainly eastern) had a legend of an Indian who survived a
great flood on a simple raft.
==!
.....................................................................
==* CATASTROPHE FLOOD EVIDENCE
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} - There is evidence of a catastrophic flood.
um, i think what you're describing here is not a global flood, but a global
wash, and i suspect that the forces necessary to push water 5+ miles up and
thousands of miles horizontally would certainly be enough to kill everything,
animal and vegetable. it would certainly smash a little boat to toothpicks.
btw, under either model, global flood or global wash, how was all the
vegetable matter retained, i.e. how come we still have trees?
==!
==* FLOOD SEASHELLS MOUNTAINS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} - seashells on mountains
Underwater land was raised by plate tectonics. In many places you can see
this process in action (though you need good measuring equipment).
==!
==* FLOOD NOAHS_ARK CONSTRUCTION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems
Returning once again to the procedural difficulties involving Noah's Ark,
based on the work of Robert Moore in "Creation/Evolution", issue XI,
we have the assurance of Tim LaHaye and Henry Morris that Noah and his three
sons could have easily constructed the ark in only 81 years (it being a
good thing that the average lifespan at the time was several hundred
years). According to Moore, the construction "... includes not merely the
framing up a hull but: building docks, scaffolds, workshops; fitting
together the incredible maze of cages and crates; gathering provisions for
the coming voyage; harvesting the timber and producing all the various
types of lumber from bird cage bars to the huge keelson beams --
not to mention wrestling the very heavy, clumsy planks for the ship into
their exact location and fastening them. What's worse, by the time the
job was finished, the earlier phases would be rotting away -- a difficulty
often faced by builders of wooden ships, whose work took only four or five
years."
For waterproofing, we are told that God instructed Noah to coat the
ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-occurring hydrocarbon
pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since, according to Whitcomb and
Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits were formed when organic matter
was buried DURING the flood.
In addition, the structural soundness of the ark was extremely questionable
since, according to ship-building authorities, there was an upper limit
of about 300 feet on the length of wooden ships, beyond which they were
subject to 'hogging' or 'sagging'. Moore again,
"The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners,
nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were
so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support;
they "snaked" or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves,
they leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly, and they were
only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water."
The longest six master, the U.S.S. Wyoming, was only 329 feet long,
yet we are presented with the image of an ark well over 100 feet longer
having to cope with the most severe conditions imaginable.
What to leave behind
---- -- ----- ------
Given the limited room on the ark and the vast number of species of
organisms, several creationists attempt to salvage the situation somewhat
by leaving various families of animals to fend for themselves -- the birds
who are left to fly until dry land reappears and the marine animals who
must must survive the silt-choked, turbulent waters of the great Deluge
until the Flood waters recede. Unfortunately, any attempt to save space
on the ark this way flies rather drastically in the face of Scripture,
since Genesis 7:4 states rather clearly, "For yet seven days, and I will
cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and
*every living substance that I have made* will I destroy from off the
face of the earth."
To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, Genesis 7:23 repeats
the same information, "And every living substance was destroyed which was
upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the
earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."
One would think that the exact wording of these passages leaves very little
latitude for interpretation.
The exact number of kinds ("baramin") that were taken aboard the ark
depends upon which creationist is performing the calculations and when
these calculations were done -- LaHaye and Morris in 1976 arrive at the
figure of 50,000 "kinds", an upward revision from Whitcomb and Morris's
1961 figure of 35,000 but a far cry from the figure of 1,544 due to
Dr. Arthur Jones.
In spite of Scriptural contradiction, there remains a valiant attempt
to determine just who can be left to fend for themselves in the Flood
waters and still have a fair-to-middling chance of surviving. The
first obvious candidates are the marine animals but, as Robert Moore
points out, there are some immediate problems:
"Although creationists seem to think that once you're wet, it's all
the same, there are actually many aquatic regimes and many specialized
inhabitants in each. Some fish live only in cold, clear mountain lakes;
others in brackish swamps. Some depend on splashing, rocky, oxygen-rich
creeks, while others, such as a freshwater dolphin, a manatee and a
thirteen-foot catfish, live only in the sluggish Amazon ...
"The salinity of the oceans would have been substantially affected
by the flood; Whitcomb and Morris lamely address this concern by noting
that some saltwater fish can survive in freshwater and vice versa and that
"some individuals of each kind would be able to survive the gradual mixing
of the waters and gradual change in salinities during and after the flood."
It is left to the reader's imagination to ponder how "gradual" a worldwide,
mountain-covering deluge would be.
==!
==* FLOOD MARINE_ANIMALS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind
Three issues back, we discussed the rather drastic changes in salinity levels
that would result as a consequence of a world-wide flood, but Robert Moore
goes on to point out that, given the rest of the environmental hazards that
would accompany the Noachian Deluge, the problem of the salinity level would
be "a fish's least concern."
In addition to making the water intolerably muddy (Moore calculates a ratio
of 2.06:1 water-to-rock), the accompanying volcanic and seismic activity
would be truly unimaginable, since,
"... most of the world's volcanic activity, sea-floor spreading,
mountain-building and continent-splitting was supposed to have occurred
at this time as well, filling the seas with additional huge volumes of
rock, ash, and noxious gases. Undersea volcanoes usually decimate all
life in the surrounding area, and their extent had to be global during
this terrible year. The earth's pre-diluvian surface would thus have
been scoured clean, and forests, multi-ton boulders and the debris of
civilization hurtled about like missiles. Finally, this tremendous
explosion of energy would have transformed the seas into a boiling
cauldron in which no life could possibly survive."
Moore calculates that the temperature of the oceans would have been
increased by at least 2700 C,
"Yet amidst all of this, creationist icthyologists aver that life went
on as usual, with a few minor adjustments to the "gradual" changes.
The salmon swam to their (long-vanished) riparian breeding grounds that
fall as they always had; sea anemones clung to their rocky perches,
which were on the beach one month and the abyssal plain the next;
blue whales continued to strain for krill even though their baleen
plates were choked with mud; corals, which grow in clear, shallow water,
continued to grow anyway; hapless bottom dwellers, their lives carefully
adjusted to certain conditions of pressure and temperature, suddenly
saw the former increase by more than 5000 pounds per square inch
and the latter fluctuate in who knows what directions."
Given the above, it seems fairly clear that there is no question
of leaving any species to fend for themselves, which brings us to
yet another creationist technique for conserving on valuable space --
bringing along only young specimens or, in extreme cases, eggs.
However, Moore quotes Wildred T. Neill ("The Geography of Life"), as stating
that "the mortality rate is usually very high among seedling plants
and young animals; but once the critical juvenile stage is passed,
the organism has a good chance of reaching old age."
Moore follows this up with, "Furthermore, the young of many species
cannot survive without parental care and feeding ... and even if they
can, the lack of a normal social environment often results in severe
behavioral disturbances... As for the dinosaur eggs, how did Noah know
whether one would yield a female, the other a male -- or even that both
were fertile? And since no eggs require a year's gestation, he soon
would have had a hoard of fragile hatchlings on his hands."
==!
==* FLOOD NOAHS_ARK LEGENDS SIGHTINGS REFS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
The Noah's Ark Myths
"Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point,
when even to this day the remains of Noah's Ark are shown in the
country of the Kurds?" [Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (315 to 403 CE)]
Scholars have known that there are two interwoven creation myths in
Genesis for over 200 years [1]. Current scholarship places the number
of authors for Genesis at no less than four (i.e. Moses is entirely
legendary). The older creation myth is generally referred to as the
"J" (for Jehovah or Yahveh) document while the younger myth is known as
the "P" (for Priestly) document. The "P" document is characterized by
its impersonality, heavy usage of statistics (numbers) and genealogies,
and reference to their chief diety as "Yahveh Elohim". The more
primative "J" document refers to their chief diety as simply "Yahveh".
Note that Elohim is really the plural form (gods). This is entirely
logical since the entire creation myth was actually "borrowed" (a
euphemism for stolen) from the Babylonians who in turn "borrowed" their
version from the Sumerians. Virtually all monotheistic religions
evolved from earlier polytheistic religions. [2,3,4]
In the "J" document, god shapes man out of clay, while in the "P"
document god creates man with just his spoken word. In the earlier
references to man, the Hebrew word "adam" is used. This is translated
as "mankind" (i.e. generic man); the Hebrew name for "a man" is "ish".
Adam as a proper name does not appear until Genesis 5:1 (the Jerusalem
Bible). The dozens of contradictions that appear in Genesis are due to
the different authors and the haphazard way that the various versions
were combined into one book (c.f. animals by "twos" in one place and
by "sevens" in another).
The Babylonian flood story has been known to Western scholars for
several centuries through Greek fragments of the records of the
Babylonian historian Berosus (nineteenth century discoveries have
allowed a complete recovery). Between 1848 and 1876 Austen Henry
Layard (British Museum archaeologist) discovered several thousand
tablets in excavations at Nineveh of the library of the Assyrian king
Ashurbanipal (668 to 626 BCE). Although many of the cuneiform tablets
were destroyed by flames, water, and ransacking hoodlums, laboriously
painstaking effort resulted in the reconstruction of the famous
Gilgamesh epic in twelve cantos. The eleventh tablet contains the
Babylonian version of the universal deluge. The twelve cantos seem to
represent the twelve signs of the zodiac. [5,6]
On December 3, 1872 George Smith (British Museum archaeologist)
presented this quite important discovery to the Society of Biblical
Archaeology. In 1876, he published "The Chaldean Account of Genesis"
which showed the close relationship with the opening chapter of
Genesis. The Mesopotamian creation myth was in use in the New Year
ritual at the shrine of Marduk in Babylon as early as the time of
Hammurabi (1723 to 1686 BCE).
[ Another comprehensive explanation of the origin of much of the Old
Testament is "Bible Myths", by T. W. Doane, in which the author
demonstrates the similarities between the OT and myths from older,
surrounding cultures, particularly Chaldean, Babylonian, Etruscan and
Mesopotamian. - Robert P. J. Day ]
The Turkish Government excavated a tablet at Abu-Habbah (ancient
city of Sippar) which contains a version of the flood story complete
with the great deluge and a large ship (built by Atrakhasis) by which
people are to be saved. The tablet was dated the twenty-eighth day of
the eleventh Babylonian month in the eleventh year of the king
Ammizaduga (about 1966 BCE). Professor H.V. Hilprecht (University of
Pennsylvania) discovered a tablet fragment in the excavations at Nippur
that is no more recent than 2100 BCE. In this tablet, Ea (a god) tells
Atrakhasis (alias Ut-napishtim) to build a great ship to save his
family and the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven since he
will cause a deluge which will kill all life on earth. The Babylonian
creation myth is about 1,200 years older than the Hebrew version and
the Sumerian (pre 3,000 BCE) creation myth predates the Babylonian
version by over one thousand years. The obvious civilization sequence,
according to Biblical scholars, is from the Sumerians down to the
Babylonians and then down to the Hebrews. [6]
Note that according to Greek mythology King Ogyges reigned during a
great flood. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence
supporting the existence of a world wide flood; there is evidence for
several large local floods. [7]
There have been more than forty different organized expeditions to
search for Noah's Ark since World War II. Since 1970 at least eleven
books and three movies have been made about the search for this ever
elusive object. Despite their complete lack of success, "arkeologists"
[8] continue to search for that large box anyway (ark means "box" or
"chest"). Mount Ararat (Agri Dagi) is the most recent of no less than
nine different "final" resting places for the ark (and the least likely
of all). [9,10]
The arkeologists' basic idea seems to be that if Noah's Ark is found
then evolution will somehow be proved totally wrong. They generally
ignore a number of rather important issues (i.e. where all that water
came from and where it went after the flood). In "Genesis vs.
Geology", Stephen Gould examines the plausibility of the Great Flood
and, in particular, the plausibility of the various proposals
creationists have dreamed up to explain where the water came from and
the even harder problem of where it went afterward. Gould uses this to
form the basis of a general discussion of "scientific creationism" and
the "scientific" creationists. [11]
Some additional difficult problems include : how did Noah save all
the different human diseases and parasites? How did giant earthworms
and marsupials make the trip to Australia? Did Noah save any dinosaurs
or plants? One of the Biblical flood myths claims that the earth was
completely submerged for 365 days; long enough to kill off all of the
land plant life. There are an estimated 10,000,000 to 40,000,000
plant and animal species on earth (more than 15,000 different mammals,
250,000 different beetles, and 250,000 different plants). Try
calculating just how big of a box is required to hold all of the
species (including their food) that survived the "flood". Imagine the
few people aboard the ark dealing with several tons of animal waste
each day (according to the Biblical myth the ark's only opening was a
window). This is only a miniscule list of the more formidable problems
that creationists must overcome. Then they get to show why virtually
all of modern science is completely wrong. (Several creationists are
involved in completely redefining science!) Evolution forms the very
foundation of physical anthropology, cosmology, and biology, to name
but a few. Evolution is also a basic component of linguistics,
cultural anthropology, archaeology, and several other branches of
modern science as well. [12,13]
Some of the more visible arkeologists include Kelly Segraves, John
D. Morris, and James Irwin. (John D. Morris is the son of Henry
Morris.) Morris has written two wonderfully silly books titled
"Adventure on Ararat" and "The Ark on Ararat". Although the Morris
expedition claimed several "sightings" of the ark they returned with
exactly zero. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) started these
expeditions in 1971 and has yet to show anything in the way of
scientific evidence. The ICR claims to have received "miraculous
protection" (presumably from themselves) on at least one of their
expeditions. A member of the ICR has rationalized the whole failure
with "the Lord will reveal the Ark at a time of His own choosing". The
search for the ark has become such an embarrassment that the ICR now
disavows any involvement despite the evidence of several of their own
books, films, and slides! [14]
Former astronaut James Irwin's expedition was funded by an
evangelical religious group ("High Flight") based in Colorado Springs.
Like all arkeologists, Irwin is certain that the ark is up there
somewhere. On one expedition he suffered a serious fall and was forced
to donate three teeth to the current monument to creationist credulity
(Mount Ararat). After being released from the hospital, Irwin planned
to search the mountain with a helicopter to narrow down the location.
Why didn't he think of that before trying to cover the entire mountain
by foot?
References:
[2] "The Anchor Bible" untangles the different documents in Genesis.
[3] Eunice Riedel, Thomas Tracy, and Barbara Moskowitz, "The Book of
The Bible", Bantam Books Inc, New York, 1981, pp. 515-518. Riedel and
Moskowitz are anthropologists.
[4] Isaac Asimov, "Asimov's Guide to The Bible", Avenel Books, New
York, 1981. This was originally published as a two volume set.
[5] Alexander Heidel, "The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels",
University of Chicago Press, 1946. Heidel was on the research staff of
the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) until his death in 1955.
[6] James George Frazer, "Folklore in the Old Testament", Hart
Publishing Company Inc, New York City, 1975. "The Great Flood", pp.
46-143. This is an extraction about the Old Testament from Sir
Frazer's classic twenty volume work "The Golden Bough". Frazer is one
of the greatest names in anthropological literature.
[9] LLoyd R. Bailey, "Where is Noah's Ark?", Abingdon, Nashville
Tennessee, 1978. Bailey is an associate professor of Old Testament
Studies at Duke Divinity School.
[10] "The Skeptical Inquirer" Volume 3, #4, Summer 1979. A review of
LLoyd Bailey's book on Noah's Ark, pp. 61-63.
[11] Stephen Jay Gould, "Genesis vs. Geology", "The Atlantic",
September 1982, pp. 10-17. Professor Gould teaches biology and
geology at Harvard University. Gould was awarded the 1981 American
Book Award for Science with "The Panda's Thumb". He is also a frequent
contributor to Natural History magazine.
[12] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #9, Summer 1982, "Six `Flood' Arguments
Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert J. Schadewald, pp. 12-17.
[13] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #11, Winter 1983, "The Impossible
Voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore, pp. 1-43. The entire issue
is about the ark. Moore lists over one hundred references.
[14] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #6, Fall 1981, "A Survey of Creationist
Field Research" by Henry P. Zuidema (paleontologist), pp. 1-5. Also
see "Arkeology : A New Science in Support of Creation?" by Robert A.
Moore, pp. 6-15.
[15] "Science 81", December 1981, "The Creationists", pp. 53-60.
(1) "Creationism as a Social Movement" by John Skow,
(2) "Creationism as Science" by Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis,
(3) "The impact on education : an update", and
(4) "What do the creationists say?".
[16] Isaac Asimov, "In The Beginning... Science Faces God in The Book
of Genesis", Stonesong Press, Inc, 1981, pp. 151-188. Asimov presents
a very even-handed comparison of the Biblical creation myths and the
modern scientific view of origins.
[17] Martin Gardner, "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science", Dover
Publications, Inc, New York, 1957. "Geology verses Genesis", pp.
123-139. This was originally published under the title "In the Name of
Science".
[18] Barbara C. Sproul, "Primal Myths Creating The World", Harper and
Row, 1979, pp. 91-135. Sproul is Director of Religion at Hunter
College of the City University of New York.
[19] Free Inquiry "Science, the Bible, and Darwin". Summer 1982,
Volume 2, #3. "Creationism: 500 Years of Controversy" by Gerald Larue,
pp. 9-14. Professor Larue is emeritus professor of archaeology and
Biblical history (University of Southern California, Los Angeles). And
"Geology and the Bible" by Charles Cazeau, pp. 32-34. Charles Cazeau
is professor of geology (State University of New York at Buffalo).
[20] Howard M. Teeple, "The Noah's Ark Nonsense", Religion and Ethics
Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1978. Teeple is a member of the
association of professional Biblical scholars, "the Society of Biblical
Literature" and an ex-fundamentalist with a Ph.d in Bible.
[21] Also see almost any contemporary encyclopedia under "Biblical
Criticism", "Exegesis", "Higher Criticism", "Lower Criticism", "Flood,
The", "Creation, The Story of", "Gilgamesh", and "Ut-Napishtim".
References (addendum):
[22] Gerald A. Larue, "Ancient Myth and Modern Man", Prentice-Hall,
Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975. Larue provides an extensive
bibliography. See [19] for author information.
[23] Howard M. Teeple, "The Historical Approach to the Bible", Religion
and Ethics Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1982. Teeple provides a
very extensive bibliography. See [20] for author information.
[24] Robert Graves, Raphael Patai, "Hebrew Myths The Book of Genesis",
Greenwich House, New York, New York, 1983. Graves is world renowned as
a classicist and poet. Dr. Patai is an anthropologist, folklorist and
Biblical scholar.
Notes:
[1] The less sophisticated creationists are usually unaware that there
are two creation myths in Genesis while the more sophisticated usually
insist that such claims are merely an unproven hypothesis. This is an
actual example of the latter : "Perhaps the `faith-like' reliance upon
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of the 19th-century (re: Genesis JEPD
theory) reveals either a lack of knowledge of post-WWII theological
progress or an imbalanced diet of Bible literature." The same
individual also insisted that the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth
was spherical despite massive evidence to the contrary! (i.e. the
Bible is a flat-earth book from cover to cover.)
[7] When I asked a local member of the American Scientific Affiliation
(ASA - a creationist organization) for the evidence supporting a global
flood he stated "the fact that all early civilizations had flood
stories proves the universal deluge recorded in the Bible historically
accurate." This typifies creationist thinking. Firstly, not all
ancient people had flood stories; only those located in regions where
floods naturally occur. Secondly, several thousand fables do not
somehow add up to a single fact.
[8] This whimsical name was invented by skeptics.
==!
==* FLOOD MISCELLANEOUS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}misc concerning the flood
Concerning the Flood, the Biblical tale is a copy of an old
Mesopotamian tale; the Tigris and Euphrates rivers sometimes flood,
and a flood can seem like one of "all the world" to someone living in
nearly level terrain. In the tale of Noah's Ark, we do not learn why
Noah did not take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to get rid
of all the "unclean" animals once and for all. In early modern times,
it was commonly thought that fossils were the remains of animals and
plants buried in the Flood; the Free Thinker Voltaire felt compelled
to discredit this seeming evidence for Noah's Flood -- he suggested
that fossils were fakes or were dropped by pilgrims. But closer
examination of fossils suggested too-neat layering for an all-at-once
flood, and Flood advocates retreated to some of the most recent
sediments (see Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Freezing of Noah" in
_The Flamingo's Smile_). In the early nineteenth century, even that
seeming evidence was shown to be the work of glaciers (floods of solid
water), and only in the more northern parts of the globe. Gould even
reproduces the "recantation" of one of the last reputable "Flood
Geologists", concerning this subject.
==!
==* FLOOD HYDRAULIC_SORTING
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} hydraulic sorting
Well, let's see. Let's look at the usual creationist Flood theory, i.e.
that the ordering of fossils is determined by hydraulic sorting (some shapes
will settle faster than others), differential mobility (some life forms
could flee the Flood longer than others), and differential habitat (some
animals live at higher elevations than others). Let's pick a nice case that
looks at one of these mechanisms and controls for the other two. There are
certain plants that often grow at sea level, near the shore. There are many
mollusks that only grow in shallow water near the shore, and attach
themselves to rocks. No differential mobility, no sorting since both types
of organism stay put. Unfortunately, the particular class of plants involved
(I'll have to check my notebook at home for the exact reference -- I think
it's the angiosperms) doesn't show up in the fossil record until mammals
appear and is never found in lower layers with mollusks that should have
lived nearby.
==!
==* FLOOD CHRONOLOGY HISTORY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} timing problems
let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the
first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the
cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed
between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began
construction of the first temple.
a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear,
unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between
two events.
b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8
humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over.
c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the
near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments
giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each
others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies
for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without
reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14
with corrections from tree-ring sequences.
d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple
can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood
around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great
Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years
before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian
inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the
Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account,
but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or
accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the
massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab-
lishing the chronology of history in the near East.
==!
==* FLOOD STRATA IMPACT
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
}He next stated that when you hit something that's hard, it breaks or
}shatters. These folds are smooth, so it must be that the rock (he
}showed and mentioned sandstone) was still forming from mud, and was
}still soft. This means that the layers formed very rapidly, to still
}be soft (down at the bottom layer) when the whole shebang got
}faulted.
}
}His (inevitable) conclusion: it all formed during Noah's flood.
>Rebuttal: nothing "hit" that rock. Conventional geology understands
>the strength and brittleness of these things: they can and have been
>measured in labs. Note, I'm not saying that rocks of a given type
>are identical. The point is that science has dealt with all this
>quantitatively. The rocks got folded by compression, not by sudden
>impact: and in fact some rocks do shatter. I've seen examples - for
>instance, hard black fragments embedded in a softer gray rock. The
>gray rock had flowed while the black shattered.
Folding can happen in a lot less than geological time. If you
go to the Roman dig at the Fort at Housesteads, in Northumbria,
you can see the remains of Roman barracks which now lie in definite
waves, because of the movement of the earth beneath them. The
mortar between the stones is still intact.
==!
==* POLYSTRATE TUFF FORESTS
Article 26349 of talk.origins:
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Those Fossilized Forests
Message-ID: <1992May26.152552.3959@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Date: 26 May 92 15:25:52 GMT
References: <1992May24.194913.6752@cs.cmu.edu>>
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Lines: 36
In article salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
> I hope that you know about the section of tuff beds with about
>30 "forests" in sequence, that is, flat lying sequences of tuff with the
>pertified trunks of trees standing upright in each. There had to be time
>for a new forest to reach maturity between each tuff flow that comes along
>and kills the forest. I recall that this site is in Yellowstone Park.
>Ity implies that there is a sequence of several hundred years represented
>here at least, not one event, and not a flood.
Yep. This is described in Strahler's "Science and Earth History"
pages 221-224. He even has a drawing of the fossilized forests,
one on top of the other. Strahler says:
-------------
"J. Laurence Kulp, a geochemist to whom we referred earlier as
a theistic scientist of the American Scientific Affiliation, and
who urged acceptance of the radiometric time scale, cited the
Yellowstone buried forests as a repeating stratigraphic sequence
that must have required more time to complete than the single
year of the Flood. [reference deleted]. He wrote:
'In Yellowstone Park there is a stratigraphic section
of 2000 feet exposed which shows 18 successive petrified
forests. Each forest grew to maturity before it was wiped
out with a lava flow. The lava had to be weathered into
soil before the next forest could even start. Further
this is only a small section of stratigraphic column
in this area. It would be most difficult for flood
geology to account for these facts.'
-------------
I can give the Kulp reference if anyone cares.
>Bruce Salem
Rob Zuber
==!
==* FLOOD NOAHS_ARK WOOD SEAWORTHY WATER VOLUME
Article 26375 of talk.origins:
From: isaak@imagen.com (mark isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Problems with a Global Flood
Summary: potential FAQ material
Message-ID: <1992May26.224421.28153@imagen.com>
Date: 26 May 92 22:44:21 GMT
Organization: imagen
I've been collecting and summarizing evidences against a global
flood which have appeared in this group. The result appears below.
With the addition of more specific references, it could, I think,
make a good FAQ addition. I'm afraid, though, that I will not be
able to maintain it.
Problems With a Global Flood
The ark:
How did the ark even get _built_ before its frame decays? Tim LaHaye and
Henry Morris assure us that Noah and his three sons could have
easily constructed the ark in only 81 years. Builders of wooden
ships whose work took only four or five years often faced the
problem of earlier phases of their work rotting away. And does the
81 year figure include harvesting and shaping lumber, building
workshops, scaffolds, cages, etc., and gathering animals and
provisions?
How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas
are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps
and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.
How were animals collected from all over the world?
Life on the ark:
How did all the different species fit on the ark? 30 million species is a
conservative estimate. If you hypothesize significantly fewer than
that on the ark, you must explain evolution rates faster than any
evolutionists propose to account for all the present species.
How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a year?
How did creatures needing special environments survived on the ark?
How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made do with
only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts survived!)
How well ventilated was the ark? The body heat from millions of closely
packed animals must have been very intense.
The flood:
Where did the water come from? (It would take 4.4 billion cubic
kilometers to cover Mt. Everest.)
Where did it go?
Geological effects of the flood:
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?
Ecological zonation fails to explain:
(1) the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one
dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
(2) the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life.
(3) why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in
many geologic strata.
(4) why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present
animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high
ground?
How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed
layering? One formation is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400
days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the
flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling *per day*. And
yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly
layered, whith great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occuring
within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a
neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal
flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a
thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area
of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed
by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, followed by thirty
minutes more of .... well, I think you get the picture. [From: Bill
Hyde; see also [2]]
How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation
in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves,
identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes.
[From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys); see also [1]]
How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras
and radiometric dating methods?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series?
Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have
originated only on the surface, such as footprints, rain drops,
river channels, wind-blown dunes, beaches, and glacial deposits.
How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? Why weren't the Sierra
Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalacians during the flood?
How do you explain Fossil remineralization - the replacement of the
original material with a different mineral?
* Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly
remineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are
quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this
diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners
buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively remineralized.
* Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite
variable remineralization.
* Dinosaur remains are often extensively remineralized.
* Trilobite remains are usually remineralized - and in different
sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different
materials.
How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of
remains in a single episode of global flooding?
[From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)]
How could the flood deposit layers of solid salt --- sometimes meters in
width. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its
fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can
occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and
have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the
fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there
are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time,
during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion.
I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory
of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils.
[From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)]
How are the polar ice caps possible? Such a mass of water as the flood
would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off
their beds. No way to drop them _exactly_ back onto their original
location, _or_ to regrow them. (In fact, the Greenland ice cap
would _not_ regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.)
[From: Bob Grumbine rmg3@psuvm.psu.edu]
Finally, remember that the geological column and the relative dates
therein were laid out by _creationists_ before Darwin even
formulated his theory.
Biological effects of the flood:
How do you explain the survival of any sensitive marine life (e.g.,
coral)? Since most coral are found in shallow water the turbidity
created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off
from the sun. The silt would cover the reef after the rains were
over, and the coral would ALL DIE. By the way, the rates at which
coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs
(such a the great barrier) have been around for MILLIONS of years to
be deposited to their observed thickness. [From: bmb@bluemoon.rn.com]
How did _all_ the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need
brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier.
A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all)
would be killed by being submerged for a few months.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating?
How does the flood explain the geological sorting of pollen? Fossil
pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels
of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by
telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see
what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen
hydrolically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence
is different for each layer?
How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is
slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have
rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would
have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days
per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth
layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example,
show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong
correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils
(corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic
formations throughout the column and from locations all over the
world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern
shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating,
and the theory of superposition... is a little hard to explain away
as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long
flood. [From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)]
If a single flood is responsible for all fossils, where were all those
animals when they were alive? From "Six 'Flood' Arguments
Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert Schadewald,
_Creation/Evolution_ IV (Summer 1982), pp. 12-13:
"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's
rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian
Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in
"fossil graveyards" as evidence for the Flood. In particular,
creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which
is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate
animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As
pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis
that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.
"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota,
has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals
fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size
of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A
minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion
animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be
twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we
assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains
1 percent of the vertebrate fossils on earth [land fossils
only--whj]. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least
2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense
dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."
A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according
to experts in Leningrad [N. Newell, _Creation and Evolution_; 1982,
Columbia U. Press, p. 62], contains about 500,000 *tons* of tusks.
Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to
be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."
Historical effects of the flood:
Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian or Chinese
civilizations which existed at the time?
Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths
given in Genesis) place the flood 1300 years before Solomon began
the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near
Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records
from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are
independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as
dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple
can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood
around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great
Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years
before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian
inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
Aftermath of the flood:
How did marsupials get back to Australia, where their ancestors' bones
are? And why are so many marsupials limited to Australia? The same
argument applies to any number of groups of animals.
How do you explain the genetic variation in all populations today?
How did all of the animals survive after being unloaded from the Ark? All
of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger
numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn
require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down
to the primary producers (plants...etc.) at the bottom. How would
"pairs" of animals get enough food from what must have been a
limited supply of plants and animals?
Is the flood model consistent with the Bible?
The model seems to say that large numbers of kinds of land animals
became extinct because of the flood, while Genesis repeatedly says
that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of
land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah
did as ordered. Which is right?
How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind when some
species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females,
and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about
social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to
survive?
Other civilizations have flood legends, too. This is often given as
evidence for the flood, but doesn't it mean that more people than
Noah's family survived?
What was used to waterproof the ark? We are told that God instructed Noah
to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-
occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since,
according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits
were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood.
Does the flood story make the whole Bible less credible?
Davis Young is a working geologist who also is an Evangelical
Christian. He has personal doubts about some aspects of evolution,
but he makes a devastating case against "Flood Geology." He writes
(_Christianity and the Age of the Earth_, p. 163):
"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is
useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful.
Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by
creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a
Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not
worthy of his interest...Modern creationism in this sense is
apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a
hindrance to the gospel.
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the
lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be
false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense
of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not
truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has
given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is
done...."
[From: bill@bessel.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) See also [3]]
If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly?
And the whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?
Notes:
[1] Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North
1991: Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography.
Quaternary Research. 35, 157--173.
[2] Kent and Olsen (Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Geological
Observatory) Discover, Jan. 1992
[3] Davis Young: _Christianity and the Age of the Earth_. Now published by
Artisan Sales, POB 2497, Thousand Oaks CA 91360. Single copies (at
last report) were $8.50 postpaid, and in lots of 10 or more,
$4.50/copy.
[4] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #11, Winter 1983, "The Impossible Voyage of
Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore, pp. 1-43. The entire issue is
about the ark. Moore lists over one hundred references.
Re frozen mammoths as evidence of a catastrophy:
[5] Farrand, Wm. R.;_Science_, 133:729-735, March 17, 1961
--
Mark Isaak imagen!isaak@decwrl.dec.com or {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak
"The color of truth is gray." - Andre Gide
==!
==* EARTH_AGE SCIAM HISTORY
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:43 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: (FAQ)The age-of-the-Earth debate. (three centuries of debate)
From: Scientific American v261 p90(6) August, 1989
As the sun's first rays of thermonuclear light blazed across the
galaxy 4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a pinning,
turbulent cloud of gas, dust and planetoids that surrounded the new star.
During the next 700 million years the cloud settled into a more tranquil
solar system, and the sun's third planet began to solidify.
On these figures for the age of the earth rest all of geology and
evolution. Indeed, they seem to be part of humankind's permanent store of
facts. Yet this chronological structure is quite new. In fact, two earlier
estimates have toppled during the past 150 years as the descriptive
sciences of biology and geology deferred to the more exact science of
physics.
The first estimate fell during the 19th century. To the great
displeasure of Charles Darwin and the geologists of the period, the
physicist William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) performed a seemingly
flawless calculation to show that the earth had not existed throughout
eternity, as many thought then, but had formed 100 million years ago. That
chronology collapsed at the turn of the century, when the advent of
radioactive dating techniques showed the earth's age to be a few billion
years. After a fierce debate between geologists and physicists, radioactive
dating prevailed. Above all, the age-of-the-earth controversy illustrates
that emotion, intuition and vested interests can direct the course of
science almost as much as logic and experimentation.
Intuitively, one might think questions about the earth's age were as
timeless as speculation about the structure of the universe and our role in
it. Actually, many of the earliest civilizations treated the earth's
creation as part of the question of the origin of the universe. The
resulting cosmologies tended to be cyclical. The Greeks, for example,
believed natural history repeated itself perpetually. The Maya recorded
3114 before the common era (B.C.E.) as the year during which the universe
had been most recently re-created. In the first century of the common era,
many Han Chinese held a similar view. They believed the universe was
destroyed and re-created every 23,639,040 years.
The Judeo-Christian tradition also combines the earth's and the
universe's birth in a single event. The story of Genesis led scholars to
calculate the number of human generations since Adam and Eve. In 1654 John
Lightfoot refined Archbishop Ussher's famous calculation of the moment of
creation to an ultimate degree of precision: October 26, 4004 B.C.E., at
nine o'clock in the morning in Mesopotamia, according to the Julian
calendar.
Mikhail V. Lomonosov was one of the first scientists to suggest (in
the mid-18th century) that the earth formed independently of the rest of
the universe; he set the interval at hundreds of thousands of years. In
1779 the Comte de Buffon tried to determine the age of the earth
experimentally. He believed the earth was slowly cooling from an initial
hot state, and he estimated that the earth was 75,000 years old by creating
a small globe that resembled the earth's composition and then measuring the
rate at which it cooled.
Lomonosov and Buffon were virtually alone in their rigorous pursuit of
the absolute age of the earth. When other 18th-century naturalists pondered
the question at all, they either placed everything in the hands of the
Creator or else supposed that the earth and its living things had simply
taken a long time to reach their present condition. James Hutton
characterized the long view in his classic Theory of the Earth in 1795. "We
find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."
The chronology of geological periods did, however, intrigue Hutton's
contemporaries. They inferred that the successive strata of rock and soil
at a particular site represent the order in which the layers formed. In the
1790's William Smith built on this perception: two layers from different
sites could be regarded as equivalent in age if they contained the same
fossils. Extrapolating from these ideas, the naturalists began to chronicle
the strata and to estimate the duration of geological periods. Their
estimates varied widely, since they could only make crude guesses about the
time required to build up the layers.
In 1830 Charles Lyell gave such work a theoretical boost. Lyell
insisted that rock formations and other geological features took shape,
eroded and re-formed at a constant rate throughout time. Virtually none of
the naturalists applied Lyell's notion to calculate the age of the earth's
features; the data on geological processes were just too meager. Lyell did,
however, persuade many naturalists to become uniformitarians--that is, they
rejected the idea that there had been catastrophic geological change or a
rapidly forming, young earth. After all, evidence from stones and bones
suggested that each geological period lasted for many years, perhaps even
hundreds of millions of years, and the age of the earth had to be several
times that.
Therefore, the naturalists were startled when Lord Kelvin (then the
physicist William Thomson from Glasgow) determined in 1862 that the earth
had formed somewhere between 20 and 400 million years ago. Thomson rejected
uniformitarianism as unprovable. He and many other physicists of the day
believed the earth was originally molten; its surface had cooled and
solidified, but the core remained hot. The deeper one descends into the
earth, they noted, the higher the temperature.
To derive the earth's age, Thomson calculated how long the earth
required to cool from its primordial to its present state. He conjectured
that the gravitational contraction that formed the earth had generated all
of the earth's heat (except for a small contribution from the sun). Then he
investigated how well the earth conducts heat and how much heat is
necessary for it to melt or to raise its temperature by a certain amount.
He knew that the earth had cooled steadily as energy radiated into the cold
vacuum of space, according to the second law of thermodynamics. Using
Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Fourier's theory of heat conduction, he predicted how
the earth's temperature distribution might have evolved [see "The Fourier
Transform," by Ronalf N. Bracewell; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, June]. He
corroborated his calculations by accounting for heat from the sun and the
effects of tidal friction. In time he refined his estimate of geological
history to from 20 to 40 million years.
Thomson's work distressed geologists, who were comfortable with the
idea of unlimited time. They resented this audacious physicist who meddled
in their field, but they could not fashion a counterargument, and they
produced few papers on geochronology.
Thomson's calculation seemed unassailable on the grounds of logic and
physics. His conclusion eventually proved to be inaccurate by a wide
margin. Still, Thrason had instigated a conceptual coup d'etal: qualitative
geochronology was overthrown in favor of quantitative methods. Until the
end of the century, Thomson's estimates were the standards against which
all others were compared.
Thomson's result shocked biologists just as much as it surprised
geologists. Darwin regarded Thomson as an "odious spectre" whose chronology
was one of the shy naturalist's "sorest troubles." Darwin and other
biologists had postulated that complex organisms would require much more
than 40 million years to evolve. But neither living nor fossilized
organisms offered a basis for an independent calculation of evolutionary
time. The biological calendar ultimately relied on geology.
Thomas H. Huxley, a strong supporter of Darwin, attacked Thomson's
most vulnerable position. Huxley's view epitomized the disdain that
geologists of the late victorian period felt for the physical sciences and
the reluctant respect the workers held for quantifiable data. In his
presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1869, Huxley
argued that no modern geologist would insist on absolute uniformitarianism
but that its principles could be applied. Then Huxley directed his rhetoric
at Thomson. The admitted "accuracy of mathematical processes [must not be
permitted to] throw a wholly inadmissible appearance of authority over the
results, [for] pages of formulate will not get a definite result out of
loose data." Perhaps, Huxley suggested, heat radiated from the earth more
slowly than Thomson supposed. Thomson thought he had estimated
conservatively, but he could not be certain of his values.
Thomson no longer battled alone, however. Both the American astronomer
Simon Newcomb and the German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz calculated the
time needed for a nebular cloud to condense gravitationally to the present
size of the sun. Their independent results of 100 million years established
an upper limit for the age of the earth (presuming that the earth did not
exist before the sun). George H. Darwin, son of the famous Charles and
professor of astronomy at the University of Cambridge, joined the
discussion. He posited that the moon broke loose from a rapidly rotating
molten earth and found that Thomson's original estimates corresponded well
to the time that terrestrial tidal friction would require to brake the
earth to its present 24-hour period of rotation.
A few geologists concurred with Thomson's estimate of the earth's
lifetime. Even before Thomson, John Phillips, Smith's nephew and pupil, had
claimed that the earth must have endured for 96 million years--a result
calculated from the admittedly imprecise rate of strata formation from
river-derived sediment. In 1868 Archibald Geikie, director of the
Geological Survey of Scotland, looked at evidence of erosion and concluded
that the earth was no older than 100 million years.
In 1899 John Joly of the University of Dublin devised the only truly
new geological technique for measuring the earth's age. He maintained that
all the salt in the oceans came from mineral deposits that had eroded and
dissolved. He also proposed that the salt concentration in the oceans could
not decline. Joly could therefore relate salinity to age. He obtained the
best available figures for the quantity of water that flowed into the
oceans each year and the amount of salt per volume of runoff. He then
calculated the annual increment of salt. He multiplied the salinity of the
ocean by its total volume and divided the product by the annual increase.
Joly thus determined that the brackish sea developed over 80 to 90 million
years.
At about the same time an increasing number of geologists swelled the
consensus that the earth had formed less than 100 million years ago. Yet
all attempts to measure the age of the earth rested on an assumption, an
analogy or a best guess about the rate of change of geological processes.
Such assumptions created room for doubt. Some critics protested
against the premise that only gravitational contraction explained the
earth's or the sun's heat; another energy source might be possible. Some
maintained that the earth had never been molten, whereas others suggested
that its interior was still molten. (A liquid interior would conduct heat
by convection--something that Thomson had not taken into account.) Still
others questioned the data on erosion, sedimentation and salinity.
As the century drew to a close, geologists generally agreed that
nearly 100 million years had passed since the earth was born. They did not,
however, reconcile their differences with Thomson, who had recently been
elevated to the peerage as Lord Kelvin for his scientific accomplishments.
Employing his heat calculations, Kelvin was urging ever-shorter geological
time scales, all the while high-handedly dismissing geological evidence.
By this time, however, geologists were wary of Kelvin's physical
techniques. They had greater confidence (perhaps unwarranted) in their own
methods than in the eminent physicist's collection of assumptions. After
all, they had discovered several approaches to the chronology that gave
concordant results. Geologists felt they had grandly completed their
apprenticeship in the quantitative sciences after several decades of
vigorous exploring, mapping, measuring and classifying.
Yet it was not long before physical scientists were once again
treading on geologists' turf and calculating its age. This time the study
of radioactivity gave momentum to the attack. In 1896 A. Henri Becquerel
discovered the phenomemon; in 1898 Marie S. and Pierre Curie first detected
the radioactive elements polonium and radium. Then in 1902 and 1903 Ernest
Rutherford and Frederick Soddy explained the process of radioactivity in
several papers. Radioactivity, they correctly stated, was the spontaneous
transmutation of atoms of one chemical element into another.
At first, the radiation of alpha, beta and gamma rays was more
important to geochronology than were the radio-elements themselves. (It was
later discovered that alpha particles are composed of two protons and two
neutrons, just like the nucleus of a helium atom; beta particles are
emitted electrons, and gamma rays are photons of electromagnetic
radiation.) Earlier, in 1900, Rutherford and R.K. McClung of McGill
University in Montreal showed that the various rays carry enormous amounts
of energy. Their paper made little impression beyond the small community of
physicists and chemists working on radioactivity.
The reception was entirely different in 1903 when Pierre Curie and
Albert Laborde announced that radium generates enough heat to melt more
than its own weight in ice in an hour. Public interest was aroused over
this apparently inexhaustible cornucopia of energy. Where did the energy
come from? Rutherford and Howard T. Barnes discovered the source. They
showed that the heat was proportional to the number of alpha particles
radiated. These relatively massive particles were emitted at great
velocity. If the particles collided with neighboring atoms, the particle's
kinetic energy was transformed into heat.
Geologists immediately recognized that the relation between heat and
radioactivity could significantly influence determinations of the age of
the earth. Kelvin had assumed that the earth's heat came from either the
sun or the original molten state of the earth. In both cases, gravitational
contraction was the only source of energy. If the earth and sun contained
quantities of radioactive materials sufficient to provide large amounts of
heat, however, then this discovery could invalidate all chronologies that
Kelvin had based on the earth's colling.
In 1903 George Darwin and Joly were the first to make this very claim:
radioactivity was at least partially responsible for the earth's and the
sun's heat. But was there enough radioactive matter within the earth to
make a measurable difference?
Part of the answer was at hand. Julius Elster and Hans F. Geitel, two
schoolteachers in Wolfenbuttel, Germany, detected radioactivity in the air
in 1901 and, soon after that, in the soil. Before long, many enthusiastic
amateurs as well as professional scientists were finding radioactive rain,
and snow and groundwater--even radioactive mist at the base of Niagara
Falls. Soon geologists had no doubt that radioactivity was widely
distributed .
As for its concentration, Robert J. Strutt of the Imperial College in
London found traces of radium in many rocks. Indeed, Strutt found too much
radium for it to be distributed uniformly throughout the globe (without
even considering the contribution from all the other radioelements). Its
radioactivity alone could account for the earth's internal heat. His work
suggested that geochronology could be extended by an indefinite time. He
found no vestige of a cooling, no prospect of an age.
The scientific community responded with ambivalence. Joly and William
J. Sollas of the University of Oxford worried that Strutt's work might
overturn their own calculations demonstrating an age of about 100 million
years. Kelvin's own feelings were divided: he privately acknowledged that
his estimates had been superseded, but in public he remained contentious.
Others were delighted to be liberated from Kelvin's earth age. It turned
out that radioactivity not only loosened Kelvin's theoretical shackles but
also held the key to determining the age of the earth.
During the first years of the century, scientific enthusiasm for
radioelements replaced enthusiasm for radiation when Rutherford and Soddy
proposed that radioactivity was actually spontaneous alchemy. A sample of a
radioelement, they said, decays at a regular rate into a different chemical
element. The rate of decay is expressed as a half-life: the time needed for
half of the atoms of a given radioelement in a sample to change into a
decay product.
Half-lives range from billions of years to millionths of a second.
Uranium, thorium and radium have long half-lives and therefore exists in
tangible quantities on earth, whereas those elements that have short
half-lives have a transitory existence. Hence, the presence or absence of
particular radioelements in rocks can imply an age; analysis of the
quantities of the radioelements can reveal an absolute age.
The radioelements form distinct decay series: one radioelement decays
into the next element in the series until a stable element is produced. The
uranium-radium, uranium-actinium and thorium series were known or suspected
in the early years of this century. The technique of radioactive dating of
rocks developed from the study of radioelements and their decay series.
Rutherford and the radiochemist Bertram B. Boltwood pioneered the work.
As a consulting chemist after his graduation from Yale University,
Boltwood examined numerous ore smaples, among them monazite, a mineral
containing uranium and thorium. When the charismatic Rutherford lectured at
Yale in 1904, Boltwood's curiosity about radioelements became a passion,
and he began to document the relations among the elements in the decay
series.
Later that year, Rutherford suggested a way to determine the age of
the earth from measurements of helium in minerals. Rutherford then believed
(and in 1908 proved) helium is not a product of any particular decay series
but is formed in all the series when two electrons bond to an alpha
particle. Sir William Ramsay and Soddy at University College in London had
just discovered the rate at which radium produced helium. If the
Ramsay-Soddy rate was accurate and no helium escaped from the mineral from
the time of its formation--both great leaps of faith--the amount of helium
would determine the age of the sample. Rutherford could boast an age of 40
million years for a fergusonite rock he owned.
Boltwood, on the other hand, thought to look for the end products of
the decay series. The amount of an end product would increase over the
years as the radioelements decayed. It was already known that radium was a
product of the uranium series; in 1905 Boltwood pointed to lead as the
final product. The uranium-to-lead hypothesis received additional support
from Rutherford. He argued that if uranium decayed to radium and if radium
(then thought to have an atomic weight of 225) and its daughter products
then emitted five alpha particles (which each have an atomic weight of
four), the decay would yield an element of an atomic weight of 205--not far
from lead's accepted value of 206.9.
Boltwood credited Rutherford for suggesting the lead method of dating
ancient rocks, but it was the chemist who demonstrated its feasibility. By
the end of 1905 he had calculated ages ranging from 92 to 570 million years
for 26 different mineral samples. Fortunately for the reputation of the new
technique, these results remained unpublished. Boltwood's radium-to-uranium
ratio was inaccurate both because Rutherford's scale for measuring
quantities of radium was badly calibrated and because the half-life of
radium was revised several times during 1905 and 1906. A rock's age rested
critically on both these values.
When Boltwood published his work in 1907, he reported a striking
constancy in the lead-to-uranium ratios for minerals from the same rock
layer, which were presumably of the same geological age. He also observed
that the amount of lead in a mineral increased as the relative age of the
mineral increased. Minerals from which lead had apparently been leached
gave lower ratios than did other minerals from the same layer. All this fit
together well. Boltwood could find, however, no constancy in
lead-to-thorium ratios from several minerals; the end product of thorium
remained a mystery. He was inclined, therefore, to ignore lead-to-thorium
ratios; an error that affected his measurements of minerals that contained
both uranium and thorium.
To determine the absolute age of minerals, Boltwood examined the
uranium-radium decay series. The latest value for the half-life of radium
was 2,600 years, which Rutherford had deduced from the number of alpha
particles emitted from radium each second. (The figure accepted today is
1,620 years.) Given that the decay of radioactive materials is exponential,
the fraction of radium decaying in one year would be 270,000 parts per
billion, based on Rutherford's half-life. Rutherford and Boltwood found
that almost all rocks contained 380 parts of radium per billion parts of
uranium. Thus, the fraction of radium decaying each year multiplied by the
fraction of radium in uranium yields one part of radium decaying each year
for every 10 billion parts of uranium.
Boltwood correctly assumed that the decay series of the rocks he
collected were in an equilibrium state. The uranium-to-lead series, for
instance, is in equilibrium when the number of uranium atoms decaying per
unit of time is equal to the number of radium atoms decaying, or lead atoms
forming, in that time. To maintain this equilibrium, radioelements that
have long half-lives must exist in greater quantities than those that have
short half-lives. (Although the supply of uranium will slowly decrease over
time, Boltwood realized that the amount lost is negligible.)
Boltwood deduced that if one part of radium decays each year for every
10 billion parts of uranium, then one part of lead forms each year for
every 10 billion parts of uranium. Boltwood expressed this relation in a
formula: the age of the rock equals 10 billion years multiplied by the
ratio of lead to uranium. He then calculated that a sample of uraninite,
which had a ratio of .041, was 410 million years old and a sample of
thorianite, which had a ratio of .22, had formed 2.2 billion years ago.
Actually, when the accurate value for the half-life of radium was
applied, the age of Boltwood's samples was found to range from about 250
million to 1.3 billion years. Even with this correction, his thorianite
measurement was invalid because the decay of thorium contributed some lead
in addition to the lead that derived from uranium. Nonetheless, these
results were spectacular: they demonstrated that the earth was about a
billion years old.
Oddly, this enormous accomplishment was met with indifference.
Although Boltwood's paper appeared in America's foremost geological
journal, no one was inspired to duplicate or extend his work on the lead
method. Nor did Boltwood's result sway geologists' opinion that the
significance of radioactive was overrated. They not only discounted the
heating effect of radioactive decay on the earth but also "refined" their
geological and physical data to show that Kelvin's range of time was
correct after all!
Boltwood wrote no more on the lead dating method. He returned to the
study of decay series and discovered ionium, the immediate parent of
radium. Rutherford retained a light hold on the age-of-the-earth topic,
publishing about one paper a decade--hardly the mark of a consuming
interest. Meanwhile, Strutt refined the helium method until 1910, when he
too departed for greener research pastures.
Strutt left a legacy, however. He had sparked an interest in
geochronology in a young English geology student, Arthur Holmes, who kept
the subject alive almost single-handedly. Indeed, Holmes ultimately forced
geologists to accept radioactive dating in the course of his long career in
industry and at the Universities of Durham and Edinburgh. Until 1930,
however, Holmes and Joly were the only geologists who were skilled in the
dating technique, and Joly, moreover, doubted its accuracy.
Holmes did not. He also considered the lead method to be more reliable
than the helium technique. In 1911 he examined many rock samples and
calculated that the most ancient was 1.6 billion years old. He maintained
(with more faith than justification) that his samples had contained no lead
when they were formed, that all the lead came from the decay of uranium and
that external mechanisms had not removed or added any lead or uranium.
Two years later, however, his critics could crow in the light of two
new advances. The first was the discovery of isotopes: atoms that have the
same chemical propertties but different atomic weights because the number
of neutrons varies. Lead, for example, has a nucleus that contains 82
protons and can have an atomic weight from 195 to 214. The second advance
was the discovery of the physical laws that specify the decay products of
each radioelement. These laws indicated that the thorium series did after
all end in a particular isotope of lead.
Although for many earth scientists these new discoveries made
radioactive dating seem more difficult and unreliable, Holmes forged ahead,
publishing in the years before and after World War I a steady stream of
papers on geochronology. He incorporated information about isotopes into
his work and sharpened his results. Although his success wore down overt
resistance to radioactive dating, the method gained little support.
An exception was Joseph Barrell, a professor of geology at Yale, who
in 1917 reinterpreted geological history to conform with the results of
radioactive dating. Barrell emphasized that geological processes vary in
intensity in a cyclical rather tahn a uniform fasion. Thus, current rates
of geological change could not, as uniformitarians claim, be a guide to the
past.
Finally, resistance began to falter. By 1921, at a meeting of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, the speakers,
representing geologists, botanists, zoologists, mathematicians and
physicists, seemed to agree that the earth was a few billion years old and
that radioactive and geological dating techniques could be reconciled. But
no plan was drafted for reconciliation. Not surprisingly, the old guard
remained skeptical. Sollas would accept no age for the earth greater than
100 million years. "Geologists," he said, "are not greatly concerned over
the period which physicists may concede to them; they do not much care
whether it is long or--in moderation--short, but they do desire to make
reasonably certain that it is one which they can safely trust before
committing themselves to the reconstruction of their science, should that
prove to be necessary."
The battle was won finally in 1926 when in the U.S. the National
Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences appointed a committee
to examine the status of the age-of-the-earth problem. Holmes, as one of
the few experts on the subject, was a committee member and wrote almost 70
percent of the report. The committee agreed unanimously that radioactivity
provided the only reliable geological time scale. The report presented an
overwhelming amount of clear and detailed evidence. The constants of
radioactivity were firmly established, lead isotopes were easily
incorporated into the calculations, and the mineral samples were carefully
chosen to ensure that decay products had not been lost over time. The
radioactive dating methods pioneered by Rutherford and Boltwood and
enhanced by Holmes had at last received the blessing of geologists. Not
only had they found a vestige of a beginning, but they also had a prospect
for dating all of geological history.
During the past six decades, application of the lead dating method has
become more and more sophisticated, and current techniques reveal that the
oldest rocks on the earth were formed as much as 3.8 billion years ago.
This would date the minimum age of the earth's solid crust but not
necessarily the period when the spiral cloud of gas and dust condensed to
form the solar system. In 1955 Clair Patterson of the California Institute
of Technology and his colleagues first determined the age of the solar
system by dating meteorites. The most recent measurements of meteorites
place the age of the primal earth at 4.5 billion years.
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:30 1992
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Subject: FAQ: Biology and creation
[I have added some of my own comments to James' collection of rebuttals.
These will always be set off by square brackets and have my initials at
the end. -- Wesley R. Elsberry, elsberry@cse.uta.edu, 920618]
Topics:
}Life is too complex to have happened by chance.
}Mutations are almost always harmful.
}Mutations rarely occur.
}3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop.
}Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation
}Evolution doesn't explain the simultaneous origin of two traits
}Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear
}Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed.
}Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotion, reason, conscience, etc.
}"No people of English descent are more distantly related..."
}The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe.
}Vestigial organs
}Embryology
}"impossible gulfs"
}evolution doesn't make sense
}Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed.
}half of the amino acids should be right-handed
}Mathematical probability
}changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations
>The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration).
}The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.
}No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
}The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve
}The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis).
}Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed.
}"Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs.
}How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost?
}Why did man lose his hair and tail?
}Over-specialization with no adaptive value.
}Can this all be just mutation and natural selection?
}mitochondrial DNA showes that mankind arose from *one* female.
}chaos theory & biology
}The fundamental principle of evolution contradictory to established laws
}There is no evidence of biological life anywhere else in the universe.
}vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes
}Embryology offers testimony to a great Designer
}Similiarities are explained as made by the hand of a common Designer.
}All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record.
}what is known to be true about evolution?
}Why are men alone so murderous of their own species?
}Misc biblical wonderings...
}Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds
}we have never seen any natural processes which result in a complexity increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
==* LIFE COMPLEXITY CHANCE PROBABILITY REFS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Life is too complex to have happened by chance.
The theory of evolution doesn't say it did happen by chance. This argument
completely ignores natural selection.
Please read:
Life in Darwin's Universe
G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79
The Evolution of Ecological Systems
May, Scientific American, Sept 1978
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life
Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of the Earliest Cells
Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978
The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals
Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978
[More to the point, evolutionary mechanism theories (EMTs) make no
statements whatever concerning the origin of life from non-life. That
is the field of abiogenesis. Evolutionary mechanism theories seek to
explain the observed and ongoing processes of evolution. -- WRE]
==!
==* MUTATION NO_BENEFIT
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} Mutations are never benefical
The textbook example of the effects of radiation upon genes is the old
"carnation seeds exposed to radiocobalt". Clearly some of the flowers
produced are prettier than the originals. Therefore, the "never" is
disproved.
[This doesn't really address the point. The "beneficial" should be used
in the context of selective fitness. In this instance, a better rebuttal
can be made from the Ames test, where a beneficial mutation yields a positive
indication of mutagenicity of an agent. -- WRE]
==!
==* MUTATION HARMFUL NO_BENEFIT
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Mutations are almost always harmful.
Note: "almost". A lot happens in a large population over long times.
[And selection weeds out the harmful ones. I'd like to see if SciCre'ers
who play poker would be willing to play "stud" while their opponents play
"draw"... I suspect that as a practical matter, the SciCre'er will choose
to use selection. -- WRE]
==!
==* MUTATION RATE RARITY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Mutations rarely occur.
Note: "Rarely". A lot happen in a large population over long times.
==!
==* LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT CULTURE
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} - 3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop.
Actually the premise is false. The Sino-Tibetan family of languages is
distinct from the Indo-European family of languages, which English seems
to have been derived from. Considering how long ago the 50 arguments were
written (was it around 1930?), this ethnocentrism is not surprising.
==!
==* ORGANS COMPLEXITY MUTATION EYE WING
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation, and
} just part of the organ is useless. Favorite examples are eyes and
} insect wings.
There have been fairly good descriptions, on the net, of how
eyes could have evolved, and of how bird lungs could have
evolved. These were nice rebuttals of the claim that
"it wasn't useful until finished, so it couldn't have got
started".
And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by
one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at
which bone growth stops in human beings.
There *are* semi-venemous snakes, and in fact the
issue was discussed earlier how some snakes "drip" the venomous saliva
while ones with more developed systems "inject" the saliva via hollow
teeth. Whales have semi-legs (ok, so they're not fish). How about the
cooperating jawbones that have slowly become our hearing mechanisms,
seen to be incrementally represented from reptilian jawbones.
The complete developmental flowchart of the nematode worm--what cells
divide to form what other cells all the way from the 1-cell egg to
the thousand-cell adult--has been determined. It contains numerous
examples of repeated tricks that look very much like subroutines.
For example (this is from memory and may not be precise) there is
a patten of a cell dividing twice to form two muscle cells, one
neuron and one cell which dies that occurs dozens of times in the
worm's development, not always in exactly the same situation--
different kinds of nerve cells are produced--but with exactly the
same pattern (that is, it is the most posterior cell which dies,
and so forth).
People often assume that to evolve a new structure requires new
code. In this case at least, however, a new nerve with attendant
muscle fibers could be made (and there are mutants which do this)
just by triggering this subroutine in a cell which normally doesn't
do it.
==!
==* INSTINCT WISDOM DESIGN
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} The instinct of Animals: proves wisdom of a "higher order".
Again, argument by design. The complexity and specialization of
characters is evidence of a designer, in this view.
Proves that if something stupid is wired in you don't get descendants.
==!
==* RECESSIVE GENETICS RECURRENCE
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear, and thus we
} should expect humans with characteristics of apes.
They do. Tails, for instance.
And other "ape" traits that happen to also be "human traits".
Like toes, body hair,...
This disregards the basic mechenisms of natural selection and
genetics. It makes the wrong assumption that ape-like
characters are recessive and that all of the traits in the
ancestor population are present but usually unexpressed in the
supposed descendant population. Neither idea is true.
==!
==* HYBRID INFERTILITY REPRODUCTION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed.
Hybrids are often not fertile or robust. They may be desirable to
man if man made, but they may not succeed in an evolutionary
sense.
The premise is incorrect. First, what is meant by "hybrid" is unclear
in this context - is it a hybrid only if it is infertile? And even in
those cases in which the offspring is usually infertile, that is not
always the case. As witnessed the horse and the donkey.
It is not individuals that evolve but populations. A population
evolves by gradual changes in gene frequency until it becomes
a distinct species that is no longer capable of interbreeding
with similar populations that shared a common ancestor. All of
the individuals within the population can mate successfully with
each other so there is no problem with "hybrids". There are quite
a few examples of different populations of the same species which
have trouble interbreeding, in other words the hybrids are not
viable. These populations are evolving and may become separate
species. It is a common mistake to assume that a new species
begins when an individual "mutates" or "evolves" in a single
step - this is simply not how evolution works.
==!
==* PERSONALITY CONSCIENCE EXPLAIN
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotions, abstract reason,
} conscience, etc.
Please read:
The Evolution of Behavior
Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978
Xenopsychology
R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81
Directly Interacting Extra-terrestrial Technological Communities
Viewing, JBIS, vol 28, pp 735-755, 1975
Computer Simulation of Cultural Drift: Limits on Interstellar Colonization
Bainbridge, JBIS, vol 37, pp 420-429, 1984
The Improbability of Bahavioural Convergence in Aliens - Behavioural
Implications of Morphology
Coffey, JBIS, vol 38, pp 515-520, 1985
The climatic background to the birth of civilization
Lamb, Advancement of Science vol 25 pp 103 - 120 1968
==!
==* DESCENT RELATION TIME_LACK
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- "No people of English descent are more distantly related than thirtieth
} cousin," which doesn't allow enough time for evolution.
Incorrect argument. The island population of Great Britian
might well have interbreeded more than is the case if it
were mixed with the rest of the world's human population, if
you are inclined to believe Davenport's claim at all.
==!
==* ANIMALS DISTRIBUTION WEGENER
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe.
This is written at the time Wagener proposed Continebtal Drift
for the first time. He is rejected by the geologists of the day,
but now Plate Tectonics is well accepted among geologists and
is used to construct paleobiogeography that explains fossil
distributions.
The Supercontinent Cycle
Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988
Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift
A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975
And like horses (that man transported), camels, pandas, kangaroos,
marsupials,.. In fact, this supports the evolutionary postulates in that
the distribution matches transportation capabilities.
What is more interesting is why are not animals everywhere? If they all
got themselves originated from one place (did this twice, supposidely -
everyone was originally present in Eden for the naming and everything
was together again in the ark) why are not marsupials found everywhere?
Ibid old world vs. new world species.
[Actually, Wegener proposed his "continental drift" hypothesis in
1912. -- WRE]
==!
==* DISTRIBUTION ANIMALS QUADRUPEDS
} Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds
Since the creationists (from the biblical account) would have had EVERY animal
in the same place (twice, in fact. Once for the naming in Eden, once again
for the rescue in the arc.) why are the quadrupeds distributed so differently?
There are a number of large animals that are strictly on one continent, unless
somebody moved them (in fairly recent recorded history). They could NOT have
gotten there on their own RECENTLY (evolved there, yes), nor could a selective
extinction removed every individual of the opposite set. Please explain:
New World Only: Old World Only
=============== +============
Sapajous (Monkeys) Horse, zebra
sagoins (monkeys) sheep, goats, antelopes
Opossum wild boar
Cougar, jaguar panther, leopard
Coatis hyena, civet
Stinking weasels porcupine, hedgehog
Agoutis apes, baboons, true monkeys
Armadillos scaley lizard
Ant-Eaters
Sloths
detached species detached species
tapir elephant
Cabiai rhinoceros
Llama hippopotamus
Peccary giraffe
camel
lion
tiger
==!
==* VESTIGIAL ORGANS PERFECTION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Vestigial organs: "If the perfect organ were better than the rudimentary
} organ, how can man be the 'survival of the fittest'?"
This is the appeal to progress and perfection that biases
alot of thinking about evolution, even by some biologists
of the past. The changes seen are just adaptations of
existing structures, not perfections or progress toward a goal.
Note: "fittest" is not "optimal".
[Yep... teleology is not part of evolutionary theories nowadays. Also,
if the perfect organ is of no utility to the phenotype, then the
rudimentary version places less of a load upon the phenotype, and is
likely to have a selective advantage. -- WRE]
==!
==* EMBRYOLOGY ONTOGENY PHYLOGENY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} Embryology: "it is hard to see why the history of the species should
} be repeated by the embryo."
This is similar to the argument used by Bob Bales that it is hard
to see evolution in the fossil or living evidence. The problem
with this claim is that the understanding of what you would
look for comes from first looking at living things, fossils, and
in this case embryos. You must know how to describe these things
in some detail before you can decide if the claims that similar
structures indicate common ancestry, or that embryonic stages
mimic ancestrial forms. "It is hard ", means you haven't looked.
Present an objection based on what all agree is evidence.
That is more a function of his "hard to see" than why it does.
==!
==* TAXA EVOLUTION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} A staggering speculation: essentially that evolution doesn't make
} sense given the lack of common animals between the major groups.
This doesn't make sense. The "major groups" are definied by human
classifications that often are there for ancestral reasons that
support evolution (via the "family trees") or are fairly arbitrary
(for instance, by location or discoverer) and make perfect sense.
==!
==* EVOLUTION ABIOGENESIS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed.
To the creationists. And it does explain how to study the unknown,
rather than bowing out.
[Evolutionary mechanism theories (to disambiguate from evolution, the
observation) don't need to account for abiogenesis or gene expression.
Evolution operates on the result of abiogenesis at the phenotype
level, which is what you get after the genes have expressed
themselves. -- WRE]
==!
==* CHANCE AMINO_ACID CHIRALITY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- If life arose by chance, half of the amino acids should be right-handed; in
} fact, all are left-handed.
Once the preference for one enantiomer over another gets started in
nature, it is relatively easy to see how this preference is
perpetuated. Biological reactions work much like machines having
templates, stamping out the preferred, and ONLY the preferred
configuration generation after generation after generation.
As to how one became initially started, there are many possibilities:
1. Luck. The first one to form just happened to be L, and then the rest
followed.
2. There may be some effect during formation due to coriolis force or the
(hemisphere dependent) magnetic fied (as lightening went DOWN, the effect
may be polarized)
3. Quantitative calculations indicate that the fundamentally left-handed
neutral-weak force with the electromagnetic force could introduce an
energy preference (very slight). Aside from any steric preferences, one
form could be energetically more stable than the other.
William C. McHarris
Professor of Chemistry and of Physics and of
Astronomy at Michigan State University
"Handedness in Nature"
January 1986 Analog
==!
==* PROBABILITY MATHEMATICS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} Mathematical probability: "it is so improbable that one and only
} one species out of 3,000,000 should develop into man, that it
} certainly was not the case".
Whence the 3,000,000 number, and how is the "improbability" assigned?
Some say inevitable...
If 500 developed into man, how would you tell?
Besides, given the way evolution works, one would dominate and 499
would have (while developing) be suppressed, quite likely into
extinction. The "less successful" are extinct or in zoos.
[Or, more pointedly, "It is so improbable that two and only two
persons out of the 5 billion or so humans on the planet should have a
child that would grow up to be you, J. Random SciCre'er, that it
certainly was not the case. Ergo, you don't exist, so get out of my
face." -- WRE]
==!
==* ADAPTATION MUTATION CHANCE
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated
} innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms.
First, how do you determine that "numerous coordinated innovations" are
required? That may merely be your evaluation. For instance, some of the
common examples:
poisonous snakes - fangs & poison glands. A Gila monster has poison
glands with no fangs, and there are snakes with furrowed fangs with
no poison glands.
fish to land animal - legs and lungs. The mudpuppy is a fish without
lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs
with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the
floridian walking catfish,...
Coral snakes (southern US) don't have a very sophisticated delivery
system - they also chew on their victims to deliver the poison. I'm
not very familiar with the anatomy of a coral snake, but it does not
have the usual "fangs" associated in the popular mind with a poisonous
snake - as I recall there is just a small sac or pore at the base of
what look like ordinary reptilian teeth.
The last time I studied poisonous snakes (some years ago), it was thought
that poison delivery had evolved several times, independently, in snakes.
This was based on differences in toxins and in delivery systems, as well
as its occurance in otherwise distantly related snakes, all of which have
closely similar non-poisonous forms. The delivery systems cover the whole
range from the simple, rather typical, teeth of the coral snake to the
elaborate, retractile, tubular fangs of pit-vipers. Some have slightly
elongate "fangs" with simple grooves on one side, for instance. Thus,
we can see almost the entire range of intermediate anatomies in evolving
fangs purely in *living* species. Gap?? What gap? We do not even need
the fossils, which we also have.
And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by
one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at
which bone growth stops in human beings.
This needs to be elaborated. If a genome is being stressed to some
metastable level where its states can multiply, then rapid changes to more
than one structure in the organism can occur simutaneously.
==!
==* ORGANS DEGENERATION VESTIGIAL
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
>11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration).
Evolution operating on the amplification and dimminution of
structures is well known. The appearence of vestigal structures, at
all, reflects on the use of prexisting developmental pathways, rather
than on the purposefulness or efficiency of the process.
==!
==* EVOLUTION RATE VARIABILITY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- The speed at which evolution occurred varies.
Why is that a problem? You change the mutation rate and the selection rate
and the change rate also alters.
==!
==* EVOLUTION LIVING_FOSSIL
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.
There are no known examples of organisms that have not evolved
over a period of time and this includes cockroaches, lungfish,
lampreys, sharks, bacteria, and all other organisms that some
people claim are "frozen in time". Some of these species appear
to be morphologically similar to ancestors that lived in the
past but evolution is much more than external appearance. When
the structure of their genes and proteins are examined it becomes
obvious that they have evolved at the molecular level. In fact
the rate of evolution of these species is similar to that of
species whose external appearance has changed more drastically.
It is incorrect to claim that some organisms have not evolved
simply because their external morphology has not changed.
==!
==* ORTHOGENESIS TELEOLOGY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis).
So? Study any climatology? The environment has some VERY long-term
trends.
==!
==* PREADAPTATION ORGANS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed.
Now, how do you tell this???
[Actually, the point of the ungainly and misleading term "pre-adaptation"
is that some organ or feature coopted for a later use originally had
some unrelated function. Why this observation should be considered
problematic for EMTs is beyond me. -- WRE]
==!
==* EVOLUTION MOMENTUM OVERSHOOT
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- "Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs.
A not uncommon problem with non-linear search routines, and with systems
with very long delay times in the feebdack.
==!
==* ORGANS VESTIGIAL DEGENERATION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost?
"Use it or lose it" is a popular expression which may help the understanding.
Maintaining something is a drain on materials and energy. Selection would go
against a disadvantageous drain.
==!
==* MAN HAIR TAIL
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
} Why did man lose his hair and tail?
Note that hair and tails ARE still present. The selection
process is a statistical phenomena.
There is a theory that sometime within Man's evolutionary past he had
an aquatic phase. This is upheld by:
a. The layer of fat beneath the skin is more characteristic of
marine mammals.
b. The pattern described by the hair remaining on the body describes
fairly closely what would be a flow pattern. Also, the pattern of
denser hair (top of head, chin, pubic region) matches the marine
growth areas
c. Humans have a diving reflex like that of the semi-aquatic mammals
that live in cold climates. When the face hits cold water, the
entire metabolism slows and the interior distribution of the blood
flows. This has been observed in numerous near-drownings in cold
water (it doesn't seem to cut in on warm water).
Thus, we have the same amount of hair (almost) as any other marine
mammal. And for the exact same reasons. We just didn't have a long
enough marine phase for further adaptions (lose arms & legs).
[I'll have to say that the neotenic hypothesis holds more attraction
for me. The diving reflex is, the last time I saw something on it,
considered to be a pretty general mammalian trait. Then, for those
who like to respond, "Why not?", to "Why?" questions, there is genetic
drift. ;-) -- WRE]
==!
==* ADAPTATION SELECTION FITNESS
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}- Over-specialization with no adaptive value.
How do you determine this?
Besides, most nonlinear search routines I am familiar with have a tendency
to overshoot...
The process is not particularly efficient or purposeful.
==!
==* MUTATION NATURAL_SELECTION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}Can this all be just mutation and natural selection?
Two points: first, although Darwin invoked only variation and selection,
modern evolutionary theory also gives a very important role to genetic
drift, the occurance of changes due to chance fluctuations in small
populations. This force can work in the opposite direction than
selection, and can override selection if the population is small enough.
(Brown mice do better in the wild than white, but if I start with
only two of each in an area I will end up with only whites some of
the time.)
Second, "mutation" can cover some things which are much more
powerful than single changes in genes--specifically duplication
of genes and merging of two genes into a new one. These mechanisms
can produce new yet highly non-random genes.
==!
==* EVE_HYPOTHESIS MITOCHONDRIA DNA
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}the scientific discovery (not creationtific discovery) a few years
}back that mitochondrial DNA was identical in all people of various
}ancestory >and thus showed that mankind arose from *one* female.
First, mitochondrial DNA is NOT identical in all humans. However
the differences can be used to construct a family tree of sorts,
and the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that all
modern humans inherited their mitochondria from one woman, dubbed
Eve (possibly to bait creationists), who lived (I think) around
200 Kyears ago.
(The mutation rate observed for the mitochondrial DNA was used to
establish the times involved.)
Second, the fact that the mitochondria of all of us can be traced to
one woman does not mean we arose solely from her-- it just means that
she's one of our common ancestors.
The maternal inheritance of mitochondria is analogous to the
inheritance of last names in our paternalistic society.
The point is, there may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are
also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of
our common maternal line. If a consistant paternalistic society had
existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their
names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not
mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for
the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common
paternal line.
==!
==* CHAOS BRAIN
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
> As far as the brain obeying certain chaotic processes, the
> brain is too structured and controlled to allow anything
> like that to occur. Biological processes are very closely
> controlled in the body and in the brain. That is necessary
> for survival. Reflexes are something the brain cannot
> control. Your heart beats regularly and you breathe in your
> sleep. Your brain releases hormones at just the right moment
> to allow you to run away from a lion, or, when cornered,
> fight off an attacker with more strength than you thought you
> had. When you consider the mind as it is usually defined
> (the thinking, conscious part of the brain), it must also
> function properly at all times, or you would not be able
> to survive. Evolutionary pressures would not favor a mind
> which works on a process based on chaos theory.
The connection of chaos with complex real living systems is circumstancial,
but suggestive. I do not have a firm demonstration that full-blown living
processes are adeqately described by systems of nonlinear differential
equations. Two examples I have heard about, I do not have references, are
human brain waves can be modeled with a strange attractor, and a good
model of cardiac electrical function and sudden failure has been built
using chaos.
[Walter Freeman has some fascinating papers out on the olfactory bulb
and chaos. Chaotic principles of operation are seen in several areas
of brain function. A possible explanation for chaos lies in the brain
overcoming the effects of pre-attentive priming, which might cause
some routinized behavior to be evoked first no matter what the
incoming stimulus. -- WRE]
==!
==* DEVELOPMENT CONSERVATION ENTROPY
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}The fundamental principle of evolution - the concept of development, with
}increasing organization and complexity - seems to be essentially
}contradictory to the impregnably established laws of energy conservation
}and deterioration.
huh? If by "development" he means adaption to the environment I have no
idea what "increasing organization and complexity" is fundamental for.
And maybe by "deterioration" he means "entrophy or enthalpy"?
[The fundamental principle or definition of evolution is "a change in
allele frequency over time". All this stuff about increasing
organization and other teleological folderol has nothing to do with
evolution as biologists discuss it. As far as "impregnably
established" as a phrase goes, I'll state that one of my favorite
aphorisms is that "Nature abhors a certainty." -- WRE]
==!
==* LIFE EXTRA_TERRESTRIAL
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}There is not the slightest genuine evidence of biological life as we
}understand it anywhere else in the universe.
There are a LOT of complex chemicals of extraterrestrial origins composed
of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and I think even a bit of sulfur. And the
Viking has found some odd reactions. And if you don't mind taking
environmental conditions more alien than mars as "elsewhere", I have seen
some dandy pictures of things that sure look like life in eternal
blackness, no oxygen, hotter than a pot of boiling water,...
==!
==* VESTIGIAL ORGANS MUTATION
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes which, as
}we have seen, are usually deteriorations.
Also know as "adaptations", right? Thanks. Whale legs are definitely an
adaptation to their current environment. Thank-you.
==!
==* EMBRYOLOGY DESIGN
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}Embryology, instead of supporting evolution, actually
}offers abundant testimony to a great Designer and does not in any way
}give countenance to theories of materialistic origin and development.
How odd... Same data, different conclusion.
==!
==* EMBRYOLOGY DESIGN ANATOMY
}Similarities (embryology & comparative anatomy) are more reasonably
}explained in terms of origin at the hand of a common Designer.
An odd definition of "reasonable"...
[How about "reason" -- to think; and "-able" -- capable of, but not
wishing to actually do so. All this talk about allele frequencies and
cladistics and magnetostratigraphy and ... seems to cause some folks
to look for a less mentally taxing approach to understanding this very
complex topic. So, "God did it". All done in words of less than four
letters. How much more "reason-able" can you get? -- WRE]
==!
==* EVOLUTION TRUTH
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}what is known to be true about evolution?
I am not sure what you mean by "KNOW". None of this is divine
revelation. But I am as sure about the statement "There is
plentiful genetic variation in natural populations", having
worked first-hand with the data supporting it, as I am of
just about anything else in the world. And I am as sure of
the statement "Selection can change the frequencies of variants",
since I've done computer simulation to test it. That's most
of evolutionary theory right there.
==!
==* MURDER MAN
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}Why are men alone so murderous of their own species?
We are not alone. Most social animals seem to have some similiar
sorts of behaviors. When a male baboon displaces the old dominant
male, young baboons must watch their ass, as the new dominant male
will often attempt to kill them.
The same thing happens with lions, I believe.
==!
==* COMPLEXITY INCREASE
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
}we have never seen any natural processes which result in a complexity increase.
This is easy. Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"?
This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up
of individual cells of algae.
Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with
the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an
octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in
a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do.
Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of
survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so
it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that
increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable
mutations, can result in a higher form of life?
I have a biological example. The cat in my house has a pair of extra toes
growing inward on both of its forepaws. This is not unknown, and I
have seen it before. Even more interesting, I have seen the cat use those
extra toes as a human would use a thumb to grip small objects, such as
a penny, in a manner that a cat with ordinary forepaws could not.
A new part, adapted from an old part that all others
of the species has. A new ability that others of the species doesn't have.
An increase in complexity in a biological context.
jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
==!
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:13:00 1992
To: maxwebb@cse.ogi.edu
Subject: FAQ: Astronomy and Origins
Topics:
} - Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is < 20,000,000 years.
} - Sun is shrinking by ~5 feet per hour.
} - Lunar dust--only 1 to 3 inches, not 54 feet.
} - Deterioration of earth's magnetic field
} - Atmospheric helium should have built up
} - Receding moon would have been touching earth
} - All comets would have disintegrated after 10,000 years.
} - galaxy formation.
) - biblical cosmology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
==*
} - Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is < 20,000,000 years.
This (suns energy comes from contraction) is decades old and discarded soon
after the discovery of radioactivity. See the Scientific American article
from August 1989. The German physicst Hermann von Helmholtz formulated
this concept around 1869. It has been soundly rebuffed in the last
100 years.
- The guy who thought that we were detecting 0 (zero) solar neutrinos,
thus proving his theory that the sun was shining due to the
gravitational energy released as it shrank.
(they are there, and have been detected)
==!
==*
} - Sun is shrinking by ~5 feet per hour.
}i.e losing 0.01% per year. 6,000 creation = ~6% shrinkage, but 20,000,000
}years ago the sun touched the earth and 100,000 years ago the sun was twice
}as large (making life impossible).
I am interested in how you decide that this is a steady-state system?
A "Sun" that large could not possibly have this solar system.
A brief discussion of this is found in "Looking Inside the Sun", ASTRONOMY,
March 1989.
Analysis of historical records of eclipses and transits give varying
numbers. One result gives 2.25 arcseconds per century, similar to the
above figure. Another result gives an upper limit of 0.3 arcsecond per
century, but is also consistent with no shrinkage. Two more historical
analyses indicate that the sun was a bit larger a century ago than
today. Current measurements indicate that the sun is not now shrinking.
The long term stability of the size of the sun remains unknown.
==!
==* MOON DUST ACCUMULATION
} - Lunar dust--only 1 to 3 inches, not 54 feet.
The calculation you refer to is given by Henry Morris on pp.
151-153 of _Scientific Creationism_. It is based on a grossly erroneous
figure of 14 million tons of meteoritic dust per year, quoted by Petterson
in 1960. Morris misinterpreted Petterson's article. Petterson published a
figure of 15 (not 14) million tons per year as an _upper limit_. In
other words, Petterson said that the value is _not more than_ 15 million
tons per year. He was not able to measure an actual value. Morris
erroneously chose to interpret it to mean it was _equal_ to 14
million tons per year. Accurate values were measured in the late
1960's. The actual value is much lower than 15 million tons per year.
Dalrymple gives the value of 22,000 tons per year, nearly 700 times
smaller than your figure. That changes your 54 foot figure into about
2 cm, which is quite consistent with the amount of surface soil the
astronauts found on the Moon (it was considerably more than 1-2 mm).
My copy of "Everyman's Astronomy" indicates that the earth collects
about 9000 kg per day from meteors of visual magnitude 5.0 or brighter.
Assuming a typical rock density of 3 g/cc, this corresponds to an
accumulation rate of one inch per 10 billion years. Unfortunately no
data is presented for fainter meteors. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that the actual rate is one or two orders of magnitude higher, but "1
inch in 8000 years" is off by six orders of magnitude.
A dust accumulation rate of "one inch per 8000 years" should should
create a spectacular yearround meteor shower, and cause severe pitting
of the space shuttle windshields in just a single orbit. My quick estimates
give values far higher than have been actually observed.
==!
==* BARNES MAGNETIC_FIELD DIPOLE_MOMENT
} - Deterioration of earth's magnetic field, at present rates, implies an
} excessive field 10,000 years ago.
> Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field - Result of research by Thomas Barnes
> during his tenure as Physics Professor at UTEP. Published in _Origin and
> Destiny of Earth's Magnetic Field_, 1973. Barnes notes the measured
> values over the last 150 years and models according to uniformitarian
> principles.
The decay is not a steady state. In fact, there is considerable evidence
for reversals. The atlantic ocean floor as it spreads shown the weakening
- reversing - strengthening recorded in its stone as the contenents
spread from the mid-atlantic ridge.
The field is expected to reverse sometime in the next few thousand
years. A time scale on page 78 shows the reversals over the past 170
million years, as deduced from the magnetic patterns in oceanic crust.
I counted about 200 reversals on the chart.
Briefly, Barnes took approximately 150 years of data on the Earth's
dipole magnetic field and extrapolated it backwards to about 10000
years Before Present (B.P.). He stated that the field 10,000 years ago
would, on this calculation, have been as strong as that of a magnetic
star, and stated (correctly) that this was absurd. However, there
are four fatal flaws in his analysis.
In the first place, Barnes studied only the *dipole* component of the
Earth's magnetic field, In fact, the very same data that Barnes used
show that the *nondipole* component of the field *increased* during
the same period of time, almost exactly cancelling the decrease in
the dipole field that Barnes calculated (D. Brent Dalrymple, U. S.
Geological Survey, Menlo Park CA, in *Reviews of 31 Creationist Books*).
This alone is sufficient to destroy the basis of his work.
The second failure of Barnes' study was the idea that one can take data
from a short period of time and simply extrapolate it backwards to obtain
a reliable estimate at a time remotely removed from the data. Anyone
competent in analyzing scientific data knows that extrapolations are good
only for a relatively short period of time, if at all, and that the further
away from the actual data one goes, the less reliable it becomes. Barnes
extrapolated 150 years' worth of data back 10,000 years! In real life,
one would be surprised if extrapolation of these data more than a few
hundred years back were accurate.
The third failure of Barnes' study was the mathematical model he
chose. He decided to fit the data to an exponential. The data fit
a straight line just as well (see Figure 1 of Stephen G. Brush's
article in *Scientists Confront Creationism*), but a straight line
would have given a much older age for the Earth than the 10,000 years
that Barnes, because of his Biblical literalism, wishes to promote.
The fourth failure of Barnes' study was his failure to consider any other
evidence than the 150 years worth of data from geomagnetic observatories
that he used. There exists, in paleomagnetic data, a long record of
the Earth's magnetic dipole strength (extending backwards for millions
of years). The data are in agreement with the observatory data Barnes
used over their common intersection, but they differ drastically from
Barnes' extrapolation when one goes further back in time.
==!
==* HELIUM DATING
} - Atmospheric helium should have built up more from U decay.
This statement is false. It falls precisely within predicted limits.
Please read:
Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets
Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10
May 15, 1969 p 2494
The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals
Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981
Cloud, Preston E., Jr., "Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on
the Primitive Earth", Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736
Mart, Michael H, "The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of
its Atmosphere", published in some conference or another; I
got a copy from the author. (ave Allen )
Our Evolving Atmosphere
Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov
The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth
Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978
Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans
Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986
Heat and Helium in the Earth
O'Nions & Oxburgh, Nature, vol 306, 1 Dec 1983
The Atmosphere
Ingersoll, Scientific American, Sept 1983
==!
==* MOON ORBIT TIDAL_FRICTION DATING
} - Receding moon would have been touching earth 2 billion years ago.
Check up on your orbital dynamics...
Assumes a steady rate of recession. Assumes the moon wasn't captured less
than 2 billion years ago.
==!
==* COMET DATING DISINTEGRATION
} - All comets would have disintegrated after 10,000 years.
Jupiter and Saturn wreak havoc to the comet orbits. Some long-period
comets are perturbed into short period orbits, others are permanently
ejected. Comets are believed to have a short lifetime after being
perturbed to short periods.
Actually, the Oort cometary cloud hypothesis (published by Jan H. Oort in
1950) was originally proposed in order to explain "the rate of appearance
of long-period comets" (i.e. there are a lot of them). It really didn't
have anything to do with the age of short-period comets (which the note
above refers to). [Long-period > 200 yrs, short-period < 200 yrs.]
The problem that is referred to by the creationist here is that the short-
period comets *have not occupied their present orbits* for very long (in
astronomical terms). Each time a comet passes close to the sun, some of
its matter is driven off into space by the sun's energy (forming its "tail").
"Short-period" comets are believed by astronomers to have a lifetime of
only a few thousand years, because after that all of their "tail-producing"
matter would be used up (indeed, astronomers have noted comets to "vanish";
the remaining material only makes its presence known upon entering the
Earth's atmosphere; this is likely the origin of meteoroid swarms.)
However, the fact that a comet cannot have occupied its present orbit for
very long does not automatically imply that it is young. The Oort hypothesis
does explain this problem as well, in that long-period comets -- if frequent
enough -- will be moved into short-period orbits by a relatively near approach
to a planet (comet loses momentum, planet gains it, comet is now in a vastly
shorter orbit, planet is now in a very slightly longer orbit).
In fact, of the short-period comets, roughly half orbit pretty much between
the sun and jupiter, leading astronomers to belive that jupiter "captured"
them into their current orbits. (Statistically, we would expect the largest
planet -- the best "capturer" -- to have captured the most short-period
comets).
Finally, nobody really knows about the Oort cloud. Astronomers like the
way it explains the frequency of long-period comets, and there is much
support for it amongst them. It apparently also explains the youth of the
short-period comets, quite nicely. However, until we see a comet get sucked
into a short-period orbit (apparently this must happen every 100 years or
so), or until we send something out to 10,000 A.U., Oort's proposal remains
a hypothesis. (Conclusion: it was *not* cooked up to explain young short-
period comets; this is something of a "fringe benefit". But we aren't very
sure that it's true, either.)
[From Strahler, "Science and Earth History", New York:Prometheus, 1987; p. 143]
==!
==* COSMOLOGY GALAXY_FORMATION
}An important element in the argument against the evolutionary universe
}is the failure of conventional cosomology to solve the problem of
}galaxy formation.
With the development of GUT, we see galaxy formation is no longer a problem
at all but simply one more natural phenomenon with a perfectly natural
explaination.
James S. Trefil
_The Moment of Creation_
) - biblical cosmology
And in several places in the Bible, the sky is referred to as
a vault, with the stars stuck on it. Genesis 1 refers to water above
this vault (an idea no doubt borrowed from the Babylonian cosmology,
which pictured the Earth as a flat disk inside a cosmic bubble in a
cosmic sea). The Book of Revelation states that the stars will someday
fall out of the sky like figs from a tree. The Bible says little about
the shape of the Earth, referring in one place to the "circle" of the
Earth (a disk shape), and in another place to the "four corners" of
the Earth (a rectangular surface shape). In one of the Gospels, the
Devil tempted Jesus by taking him up a mountain where he could see
"all the kingdoms of the world" (no further info on this remarkable
mountain). This would only be possible if the Earth was flat.
The Bible does indicate more clearly, however, that the Earth
is motionless. Witness Joshua's telling the Sun (and not the Earth) to
stop just so he could win one of his battles, and some of the Psalms
that state that the Earth is motionless. The Joshua story can be used
to find a Biblical estimate of the distances of the Sun and the Moon
from the Earth. Since we are told that the Sun was stopped to
illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon to illuminate the Valley
of Aijalon, we conclude that either one of them would have been
insufficient for both -- and that requires that the Sun be low when
viewed from the Moon's valley, as it were, and vice versa. This
implies that the distances to the Sun and the Moon are comparable to
the distance between the Valleys of Gibeon and Aijalon, which is about
10 mi.
In all fairness to the writers of the Bible, none of this
cosmology is any worse than the cosmological pictures developed by
surrounding peoples, with one exception. Ancient Greek
proto-scientists (if that is the proper word) were, without any modern
technology, able to establish that the Earth was approximately
spherical, and were able to work out the approximate size of the Earth
and the distance to the Moon. The distance to the Sun was more
difficult, and almost all were agreed that the Sun moved around the
Earth. But this knowledge was gained only after the Old Testament was
written, though some of the writers of the New Testament may have
learned of Aristotle's demonstration of the approximate sphericity of
the Earth three centuries ago. The Greeks had data which anyone else
living before modern times could collect, but they put the pieces
together in the right fashion, and, for some reason, there is no hint
of that in the Bible.
==!
==* STASSEN FAQ LIST
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ List
Updated: 12/14/92
========================================================================
FAQs which I can send to you:
1) "age of earth" (size: 28k bytes)
A short discussion of radiometric dating methods, creationist
arguments for a young earth, brief responses to creationist
criticisms of radiometric dating methods. Many references
included.
2) "age of earth debate" (76k)
An organized text debate between myself and Bob Bales on the
age of the earth. Both of us are long-time talk.origins
participants (since 1986 or earlier).
3) "book reviews" (6k)
A list of the most useful books on creation vs. evolution,
with publisher information and short reviews. Reading a few
from the list would be a good way to get acquainted with the
debate.
4) "abiogenesis book reviews" (3k)
Short reviews on five good books about the origin of life.
5) "isochron dating theory" (9k)
A short essay on isochron dating methods, how they work and
why they do not share certain flaws with other dating methods
that creationists like to criticize.
6) "periodical reviews" (7k)
A discussion of the best periodicals relevant to creation
vs. evolution, with ordering addresses and short reviews.
Mostly discusses creationist periodicals, because there is
only one "anti-creationist" periodical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also some items which are in "pre-FAQ" stages. They contain
useful materials and good references, but are waiting additional research
and/or rewriting before I will apply to add them for the main "FAQ list"
maintained by Matt Brinkman:
7) "ICR grand canyon project" (11k)
A short discussion of the Institute for Creation Research's
"grand canyon dating project." The ICR's Steven Austin claims
to have found results which call isochron dating methods into
question. Will be updated once Austin, as he has promised to,
goes public with all of the data.
8) "In The Beginning" (26k)
A discussion of several "categories of evidence" for a young
earth provided by creationist Walter T. Brown in his book
"In The Beginning." Basically a demolition of several standard
creationist arguments. Includes many references.
9) "Coral clocks" (52k)
A USEnet article discussing the length of a year (in days)
through history, as computed from the paleontological data.
Lots of references included.
10) "fishy experiment" (3k)
An examination of some creationist "research" on the survival of
salt-water and fresh-water fish in the flood. Written by Rob Day.
Not really a FAQ, but an illuminating example of the quality of
work produced by creationists.
11) "speciation" (2k)
A few references and examples on speciation. The leaders of the
creationist movement usually are smart enough not to claim that
speciation doesn't occur, but their writing causes lots of folks
to believe otherwise. This was quickly written to refute a
common claim that we see in talk.origins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also available, the following interesting items. They aren't really "FAQ"
material, and never will be. However, you can get them if you want:
12) "NCSE index" (200k)
Keyword indices (and a scanning program) for the NCSE's publications
_Creation/Evolution Journal_ and _NCSE Reports_. It's very long.
And it's probably only useful if you have back issues of the
periodicals in question.
13) "Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and the Age of the Earth" (N/A)
A paper written by famous isotope geologist Dr. G. Brent Dalrymple.
Explains radiometric dating methods and examines creationist
criticisms of same.
This is *not* in ASCII form, so I can't Email it to you. However,
I have received donated copier time and will send a copy via
U.S. Mail to anyone who is willing to cover postage ($2.20 or so).
========================================================================
==!
==* STASSEN AGE_OF_EARTH DATING REFS
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Age of the Earth
Updated: 09/24/92
========================================================================
==========================================================================
Overview:
==========================================================================
(I) How old is the earth, and how do we know?
(II) Common creationist "dating methods"
(III) Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods
(IV) Suggested further reading
(V) References
==========================================================================
(I) How old is the earth, and how do we know?
==========================================================================
The generally accepted age for the earth (and the rest of the solar
sytem) is about 4.5 billion years. This value is derived from several
different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that
is solely from the earth. There is evidence that energy from the
earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the
processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed
all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far date to about
3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods).
Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are
themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are
relatively rare, however rocks at least 3.5 billion years in age have
been found on all continents.
While these values do not compute an age for the earth, they
do establish a lower limit (the earth must be at least as old as any
formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the
independently derived figure of 4.54 billion years for the earth's
actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the earth's age is a Pb/Pb
isochron age, derived from samples of the earth and meteorites.
This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207,
and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204
versus Pb-208/Pb-204.
If the solar system formed form a common pool of matter,
which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then
the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would
fall on a single point. However, amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will
change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of
U (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207).
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed
with respect to U isotope ratios, then this change will cause the
data points to move away from each other, but they will always fall on
a single line. And from the slope of the line we can derive the
amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated
into individual objects. (See the "Isochron Dating FAQ" for more
detail.)
A creationist would object to all of the "assumptions" listed
above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data
itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements
have not been met, there is no reason for the data to plot on a line.
The resulting plot for five meteorites that contained uranium, a single
data point for all meteorites that do not, and one for modern ocean
sediments. It looks like this:
Y-axis: ratio of Pb[207]/Pb[204]
X-axis: ratio of Pb[206]/Pb[204].
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7 |
| |
30 + |
| |
| 6 |
| |
| |
20 + |
| |
| 4 5 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
10 + 1 |
| |
| |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
10 20 30 40 50
Data points: (1) Iron Meteorites; (2) Beardsley; (3) Modern sediments
and young galenas; (4) Saratov; (5) Elenovka; (6) Richardton; (7) Nuevo
Laredo. I can't really do it justice in ASCII, I recommend interested
parties to get the original. (Dalrymple, 1986, Figure 12)
The slope of the line in the above chart gives an age of 4.55 +/- 0.07
billion years.
Most of the other measurements for the age of the earth rest upon
calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are
less geologically active (such as meteorites). Below is a table of
radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:
======================= ====== ====== ===============
Number
Type Dated Method Age (x10^9 yr)
======================= ====== ====== ===============
Chondrites 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undist. H) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (all) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undist.) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (rel. und.) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undist.) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undist.) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (+ St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21
======================= ====== ====== ===============
(After Dalrymple, 1991, p. 291; duplicate studies on identical meteorite
types omitted.)
As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion
years, between hundreds of different meteorites and by several different
dating methods.
Further, studies on individual meteorites generally give concordant ages
by multiple radiometric means. For example:
======================= ====== ====== ===============
Meteorite Dated Method Age (x10^9 yr)
======================= ====== ====== ===============
Guarena w-rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06
13 sam Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08
----------------------- ------ ------ ---------------
Olivenza 18 sam Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16
w-rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06
----------------------- ------ ------ ---------------
Saint Severin 4 sam Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33
10 sam Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15
w-rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04
----------------------- ------ ------ ---------------
Juvinas 5 sam Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08
5 sam Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07
----------------------- ------ ------ ---------------
Y-75011 9 sam Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05
7 sam Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16
======================= ====== ====== ===============
(After Dalrymple, 1991, p. 286; meteorites dated by only a single means
omitted, duplicated methods omitted.)
Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr
dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact
agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
==========================================================================
(II) Common creationist "dating methods":
==========================================================================
Creationists have several methods which they claim to give "upper
limits" to the age of the earth, much lower than the age calculated
above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the
most often in talk.origins are reproduced below:
1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the moon
4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to
refute of creationist young-earth arguments. However, they are quite
popular in modern creationist literature (even though they should not
be!) and they are the ones which we have to answer in talk.origins the
most often.
--------------------------------
1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The creationst argument goes something like this: Helium-4 is created
by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is
constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to
escape the earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore
accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere
would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore
the earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth
by creationist Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was
published in _Nature_.)
To the best of our knowledge, the state of helium in the atmosphere is
at or near equilibrium. In order to "get" a young age from their
calculations, creationists "handwave away" mechanisms by which Helium
can escape. For example, Morris says:
"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does,
or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts."
(Morris, 1974, p. 151)
But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating
mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite
direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple
says:
"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can
account for an escape of 2 to 4 x 10^6 ions/cm^2.sec of
[4]He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production
flux of (2.5 +- 1.5) x 10^6 atoms/cm^2.sec. Calculations
for [3]He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually
identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible
escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with
the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower
magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing.
Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field
reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured
a balance between helium production and loss."
(Dalrymple, 1984, p. 112)
Dalrymple's references:
(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. High-latitude plasma
transport: the polar wind. Geophys. Res. J. 74: 6317-6332.
(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. Atmospheric helium and
geomagnetic field reversals. Geophys. Res. J. 77: 6194-6201.
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
(Baker, 1976, pp. 25-26)
(Brown, 1989, pp. 16 and 52)
(Jansma, 1985, p. 61)
(Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, pp. 384-385)
(Wysong, 1976, pp. 161-163)
--------------------------------
2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The creationist argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field
has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured.
Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of
the earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be
free currents of magnetic material, which have been losing speed ever
since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of
1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly
high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the earth must be
young. The main proponent of this argument is Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's
hard to just _list_ them all. The primary three are that the
rejection of the dynamo theory is not solidly based, that there is
overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself
(rendering any unidirectional extrapolation useless), and that it
completely ignores the nondipole component of the field.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The earth's
magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The
"dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically
perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" component is
the ("messy") remainder. The recent slight decrease in the dipole
component has been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the
nondipole component of the field. (In other words, the measurements
show that the field has been diverging from a theoretical ideal magnet
more than it has been changing in strength.) The extrapolation
therefore does not really rest on the change in strength of the field.
For information, see (Dalrymple, 1984, pp. 106-108) or (Strahler,
1987, pp. 150-155).
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
(Baker, 1976, p. 25)
(Brown, 1989, pp. 17 and 53)
(Jackson, 1989, pp. 37-38)
(Jansma, 1985, pp. 61-62)
(Morris, 1974, pp. 157-158)
(Wysong, 1976, pp. 160-161)
--------------------------------
3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the moon
This argument: A single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust
influx to the earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year.
While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the
earth (a shoebox-full per acre per year), there are no such processes
on the moon. The moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps
25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and
there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick)
if the moon is several billion years old.
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:
"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)."
(Morris, 1974, p. 152)
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a
device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations
which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel
was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage
of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first
assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast
overestimate).
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million
tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and
indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more
likely figure.
Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite
penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the
time Morris published _Scientific Creationism_. These more accurate
measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year.
These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped
in sediments on earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent
cross-check.)
Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it
the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a
figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the
proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is
less than one foot.
For further information, see (Dalrymple, 1984, pp. 108-111) or
(Strahler, 1987, pp. 143-144).
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
(Baker, 1976, p. 25)
(Brown, 1989, pp. 17 and 53)
(Jackson, 1989, pp. 40-41)
(Jansma, 1985, pp. 62-63)
(Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, pp. 379-380)
(Wysong, 1976, pp. 166-168)
--------------------------------
4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
In 1965, _Chemical Oceanography_ published a list of some metals'
"residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by
dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at
which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.
Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming
that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans
(therefore the earth) because the numbers represented the amount of
time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present
level of these various metals from zero.
First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most
creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones
whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:
Al - 100 Pb - 2k Ba - 84k Ag - 2.1M
Fe - 140 Si - 8k Sn - 100k K - 11M
Ti - 160 Ni - 9k Zn - 180k Sr - 19M
Cr - 350 Co - 18k Rb - 270k Li - 20M
Th - 350 Hg - 42k Sb - 350k Mg - 45M
W - 1000 Bi - 45k Mo - 500k Na - 260M
Mn - 1400 Cu - 50k Au - 560k
(In the above list, "k" = 1,000 years, "M" = 1,000,000 years)
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an
age for the earth.
1. The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:
a) Many of the listed metals are in fact *known* to be at or near
equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the
ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. One cannot
derive a date from a process at equilibrium. (It could go on
forever without changing concentration of the ocean.)
b) Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are
known to be very close to it. I have seen a similar calculation
on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux
estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To
calculate a *true* upper limit, we must calculate the *maximum*
upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their
measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the
highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate
(within the measurement error). If that gets us to equilibrium,
then no upper limit can be derived.
c) In addition, *even if* we knew exactly the rates at which
metals were removed from the oceans, and *even if* these rates did
not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It
would probably require solving a differential equation, and any
reasonable approximation MUST "figure in" the efflux rate. Any
creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has
missed this factor entirely. These published values are only
"upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be
false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which
the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."
2. The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems
above, the results are scattered randomly (5 < 1k years, 5 in 1k-9k
years, 5 in 10k- 99k years, 6 in 100k-999k years, 6 > 1M years).
Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum
gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the earth is
less than the lowest value -- 100 years -- in age.
3. These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which
prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19M year "limit" [Sr] a
confirmation of a 42k year "limit" [Hg]? No!) Independent
confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists
do not place much confidence in a date that is not supported by
more than a single measurement.
4. These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost
certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that these
rates have been constant throughout time. There is in fact pretty
good evidence that due to a relatively large amount of exposed
land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than
typical past rates.
5. There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to
tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods
used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which
identifies undateable samples. The only way a creatonist can
"tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out
the results that he doesn't like.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of
publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in
the following creationist literature:
(Baker, 1976, p. 25)
(Brown, 1989, p. 16)
(Morris, 1974, pp. 153-156)
(Morris & Parker, 1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
(Wysong, 1976, pp. 162, 163)
--------------------------------
Conclusion:
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they
appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the
late 1980s. They appear in talk.origins more often than any other
young-earth arguments. And they are all built upon a distortion of
the data.
A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even
listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing
these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text
as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I
applied the same standards to the large collection of creationist
materials that I own, none would remain.)
==========================================================================
(III) Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods:
==========================================================================
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized
into a few groups. These include:
--------------------------------
1) Reference to a case where the given method did not work.
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point
to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly
wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored.
Such an argument fails on two counts:
a) First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply
that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are
"undateable" objects, but rather whether or not ALL objects cannot
be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has
failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for
discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five
different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five
radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the earth's
oldest rock formations (Dalrymple, 1986, p. 44), it is dismissed
without a thought.
b) Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric
dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations
about 95% of the time (Dalrymple, 1992, personal correspondence).
The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at
random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently
in line with mainstream science.
--------------------------------
2) Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated.
Certain assumptions are involved with all radiometric dating methods.
These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination
(gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). These two assumptions are
the most frequently attacked:
a) Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric
dating) are thought to be based mainly fundamental properties of
matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain
particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus
is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale
effects such as pressure or temperature. Significant changes to
rates of radiometric decay relevant to geological dating have never
been observed under any conditions.
Such a process (per example above) would be based on the strong and
weak nuclear forces, in balance with electromagnetic force, as well
as quantum mechanics. If the laws of physics were to change to the
point where that rate of tunneling were to change by the amount
creationists require (at least a factor of a million to get billions-
of-years dates into their thousands-of-years time scale), there would
be other noticeable effects -- such as instability of many other
isotopes which are stable today, a change in the amount of energy
available released by fusion, etc.
b) Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the "Isochron Dating FAQ",
for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the earth" part of
this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check
built in that will render contaminated samples as "undateable."
It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do
not have a built-in check for contamination, and if it has occurred
will produce a bad result. For this reason, the results of such
dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.
Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address
the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with
old-earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely
"haywire" results essentially at random, geologists would not use them.
==========================================================================
(IV) Suggested further reading:
==========================================================================
An excellent, detailed exposition of the means by which the earth's
age is known, as well as the history of attempts to estimate that
value, is given in (Dalrymple, 1991).
For those who wish to develop more than a layman's understanding of
radiometric dating, (Faure, 1986) is the prime textbook/handbook on
the topic.
There are several shorter works which describe creationist "dating"
methods and/or creationist challenges to mainstream dating methods.
The best in my opinion is (Dalrymple, 1986). (Brush, 1982) and
(Dalrymple, 1984) are also very good.
Writings by old-earth creationists demonstrate that argument for an
old earth is quite possible without "assumption of evolution." The
best few are (Wonderly, 1987) and (Young, 1982). (Wonderly, 1981),
(Newman & Eckelmann, 1977), and (Wonderly, 1977) are also good.
And, of course (Strahler, 1987) covers the entire creation/evolution
controversy (including all of the topics discussed here) in a
reasonable level of detail and with lots of references.
==========================================================================
(V) References:
==========================================================================
Baker, Sylvia, 1976. _Evolution: Bone of Contention_, New Jersey,
Evangelical Press. 35 pp. ISBN 0-85234-226-8
Brown, Walter T., Jr., _In The Beginning..._, Arizona, Center for
Scientific Creation. 122 pp.
Brush, Steven G., 1982, "Finding the age of the earth by physics or by
faith?" in _Journal of Geological Education_, Volume 30,
pp. 34-58.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. _The Age of the Earth_, California,
Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. _Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time,
And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism_,
U.S. Geological Survey. 76 pp.
Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1984. "How Old Is the Earth? A Reply to
``Scientific Creationism''", in _Proceedings of the 63rd
Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS_ Volume 1,
Part 3, California, AAAS. pp. 66-131.
Faure, Gunter, 1986. _Principles of Isotope Geology_ 2nd edition,
New York, John Wiley & Sons. 589 pp. ISBN 0-471-86412-9
Jackson, Wayne, 1989. _Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth_,
California, Courier Publications. 57 pp.
Jansma, Sidney J., Jr., 1985. _Six Days_, Michigan, Jansma.
Morris, Henry, 1974. _Scientific Creationism_, California, Creation-
Life Publishers. 217 pp. ISBN 0-89051-001-6
Newman, Robert C., and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., 1977. _Genesis One
and the Origin of the Earth_, Pennsylvania, IBRI. 154 pp.
ISBN 0-944788-97-1
Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. _Scuence and Earth History: The Creation/
Evolution Controversy_, New York, Prometheus. 552 pp.
ISBN 0-87975-414-1
Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, 1961. _The Genesis Flood_,
New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
518 pp. ISBN 0-87552-338-2
Wonderly, Daniel E., 1987. _Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary
Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings_,
Pennsylvania, IBRI. 130 pp. ISBN 0-944788-00-9
Wonderly, Daniel E., 1981. _Coral Reefs and Related Carbonate
Structures as Indicators of Great Age_, Pennsylvania, IBRI.
19 pp.
Wonderly, Daniel E., 1977. _God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments_,
Michigan, Crystal Press. 258 pp. ISBN 0-930402-01-4
Wysong, R. L., 1976. _The Creation-Evolution Controversy_, Michigan,
Inquiry Press. 455 pp. ISBN 0-918112-01-X
Young, Davis A., 1982. _Christianity and the Age of the Earth_,
California, Artisan. 188 pp. ISBN 0-934666-27-X
==========================================================================
==!==* STASSEN ISOCHRONS RADIOISOTOPE DATING
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Isochron Dating
Updated: 02/27/92
========================================================================
Outline:
1. Generic Radiometric Dating
2. What's wrong with non-isochron dating methods?
3. Generic Isochron Dating
4. What's NOT wrong with isochron dating methods?
5. For further information (some things to read)
(1) Generic Radiometric Dating
Generally, radiometric dating is done by performing a simple
calculation on a sample, involving three measurements:
a) The first "measurement" is actually a "known quantity" -- the
half-life of the radioactive element used by the method. This
value can be experimentally measured in a lab -- but since many
experiments have failed to effect a noticeable change in the
rates relevant to radiometric dating, it is usually taken from a
table.
b) The second measurement is the amount of "parent" element (the
radioactive element used by the method).
c) The third measurement is the amount of "daughter" element (the
element that the radioactive one decays into).
Since each atom of the parent element decays into one atom of the
daughter element, we calculate that the original quantity of the
parent element is the sum of the current amounts of parent and
daughter elements. We then apply the following (frosh physics)
equation (the infamous "radioactive decay" equation):
P = P0 / (2 ^ (T / H) )
or P = (P + D) / (2 ^ (T / H) )
Where:
P is the current amount of parent element
P0 is the original amount of parent element (= P + D)
T is time that has passed ("age" of the sample)
H is the half-life of the element
Solving for T, we calculate the sample's age as:
T = H * log2 ( (P + D) / P)
(2) What's wrong with non-isochron dating methods?
Obviously, there are a few assumptions above which have been
made for the sake of a simple expanation, but which will not
always work in the real world. These include:
a) The amount of daughter element at the time of formation of the
sample is zero. Possible ways to avoid this problem include:
work on a mineral that can't incorporate any of the daughter
compound when it forms; somehow calculate the amount of initial
daughter product and subtract it out.
b) No parent element or daughter element has entered or left the
sample since its time of formation. Possible ways to avoid this
problem include: only date samples whose geological history does
not appear to include events which might cause this problem; date
several different parts of the same sample and only accept the
result if they all agree because contamination is not likely to
affect all parts of a large sample in the same way.
The invention of isochron methods solves both of these problems
at once! Read on...
(3) Generic Isochron Dating
Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which
is the amount of a _different_ isotope of the daughter element.
In addition, it requires that the second through fourth
measurements be taken from several different objects which all
formed from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include
several different minerals are perfect for this.)
When any rock forms, minerals "choose" atoms for inclusion by
their _chemical_ properties. Since the two isotopes of the daughter
element have identical chemical properties, they will be mixed
evenly when the sample forms.
However, the parent element, with different properties,
will not be mixed evenly relative to the daughter elements. So,
at formation time, a sample would contain measurements like the
following:
Mineral No. Parent Daughter Isotope
--------- -------- -------- --------
1 4 gm 1 gm 2 gm
2 2 gm 4 gm 8 gm
3 6 gm 2 gm 4 gm
Note that (for this example) there is always twice as much of the
"isotope" as there is of the "daughter" in every mineral. Also
note that the ratio of "parent" element to either one of the
others varies (as the parent element has different chemical
properties). After one half-life's worth of time has passed, the
values will have changed (as half of the parent atoms in each
mineral will have decayed into daughter compounds):
Mineral No. Parent Daughter Isotope
--------- -------- -------- --------
1 2 gm 3 gm 2 gm
2 1 gm 5 gm 8 gm
3 3 gm 5 gm 4 gm
Note that half of the amount in the Parent column has been
taken away and added to the Daughter column for each mineral.
Also note that the Isotope column, since it doesn't decay and
isn't a decay product, doesn't change at all.
I can do some math here, but it's easier to see it on a graph.
The isochron graph is drawn by graphing D/I vs. P/I. The
first set of measurements results in:
D/I 1 -
|
|
|
- (2)................................(3)...........(1)
|
|
|
+-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
P/I
Note that all of the samples lie on a straight, flat line. This
is what we expect: they all have the same D/I ratio, and hence
the same Y-value.
Note that, if the sample were homogeneously distributed
with respect to parent and daughter, then all of the data points
fall on the same point and no line can be derived.
The graph for the second set of measurements is:
2 -
|
|
|
- .(1)
| ..
| ..(3)
| ...
D/I 1 - ...
| ..
| ..
| (2)
-
|
|
|
+-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
P/I
Once again, all the points lie on a straight line. And the slope
of the line is 1. (I know it doesn't look like it on the screen,
but that's because I used different units for X and Y -- you can
calculate it for yourself from the table above.)
We can make a simple table of slope of line versus age:
Slope Age
-------- -------------------
0 0
1 1 half-life
3 2 half-lives
7 3 half-lives
... ...
N log2( N + 1 ) half-lives
(4) What's NOT wrong with isochron dating methods?
Now that the mechanics of plotting an isochron have been
described, we will return to address the problems that were
mentioned before and describe why isochron methods don't fall
prey to them.
a) Initial daughter compound.
Any amount of initial daughter compound is compensated by the
isochron method. If one of the minerals happened to have none
of the parent element (the Y-intercept of the line), then its
amount of daughter compound wouldn't change over time -- because
it has no parent atoms to produce daughter atoms.
Regardless of whether there's a data point there or not,
the Y-intercept of the line doesn't change as the slope of the
line does. (You can verify this for yourself; the Y-intercept
of both lines above is 0.5.) The Y-intercept of the isochron
line actually gives the ratio of daughter to the other isotope
at the time of formation.
For each mineral, we can then measure the amount of the
other isotope and calculate the amount of daughter product that
was present when the sample formed. If we then subtract it out,
we could derive a "traditional" age for each mineral by the
equations described in the first section. Each such age would
match the result given by the isochron.
b) Random contamination (parent or daughter entering or leaving the
system)
For the sake of brevity, our example only included three data
points. While isochrons are performed with that few data points,
their value is not treated as seriously as those which have tens
of points.
Any non-systematic contamination is _extremely_ unlikely
to leave all of the data points on the line. Even in our little
example, any contamination of one of the minerals would require
a specific contamination of one of the other two in order to keep
all three points on the same line.
When we get to an isochron with tens of data points, the suggestion
that contamination "just happened to place the points on a (fake)
isochron line" can be discarded out of hand. It's too unlikely.
[Now, there is a form of isochron contamination, known as "mixing,"
which basically amounts to a _partial_ resetting of the isochron
clock. However, there are tests to detect it.]
c) General dating assumptions
All radiometric dating methods must assume certain initial
conditions and lack of contamination over time. The wonderful
property of isochron methods is that *if one of these assumptions
is violated*, it is nearly *certain* that the data will show that
by the points not plotting on a line.
(5) For further information, see:
G. Faure, _Principles of Isotope Geology_ (a textbook/handbook;
very technical, but very good.)
G. B. Dalrymple, _Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, and the Age of
the Earth_ (Email Chris Stassen if you want a copy.)
A. N. Strahler, _Science and Earth History_, pp. 130-135
========================================================================
==!==* STASSEN BOOKS GENERAL REVIEWS
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Book Recommendations
Updated: 02/27/92
========================================================================
One of the best ways to learn about the Creation/Evolution debate is to
pick up a few books. The periodicals (recommended earlier) are useful,
but most assume some level of familiarity with the subject. Recommended
reading materials:
I. Anti-creationism (books which examine and debunk creationist arguments)
Note: I don't recommend any general science books. The creationists'
field of attack is very broad, and science books tend to be specialized.
One would have to buy tens of such books to achieve the coverage of a
single title which is tailored to the creationists' attack.
Strahler, Arthur N., _Science and Earth History_;
New York: Prometheus Books, 1987.
This is the "evolutionist's encyclopedia." It's about 550
large pages filled with tiny print, and has an awesome index.
It's a little long to just read, but is the best general
reference on the topic.
Godfrey, Laurie, Ed., _Scientists Confront Creationism_;
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1983.
The best reference there was until Strahler's book. Shorter
and easier to read. It's a collection of essays on various
relevant topics from experts in each field.
McGowan, Chris, _In The Beginning..._;
New York: Prometheus Books, 1984.
If I get to only recommend one book from this category to a
creationist, this is the one I recommend. It's not as useful
as a reference, but it's the easiest one to read.
Kitcher, Philip, _Abusing Science_;
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.
Not recommeneded for creationists, who will likely find it
offensive. Kitcher plays hardball with creationist tactics
and arguments. [Believed to be out of print.]
II. Anti-evolution (creationist books which whomp on evolution)
Know thine enemy. I don't really know any pro-creation books
per se - except Biblically-oriented ones.
Morris, Henry, _Scientific Creationism_;
San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974.
(Second Edition, 1985)
This is actually intended to be a student or teacher handbook
of material to use in science class. It is THE reference on
creationist arguments. If you're only going to own one
creationist book, it should be this one or the next one.
Morris & Parker, _What Is Creation Science?_;
San Diego: Master Books, 1982.
This title is supposed to be an introduction to creation
science, but (like most other creationist works) concentrates
mainly on arguments against mainstream science.
It shares much common material with _Scientific Creationism_.
Since it's available in paperback (and the above title was not,
last I checked) buyers on a budget might prefer it.
Gish, Duane, _Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record_;
San Diego: Master Books, 1985.
This is a revised and expanded version of Gish's famous book,
_Evolution: The Fossils Say No!_. If one is only going to have
two creationist titles, this is the second one to buy.
Wysong, R. L., _The Creation-Evolution Controversy_;
Midland: Inquiry Press, 1986.
While none of the three titles above could be accused of
sterling scholarship, this one is an example of the bottom
of the barrel. I purchased it because *any* really bad
creationist argument can be found in it (the index is pretty
good).
III. Titles on the Origin of life
Shapiro, R., _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide To The Creation Of Life On Earth_
New York: Bantam, 1986.
This is one of two titles which I've seen for sale in both
creationist and evolutionist book-ordering services. It's
the best introduction to the various abiogenesis hypotheses
and their strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, Shapiro
is a little overly skeptical, and in fact would have to eat
a little humble pie on some of his criticisms -- only seven
years after his publication date.
Loomis, William F., _Four Billion Years: An Essay on the Evolution
of Genes and Organisms_; Sunderland: Sinauer, 1988.
A relatively technical abiogenesis scenario. Relatively
long on speculation, especially near the end. Lots of
hard-core chemistry in the early going.
IV. Titles on the Arkansas Trial of Act 590.
Back in the early 1980s, a bill somehow was passed in Arkansas which
required equal time for creationism. It was eventually declared to
be unconstitutional, in a trial which received television coverage
and nationwide attention. Many books from both sides have been
written on it.
Montagu, Ashley, Ed., _Science and Creationism_
New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
A collection of essays on various topics related to the trial.
Probably the best single title on the trial, as it contains
multiple points of view.
Gilkey, Langdon, _Creationism On Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock_
Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985.
Dr. Gilkey is a liberal theologian who was one of the "theological
witnesses" for the plaintiffs (who were trying to get the law
declared unconstitutional).
Geisler, Norman L., _The Creator in the Courtroom_
Milford: Mott Media Inc., 1982.
Dr. Geisler is a professor of theology who was one of the defense
"theological witnesses" (supporting creationism). It's pretty
interesting to read both this book and Dr. Gilkey's book. One
wonders if they were both at the same trial.
V. Other topics
Dawkins, Richard, _The Blind Watchmaker_
New York: W. W. Norton, 1986
An in-depth examination of the 'argument from design' and a
look at the 'apparent' designedness of life.
========================================================================
==!
==* STASSEN PERIODICALS REFS REVIEWS
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Periodical Recommendations
Updated: 09/27/92
========================================================================
One of the best ways to learn about the Creation/Evolution debate is to
Current information is very important in the Creation/Evolution debate.
There are a number of periodicals available; those that I'm familiar with
and subscribe to are listed below. (Please send me additions or
corrections to this list so that I can keep it up-to-date. I plan to
repost it occasionally).
ANTI-CREATIONIST PERIODICALS ---------------------------------------------
It's hard to identify "evolutionist" periodicals -- one might pick
_Discover_, _The Journal of Geological Education_ [1], _Natural
History_ [2] or even _Nature_ [3] as titles which frequently present
evidence for evolution. However, there are at least two periodicals
which concentrate on the creationist threat directly.
[1] No longer being published. Read some back issues if you can find any.
[2] Contains Steven J. Gould's regular column.
[3] Insanely expensive and very technical. Check your university library.
_NCSE Reports_ (4 issues per year, 24pp)
_Creation/Evolution Journal_ (2 issues per year ~50-60pp)
NCSE / P.O. Box 9477 / Berkeley, CA 94709-0477
The NCSE originated as a grassroots organization of scientists aimed
at tracking (and countering) creationist activities. The newsletter
(formerly called "Creation/Evolution Newsletter") has much the same
flavor as it did originally. Included are reports on debates,
contents of creationist literature, state-by-state reports on
creationist activites, details of creationist litigation and textbook
battles, etc.
Membership in the NCSE is $21, and entitles one to a 15% discount
on their book ordering service (they stock many excellent titles).
Back issues of _NCSE Reports_ are $15 per year (volume); back issues
of _Creation/Evolution Journal_ are $5 each. Current issues are
Volume 12, No. 2 (Summer 1992) of _NCSE Reports_ and Number XXIX
(Winter 1991-1992) of _Creation/Evolution Journal_.
CREATIONIST PERIODICALS ------------------------------------------------------
_Acts & Facts / Impact / Back To Genesis_ (FREE, 12 issues per year)
ICR / P.O. Box 2667 / El Cajon, CA 92021
_Acts & Facts_ (plus named inserts) is the monthly voice of the ICR -
the most famous Creationist organization and loudest voice in the
battle for "scientific" creationism. I've been told that the list
of recipients numbers over 100,000.
_Acts & Facts_ (8 pp) reports on activities, conferences, and debates.
_Impact_ (4 pp) is a brief semi-technical article concentrating on a
single topic. _Back to Genesis_ (4 pp) is a Biblically-based essay
derived from the ICR's popular seminar of the same name.
The ICR doesn't have "membership" per se. Occasional good book
deals on ICR ("Master Books") publications are included with the
publication. Back issues of _Impact_ are published in collections
from time to time. I believe that single copies of back issues
can be requested from the ICR.
_Creation Research Society Quarterly_ ($21/year, 4 issues per year, ~40pp)
CRS / P.O. Box 14016 / Terre Haute, IN 47803
The CRS attempts to be the most scholarly creationist organization.
The publication is a glossy "research journal" packed with technical
articles on various topics (such as change in the speed of light).
The technical articles are often impenetrable to the average reader.
Each issue also includes book reviews, and short commentary articles
on various topics.
Membership in the CRS requires signing of a statement of faith,
and "voting membership" requires an advanced degree in a scientific
field. Several interesting books are advertised in the issues (I've
ordered about a dozen), and the prices are reasonable. Back issues
are available at $5 each (or $20 per volume).
_Bible-Science News_ ($15/year, 4 issues per year, ~40 pp)
B-SA / P.O. Box 32457 / Minneapolis, MN 55432
The B-SA (Bible-Science Association, not Boy Scouts of America!) is
probably the most radical creationist organization. The newsletter
is not aimed at a technical audience (unlike CRSQ). It is full of
accusations of "conspiracy," insinuations that evolution is Satanic,
and similar comments.
_Bible-Science News_ (formerly _Bible-Science Newsletter_) has
recently moved to a more durable format and a quarterly publication
schedule. I do not yet know what impact this will have on membership
fees.
Membership in the B-SA requires signing of a statement of faith.
Their book ordering service stocks several interesting titles (I was
able to find Morris' landmark work, _The Genesis Flood_, which is not
available through the ICR).
Back issues are not available (though this may change with the newer
format).
_Origins_ ($5/year, 2 issues per year, ~40pp)
Geoscience Research Institute / Loma Linda University /
Loma Linda, CA 92350
I am not very familiar with either the origin or history of the
Geoscience Research Institute. My understanding is that it is
a SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist) organization. Their publication,
_Origins_, is roughly equivalent to _Creation/Evolution Journal_.
Most of the articles are scholarly (though not too technical).
Book reviews and selected excerpts from recent scientific literature
are regular features.
I haven't seen any book-ordering (or membership) materials from
this organization, so I can't comment on either. Back issues are
available at $2.50 per issue. Current issue is Volume 18, Number 1.
_Origins Research_ ($25 per year, ?)
Access Research Network / P.O. Box 38069 / Colorado
Springs, CO 80937-8069
The ARN started as the SOR, Students for Origins Research, an
organization that concentrated its activity on university campuses.
The newsletter used to contain mostly scholarly articles and letters
to the editor.
An attempt to change the publication schedule to four issues per
year failed, and for a while there were no issues at all.
Recently, there appears to have been a reorganization (and a name
change), and perhaps the publication schedule will become regular
again. I found the membership fees to be too steep and have not
renewed.
In my opinion _Origins Research_ was the best of the creationist
periodicals.
PERIODICALS NOT REVIEWED (but possibly relevant) -------------------------
_Perspectives On Science and Christian Faith_
A form for Christians to discuss such topics. The ASA takes no
official stand on creationism vs. evolution, but the majority of
the members seem to be old-earth creationists.
_The Skeptical Inquirer_
Mentions creationism only infrequently.
_Theistic Evolution Journal_
I haven't been able to find any issues.
========================================================================
==!
==* STASSEN ABIOGENESIS REFS REVIEWS
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Abiogenesis Book Recommendations
Updated: 02/27/92
========================================================================
Here are references and short reviews of some interesting titles
relevant to the origin of life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cairns-Smith, A. G., _Seven Clues to the Origin of Life_;
New York, Cambridge University Press, 1985; ISBN 0-521-39828-2
Cairns-Smith is the best-known proponent of the "clay life" hypothesis.
This book describes what Cairns-Smith believes to be the main problems
with "standard" abiogenesis scenarios, and an overview of his own. If
you want a more technical book with lots of references, get his book,
"Genetic Takeover" instead (sorry, I don't have reference information).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loomis, William F., _Four Billion Years: An Essay on the Evolution of
Genes and Organisms_; Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates, 1988;
ISBN 0-87893-476-6 (0-87893-475-8 hardback)
Loomis gives a relatively detailed treatment of "standard" abiogenesis
scenarios. I like this reference, because Loomis spends the most time
on the hardest problems -- many other texts seem to gloss over the
difficulties and get detailed only when it is "safe."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox, Ronald W., _Energy and the Evolution of Life_;
New York, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1988; ISBN 0-7167-1870-7
(0-7167-1849-9 hardback).
Fox explains abiogenesis, mainly from a perspective of flow of energy,
thermodynamics, etc. The book is reasonably technical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro, Robert, _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to thhe Creation of Life
on Earth_; New York, Bantam Books, 1986; ISBN 0-553-34355-6
Shapiro gives a skeptical overview of several different abiogenesis
scenarios. Despite the creationist-sounding sub-title ("Creation of
life"), Shapiro is no creationist. I have seen creationists recommend
the book, however, because of Shapiro's high level of skepticism. I
believe this work is slightly dated and some of Shapiro's criticisms
are no longer as appropirate. Still, it is a good read.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanawalt, Philip C., editor, _Molecules to Living Cells_; San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company, 1980; ISBN 0-7167-1209-1
This is a collection of reprints of _Scientific American_ articles
relevant to the topic of the origin of life. It includes several
interesting articles and many references to the technical literature.
The only problem is that there is little to tie it together into a
unified whole; it is a mish-mash of various authors' views.
========================================================================
==!==* STASSEN BALES AGE_OF_EARTH COMETS DATING RADIOISOTOPES
========================================================================
Author: Chris Stassen
Subject: FAQ: Age of Earth Debate
Updated: 02/27/92
========================================================================
From stassen Fri Jun 1 07:56:00 PDT 1990
Article: 4522 of talk.origins
Path: netcom!stassen
From: stassen@netcom.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Bales vs. Stassen, "Age of the earth", 1 of 2
Message-ID: <12723@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 90 14:54:31 GMT
Reply-To: stassen@netcom.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Lines: 572
Summary:
This is the first of two postings generated by the debate. It contains
Bob's opening statement, my rebuttal, and Bob's closing remarks.
(The cross-in-the-mail format for the debate caused this division to make
the most sense; the debate wouldn't fit in a single article anyway.)
Bales Opening Statement =======================================================
===============================================================================
In this argument, I'll stick to the evidence which indicates the earth has a
young age. Any young-earth theory must also explain evidence that seems to
indicate that the earth is millions of years old. I've discussed some of this
in the newsgroup, but here I'll leave it for the rebuttal phase of the debate.
The arguments I use are of the same basic type as those of the old-earth
proponents: extrapolation of present-day trends into the past to determine
how long something could have been going on. These methods don't assign an
exact age; the rates and initial conditions are not exactly known. However,
since the "young" and "old" age ranges differ by 5 1/2 orders of magnitude,
it is easy to say which pieces of evidence favor which theory. Also, the
arguments I use here deal with the solar system, the earth, and man. They
do not deal with the age of the universe as a whole.
A couple of notes: for most of the arguments, I provide a background in case
you or someone who reads the record is not familiar with the subject area. I
hope I don't tell you too much that you already know. Also, since there has
been controversy on the net, unless otherwise indicated, all references and
quotes are taken from works which I have personally examined. Any conclusions
not specifically quoted are my own and may not agree with those who supply the
facts on which I base them. The supporting details are based on study,
briefer than I would like, done for this debate. Contrary to what is said
about me on the net, I do understand the scientific method and can follow and
evaluate the arguments. I do not claim to be an expert in the fields involved.
1. Short-period comets
Short period comets disinagrate rather quickly due to interaction with the sun
while in the inner portion of the solar system. Several references gave
conflicting values, from dozens to hundreds, of the number of orbits to be
expected. Paul Joss, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ,
gives a value of 70 as an average. ("On the Origin of Short-Period Comets,"
_Astronomy and Astrophysics_, 25:271-273, June, 1973). He also gives an
average period for a class of short-period comets of 7 years, yielding an
average lifetime of around 500 years. With the average number of this class
which are visible any one time, a 4.5 billion year old universe requires that
at least several hundred million coments existing away from the sun have been
diverted into the solar system. If such a source of comets exists,
observations are consistent with an old solar system. If not, then the
existence of short-period comets indicates a young solar system.
About 1950, Jan Ort of the Netherlands postulated a cloud of comets
orbiting the sun far outside the planets. Note that, although observed
comet orbits are consistent with such a cloud, there is no direct evidence of
its existence: the presence of the comet source is derived from the *need* for
such a source in an old universe. Comets are supposedly diverted from the
reservoir by the influence of passing stars. The question is whether or not
enough comets will be supplied by this mechanism to agree with observations.
Paul Joss, in the above cited reference, calculates "no," by a factor of
40,000. On the other hand, A.H Delsemme ("Origin of Short-Period Comets,"
_Astronomy and Astrophysics_, 29:377-381, December, 1973) calculates that the
answer is "yes." Edger Everhart (University of Denver), who has reviewed both
calulations and has contributed his own theories ("Evaluation of Long- and
Short-periord Orbits," _Comets_, edited by Laurel L. Wilkening, University of
Arizona Press, 1982), the answer is unknown. By my implication, this
indicates that whether the old solar system theory adequately explains
observations is also unknown.
2. Presence of small particles in the solar system
This is an astronomical observation consistent with a young solar system but
which, as in the case of comets, requires extra assumptions if the solar
system is old.
Because of the forward motion of an object in orbit around the sun, the sun's
radition strikes it at an angle and exerts a backwards force. This is known
as the Poynting-Robinson effect. In the case particles on the order of 1 mm
or less in diameter, this force degrades the orbit, causing the particle to fall
into the sun within thousands to a few million years. In _Exploring the
Universe_ (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969) -- my college astronomy text --
George Abell says: "The fact that we find small particles around the earth is
evidence that they are either newly formed or have newly arrived in our part
of the solar system." (page 365). Or, alternatively, evidence that the solar
system is far younger than commonly thought.
There may be some disagreement on this point. Referring to the zodaical light,
produced by reflection of sunlight from particles in space, _Introduction to
Astronomy_, 2nd edition (Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin and Katherin Haramundanis,
Smithsonian Astronmical Observatory, 1970) says: "The observed brightness of
the zodaical light could be produced by a cloud of small bodies of the same
albedo as the moon, 1 mm in diameter and 5 miles apart or 10 feet in diameter
and 1000 miles apart." (page 272) Simply because the solar system is "known"
to be old, small particles are then rejected in favor of those up to the size
of baseballs. Yet, Stanley P. Waytt says, in _Principals of Astronomy_, 2nd
edition (1971) that the particles responsible of the zodical light are on the
order of 0.001 cm radius. He gives the likely source for these particles to be
comets, since we know that comets can create meteors. This sounds plausible,
but there are a few difficulties. First, of the three astronomy books
mentioned, only this one mentioned comets as a source and another, as mentioned
above, discountsd small particles almost entirely. This leads me to believe
that the comet source theory might not be an agreed upon answer. Second, the
distribution of meteors resulting from comets is highly non-uniform around the
earth's orbit, while the particles which cause the zodical light must be
uniformly distributed. Lastly, and most importantly, the theory that the
particle supply is constantly being replenished must make another assumption:
that the rates of supply and of destruction into the sun are roughly equal.
There are no theoretical reasons to expect these rates to balance. Neither,
apparently, are there calculations of the creation rate. The balencing is
derived from, and stated as a fact because of the presumed age of the solar
system. A young solar system does not need these extra assumptions and
theories.
3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere
Radiactive carbon-14 is formed in the atmosphere through the action of
cosmic rays. The rate of formation depeneds on the cosmic-ray activity. The
rate of decay (amount decayed in mass/unit time) depends on the amount
present. Thus, the amount will increase until the decay rate balances the
production rate. Equilibrium will be reached in approximately 30,000 years.
Measurements of production and decay rates indicate that the amount has been
increasing for some time. According to V.R. Switzer, a European conference
reported two studies which showed the concentration has been increasing for
at least 10,000 years ("Radioactive Dating and Low-level Counting, _Science_,
157:726, August 11, 1967). The paper mentions, without details, that this
contradicts previous studies. However, there are other reports of increasing
concentration which I have not seen: "Production of C-14 by Cosmic 8 Ray
Neutrons," Richard E. Lingenfelter, _Reviews of Geophysics_, 1:51, February,
1963, and "Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray produced Carbon-14 in the
Atmosphere and Their Interpretations," Hans E. Suess, _Journal of Geophysical
Research_, 70:5947, December 1, 1965.
4. Erosion rate of the continents
For this, I cite an unusual (for me) reference: a creationist source. Stuart
Nevins calculates ("Evolution: the ocean says No!,"_Acts and Facts, Impact
Series No 8_ [published, I think, by the Creation Research Society] October,
1973.) I have a copy of this, which I read shortly after it came out, but
which I cannot now find. My discussion is based on my recollections and on
what Morris says in _Scientific Creationism_.
At the present rates at which sediments are being carried into the sea, the
entire mass of the continents above sea level would be worn away in about 14
million years. This, of course, is only an average. Some rocks would be worn
away more slowly and some faster.
The reply I have heard is that continuing uplift of the continents occurs so
they are not worn away. This is true, but it does not answer the problems.
The first is the resting place for the sediment. The amount of sediment in
the ocean is about twice the mass of the continents above sea level, it
could have been produced in 30 million years. 4.5 billion years would
have produced 150 times as much sediment at the present rate. Some say that
the sediment is carried by moving plates back into the mantle. However,
_Scientific Creationisms_ gives an unreferenced number thad only 10% of the
sediment can be so accounted for.
The second problem is the age of the present continental rocks. It obviously
must be less than the time since they were uplifed. Again, hard rocks would
remain longer than softer rocks, but why do we see so many rocks which are
supposedly so much older than the average rock "lifetime?" There should be
a great preponderance of younger rocks. Very old rocks would have to be
hard themselves, or would have had to have been protected by harder rocks.
In the case of rocks dated old, is there evidence that this is the case?
A note on erosion rate: the above-cited reference indicates that rate would
have been greater in the evolutionary past, presumably as a result of the
lack of plant cover to retard erosion. _Radioactivity in Geology_ (Eric
M. Durrance, John Wiley, no earlier than 1977), when dealing with another
subject, says the rate was lower in the past, but gives no details or number.
5.Radiogenic helium in the atmosphere
Helium is given off through the decay of uranium and thorium. Melvin Cook
(a creationist) indicates in a letter to _Nature_ ("Where is the Earth's
Radiogenic Helium, 179:213, January 26, 1957) that the present amout of
Helium-4 would have been generated in about 1 million years. (A reference
in _Scientific Creationism_, which I did not verify, gave the actual rate
as perhaps 100 times greater, which would change 1 million to 10,000.)
The assumption, as stated by Eric Durrance (see above), is that the helium
is light enough to escape into space. However, Dr. Cook gives a formula
for the escape rate as a function of temperature, and shows that, at
a temperature which I assume is the temperature of the upper atmosphere,
only 600 grams/year would escape.
I looked in in the index for _Nature_ for the remainer of the year and found
no answer or rebuttal.
6. Polonium halos
Polonium halos are not per se indications of a young earth, but of rapid
formation of rock, a process that would contradict assumption about the
earth's formation. (One paper by Gentry, which I have not seen, is "Time:
measured responses, _EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union_,
May 29, 1979.)
Halos have been discussed in this takk.origins and although I have read the
positions on both sides, I am not completely familiar with the arguments
on possible alternate explanations, so I won't say much about it. My
purpose in bringing it up is to comment on something that has been said in the
group. It has been said that if an alternate explanation can be developed,
the usefulness of halos to young earth theories would be destroyed. This is
so! This would be true only if the alternate explanation were shown to be
correct. If someone shows that Gentry could be wrong, then he has shown that
the rocks in question could have formed over long periods, not that they did.
7. Human population growth
This factor, of course, only pertains to the length of time man has been around
and not to the age of the earth. Since this is outside the scope of the
original debate proposal, you may ignore it if you wish.
Basically, the present rate of population growth would have have populated the
earth in less than half of recorded history. By using lower rates of growth
and allowing for historic events that killed many people (e.g. the plague) a
model that humans have been around somewhat longer than recorded history fits
the present observed population. (Since present rates could vastly
overpopulate the earth, the charge that this model ignores eevents such as
the plague is unfounded.) It requires quite radical assumptions, however, to
make a supposed 500,000 to 1 million year human history "fit."
According to the 1988 World Almanac, the present rate of world population growth
is 1.7%. The rate in less-developed regions is higher, 2.0%. (Note that most
of the earth over most of history would be classed as "less developed.") As
recently as 1970-1975, the figures were 2.0% and 2.4% respectively. Using the
2% figure gives a population of 10^22 in 3000 years. Since unless one argues
some form of "Last Wednesdayism," people have been around at least as long as
recorded history, the actual rate must have been lower: an average growth rate
of 0.36% (about 1/5 the present rate) would produce approximately the present
population in 6000 years.
Much more severe assumptions are necessary to support a longer history. The
Word Almanac also has has a chart (derivation not given) showing the
population's increasing from 10,000,000 in 10,000 BC. I did not try to match
the shape of the curve, but the average growth rate from 10,000 BC would have
had to be only 0.05% -- 1/40 of the 1970-1975 rate. And the problem gets
worse: starting with a population of 2 in 500,000 BC demands a growth rate of
only 0.003% -- 1/600 the present rate -- from then to 10000 BC.
To look at it a slightly different way: if we take the average rate of growth
over 500,000 years to be a quite conservative 0.1%, it additionally requires
that 99% of the population be eliminated every 4000-5000 years to arrive at
the existing population. (The above growth numbers were calculated by
programs I wrote.)
The assumptions of the "young" model are much more realistic than those of the
"old" model.
I do not have the data needed for the calculations, but I suspect that the
growth of animal populations, even allowing for preditation, would also be
inconsistent with their being on earth for as long as evolution says.
Another factor is the total number of individuals, both human and animkal,
that would have lived over millions of years even if total population did
not increase rapidly. Had this number actually lived, we would undoubtedly
find more remains than we do.
In summary, does the evidence cited above *prove* the earth is young? No,
I don't claim that it does. As I've discussed above, there are
assumption which can be made to reconcile this evidence with an old earth.
In many, if not most, cases, the assumptions are made because the earth is
considered old. The evidence I have presented fits more simply and more
directly with a young earth model.
Stassen Rebuttal ==============================================================
===============================================================================
I'd like to start by saying that I'm quite pleased Bob has presented some
positive evidence for a young earth. His detractors ought to take note;
here he has presented seven methods which give a young age for the earth.
In my opening statement, I examined in detail Bob's one previously
proposed method - and it took over 100 lines. Since I am limited to 200
lines here, the examinations will necessarily be more brief. But I will
later expand on any of them in talk.origins at Bob's request - so that I
can't be accused of unfairly dismissing any of the methods.
I would like to make a few comments in general about the methods Bob has
proposed, before I examine each of them:
a) Bob seems to think that the earth is "young," but he has not given me
a specific value. I am defending 4.5 +- 0.1 billion years (a value
tied down to 2% tolerance). I presented two lines of evidence in my
opening statement (meteorite Rb-Sr and solar system model lead) which
support that value with direct measurements and calculations.
The methods Bob proposed support 3,000, 6,000, 12,000, or 25,000
years equally, and none of them calculate an age directly. If possible,
I would like him in his closing statement to propose a more precise
value (say, to 10% tolerance), and to tell me how he arrived at it.
b) Nearly all of the methods Bob proposed have the same flaw as the metals
one which I examined in my opening statement. There is either known
or strongly suspected to be a process which works in the reverse
direction of the process Bob is using for deriving a young age (I will
explain each later). And the reverse process is either not well
understood, or not likely uniform, or not measured accurately (yet).
Suppose there was a poorly understood process which turned lead
back into uranium at an unknown but significant rate. This process
works in the reverse direction from radioactive decay. I'm sure Bob
would justifiably ignore U/Pb dates if such a reverse process existed.
I will now briefly examine each of Bob's proposed methods:
# 1. Short-period comets
First off, the Oort hypothesis was proposed to explain the origin of long-
period comets, not short-period ones as Bob has claimed. That it explains
both is merely a "fringe benefit" (and maybe a point in its favor).
The capture of long-period comets into short-period orbits is the
process working in reverse of Bob's dating process.
Astronomers can calculate the "age" of a comet (estimate of the
time it has spent near the Sun by the gases it gives off). Short-period
comets have a wide range of ages, from "new" first-time-around ones to
"dead" ones that are barely detectable. This arrangement of data does not
make sense unless there is some mechanism which regularly injects "new"
short-period comets into the solar system. (If all short-period comets
were originally created 10k years ago, they should all be nearly "dead.")
The comet capture model is a better explanation than recent creation,
as recent creation "in situ" cannot account for the "youth" of s-p comets.
# 2. Presence of small particles in the solar system
There are three processes working against this proposed dating method:
1. For smaller particles - the ones Slusher expected to decay fastest -
radiation pressure effects balance and overcome the Poynting-Robertson
Effect. The particles responsible for the "zodiacal light" are of
a size that puts these two forces roughly at equilibrium - their orbits
would not decay at a significant rate.
2. As dust spirals past a planetary orbit, it can have its orbit radically
altered or be temporarily captured. There is no "uniform" decay of orbit.
3. Matter given off by comets and collisions of "minor planets" will
replenish dust at an unknown (but probably significant) rate.
Bob mentioned three astronomy texts (1969-1971), inconclusive on
comets as a source of dust. In 1973, comet Kohutek was estimated to be
giving off 30 tons of gas and dust *per second* when it was near the Sun.
Encke's Comet gave off 9 million tons of gas and dust (90% of its mass)
before dying. Astronomers have good reason to think that comets are a
major source of small particles in the inner parts of the solar system.
This "more simple" model simply ignores processes known to be
operating in the opposite direction. That hardly can make it more accurate.
# 3. Radiocarbon balance in the atmosphere
The [14]C/[12]C ratio depends on a number of factors including:
1. Its rate of production, influenced by both the strength of the earth's
magnetic field, and the cosmic-ray proton flux generated by the Sun.
2. The amount of carbon in "reservoirs" in the Earth, which is strongly
influenced by climatic conditions.
All of these factors vary; it is unjustified to assume that a non-
uniform level means non-equilibrium. The concentration of [14]C in the
atmosphere is calculated by performing [14]C dating on an object of known
age (and calculating the difference between the dating age and the real age).
The evidence indicates that it has been as high as 10% above its current
value, and as low as 10% below its current value at various times in the
past. It does not look like a process just now reaching equilibrium.
The "recent creation model" (with [14]C starting near but not at
equilibrium) does not account for samples which give [14]C dates older
than 10,000 years. Samples give ages to 50k years, which favors the
"equilibrium, varying [14]C/[12]C ratio" model.
# 4. Erosion rate of the continents
The processes which work against Bob's proposed dating method:
1. Crustal recycling. Much of the ocean floor is relatively young, so it
doesn't make any sense to expect 5 billion years of sediments there.
2. Sediment recycling by tectonic uplift. Many rocks exposed to erosion
today are sedimentary and have been eroded at least once already. One
cannot simply multiply age by erosion rate to get amount of sediment.
The amount of sediment on the ocean floor is not surprising or unexpected.
Sediments increase in thickness from near zero at the mid-Atlantic ridge,
to several million years' worth near America and Europe. This data supports
plate tectonics, but not a ten thousand year old earth.
Rocks older than the "average" age are protected by having younger
(not "harder") rocks deposited on top of them. The 'column clearly shows
periods of deposition alternated with periods of erosion (recall recent
talk.origins discussions on the Grand Canyon).
The "recent creation" model does not explain the sediment pattern
on the ocean floor, nor the accumulation of the geologic column. The
"erosion/accretion" model nicely explains many geologic features.
# 5.Radiogenic helium in the atmosphere
There are at least two processes working against this method:
1. Escape of Helium by temperature-induced velocity.
2. Escape of Helium by photoionization and magnetic field interactions.
Cook has messed up the thermodynamics somehow, for proper calculations
show that process (1) accounts for the escape of 50% of the [3]He and
2% of [4]He from the atmosphere (percentages are of rate of production).
I'm not surprised; Cook has screwed up calculations like this before.
The rate for process (2) depends on the strength of the magnetic
field of the earth, but calculations referenced in Dalrymple's paper show
an escape rate which balances the production rate. Although process (2)
is complex and not well understood, it shows that there is reason to
suspect that the system is at equilibrium and therefore no actual upper
limit for the age of the earth may be derived from it.
# 6. Polonium halos
I'm not sure why Bob included these, for they really have nothing at all
to do with "dating." Gentry claims they are evidence for instantaneous
formation, but the halos don't tell *when*. In addition, Gentry's halos
are found in "flood deposits," rather than "originally created rocks."
Finally, there are natural explanations which can account for the
halos as not being radiation-induced. There are halos whose size does not
correspond to any alpha-particle energy. Even those proposing instantaneous
creation will have to appeal to natural processes to explain the odd-sized
halos. Is it "simpler" to posit a separate explanation for the "Po" ones?
# 7. Human population growth
Many species have had their populations measured over time. While the
short-term growth rate can vary wildly (due to environmental factors), the
long-term growth rate is always very close to zero. Usually a limited
food supply keeps populations at equilibrium. Until humans invented
agriculture (which breaks that constraint), there is reason to expect that
we were subject to the same limiting forces as other animals. Still,
let's check the implications of Bob's 6000 years @ 0.36% growth:
Start with 2 people at 4000 BC. By 2500 BC, the population is 440. Let's
place half the earth's population in Egypt, and discount the elderly,
women, and children. The Great Pyramid must have been built by about 40
men, who quarried and moved 2,300,000 blocks (up to 50 tons in weight) in
under 40 years' time. (4 blocks/man-day. Must be non-union labor.)
About 20 men must have built the first pyramid some 200 years
earlier, while the other 20 able-bodied men on Earth were constructing
fortified cities in Mesopotamia. In 3700 BC, *both* able-bodied men
on Earth must have been quite busy constructing impressive civilizations
in Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley, and other sites.
Obviously, Bob's uniform approximation doesn't work. To account
for the population in 3700 BC, he will have to drop his rate to 0.16%. The
rate from 3700 BC to 1 AD will be about 0.06%. Bob will have to admit to a
rate over 2/3 of recorded history that is 96% of the way to equilibrium from
the measured 1971-1975 values. I don't understand how he can find
equilibrium to be "unjustified" when he is suggesting rates about the same
distance from the measured ones for his own scenario.
The growth rate is known to vary greatly over short periods of time; it is
noticeably influenced by factors missing from Bob's oversimplification; and
it is not that far from equilibrium. Bob should have known this method was
unreliable when he plugged in current growth rates and "proved" Last
Wednesdayism. I don't understand why he felt justified in pulling a lower
rate out of a hat; I'd have discarded the method as unreliable.
Bob thought this method wouldn't support long histories when
applied to other creatures. I approximated houseflies, and calculated
their origin to be in 1982 with similar growth rates (probably too low).
Bacteria must have been created no earlier than 1988. Clearly, these
"simple" assumptions can *vastly* underestimate how long a species has
been around. The claim that it does so for humans as well is reasonable.
-------
In summary, recall the results of my examination of the dating methods:
The first five "process-based" methods ignored processes known to operate
in the opposite direction. Bob's simplified "recent creation" model cannot
account for many features easily explained by interaction between these
processes and the reverse ones. We don't *know* these processes to be at
equilibrium, but that is certainly within range of measurement uncertainty.
The halos are something of a mystery, but they are just as much a
mystery to the creationists who must account for Polonium in The Flood.
The final method, population growth, is to me an example of the worst of
creationist dating methods. It depends on an unjustified over-simplified
extrapolation on a rate which is known to vary significantly.
None of the methods are similar to the quantitative methods I
proposed which give an old age for the earth. I again request Bob to
present a definite age (as in, "X years") and tell me how he derived it.
Bales Closing Remarks =========================================================
===============================================================================
To start: Chris asked that I give a definite date for the earth. Because of
the nature of the evidence, I can't. The lower limit is the length of
recorded history. The upper limit, for most of the indications I cited is
less than 50,000 years.
Chris's general objection to my methods is that there are processes
operating in the opposite direction, at least theoretically. I pointed out
most of these in my opening statement. The point is, however, that it is
not known whether these processes do explain the data. Chris admits this
by saying that the processes are "not well understood, or not likely
uniform, or not measured accurately (yet)." In other words, the evidence to
say whether or not my statements are wrong is not there. So Chris's statements
that the young earth position is wrong, and furthermore that the major
proponents of a young earth know they are wrong, are not supported by that
evidence.
The same standard must apply to all evidence. Chris says that if there were
a process that turned uranium to lead at a significant rate that I would be
justified in ignoring uranium-lead dates. There is not such a process, but
there are known processes that influence the accuracy of such dates. And one
of the main methods which Chris uses to date the earth, when applied to
samples of known ages, has been in error by as much as seven orders of
magnitude. Thus, while I do no say to ignore the dates, in the sense of
not talking about them, I feel that I am justified in not treating them as
established fact.
On to some of Chris's specific objections. The length of this statement
prevents me from dealing with them all. I pointed out most of the processes
to which Chris refers in my opening statement. I also pointed out why they
are not good explanations.
>The comet capture model is a better explanation than recent creation as
>recent creation "in situ" cannot account for the "youth" of s-p comets.
The average lifetime of a short period comet has been calculated as about
500 years. If all comets were created as they are, this figure is
obviously low. Adjusting it by a factor of 40 would lead to the presence
of short-period comets up to 20,000 years after creation. One researcher
into the theory Chris calls "better" would have to adjust his results by
a factor of *40,000* to get agreement with what we see.
In carbon-14 dating, Chris seems to restrict the carbon-14 concentration to
start near equilibrium and says that the creation model does not account
for dates older than 10,000 years. But immediately after creation, there
may very well have been little carbon 14. Material from that time,
whenever it was, would date quite old, if the dating assumed near-equilibrium
conditions.
The main point of the "erosion rate of the continents" appears to have been
missed. Methods of moving sediment off of the ocean floor do not answer the
problem, since they do not increase the age of continental rocks. However
old the earth is, the average age of continental rocks should be less than
the time it would take to wear down the continents. And, contrary to Chris's
claim, younger rocks which are not harder will not protect old rocks,
since there is time in the standard chronology for both the "protecting"
and "original" rocks to have worn away many times.
Chris claims that Melvin Cook's calculations of He escape are wrong. I would
like to see a reference to the "proper" calculations, so as to judge if the
claim is correct. I point out, however, that in the 10 months following
the publication of the data, no one pointed out the alleged error of
orders of magnitude.
Chris attempts to show my growth projections are off by using the average
rate to get very low populations in the past. However, there is no reason
to assume the rate is constant; history shows it isn't. Chris apparently
guessed on the rates of housefly population growth. Unless there is some
evidence to support the figure used, the fact that the calculation gave
ridiculous dates shows nothing about my calculations. Also stated is that
is reasonable to believe that the human population is near equilibrium.
However, this is not what we see now. The point, as in the case of comets,
is that only small adjustments are needed in the simple young earth model to
obtain agreement with observed data, while adjustments orders of magnitude
greater are needed in the simple old earth model. Thus, I disagree with
the claim that the latter model is better (in these cases.)
Finally, Chris says that the methods yielding old ages are more quantitative
and different than those yielding young ages. I disagree. Measurements
can give quantitative figures for the amount of isotopes in a rock. But
going from those figures to the age of the rock is, as I showed in my
rebuttal statement, subject to the same number of errors and assumptions
as are the methods I propose.
To close, I'll restate what I'm trying to show:
There is evidence that points to a recent origin for the earth, as well
as evidence that points to an ancient origin. For each class of
evidence, there are alternate explanations that interpret it in
terms of the alternate view. We do not know for certain which view
is correct. I cannot prove the young earth theory; I can only show
that it is consistent with the evidence.
While I present the young earth theory as as possibility, to be considered
along with the old earth theory, Chris presents the old earth theory as the
only possibility to be considered. In support, I have needed to -- and I
have -- presented indications of a young earth and alternate explanations
for contrary evidence. Chris, by contrast, has needed to show not only the
corresponding indications and explanations for an old earth -- which has been
done -- but also to show that they are correct -- which has not been.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
--
Chris Stassen stassen@netcom.UUCP
From stassen Fri Jun 1 07:56:10 PDT 1990
Article: 4523 of talk.origins
Path: netcom!stassen
From: stassen@netcom.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales vs. Stassen, "Age of the earth", 2 of 2
Message-ID: <12724@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 90 14:55:42 GMT
References: <12723@netcom.UUCP>
Reply-To: stassen@netcom.UUCP (Chris Stassen)
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Lines: 727
Summary:
This is the second of two postings generated by the debate. It contains
my opening statement, Bob's rebuttal, and my closing remarks.
(The cross-in-the-mail format for the debate caused this division to make
the most sense; the debate wouldn't fit in a single article anyway.)
Stassen Opening Statement =====================================================
===============================================================================
One quick announcement: I have heavily used Dr. Dalrymple's paper here (USGS
Open-File Report 86-110). I have permission to copy and distribute it, so
Email me your postal address if you want a copy ($5 for copying and postage).
You can also order it from the Government Printing Office for $14.
I am rather pleased and quite surprised that Bob Bales agreed to this debate.
Not many "scientific" creationists would be willing to do so.
In 1986, the International Conference on Creationism set up a debate
between Ken Miller and Duane Gish. At Miller's suggestion, the organizers
agreed that the topic was to be the age of the earth. Gish *refused to debate
that topic* (even though at a creation conference, he would have had a
favorable audience), and demanded it be changed. Miller refused to agree to a
change of the agreed topic, and was "disinvited" from participation in favor
of someone willing to deal with Gish's standard presentation. Perhaps Bob and
I will discover whether or not Gish's fear of the subject is warranted.
The remainder of my opening statement will be divided up into:
(A) Methods creationists use to give an age for the earth
(B) Methods scientists use to give an age for the earth
(C) Creationist criticisms of radiometric dating
-----------
(A) Methods creationists use to give an age for the earth
"Scientific" creationists already "know" the age of the earth and it is not
from the evidence. Henry Morris - "the father of scientific creationism" -
admits that Genesis takes precedence over the evidence, as he says:
"No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take
precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of
Scripture." (_Biblical Cosmology_, quoted in _Science and Creationism_)
It would have been nice to talk about several "dating" methods which Bob has
discussed that give a young age for the earth. Unfortunately, Bob has only
ever mentioned one method in talk.origins, and that was several years ago.
Perhaps I will have more methods to talk about in my rebuttal, but I will
begin by discussing Bob's only publicly proposed method (to date).
In 1965, _Chemical Oceanography_ published a list of some metals' "residency
times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount
of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals
into the oceans.
In late 1986 Bob posted <610@tekfdi.UUCP> to talk.origins, claiming
that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore
the earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would
take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various
metals from zero. (It was one of Bob's first postings to the group.)
First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." The book
that Bob was probably using only lists some of the results. The following
list is more complete (residency times, in years):
Al - 100 Pb - 2k Ba - 84k Ag - 2.1M
Fe - 140 Si - 8k Sn - 100k K - 11M
Ti - 160 Ni - 9k Zn - 180k Sr - 19M
Cr - 350 Co - 18k Rb - 270k Li - 20M
Th - 350 Hg - 42k Sb - 350k Mg - 45M
W - 1000 Bi - 45k Mo - 500k Na - 260M
Mn - 1400 Cu - 50k Au - 560k
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for
the earth. There are many problems which I would like to hear Bob address
(or alternately, he can concede the method's lack of merit):
1. The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:
a) Many of the listed metals are in fact *known* to be at equilibrium;
that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the
same. One cannot derive a date from a process at equilibrium. (It
could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.)
b) Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known
to be very close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on
uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate
is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a *true*
upper limit, we must calculate the *maximum* upper limit, using all
values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty.
We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate,
and the lowest possible influx rate (within the measurement error).
If that gets us to equilibrium, then no upper limit can be derived.
c) In addition, *even if* we knew exactly the rates at which metals were
removed from the oceans, and *even if* these rates did not match the
influx rates, Bob's numbers are still wrong. It would probably require
solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation MUST
"figure in" the efflux rate. Bob missed this factor entirely. Bob's
published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero
(which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases
the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."
2. The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the
results are scattered randomly (5 < 1k years, 5 in 1k-9k years, 5 in 10k-
99k years, 6 in 100k-999k years, 6 > 1M years). Also, the only two results
that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid
method, then the Last Wednesdayists have just won this debate by proxy.
3. These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents
independent confirmation. (Is a 19M year "limit" [Sr] a confirmation
of a 42k year "limit" [Hg]? No!) We will see later that independent
confirmation is very important. Scientists try to date objects or
events, by multiple means. They do not accept a date with confidence
unless more than one independent method confirms it.
4. These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly
not uniform. There is no reason to believe that these rates have been
constant throughout time. I would expect that man, by mining metals
and bringing them to the surface, has added noticeably to the amount
of metals which are "in the loop."
5. There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell
if the calculated result is good or not. We will later see that the best
methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which
identifies undateable samples. The only way Bob can "tell" which of
these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he
doesn't like. He would do this by comparing them to another age arrived
at by other means (which he has never talked about in talk.origins).
If Bob wishes to present a "dating method," he should instead be
presenting the "other means" by which he arrived at a judging date for
this method's accuracy.
Clearly, Bob's one method is neither convincing nor reliable. One might
wonder why he found it worthy of publishing. Yet Bob is not alone in this.
There are many creationists who have published this method. In my own
library, *every* creationist text which provides evidence for a young earth
uses this argument. Here are the more popular ones from that set:
Henry Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, 1974; pp. 153-6
Walter T. Brown, _In The Beginning_, 1989; p. 16
R. L. Wysong, _Creation-Evolution_, 1976; pp. 162, 163
Morris & Parker, _What Is Creation Science?_, 1987; pp. 283-4, 290-1
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms. A curious
and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the
creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing nonsense arguments.
If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for
human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards
to creationist materials that I own, I wouldn't have any left.)
-----------
(B) Methods scientists use to give an age for the earth/universe.
I will present three ways to derive an age for the earth:
1. We can try to find the oldest rocks on the earth. While this doesn't
guarantee an absolute age (for the original rocks need not be available),
it can at least give a lower limit for the age of the earth. (Unlike
Bob's limits, these are derived by dating a specific object.)
The oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the earth are 3.5 to 3.8
billion years in age. Consider the various dating methods applied to the
Greenland Amsitoq Gneiss:
Rb-Sr isochron 3.70 +- 0.14 billion years
Pb-Pb isochron 3.80 +- 0.12 billion years
U-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.05 billion years
Th-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.08 billion years
Lu-Hf isochron 3.55 +- 0.22 billion years
Note that all of the methods agree (3.68-3.70 is within all of their
ranges of error). Isochron and discordia methods also have an internal
check which identifies undateable samples. Similar formations which
give similar ages can be found as well in North America, India, Russia,
Australia, and Africa. This date therefore merits some confidence.
If Bob wishes to object to these dates, he will have to explain
why a 10,000-year-old rock was "created" so that five independent dating
methods would all yield the same fictitious age.
2. We can try to date other objects in the solar system. Both sides of the
debate believe that other objects in the solar system formed at about the
same time as the earth, and therefore an age for one of those objects is
an age for the earth.
The moon is not as geologically active (dating should be more reliable,
as rocks have less complex "histories"). Again, the original rocks need
not be available, so the age will only be a lower limit; the moon must be
at least as old as the oldest rocks we've found on it.
Lunar basalts were collected by six different Apollo expeditions,
from six different sites. These samples all give ages ranging from 3.16 to
3.96 billion years, by both Rb-Sr isochron and Ar-Ar dating methods. When
both methods are applied to one sample, the results agree to within 3%.
Meteorites are not geologically active at all; there is good reason to
expect that most are undisturbed since their formation with the rest of
the solar system. Faure has a chapter on meteorite dating in _Principles
of Isotope Geology_ (this book is a *must-read* for anyone who wishes to
understand radiometric dating).
Chondritic meteorites consistently give an Rb-Sr isochron age of
4.49 +- 0.07 billion years. Achondritic meteorites consistently give
an Rb-Sr isochron age of 4.36 +- 0.11 billion years. A combined method
using samples of minerals from many different meteorites gives an Rb-Sr
isochron age of 4.46 +- 0.08 billion years.
Note that a small percentage of meteorites give ages younger than
4.5 billion years. This is to be expected when events such as collisions
cause melting and recrystallization, which would "reset" the radiometric
"clocks." Still, most meteorites give the same age, and none give ages
older than that.
This arrangement of data is expected if the solar system is indeed
4.5 billion years old. I can't imagine how to explain it if the actual
age is 10,000 years. But that is Bob's task - not mine.
Again, if Bob wishes to disagree with the methods, he will have to give
specific objections. He will have to explain why meteorites were created
to give isochron ages of 4.5 billion years rather than, say, 91 billion
years. He ought to have a reason why a 10,000-year-old sample could be
expected to give an isochron at all.
3. Finally, since we figure all of the objects in the solar system formed
at about the same time (as do the creationists), we can construct a
"model lead" age. This is a calculation which is performed on various
Pb isotopes (some of which are the result of uranium decay, and others
which are not). We will plot [207]Pb/[204]Pb vs. [206]Pb/[204]Pb of
samples from several different objects (meteorites and earth sites).
If these objects were all formed at the same time from a shared
pool of materials, these points should lie on a straight line, and the
slope of the line should give the age at which these objects became
separated.
If these objects instead had separate origins (for example if
they were created out of nothing), then there is no reason to expect the
data points to lie on a straight line. Since the age is determined
from the slope of the line, a scattering of points prevents any age
from being determined at all.
In addition, if some of the samples were contaminated after the
separation event, then those points should be moved away from the
straight line, and again a meaningful age could not be determined. The
fact that the samples do indeed lie on a straight line provides evidence
that the resulting date is accurate, and that the samples have not been
contaminated.
Below is my best ASCII attempt at drawing the diagram:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7 |
| |
30 + |
| |
| 6 |
| |
| |
20 + |
| |
| 4 5 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
10 + 1 |
| |
| |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
10 20 30 40 50
Y-axis: ratio of Pb[207]/Pb[204]; X-axis: ratio of Pb[206]/Pb[204]. Data
points: (1) Iron Meteorites; (2) Beardsley; (3) Modern sediments and young
Galenas; (4) Saratov; (5) Elenovka; (6) Richardton; (7) Nuevo Laredo.
I can't really do it justice in ASCII, I recommend interested parties to
get the original. All of the points lie on (or very near) a straight line.
The slope of the line represents an age of 4.55 billion years. The only
reasonable explanation for this arrangement of the data is that (1) the
objects in the solar system all formed from a common pool of matter, and
(2) they became isolated from each other about 4.55 billion years ago.
I doubt Bob has a convincing explanation for how young, "independently
created" objects from all over the solar system could have their lead
contents form an isochron. I wonder how he will account for the fact
that the resulting age matches other dating methods' results for the
solar system.
-----------
(C) Creationist criticisms of the scientific methods.
I would like to deal with Bob's objections to methods which give an old age
for the earth. However, he has not yet given any which are specific enough
to examine in detail. The objections Bob posts in talk.origins usually amount
to asking, "but how do you KNOW it gives the right age?" This "objection"
does not attempt to explain how the methods could be in error, and therefore
is not open to examination. Bob will have to do better than that here.
Luckily, there is no shortage of creationist criticisms of
radiometric dating methods. Bob will have some big-name stand-ins until
rebuttal time. The contortions (and distortions) that creationists will go
through in order to discredit radiometric dating are almost amusing:
1. (Slusher) "The radioactivity of carbon-14 is very weak and even with all
of its dubious assumptions the method is not applicable to samples that
supposedly go back 10,000 to 15,000 years."
This was written in 1973. Laboratories were then performing [14]C
dating to either 35,000 years or 50,000 years (the latter required
cosmic ray shielding). Today, new experimental methods can reach
80,000 years, and 100,000 years may soon be reached.
2. (Slusher) "The decay rate of [57]Fe has been changed by up to 3% by
electric fields."
[57]Fe is a stable isotope which does not undergo radioactive decay.
When [57]Fe is produced from the decay of [57]Co (an isotope which
does not occur naturally), there is excess energy remaining in the
nucleus. The nucleus then undergoes an "Internal Conversion" which
releases this energy, but it remains the same isotope. The IC rate
may be changed, but this has no bearing on the types of radioactive
decay used in radiometric dating.
Slusher requires (roughly) a 75,000,000% upward change in decay
rates - on the average - in order to move the dates into his time
scale of 6,000 years. There is no evidence that the decay rates
relevant to radiometric dating can be changed by even 1%. These
decay rates are the same at -186C to 2000C. They are the same in
a vacuum to thousands of atmospheres. They are the same under
varying magnetic and gravitational fields.
3. (Morris) "Another [thing which could change uranium decay rates]
would be the free neutrons discussed above."
The density of free neutrons in nature (even in radioactive ores) is
six orders of magnitude too small to have any effect at all. Such a
large flux of neutrons would be quite noticeable - in more than rocks.
Also, free neutrons do not directly alter decay rates and cannot
produce the same results as uranium's normal alpha or beta decay.
Uranium decays into lead. Lead can capture free neutrons, which
would change U/Pb and Pb/Pb dates. Unfortunately, this process works
in the opposite direction from Morris' needs. The effect would be
very slight and would cause the corupted date to read *younger* than
the actual age of the sample. (Morris claims that the dates read
orders of magnitude *older* than the actual age of the sample.)
4. (Morris) "The so-called 'branching ratio,' which determines the amount
of the decay product that becomes argon (instead of calcium) is unknown
by a factor of up to 50 percent."
It was known to within 5% in 1958. It was known to within "a few"
percent by the time Morris wrote that sentence. It is known to
within a fraction of one percent today.
5. (Moore) "The method involving decay of rubidium 87 into strontium 87
is considered so unreliable that it has been discarded."
Actually, it is one of the most accurate and widely used methods
available. Many of the data points given above for the earth,
moon, and meteorites were calculated by that method.
6. (Kofahl and Segraves) "A series of rocks from Reunion Island in the
Indian Ocean gives K/Ar ages ranging from 100k to 2M years, whereas
U/Pb and Pb/Pb ages range from 2.2b to 4.4b years."
The paper cited by Kofahl and Segraves does not contain any U/Pb or
Pb/Pb ages. It does contain some Pb measurements, but is missing
measurement of one Pb isotope required for U/Pb or Pb/Pb dating.
K & S have apparently decided to perform some calculations of their
own. They have therefore only succeeded in casting doubt upon a
dating method of their own invention. This should be no surprise
to them; dating methods invented by creationists never work. :-)
-----------
Summary:
We have examined Bob's method for dating the earth. The method has many
insurmountable problems, yet it is repeated in several creationist books
which argue for a young earth. We have also examined some creationist
complaints about the validity of the scientific methods for finding an age
for the earth. All are either irrelevant or simply wrong. These are not
the hallmarks of an enterprise which has reached its conclusions on careful
study of the evidence. These are not the hallmarks of an enterprise which
even *understands* the evidence.
Some accuse "scientific" creationists of ignorance or dishonesty.
That may be true in some cases (e.g. Morris trying to palm off wildly
inaccurate dust influx rates as reasonable values). A more reasonable
explanation is that most of these mistakes are born out of desperation to
support a view that the evidence flatly contradicts.
Perhaps Bob can do better than the leaders of the movement. Since
Bob usually seems content to work directly and trustingly from their books,
I do not expect it. Bob may surprise me and produce a reasonably convincing
method which gives a young age for the earth. But if he manages to do so,
it will not be a method found in popular creationist literature.
Bob's age for the earth differs by about six orders of magnitude from the
value that scientists propose. This is not a minor difference. One of our
two positions is like arguing that Alpha Centauri is closer to the Earth than
the Sun is, or that one can buy a nice house in California for a quarter.
The positions are so far apart that it should be trivial to choose the one
that the evidence supports. It is. I have presented some solid pieces of
this evidence. Bob needs to propose some evidence of his own, but he must
also have *testable explanations* for how my evidence fits into his position.
Bob will have to offer an explanation for how a collection of young
rocks from different parts of the solar system could form an isochron giving
an age of 4.5 billion years. He will also have to offer an explanation for
how the Amsitoq Gneiss could give the same (incorrect) date by 5 independent
methods, all of which passed internal checks.
No matter how many "rocks" Bob throws at radiometric dating, he will
need to present an explanation for the curious agreement of all of the varying
methods. Proposing a deceptive creator is an admission of failure to do so.
In short, the "scientific" creationists are simply wrong about the age of the
earth; the leaders of the movement KNOW IT (even if Bob doesn't). In their
books, a young earth is treated as if it were an obvious conclusion from the
evidence. In a debate, Duane Gish refuses to discuss it. Gish KNOWS that a
young earth is no more supported than a flat earth. He can't afford to be
destroyed in a debate, so he cannot afford to discuss the age of the earth.
I am impressed with Bob's faith in his position, venturing where
the leaders of his movement fear to tread. I also believe that Bob is
quite honest about his beliefs (though the evidence stands against him).
I don't expect to convert Bob; he was sure of his position long before he
studied the evidence for the alternative. But if he is convinced to obtain
and read the Dalrymple paper, I will consider this debate to be a success.
Bales Rebuttal ================================================================
===============================================================================
Chris contrasts:
>(A) Methods creationists use to give an age for the earth
>(B) Methods scientists use to give an age for the earth
I must protest what appears to me to be an attampt to "prejudice the jury."
As I see it, this is supposed to be a debate on the scientific evidence on
the age of the earth. All arguments used by both sides should fall into (B).
Furthermore, the implication is that young-earth dates (which is what I
suspect Chris means, although not all creationists believe in a young earth)
are distinct from scientific methods. That this is false is shown by Chris's
claims that creationists misinterpret or misuse scientific data. An age based
on misinterpretation of data is still a *scientific* claim.
>"Scientific" creationists already "know" the age of the earth and it is not
>from the evidence.
But what creationists know or don't know has no bearing on what the evidence
shows. Many creationists do believe for reasons in addition to the physical
evidence that the earth is young. Those reasons do not provide scientific
support for my position, so I do not use them here. However, neither do they
provide support for Chris's position, so they add nothing to the debate.
>It would have been nice to talk about several "dating" methods which Bob has
>discussed that give a young age for the earth. Unfortunately, Bob has only
>ever mentioned one method in talk.origins, and that was several years ago.
What follows is a discussion of age determination from looking at the
amount of metal dissolved in ocean water. Note that (although Chris
obviously did not know this) I did not use this method in my statement.
Objections similiar to those raised here were raised when I first proposed
the method. It appears to me that the objections may be valid. I don't think
the method is worthless, as Chris seems to believe, but I need to study it
more in order to defend it.
Turning to the methods Chris uses:
>1. We can try to find the oldest rocks on the earth. While this doesn't
>guarantee an absolute age (for the original rocks need not be available),
>it can at least give a lower limit for the age of the earth.
>The oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the earth are 3.5 to 3.8 billion
>years in age.
Rocks are not stamped "age: 3 billion years." The dates are found indirectly,
in this case, by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rock.
As I have pointed out before, there are cases in which 3-billion year "dates"
found by similar radioactive measures corresponded to an actual age of less
than 200 years.
Whenever I mention this example, I am greeted with a storm of "misuse"
cries. *But consider exactly what I am saying.* I am saying that the
results measured on the Hawaiian rocks indicate a 3 billion year radioactive
date does not necessarily correspond to a 3 billion year actual date. This
is not a misuse.
There is one other response I'd like to comment on. The claim was made that,
since the rocks were predicted to give inaccurate dates, the case has no
implications for dating. It even seemed to be implied that since this
prediction was true, predictions of accuracy will be true also. But this
is not the case. In order to be judged accurate, a method must show
accuracy. Inaccuracies of 6-7 orders of magnitude, however predicted or
however explained, do nothing whatsoever to support an accuracy claim.
Consider the situation as follows: We have two rock samples, which both give
radioactive dates in excess of 3 billion years. For one sample, we know
the date independently. For the other, we don't. If the known sample is
less than 200 years old, why should I believe the unknown sample is in
excess of 3 billion? Chris gives one answer, which I will address below.
>Consider the various dating methods applied to the Greenland Amsitoq Gneiss:
[Chris gives 5 dates.]
>Note that all of the methods agree (3.68-3.70 is within all of their ranges
>of error).
The "ranges of error" are not that, but are ranges of uncertainty, given that
the basic assumptions which went into the dating are correct. If the
assumptions are not right, the error range shown is not the actual error.
>Isochron and discordia methods also have an internal check which identifies
>undateable samples.
Having multiple points which should, and do, fall on a line (in the case
of isochrons) increases confidence in the date, but does not establish it to
be correct. If the theory behind the derivation of the isochron is not
correct, the points can lie anywhere, including on a line. It might be
argued that points would be very unlikely to form a line if the theory was
wrong. This may very well be true -- as I said, the internal checks do
support the theory. But I would be interested in a probability estimate.
In this paragraph, I am asking a question, not raising a definite objection.
As I will describe below, there are a number of things which can influence
radiometric dating, and a number of corrections which may be made. What
corrections, if any, were made to arrive at the results given, and what
effect might that have on the points' lining up?
>Similar formations which give similar ages can be found as well in North
>America, India, Russia, Australia, and Africa. This date therefore merits
>some confidence.
Accuracy implies consistancy, but consistancy does not imply accurracy. If,
for example, dates obtained from one formation are inaccurate, dates obtained
from similiar formations might also be expected to be similarly inaccurate.
>If Bob wishes to object to these dates, he will have to explain why a
>10,000-year-old rock was "created" so that five independent dating
>methods would all yield the same fictitious age.
There are two possible meanings of "why." If Chris is asking why there
might be a reason to believe the dates are wrong, the answer lies in
the evidence mentioned above and to be discussed below. If, on the other
hand, the question is why a Creator would "fool" us, I see the answer as not
being difficult: There is no evidence of fooling. The Creator did not
instruct us in which dating methods to use. Those who do the dating are
totally responsible for developing the methods and interpreting the
results. If the dates are wrong, it is because the the evidence was
misinterpreted, not because it is deceptive.
Chris mentions other datintg methods: dating objects in the solar system and
construct a lead isochron from readings on various materials. These methods
use the same basic principles as the radioactive dating of materials on earth.
I take it, then, that Chris claims radioactive dating is the method which
leads to the conclusion of an old earth.
Which leads to the question: Are radioactive dating methods accurate? Or
are there know problems with them. When in the discussion of the incorrect
Hawaiian dates, I claimed that the history of the rock could affect the dates,
I was severely criticized. In research for this debate, I found out I was
more right than I knew. (Chris discussed some creationist criticisms of
radioactive dating. Since they are not the criticism I use below, I'll let
threm lie.)
I don't have an exact quote, but in _Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of
Mammals_ (1982), T.S. Kemmp refers to the known problems of uranium dating.
However, I wish to discuss mainly Potassium-Argon dating. This is one of the
most often used methots, and in this group it has been referred to as the
most accurate radioactive method. My reference for this is _Radioactivity in
Geology: Principles and Applications_, by Eric Durrance of the University of
Exeter. Based on its references, it was published in 1980 or later.
Quoting: "Thirdly, to obtain the age of formation of a rock or mineral, the
material must have remained a close chemical system since its formation, with
neither gain nor loss of radioactive parent or daughter atoms. . . .
Unfortunately, geologic materials and environments do not often
meet this requirement. In decay schemes in which gaseous daughters are
produced, such as. . .[Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead]. . .for example,
the loss of the daughter by diffusion, even through compact materials, can
be considerable." (page 287)
The book goes on to discuss methods by which inaccuracies can occur: material
movement caused by groundwater, identity of daughter products with non-
decay isotopes in the rock, the proportion of total potassium which is
radioactive or contamination by atmospheric argon when the rock was formed,
when the sample was prepared, or when the measurement was made.
Argon can also be lost from a rock by diffusion as the sample is heated
(with the degree depending on the mineral making up the rock, and the
lattice defects in the crystal), through weathering, as a result of the
physical processes involved in collecting and measuring the sample, and
a result of damage to crystal structure due to radiation from nearby
sources. Argon can enter a rock at or after the time of formation.
With all of these possible sources of errror, the often-heard statement
that "radioactive dating is acccurate since decay rates are constant" does
not tell the entire story, or even a major portion of it. To be fair, the
book I reference mentions that there are corrections for some of these
factors. But if the errors are not recognized in some cases, the
corrections will not be done. Also, the corrections require assumptions of
what happened and how to correct.
I cannot prove that the old dates are wrong. But since there are
uncertainties in the dates, both theoretical and actual, as evidenced by
mate 7 orders of magnitude in error, I contend that those who believe in an
old earth cannot know the dates are right. It has never been shown that a
3-billion date from these methods has been right. But it has been shown that
such a date has been wrong.
Chris closes with a number of comments, a few of which are:
>Bob's age for the earth differs by about six orders of magnitude from the
>value that scientists propose.
The range of dates I use differs from the more commonally accepted dates.
*However, since it is derived by scientists from scientific evidence, it
differs NOT AT ALL from a value proposed by scientists.* The young earth
date is, as I showed in my first statement, derived from the same type of
observations by the same deductive processes as is the old earth date. The
former is as "scientific" as the latter. Why then claim that it isn't? I
can't judge motive, I can only judge effect. Most people, myself included,
will say that a scientific date is better than a non-scientific one. Thus,
if one date is not-scientific, it can be discarded *before examination.*
It's thus easier to ignore whether or not it meets the evidence.
>In short, the "scientific" creationists are simply wrong about the age of the
>earth; the leaders of the movement KNOW IT (even if Bob doesn't).
We are still in a discussion of whether my quoting of someone's statement
implied that he personally believe the view the statement supports. But
here, Chris says what people *know* without quoting them. If the claim
cannot be supported by what they have said, I think it should be withdrawn.
Stassen Closing Remarks =======================================================
===============================================================================
Three quick points before I dive in:
(1) It seems Bob is unhappy that I divided opinions into "scientists" versus
"creationists." I chose "scientists" because I *am* presenting the view
held by mainstream science, and "evolutionists" has no applicability to
categorization of geologists (except in the minds of conspiracy-theorists).
(2) Bob dismisses my Morris quote by saying that creationists have reasons
"other than the evidence" to believe the Earth is young. Bob is badly
misreading Morris' statement, for Morris says that Genesis is reason to
believe in a young Earth *in spite of* the evidence (not "in addition to").
It "adds to the debate" because it explains why the evidence is only of
secondary importance - even to "scientific" creationists. Does Bob agree?
(3) I already use Gish's actions (refusal of ICC debate and generic debate
disclaimer) to support my claim that he knows the evidence does not support
a young Earth. I don't see a need to produce a quote, too. If Bob can
come up with a plausible alternate explanation for why Gish would betray
his sworn position and his organization's position, I will reconsider.
In my opening statement, the dating methods I used were all radiometric. I
used radiometric dating because it is the only *quantitative* method I know
for giving an age. There are plenty of geological formations which I could
discuss (e.g. varves, fossil reefs and stromatolites, limestone and chalk
deposits) that are very difficult to explain as features of a young Earth.
I mentioned a few in my rebuttal (e.g. ocean floor sediments). But these
formations cannot be used to date the entire earth - which is our topic.
I am somewhat disappointed that Bob didn't provide better objections to the
radiometric dating methods. He mostly reused materials that he had posted
previously to talk.origins. (I was loaded for bear, but faced gnats. :-) )
I presented only isochron and discordia methods. Bob gave objections
to K-Ar methods, which he incorrectly generalized to all methods. For K-Ar
dating methods, there is an "assumption that no parent or daughter product has
entered or left the system" (technically, the assumption is that it won't
happen without leaving detectable evidence of contamination). There is no
analogous assumption for isochron methods, as a systematic contamination is
the only *reasonable* explanation for a bad date which keeps the points on a
line. That sort of contamination ("the mixing model") is detectable, was
tested for, and was found *not* to be present.
Bob makes the claim that "radiometric dating methods are known to
give very inaccurate (6-7 orders of magnitude) results." But this is in a
tiny minority of cases. If these methods are so wildly inaccurate, how do
five of them agree on the same age? If the five methods gave results similar
to the metals-in-the-oceans method (scattered randomly), I would be first in
line to call the Amsitoq Gneiss sample "undateable." (By the way, I presented
the "raw" results of the methods; no "corrections" necessary.)
Bob also objects that the dates "have never been shown to be correct."
They show a *strong* correlation with each other, with position in the geologic
column, and with dates derived by other means. The methods work practically
all the time on samples of known ("historical") age which pass contamination
tests. I don't know what more Bob expects. He argues we can't "know" the age,
but lack of absolute certainty doesn't make 10k years a palatable alternative.
(Bob would need to explain how the dates could *consistently* be so far out of
whack. Without that explanation, such an argument is worthless.)
I also want to take issue with Bob's argument against deceptive
creation, which was to say that "the Creator didn't design the dating methods."
All radiometric dating methods I presented are straightforward mathematical
equations derived directly from half-life and isotope measurements (yes, even
isochron methods). Agreement of the five methods is "appearance of age" just
as surely as if the rock were labeled "3.7 billion years old" (perhaps even
*more* surely, as a label is easier to fake). Bob pleads "misinterpretation,"
but fails to present any intepretation at all which could account for the
sample's actual age being nearly six orders of magnitude lower.
Bob is asking me to believe that the Creator (without deception - by accident?)
"initialized" or an unidentified process (acting for <10,000 years) "changed"
isotope levels in the Amsitoq Gneiss so that five self-checking methods would
yield the same (wrong) age. If this is creationist "science," it's unteachable
in public schools even without religious reference. Arguments like that would
*justifiably* get laughed out of any respectable refereed journal. But one
can find lots of arguments like that in creationist "scientific" journals. :-(
An old earth provides the best and simplest explanation for the Amsitoq
Gneiss dates, the Solar System model Lead results, the pattern of ocean-floor
sediments, and the youth of short-period comets (see my rebuttal for the last
two). A 10,000-year-old earth does not explain any of these things easily.
[Note that I can use Bob's own evidence to contradict his proposed age!]
If the Earth were young, and the Creator wanted us to believe it, then
all five methods applied to the Amsitoq Gneiss would give an age of 10k years.
Anyone examining the evidence independent of religious conviction cannot escape
the conclusion that the Earth is very old (Harold Coffin, a creationist witness
at the Arkansas trial, admitted that under cross-examination).
In summary, Bob dismisses radiometric dates mainly "because they are not known
to be correct." This argument holds no water because he failed to explain
how the dates could *systematically* be wrong. It is merely a naked handwave,
without any "scientific" hypothesized mechanism to support it.
Furthermore, this dismissal (on the grounds of "lack of certainty")
implies that Bob's belief in a young earth is based on something which will
override "non-certain" - but solid - evidence. I wish Bob had discussed
whatever it is he finds so convincing. His seven dating methods certainly
don't merit such an investment of confidence; I bet he would still believe in
a young Earth even if he were forced to admit his methods to be unreliable.
Bob has apparently neglected to present *critical* (to him) reasons
why he believes in a young Earth. Why waste time with extremely low-quality
dating methods or weak hand-waving dismissals of radiometric dating? Why
didn't Bob "bring out the big guns" and discuss the most convincing and
important (to him) reasons/evidence for belief in a young Earth?
I thank Bob for participating; I have enjoyed myself. I can't help but feel
that Bob didn't make his strongest case here, and I hope that someday he will
make up for that in talk.origins. Speaking of talk.origins, I'd like to hear
from anyone who managed to read this far; get in touch with me by Email.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
--
Chris Stassen stassen@netcom.UUCP
========================================================================
==!From livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com Thu Jan 21 22:15:43 1993
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:21:47 -0800
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Message-Id: <9301220621.AA20381@solntze.wpd.sgi.com>
To: elsberry@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Speed of light FAQ
Status: R
Hi Wesley,
Here's the text of the Speed of Light FAQ. I wrote it
back in 1988 after obtaining and reading a copy of the original
Norman/Setterfield "SRI" Research Report. I noted that you said:
"Also, I would like your permission to redistribute the
FAQ on my BBS (Central Neural System, FidoNet 1:347/103,
509-627-6267)
Sure, that is fine by me. Any redistibution without material
change (chages to the meaning: you can reformat as much as you
like) is perfectly OK.
All the best.
jon livesey.
/---------------------- cut here -----------------------------/
==* LIVESEY SETTERFIELD SPEED_OF_LIGHT DECAY YOUNG_EARTH
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Path: decwrl!purdue!gatech!ncar!ames!oliveb!sun!livesey
Subject: Norman/Setterfield - How they did it.
Posted: 21 May 88 03:42:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Mtn View, CA
About a week ago, I posted a fairly long, three part review of the
Norman/Setterfield paper which purports to show, via a review of
historical speed of light measurements, that the speed of light has
been 'decaying'.
I raised a number of questions about their methodology and goals, in
particular, why anyone would believe the speed of light was decaying
when extremely precise measurements over the past twenty years show
that it is not.
I also questioned their treatment of data, noting that they include
some data and exclude other data without explaining why, but I said
that I did not have time to do an extensive review of this matter.
This week, I found time to review their largest set of data, consisting
of 63 values for the speed of light derived from the Bradley Aberration
Method. They have plotted 13 of these values in an accompanying
graph. They have some doubt about a value which was reworked by
Struve, plotting it, but then omitting it from their calculations.
Their graph does indeed show a decay in the speed of light, so
naturally, I was interested to know why. I have now done my own very
rough and ready plots, and when you have seen them, you will understand
as well as I do how Norman/Setterfield come to claim that their data
shows what they claim it shows.
In the first graph, I have plotted only the values Norman/Setterfield
chose to plot, consisting of a set of 13. For reference, I have
included a horizontal line at the currently generally accepted value
for c. Norman/Setterfield do not do this, but instead show a zero mark
at a lesser velocity. As you see in the first graph, some are above
and some below the current value for c.
************************************************************************
** **
* * 1783 *
* *
** 300400 **
* *
* * 1841 *
** **
* * 1841 *
* *
** **
* *
* *
** **
* *
* *
** 300000 * 1843 **
* *
* *
** **
* *
* * 1883 * 1907 *
** **
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* * 1909 *
** **
* * 1926 *
* * 1914 *
** 299600 * 1909 **
* * 1935
* * 1922 *
** * 1916 **
* *
* * 1908 *
** **
* *
* *
* *
************************************************************************
1750 -x- 1950
As you can see, this graph does indeed show a very impressive decay in
the speed of light from the eighteenth century to today. If you like,
you can draw a straight line diagonally down the graph, and get a decay
rate, and Norman/Setterfield do exactly that. They also produce a
curve that they claim fits these points, and which they later
extrapolate backwards to get a very young Universe.
However, I said that there are actually 63 data points in this table,
so what would happen if we were to plot all of them, including the ones
that Norma/Setterfield do not plot in their report?
Here is that plot:
************************************************************************
* * *
300600 **
* * *
* *
** **
* * * *
* * *
* * **
* *
* * *
** **
* * *
* * *
300200 **
* * ** *
* * *
** * **
* * * * *
* * *
* * * **
* * *
* *
** * **
* * * *
* * * *
299800 * **
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* * ** * *
** * * **
* * * *
* * ** * * *
* * **
* * * *
* * * * *
** * **
* * * *
* * * * * *
299400 * **
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
************************************************************************
1740 -x- 1950
Gosh! Merciful heavens! Our wonderful declining line has gone away,
or at least it has been swallowed up in the data. What we see instead
is something that is familiar to anyone who has had to deal with
historical data. That is, the data is all over Hell's Half Acre. What
is more, look at the left of the graph, and you will see that there is
almost a hundred years gap between the first two values and the rest of
the graph.
There really is nothing very spectacular about this data now. There
are about as many data points below the current value for c as there
are above it, and although there are some high values a long time ago,
there are also some very high values quite recently. If this graph
tells us anything, it tells us that this method of determining c is not
too great.
Is there anything left to look at? Well, just one thing. What would
we see if we looked at the data Norman/Setterfield chose to plot
against the background of the data they chose not to plot. Here is all
the data again, only this time I have shown the data they chose to plot
with 'N' and the data they did not plot with '*'.
************************************************************************
* *
** **
* N * *
* * *
300400 * **
* *
* N *
** **
* N *
* * *
* **
* * ** *
* * *
** * **
* * * * *
* * *
300000 N * **
* * *
* *
** * **
* * * *
* N N *
* * **
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* * *N * *
** * * **
* * N *
* * ** N * *
299600 * **
* * N *
* * * N *
** N **
* * * *
* * * * * *
* * **
* * *
* * * *
************************************************************************
1740 -x- 1950
Now we can see quite clearly what is happening here. The authors have
achieved their aim by the following method: for the early years, take
only the high data values, for the middle years, take the middle data
points, and for recent years, take only low data points. You could
do the same with any data, as long as it is sufficiently scattered.
This method has many advantages, of course. It effectively conceals
the fact that in the middle years and up to quite recently, people
using the Bradley Aberration method were regularly getting values as
much as 1000 Km/sec different, but just as regularly they would quote
their error bars as +- 150. In other words, we know that their
estimations of their own accuracy were quite bogus. Secondly, it
effectively conceals the fact that there have been some very high
determinations of c by this method recently. Finally, by omitting the
conflicting data points, it conceals the undoubted fact that some of
the data were not the best in the world.
Some of these data points, for example, come from Pulkova Observatory.
I searched around to find something about Pulkova, and when I finally
found a reference to it in a very large Astronomical Encyclopaedia, it
said that it was the oldest observatory in the Russian Empire (!) but
that in this century it had been abandoned because the observing
conditions there were so bad!
It goes without saying that in their report, Norman/Setterfield have a
graph which corresponds to my first one, but not to my second and
third.
As usual, I just tell this stuff as I find it. You will have to draw
your own conclusions.
jon.
==!
