Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist
In the perfect forum of a debate on evolution, Noah's flood, and geology, by which this forum is a fantasy football message board, came my friend's Steve hypothesis that Noah's flood was caused by the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. He also took a critical view on geologist. So I relayed the post to my geology friend Tim(Fridge) who is also a
( Read more... )
"but rather it would have to be because God made a world which would lead any true student of the earth to believe it to be billions of years old."
"If God did indeed create the world 6000 years ago, than he created a world which would lead any logical and thorough student of his creation to this simple conclusion"
Two responses to this. First, what may be commonly accepted as scientific fact is constantly re-evaluated - to think we have a correct and complete understanding of how old the earth is or how it formed would be premature. We used to think the world was flat, we used to think the sub revolved around us, and we used to think the way to treat blood born diseases was to drain people of their blood. Just because the science currently established leads you to believe in one theory doesn't mean that God meant to lead you to believe that, it just means that that is what has been currently accepted. Under this logic, every initial and incomplete discovery would have to be absolutely correct because we were "lead" to discover it.
Second, it is stated many times throughout the bible that man will attempt to decipher God's logic through science, and many times he will be confused, as he is working on a much higher level than we are. But if you don't believe in the bible, that's more of a copout answer, so you can ignore it and stick to my first point :)
"2 “Further, there have been rocks of known ages tested with radioisotope dating giving results showing them to be much older.” - How can you say we know the age of a rock when you completely disagree with the entire method of radioactive dating? With radiometric dating we can only determine a relative age, not an absolute age in years. Your source that gave you this sentence obviously doesn’t know the first thing about this topic (I’ll readily admit I don’t know a great deal of the specifics)."
The rocks in question were from a volcano of known date.
"3 Have you ever taken a chemistry class? You might notice that sometimes you get a value quite off from the known value. People, even professionals, screw up as there are a myriad of ways to impart human error into a test. Saying a few off values out of a multitude of consistent data proves the entire procedure false, is like saying chem lab gone awry disproves the science of chemistry"
Unfortunately, yes, I have taken chemistry. It's not a fair comparison, as the "multitude of consistent data" in chemistry is proven through the scientific method - we know the inputs, outputs, and control the variables in the experiment. Essentially, in chemistry, we have total control. Radioisotope dating isn't the same thing, as we have to guess the outcome with numerous variables in place along the way. We don't even know what all of the potential variables are, as the scientists doing the testing weren't around for the last 65 million years, or whatever date it is they select for that rock.
"4 Religion, not science (although unfortunately, yes, there sometimes are “scientists” who come in with agendas and will do anything to prove their points) is the one who approaches the topic with preconceived notions. Commonly accepted values only come after testing, if testing consistently shows something other than the expected value, then one must realize there is another factor involved or that the measured values as opposed to the assumed values must be correct. "
Commonly accepted values is one thing, accurate or correct values is another. Problem is, I don't think radioisoptope dating will even yield commonly accepted values. In the earlier links I mentioned, there are numerous cases of geologists NOT reaching the commonly accepted values in their findings, in which case, that data is often thrown out, or excuses are made. If you believe in the commonly accepted values, then this in itself should go to show that there are variables we are not aware of that can be affecting this method of testing. Attempts can be made to explain these variables, but again, unless they know all of the inputs and outputs (they know the outputs, they don't know the inputs), then it's merely guessing.
Reply
Woah woah woah. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. There is nothing documented that proves Darwin's theory of evolution. There is proof of speciation, but no proof of one species evolving into another over time. There is no proof of life springing from non life. There is no proof of a creation of unique information in DNA as a result of a genetic mutation. There is no fossil record that proves Darwin's theory of evolution. These are all theories, and without proof, they require FAITH to be believed, just as my own concept of creation does, just as religion does, just as any other explanation does. Until one of these theories can be proven, then it should and will be debated. More work on a scientific explanation of creationism has been going on in the past few years than ever before - to say there is no scientific debate about evolution is silly. Such scientists may very well go down in the pages of history as the people who claimed the earth was flat.
"Magma is applied to molten rock within the earth, lava is that which is extruded onto the surfaces so the entire thing is just semantics, but this really doesn’t matter, I’m just mentioning it for your benefit.) What type of volcanoes are you referring to (rhyolotic, basaltic,…) as the composition of different volcanoes can very drastically, and none of them are particularly “high” in argon. Argon is an inert gas at room temperature, which means it does not form chemical bonds and thus if it is in magma, it exists as a volatile, like water, sulfur and some other things, and much of it will escape out from the lava. This means that once the rock cools, this argon will not be solid and will not exist within a crystal lattice. Therefore a rock with a crystalline mineral containing potassium formed with potassium in the matrix, not argon, therefore any 40Ar in the sample must have been a decay product from 40K as opposed to original product. Therefore, while we can not measure the amount of original potassium in the rock we can measure the current amount of potassium and the current amount of argon to infer the original amount."
If you want a thorough breakdown on all things associated with volcanic variables in radioisotope dating, see here:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
"7 I’m not sure that I get the point of that sentence about plate tectonics. If you’d like to explain what you meant, I’d be more than happy to respond ( you can let Bolton know or whatever) as plate tectonics is a very interesting topic for me. I’ll assume though you are trying to tie this in with the volcanoes effecting data. As you read this, you might notice that there currently are not any volcanic eruptions or earthquakes going on around here, they are sporadic events and so can not possibly effect all of the sedimentary record"
Correct, volcanos are rare in this day and age. If the earth was not billions of years old, and rather, thousands of years old, then continental drift would have had to occur much faster than some currently believe. Such rapid movement would result in more earthquakes and volcanos. In addition, I believe my earlier point was that if a meteor struck the earth to create the flood, some of the longer lasting after effects would be earthquakes and volcanos.
"8 As for the meteor thingy, I don’t recall hearing about this in Genesis, rather I thought could simply poured rains down from the firmament or whatever."
Sure, but apply some science to that - what could cause something similar to rain that would have lasted for several days?
"And let’s face it, the impact you describe would have left a far greater impression on humanity than a flood."
Exactly - the extinction of the dinosaurs and the killing of nearly all humans and animals not on the ark.
Reply
Reply
To say there is no evidence for evolution is flat wrong. You can site as many creationist texts as you wish on the matter, but they all ultimately result from lies told by those who feel evolution somehow conflicts with their beliefs. This entire section shows a real failure to understand science. The vast majority of theories will never be proven, they will simply explain an ever increasing set of data.
“Scientific explanation of creationism” is the phrase that is truly silly. There is no such thing as scientific creationism. Creationism claims supernatural events happened by a supernatural being and thus can never be proven. While I just said no scientific theory can be proven right, the big distinction between science and creationism is that scientific theory can be proven WRONG. Your beliefs can not be proven wrong and thus are not science. Any supposedly scientific research into creationism proves that its investigators don’t know the first thing about science (unfortunately many noncreationist scientists don’t seem to get this either).
Evolution is a theory based on observed facts and thus to compare them to faith in creationism is ludicrous. There is a reason that history isn’t in a science department: it must rely on written records which have the potential to be inaccurate. You can say that scientists have faith in their theories, but this “faith” is based on observations, not merely hearsay. Therefore to claim the beliefs to be comparable is simply not right.
I imagine that I am slightly more familiar with the issues of volcanism and radiometric dating than you are.
I never said volcanoes were rare, I said they were here (i.e. the Midwest), and thus the current sedimentary record would not be effected by them. There is plenty of volcanism going on in the world. “volcanos are rare in this day and age. If the earth was not billions of years old, and rather, thousands of years old, then continental drift would have had to occur much faster than some currently believe. Such rapid movement would result in more earthquakes and volcanos.” You’re last two statements imply a vast amount of tectonic activity which you say is not going on, and would lead one AWAY, not towards your belief. This is of course assuming your assertion is correct, which once again shows you need to do some reading on geology. How do you propose that rapid drift would produce this?
Your last two comments seem to miss the point I was trying to make. People would have written about the tremendous shock of the impact, not just rain for days. The bible makes no mention of this.
Reply
Vaporized as in flash boiled? The water that wouldn't come splashing down would have aggregated in clouds, resulting in an extended period of rain. It all fits together.
"At any rate, a simple examination of sedimentation processes shows this hypothesis is flat wrong. The type of sediment tells us what the energy of deposition was. The larger the grain size, the higher the flow. Grab a bunch of mud and sand and crap and turn it vigorously around in water, sand quickly settles out, tiny clay sized particles settle much later out. Thus your hypothesis would show a global gradation from large particles (conglomerates and sandstones) to fine grained mudstones and shales, which is absolutely not seen."
Would these finer particples not settle down in below the larger particles over time? There could have been any number of distasters and other events that occured between the flood and the time of examination.
"Further, what process do you propose to have made many of these rock beds tilted? When one of these beds can be obviously seen to lay at a forty-five degree angle to the horizontal, it is quite obvious that they weren’t deposited that way. There is just no way to do this without plate tectonics (I really hope you can see how your asteroid could not possibly accomplish this)."
There are several books that offer viewpoints on this. Grand canyon: Monument to Catastrophe is a popular one. In addition to the info in the link below, it is believed that the several week of flooding would have softened the earth, and the earthquakes and other events that were to come would have left the rock beds in such orientations.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
"9 More importantly, without consulting the data I’m pretty sure God told Noah to go get all the animals, and not just pick and choose. Some large ones may have been too much to feed, by what about small ones, and then why not get rid off elephants. Why leave behind an entire class of animals with similar physiological features?"
Noah didn't have to collect all the animals, the chosen animals made their way to the ark. Why leave behind certain animals and not others? I dunno, that wasn't my decision to make. Would you still want to live in a world with donosaurs?
"You can try all you’d like but if Genesis is 100% precise, then god has toyed with to make us believe that which is a lie"
Lol, both you and Brian believe in such a cruel, manipulative God.
"11 Although I may not be Christian, this is why most Christians have no issue with evolution. Geology and evolution are not incompatible with your belief system, you only seem to think so."
I believe in creation, the flood, and the resulting speciation - speciation is proven. Darwin's theory of evolution (life from non life and mutations that result in unique, new genetic information) is not proven and does not mesh with any logical explanation of life on this earth. I'd say it requires MORE faith than something like my own explanation, as the bulk of my explanation can be proven by known and proven science. The bulk of Darwin's theory is nothing more than hopeful suggestions.
"And if you still cannot realize that the Bible need not be taken every word for every word, I pray for your soul that you do not wear any clothes made out of two different fabrics, that you don’t eat pork, shellfish or rabbit, and so on and so forth."
I'm not Jewish my friend, I'm Christian :)
Reply
“Would these finer particples not settle down in below the larger particles over time? There could have been any number of distasters and other events that occured between the flood and the time of examination.” No, holy crap, no. Please study some sedimentology (you can ignore the conclusions drawn from it, but how sediments are laid down can be observed anywhere you’d like to study). While some of the lower most fine grained sediments may be able to settle into some of the uppermost porespace of the large grained sediment, you simply will not invert this graded bedding with time.
“it is believed that the several week of flooding would have softened the earth, and the earthquakes and other events that were to come would have left the rock beds in such orientations.” Softening the earth would not produce earthquakes. Pressure, not the lack of pressure, produces failure. And any soft sediment which might be now capable of giving way to landslides would produce sediments characteristic of landslides, not tilted, parallel bedding.
“Would you still want to live in a world with donosaurs?” Well actually yes I would but that’s beside the point. If this is meant in a way regarding ferocity of dinosaurs, this seems to ignore that dinosaurs seemed to have herbivores as well as carnivores and to imagine that the were all vicious killers is pretty damn funny, and also forgets that most people probably wouldn’t want to live with mosquitos, deadly viruses and bacteria, etc., etc., etc.
“Lol, both you and Brian believe in such a cruel, manipulative God.” I don’t imagine this is what you meant but just in case: I actually don’t believe in a cruel and manipulative god, I think the Bible (more specifically the Old Testament) is the one that carries this belief.
The theory of evolution is indeed not proven, but DOES mesh quite well with all given data. Once again, it is your belief that can not be proven or disproven (although the complete, utter lack of evidence for a global flood easily puts this event into doubt). This entire paragraph saddens me on so many levels, I can’t imagine what overwhelming amount of evidence could ever sway you. The idea that some ancient text provides more certainty than observing actual processes is hopelessly ludicrous. “as the bulk of my explanation can be proven by known and proven science.” Contemplate this phrase along with previous comments on what constitutes science.
“"And if you still cannot realize that the Bible need not be taken every word for every word, I pray for your soul that you do not wear any clothes made out of two different fabrics, that you don’t eat pork, shellfish or rabbit, and so on and so forth."”
”I'm not Jewish my friend, I'm Christian :)”
I suggest you read your own bible some time…That’s all in there.
Reply
Exactly, just like Darwin's theory of evolution, or any other explanation for the creation of life on earth - or even the creation of earth itself. We will never be able to prove one of these explanations, we can only go on what information is available to use. Again, I feel there is more sound information to back up an explanation like mine than there is for Darwin's. The only assumption needed to be made in mine is that there is a God and he created initial life. The events thereafter all fit in with estabished science. Darwin's is based on multiple assumptions, many of which I find to be larger in scale than believing in a creator.
I'd be glad to hear any more points or counterpoints you have.
Reply
”Exactly, just like Darwin's theory of evolution, or any other explanation for the creation of life on earth - or even the creation of earth itself.”
Holy crap, sorry if this sounds crass but do you even know what evolution is? Whether you believe in it or not, evolution uses natural means to describe nature. You use *poof* (a technical name for the supernatural). No matter if one of us or the other is right, evolution is a natural process, creationism is supernatural (that whole transcended natural laws thing). At the core of geology, evolution, and all science the only real assumptions are that nature obeys fundamental laws and can be explained through natural means. Just like we now have theories to explain rain and lightning without needing God or gods to preside over these functions, we have theories to explain how life could change over time without God having to plop us down there. Your only assumption for creation could be used for everything and we could throw out all forms of science. Why does it snow? God. What makes a rainbow? God. And so on… These explanations are simple that they don’t really explain anything; they are paramount to saying it is that way just because. But just like we’ve found ways to explain these natural phenomena through natural means, without the need for supernatural intervention, we’ve put forth ways to explain a changing biota over time through evolution.
Reply
Brian, I don't even want to know why you have jizz all over your face in that picture.
Reply
Reply
And religion used to believe that a dung beatle pushed the sun across the sky, but that is besides the point. The three instances you mentioned were not science and were devoid of the scientific method. In fact all of those myths were disproven by Science. Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life. For example, we can not prove that the apple will fall downward everytime we drop it because gravity is a theory. Just because we have observed it 100% time does not mean it'll do it again, if i went to a basketball game and saw somebody make 5/5 free throws, that does not mean he will make the next million. So we are really sure that the apple will fall, but we can't prove it. As more evidence arises, we can feel more comfortable in our theories, but never 100%. The flatearth (which is supported by Revelation 7:1 and other verses) and such theories had little evidence and have low confidence, while current theories have tested correlations and have much higher confidence, it's not 100%.
So you're saying science is not proven by what people thought thousands of years ago, but you are so ready to believe in a religion with no other proof other than what people thought thousands of years ago. Justifying religion is like shooting an arrow at a wall and painting a bullseye around it. So lets say there was a flood despite the science against it, why is the christian flood more plausible then the floods in other religions such as the flood in greek mythology? We could interpret evidence to "justify" most, if not all religions with a little imagination.
Reply
Well that's not true - I think you worded that one a bit too liberally.
"Just because we have observed it 100% time does not mean it'll do it again"
Exactly. So why then, when radioisotope dating has proven itself to be far less than 100% correct, do you take it as fact? I'll answer this question in a minute.
"but you are so ready to believe in a religion with no other proof"
I wouldn't say there is no proof of it. Jesus existed as a real person and his body was - at the very least - not in the cave on the third day. Since the vast majority of Jews despised Jesus and his message at the time, they would have loved nothing more than to discredit his ressurection. At the slightest hint of the body being moved, taken away, or any other form of trickery, they would have pounced upon it to dismiss it. His existence wouldn't be remembered at all, they would have wanted to wipe out any memories of him. Instead, what happened was that Christianity spread quite rapidly after his ressurection. That may not "prove" the ressurection, but it proves the body was gone and that there were no signs of the body being moved.
But this is all beside the point. I believe in what I do because of faith, same as you. You believe in the earth being billions of years old and Darwin's theory of evolution because of faith. Neither is proven and neither can be recreated. What's interesting to note is that my explanation is backed more in current scientific knowledge and history than your's though.
Reply
Well that's not true - I think you worded that one a bit too liberally."
Good come, "not true". You should refer to that quote from Decartes that you totally butchered, "i think, therefore i am." It means that the only thing you can be sure about is yourself, because you can think, everything else can be false. IE Alice+Wonderland that we could all be in an alien's dream/lsd trip. Or more modern, Matrix style jack in the back of your head false reality. Besides MY own existence, you can not prove anything. You and your king(christians) thrive on this. You use faith(ie i can believe what i want) to justify things in the absence of logic. EVERYTHING can be doubted.
Reply
Are you telling me that in more modern times with religions started by convicted con artists (Mormons) and a sci fi writer(scientology) that christianity couldnt have been fabricated?
Second, i don't believe in anything. I don't BELIEVE in evolution, but it is by far the most logical conclusion we have and it has my bet. Ditto for why I think the Earth is billions of years old.
Reply
“The rocks in question were from a volcano of known date.” Okay, sounds good to me. Although, you could have error (which apparently is not a sufficient explanation anymore), its quite possible that this, like a great deal of creationist claims is a flat lie (I may very well be wrong and I don’t deny that there are “scientists” who will falsify things to support there beliefs, there seriously is a rich history of creationists lying, altering data, and skewing claims by scientists). http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
is a great page that kind of touches on these things. You’ll probably hate it though as it was written by one of the great devil-utionists of our time.
Radiometric dating has been advanced through the same scientific method which has been used to develop the theories of chemistry. Those things that you are taught in chem class and seem to believe are theory, not proven. We do not know for a fact that atoms exist. Atomic theory explains most phenomena that we observe chemically but it does not make prove this to be true. A part of this theory is that unstable nuclei decay at constant rate which can be determined analytically. Radiometric dating does make a set of assumptions, as is made with any aspect of chemistry that involves atomic theory. However there is not some grand set of variables unaccounted. To say that radiometric dating is somehow different from other aspects of chemistry shows a complete lack of understanding of either.
As I obviously did not state very well, there the number of inconsistent data pales in comparison to the number of consistent data. There simply is not this numerous amount of differing data as some people might like to tell you. When a test returns five completely different data, chances are the test is corrupt. When a test provides 100 consistent data and five different, chances are good the test is fairly sound and the five trials contain error. You can question this all you’d like but this is a basic tenet of all science not just those you disagree with.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment