Group

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 16:01:19 +0100, Christopher Doyle wrote:

CD>I would like to return Steve's greeting. It's a pleasure to participate in a
>discussion with Steve and I enjoy following his contributions to the group.

Thanks to Chris. Although I am not sure if Chris has never claimed to be a
young-Earth creationist (YEC), the fact that he is defending YEC and
attacking evidence for an old Earth, I am going to assume he is a YEC.

If so, perhaps Chris would do what few (if any) YEC has ever been yet
willing to do in my experience, in addition to negatively attacking scientific
evidence for an old Earth (i.e. of billion of years), in parallel positively
advancing scientific evidence for a young Earth (i.e. of thousands of years).

Specifically, Chris might answer what I posted here on CED in response to
a YEC's claim that his "basic position is recent creation (< 10,000 yrs) of
the universe, earth and all life", i.e. "perhaps he will provide what he sees
as the: a) Biblical, and b) scientific, evidence in support of the "recent
creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the universe"?:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/3924
From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>
Date: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:45 am
Subject: Re: New Member - GourmetDan [...]

GD>My basic position is recent creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the universe,
>earth and all life [...]

If GourmetDan is a Christian, perhaps he will provide what he sees as the:
a) Biblical, and b) scientific, evidence in support of the "recent creation
(< 10,000 yrs) of the universe"? [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, if Chris is a YEC, he might address what I posted on CED is "the
*real* problem with YEC regarding datings", i.e. "all* these dating methods
*converging* on an age of the Earth of (or Universe) ~10,000 years"":

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/3931
From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@...>
Date: Sun Sep 1, 2002 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: scientific evidence in support of the recent creation (< 10,000
yrs)
of the universe (was Truth-Seeking Debate?) [...]

This does not provide "b) scientific, evidence in support of the "recent
creation (< *10,000 yrs*) of the universe" (my emphasis).

What I expect GourmetDan to show is *positive* evidence for an age of
"< *10,000 yrs*" for *both* the Universe and the Earth.

In fact (as I posted on another list in which there were YECs present)
what YECs like GourmetDan need to show is all* these dating methods
*converging* on an age of the Earth of (or Universe) ~10,000 years":

[...]

SJ>But this is all a sideshow. To me the *real* problem with YEC regarding
>datings are:
>
>1) none of these anomalies yield a date of the order ~10,000 years, which
>is what YECs need for YEC itself to be scientifically confirmed. It is
>not much joy to YEC to show that (say) Uranium-Lead dating is out by a
>factor of tenths of even hundredths (even if it was). What YEC needs to
>show is that it is out by a factor of *millionths*. I have a YEC book
>which uses the salt in the sea yielding a date of millions of years to
>refute a radiometric dating of billions of years. The point is that YEC
>would be just as wrong if the millions of years were true.
>
>2) there is no *scientific* evidence that yields an age of the Earth of
>~10,000 years. So the ICR's version of scientific creation that claims
>to not be using the Bible to derive its ~10,000 year age of the Earth
>looks dishonest (I don't say it is dishonest because I presume the ICR is
>prevented by its paradigm from seeing what it is doing).
>
>3) What YEC needs is *all* these dating methods *converging* on an age of
>the Earth of ~10,000 years. That is what modern scientific dating (despite
>its problems) does in respect of its estimate of the age of the Earth. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CD>In reference to my previous message, Steve said:
>
>"This claim by YECs that "the fossils have been used to date the rock and
>the rock has been used to date the fossils is false. For starters, there
>were *no* "fossils" in pre-Cambrian rocks, so how could "fossils" be used to
>date "Cambrian rock"? Therefore, how could geologists and palaeontologists
>have ever got a date to start the "Cambrian rock" with if "the fossils have
>been used to date the rock and the rock has been used to date the fossils"?"

CD>A number of important points are raised here and I intend to address with
>them throughout the course of this response. First, I would like to address
>the next part of Steve's message:
>
>SJ>"The fact is that the fossils helped *correlate* the rocks in different
>>places as belonging to the same stratum, thus building a geological column,
>>of *relative order*, not absolute time (quotes will be provided if this
>>thread continues)."
>
>A geological column of relative order is one thing. A geological column of
>definitive, dated time periods is another.

What "geological column of definitive, dated time periods" is Chris referring
to?

CD>The former is fairly neutral as
>far as creation versus evolution is concerned.

Perhaps Chris could elaborate how "A geological column of relative order" is
"neutral as far as" young-Earth "creation ... is concerned"?

Is Chris referring to the same "geological column of definitive, dated time
periods"? If not, which "geological column of relative order" is Chris
referring to?

CD>It would be just as valid (if
>not closer to the actual truth) to propose that the geological column formed
>over a few million years, at a non-uniformitarian rate as it would be to
>propose neo-Darwinism's uniformitarian, billions of years timescale.

A "geological column" that "formed over a few million years" would be just
as devastating to YEC as would one "formed over a few" *billion* "years".
YEC requires "a geological column formed over" ~10,000 years.

CD>But, one might even question the truth value of a geological column of
>relative order.

Would not YEC claim "a geological column of relative order"? If not, why
not?

CD>If not for the importance of the geological column to
>neo-Darwinism, would it still be considered a reliable model today?

What evidence has Chris of "the importance of the geological column to
neo-Darwinism"?

CD>Would it
>not now resemble a row of short columns instead - or even just a row?

On what basis does Chris suggest that "the geological column" "Would ...
resemble a row of short columns instead - or even just a row"?

CD>At this stage, we don't need to explore that avenue of enquiry.

Chris has made the claims/suggestions, about "that avenue of enquiry".
I expect him to answer them.

CD>The model of a
>geological column of relative order alone is just as acceptable to
>creationists as it is to evolutionists.

See above my two question of Chris about his claim that "a geological
column of relative order alone is just as acceptable to" *young-Earth*
"creationists"?

CD>The problems arise when definitive, dated time periods are assigned to it.

See also above my question about which "geological column" of "definitive,
dated time periods ... are assigned to it" is Chris referring to?

CD>There are just two ways to determine the age of rock. The first way is to
>use radiometric dating. The second way is to actually observe the formation
>of the rock; to be there or have reliable, historical records from someone
>who was there when the lava cools.

The above is not correct. A rock could have formed not long enough ago
for "radiometric dating" to be accurate, but too long ago for anyone "to
actually observe the formation of the rock".

As Eicher points out, apart from the "short-lived radioactive nuclide...
carbon-14, which is a valuable dating tool" only "for the last 40,000 years
of Earth history", and some "Other shortlived nuclides [which] have found
special use in dating deep-sea sediments as old as a few hundred thousand
years", "Just four nuclides, potassium-40 rubidium-87, uranium-235, and
uranium-238, have provided almost all of the radiometric ages for ancient
rocks":

"It is convenient to recognize two categories of radioactive
nuclides, long lived nuclides with half-lives of several hundred
million years or more, and short-lived nuclides with half-lives of less
than a few tens of millions of years. Of the multitude of radioactive
nuclides that were present in the Earth when it formed, only the 21
long-lived nuclides have survived from that primordial time. The
many short-lived radioactive nuclides that were part of the original
Earth are extinct, having decayed to undetectable quantities long
ago. However, several short-lived radioactive nuclides do exist
naturally on Earth today because they are continually produced
either as one of the steps in the uranium or thorium decay chains, or
by cosmic ray bombardment, chiefly in the upper atmosphere. The
approximately 10,000 tons of cosmic dust that the Earth collects
each day brings additional short-lived nuclides, also produced by
cosmic ray activity. These short-lived radioactive nuclides are
present in vanishingly small amounts, but a few are useful thanks to
highly refined analytical techniques. By far the most widely used is
carbon-14, which is a valuable dating tool for the last 40,000 years
of Earth history. Other shortlived nuclides have found special use in
dating deep-sea sediments as old as a few hundred thousand years.
Most of the long-lived radioactive nuclides that occur in nature are
too rare to be of wide use in dating rocks, and others have half-lives
that are too long for the dating of even the oldest rocks. Just four
nuclides, potassium-40 rubidium-87, uranium-235, and uranium-
238, have provided almost all of the radiometric ages for ancient
rocks." (Eicher D.L., "Geologic Time," [1968], Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1976, Second edition, pp.122-123)

And at p.122 Eicher has a table which lists the half-life of these "four
nuclides" as: "URANIUM-238 4,510 million" years, "URANIUM-235 713 million"
years, "POTASSIUM-40 1,300 million" years, and "RUBIDIUM-8747,000 million"
years.

CD>Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock. We all agree that radioactive
>material (with the exception of carbon 14) is not found in any part of an
>organism that has been fossilized.

Agreed, but that alone is sufficient to sink YEC, if "carbon 14" dates
"for the last 40,000 years of Earth history" have been determined.

CD>Rather, it is found in the sediments
>which form the rock that the fossil is contained in.

Better still ovelaying those sediments, i.e. in "Bracketed Igneous
Intrusives":

"An accurately dated igneous intrusive provides a minimum age for
a sedimentary rock that it intrudes and a maximum age for a
sedimentary rock that overlies it. Ordinarily the intrusion of igneous
material accompanies an orogeny that serves to terminate the
preceding sedimentary episode. By the time erosion has run its
course and sedimentary conditions are re-established, considerable
geologic time has elapsed within which the radiometric date is
bracketed. In those rare circumstances where intrusives are
bracketed within a small time interval, however, their dates have
provided some key points for the radiometric time scale. In the
Vosiges Massif of eastern France, for example, granites intrude
fossiliferous strata of Lower Carboniferous age and are in turn
overlain by fossiliferous strata of Middle Carboniferous age. The
date of 320 million years for the granite constitutes a key point in
the radiometric scale." (Eicher D.L., "Geologic Time," 1976, p.134)

Or in "Interbedded Volcanic Rocks":

"Lavas or volcanic ash can be introduced suddenly into sedimentary
environments without interruption in sedimentation. Dateable
igneous material may thus become interbedded with sedimentary
rock dateable by fossils. Lavas can be dated with the whole rock
potassium-argon method, and minerals in ash deposits can be dated
with both potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium methods.
Stratigraphically well-dated sedimentary sequences containing
interbedded lavas or ash deposits, although not very common, have
already provided some of the most valuable reference points in the
radiometric scale." " (Eicher D.L., 1976, p.134)

But dating Sedimentary Rocks Directly" is indeed possible:

"Glauconite, a complex silicate of potassium, aluminium, and iron,
is commonly authigenic in marine sediment, which means that it
actually crystallizes within the environment at the time the
sediments accumulate. Authigenic minerals can provide the actual
age of the sedimentation and glauconite has provided the majority
of direct dates from sedimentary rocks, using the potassium-argon
method. Unfortunately, glauconite loses argon if it is buried even to
moderate depths. Comparison of glauconite dates with mica and
sanidine dates from associated bentonites shows that most
Cretaceous glauconite determinations are about 5 percent too
young, indicating argon loss. Ages of Paleozoic glauconites tend to
be low by 10 to 20 percent. For this reason glauconite dates are
usually considered as minimum ages unless substantiated by other
methods." (Eicher, 1976, pp.134-135).

CD>To apply radioactive
>dating to sedimentary rock is to date the sediments, not the rock.

It is possible to do both (see above). But in any case, if the age of the
"sediments" or "the rock" is over ~10,000 years, then YEC is sunk.

CD>The
>sediments could have come directly from igneous rock that had been formed an
>undetermined amount of time ago.

No, if it is "igneous rock" that contains radioisotopes then it would not
necessarily an "undetermined amount of time ago", since it could be
radiometrically dated.

CD>Alternatively, they could have come from an
>older sedimentary rock that had formed an undetermined amount ago.

The point is that dating is mainly done from non-"sedimentary rock that"
"formed a... *determined* amount ago".

CD>Those
>sediments could in turn have come from an even older sedimentary rock and so
>on.

And they "could" not have too!

CD>Without observing the formation of the rock and knowing the origin (and
>age) of the sediments used to form it, there is simply no way of determining
>the age of the rock by radiometric dating.

This is simply false. See above.

CD>Sediments are always older, by an unknown age, than the rock they form.

See above. I am happy to go into this further, but this post is getting
too long.

CD>To make matters worse, the original ratio of the parent atoms to the
>daughter atoms cannot be determined without observing it at the time the
>rock formed.

It actually can be in the case of radiogenic lead (Pb-206 and Pb-207),
which can *only* be made from uranium radiactive decay, and comparing
its proportions with Pb-204 which cannot be made from uranium
radioactive decay:

"All naturally occurring uranium contains radioactive uranium-238
and radioactive uranium-235 in a ratio of 138:1. Uranium-238
decays to lead206 and uranium-235 to lead-207; hence these two
separate nuclides provide a cross-check in determining ages. Most
uranium minerals also contain radioactive thorium-232, which
decays to lead-208, and this method is occasionally utilized as still
another cross-check. The uranium and thorium nuclides decay
through a series of intermediate nuclides that are themselves
radioactive before finally arriving at their stable lead daughters. The
uranium-238/lead-206 series involves eight alpha decay steps and
six beta steps; the uranium 235/lead-207 series involves seven alpha
steps and four beta steps; the thorium-232/ lead-208 method
involves six alpha steps and four beta steps. Helium, which is
produced in the alpha decay steps of each series, is an additional
stable by-product. Minerals that contain uranium as a chief
component are rare, but minerals that contain uranium in trace
quantities are fairly common. The most useful of these is the
igneous mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), which typically contains about 0.1
percent uranium. Small quantities of zircon occur in granitic rocks
of many ages, and thus uranium-lead dating is widely applicable.
Uranium-lead dates have also been achieved by whole-rock
analyses of special rock suites, including samples from the Moon.
Original lead in a uranium-bearing mineral causes the radiometric
age to exceed the true age unless it is detected. Lead-204, which is
never produced radiogenically, provides a convenient way of
detecting it. Lead204 constitutes a small proportion of all common
lead. If it is present, then other isotopes of lead, including lead-206
and lead-207, were present when the mineral formed. Knowing the
isotopic composition of common lead at the time the minerals
formed, the lead-204 is used to calculate the quantities of original
lead-206 and lead-207 so that these can be subtracted in calculating
the radiometric age. After making allowance for original lead, the
uranium-235/lead-207 and uranium-238/lead-206 ages should
agree, provided the mineral has remained a closed system. If they
do agree, the ages are said to be concordant and the probability is
high that the radiometric age is the same as the true age. On a graph
with the uranium235/lead-207 ratio the ordinate and the uranium-
238/lead-206 ratio the abcissa, the loci of all concordant ages define
a curve called the concordia. If the uranium-lead ages do not agree
then they do not fall on the concordia and they are said to be
discordant." (Eicher D.L., 1976, p.129)

CD>The same applies to the original ratio of daughter atoms to the
>number of atoms of a non-radiogenic isotope of the same element. There could
>have been one hundred times more parent atoms to daughter atoms at the time
>of formation or one hundred times less parent atoms to daughter atoms at the
>time of formation. Or a thousand times. Or the same. In fact, the ratio is
>as random as the sediments contained in the rock. Sediments can and do come
>from anywhere and anywhen. Therefore, the only *reliable* way to determine
>the age of rock is to observe, or have reliable historical records from
>someone who has observed, the cooling of the lava.

No, see above.

CD>Steve goes on to say:
>
>SJ>"To be sure, attempts were made to date the geological column, but these
>>dates were much less than is accepted today. For example, Darwin in his
>>Origin of Species referred to the current scientifically accepted age of the
>>Earth by the physicist Lord Kelvin who claimed that the Earth was only
>>hundreds of million of years old"
>
>The one reliable way of determining the age of rock - observation - was not
>available to Lord Kelvin and his contemporaries neither. Therefore, any
>attempts to date the geological column then, were just as speculative as
>they are now. If anything, they might have been closer to the true age of
>rocks than we are now!

No, see above.

CD>Moving forward through Steve's message we get to this excerpt from a quote
>from Hayward:
>
>SJ>"William Smith, the 'father of English geology', pioneered the technique and
>>built up the first geologic column in 1799. Evolution did not enter into the
>>matter. Darwin then was still unborn, and Smith remained a creationist all
>>his life. All he did was to reason, 'How do I know a Type-A stratum when I
>>see it? By the Type-A fossils it contains. The B strata contain B-type
>>fossils, and so on."
>
>This line of reasoning, in practice, leads to a further proposition, "How do
>I know how old a type-x fossil is when I see it? By the type-x strata it is
>contained in" where "x" is unknown or undecided.

No, fossils are known by their comparative morphology and what's more,
as the 18-19th century British canal-builder William Smith found, they
appear with other fossils in a "diagnostic assemblage of fossils" by which
each rock strata system "could be distinguished from other units of
different ages":

"William Smith (1769-1839), working in England, found in fossils
just this tool. Smith was an engineer and surveyor, and his
investigations for roads, quarries, mines, and canals acquainted him
intimately with much of England's countryside. During his travels,
Smith recognized and traced out numerous sedimentary rock units,
and he soon noticed that each successive unit contained its own
diagnostic assemblage of fossils by which it could be distinguished
from other units of different ages. For different units of similar
lithology this was commonly the only way certain identification
could be established. Smith was thus able to recognize specific rock
units in areas where physical criteria alone were inconclusive.
Utilizing his new principle, he produced in 1815 the first geologic
map of England, Wales, and part of Scotland. This large and
attractive map, more accurate than any attempted previously,
represented a landmark in the representation and, hence, the
understanding of rocks. Smith's discovery that strata may be
identified by the fossils they contain shortly thereafter became
known as the law of faunal succession. This important principle
raised questions concerning ancient life that were not to be
answered easily, but even without the answers to these questions,
correlation between distant localities now became feasible. The way
was prepared to erect a stratigraphic classification based on time
relations of strata rather than on rock types. In short, this was the
key discovery that stratigraphic geology needed to progress
further." (Eicher, 1976, p.54)

CD>If, at this stage, we could
>rely upon radiometric dating to yield "x", then there would be no circular
>reasoning involved. But, we cannot rely upon radiometric dating. Therefore,
>the fossil is used to date the rock and the rock is used to date the fossil.

No, see above.

CD>Darwin's contemporaries used conjecture, speculation and guesswork to assign
>dates to the geological column and we have not progressed beyond those
>methods.

No, see above.

CD>If rocks were assigned a period in the geological column without reference
>to the fossils contained in them, then there would be no circular reasoning
>involved in dating fossils (although it doesn't follow that the dates would
>be correct).

Rocks can be "assigned a period in the geological column without reference
to the fossils contained in them". Non-sedimentary (i.e Precambrian, igneous
and metamorphosed) rocks are "assigned a period in the geological column without
reference to the fossils contained in them" for starters.

CD>If fossils were dated without reference to the rock they are
>contained in, then the same applies. Sadly, that is not the case.

As I pointed out, "fossils were dated" before there was radiometric dating
and those dates were found to be relatively correct but not absolutely
correct.

The value of fossils in correlating sedimentary strata remains. Then where
any igneous rock overlays the same strata elsewhere, when it can be
radiometrically dated it can provide a date for the other correlated
sedimentary strata.

CD>In answer
>to one of Steve's questions at the beginning:

SJ>"How could geologists and palaeontologists have ever got a date to start the
>>"Cambrian rock" with if "the fossils have been used to date the rock and the
>>rock has been used to date the fossils"?"
>
>The short answer is: inter-dependent guesswork. I would suggest there is a
>process of speculative collaboration between geology and palaeontology
>whereby a "safe" age is agreed and then, if possible, radiometric dating is
>applied to a sample of the rock concerned.

What *evidence* does Chris have, apart from his own "guesswork"?

CD>Then it is re-applied and so on
>until the "correct" radioactive element is found, yielding an "accurate" age
>for the rock. The other results are dismissed as anomalies.

There is nothing wrong with this. As anyone knows who has done any
science *all* experiments yield a range of values converging about a mean
and the mean is assumed to be true value (i.e. the signal in the noise)
and the "other results are dismissed as anomalies".

CD>When radiometric
>dating is not available, then comparisons have to be made to strata where
>the collaboration has already taken place and the date has been agreed. Call
>it what you like, but this after-the-fact, circular reasoning cannot be
>called science.

It is not "circular reasoning". See above.

And it certainly is not "science" to throw out *all* "results" because *some*
"are ... anomalies".

CD>Pre-Cambrian rock, which contains no fossils of multi-cellular organisms, is
>dated by reference to rock which, through the process of inter-dependent
>guesswork described above, is agreed to be younger.

See above request for Chris to provide *evidence* of this alleged
"inter-dependent guesswork.

CD>It might be as simple as
>finding the rock beneath Cambrian rock and being able to rule out any
>folding. Hopefully, the "correct" radioactive element will be found,
>yielding an "accurate" age for the rock (in this instance, a pre-Cambrian
>age) while the other radiometric results are dismissed as anomalies.

See above.

CD>The scenario I have just described, by way of a response to the initial
>questions posed by Steve, is a little shocking to say the least.

What I (and I am sure many non-Christians) find "a little shocking to say
the least" is "The technique employed by young-earth creationists ... to"
negatively "dredge up whatever supportive inconsistencies they can find in
nature", with "either an ignorance of, or a disregard for, the readily
available and conclusive evidence that this old planet has been around for
billions of years":

"The technique employed by young-earth creationists is to ...
dredge up whatever supportive inconsistencies they can find in
nature. ... With their claim that the earth and universe could be less
than 10,000 years old, young-earth advocates try to shake the very
foundations of our basic sciences. ... The contention that the world
is young, but only looks old, is totally bereft of earthly or heavenly
evidence. Not a shred of credible data from nature has yet been
uncovered to support young-earth claims. No radioactive rock has
yet been discovered containing so small an amount of decay
element that it could be dated to such a young age. Not one fossil
bone has been found in Precambrian sedimentary rock. No dinosaur
bones have been uncovered in conjunction with human remains, and
so forth. What young-earth proponents have dredged up and
presented as supporting evidence has demonstrated either an
ignorance of, or a disregard for, the readily available and conclusive
evidence that this old planet has been around for billions of years.
Undaunted by the absence of data to support young-earth doctrine,
proponents make their points by sowing seeds of doubt. They
search for whatever anomalies or inconsistencies they can find in
nature in an effort to poke holes in the universally accepted belief in
an ancient earth." (Fischer D., "The Origins Solution: An Answer in
the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996,
p.75)

while failing to come up with a come up with a positive "model that would
explain the data better":

"The burden of proof really falls on those who advocate no such
linkage and deny shared ancestry to come up with a model that
would explain the data better, or at least in equally satisfying terms.
To date no such model has come forth." (Fischer D., "The Origins
Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway
Press: Lima OH, 1996, p.66)

CD>But to be
>honest, when it comes to Neo-Darwinism, I've gone beyond feeling surprise
>every time the scientific method is abandoned in order to preserve the
>faith.

This is not "Neo-Darwinism". And what are YECs like Chris doing if not
"every time the scientific method is abandoned in order to preserve the
faith"?

CD>Just last week, I examined the latest edition of a reputable biology
>textbook in a reputable bookshop and found that of the three or four pieces
>of "evidence for evolution", one of them was Haeckal's ontogeny
>recapitulates phylogeny.

Chris' attempt to change the subject is noted.

CD>I'm sure all parties in this group must agree that
>this myth of neo-Darwinism was exposed about a decade ago. Even though it
>flies in the face of science, it is a strong pillar of the neo-Darwinist
>faith, hence its continued inclusion in the scriptures of neo-Darwinism.
>That is a shocking disgrace! But I digress.

Indeed, Chris does "digress"!

CD>What would constitute evidence that the scientific method has in fact been
>applied to assigning dates to rocks? Any observation which doesn't rely upon
>unwarranted assumptions (such as the initial ratios of parent and daughter
>atoms) and where all radiometric figures concur with the same date
>(regardless of the elements being used) for the same rock sample.

See above.

I hope this thread continues because it will enable me to provide further
documentation of how radiometric dating is sound science, and therefore
YEC is unsound science.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The same is true in estimating the age of the universe and the earth and its
contents. No one could make a mistake if he bothered to exert even
minimal effort. Astronomers and astrophysicists attest to an ancient
universe on the order of 12 billion years or so. Geologists certify an antique
earth of about 4.6 billion years. Biologists have traced the beginnings of life
to over 3 billion years. And the hominid line has a long history documented
by fossils spanning a few million years, according to paleontologists and
archaeologists who make their living knowing such things. Pastors,
evangelists, and lay persons who are not steeped in science can ignore the
data, and expound on all areas of Christian doctrine, including God's
creation described in Genesis. There is no harm in that. Disclaiming
expertise in science should not impinge on one's ability as a Bible expositor.
But a potential for great harm exists when religious leaders with no
expertise in science also make no investigation, and expound on scientific
matters, possibly misleading their flocks" (Fischer D., "The Origins
Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press:
Lima OH, 1996, p.70)
Stephen E. Jones sejones@... or senojes@...
Home: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------