Group

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:57:56 +1000, L.K. Appleton 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.

LA>It is a pleasure to support Chris's above comment.
>Steve's group is indeed in strong contrast to many other
>groups where evolutionists spend so much of their
>messages in personal abuse and wild unsupported
>nonsense.

Thanks to Laurie for his comments.

LA>Without leaving any of Chris's long and well reasoned
>message, I thought that he made his many points about
>the weakness of the whole dating system clearly and
>convincingly.

As Laurie should have realised by now, "long and well reasoned
reasoned" doesn't mean a thing if it is not based on *facts*.
And there were *no* facts in Chris' "long and well reasoned
message".

LA>It will be interesting to see Steve's response in due course.

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/5457

LA>Now that the Punctuated equlibrium evolutionary
>idea of the late Prof. S.J. Gould has been largely
>accepted by the evolutionary establishment, it is
>significant that the way seems to have been opened
>to make major reductions in the whole argument over
>dating and the time question.

Apart from the fact that "Punctuated equlibrium" makes no difference
to the *total* "time", since all it claims is that the pattern is
rapid change and then stasis (no change), instead of Neo-Darwinism's
steady change, the sort of "major reductions in ... time" that YECs
need it to reducebillions years of into thousands of years, is of the
order of a *million* to one!

But that is only half YECs problem. They must not only negatively show that
radiometric dating is out by a factor of about a *million*:

"Moving on to their final arguments, creationists deal quickly with
the age of the Earth. It is boiled down to around a millionth of what
we learn from various radiometric dating techniques. (Think of it.
The age of the Earth is a million times shorter than most believe.)"
(Ruse M., "Creation science: the ultimate fraud," New Scientist, 27
May 1982, p.590)

they must positively show that the Universe and Earth is only ~10,000 years
old.

Specifically, Laurie 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 Lauries claims to be a YEC (ignoring his advocacy for Directed
Panspermia), 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. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LA>One example is the admission the strata like those
>of the Grand Canyon, have all been laid down
>"rapidly".

I was at the "Grand Canyon" last July, and if anyone thinks that "the strata
... of the Grand Canyon, have all been laid down "rapidly", i.e. within a
year (i.e. in Noah's Flood), then quite frankly IMHO they are just deluding
themselves.

Apart from anything else, what *global Flood* geology needs is Grand
Canyons *globally*.

In fact the "Grand Canyon" does not even have all the strata. The topmost
layer, "the Kaibab Limestone" (see picture at
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm), "is approximately 250
million years old":

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm
Well, the fact is that most of the rock in the Grand Canyon is composed of
sedimentary rock which can only be formed at the bottom of the ocean or
in shallow coastal plains. The Kaibab Limestone which is the current top of
the Grand Canyon is composed mostly of a sandy limestone, with some
sandstone and shale thrown in for good measure. This means that it was
probably formed in a shallow sea near the coast. The fact that it contains
fossils of creatures that used to live in the ocean, like brachiopods, coral,
mollusks, sea lilies, worms and fish teeth, only tends to reinforce this belief.
The intrusion of sandstone and shales into this later means that at times the
layer was also above the surface of the water but still very close to the
edge. Sandstones are solidified sand which are typically fields of sand
dunes or beaches, and shales are solidified mud which are common to river
deltas. By dating the fossils found in the rock of the Kaibab Limestone,
geologists have determined that it is approximately 250 million years old,
and this is the youngest layer. [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

IOW, Global Floodists would have to explain not only: 1) the laying down of
the entire geological column worldwide in a year; 2) then removing of
much of it in the next few thousand years; and then 3) the stopping
of removing of it at that rate in the present.

LA>This is in major contrast to the long
>held opposite view that such strata took millions
>and millions of years to accumulate.

That is what the *evidence* indicates.

LA>i.e.;
> "Nowhere in the world is the record, or even part of it,
>anywhere near complete. Even in the Grand Canyon of the
>Colarado River and the adjacent sections along the little
>Colarado River, surely the finest record of geological
>history anywhere on Earth, there are huge breaks."

YECs often quote this, but apart from the fact it is false, e.g.
"the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota", as ex-YEC
now TE geologist Glenn Morton has long pointed out:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
The Geologic Column
and Its Implications to the Flood
Glenn R. Morton

ABSTRACT: A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim
that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic
column exists in North Dakota. This is not done to disprove the Bible but
to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better
job of getting the facts straight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

if it were true, it would be more of a problem to YEC Global
Floodists because they would have an even bigger problem explaining
where all the strata went in only a few thousand years.

LA>[several lines here.....]

The missing "several lines" are:

"Notable is the complete absence of the Upper Carboniferous
(Pennsylvanian) and of the Ordovician and Silurian Systems.
Devonian strata are only present in local lenses. Though thick Late
Precambrian Proterozoic sediments are present in the eastern part
of the Grand Canyon, farther west just part of the Cambrian rests
directly on the Archaean with igneous intrusions in the latter" (Ager
D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event
in Geological History," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
UK, 1993, p.14)

See above what a *huge* problem this is for YEC/Flood Geology. They
not only have to explain where the top "Upper Carboniferous
(Pennsylvanian)" strata went in a few thousand years, but where the lower
middle "Ordovician and Silurian Systems" and most of the "Devonian
strata" went, but also the most of the lower "Late Precambrian"!

LA>"We talk about such obvious breaks, but there are also
>gaps on a much smaller scale, which may add up to vastly
>more unrecorded time. Every bedding plane is, in effect, an
>unconformity. It may seem paradoxical, but to me the gaps
>probably cover most of earth's history, not the dirt that
>happened to accumulate in the moments in between. It was
>during the breaks that most events probably occurred."
>
>(The New Catastrophism, Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of
>Geology, University College of Swansea, 1993, p. 14)

See above about this being more of a problem for YEC/GF's than it is
to anyone else.

LA>Thus the evolutionists are now in the position of
>having to "pad out" the supposed time question
>by arguing that all the millions of years is accounted
>for by "nothing in particular" in between each layer!

Laurie obviously hasn't thought about it, but his YEC/GF has the same
problem only about a *million* times worse! That is because, an old-
Earth/non-global Flood position (whether creationist or evolutionist): 1)
doesn't have to have a complete geological column around the globe
because, it does not claim there was a single global builder of the
geological column in a year; and 2) it has about a million-fold more time
than a YEC position for parts of the geological column to erode away.

LA>When we add to that the further Punk-eek argument
>of "rapid speciation" then we once more find that
>they have to "pad out" the time between these
>events with more and more "nothing in particular"!

As Laurie should know, Ager's position *is* " Punk-eek", i.e.
"punctuated equilibria":

"One of the most fundamental changes that have happened in recent
years in our thoughts about the geological past was again one
towards concepts of episodicity, this time in the evolution of life.
Thus the doctrine of what is called 'punctuated equilibria' replaced
that of 'phyletic gradualism', which had been the almost
subconscious presumption of palaeontologists since the days of
Darwin. This intellectual revolution was brought about chiefly by
Stephen J. Gould of Harvard and his colleague Niles Eldredge. The
first epoch making paper by Eldredge & Gould (1972) put forward
the idea that Nature did indeed make jumps. They maintained that
evolution proceeded by short, sharp changes, punctuating long
periods of stasis, rather than by slow progressive changes, which
had been assumed since Darwin (1859) wrote of `descent with slow
and slight modifications' and the 'accumulation of successive slight
favourable variations'." (Ager D.V., "The New Catastrophism: The
Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History," Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, p.129)

LA>Removing the "nothing in particular" would
>dramatically conflict with their whole time scale
>arguments, but none-the-less their current thinking
>opens the way for such a major reduction in their
>time arguments!

The point is that these "nothing in particular[s]" are only *local*,
not global which Laurie would need them to be if they never existed.

As Ager pointed out in the quote of the Grand Canyon that Laurie
omitted, there are "nothing in particular[s]" on one side and
the missing `something in particulars' on the other side.

LA>Prof. Gould's position is beautifully illustrated by
>his essay on; "The Great Scablands Debate" where
>he argued for its formation in "a matter of days"
>in contrast to the long held view that its formation
>was a matter of millions of years. i.e.;

It is not "Gould's position" that the channeled scablands of south-east
Washington State formed in "a matter of days". That was *Bretz'* position
and Gould says "Bretz was ... wrong in attributing the formation of the
scablands to a single flood":

"Moreover, Bretz's opponents did not rest their case entirely on the
unorthodox character of Bretz's hypothesis. They also marshaled
some specific facts on their side, and they were partly right. Bretz
originally insisted upon a single flood, while his opponents cited
much evidence to show that the scablands had not formed all at
once. We now know that Lake Missoula formed and re-formed
several times as the glacial margin fluctuated. In his latest work,
Bretz called for eight separate episodes of catastrophic flooding.
Bretz's opponents were wrong in inferring gradual change from the
evidence of temporal spread: catastrophic episodes can be
separated by long periods of quiescence. But Bretz was also wrong
in attributing the formation of the scablands to a single flood."
(Gould S.J., "The Great Scablands Debate," in "The Panda's
Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin:
London, 1990, reprint, pp.167-168)

Anyway, Laurie is getting confused between a building up process (the
laying down of the strata of the Grand Canyon) and an eroding process, the
eroding by floodwaters of parts of Washington State.

From memory what our guide told us, the Grand Canyon itself formed only
comparatively recently, i.e. in the last ~5 million years as the plateau
uplifted and the Colorado River cut through the rising strata.

And the "flood of glacial meltwater" which formed the "channeled
scablands" which are "hundreds of feet" deep, produced nothing like the
Grand Canyon which is a single canyon over a mile deep!

LA>"Just after World War I, Chicago geologist J Harlem Bretz
>advanced an unorthodox hypothesis to account for this unusual
>topography.... He argued that the channeled scablands have
>been formed all at once by a single, gigantic flood of glacial
>meltwater. This local catastrophe filled the coulees, cut
>through hundreds of feet of loess and basalt, and then
>receded in a matter of days."

And Bretz was *"wrong"* (see above). If Laurie has himself read what
Gould wrote, then he is being dishonest in withholding that Gould clearly
says: "In his latest work, Bretz called for eight separate episodes of
catastrophic flooding" and "We now know that Lake Missoula formed and
re-formed several times as the glacial margin fluctuated." (Gould S.J., "The
Panda's Thumb," 1990, p.167).

LA>".... The "establishment," as represented by the United
>States Geological Survey, closed ranks in opposition. They had
>nothing better to propose, and they did admit the peculiar
>character of scabland topography. But they held firm to the
>dogma that catastrophic causes must never be invoked so
>long as any gradualist alternative existed. Instead of testing
>Bretz's flood on its on merits, they rejected it on general
>principles."
>
>(The Panda's Thumb, S.J. Gould, p. 164)

But as Gould later in the chapter points out, "Bretz's opponents were not
benighted dogmatists. ... they also had good reasons to doubt catastrophic
flooding based on Bretz's original arguments":

"I could end here with a cardboard version of the story much to my
liking: Perceptive hero suppressed by blinded dogmatists stands
firm, expresses his allegiance to fact over received opinion, and
eventually prevails by patient persuasion and overwhelming
documentation. The outline of this tale is surely valid: gradualist
bias *did* lead to a rejection of Bretz's catastrophic hypothesis out
of hand, and Bretz (apparently) was right. But, as I read through
the original papers, I realized that this good guy-bad guy scenario
must yield to a more complex version. Bretz's opponents were not
benighted dogmatists. They did have a priori preferences, but they
also had good reasons to doubt catastrophic flooding based on
Bretz's original arguments. Moreover, Bretz's style of scientific
inquiry virtually guaranteed that he would not triumph with his
initial data." (Gould S.J., "The Great Scablands Debate," in "The
Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980],
Penguin: London, 1990, reprint, pp.166-167. Emphasis in original)

LA>That has to be a "rate" process reduction of the
>order of perhaps 365 million to one!

No, see above. It was at least "eight separate episodes of catastrophic
flooding ... separated by long periods of quiescence", which did in fact take
"millions of years".

LA>If we apply
>a time/rate reduction of that order to the supposed
>"age" of the Universe, we find ourselves well and
>truly in the area of Adam and Eve, the Garden
>of Eden and the traditional timescale that
>applies to it.

This is just another example of what the OEC Fischer observed that
"Young-earth proponents will use whatever argument, spurious or
otherwise, if it will advance their cause" (see tagline).

Steve


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hugh Ross in his book The Fingerprint of God spoke of `scientific
creationists' as being `sadly misguided and misguiding many whose science
education and biblical training are inadequate to aid them in evaluation.'
Ross identified four key problems with young-earth arguments. They
involve (1) faulty assumptions; (2) faulty data; (3) misapplication of
principles, laws, and equations; and (4) ignorance of mitigating evidence. ...
No matter what evidence, or what bit of data, or what undeniable fact is
presented proving the earth is old - and any answer, no matter how
incongruous, or how cockamamie, or how illogical, will suffice. And they
call it creation *science*? ... The theory of evolution and its atheistic bent
may have been the initial impetus for young-earth creationism, but once the
course was set, no revelations of science have generated even the slightest
changes. Young-earth proponents will use whatever argument, spurious or
otherwise, if it will advance their cause. The case for evolution does have a
principal requirement. Long periods of time are needed for species to
evolve from simple to more complex life forms. If millions of years were
available then evolution could have happened. If the time is denied, then
gradual evolution would be impossible, and only sudden creation will work.
Defeating evolution at any cost appears to have been the motivation, but
now the helmsman has been swept overboard, vested interests have been
established, and many are caught up in perpetuating a wayward `ministry.'
The tragic enigma is this: when authors who purport to be Bible scholars
put forth an erroneous theory they claim is based on `inerrant' Scripture, it
is Bible credibility that suffers - Bible error is the conclusion. The
lamentable effect is for the baby of biblical truth to be tossed out with the
bath water of young-earth creationism." (Fischer D., "The Origins
Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press:
Lima OH, 1996, pp.80-81,86. Emphasis in original)
Stephen E. Jones sejones@... or senojes@...
Home: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
--------------------------------------------------------------------------