Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by krissmith777.
@Sean Pitman,
Such uniform and widespread “contamination� Really?
My reasons for rejecting Young-Earth dating methods have little to nothing to do with religious or anti-religious motives, since I cannot emphesize I am no less a Theist now than when I was a Creationist. — My reasons have more to do with the fact that sometimes a close reading of what is actually said itself invalidates some of the some of the claims put forth in “peer reviewed” YEC papers. — My favorite example of this is a paper written by Steven A. Autin entitled “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano”
The paper is linked here: http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Excess-Argon-New-Lava-Dome-at-Mount-St-Helens.pdf
In this paper, Austin makes the claim that rocks taken from Mt. Saint Helens from the 1986 eruption give dates that are too inflated via K-Ar method. Now, Andrew A. Snelling’s claims that Austin took precautions to take care that there was no contamination, Austin’s paper actually contradicts this view:
On PFD page 4, he says,
The “feldspar-glass concentrate†(DOME-1L) was dominated by plagioclase and glass, with only occasional mafic microphenocrysts visible in the plagioclase and glass. Although not a complete separation of non-mafic minerals, this concentrate included plagioclase phenocrysts (andesine composition with a density of about 2.7 g/cc) and the major quantity of glass (density assumed to be about 2.4 g/cc). No attempt was made to separate plagioclase from glass, but further use of heavy liquids should be considered.
First of all, Austin admits that this sample he dated didn’t have a complete separation of mafic and non-mafic materials.
Second of all, he clearly says that he made no attept (I repeat: NO ATTEMPT! ) to separate the glass and the plagioclase. This is important because the glass would be young (more representative of the eruption), and the plagioclase would contain somewhat older calcium cores and moderately oldsdium rich rims. Since Austin is a geologist, I do not buy for a moment that he didn’t know this would affect the age of the sample since he is not separating the older materials from the younger.
Also, on PDF page 8:
The data of Table 3 seem to argue that very different mineral phases of the dacite each contain significant 40Ar. Although the mineral concentrates are not pure, and all contain some glass, an argument can be made that both mafic and non-mafic minerals of the dacite contain significant 40Ar.
Notice he says here that the sample separations are not pure.
Honestly, it’s as if he is fishing for a bad date!
More complete discussion: http://answersincreation.org/dacite.htm
–And then as another example, there is the claim that the Hualalai basalt from the 1801 eruption in Hawaii. — The Creationist websites and books differ greatly as the results of the Radiometric Results: Some give the results as 1.6 to 1.41 million years while others give the figure as high as 22 million or even higher.
Admittedly, I did find this one interesting…. that is, until I found out the title of the original source paper for the claim: “Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii.”
Abstract to the original Paper: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1968/JB073i014p04601.shtml
Notice the term “inclusions” in the title of the paper! –For those who don’t know, and “Inclusion” is a material that gets trapped in a newer material that is forming. Huton’s Law of Inclusion says that the materials that get trapped in the newly formed formation are, by definition, older than the new formation.
With this in mind, since the paper is talking about “inclusions,” it isn’t even dating the lava itself, and hence not the eruption. (They weren’t trying to date the inclusions, but rather they wanted to see if the Potassium/Argon method would work on the inclusions.)
And to make problems even worse for the Young Earth argument, the same paper says that the lava around the inclusions was dated to the right time of the eruption.
Any wonder why Scientists do not trust Creationist claims on dating methods?
krissmith777 Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent,
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that Dr. Pitman chose to ignore this problem. According to Pitman, plate tectonics moved very rapidly during the flood and then slowed down, which creates the dilemma Kris has spoken to. The massive ocean basin and its seamounts could not have existed prior to the flood, but how could they possibly have formed in such little time during the flood itself–or during the following year?
In my judgement, it was the strongest point I made in that comment.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@ Professor Kent
How bizarre that I argue for the superiority of the Bible, and Bob, rather than joining me, says that Richard Dawkins–of all people, being one of the most antagonistic toward the Bible–is on my side! WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO DEFEND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM?
The way some of out fellow christians associate others with positions they just do not like with “hard” atheists like Richard Dawkins is nothing more than an ad hominem. — In a different thread on a different website, one person I was talking to kept bringing up Richard Dawkins. It was “Richard Dawkins says..” “Richard Dawkins claims…” It was all a tactic to simply dismiss what I was saying simply because he thought Dawkins would agree with me…even slightly. But there are major problems with such tactics: 1) Richard Dawkins speaks for Richard Dawkins, not for me. 2) I don’t even care what Richard Dawkins says, and our fellow Christians who worry about what he says should have better things to worry about. There seems to be a mentality here that because Dawkins takes a certain position, that we should take the opposite extreme, but that doesn’t even follow.
Let the hard atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens say what they want…It makes no difference to me.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Sean Pitman,
You said before that overall rate of erosion and and sedimentation world wide along with the replacement of the materials is constant… I know that. But you keep assuming that the rate of today is the same as 200 million years ago, and quite frankly, you have no basis for such an assumption…and really, there is reason to believe otherwise as well.
Geologists point out that the landmasses of today are much more mountainous and more rugged than in the past….and the mountanous topography is a excelerator to the rates of erosion…Now, if this is true, then that would mean that today the overall rate of erosion (and the addition of sediments to the ocean basins) would right now be at an all time high…As such, the current rate of sedimentary deposition cannot be used as a reliable clock to date the ocean floor. (Davis Young, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, pages 128-131)
Reputable Creation Scientists give vastly different estimates of the sea floor accumulation. You give the estimate of 15 million years. — Henry Morris gives the estimate of 75 million years (Scientific Creationism, pages 155, 156) — Stewart E. Nevins gives the estimate of 30 million years (Link: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/ ) — Russel Humphries’ estimate is 12 million years (Link: http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world ) — With all these vastly differing estimates on the parts of creation scientists, it makes me wonder about the basis of their data…especially since it’s the same argument. It’s not as if we have numerous dating methods being used and all disagreeing…Rather, it’s that we seem to have the same method being used and still disagreeing.
–But I think I’ve found the mentality behind your argument. Stewart Nevins, on his page about the sedimentation of the sea floor, says:
In only 30 million years assuming constant rate of erosion all the ocean sediments could have accumulated. This age does not square with the over 1 billion year age assumed by evolutionary uniformitarian geologists. (Bold, his)
So, his argument is that since today’s rate would have deposited more, that therefore the principal of uniformity is wrong.. I dare say anyone who claims that geologists think “rates” have always been the same for EVERYTHING doesn’t understand the principle…At least, not in it’s current form. The principle he is refering to is known as “Substantive Uniformitarianism,” and modern geology rejects that. — Geologists now use a different principle called “Methodological Uniformitarianism”; that is processes around today have happened in the past…whether it be a storm, a mudslide, a volcanic eruption, etcetera..They may happen at different rates, but the same phenomena that happen today leave a finger print, and we can identify a geologic formation from the past with a similar finger print. (For more reading on this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA9-79Young.html )
Recent Comments by krissmith777
Scientists ‘potentially skeptical’ of evolution need not apply
I do not know all the details, but I do think that the University is handling this situation quite badly. In the actual news article itself drom the Hufington post, some scientists are quoted as saying that they may as well have a “Creation Museum” with him around… Logical Fallacy: “Slippery Slope.”
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
@Sean Pitman,
At the very least, global migration under ideal conditions, even of sloths, seems plausible (and I think unavoidable given the doubling time for sloth populations under ideal circumstances) – certainly not “impossible†as you’re trying to suggest.
Well, for the record, I said “it would have been difficult, if not impossible.” Perhaps it was possible.
After all, even sloths can move up to a mile in less than four hours when they want to…
They can move faster under some conditions. But it is my understanding that even though they could, they tend not to. They tend to pick up the pace only when necessary; like when they are fleeing from a predator, they can move up to 15 feet a minute, and even then they burn a lot of energy while doing it. On the grund, their maximum speed, however, is 5 feet a minute. (Link: http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/sloth.html )
— Perhaps a journey of such a route could have been possible under certain conditions. Who knows?
But, what I am more concerned about is not the journey, but rather a trail that they would have left behind from Eastern Turkey to North America. I’m more interested in what they would have left behind on their migration to indicate that they were there. For a while, they should have at least had a population in those regions… Perhaps they still would have decendants in Russian forests, or skeletal remains from those who did not make it.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
@Professor Kent
Thus, we cannot expect each successive generation to continue a straight-line march across the globe for thousands or even hundreds of years. In their normal daily movements, they might move 5 miles in a year…but not in a straight line. We have been reassured that even a “small slow tree sloth†can migrate at a 12-mile-per-year pace across the globe. I don’t think so!
It would require movement in areas of the world that they are not adapted to. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the sloth to move from Eastern Turkey, across the Bering Straight land bridge, then from Alaska and then to South America…But, for a moment, lets suppose for a moment that they succeeded…
The sloths tend to live between 10 and 20 years, and in that time they tend to have a single newborn per year. If we go with the conservative number that would mean that at minimum, they probably reproduce 10 newborns within 10 years, but it is also true that the newborns tend to have a high mortality rate within the very first year of their lives. – There is no statistic at the actual death rate in the first year before they have a chance to reproduce, but since there obviously was a net gain in the population (since the flood), that allows the minimum survival rate to be 40%. This would mean that if they birthed 10 newborn sloths, then a maximum of 6 die. If 2 males and two females survived, and if they in turn also had 2 males and 2 females that survived, there would constantly be a doubled population of sloths: The first generation (from the ark) which would be 2 sloths would therefore lead to 4 which in turn leads to 8, and then to 16, and so on and so forth.
[The mistake I made in a former comment was allowing the survival rate being 20% which, now that I think of it, would have only produced only two surviving sloths constantly. It had to have been more.]
Add into the equation that it is over 3,000 miles from Eastern Turkey to the Bering Strait which leads to North America. – Using Sean’s estimate that they may have traveled 12 miles in a [year], that would indicate that they made it to the outskirts of North America in 250 years. With this in mind, one is left to wonder about a population of sloths in modern Russia which should have been considerable…or at least noticeable, though it is possible there may have been times when their birth rates and survival rates would have dropped a bit, though that doesn’t clear the problem, and there should be evidence of such a migration from Eastern Turkey. – Also, when one factors in the time sloths spend sleeping in a day (15 to 18 hours a day), the idea that they could have traveled 12 miles a year is a stretch. And that goes without mentioning that they almost never get out of the trees. That begs the question of how far they were willing to walk over treeless territory until they would find more trees.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
In my experience, those who hate the Bible hate any kind of Christian, not just people of blind faith.
But I don’t think anyone here is really insisting on blind faith, I think they just don’t want to use a certain sort of “test tube” for God. –There is evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, which is why I hold it in high esteem. Even in the areas that would seem to have some “weakness” of archeological evidence, there is still some real strength that warrents belief. The profecy of the “cutting-off” of the messiah in Daniel 9:24-27 actually gives a time-frame that Jesus really seems to match, and as such I see true divine inspiration in the book of Daniel (which is actually my favorite book of the Bible). Even if Daniel were written in 164 BC, as a lot of skeptics believe, no uninspires writter would ever know such a detail. So, despite my differences of opinion of interpretation, there is no doubt in my mind that God did in fact inspire the Bible. This itself, in my judgement, is good, imperical evidence for not just the Bible, but also God himself.
But, as said before, the problem others here have is reducing God to a “test tube.” As a Christian myself, I am not crazy about that. — You ended your post with a good quote from Galileo Galilei, and so I shall end this comment with another from him:
The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
@krissmith777: Great liberal minds always think the same, they can judge the outcome. Outcome based decisions ignore principled decisions. Christ on the cross could not see through the grave, a great example of a principled decision!Thank you Michigan for standing on principle. (Quote)
I am not a liberal.
