Survey: Young Earth or Old Earth?

::sigh:: I wish I wasn't so darned busy right now. Thanks to daniel for reminding me that the debate is not just with Wildkow - I agree with you all, it's fun and really is worth the trouble =)

As for your statements, Wildkow... I'll start with the source of your quote, since we should have done *that* the last time around.

If you go back to the paper that was drawn from, you'll find that it was taken completely out of context. The same paper continues on to say,

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of evolution. Fossils date rocks, not vice-versa, and that's that. It can be admitted, as a common practice. The time scales of physics and astronomy are obtained by comparing one process with another. They can also be compared with the geologic processes of sedimentation, organic evolution and radioactivity. Or, it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.

The first step is to explain what is done in the field in simple terms that can be tested directly. The field man records his sense perceptions on isomorphic maps and sections, abstracts the more diagnositc rock features, and arranges them according to their vertical order. He compares this local sequence to the global column obtained from great many man-years of work by his predecessors. As long as this cognitive process is acknowledged as the pragmatic basis of stratigraphy, both local and global sections can be treated as chronologies without reproach.""


<continuing my explanation in another post so we don't all die of eye strain>

 

OK, so I'm going to attempt to describe that 'pragmatic reasoning' that keeps us from falling into circular logic holes.

First, some background. Geologists think that what we see on this planet is (by and large) the result of the same natural forces that we see occurring right now - this idea is called uniformitarianism. We also have some common sense rules that we use to guide us, like the idea that beds are originally laid down horizontally, or the idea that (in undisturbed sections) younger layers will be on top of older layers, or that an intrusion or fault must be younger than the beds they cut.

Using these principles and an awful lot of sweat, geologists around the world started digging, measuring, recording, and comparing. Remember, I'm not talking absolute dates, I'm talking relative dating - X is younger than Y, Y is younger than Z, so X is younger than Z. It's like a gigantic, earth sized Sudoku puzzle.

They collected massive amounts of data, and discovered that using large scale continuous features like the Late Devonian Black Shale (aside in case anyone reading this went to UF: Never get lost again! hehe =P) you could correlate layers in one place with others around the world (incidentally, I think the prettiest proof of plate tectonics is the fact that you can see the *same* layering sequences on both sides of the Atlantic, from multiple openings and closings of the ocean.) The Devonian and the Permian and the Jurassic and all the time periods, and their relative ages, were all picked out and tallied up long before isotope dating ever got underway.

Bringing fossils into the mix, they started noticing that there were certain fossils that were always found in the same time periods - no matter where we found them, they were always found in certain periods. They called them index fossils, and we use their limited spans to narrow down the period that the rock was laid down.

More recently, isotopes have been used to assign absolute dates to these time periods. Fossils still have to be used to 'date' layers, because isotope data only works with igneous rocks (cooled from melt) because it's the melting and recrystalization process that 'resets' the clock. I assure you that if there were any widespread issues, with index fossils being found in the wrong time period, or if old volcanics are found over younger fossiliferous layers, you would have better facts to be throwing at us =)

 

great post, g.

just to add... there are many longer-lived isotopes than 14-C that are used so it's not like we're restricted to using something that only works over a (geologically) short time period. even these are not meant to be absolute measures of age, they are approximations within a reasonable confidence level.

 

Why do people want to constrain how God did or did not create the Universe? Have they ever created a Universe, world or anything else? Many people are willing to constrain how God goes about his business. Could he not have set up all the major physical constants of the Universe, gave it a kick and knew that all this would be the result? You don't need to change the major physical constants much not to have all this? I think that people who want to limit God, the Creator or what ever have a lot of hubris! I am quite sure that I am not ready to create a Universe and I have not meet nor heard of anyone who is!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 13 2006, 05:50 PM) [snapback]254928[/snapback]</div>

Potassium-Argon for example. It's generally used to date really old stuff... like, uh, the earth.

Another is Rb87->Sr87. This half-life is so long (48.8 billion years) that the Rb-Sr method is normally only used to date rocks that are older than about 100 million years.

 

Well, see, there's another one of those generalizations that really sets me off. Somehow, many people who believe in evolution think that anyone who doesn't believe their theory is "anti-science". (I won't even talk about the "anti-reason" slight.) To me, this is slanderous and defamatory, because, at least in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I love science, it was my favorite subject in school, and consider myself to be a very scientific person. It is just THIS ONE THEORY that I choke on, because I believe that it is severely flawed, and based on too many assumptions. I personally think that God is the ultimate scientist, and probably really likes scientific people, just as I like when people examine, praise, or reverse-engineer my work. I don't think he created this stuff, but doesn't expect us to examine it, and question Why? How? When? Belief in the Bible is NOT the END OF SCIENCE, as some of you would have us believe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 14 2006, 12:22 AM) [snapback]255046[/snapback]</div>

I have no problem with people using Potassium-Argon to date rocks, the earth, moon, etc. What I do have a problem with is when evolutionists try to use Potassium-Argon to date human remains, and then coming up with dates that are orders of magnitude off, even when compared with C-14 dating. No one's ever been able to explain to me how you can use Potassium-Argon to date a fossilized bone. Are we dating the bone, the calcium that made up the bone, or the minerals that fossilized the bone? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 13 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]254762[/snapback]</div>

another shot? eh, i think i've demonstrated that scientific literacy is enough to defeat the arguments you've put up. since, you know, i don't even study this field and i've been able to knock your arguments down.

so, between the scientists on this thread i feel we have challenged your points sufficiently.

besides, i have qualifying exams in 9 days. i'm doing lit searches on my own field and reviewing my principles of pharmacokinetics and rational drug design.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 13 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]254919[/snapback]</div>

A-HA!

Although I wear my prescription common sense glasses, I most certainly won't throw away the array of prisms, and other oddly shaped lenses, to look through in my toolbox... Know what I mean Billie-Jean?

 

Sadly, I don't get pop culture (probably comes from being too young or not owning a TV until recently) so I don't know if you have a problem with the laws, or are offering up your prism glasses so reality doesn't hurt anyone's eyes =(

Just in case, I'll put out some definitions (courtesy of Wiki)

*The Principle of Original Horizontality states that, the deposition of sediments occurs as essentially horizontal beds. Observation of modern marine and nonmarine sediments in a wide variety of environments supports this generalisation (although cross-bedding is inclined, the overall orientation of cross-bedded units is horizontal).

*The Principle of Superposition states that, a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed sequence is younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it. Logically a younger layer cannot slip beneath a layer previously deposited. This principle allows sedimentary layers to be viewed as a form of vertical time line, a partial or complete record of the time elapsed from deposition of the lowest layer to deposition of the highest bed.

*The Principle of Cross-cutting Relationships pertains to the formation of faults and the age of the sequences through which they cut. Faults are younger than the rocks they cut; accordingly, if a fault is found that penetrates some formations but not those on top of it, then the formations that were cut are older than the fault, and the ones that are not cut must be younger than the fault. Finding the key bed in these situations may help determine whether the fault is a normal fault or a thrust fault.

*The Principle of Intrusive Relationships concerns crosscutting intrusions. In geology, when an igneous intrusion cuts across a formation of sedimentary rock, it can be determined that the igneous intrusion is younger than the sedimentary rock. There are a number of different types of intrusions, including stocks, laccoliths, batholiths, sills and dikes.

*The Principle of Inclusions and Components states that, with sedimentary rocks, if inclusions (or clasts) are found in a formation, then the inclusions must be older than the formation that contains them. For example, in sedimentary rocks, it is common for gravel from an older formation to be ripped up and included in a newer layer. A similar situation with igneous rocks occurs when xenoliths are found. These foreign bodies are picked up as magma or lava flows, and are incorporated, later to cool in the matrix. As a result, xenoliths are older than the rock which contains them.

I'm leaving out the Principle of Faunal Succession because it's more or less what I was trying to describe - Wiki does make the interesting observation that the idea of faunal succession came about nearly 100 years before Darwin ever hypothesized about evolution.


I'm happy to attempt to wrestle out these principles with anyone who cares - they really are common sense, at least to thinking minds =)

EDIT for clarity and apparent inability to work basic html coding

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 12:12 AM) [snapback]255522[/snapback]</div>

EEP! I've been more or less MIA (mostly just following this thread) and didn't realize you were that close to exams. HUGE batches of good luck being sent your way - I'm sure you'll do phenomenally!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 12:12 AM) [snapback]255522[/snapback]</div>

Good luck with your exams!!! And I'm sure that there are a couple of people here (I won't mention any names) who could benefit from rational drug design! :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 15 2006, 07:27 AM) [snapback]255581[/snapback]</div>

I have no idea what MS is talking about either. All I know is that he now has the creepiest looking avatar on PC! I wonder if he'll still have Cheney there after he's indicted (Cheney, I mean- not MS!) :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 15 2006, 07:27 AM) [snapback]255581[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ May 15 2006, 07:38 AM) [snapback]255584[/snapback]</div>

thanks, g i haven't been saying much about it actually- trying to focus more on the studying than the hype, and using PC as a study break or when i'm going over something that's way easy. although i am real sick of pubmed at the moment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 15 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]255602[/snapback]</div>

thanks

rational drug design is in many cases kind of a contradiction in terms anyway :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hdrygas @ May 13 2006, 11:33 PM) [snapback]255027[/snapback]</div>

I don't think any (reasonable) scientist would make any attempt to try to "disprove" God. Did God set up the universe in some way and set everything in motion? Maybe.

But, there's no rational way to demonstrate that. Any belief in God is just that: a belief. If you want to believe in God, great. If you want to believe that God created the universe 13.6 billion years ago, there's nothing anyone can say to demonstrate that that's not true. If you want to believe that God created the universe 6000 years ago and made it appear that the universe started 13.6 billion years ago, fine. However, this last point flies in the face of rational thought. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but faith, by its nature, is irrational.

As a scientist, I can fully accept that some people believe God created the universe 6000 years ago. I have no problem with people believing that. However, the scientific evidence contradicts this belief; there's no way you can get around this. Rational reasoning leads to the conclusion that we live on/in an Old Earth/Universe. I have seen no scientific evidence (here or elsewhere) to disprove this conclusion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 15 2006, 10:58 AM) [snapback]255656[/snapback]</div>

For a scientist, you seem to be drawing up pre-determined conclusions don't you think? You say there's no "rational" way. I say the possibility exists there MIGHT be a "rational" way, you simply don't know it yet. This is your perspective from this point in time, I would never, ever, exclude possibilities simply because they haven't expressed themselves, directly, or indirectly, as of today....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]255665[/snapback]</div>

What about the conclusion is predetermined? This is a conclusion that scientists have come to based on what they have observed. We might someday make observations that contradict this conclusion, and we'll have to figure out what those new observations imply. I never said current theories were the complete answer; but, they are reasonable interpretations of the available data.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ May 15 2006, 11:19 AM) [snapback]255671[/snapback]</div>

Your lack of acknowledging possibilities contrary to the current environment, which you cleared up with the sentence I bolded.

The way your post was presented, was, more or less, factual, based upon this point and time, with no acknowledgement of anything to the contrary might arise in the future.

It's just if I were a scientist, I would be sure to be thorough and present such material in an objective way, making sure to caveat the material was based upon information at this point in time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ May 15 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]255694[/snapback]</div>

Sorry it was unclear. I thought my little speech about rational thought would have indicated that I don't think it's possible to tell the future yet.

 

we can't tell the future. we make conclusions based on current evidence. that's assumed. new evidence, new conclusions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ May 15 2006, 01:37 PM) [snapback]255770[/snapback]</div>

Sure, to the scientific community...

...any non science type is going to see this as a definitive excerpt, and will continue on as such, completely glossing over the possibility new discoveries in the future that might completely invalidate such excerpt. They close their minds to the contrary. After all, science is pretty good at new discoveries and invalidating previously ejaculated theories and ideas, right? I can't help but wonder how many similar representations were made 100 years ago, only to be either flat out reversed or refined in only a century....

h34r: