Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
You should just send a reciprical gift of a subscription to Scientific American to her. With a little note saying "Hope this helps to balance out your perspective ". Better yet send it to her kids! And watch the feathers fly.

ahahaha.....this might sound a little jaded, but i'd almost pay to see that....

I've always been weary around people who are not willing to look at both sides of the story, and who are so focused on their own way of thinking that they can become ignorant to the possibility that they could potentially be getting something wrong

*really, the world is flat, so say otherwise makes you a satanic worshipper*

Just my two cents.

[Lizra]

I'm thinking it over IRex. She means well, in a very annoying way, but she's just recently been gleefully sucked into a hardcore Christian "cult"....with her recent move to Colorado. Actually, she needed some kind of opiate though! Her kid is 30 though! I think he knows the real score!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Hey, now just wait a minute.... Did you read my post?

First of all these frog-mutations are not ordinary mutations that happen all the time. They are mutations induced directly or indirectly through human behaviour. Heightened UV-radiation because of the thinner ozon layer, mutagene chemicals that get used in pest-control (e.g:atrazine), human introduction of foreign animals in another ecosystem, ect, ect...

Yes, I did - and radical changes in the atmosphere and chemical changes are all things proposed in the th. of ev., IIRC. And again, the mutations were non-beneficial ... But I'll leave your frogs out of it

GTG get ready for the field trip - see you guys in a few days!


ps - Nurv - it's NOT that I don't "wish" to accept th. of ev.; it's that I have looked at it and honestly just don't see lots of hard evidence to support it. As I've said, I'm rather neutral about both theories, but to me, creationism seems MORE supported by what is actually SEEN - but neither one, because of their very nature of "what happened in the PAST", even CAN be fully supported.

Ask you teacher about the moths, if you want to - I'd be interested to hear what she says. IIRC (but I could be wrong, please forgive me if I am) both BOP and Cirdan agreed with me that the moth study ONLY demonstrated natural selection. There's nothing wrong with that, either - I just heartily object when it's presented as "proof" of macroevolution or beneficial mutations. ANd again, his methodology was wrong, because of things like they were nocturnal, etc.

I see what you're saying about Creationism being a "simpler" theory, but have no time to address it - I'm already SOOOO late for getting ready for the field trip

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I think national geographic has a documentary on it. I remember seeing part of it. Can't remember the correct title though.

It was on PBS here

[Rían]

I just remembered I forgot to post about the field trip - the museum was quite nicely set up, and the staff was v. friendly.

An interesting point they brought up re dating - they've taken legal samples, using standard procedure, of the lava dome in Mt. St. Helens, Washington, USA, which erupted about 16 years ago, and sent them to the standard labs, and the samples have come back with dates of 250,000 to 1 million years for a known 16-year-old bit of rock ... makes ya wonder ...

Again, my primary problem with the various componants of evolutionism is when extrapolation is involved, such as in dating methods. Even interpolation is risky, but extrapolation - and extrapolation to the degree that is commonly done in evolution - is IMO just unconscionable to use for dating without also giving a LARGE footnote saying how inaccurate it might be.

[Cirdan]

A hammer is a useful tool but it makes a lousy screwdriver.


If one suspects a sample to be very young one doesn't use uranium dating. Just yesterday I was watching a documentary on the search for a large volcanic eruption from 600 AD. The search was for carbon that might have been cuaght in the ash. Why? Uranium doesn't provide precision measured in centuries. It does however provide accuracy in miillions of years. All the test prove, if they were even conducted properly and with redundant samples, is that it is pointless to test very young rocks by the uranium method. This is linear extrapolation to zero on a logrithmic scale, something I know you just hate.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
If one suspects a sample to be very young one doesn't use uranium dating. Just yesterday I was watching a documentary on the search for a large volcanic eruption from 600 AD. The search was for carbon that might have been cuaght in the ash. Why? Uranium doesn't provide precision measured in centuries. It does however provide accuracy in miillions of years. All the test prove, if they were even conducted properly and with redundant samples, is that it is pointless to test very young rocks by the uranium method. This is linear extrapolation to zero on a logrithmic scale, something I know you just hate.

I just had to quote your whole post, because it actually proves one of my points - WHY, Cirdan, should one pre-judge the age of a sample? What standards do they use to get a rough estimate of the age of a sample to determine what type of test to submit it to? Their OWN evaluation of what the age is, based on things like what fossils are contained in it, and based on their opinion of how old those fossils are? Circular logic. Pretty classic (and sad and unscientific) example of working the wrong way 'round, isn't it and a classic example of why the dating methods are so questionable.

One would hope that a bit of rock could be sampled and sent to a lab and dated, WITHOUT any pre-judging of the age. But NO, that's only the way CREATIONISTS work - the EVOLUTIONISTS apparently decide AHEAD OF TIME approx. how old the rock is, then send it to be tested the way that will yield the results consistent with their pre-determined worldview. IOW, if they think it's an older sample, they won't use uranium. But note - they PREJUDGED how old they thought it was and based on this OPINION, sent it to a certain lab to be tested a certain way.

And btw, I didn't say the Mt. St. Helens sample was dated by uranium - and it shouldn't matter - it's pretty silly to say "If you think your rock is between X and Y years old, then please date it with XY method, so it will YIELD a date that fits in with your preassumed age! But if you think your rock is between A and B years old, then please date it with AB method, so it will YIELD a date that fits in with your preassumed age!"

Don't you see something odd (and definitely unscientific) there?

[Lizra]

No! I see logic. I'm sure there were obvious logical reasons to use certain types of dating. Scientists don't work in a haphazard manner! I don't know the facts about this, but I'm sure Cirdan will fill us in.

[Cirdan]

The age of most rock formations were actually determined before the use of field techniques, stratigraphy, possible rates of deposition, etc. long before radiometric dating was used. Confirming techniques is one of the requirements of scientific method. To continue the analogy of the hammer and the screwdriver, one uses a hammer when one is confronting an obvious nail. An objective observer would evaluate the entire site from which the sample was taken and note all the data associated with the site. Taking a blind sample that may be fresh volcanic material or might just be included clastics from the pre-existing eruption deposits mixed in (xenoclasts) during the more recent eruption is not scientific and is not how field geology is practiced. The bottom line is that dating techiques of all types should be employed for cross-verification.

You found a rock that someone may or may not have misdated. Universities, museums, and mining and oil and gas professionals can provide you with millions of samples that confirm that dating techniques are reasonably accurate and precise when used properly.

[BeardofPants]

You can't go in blindly dating a bit of rock with any old chronometric/relative dating method, because not all dating methods are suitable. They all have different half-life ranges, and not all are suited to inorganic material. Pretty obvious stuff. ::shrug::

[BeardofPants]

Principles of Radiometric Dating

Naturally-occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials at known rates. This is known as radioactive decay.

Radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements.

Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used the principle of radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals (using Uranium decaying to produce Helium. In 1907, Boltwood dated a sample of urnanite based on uranium/lead ratios. Amazingly, this was all done before isotopes were known, and before the decay rates were known accurately.

The invention of the MASS SPECTROMETER after World War I (post-1918) led to the discovery of more than 200 isotopes.

Many radioactive elemtns can be used as geologic clocks. Each radioactive element decays at its own nearly constant rate. Once this rate is known, geologists can estimate the length of time over which decay has been occurring by measuring the amount of radioactive parent element and the amount of stable daughter elements.

Examples:

• Radioactive parent isotopes and their stable daughter products:
  
  
  Radioactive Parent Stable Daughter
  
• Potassium 40 Argon 40
  
• Rubidium 87 Strontium 87
  
• Thorium 232 Lead 208
  
• Uranium 235 Lead 207
  
• Uranium 238 Lead 206
  
• Carbon 14 Nitrogen 14

In the above table, note that the number is the mass number (the total number of protons plus neutrons).
Note that the mass number may vary for an element, because of a differing number of neutrons.
Elements with various numbers of neutrons are called isotopes of that element.

Each radioactive isotope has its own unique half-life.
A half-life is the time it takes for half of the parent radioactive element to decay to a daughter product.

Examples:

• Half Lives for Radioactive Elements
  
  Radioactive Parent-Stable Daughter: Half life
  
• Potassium 40-Argon 40: 1.25 billion yrs
  
• Rubidium 87-Strontium 87: 48.8 billion yrs
  
• Thorium 232-Lead 208: 14 billion years
  
• Uranium 235-Lead 207: 704 million years
  
• Uranium 238-Lead 206: 4.47 billion years
  
• Carbon 14-Nitrogen 14: 5730 years

Radioactive decay occurrs at a constant exponential or geometric rate.
The rate of decay is proportional to the number of parent atoms present.





The proportion of parent to daughter tells us the number of half-lives, which we can use to find the age in years.
For example, if there are equal amounts of parent and daughter, then one half-life has passed.
If there is three times as much daughter as parent, then two half-lives have passed. (see graph, above)

Radioactive decay occurs by releasing particles and energy.

Uranium decays producing subatomic particles, energy, and lead.

[BeardofPants]

As uranium-238 decays to lead, there are 13 intermediate radioactive daughter products formed (including radon, polonium, and other isotopes of uranium), and 8 alpha particles and 6 beta particles released. There are three types of subatomic particles involved:

1. Alpha particles
   large, easily stopped by paper
   charge = +2
   mass = 4
2. Beta particles
   penetrate hundreds of times farther than alpha particles, but easily stopped compared with neutrons and gamma rays.
   charge = -1
   mass = negligible
   
3. neutrons
   highly penetrating
   no charge
   mass = 1
   
4. Gamma rays (high energy X-rays) are also produced.
   Highly penetrating electromagnetic radiation. Photons (light).
   No charge or mass.
   Can penetrate concrete. Lead shield can be used.

Minerals you can date:

Most minerals which contain radioactive isotopes are in igneous rocks. The dates they give indicate the time the magma cooled.

• Potassium 40 is found in:
  
• potassium feldspar (orthoclase)
• muscovite
• amphibole
• glauconite (greensand; found in some sedimentary rocks; rare)

• Uranium may be found in:
  
• zircon
• urananite
• monazite
• apatite
• sphene

Note that some elements have both radioactive and non-radioactive isotopes. Examples: carbon, potassium.

As seen in the tables above, there are three isotopes of uranium. Of these, U-238 is by far the most abundant (99.2739%).

Radioactive elements tend to become concentrated in the residual melt that forms during the crystallization of igneous rocks. More common in SIALIC rocks (granite, granite pegmatite) and continental crust.

Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed.

To date a sedimentary rock, it is necessary to isolate a few unusual minerals (if present) which formed on the seafloor as the rock was cemented. Glauconite is a good example. Glauconite contains potassium, so it can be dated using the potassium-argon technique.

[BeardofPants]

How does Carbon-14 dating work?

1. Cosmic rays from the sun strike Nitrogen 14 atoms in the atmosphere and cause them to turn into radioactive Carbon 14, which combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide.
   
   
2. Living things are in equilibrium with the atmosphere, and the radioactive carbon dioxide is absorbed and used by plants. The radioactive carbon dioxide gets into the food chain and the carbon cycle.
   
   
3. All living things contain a constant ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. (1 in a trillion).
   
4. At death, Carbon 14 exchange ceases and any Carbon 14 in the tissues of the organism begins to decay to Nitrogen 14, and is not replenished by new C-14.
   
   
5. The change in the Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 ratio is the basis for dating.
   
   
6. The half-life is so short (5730 years) that this method can only be used on materials less than 70,000 years old (BoP notes: and before AD1950 due to industrialisation). Archaeological dating uses this method.) Also useful for dating the Pleistocene Epoch (Ice Ages).
   
   
7. Assumes that the rate of Carbon 14 production (and hence the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth) has been constant (through the past 70,000 years).

Fission Track Dating:

Charged particles from radioactive decay pass through mineral's crystal lattice and leave trails of damage called FISSION TRACKS. These trails are due to the spontaneous fission of uranium.

• Procedure to study:
• Enlarge tracks by etching in acid (so that they may be visible with light microscope)
• See readily with electron microscope
• Count the etched tracks (or note track density in an area)

• Useful in dating:
• Micas (up to 50,000 tracks per cm squared)
• Tektites
• Natural and synthetic (manmade) glass

Reheating "anneals" or heals the tracks.

The number of tracks per unit area is a function of age and uranium concentration.

[BeardofPants]

Superposition -- It's a Law : One of the most fundamental principles of archaeology is the Law of Superposition. The law states that strata that are younger will be deposited on top of strata that are older, given normal conditions of deposition. This law is the guiding principle of stratigraphy, or the study of geological or soil layers. Stratigraphy is still the single best method that archaeologists have for determining the relative ages of archaeological materials.



Geologic Time: Relative Time Scale : James Hutton and William Smith advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger. The Major Divisions of Geologic Time are shown here, arranged in chronological order with the oldest division at the bottom, the youngest at the top.



Stratigraphy:

• Stratigraphy and Cross-Dating/Biostratigraphy : Stratigraphy is the study of strata, or layers. Specifically, stratigraphy refers to the application of the Law of Superposition to soil and geological strata containing archaeological materials in order to determine the relative ages of layers. Cross-dating is a technique used to take advantage of consistencies in stratigraphy between parts of a site or different sites, and objects or strata with a known relative chronology. A specialized form of cross-dating, using animal and plant fossils, is known as biostratigraphy.
  
  Correlation by Fossils : Correlation means matching the order of geologic events in one place with the order of geologic events in another place. By far, the most widespread method of correlation uses fossils
  
  Geologic Time: Index Fossils : Keyed to the relative time scale are examples of index fossils, the forms of life which existed during limited periods of geologic time and thus are used as guides to the age of the rocks in which they are preserved.

Dendrochronology:

• The Principles of Dendrochronology (link)
  
  Dendrochronology -- Tree Rings : Tree-Ring dating is based on the principle that the growth rings on certain species of trees reflect variations in seasonal and annual rainfall. Trees from the same species, growing in the same area or environment will be exposed to the same conditions, and hence their growth rings will match at the point where their lifecycles overlap.
  
  Bristlecone Pine Dendrochronology : Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.

Ice Cores

• Are We Right About Icecap Dating?(link) : Scientists think that they have counted ice layers accurately. And, they think that one layer almost always means one year. The GISP2 workers believe that they were very careful, and that they are off by less than 5% at 50,000 years before present. But are they right?

Varves(link)

• eMuseum -- Varve Analysis : Varves form two or more distinctive layers at different seasons of the year. Gives a nice description about overcoming problems in the use of this method.
  
  Counting Sediment Layers in Rock : The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river carries coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and carries finer material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.

Pollens(link)

• eMuseum -- Pollen Analysis : The pollen analysis, study of vegetation history using the microfossils (pollen grain and spores of size 15-50 um), can give us useful information about the target area's condition in the present and past. Since the outside of the pollen grain wall is made of highly resistant material, the pollen spores from 400 million years ago can be found today. Each pollen grain and spore is different in structure and shape, thus, the morphology is the key to understanding the kinds of vegetation that existed and their evolutionary development. Nice graphic of pollen history at this site.
  
  Stratigraphic Palynology : Palynology is the branch of science dealing with microscopic, decay-resistant remains of certain plants and animals. It has many applications including archaeological palynology, Quaternary palynology , and stratigraphic palynology.

Corals

• Coral Slide Set from NOAA : Corals exhibit seasonal growth bands very much like those in trees. Sometimes these bands are visible to the naked eye; usually, however, they are more visible in an x-ray like the one shown at right. When paleoclimatologists drill a coral core, they can count the growth bands and date samples exactly. Long cores can cover several hundred years; this portion of a core from Urvina Bay in the Galápagos Islands covers the period from 1716 to 1735 A. D.
  
  
  
  Tidal Slowdown, Coral Growth, and the Age of the Earth : In certain modern corals we find growth-bands that indicate yearly, monthly, and even daily growth. There are about thirty daily bands per month and about 365 daily bands per year for modern corals and shellfish. But careful analysis of the growth-bands of fossil corals and shellfish from the Devonian and Pennsylvanian has confirmed that years in these periods contained more days than years do now (about 400).

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You can't go in blindly dating a bit of rock with any old chronometric/relative dating method, because not all dating methods are suitable. They all have different half-life ranges, and not all are suited to inorganic material. Pretty obvious stuff. ::shrug::

I can live with things like this - different half-life ranges, inorganic, etc. These are scientific criterion. What I can't swallow (at least w/out putting up a fuss!) is the pre-determining of age thing, and the whole "ok, we've got the correct dating method for this type of thing, because it now agrees with what we have already determined the date to be" frame of mind.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
No! I see logic. I'm sure there were obvious logical reasons to use certain types of dating. Scientists don't work in a haphazard manner! I don't know the facts about this, but I'm sure Cirdan will fill us in.

I never said scientists were haphazard and I don't believe that (most) of them are. Again, it's the underlying, unproven assumptions of great age, based on an unproven idea, that I object to. Great age is assumed, not proven.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I can live with things like this - different half-life ranges, inorganic, etc. These are scientific criterion. What I can't swallow (at least w/out putting up a fuss!) is the pre-determining of age thing, and the whole "ok, we've got the correct dating method for this type of thing, because it now agrees with what we have already determined the date to be" frame of mind.

Rian, please see my post above on Relative Dating methods. I have a couple of rejoinders to your comments above. Firstly, the scientists in question are working in their fields of expertise, and therefore would know the rough time frame within which their research falls within. Secondly, they can use relative dating methods - i.e. subjective dating methods - to ascertain another time-frame before sending off the samples to be dated with radiometric methods. Thirdly, radiometric methods are EXPENSIVE to use. Therefore, it is of absolute necessity to ascertain at least a time-frame within which the specimen in question dates to using other, cheaper methods, before having it confirmed using the more expensive methods. What part of this do you have a problem with exactly?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
[B]The age of most rock formations were actually determined before the use of field techniques, stratigraphy, possible rates of deposition, etc. long before radiometric dating was used.

Yes, my point exactly And the dating methods that gave the dates that fit in best with the theory of evolution were chosen to be the "correct" ones, in a weird kind of circular, incestuous logic, right? Or do you deny that there are many different types of dating methods, that give hugely different dates for the same sample? And the ones that don't "match" with evolutionism are then given a little footnote that says "don't use with these types of samples, because it gives incorrect dates."

And that doesn't ring any alarm bells with you?

Confirming techniques is one of the requirements of scientific method. To continue the analogy of the hammer and the screwdriver, one uses a hammer when one is confronting an obvious nail.

Again, your use of "obvious" indicates "obvious according to the unproven theory of evolution". Prior assumptions - a scientific no-no

An objective observer would evaluate the entire site from which the sample was taken and note all the data associated with the site. Taking a blind sample that may be fresh volcanic material or might just be included clastics from the pre-existing eruption deposits mixed in (xenoclasts) during the more recent eruption is not scientific and is not how field geology is practiced. The bottom line is that dating techiques of all types should be employed for cross-verification.

And the ones that don't match evolutionism are thrown out, right?

You found a rock that someone may or may not have misdated. Universities, museums, and mining and oil and gas professionals can provide you with millions of samples that confirm that dating techniques collerate and are reasonably accurate and precise when used properly.

Of course they will come up with the same figures - it's the underlying unproven assumptions that YIELD the great age figures that I object to - and rightly.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
How does Carbon-14 dating work? ....

Hey, this just reminded me - I read something that was v. encourating while I was at the museum. Some of the PhD's from ICR were "allowed" to present a paper at an American Geological Society meeting (I can't find my notes right offhand, sorry) on some type of carbon element in diamonds. Given the evolutionary timeframes, this element (sorry, I can't recall the name) should NOT have been present in diamonds; however, with some techniques that are now available, the ICR scientists found that there WERE indeed amounts of this element. They presented the paper to their peers, and there was a comment that the findings were unusual and pointed to some possible problems in this area, and that was that.

And THAT is how it SHOULD be. Don't you guys agree? A scientist that has a valid degree from a recognized university should be able to present a scientific experiment to his/her peers for analysis.

Yet it was amazing that they even got in the door, because evolution scientists hold the reins in so many fields

Let scientific results stand or fall on their own merits, no matter if they go against popular BELIEFS or not. Don't you guys think that's the way it should be? It's NOT, all too often, sadly. And this stifles the growth of knowledge

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Superposition -- It's a Law : One of the most fundamental principles of archaeology is the Law of Superposition. The law states that strata that are younger will be deposited on top of strata that are older, given normal conditions of deposition. This law is the guiding principle of stratigraphy, or the study of geological or soil layers. Stratigraphy is still the single best method that archaeologists have for determining the relative ages of archaeological materials.

Relative ages - I have NO problem with this

Geologic Time: Relative Time Scale : James Hutton and William Smith advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger. The Major Divisions of Geologic Time are shown here, arranged in chronological order with the oldest division at the bottom, the youngest at the top.

No problem with this - except when unproven great ages are attached to the layers.

Stratigraphy and Cross-Dating/Biostratigraphy : Stratigraphy is the study of strata, or layers. Specifically, stratigraphy refers to the application of the Law of Superposition to soil and geological strata containing archaeological materials in order to determine the relative ages of layers. Cross-dating is a technique used to take advantage of consistencies in stratigraphy between parts of a site or different sites, and objects or strata with a known relative chronology. A specialized form of cross-dating, using animal and plant fossils, is known as biostratigraphy.

Here's where I get a bit of a problem - animal and plant fossil times are not "known" by scientific observation, they're estimated based on unproven underlying assumptions of great age

Geologic Time: Index Fossils : Keyed to the relative time scale are examples of index fossils, the forms of life which existed during limited periods of geologic time and thus are used as guides to the age of the rocks in which they are preserved

Ah, Index Fossils - here's the rub - index fossils are dated ASSUMING the theory of evolution, and the dating methods using unproven assumptions of great age, are both true THen they turn around and say the presence of index fossils proves the age of the rock Classic example of circular reasoning