Evidence for God from Science

animals evolved into drastically different forms in order to occupy all sorts of ecological niches didn't happen, and thus this 'change' is pushed even farther back.

Wait, you just said,

there's no evolutionary law preventing animals from remaining relatively stagnant, if they occupy the same ecological niche for a long period of time.

So today we see examples of stagnation, and we also see examples of rapid speciation where within generations the ability to breed seems to be lost. Ok??

No, stagnation (or remaining the same for a long time) as I was using it, is a very different thing than rapid evolution
If the animals remained stagnant, there would be too many animals on the ark. This is why YECers like AiG insist there was an original 'cat' kind or an original 'bear' kind on the ark to squirm around having too many animals aboard the ark. The YEC concept of rapid speciation is not supportable.

It's plain knowledge that tells us the Earth goes around the sun, the moon goes around the earth, gravity is something real and the Earth is old.

prejudicial. You imply that YECers can't use plain knowledge. Which is a lie of course.

I'm not implying YECs can't use plain knowledge (although many times YEC poster boys like Ken Ham and others don't)... I was making the distinction of using knowledge, and bowing down to worldly wisdom, which is utterly absurd.

OEC/YEC has nothing to do with Jesus' miracles.

Oh, I agree. It was sarcasm.

Didn't seem like sarcasm. You could understand my error. So many YECs I've debated try arguing from the same position of your 'sarcastic' statement, I couldn't tell. It just didn't sound sarcastic to me, but oh well...

They're not presuppositions.

ALl dating methods require assumptions that can not be proven.

If ALL layers were layed down during the Flood, we have a very big problem with faunal sorting.

I actually just addressed this in another recent thread. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... on#p120190

I didn't see anything addressing the problems I posed. I'd prefer to argue for faunal sorting though.

So, therefore, what are the assumptions involved in dating methods? It seems that various areas in astronomy, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, and geology all speak for an old earth. If not, what sort of evidence do you think we should find that would speak for an old earth?



...

Calum wrote:So, therefore, what are the assumptions involved in dating methods?

Anyone who says there aren't assumptions isn't being intellectually honest. In fact, most secular geology sites openly admit the assumptions. where I don't think there is as much honesty is throwing out results that don't fit with their pre-dating assumptions and worldview.

Geology says, "Given careful work in the field and in the lab, these assumptions can be met."
http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dat ... dating.htm
Maybe they can.
Potassium-Argon dates have dated known recent lava flows as millions of years old. Ah, it's an anomaly. Throw it out.

rates of decay is one. One assumes uniformitarianism. One must make assumptions that can't be proven. I'm not saying the assumption is wrong, but it is still an assumption.
1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

If the animals remained stagnant, there would be too many animals on the ark.

If? I'm sure, as you point out, SOME animals have remained stagnant, where as some such as canines have changed. Obviously you reject a global flood up front, and so any notion of rapid speciation, you also reject. And thus you naturally reject any explanations as such. It's a question begging objection.
This occurs throughout secular science. For example, you never hear the actual purported age of the Coelacanth questioned. Stagnation is just assumed. The original assumptions are sacred.

I'm not implying YECs can't use plain knowledge (although many times YEC poster boys like Ken Ham and others don't)... I was making the distinction of using knowledge, and bowing down to worldly wisdom, which is utterly absurd.

I'm not here to defend Ken Ham, but I doubt you are qualified to say he and others never use plain knowledge. That is prejudicial. I'm not talking specifically about OEC. You are a theistic evolutionist. As many of my friends here can tell you, I rarely engage in age arguments. OEC, YEC, I see issues and problems with both. I don't see either at all supporting Darwinism. So, let's not ASSUME that my arguments are trying to convince you of a young earth. My arguments have to do with your TE.

It seems that various areas in astronomy, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, and geology all speak for an old earth.

That is the fallacy of reification. Astronomy doesn't speak. Astronomers do. I've yet to meet an evolutionist or TE whose worldview was not laced with the fallacies of reification, equivocation, and question begging
.

jlay wrote:Anyone who says there aren't assumptions isn't being intellectually honest. ...
Geology says, "Given careful work in the field and in the lab, these assumptions can be met."
http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dat ... dating.htm
Maybe they can.
Potassium-Argon dates have dated known recent lava flows as millions of years old. Ah, it's an anomaly. Throw it out.

The use of "assumption" appears to be part of the problem. This is not the logical assumption which is merely assumed to be true; these assumptions are tested, as jlay's link clearly states. If the assumptions are false, the data will not be coherent. And most of the data are coherent, so the assumptions are valid. Likewise, there is no problem with an occasional anomaly, especially when it can be explained.

Example: Baking a cake.
Assumptions:
1) a certain mixture of ingredients will make a batter
2) heating will produce a cake.

This works most of the time and the assumptions are validated. If the cake comes out of the oven unchanged, this anomaly does not invalidate all the successful cakes. Especially when it can be explained by a failure of the oven heating element.

That is the fallacy of reification. Astronomy doesn't speak. Astronomers do.

That's one reason this discussion is so labored. I think (at least fervently hope) that everyone here realizes what was meant. This is an argument against the style of presentation, not the substance.

Sandy,

I listed the assumptions, would you care to show that to be the case?

Analogies always break down in some form, but they shouldn't break down in the main point. We don't have to go back in time to see if the heating element in the oven failed. Your assumptions is no assumption at all.

Also, dismissing the fallacy of reification as trivial, as you and other religiously committed Darwinists do, only proves that well...your worldview is founded on fallacies and you don't give a rip. It is absolutely a genuine fallacy, and one committed all too often.

That's one reason this discussion is so labored. I think (at least fervently hope) that everyone here realizes what was meant

What was meant? It is a fallacy built on a fallacy. It in once sense is reification, that is rooted in an appeal to authority, which is rooted in question begging.
It's just a clever way of saying this is true because 'all' the experts say so.

jlay,

A number of young-earth organizations got together to test radiometric decay (RATE). They then said that indeed there is evidence for hundreds of millions of years worth of radiometric decay. They then tried to come up with ways that it could all happen during the creation week or the flood. Of course there were oceans during both and the amount of heat from the decay would have evaporated them. YEC agree that they have a heat problem.

They tested the assumptions and found that the old-earth view was correct on the amount of decay.

Here is a paper on the radiometric decay by an old-earth creationist:
http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/n ... dating.pdf

jlay wrote:We don't have to go back in time to see if the heating element in the oven failed.

Yes, you do have to go back in time to see if the heating element failed. If the heating element is dead now, that is only a statement about now. When did it fail? Just before being measured? One year ago? Two years ago? I would say when the cakes stopped baking. But that means looking at actual real world data, not philosophical word games about the style of arguments. Raw cakes tell me the element is gone. Oh, wait, that is a fallacy of some sort.

Potassium-Argon dates have dated known recent lava flows as millions of years old. Ah, it's an anomaly. Throw it out.

Excerpt from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.
There are ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. . . Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

Here's a more in-depth response:
http://www.oldearth.org/dacite.htm

rates of decay is one. One assumes uniformitarianism. One must make assumptions that can't be proven. I'm not saying the assumption is wrong, but it is still an assumption.
1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.

Excerpt from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

11. There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.
A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5 [omitted], and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable.

2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

Excerpt from Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

6. Decay rates can be affected by the physical surroundings.
This is not true in the context of dating rocks. Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change. The only exceptions, which are not relevant to dating rocks, are discussed under the section "Doubters Still Try," above. [omitted]

If the animals remained stagnant, there would be too many animals on the ark.

If? I'm sure, as you point out, SOME animals have remained stagnant, where as some such as canines have changed. Obviously you reject a global flood up front, and so any notion of rapid speciation, you also reject. And thus you naturally reject any explanations as such.

False. I believe rapid speciation happens very often. Of course, that's usually in small, isolated populations under significant selection pressure. An example would be a population of Italian Wall Lizards that were left alone on an island off the coast of Croatia, and within just 30 generations they evolved completely new structures called cecal valves:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
However, mammals' generation time is much slower, and they were not isolated like these lizards. They would have needed fairly large numbers if they wanted to survive these dramatic post-Flood conditions, which would make them evolve slower. Besides, most animals I see are hardly adapted to living around earthquakes or ice ages. Most of these characteristics seen today would not have been caused by post-Flood conditions.

It seems that various areas in astronomy, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, and geology all speak for an old earth.

That is the fallacy of reification. Astronomy doesn't speak. Astronomers do. I've yet to meet an evolutionist or TE whose worldview was not laced with the fallacies of reification, equivocation, and question begging.

No. I said it seemed as though they all spoke for an old earth. I don't think any of these areas of science literally 'speak'. I think they supply strong evidence for an old earth when all give dates that fit together. The only thing the YEC can do is hope to pick away at the little corners of these areas in science individually in the hopes of toppling the whole thing.

If the animals remained stagnant, there would be too many animals on the ark.

If? I'm sure, as you point out, SOME animals have remained stagnant, where as some such as canines have changed. Obviously you reject a global flood up front, and so any notion of rapid speciation, you also reject. And thus you naturally reject any explanations as such. It's a question begging objection.
This occurs throughout secular science. For example, you never hear the actual purported age of the Coelacanth questioned. Stagnation is just assumed. The original assumptions are sacred.

Canines have only changed so quickly because they have been selectively bred by humans. In the wild, speciation and diversification at such a dramatic level rarely if never occurs.

Canines have only changed so quickly because they have been selectively bred by humans. In the wild, speciation and diversification at such a dramatic level rarely if never occurs.

And? Your point?
I read in a pro-evolution publication that dogs seem to have a predisposition to diversity. So, it isn't simply that they are artificially selected, but that they are pre-wired for it. In other words, it's not as if you can just pick a species at random and diversify it like we see in dogs. And, despite the selective breeding and diversity, you can still breed a chihuahua with a wolf. So, even they are more inclined toward variety, they aren't inclined towards speciation. Seems to be counter-intuitive. The fox would be the anomoly. And I would say, since they can't breed, perhaps there is another explanation some where in the past. It could well be that certain species are hard-wired for stability and will thus go extinct under enviromental changes, and some are wired for change. So, when radical environmental pressures come, we see mass extinction and increased diversity at the same time.

so, it occurs rarely TODAY. If one presumes uniformitarianism over millions of years, (which is possible) then sure. And I'm not sure we need speciation at such a dramatic level as you imply. I take it that your objection is that all the animals could not have been housed on the ark. We know natural selection doesn't normally produce rapid changes. But we know that artificial selection demonstrates (don't say proves) that under certain pressures on certain species, change can and will happen more rapidly. And, despite how much we would claim to know about the past, we weren't there to observe. And so, could a global or mass event put pressures to cause more rapid diversity? I don't know of anyone in the science world who has an issue with the nothern hemisphere being covered in a 1 to 2 mile thick ice sheet that would have swallowed up massive chunks of the earths land mass. And, that these events happened in the not so distant past.

But, does conceeding slow change over long amounts of time, help or hurt the case? Through all the observations of artificial selection, and natural selection, we witness diversity, but also witness devolution. If we wind back the clock and look at the ancestor to dogs and felines, we don't get any answers on how to account for the ancestor and its genetic existance in the first place. It is one thing to get from a pre-historic (for lack of a better word) wolf to a Labrador. It is entirely another to get from some single celled thing to a wolf. An entirely another to get from non-living matieral to life.

Calum,

False. I believe rapid speciation happens very often. Of course, that's usually in small, isolated populations under significant selection pressure. An example would be a population of Italian Wall Lizards that were left alone on an island off the coast of Croatia, and within just 30 generations they evolved completely new structures called cecal valves:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

This is not an example of evolution. New research has shown that it was just part of the lizards plasticity.

"Plasticity of gastrointestinal morphology and function has long been described in birds…" and reptiles.

http://gallotia.de/AS/Bibliografie/BIB_5062.pdf

By changing the diet back to insects, the lizards lost the cecal valves in just 15 weeks. Other changes also reversed. It is built into these animals, so that they can adapt to new conditions. My guess is that this is produced by the epigenome.

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.
There are ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. . . Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

I had already read that sight. But here is the problem. Why are P-A test excluded? Because of what we KNOW and not what we ASSUME. We KNOW the material is new, therefore we exlcude the old dates. Convenient. And then chastize those who point it out.

Y.E. creationists, misuses the term min (kind). Young Earth creationists say that it means ancestral types of creatures that no longer exist. An example would be some min of cat that contained all of the genetic information to evolve into domestic cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, Leopards (all which when crossbred, produce sterile young) saber toothed cats, etc. But this is not how the Bible itself defines the term. In Lev. 11:13-30 and Deut. 14:12-18 min in the singular is used to define genus and species not something more encompassing."

The Bible says this? Where in the Bible does it say that min means genus and species? Those terms were first coined as part of a hierachy of classificatory terms by Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656–1708), and later codifed into what we use today by Linnaeus in 1758. So please show me, DayAge, where the Bible says what you claim it says?

adocus,

I gave you the scriptures that allow us to see the definition of what min (kind) means. It is very limited. I have seen nothing in the Bible that would allow a definition more like family, oder, class, etc. So, the young-earth definition is just made up. The only reason they have done this is to try and fit all of the land creatures on the ark, because they think the Bible teaches a global flood.

Our terms like genus and species are the closest to what the Bible describes. If you can find the Bible defining it differently, please show me.

adocus wrote:

But this is not how the Bible itself defines the term. "

You made a claim here, DayAge, that the Bible defined it as genus and species. It appears that you were making something up our of whole cloth. Is this going to be your normal practice?

The Bible does not define it in terms of Linnaean hierarchy, your claim to the contrary. And in fact, this is only your interpretation of what the Bible says - just as the YEC folks define it as they understand it to be. You appear to have absolutely no more justification for your claim than they have for theirs.

I'm hoping you can do better than this in the future.

Adocus

I usually put it "something like genus and species," so I'll admit that I was careless in the way I worded it here. You have not shown me a Biblical reason why I'm wrong.

I'm waiting.