Real Science Friday: Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel

[TeeJay]

=Flipper;2724875]Well only one of those people is actually a scientist.

Substitute Dr. Snelling for Ken Ham if you like. Both will interpret evidence through their worldviews. ToL is absolute proof that this is true. We on ToL are all looking at the same evidence, but we all come to different conclusions.

If one's worldview is irrational, one can come to know truth only by accident.

[UOTE]Barbarian is right - you are a postmodernist.[/QUOTE]

Is that OBJECTIVELY or SUBJECTIVELY true?

Tom

 

[The Barbarian]

Flipper writes:
Barbarian is right - you are a postmodernist.

Tom asks:

Is that OBJECTIVELY or SUBJECTIVELY true?

This morning, I saw a bird swimming around in the pond, like a duck. It got out of the pond, and walked like a duck. It had a bill like a duck, and it quacked like a duck.

Is it objectively or subjectively a duck?

If you know that, then you'll have your answer.

 

[voltaire]

Yeah. You have some in your body right now. But because the half-life is so long, the rate of decay isn't a significant problem for you. Because the isotopes are chemically so alike, they are mixed together, and it takes a great deal of physical trickery to separate them.

But you are assuming God created the original crust with Potassium 40. He could have created it with Potassium 39 and 41 both of which are stable.

Those gases are derived from other radioactive isotopes like radium, which would also have been in the rocks on the surface of the Earth.



Those isotopes would have been present if we assume the earth formed from accretion of elements in nebular disk..dust to particles to bigger masses to asteroids to planetoids to planets,etc, with with no intervention from God. When God seperated dry land from water, he could have only placed stable elements in the crust.

Or other forms of radioactive decay, such as that of thorium or uranium, both of which would have been in those rocks.


That is assuming what I said above.

Nope. That wouldn't work, either. The amount of water needed to stop cosmic rays would have blocked visible light as well. Leaving aside the question of how you would keep so much water in the sky. Physically impossible.


The water was placed just outside the solar system. We would still receive light from the sun. The water would not be in the sky. It would be in outer space.

Depends on the compound. Most are in the form of rocks, which slowly erode, adding to the load of radioactivity in the water.


That is assuming the rocks that now hold those elements would be in the places they are today where they add radioactivity in the water. I claim that it took some time for those rocks to form and to be enplaced in such positions and those rocks that did get to the surface before radioactivity acceleration had slowed down, were in such small amounts that they did not affect the majority of life that existed then.


Nope. In fact, Potassium would be mostly in the crust. Too light to sink into the mantle.

That is assuming the planet formation from nebular accretion i mentioned before. Potassium 39 and 41 would be the only ones that God placed in the original crust on day 3.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is assuming the planet formation from nebular accretion i mentioned before.

So the evidence indicates. Observations of protostars shows accretion disks.

Potassium 39 and 41 would be the only ones that God placed in the original crust on day 3.

Sorry, that thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles again.

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2724901]That's the strong post-modernist position. The weak post-modernist position is that one's preconceptions determine one's judgements. You seem about halfway in between.

And you're not? Are you aware of your hypocracy?

Because it's false.

Let's be clear as to what you are saying is false: Science does not tell us anything, but scientists using science do tell us.

Your worldview does not allow for you to say that this is true. And then you argue with me that you're neutral? Yikes!

If you can't have a dialogue without insisting the other person accept your views, then there's something wrong.

No! I do not want you to accept my views if they are false. But I do expect you, a self-proclaimed Christian, to be honest enough to admit to a self-evident truth that science can't really tell you anything without scientists or even you, Barbarian, using science.

It's the method that tells us those things. If we didn't use that method, we'd be lost.

I'm not arguing that science is not a "method." But will you admit that someone has to use the method?

I, for example, am not neutral. I have lots of opinions. I'm just pointing out to you that this does not mean one cannot be objective.

I agree with you. Let's define an objective truth: An objective truth is non-contradictory. Something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. But can you have preconceived opinions and be objective AT THE SAME TIME? If your worldview (set of presuppositons) is true, then you can reach truth; but if your worldview is irrational and false, then to reach objective truth you must change your worldview.

If you don't have a rational reason to believe something, then you can't know that what you believe is true. That kind of belief is simply arbitrary. I can believe that it will not rain on my daughter's wedding next year in June. I have no reason to know that that belief is true. So even if it does not rain, I had no rational foundation to believe it was true.

Athesits have no rational reason for their belief that life, laws of logic, rational thought (all not physical) can come from lifeless, reasonless chemicals. They have no foundation on which to stand. Without God and His word and general and special revelation, we can know nothing.

Science would be impossible without some preconditions of intelligibility. We first have to assume some things: That there are laws of logic that we can rely on to be true. That our reasoning is rational. That our memories are sound. That the physical laws will operate today and tomorrow as they did yesterday. In an atheist worldview, there is no reason to believe that the physical laws will function in the future as they did in the past. The Biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (Gen. 1:1; John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3), the creationist expects that thy will function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent (1 Sam. 15:29; Num. 23:19). God assures us that He will not be arbitrary and that He will not change things in the future (Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20-21).

Now the atheist may not agree with the theist's Foundation--his reason for believing what he believes. But at least the theist has one.

You're asking me to accept something that is demonstrably wrong, because without it, your argument falls apart.

I'm arguing that science does not tell us anything, but that scientists using science do. How is that demonstrably false? When was the last time you were visited by the immaterial discipline called science?

Actually, Ham has done that. He only objects to science when it conflicts with his view of the world. But he's not a scientist. So he sees nothing wrong with that. It's not his preconceptions, it's his decision to put his unorthodox understanding above the evidence.

I know Ham is not a scientist. That's not the point. Substitute Dr. Snelling for Ham if you like. Are you arguing that there is no atheist scientist who has ever "put his unorthodox understanding above the evidence"?

And BTW, there are plenty of YE creationists who are quite open about that, and clearly understand why they have a conflict with science. Harold Coffin and Kurt Wise (both PhD scientists and YE creationists) acknowledge this.

Should we use science to interpret the Bible? Or should we use science to confirm the Bible? In your quest for truth, should science be your foundation or should the Bible be your Foundation? Remember that Jesus said, "My word is truth, and that heaven and earth will pass away but My word will remain forever."

Many real scientists have come to different conclusions than Horner, on various things.

Thus far, you have argued with me when I posit that evidence is interpreted through one's worldview. If Jack Horner and these "many real scientists" are looking at the same evidence, how then can they come to different conclusions?

That's not the same thing as rejecting evidence because it conflicts with one's religious ideas.

Are you now arguing that atheist scientists do not reject evidence because it conflicts with their atheist worldviews?

No. Horner thinks they are still around.

I wasn't aware of that when I used him as an example. He may be right?

Evidence. Alan Feduccia disagrees with him, citing other evidence. But they don't disagree on what the evidence is.

My argument has not been "what the evidence is." We all have the same evidence. But what you refuse to face is that all evidence is interpreted through one's worldview. There is no neutral positon.

Sorry. No postmodernism for me. You'll have to depend on something logical.

I believe that objective, absolute, invariant truth exists and that the laws of logic are invariant and universal. Can you then call me a post-modernist and remain logical? At least you and I believe in the existence of objective truth. Atheism has conceded the morality dilemma and now argues that there is no absolute morality. But eventually, they will be forced to argue that truth is relative (many now do) and that the laws of logic are not absolute but conventional. Any absolutism for an atheist is like a Cross before Dracula. Absolutism gets them dangerously close to God.

Tom

 

[Granite]

Does Enyart seriously think he knows more and is smarter than the scientists he regularly cherrypicks and or mocks?

 

[TeeJay]

=Squishes;2724801]This confuses the physical substrate of a belief with the justification of a belief.

Squishes, I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Can you elaborate a bit.

Chemicals don't "tell" anything; mouths do. Mouths utter sentences, and sentences can be true or false. That we are made of molecules is a separate question.

But in an atheist worldview, there is nothing but matter (chemicals, etc). But then the atheist uses language (which is not physical) to argue that there is nothing but the physical). This would be like arguing that air does not exist, all the while breatheing in air to argue against its existence.

I don't know. I assume it.

But you have no rational reason, within your worldview, to simply "assume it." Your assumption is arbitrary. If arbitrary, you can't really know that it is true. I can assume that there must be little red men inside the sun who constantly turn dials to tweak the temperture so we will not burn up here on earth. I have no rational reason to believe this so I can't know it's true. Even if later space exploration does indeed prove that there are little red men inside the sun, I still had no reason to believe that it was true. I really did not know it.

A theist has a rational reason to believe that his thinking is rational because he is created by a rational Creator. And he can know that the immaterial laws of logic and rational thought can exist apart from nature because these came from a spiritual God and not from lifeless, reasonless chemicals. Now you may not agree with the theist's Foundation, but at least he has one.

No, it doesn't. Atheism is belief that the proposition "God exists" is false. That has no entailments for morality.

If God does not exist, then nothing but the physical matter exists. But laws of logic, language, rational thought, information are not physical. You must use these non-physical entities to argue that there is nothing but the physical.

Of course it's logical. Is it possibly true, and thus contradicts no law of logic. So atheism is logical.

Next question: Are the laws of logic absolute or conventional? To be clear, I will define what I mean by "conventional." By conventional, I mean that rather than being absolute the laws of logic are simply what is agreed upon by society. Long ago atheists have conceded the morality issue and now argue that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE morality. My grandson is being taught by some of his atheist professors that truth is relative. So logic is not far behind.

Tom

 

[Stripe]

Does Enyart seriously think he knows more and is smarter than the scientists he regularly cherrypicks and or mocks?

Granite is a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[The Barbarian]

And you're not?

No, I do not believe one's "worldview" determines one's evaluation of the evidence. There are rational people, and they do learn things they would rather not be true. Maybe not everyone, but that's how science works.

Are you aware of your hypocracy?

I'm not aware of the orange leprechauns in my attic, either. For the same reason.

Let's be clear as to what you are saying is false: Science does not tell us anything, but scientists using science do tell us.

Nice try. But the method is what gives us usable answers.

Your worldview does not allow for you to say that this is true.

It's demonstrably false. For example, Harold Coffin (a young Earth creationist) has said that if it were not for his religious beliefs, the evidence would lead him to accept that the world was very old. Exactly what you claim is impossible.

And then you argue with me that you're neutral? Yikes!

Intellectually, both Coffin and I are neutral. Even though he accepts YE, he is aware that it's not scientifically supportable.

Barbarian suggests:
If you can't have a dialogue without insisting the other person accept your views, then there's something wrong.

No! I do not want you to accept my views if they are false.

But you believe they are true, so you are demanding that I accept your views.

But I do expect you, a self-proclaimed Christian, to be honest enough to admit to a self-evident truth that science can't really tell you anything without scientists or even you, Barbarian, using science.

As you see, that's not true, is it?

It's the method that tells us those things. If we didn't use that method, we'd be lost.

I'm not arguing that science is not a "method."

So why not take the whole truth and acknowledge that the method is what gives us the answers?

I, for example, am not neutral. I have lots of opinions. I'm just pointing out to you that this does not mean one cannot be objective.

I agree with you.

Let's define an objective truth: An objective truth is non-contradictory. Something can't be both true and false at the same time in the same way. But can you have preconceived opinions and be objective AT THE SAME TIME? If your worldview (set of presuppositons) is true, then you can reach truth; but if your worldview is irrational and false, then to reach objective truth you must change your worldview.

Well, that's a testable claim. Let's take a look at it.

Newton denied the divinity of Christ. Newton's laws are his laws determining motion. Do you agree that Christ is God, and that Newton's laws are indeed an accurate description of force and motion?

Q.E.D.

If you don't have a rational reason to believe something, then you can't know that what you believe is true. That kind of belief is simply arbitrary.

Indeed. In science, all truth is provisional on new evidence.

Barbarian observes:
You're asking me to accept something that is demonstrably wrong, because without it, your argument falls apart.

How is that demonstrably false?

It's the method of science that gives us answers, not scientists.

When was the last time you were visited by the immaterial discipline called science?

This morning.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, Ham has done that. He only objects to science when it conflicts with his view of the world. But he's not a scientist. So he sees nothing wrong with that. It's not his preconceptions, it's his decision to put his unorthodox understanding above the evidence.

I know Ham is not a scientist. That's not the point.

He's merely unaware of his biases. It's not that his worldview is harming him, it's that he doesn't realize he has it. So, (for example), Stephen Gould, who did not believe in God, ackowledged in one of his essays that it was perfectly reasonable to interpret nature and us in it as God wanting to share it all with someone.

On the other side, there is this Todd Wood:

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Substitute Dr. Snelling for Ham if you like. Are you arguing that there is no atheist scientist who has ever "put his unorthodox understanding above the evidence"?

Dawkins, sometimes, even though he admits that there might be a God, he sometimes acts as though science can tell him.

Barbarian observes:
And BTW, there are plenty of YE creationists who are quite open about that, and clearly understand why they have a conflict with science. Harold Coffin and Kurt Wise (both PhD scientists and YE creationists) acknowledge this.

Should we use science to interpret the Bible? Or should we use science to confirm the Bible?

Nope. My point, exactly.

In your quest for truth, should science be your foundation or should the Bible be your Foundation?

The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. It is foolish, even blasphemous to try to make it about science.

Thus far, you have argued with me when I posit that evidence is interpreted through one's worldview. If Jack Horner and these "many real scientists" are looking at the same evidence, how then can they come to different conclusions?

They put different weights on different evidence. For example, Horner doesn't deny that there's an issue with the number of digits in dino and bird forearms. Neither does Feduccia deny the immunological or fossil evidence.

The issue remains to be resolved, because the evidence that would finally settle it is not yet there.

Barbarian observes:
That's not the same thing as rejecting evidence because it conflicts with one's religious ideas.

Are you now arguing that atheist scientists do not reject evidence because it conflicts with their atheist worldviews?

An example doesn't come to mind. Do you have one?

Barbarian observes:
No. Horner thinks they are still around.

I wasn't aware of that when I used him as an example. He may be right?

In a sense. Birds are likely the last surviving group of dinosaurs. Feduccia thinks rather that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor.

Barbarian observes:
Evidence. Alan Feduccia disagrees with him, citing other evidence. But they don't disagree on what the evidence is.

My argument has not been "what the evidence is." We all have the same evidence.

No. Creationists are often dumbfounded to learn about much of it, and to learn that they have been lied to about it as well.

But what you refuse to face is that all evidence is interpreted through one's worldview.

Sorry. Postmodernism isn't going to work for you.

I believe that objective, absolute, invariant truth exists and that the laws of logic are invariant and universal. Can you then call me a post-modernist and remain logical?

Yep. You think that way for God, but when it comes to science, you wall it off and go all postmodern on us.

 

[TeeJay]

=Tyrathca;2724990]Ahhh the sound of moving goal posts.....

Is computation and arithmetic physical or not? If it isn't physical but we can agree is based purely on the very physical computers construction then you're argument collapses. If it is physical then aren't these things part of what thinking entails or at least similar in such a sense that it undermines your assumption that thinking is non-physical?

How much does a "thought" weigh? Have you ever smelled a thought? Have you ever tasted one? Have you ever seen one? Thinking is not physical.

Also on what basis do you conclude that a computer doesn't "know" it is doing maths? Not saying you are wrong but knowing how you conclude such a thing would be interesting insight into your thinking.

You are self-aware, I hope. There are atheists who claim that they are not sure they exist. A computer does not know it exists let alone know that it is doing math. This to me is a point hardly worth arguinng. It's self-evident.

Also on what basis do you assume that "truth" (and what you mean here is surprisingly vague) is something that can only be obtained by a rational mind?

You just used your rational "mind" to question whether we can use our rational minds to obtain truth. Truth will always exist. Jesus said that He is the Truth and that heaven and earth would pass away but His word would remain forever. If our thinking is irrational, as some people's are, then we can't know truth. Truth is rational. Something can't be true and false at the same time and in the same way (law of logic).

I'm not quite sure why the supernatural is much different other than it hides it inside a black box which we can't analyse.Given that animals other than just humans appear to be able to reason would you then agree that this "something" is possessed by such animals too? And I've heard someone say the brain can be looked at like a computer, the computer on which the software of our mind runs.

I do not accept your argument that the supernatural "hides it in a black box." But for the sake of argument, evidence for the Supernatural Creator are rational thought, the immaterial laws of logic, the abstract such as concepts of liberty, justice, dignity, morality, etc. Lifeless chemicals can't really give you life nor can reasonless chemicals give you Reason. They can't give you what they do not have to give.

Concerning animals, they too are created by God. But they have not been given eternal spirits. They have souls so the Bible says. And animals have different degrees of intelligence. I can have a much better relationship with a dog than a Texas fire ant.

But no animal has conceptional thought by which it can contemplate the abstract such as liberty, justice, nor can it use laws of logic. And no porpoise, no matter how smart the atheists thing it is, will ever design a suspension bridge or contemplate its existence. Nor will it ever feel remorse that it, along with several of its brothers, are raping a female in heat. It will never develop a conscience because a conscience is not physical. A conscience must come from the nonphysical (God).

You will contemplate your existence until the day you die because God put eternity into your heart.

Tom

 

[Squishes]

Squishes, I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Can you elaborate a bit.

Did you read my link on "category error"?

But in an atheist worldview, there is nothing but matter (chemicals, etc). But then the atheist uses language (which is not physical) to argue that there is nothing but the physical). This would be like arguing that air does not exist, all the while breatheing in air to argue against its existence.

Atheism is not a denial of abstract objects; it is a denial of the existence of God.

But you have no rational reason, within your worldview, to simply "assume it." Your assumption is arbitrary.

Of course I don't have a rational reason. I am simply born believing it. It's the same with you and the same for God. No one has any reason to believe that the future will resemble the past.

A theist has a rational reason to believe that his thinking is rational because he is created by a rational Creator. And he can know that the immaterial laws of logic and rational thought can exist apart from nature because these came from a spiritual God and not from lifeless, reasonless chemicals. Now you may not agree with the theist's Foundation, but at least he has one.

How does God know the future will resemble the past?

If God does not exist, then nothing but the physical matter exists.

Prove it. Why can't I say that numbers exist but God does not?

Next question: Are the laws of logic absolute or conventional?

I don't know what absolute means, but the laws of logic are necessary.

Long ago atheists have conceded the morality issue and now argue that there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE morality.[/QUOTE]

The debate is not whether morality is absolute but whether moral facts exist if there are no minds. Atheists fall on both sides of that question.

 

[voltaire]

So the evidence indicates. Observations of protostars shows accretion disks.

Voltaire replies:

Saying the evidence indicates planetary accretion is only your interpretation of the evidence. There are disks around what you think is a protostar. This could indeed be an accretion disk and is what is happening currently or within the last 200,000 years. Post flood astrophysics will be different than preflood astrophysics. Planetary accretion from such disks could indeed be what has been occurring since the flood or noah's cataclysm. If there was such a cataclysm that marred what was a perfect creation, it is possible that supernovaes and the resulting nebulaes and the resulting accretion disks from other supernovae shockwaves have been occurring in the 200,000 +/- 100,000 years since noah's cataclysm. Just because we see these patterns in our telescope today, does not mean it has always been so. We cant see creation week in our telescopes if light speed was greatly accelerated in the past. The light generated in that week would have passed us a long time ago.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian
Sorry, that thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles again.

Voltaire replies:

There are no non-scriptural miracles listed in my claim. I am merely stating what scripture says happened on day 3 of creation. He seperated dry land from the water and gathered it into one place. You say this did not happen in one day but happened over roughly one billion years and by purely natural means with no input from God whatsover. Scripture does not say how God accomplished this seperation. He could have seperated Potassium 41 and 39 into the dry land and left Potassium 40 in the deeper parts of the earth. You cannot deny that it was a possiblity. The miracle stated on day 3 of creation is not specific in how it was carried out. To give one particular part of what happened in the seperating of dry land is not an unscriptural miracle, especially if the inner workings of the scriptural miracle are unspecified.

I am not saying this is exactly what happened. I am saying it is a possibility. It is an illustration of how accelerated decay could occur without killing all life on earth and without leaving that life without the necessary minerals to survive. My scenario is certainly plausible with a literal interpretion of the genesis text, and realizing that the scripture itself leaves open a whole wide range of possibilities for how God accomplished what he did on day 3. :king:

 

[The Barbarian]

There are no non-scriptural miracles listed in my claim.

Let's take a look...

Nonscriptural miracle asserted:

Potassium 39 and 41 would be the only ones that God placed in the original crust on day 3.

Unless your Bible is very different than mine, that's not Biblical at all.

I am merely stating what scripture says happened on day 3 of creation.

Can't find anything on sorting of radioactive isotopes. Where is that verse?

He seperated dry land from the water and gathered it into one place.

Sorry. Doesn't say what you claimed.

You say this did not happen in one day but happened over roughly one billion years and by purely natural means with no input from God whatsover.

Nature is His tool. If he took His attention from it, it would not even exist.

Scripture does not say how God accomplished this seperation.

So why not just accept that He did it the way the evidence shows He did it?

He could have seperated Potassium 41 and 39 into the dry land and left Potassium 40 in the deeper parts of the earth. You cannot deny that it was a possiblity.

He could have made little purple giraffes, too. But if you claim that He did everything that isn't denied in Scripture, then you're way off the deep end.

To give one particular part of what happened in the seperating of dry land is not an unscriptural miracle, especially if the inner workings of the scriptural miracle are unspecified.

Sorry, if God isn't clear on how He did it, that's not your license to make up stuff.

 

[TeeJay]

Bararian, I will try and answer your post in detail tonight if I get time. But in the mean time, I forgot to address your "radiometric dating" argument.

The validity of this method of dating was addressed on one of Bob's shows, "Mt. St. Helens Flow dated millions of years old" dated Jul 12, 2006. You can listen to it on KGOV.com.

Geochron Labs of Cambridge, Mass. dated 10-year-old rocks from Mt. St. Helens to be between 300,000 and 3,000,000 years old. Thus with the known age of the rock, potassium-argon radiometric dating gets the age 99.999% wrong. Now I know that this will not dissuade you in the least. Your worldview will force you to come up with a rescuing device.

Regarding the soft-tissue dinosaur. Bob raised a rather large sum of money (I think it was $20,000 or more) and offered it to Jack Horner to date the dinosaur that they had dug up. Jack refused the money.

And I thought you might find the following program from Bob: Real Science Friday - "List of Not So Old Things," Feb. 4, 2011. If you go on Bob's site, there are pictures that did not paste.

RSF's 2011 LIST OF NOT SO OLD THINGS: Real Science Friday co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart observe their annual tradition by updating their classic List of Not So Old Things! This growing list of scientific observations contains items that old-earthers were unprepared for, and many other items that even old-earth geologists now admit did not form over millions of years, but rapidly. Many of these scientific finds demand a re-evaluation of supposed million-year ages:



* "65-million" Year Old T-Rex Soft Tissue: Montana State University found soft tissue in a supposedly 65-million year old Tyrannosaurus Rex thighbone, original biological material that even remained flexible! See photos at MS-NBC, an enlarged photo, original 2007 Nat'l Geographic report, 2009 NG confirmation, the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, and a forum discussion!
* Iron-clad Dinosaur-era Soft-tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: [May 2011 Update] In this stunning peer-reviewed report of yet another soft-tissue discovery (after such finds from a T. rex, a hadrosaur, and archaeopteryx), scientists from secular universities in Europe and America use sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, and conclude that original biological material exists from a relatively small bone from an allegedly 70-million year old extinct marine reptile called a Mosasaur. See more...

* More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur: Consistent with expectations of biblical creationists, according to National Geographic, there's another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels and connective tissue and… what’s this? Looks like blood cell protein amino acid chains that have already been partially sequenced at Harvard. This supposedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Seems that Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of the false evolutionary timescale which so biased paleontologists that they never even looked for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.
* Now Soft Tissue in a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these soft-tissue dinosaur finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of the decade. But so many informed evolutionists whom we talk to: 1) have never even heard of these developments, 2) initially deny them, 3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and 4) repeat old debunked claims that they then find online that these are not dinosaur tissues but bacterial contamination. Now, from the mother lode of evolutionary dogma, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes this report that scientists have found various types of original biological material in archeopteryx feathers and bones, biological material that supposedly has survived for 150 million years!
* Scablands: cover thousands of square miles of eastern Washington and against fierce geologists claims of slow formation over millions of years, there is now overwhelming evidence as presented even in a NOVA TV show that the Scablands formed rapidly from catastrophic, regional flooding.
* Heart Mountain Detachment: near Yellowstone, didn't occur slowly by uniformitarian processes, but in only about 30 minutes a mountain of rock covering 425 square miles broke into 50 pieces and slide apart over an area of more than 1,300 square miles. The evolutionist source LiveScience.com reports, "Land Speed Record: Mountain Moves 62 Miles in 30 Minutes."
* '150 million year old' Squid Ink Able to Be Reconstituted: [CORRECTION: Bob Enyart had previously wrongly stated that the "still inky" squid ink was liquid, which it was not. Now, thanks to TOL evolutionist Alate_One pointing out the error, the following has been corrected:] The British Geological Survey's Dr. Phil Wilby, who excavated the fossil, said, "It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimensions, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old." And the Daily Mail states that, "the black ink was of exactly the same structure as that of today’s version." And the Telegraph reports that scientists "cracked open what appeared to be an ordinary looking rock only to find the one-inch-long black ink sac inside. After realising what they had stumbled across, they took out a small sample of the black substance and ground it up with an ammonia solution. Remarkably, the ink they created was good enough to allow them to draw..." and Dr. Wilby added, "Normally you would find only the hard parts like the shell and bones fossilised but... these creatures... can be dissected as if they are living animals, you can see the muscle fibres and cells. It is difficult to imagine... The structure is similar to ink from a modern squid so we can write with it..." Why is this difficult for evolutionists to imagine? Because as Dr. Carl Wieland writes, "Chemical structures 'fall apart' all by themselves over time due to the randomizing effects of molecular motion."
* Rare School of Jellyfish Fossilized: Previously, seven sedimentary layers had been described as taking a million years to form. And because jellyfish have no skeleton, it is rare to find them among fossils. But now, a school of jellyfish fossils have been found in those same seven layers showing that they were not deposited over a million years, but during a single event and quickly enough to trap a school of jellyfish.
* Yellowstone Petrified Tree Strata: The National Park Service took down their incorrect sign that had claimed petrified trees in a dozen different strata had proved that millions of years had passed during the rise and fall of successive forests. But the petrified trees there had no root systems, and the trees were clearly transported by water and settled into rapidly deposited sediments just as had occurred in Spirit Lake after Mount St. Helens erupted. Bob Enyart had the honor of working with the head ranger at a National Park (had dinner at his home; discussed how this sign could be removed), and he corresponded with his colleagues at Yellowstone and urged them to correct or remove the sign. They removed it. See also AIG. (If you took a photo of that sign, or know of one, can you send it along to Bob Enyart? It was taken down before the Internet became so popular, and so we haven't been able to find a larger photo online. Thanks!)
* Asiatic vs. European Honeybees: These two populations of bees have been separated supposedly for seven million years. A researcher decided to put the two together to see what would happen. What we should have here is a failure to communicate that would have resulted after their "language" evolved over millions of years. However, European and Asiatic honeybees are still able to communicate, putting into doubt the evolutionary claim that they were separated over "geologic periods." For more, see Real Science Friday at KGOV.com, Nov. 7, 2008 and Creation Magazine, September 2008 and PLoS ONE (Public Library of Science) 4 June 2008.
* Carlsbad Cavern: New Mexico, Nat'l Park Service sign said 260 MYA, then 8MYA, then 2MYA, and then they took down the sign that had claimed that formation took millions of year. On Bob Enyart's family vacation in 2005 the heard on site what you can hear from Carlsbad's official audio tour, which now states that the, "rate of formation depends on the amount of available water." See RSF 11-7-08 at KGOV.
* Lihir Gold Deposit: in Papua New Guinea, evolutionists assumed the more than 20 million ounces of gold in the Lihir reserve took millions of years to deposit, but geologists can now demonstrate that the deposit could have formed in thousands of years, or far more quickly!
* Box Canyon, Idaho: Geologists now think Box Canyon in Idaho, USA, was carved by a catastrophic flood and not slowly over millions of years with 1) huge plunge pools formed by waterfalls; 2) the almost complete removal of large basalt boulders from the canyon; 3) an eroded notch on the plateau at the top of the canyon; and 4) water scour marks on the basalt plateau leading to the canyon. Scientists calculate that the flood was so large that it could have eroded the whole canyon in as little as 35 days. Creation Magazine, Sept. – Nov. 2008 page 7 from Science 23 May 2008, pp. 1067-1070
* Manganese Nodules: which allegedly form only over "geologic time periods" have formed "around beer cans" according to the 1997 Universe Beneath the Sea: The Next Frontier, a World Almanac documentary, of course disproving the million-year requirement! There are also reports of manganese nodules forming on old World War II ships.
* Mitochondrial Eve: By admittedly including chimpanzee DNA among their data, evolutionists initially calculated that Mitochondrial Eve, the one woman from whom all living humans have descended, lived as long ago as 200,000 years. But in 1998, as widely reported including by Science magazine, dropping the chimp data and using actual human mutation rates, "Eve... the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20), was now dated as only six thousand years old! See Ann Gibbon's Science article, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Creation.com's "A shrinking date for Eve," and Walt Brown's assessment. Expectedly, evolutionists have found a way to reject their own unbiased finding (the conclusion contrary to their self-interest) by returning to their original method of using circular reasoning, as reported in the American Journal of Human Genetics, "calibrating against recent evidence for the divergence time of humans and chimpanzees," to reset their mitochondrial clock back to 200,000 years. (See also Bob's article, Why Was Canaan Cursed?.)
* Super Nova Remnants: an explosion appeared in the night sky in 1054 A.D. as a supernova remnant (SNR) in the Crab Nebula. Evolutionary scientists have measured and calculated the expected rate that stars would explode. However, if the universe is billions of years old, the vast majority of SNRs (like the Crab Nebula) that should exist, are missing! Instead, the number of SNRs corresponds well to the expected number if the universe is less than 10,000 years old, especially considering that astronomers have not found a single SNR at Stage 3 (a great diameter)! Of course, if the universe is young, there should be no State 3 SNRs! Listen to this Real Science Friday program at KGOV.com!
* Fossils with Protein, DNA and Bacteria: As listed in 2008 by Dr. Walt Brown…
- allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
- allegedly 100 million year old dinosaur fossil contains protein (Science News 1992)
- allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
- allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
- allegedly 30 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
- allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).
* Saturn’s Rings: do not show the stability predicted by their presumed 50 to 100 million year-old age, but have changed significantly since man’s first mappings. See RSF 4-10-06 at KGOV.
* Earth's Magnetic Field Reversals: Disproving any notion that magnetic reversals must occur over long periods, as documented by Dr. Walt Brown, Evidence Suggesting Extremely Rapid Field Variations During a Geomagnetic Reversal, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 1989; Earth's Field Flipping Fast, New Scientist, 1992; New Evidence for Extraordinarily Rapid Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal, Nature 1995. "At one time the orientation of the earth's magnetic field changed rapidly?by up to 6 degrees per day for several days," Brown, 2008.
* Polystrate Fossils: In a thousand locations including the Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate fossils such as trees span many strata disproving the claim that the layers were deposited slowly over millions of years. See CRSQ June 2006, ICR Impact #316, and RSF 8-11-06 at KGOVArchives.org.
* Carbon-14 Unexpectedly Found… Everywhere: Carbon-14 decays in only thousands of years, and therefore, cannot last for millions of years. Thus evolutionists are shocked when they find find Carbon-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old (Answers Jan - Mar 2011). Carbon-14 is found in petrified wood, coal, oil, limestone, graphite, amber, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in diamonds! Radiocarbon exists even in supposedly million-year-old two-mile deep natural gas wells (CRSQ Fall 2007): "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years.” See RSF 3-28-08 at KGOV. C14 in specimens supposedly millions or a billion years old is so ubiquitous that it is longer an anomoly, and while old-earthers had hoped that contamination must account for all the C14, Dr. John Baumgardner, of Los Alamos National Labs fame, has documented in Dec, 2010 Creation Matters that C14 exists even in the hardest naturally-occuring substance on earth, within diamonds, dashing the atheists' last hope and prayer that all such C14 might be from contaminants. The earth is young.
* Spiral Galaxies: after their alleged billions of years the spiral arms of “pinwheel” galaxies should now be deformed, since as has been known for decades, the speed of the arms does not align with the galaxy centers, so there is “missing billions of years” of deformation in spiral galaxies. Atheistic astronomers have great difficulty even explaining where our own Moon came from, let alone the entire universe, and they admit they can’t even figure out which formed first, stars or galaxies, showing that their Big Bang theory does not merit the absolute trust that millions put in it. Thus far from being able to explain how the universe could form apart from God, they are groping in the dark. See RSF 7-25-08 at KGOV.
* Rocks Harden in Days: According to scientists at Murdoch University, experiments prove that rocks don't need eons to harden but by adding bacteria to "soft sand," they end up with "something resembling marble more than sandstone." See Science Alert and Creation Magazine, September 2010.
* Even Faster Rocks: As listed in Dec, 2010 Creation Matters, radiometric dating by Rubidium-Strontium gives a 1.3 billion year age for lava atop the Grand Canyon which would be 300 million years older than the precambrian basalt at the bottom of the canyon, as reported by Steven Austin, Ph.D. And the Potassium-Argon dating method incorrectly indicates that certain minerals hardened into stone 350,000 years ago, when in reality they solidified just recently, in 1986 at Mount St. Helens, and some of the mineral within the then ten-year old rock was wrongly dated as two million years old.
* Yikes! Millions of Years are MISSING Here: According to evolutionary geologists, there are MORE THAN 100 MILLION YEARS MISSING in the extraordinarily regular and straight layers of the Grand Canyon! Supposed geological layers entirely missing from the beautifully formed Grand Canyon strata include the Ordovician and the Silurian. The flat boundaries between strata provide hard evidence proving that millions of years of erosion DID NOT OCCUR, and that therefore, those millions of years DID NOT PASS, neither in the canyon nor anywhere on Earth, for they are an atheistic fiction.


UPDATE: And from a recent issue of Creation magazine as discussed on RSF:
- Fossil wood from England dated at 25,000 years by carbon-14 embedded in allegedly 183-million year old limestone
- Diamonds from Botswana carbon-14 dated at 55,000 years old mined from rock dated 2 billion years old
- Mount St. Helens rock that should date as solidifying 30 years ago but dating 350,000 to 2.8 million years old
- Mammal hair found in supposedly 100 million year old amber looks surprisingly "similar" to... modern hair
- Geologists say Uganda lava is just thousands of years ago but it's radioactively dated at 773 million years old
Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You’ll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart’s Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; and the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine and Ken Ham's Answers magazine! (And you can order Darwin's Dilemma DVD by calling BEL at 1-800-8Enyart.)

• Home
• Real Science Friday
• Store
• Donate
• Support
• Writings
• Archive
• Contact

Search this site:

Real Science Friday
Real Science Friday: Caterpillar Kills Atheism
RSF: 2011's List of Not So Old Things
RSF: Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life
RSF: Darwin's Other Shoe
Real Science Friday: Origin of Language!
RSF and Jurassic Park's Jack Horner
RSF: Jonathan Sarfati vs Richard Dawkins
RSF: Steve Austin on Mt. St Helens
Enyart Debates Hannam on Theistic Evolution
RSF: Spike Psarris re: Phil Plait
RSF: PZ Myers Trochlea Challenge
RSF: Microbiologist Kevin Anderson in Studio
RSF: Enyart Exhumes Eugenie Scott
RSF: Bergman, Bats and Bellybuttons
RSF: Einstein's Is and Ought
RSF: Chiropractor on Backbone Evolution
RSF: Multitasking Genes, Missing Years
RSF: Bristlecone Tree Rings & A Young Earth
RSF: Dr. Walt Brown on Hydroplates
RSF: C-14 Everywhere No Longer an Anomaly

American Right To Life Feed
Oppose Abortion Regulations
Oppose Abortion Exceptions
Burning Buildings and Half a Loaf
The Bible and Abortion
$10,000 to name one pro-life Justice
A Good Unborn Victims of Crime Act
ProlifeProfiles Changes Landscape
Shocking Sarah Palin Pro-life Profile
Sickening Mitt Romney Profile
Surprising Profile of Ron Paul
Fr. Pavone Profile
Ann Coulter Hang-Ups on Youtube
Dr. Dobson: PBA Ban saved not one
See Focus on the Strategy I, II, & III
Pro-life Industry vs. Pro-life Ministry
Justices reference Dred 56 Times
Judge Not or Judge Rightly?
Abortion and the Death Penalty
Abortion for Rape and Incest
Abortion Breast Cancer link
Nat'l Cancer Inst Researcher Admits
The George Tiller Memorial
Report on Wendy Wright & CWA
National Right To Life Profile
andthenyoucankillthebaby.com
Re: Anti-Personhood Bopp Memo
AUL: A Lack of Jurisprudence
Abortion Vigilante Worksheet
Dr. Dobson Violates Pledge
Personhood Campaign Guidelines
ARTL 2012 Candidate Survey
March for Life Finder for 50 States
Personhood Talking Points MD, CO
Children's Hosp Euthanizes 4-yr old
American RTL's Facebook page
Debates with ARTL spokesmen
Made in God's image, means what?
Know the Gospel of Jesus Christ
ARTL: Time Magazine & NY Times
Check out Doug McBurney's show
Radio
• Podcast
• Recent Shows
• BEL Archives
• Affiliates
• Best of Bob
• Real Science Friday
Store
• Bible Studies
• Science Dept
• The Plot & Writings
• Audio & Video
• Specials
• Subscriptions
Support

 

[The Barbarian]

The validity of this method of dating was addressed on one of Bob's shows, "Mt. St. Helens Flow dated millions of years old" dated Jul 12, 2006. You can listen to it on KGOV.com.

I'm afraid he's been taken in on a very simple scam. The creationist who got the rocks made sure there were phenocrysts (unmelted rock particles) in them. These ancient bits of rock will always give a very old age, even when the are found in fresh lava flows.

The lab warned him that their particular set-up would not give an accurate reading with such things, and that they could not accurately detect amounts in rock less than 2,000,000 years old. The fact is, very young samples can be contaminated by "memory effect" caused by extremely tiny amounts of material remaining from previous samples. Austin insisted that they do the test anyway, and then professed surprise when he got an absurd result.

Whole Rock and Mineral/Glass 'Fractions' from the Dacite
K-Ar 'Date' in millions of years
Whole Rock 0.35 +/- 0.05
Pyroxenes 2.8 +/- 0.6
Pyroxenes, etc. 1.7 +/- 0.3
Amphiboles, etc. 0.9 +/- 0.2
Feldspars, glass, etc. ('Tedder' sample) 0.34 +/- 0.06

Notice only one of the fractions has an age as old as the limit of accuracy of the equipment. Austin was either completely ignorant of the way it works, or he was deliberately attempting a deception.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Here's a photo of the material showing phenocrysts:

Now I know that this will not dissuade you in the least. Your worldview will force you to come up with a rescuing device.

Technically, it's called "evidence." They took you for a ride, Bob.

Regarding the soft-tissue dinosaur. Bob raised a rather large sum of money (I think it was $20,000 or more) and offered it to Jack Horner to date the dinosaur that they had dug up. Jack refused the money.

Indeed. In fact, there is no way to directly date fossils. Only some kinds of igneous rock can be directly dated. Fossils are dated by their positions in deposits between ingneous rocks of known age.


Scablands: cover thousands of square miles of eastern Washington and against fierce geologists claims of slow formation over millions of years, there is now overwhelming evidence as presented even in a NOVA TV show that the Scablands formed rapidly from catastrophic, regional flooding.

That was discovered in the 1920s.

Heart Mountain Detachment: near Yellowstone, didn't occur slowly by uniformitarian processes, but in only about 30 minutes a mountain of rock covering 425 square miles broke into 50 pieces and slide apart over an area of more than 1,300 square miles. The evolutionist source LiveScience.com reports, "Land Speed Record: Mountain Moves 62 Miles in 30 Minutes."

Perhaps you've been misled. Even the strict gradualists knew there were examples of rapid change. It's just uncommon.

If there's any other of those shotgunned examples you want me to debunk, name a half-dozen, and we'll get started.

 

[TeeJay]

=Frayed Knot;2725119]Here you've moved the goalposts (I see Tyrathca had the same thought). You had said that "your brain is a physical organ. Thinking is not physical." Your clear implication is that something non-physical cannot come from something physical.

Frayed, perhaps I should have been more clear. I certainly did not intend to give you the impression that I "moved the goalposts."

I will be clear. Your brain is a physical organ. But your ability to reason is not part of your brain. You reason with your MIND. Your mind is not physical. I can tell my brain to send a signal to my finger to type five ttttt's. My brain just did what I told it to do. But my physical brain did not tell my physical brain to do that.

My point about my physical computer doing arithmetic showed that what you said is false. It's a separate question about whether the computer "knows" it's doing arithmetic. It's an interesting question, but not relevant here.

I think it's very relevant. If you are trying to show an equivalency between an inanimate computer and a living reasoning being, then I want to show that the difference is stark1 A computer is not self-aware, and it can't know truth in the sense that you can with rational reasoning. It can reach correct calculations but it can't possibly "KNOW" that the calculations are true. Now I'm not a computer guy, and I'm sure that computers are programmed to self-correct, but the computer would have to be alive to KNOW anything.

I've read some C.S. Lewis, and I've been amazed that anyone would admire his writings. From what I've read (Mere Christianity), Lewis was apparently an idiot. That book was chock-full of non-sequiturs and unjustified assertions.

I disagree with some of Hawkings revelations. But I could not in all honesty deem him an "idiot." Nor do I think that you can be honest and deem Lewis an idiot. They do not let idiots teach at one of the most prestegious universities in England.

Tom

 

[TeeJay]

=The Barbarian;2725159]Flipper writes:
Barbarian is right - you are a postmodernist.

Tom asks:


This morning, I saw a bird swimming around in the pond, like a duck. It got out of the pond, and walked like a duck. It had a bill like a duck, and it quacked like a duck.

Is it objectively or subjectively a duck?

If you know that, then you'll have your answer.

Barbarian, Me thinks I'm getting under your skin. You're lashing out irrationally. But I'm still worried about your salvation. And I want to be sure that you are saved. Why? Because I want you in one of my remedial Bible classes in heaven.

So, if you died right now, would you go to heaven or hell? Please answer.

Tom

 

[GuySmiley]

Does Enyart seriously think he knows more and is smarter than the scientists he regularly cherrypicks and or mocks?

I was with Bob once when he asked a scientist if he knew that he existed. He said no. That guy deserved to be mocked, and Bob is smarter than him.

 

[TeeJay]

=Granite;2725321]Does Enyart seriously think he knows more and is smarter than the scientists he regularly cherrypicks and or mocks?

Granite, If you really want to find out, call his show. He is on at 3pm in Colorado and his phone can be reached at 1 800 836-9278. Pick a science topic and challenge him. I would love the hear the conversation.

Tom

 

[Granite]

I was with Bob once when he asked a scientist if he knew that he existed. He said no. That guy deserved to be mocked, and Bob is smarter than him.

Ah. So. One whole guy. Okey-dokey then. Didn't really answer my question, though. I had in mind Hawkings, Chomsky, or other men Enyart doesn't seem to understand very well, and who he regularly quote mines or goes after in straw effigy.:idunno: