dinosaurs and the flood

[Targ]

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

You could just reference the title, and possibly the chapter, optimally an online resource for expediency. Thank you.

You can read the chapter online here. The relevant section starts about half way down.

[Fortigurn]

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

You could just reference the title, and possibly the chapter, optimally an online resource for expediency. Thank you.

See my previous post here. I provided a quote from 'The Visible Hand of God', as well as a link to an article describing Christadelphian interpretations of the flood, which also gave the relevant page reference for brother Robert's discussion of the flood in 'The Visible Hand of God' (Robert Roberts, The Visible Hand of God (Birmingham: CMPA, 1942), 4th Edn, p. 49). You can find the specific chapter online here.

[Fortigurn]

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

All old rocks were once new rocks, and I suppose the formula once hosed always hosed.

I have no idea what this is is supposed to mean. What are you saying?

[Targ]

Originally Posted by gaz

For many Christadelphians I know this is a really tough thing to accept. The same tired old explanations for a young earth are spouted out, really because for them there is no alternative. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be one, therefore I have no opinion on the age of the earth - even if I agreed with a scientist about the age of the earth they would still try to disprove God, so it wouldn't really get me onside with them that much. My days of trying to preach creation science are over though, it's too much like trying to convince someone that the earth is flat. I prefer to leave explanations about the origins of our planet and instead talk about God's plan and purpose with mankind, something which can only be found in the Bible, and is really the only thing we need to understand.

Hi Gary,

I know the feeling. One problem we suffer from as a community is the idea that because we have our theology right, then we must also be capable of tackling and refuting some aspect of any subject, regardless of how much experience we have in a particular subject area. Far too often I've seen brothers standing up in front of the public and saying words to the effect of "Hey, I may only be an accountant in my working life and have never studied geology, paleontology, archaeology, biology etc beyond high school science classes, but here's my 30 minute demolition of all of these sciences that I've just spent the last few days putting together! I have Bible in hand, what more do I need?" And the consequences reflect itself in the quality of the arguments put forward in support of the theory of a young earth created 6,000 years ago.

For example, the vapour canopy theory and the hydroplate theory (google them) - if the people proposing such things actually knew their subject well (instead of just learning the controversial bits without doing the necessary background study first) and subjected these theories to the same level of scientific scrutiny that we would expect in any other subject (e.g. testing of medical drugs, testing the safety of new electronic equipment, testing some new theory explaining an astronomical phenomenon etc) they'd realise just how far fetched such theories are. Neither is even remotely credible, yet they are regularly promoted as an explanation for how the entire planet could have flooded. In my experience I have found a massive gulf between the level of scrutiny that young earth creationist theories are subjected to compared to possibly any other subject you could think of. Realising this was one of the reasons that I reconsidered the YEC views that had previously been instilled in me from an early age. Biblical reasons were another equally powerful reason to reconsider.

You say "for them there is no alternative" to young earth creationism, but there totally is. The founders of the Christadelphian community almost all accepted the antiquity of the Earth. Many still do (though not a majority any more). There have been a number of books and articles written by Christadelphians (e.g. Robert Roberts, CC Walker, Alan Hayward, Alan Fowler etc - look them up in your ecclesial library) and other Christians (e.g. these guys, as well as other sites and thousands of printed books - search Amazon for them) who have no problem with the idea of the earth being ~4.57 billion years and the age of the universe being ~13.75 billion years old and these guys see such theories as having minimal impact upon our core doctrines. I mean, if the people who wrote the BASF had no problem accepting the old age of the earth, then I hardly think our core teachings are going to come crashing down any time soon if we also consider the possibility that the Earth may be old, not young.

[gaz]

Take it from me there are some in our community who given half a chance would rewrite the BASF to include every single minute detail and then attempt to withdraw fellowship or at least try to silence anyone who says anything different. It's incredibly sad and takes us away from the core reason why we have a faith in God in the first place, the hope of salvation.

[Ken Gilmore]

Originally Posted by Targ

I know the feeling. One problem we suffer from as a community is the idea that because we have our theology right, then we must also be capable of tackling and refuting some aspect of any subject, regardless of how much experience we have in a particular subject area.

Absolutely true. This is something that bothers me endlessly as it is one of the quickest ways to shred our credibility not only in the eyes of members of the general public who may be well informed on the subject, but more importantly the next generation of young people who not only are far more educated to a post-secondary level than the previous generations, but have access to reliable quality material on this subject at their fingertips.

Far too often I've seen brothers standing up in front of the public and saying words to the effect of "Hey, I may only be an accountant in my working life and have never studied geology, paleontology, archaeology, biology etc beyond high school science classes, but here's my 30 minute demolition of all of these sciences that I've just spent the last few days putting together! I have Bible in hand, what more do I need?" And the consequences reflect itself in the quality of the arguments put forward in support of the theory of a young earth created 6,000 years ago.

It takes at least seven years of education (4 year undergraduate, three year PhD) before you get to the post-doctorate level, which usually involves around 3-4 years of misery before you truly have your wings as a scientist trying to get a tenure track position, setting up a lab, applying for grants. A layperson who thinks that:

1. His degree in a completely unrelated subject area OR
2. A copy of "The Genesis Flood" and a few DVDs from Answers in Genesis

is enough to overturn the scientific consensus on the age of the earth, geochronology and other related fields is simply deceiving himself or herself.

In my experience I have found a massive gulf between the level of scrutiny that young earth creationist theories are subjected to compared to possibly any other subject you could think of.

Which is why the only peer-review these arguments get is in the echo chamber of young earth creationist magazines and conferences. Apply the blowtorch of critical thinking and evidence to them, and they wilt away.

You say "for them there is no alternative" to young earth creationism, but there totally is. The founders of the Christadelphian community almost all accepted the antiquity of the Earth.

Exactly. Bro Thomas in Elpis Israel alluded to the antiquity of the Earth, and when making a reference to aspects of the interpretation of Genesis to which he adhered, referred his readers to the geology journals for more information:

To an observer on the earth this was the order of their appearance; and in relation to him a primary creation, though absolutely pre-existent for millions of ages before the Adamic era. <1>

Fragments, however, of the wreck of this pre-Adamic world which have been brought to light by geological research, to the records of which we refer the reader, for a detailed account of its discoveries, with this remark, that its organic remains, coal fields, and strata, belong to the ages before the formation of man, rather than to the era of the creation, or the Noachic flood. <2>

Can you imagine a senior Christadelphian writer today telling his readers to refer to Nature, Science, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to follow up technical details of his talk? The attitude of bre. Roberts and Thomas was one of honestly engaging with the science of the day rather than dismissing it. This is one area where we would do well to emulate the pioneer spirit of intellectual honesty.

References

1. Thomas J "Elpis Israel" (1979, 14th Ed - Rev) p 10
2. ibid, p 11

[Ken Gilmore]

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

If it doesn't work on young rocks how can it hope to work on old rocks, and how do we know how old the rocks are that we are using for benchmarks? (In a nutshell, no formulas needed).

The creationist who trumpeted how the K-Ar method did not work already knew the rock he was trying to date was young, since he obtained a sample from the Mt St Helens flow which we know is only a few years old, and then sent that to a laboratory despite knowing that the K-Ar method is never used on relatively young (geologically speaking) rocks, let alone one younger than the creationist who sent it. Once again, quoting the geologist GB Dalrymple (I already made this point in a previous post):

Like all radiometric methods, the K-Ar method does not work on all rocks and minerals under all geologic conditions. By many experiments over the past three decades, geologists have learned which rocks and minerals act as closed systems and under what geologic conditions they do so. The K-Ar clock works particularly well on igneous rocks that have not been heated significantly since their formation. It does not work on most sedimentary rocks because these rocks are composed of the debris from older rocks. It also does not work well on many metamorphic rocks because rocks of this type form from other rocks under heat and pressure but without undergoing complete melting. Many metamorphic rocks have complex histories involving several heatings that were not quite sufficient to melt the rock but were sufficient to release some of the Ar within it. As a result, it is difficult to know when or if the K-Ar clock in a metamorphic was last completely reset.

Because of its susceptibility to resetting by later heating, the K-Ar method is of limited use for measuring the ages of meteorites, lunar rocks, and the oldest rocks from the Earth. The 40 Ar / 39 Ar variant of the method...however, overcomes many of the problems of postformation heating and provides important data concerning the age of bodies in the Solar System. <1>

Young earth creationists often claim that radioactive dating methods are flawed because they give 'wrong dates' but what they are invariably doing are pointing out the instances where dating method X gives anomalous results on rock type Y, yet ignoring the fact that dating method X when used appropriately gives consistent sensible results. Again, I have already given an example of the consistency of dates when radiometric dating is used intelligently. Here it is again (dating of Amitsoq gneiss in Greenland. Age in billions of years)

uranium-lead.................... 3.60±0.05
lead-lead......................... 3.56±0.10
lead-lead......................... 3.74±0.12
lead-lead......................... 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium ...........3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium ...........3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium ...........3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium ...........3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium ...........3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium ...........3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium................ 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium.........3.56±0.20

This is what happens when you use dating methods correctly - they give sensible answers.

How do we know rocks are old? Prior to radiometric dating, geologists had no way of giving absolute answers. Instead, they had relative ages. Think about it. Older rocks are laid down first, then the next older rocks are laid down, and so on. Rocks at the bottom are older than rocks at the top. Fossils can act as indices - if you find Anomalocaris canadensis in your rock, you can be sure your strata is no older than the Cambrian. Similarly, finding an Allosaurus fragilis skull will allow you to date your strata to around the late Jurassic, which means that this strata is younger than the one in which you have found the Anomalocaris fossil. None of this is entirely controversial, except among the YECs who are trying to fit science around their hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis.

I should add that the creationist claim that this is circular (fossils data strata, strata date fossils) misses the point completely. As mentioned, relative dates of strata are determined by the principle that the oldest layers are at the bottom, and the younger layers are above that. Now, geologists note that certain fossils only occur in certain strata. You won't find trilobites in Holocene strata, but you will find them in earlier layers, consistent with the fact that trilobites went extinct during the Permian extinction around 250 million years ago. (Again, this has nothing to do with evolution since the geological column was determined by creationist geologists before 1859 and the publication of the Origin of Species.)

The final confirmation of the idea of relative dating of rocks was the fact that when these strata were dated radiometrically, the relative dates were confirmed with absolute values. The odds of this occurring by chance are minimal, and further gives us confidence in the reality of the antiquity of the earth.

I'm more than happy to clear up any questions you may have, but this time I would ask you to read and study those links as they will answer the most common questions.

Ken Gilmore

1. Dalrymple GB "The Age of the Earth" (1991, Stanford University Press) p 93-94

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by Ken Gilmore

I'm more than happy to clear up any questions you may have, but this time I would ask you to read and study those links as they will answer the most common questions.

Thanks Ken. A couple questions...

1. Can you simply explain how the amount of rubidium/strontium (or whatever) begins as inaccurate and becomes more accurate over time? If it is ever "too young" to date using these methods, that implies that the composition ratios are too far off to begin with. How then later does it turn around and become accurate? (If you don't understand the question I can try to rephrase it). Best if you can answer in simple English.

2. Is there some sort of way to validate these geological methods besides just using data from other geological methods? For example, is Vesuvius (AD79) still too young to date using the method you have described? If there is no other way to validate then I can't see how anyone could place so much faith in it.

Thanks much,
SG

[SedesGobhani]

Originally Posted by Fortigurn

See my previous post here. I provided a quote from 'The Visible Hand of God', as well as a link to an article describing Christadelphian interpretations of the flood, which also gave the relevant page reference for brother Robert's discussion of the flood in 'The Visible Hand of God' (Robert Roberts, The Visible Hand of God (Birmingham: CMPA, 1942), 4th Edn, p. 49). You can find the specific chapter online here.

Thanks Targ & Fortigurn - I'll check them.

[Rose Hardy]

I have no problem with the idea of the earth being very old. And the universe being very, very old! - Genesis1:1 says the earth existed before life was created on it. Therefore rocks could easily be millions or billions of years old.
The problem I have is with the theory of evolution as the method by which life came about. I cannot accept the evolutionary theory at all. - but then the second law of thermodymanics renders it impossible anyway. Which leaves the only possible answer - that of an all powerful creator.

[glimmer]

Originally Posted by Rose Hardy

The problem I have is with the theory of evolution as the method by which life came about. I cannot accept the evolutionary theory at all. - but then the second law of thermodymanics renders it impossible anyway. Which leaves the only possible answer - that of an all powerful creator.

Which begs the question - Could an all powerful Creator use evolution as His method of creating?

[Rose Hardy]

Originally Posted by glimmer

Which begs the question - Could an all powerful Creator use evolution as His method of creating?

No. Because evolution is physically impossible, according to the laws of the universe.

Now, I used to think that maybe evolution could be how God had created life, but since discovering this second law of thermodymanics (which is more simple than it sounds) it means evolution would have to go completely opposite to this natural law which governs the whole universe.

As understand it, the law states that - The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. In other words everything goes, over time, from a state of high organisation, to a state of chaos, or high entropy. Where as evolution states life started from simplicity and worked towards high organisation.

There's a lot of other good reasons why evolution doesnt work either, or at the least the 'evidence' is neutral and could as equally point to a creator as evolution. ie fossils; similarities between life forms; The huge variety of life, etc

Hope that makes sense. I just have one of those minds that questions and wants to look deeper...

[Fortigurn]

Originally Posted by Rose Hardy

Now, I used to think that maybe evolution could be how God had created life...

God could not have used evolution to create life. Evolution is not about the creation of life, but the diversity of species. Evolution says nothing about the creation of life.

...but since discovering this second law of thermodymanics (which is more simple than it sounds) it means evolution would have to go completely opposite to this natural law which governs the whole universe.

As understand it, the law states that - The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. In other words everything goes, over time, from a state of high organisation, to a state of chaos, or high entropy. Where as evolution states life started from simplicity and worked towards high organisation.

Have a look at this.

[Targ]

Originally Posted by Rose Hardy

I have no problem with the idea of the earth being very old. And the universe being very, very old! - Genesis1:1 says the earth existed before life was created on it. Therefore rocks could easily be millions or billions of years old.
The problem I have is with the theory of evolution as the method by which life came about. I cannot accept the evolutionary theory at all. - but then the second law of thermodymanics renders it impossible anyway. Which leaves the only possible answer - that of an all powerful creator.

This is a little bit off topic from the subject of dinosaurs and the flood but just to address this point, the second of law of thermodynamics does not apply in this situation and this is therefore a bad argument to use against evolution. The second law of thermodynamics is as follows:

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. It is measured and expressed in terms of a property called entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium; and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system.

(Wikipedia)

The key part to note there is where it says "isolated system". Unless the system is closed, the law does not apply. If for example you have a sealed, fully-insulated tank, then the law would apply inside the tank.

However, the system in question is Earth, which very definitely isn't a closed isolated system; the Earth is fully exposed to the universe, with no box enclosing it and protecting it from external influences. On the contrary, the Sun bombards us with an enormous, consistent supply of energy. The system (Earth) is about as un-isolated as you can get, so the argument that evolution cannot happen because of the second law of thermodynamics breaks down here.

/offtopic

[Ken Gilmore]

Originally Posted by Rose Hardy

No. Because evolution is physically impossible, according to the laws of the universe.

Now, I used to think that maybe evolution could be how God had created life, but since discovering this second law of thermodymanics (which is more simple than it sounds) it means evolution would have to go completely opposite to this natural law which governs the whole universe.

As understand it, the law states that - The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum. In other words everything goes, over time, from a state of high organisation, to a state of chaos, or high entropy. Where as evolution states life started from simplicity and worked towards high organisation.

There's a lot of other good reasons why evolution doesnt work either, or at the least the 'evidence' is neutral and could as equally point to a creator as evolution. ie fossils; similarities between life forms; The huge variety of life, etc

Hope that makes sense. I just have one of those minds that questions and wants to look deeper...

Hi Rose

The creationist use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to 'disprove' evolution is well-meant but an invalid use of that law. As has been pointed out, the Earth is not a closed system. A decrease in entropy can be offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere, which will allow the emergence of order. Two biological examples which refute the creationist use of the 2nd Law are:

* Plant growing from a seed
* Baby developing from a fertilised egg

In both cases, we have increasing order which according to the creationist abuse of the 2nd Law should not happen.

Hope that helps
Ken

[BDW]

Originally Posted by SedesGobhani

Thanks Ken. A couple questions...

1. Can you simply explain how the amount of rubidium/strontium (or whatever) begins as inaccurate and becomes more accurate over time? If it is ever "too young" to date using these methods, that implies that the composition ratios are too far off to begin with. How then later does it turn around and become accurate? (If you don't understand the question I can try to rephrase it). Best if you can answer in simple English.

If I try and vacuum up wet mud on a carpet then it will most likely rub the mud further into the carpet. If I wait for the mud to dry and then vacuum it up then my method will work.

[David]

Though the universe itself is a closed system, very big, and maybe getting bigger but finite.

Then again it is possible to reverse the entropy change in an isolated area, by injecting an energy input, the entalpy change of the system becomes linked to tha change in entropy of the system.

I think the big differenece is that science can not seek truth, but either rejecting falsehood (Popper) or in rejecting that which has been falsified and producing a better description, which itself maybe rejected later (Kuhn).

It tries to describe how, what it doesn't do is explain why.

Yet the scripture introduces us to truth, and the why things happen. They are different ways of describing our experiences, and are niether really contradictory or necessarily complementary, but different.

D