Christians: Does age of earth matter?

[UTEOTW]

"Evidence is the key word here. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils, not one, which has stood the test of time."

I offer Archaeopteryx. Perfect example of a creature intermediate between a reptile and a bird.

You want a long list of transitionals?

 

[Frank]

Bob:
No, I do not believe science will listen. They wrongfully believe they are a " sacred cow." Evolution in our school system is NOT taught. It is mentioned with a DISCLAIMER. I am proud of our teachers who refuse to be intimidated by those who desire this taught as the " scientific gospel."
I hope one day someone will formally challenge the teaching of this dogma in a public forum. In this part of the world most people see evolution as a bunch of hooey.

 

[Frank]

Paul:
I posted the scholarship on the genesis account of creation. The word in the text( Yom ) indicates a literal 24 hour day. Do you have any evidence that rebutts the use of yom in genesis one to represent a 24 hour day?

 

[Frank]

Ut:
The church has never taught the things you have espoused. if so which one? What is the evidence they were correct or incorrect in their practice of these things?
The Bible is not a science book. However, it contains scientific facts that were around long before any scientist could prove them with his scientific method. Consider the following:
1.The earth has roundness. Isaiah 40:22. Date of discovery 15 the century.
2. The earth is held in place by invisible force. Job 26:7. Date of discovery 1650. 3. Blood necessary for life. Leviticus 17:11. Date of discovery 19th century.
Man will never catch up to God. Isaiah 55:9.

 

[UTEOTW]

Frank

When I go to Strong's and look up the word translated "circle" it indicates a flat disk or a compass. In other words, NOT a round earth.

Now I do not consider this an error. The writer was only writing as it appeared to him. But there is nothing there to say he meant spherical.

Now, you claim there is no observations for evolution. I gave a nice long list of such observations. Do you care to comment?

 

[Frank]

Ut:
I believe a circle has roundnes last time I checked. You are really funny at times.

 

[Frank]

Ut:
You said you denied that decay rates change. This is in conflict woth other scientist. Who should we believe?
Here is a crucial question: is the claim of great age for earth/humanity, as alleged by most scientists, based upon solid, scientific evidence? Or is it grounded upon evolutionary-oriented assumptions?
1. There is no scientific “proof†that the earth is billions of years old. The average layman thinks there is, but he is mistaken. Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: “No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon ... indirect reasoning†(1977, p. 92).
Dr. John Eddy, an evolutionary astronomer, stated: “There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old.†He continued: “I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun [4004 B.C.]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that†(1978, p. 18).
2. The techniques for dating the earth result from uniformitarian (evolutionary) assumptions. Radiometric methods for dating the earth’s rocks are based upon the decay sequences of certain elements. For example, uranium-238 (called a “parent†element) will, through a series of decomposition processes, ultimately produce lead-206 (called a “daughter†element). Scientists believe they know the present decay rate. Thus, if a rock contains both uranium-238 and lead-206, the ratio of the two elements will be used to estimate the age of the sample.
It is conceded, however, that in order for this method to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted.
a. It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation. But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation? That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.
b. It must be assumed that neither the parent nor the daughter element has been altered in mass since the beginning. However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
c. The assumption is made that decay rates have remained constant. Again, though, recent research has shown that while these decay rates appear to remain constant within narrow limits, under special circumstances they may be altered considerably. Evolutionist Frederic B. Jueneman declares:
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.â€
Sources:
Moorbath, Stephen (1977), Scientific American, (March).

Eddy, John (1978), Geotimes, (September).

 

[UTEOTW]

First, it is considered plagarism to quote so much, word for word, and not give your source. It could also get the BB into trouble over copyright infringement.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/earthAge.htm

Second, round is exactly what I meant. Round does not mean spherical. Two different things. A clock is round. There is nothing to indicate the reference was not to a flat disk, especially since the word was translated "circle."

Now. As for your Moorbath quote. Does he accept an old earth? Yes he does. Do you not then find it dishonest to quote him as if he does not think the earth is old? His quote is a reference to the fact that we have not found any rocks on the earth as old as the earth is believed to be. The oldest rocks we have found are about 4 billion years old. We get the date for the earth and the rest of the solar system by dating meteorites. And they consistently date to 4.56 million years old. So he is right, the age of the earth is determined in an indirect manner. Thank you for bringing up a reference to how it is done and using an expert in this.

Your Eddy quote appears to be from a paper about a shrinking sun. Only the abstract was ever actually published because it became clear thar there were serious problems with the data before the paper itself could be published. Measurements since then are conclusive that the sun is not shrinking.

Your lead 206 argument falls apart when you take into consideration that the best method that uses lead 206 is a lead/lead isochron. For an isochron, there is no need to assume no lead 206 in the initial sample. You assumption is wrong. Plus, if any parent or daughter has migrated into or out of the rock, then the isochron will give a garbled answer from which no age is attainable. The method checks for such changes. Geologists also are aware of what conditions can cause such changes and can check before even testing the rock. The isochron catches any cases they miss.

Jueneman was refering to his ideas that neutrinos could change decay rates or that global disasters could reset clocks. There has been no evidence presented in the interim to show that either could actually happen. He seems to be a bit of a wild card who likes to say things to stir things up. This quote is an opinion of his, not based in fact, that has never been substaniated. He also seem to accept an old earth in his recent writings.

Now, you said that observations were impossible for an old universe. What about the example I have given. Let me quote myself.

Let's first take a discipline that is not directly germane, but that has parallels. What do you think of archeology? Do you think it qualifies as a science? I ask, because this is a bit less controversial. In fact, most of us probably find our interests peaked a little bit when we come across something on Biblical archeology. But there are certain parallels to paleontology, especially when dealing with cultures which had no writing system or whose writing system we do not understand. But we are still able to make observations about the past and learn things about the way they lived from what we find. Going through the trash can be quite enlightening, you can find out all sorts of things about the way they lived and what they ate. Finding tools made of non-local material might indicate that they were a trading culture. Art may let you know about their religion and their gender roles. There is much than can be learned without having ever observed the culture and without any writings of people who were there. Do you not accept this as good science?

Now, let's move a little closer to our target. Let's discuss astronomy. Now we are making observations in the present. Other researchers can repeat the experiments and observations. Yet astronomy shows our universe to be ancient. Due to the finite speed of light, we are actually looking back in time when we observe space. We can actually see what was happening long ago. Think merely of the travel times involved. We can measure the speed of light and we can measure distances to astronomical objects. Simple division of distance and speed tells you of billions of years of travel for some of the light. And it is not just static light sources. We see action at these distances, we see a history unfolding before our eyes. Supernova, gamma ray bursts, forming stars, dying stars, forming planetary systems, colliding galaxies, stars orbiting one another, rotating galaxies. We see the effects of the travel on the light. Clouds of gas and dust in between absorb certain wavelengths from the light. Massive objects bend and distort the light through gravitational lensing. The expansion of the universe stretches the wavelengths of the light. Many of the objects we see show evidence of taking many years to form. Colliding galaxies require hundreds of millions even billions of years of interaction to attain their intricate shapes. The process is slow and cannot be sped up.

Look at geology. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the seafloor is spreading apart. We can measure how quickly this takes place. Observations in the present. We can look at the seafloor and see that the same process has been happening in this general way since the Americas began splitting apart from Africa and Europe. If has taken roughly 100 million years. (I'd have to it up if you want a better number.) Recorded in the rocks are many reversals of the magnetic field of the earth. Since we have never seen a field reversal, it is safe to say that they are not frequent occurances. More interesting, you can pull up rocks at different distances from the middle and date them. The dates agree with the date you would estimate by the rate of spreading and the distance from the fissure. If both the measures of age are so flawed, why do they agree? Take a look at the Hawaiian Island chain. There is ample evidence that an area has been passing over a hot spot, causing a succession of volcanic islands. The only currently active volcanoes are at the far south east of the chain. These are also the youngest "looking" islands. They are rocky and sharp. There has been little softening due to erosion. They also date the youngest. As you move towards the west, the islands begin to show signs of erosion. They become softer and more lush. As you continue to move west, they also become smaller as erosion has had more time to wear the islands back into the sea. These date as older. I have seen this with my own eyes. Does this count as an observation? Perhaps some of you have been there and can repeat the observation. Look at rocks formed from magma. It is quite possible to calculate how long it took the rocks to cool. Heat transfer calculations are not that hard. It can be in the millions of years. We have a way to check this. As magma cools, it chemistry is such that different minerals form at different temperatures. The crystals from these minerals also grow at a given rate. So we can verify our cooling curve from the chemistry of the rock. They both agree that these rocks take many more years to form than 6000 years. If fact, 6000 years is so short in geology that such rocks do not form any crystals at all! The magma also makes changes in the surrounding rocks due to the heat it gives off. This let's us know for sure that these rocks were formed after the other. All these things show considerable evidence of having taken more than a few thousand years. Much more. How do you explain them? These are observations in the present.

Look at biology. We have observed speciation events. We have observed new metabolic pathways and new traits forming. We can test the genomes of different organisms and trace specific copying errors and viral DNA insertions between the species. Is this not all done in the present? Are these not observations? Can other scientists not repeat the work?

Ah, now your intended target. The fossil record. No one was there to see, so how can we learn anything you ask. Are you saying that we can learn absolutely nothing about a fossil? Can we even determine if these really are the remains of a once living creature? Can we determine what type of creatue it is? Uh oh, now we are making observations in the past. And other scientists can look at see if they come to the same conclusions. The observations are repeatable and verifiable. But there is more. Can we look at the details of the skeleton and learn some details of how the creature lived? Can we look at teeth and jaws and know what types of food it ate? Can we determine something about function from form? Can we sometimes tell what killed the animal? Can we tell under what conditions the organism was fossilized, such as turbulent or still water? Can we tell if it was scavenged before being fossilized? Can we look at other fossils found with it a get an idea of the ecology in which it lived? Wow, we are still making observations. And no one was there.

So see, science does make observations that indicate an old earth.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Frank:
Paul:
I posted the scholarship on the genesis account of creation. The word in the text( Yom ) indicates a literal 24 hour day. Do you have any evidence that rebutts the use of yom in genesis one to represent a 24 hour day?

I certainly agree that the literal story is of a 24 hour day. That is the form in which the narrative comes to us.

I simply do not believe that we need to interpret it literally to recieve the revelation God intends for us to have from that narrative.

When you read the narrative about Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, do you think the narrative does not mean the sun literally stopped moving in the sky? Don't you automatically reinterpret that in your modern, science - informed mind that the earth's rotation slowed, or perhaps light was miraculously defracted as in a mirage to make this happen?

It is in that way that I justify the non-literal interpretation of Genesis One. But certainly, I realize that the literal word is for yom to be one day.

The Bible is inerrant when interpreted properly.

If we must interpret the Bible as saying the creation was 6000 years ago literally, maybe 10,000 at the most, then the Bible would be in error, as proved by modern scientific discoveries.

Therefore the literal interpretation is not necessary for the believing Christian. It is as simple as that.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Evidence is the key word here. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils, not one, which has stood the test of time."

I offer Archaeopteryx. Perfect example of a creature intermediate between a reptile and a bird.

Are you offering this as your "Test case for bad science" UTEOTW?

Archeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird - not a "missing link".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Please tell us how archy is a true bird. This I'd like to hear.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm. I think we have your interest UTEOTW! Your "perfect transitional example" is simply a "perfect example of the bad science that IS evolutionism" in all its doctrinal beauty.

Now please be objective - though this threatens your evolutionist doctrinal position - don't you have to admit that taking your "perfect transitional example" and "Showing the bad science used to prop it up" has to be a wake-up call for even the most devoted follower of Darwin?

Or will you claim that EVEN when this is shown to be a "prime example of evolutionisms appeal to bad science" - you "still don't care" will you simply look for other examples to hang your hat on declaring "evolution is truy anyway"?

Will you take a stand on this one as we go through the "science"? Will the evidence mean anything at all to you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh yes. I believe that archy is a great example of a transitional. I am dying to see how you attempt to prove that it is not so. You mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that "Archeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird."

But, I do plan to post an extensive list of transitionals for you, even though you never asked for it. At the top of my list will be Acanthostega if you want to go ahead and get a head start on showing how it is not a transitional either.

But please, show me that archy was pure bird.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is one example where we see scientists overwhelmingly agreeing in the majority that Archaeopteryx is in fact a "true bird" and not a "transitional dinosaur" on it's way to becoming a bird.

The International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstátt, Germany, 1984. A major meeting of scientists who specialize in bird evolution reached broad agreement on the belief that Archaeopteryx was a "true bird". In fact only a tiny minority clung to the evolutionary tale that Archaeopteryx was actually one of the small, lightly built coelurosaurian dinosaurs [small lightly framed dinosaurs].

Keep in mind that this is not a "majority composed of mean old Creator believing Creationist picking on the minority". The majority are in fact the key leaders among our atheist evolutionist scientist at that conference. They remain devoted to evolutionism but could not "stomach" the bad science that claims that Archaeopteryx is not a true bird.

Yet some today resort to grasping at straws and hitching their wagon to the tiny band of old-school evolutionist devotees regarding the classic evolutinary tales about Archaeopteryx - clearly their blind-faith practices are not "good science".

Though an early fossil of Archaeopteryx - had a crushed skull and some bad science "guesses" were wildly asserted based on that data initially -- The general consensus now is that the brain is essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.

In most vertebrates, including reptiles, the mandible (lower jaw) moves, but in birds today(as is the case with Archaeopteryx) so does the maxilla (upper jaw).

Birds have a distinctive, specialized skeleton because, as one distinguished evolutionist who is also an ornithologist once said, ‘Birds are formed to fly.’ So was Archaeopteryx.

Much is made of the fact that Archaeopteryx had teeth.

Archaeopteryx was not the only fossil bird to have had grasping teeth. Some fossil birds had teeth, some didn’t.

Teeth do not prove a relationship to reptiles, since in fact many reptiles don’t have teeth. Crocodiles are really the only group of reptiles that consistently have very well developed teeth. And of course even some mammals have teeth and some don’t.

Some evolutionists have claimed that Archaeopteryx was just a dinosaur plus feathers, in effect. Others have suggested that it’s just a hoax — a dinosaur fossil plus chicken feather imprints. (Sir Fred Hoyle, for example.)

However - The feathers are not just simply applied to the surface of the bird. Where they are attached to bone by ligaments, we see tiny ‘bumps’. So in Archaeopteryx, the primary and secondary wing feathers are attached to the ‘hand’ and ulna, respectively. And the feathers on the tail are actually minutely attached to each of the 20 vertebrae. There are also a lot of small feathers on the legs and body of this bird, and there is compelling evidence that the head was covered with feathers too.

Question - How does the "bad science" that "is" evolutionism - deal with that data?

When you see pictures of Archaeopteryx or its imaginary ancestors, it’s quite common for artists to show a scaly head.

A key disctinctive of true birds as opposed to a reptile is the wishbone

Archaeopteryx has a robust wishbone [furcula]. Some recent fascinating studies using moving X-rays of birds as they fly show how the shoulder girdle has to be flexible to cope with the incredible forces of the power-stroke in flight. You can actually see the wishbone flex with each wing-beat.

Question: Do the feet of Archaeopteryx support the view that it was a dinosaur that ran along the ground?

Answer: Archaeopteryx, along with all perching birds, has what is called a grasping hallux, or hind toe, pointing backwards. Rearward-facing toes may be found in some of the dinosaurs but not a true grasping hallux with curved claws for perching.

Feathers --

There are no examples of living or fossil scales that even remotely resemble a feather. Archaeopteryx has complete feathers like modern birds.

To see this complete article - go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1352.asp

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW I do appreciate UTEOTW's appeal to the "Dope-ler effect" whereby many bad science speculations tossed out in mass can "seem" like a good idea "at first".

Thanks for responding to my question about whether you would actually take a "stand on your perfect example of transitional form" when it is seen to be nothing but "bad science" and very poor guesswork.

You "Setup your response" by saying you will quickly appeal to "other examples" if this "perfect example" is shown to be "bad science".

You gotta love that blind faith.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I offer Archaeopteryx. Perfect example of a creature intermediate between a reptile and a bird.

You want a long list of transitionals?

No, please, spare us any more transies.

Archaeopteryx became extinct along with the dinos because it couldn't survive the worldwide deluge. Being a flying reptile doesn't mean it evolved from anything or into something else unless you think it did.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Let me ask you one question first. If this was a true bird, where is its beak? Archaeopteryx only has a jaw.

Now my purpose in later giving you a long list of transitionals is to destroy the myth that there are not any transitionals. It is really the pot calling the kettle black for you to accuse me of tossing out reasons en masse hoping that something sticks. You will notice that I am first dealing with this very specific case. And I believe that I have a compelling argument.

Let's deal with your quote from the International Archaeopteryx Conference first. Pay real close to what they decided. They did not decide that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional. In the late seventies, there was a school of thought that Archaeopteryx was nothing more than a well perserved dinosaur. Usually the suggestion was made that it was a Compsognathus or something closely related. (That in itself is very interesting. It is so similar to a know DINOSAUR that there was debate for years over whether it was actually a dinosaur or not!) Now, by the time of the conference you mention, there had been enough learned about archy to show that this creature was no dinosaur. It has a number of adaptations to show that it was a flier and shares many adaptations with modern birds. This conference apparently put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that it was merely a running, feathered dinosaur.

Now, I do not really have any objections to the rest of your post. Archaeopteryx was clearly adapted to flying with assymetrical feathers and a perching foot and all that. Its birdlike traits cannot be ignored. Nor would I want to ignore them. But I do have a little more to add. Let the record show that I believe that Archaeopteryx had a number of features in common with reptiles that are not shared with birds. I believe paleontologists have discovered dozens of such characteristics, but I will not go on so long. I'll keep it to several easy to understand examples.

Archy has ventral ribs (technically called Gastralia). These are not true ribs but are pieces of bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Reptiles have these, birds do not.

Archy, reptiles and ornithipod dinosaurs have six vertbrae in their sacrum, the part of the spine where the pelvic girdle is attached. Birds have 11 to 23 vertebae in this location. Archy is well outside the range for birds.

The vertebrae in the trunk region of birds are fused together. In Archaeopteryx and reptiles, these bones are not fused.

In birds the vertebrae of the tail, the caudal vertebrae, are fuse together into a short tail. Archaeopteryx had a long tail with most of its vertebrae not fused together, again like reptiles.

In birds, the head attaches to the neck from underneath. In archy and in reptiles, the attachment is from behind.

The brain of Archaeopteryx is shaped more like that of a reptile than that of a bird, though there are flight related changes.

Is that enough to show that Archaeopteryx also had reptile traits that show it to be intermediate? If not, I can keep listing them. Strangely, it does not seem that I really had to argue against any of your claims. Archaeopteryx does have many traits in common with birds. But the same can be said with reptiles. The conference only needed to be put into context.

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh, BTW, it is considered plagarism to copy that much material word for word and not give the reference.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

Here is my promised list of transitionals. Sorry it is so short. But I thought this would be enough to dispel the myth that there are not any transitionals. If you will excuse me, it is lunchtime and I am hungry. If you want a longer list, let me know.

Acanthostega, Adelobasileus, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Cantius, Caudipteryx,Confuciusornis, Cynodesmus, Dimetrodon, Eusthenopteron, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Hovasaurus, Hylonomus, Ichthyostega, Kenyapithecus, Microraptor, Oreochima, Osteolepis, Pachycynodon,Pakicetus, Panderichthys, Parapithecus, Parasemionotus, Peramus, Proailurus, Probainognathus, Proconsul, Procynosuchus, Proganochelys, Proterogyrinus, Protoclepsydrops, Rodhocetus, Sinoconodon, sinornithosaurus, Spathobatis, Thrinaxodon, Triadobatrachus, Tristychius, Ursavus, Ursus, Utatsusaurus.

 

[UTEOTW]

I must apologize. I missed the AIG link at the bottom of your post. Sincerest apologies. It is my fault for overlooking something so obvious.