Posted on 09/25/2003 2:46:02 PM PDT by HalfFull
Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.
The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.
Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.
However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.
The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2
Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.
This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!
In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.
These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.
Percent Modern Carbon
Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.
Percent Modern Carbon
Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5
The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence that reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.
Bunge, P. M., Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, B. Romanowicz and S. Grand (1998), Time scales and heterogeneous structure in geodynamic Earth models, Science, 280, 91-95.
Note the authors. Seems John Baumgardner is not listed. Hmmm....the plot thickens.
Drat! You had to go and tell him the secret! (I favor just leaving him lost when he gets lost.)
I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere. Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine. You are basically taking background noise outside the range of carbon-dating technology and trumpeting it as proof of your opinions.
The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position, which is basically proving your position with a negative.
Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution, so turn off the knee-jerk reactions.
Water pressure doesn't work like that. Considering that the ocean floor is fairly flat under thousands of feet of water, your theory doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny.
Watch an ocean in less than one year’s time erode 50 yards of beach front, then replace it before next summer.
And that sand is deposited somewhere else, and eventually forms sandstones of a structure that can be seen in the stratigraphic record. Which means that a different process other than the Flood put them there.
Erosion and sedimentary processes are mainly results of water. The global flood had lots of water! There is no other explaination for the sedimentary layers we observe in the geologic record.
Oh, poppycock. There are similar sedimentary layers forming around the world as we speak. Alluvial deposits in the Rockies. Deltaic deposits in the Mississippi Delta. Bar sandstones on barrier islands. Reef limestones in the tropics (try and reconcile Permian reef structures with the Flood). Oolitic limestones in the Bahamas. Deep water marine sediments all over ocean basins.
Don't say this at your local University, you might get a failing grade because you learned (believed) nothing the teacher has taught.
Nah, I'd get a failing grade for improper application of the scientific method - namely, forming a theory and then looking for evidence that only supports it, rather than looking at the evidence and forming the theory that best deals with the evidence.
Does that mean my skepticism regarding the Greek and Norse gods is based on faith? Is my disbelief in the teachings of Jim Jones based on faith?
I think you have set your hopes too high. ;^)
Perfect logic with imperfect premises is no better than imperfect logic with perfect premises..... Or so it seems.
Water pressure doesn't work like that. Considering that the ocean floor is fairly flat under thousands of feet of water, your theory doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny.
I was speculting, it sounds like you have proven this experiment to be true. Dangerous evolutionary logic.
And that sand is deposited somewhere else, and eventually forms sandstones of a structure that can be seen in the stratigraphic record. Which means that a different process other than the Flood put them there.
Oh, poppycock. There are similar sedimentary layers forming around the world as we speak. Alluvial deposits in the Rockies. Deltaic deposits in the Mississippi Delta. Bar sandstones on barrier islands. Reef limestones in the tropics (try and reconcile Permian reef structures with the Flood). Oolitic limestones in the Bahamas. Deep water marine sediments all over ocean basins.
And we find massive fossil beds were animal life was quickly buried and preserved in the modern sediments. NOT.
Nah, I'd get a failing grade for improper application of the scientific method - namely, forming a theory and then looking for evidence that only supports it, rather than looking at the evidence and forming the theory that best deals with the evidence.
Denial of the truth is unbecoming. Familiarize yourself with some of the real science that has been recently conducted in attempts to explain the evidence more scientifically.
A Modern Day Geological Understanding.
And for 3 years of accurate assessments regarding modern secular scientific papers, click here.
I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere.
Well if you did read it, some things didn't sink in. The researchers said that the carbon was intrinsic. Now if you want to call him a liar..why not just do and get it over with.
From article: "This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin."
The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position,
Actually, the evolutionists have an even worse tenency...declare something true using such "scientific" term such as "could-of", "might-have beens", and "probablies". At least this researcher is using scientific instruments to measure actual carbon 14 intrinsic to the fossil under study.
Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine.
There have been other threads on age-dating methods such as Potassium/Argon. . Basically, the assumptions associated with these dating methods are highly questionable. . Thus, the dating of anything using such dating methods cannot be trusted. (unless, or course, one likes the dates derived and doesn't mind faulty assumptions)..
Let me know, and I'll post a summary of the problems with methods such as P/A dating.
Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution
Be curious to know what your issues are.
Uh, dude, you can't even get the topic straight. That has nothing to do with evolution - you're talking Structural Geology now. And, since you're speculating, I suggest you try to provide some data to back up your points, or else your speculation is nothing more than bullbiscuits.
And we find massive fossil beds were animal life was quickly buried and preserved in the modern sediments.
Oh, that's a good one. You've got all kinds of shells in those modern sediments, all kinds of tracks and, sometimes, tree stumps where barrier islands covered up swamps - but they're not fossils yet, because the sediments, being modern, haven't been lithified yet. But if you care to examine fossil barrier island sandstone, you'll find fossils.
Denial of the truth is unbecoming.
Then why do you engage in it?
Familiarize yourself with some of the real science that has been recently conducted in attempts to explain the evidence more scientifically.
No thanks, I get enough nonsense from the Clintons, I don't need any more. I study Geology on the side, I don't automatically accept evolutionary logic (or other aspects of geological theory, the history of plate techtonic theory being the classic example), so I'm naturally skeptical - but theory and research needs to meet a certain threshhold of veracity for me to bother with it. What you are peddling here comes nowhere close. You are entitled to your faith, and I won't belittle you for it, but when you project that faith into pseudoscience and present it for consideration, I'm gonna whump it up one wall and down the other. As I would for purported mainstream science that is shoddily done, such as global warming.
I think that organisms have the ability to react to environmental changes within their own lifetimes, and those changes can alter an organism's genetics, even if in a very slight manner, and those changes can be imparted into the next generation. Takes the randomness out of Darwinian theory. Also, I think the largest problem of standard evolutionary theory is the genetic imprint of instinct - if, once again, organisms can learn during their lifetimes and somehow impart that learning into their genetics, then instinct becomes much easier to pass along.
Emphasis on "appeared" here - there could easily be a mechanism for C14 contanimnation that is not well understood, or you could have the natural background radiation in rocks from other decaying elements such as U-238 cause a continuous re-formation of a certain base level of C14, just as C14 is formed by solar radiation - or C14 could be replenished by other factors such as gamma radiation. We simply don't know enough, but just because this question can't be answered now, it doesn't prove YOUR point. That's scientific analysis by proving with a negative, and we all know how reliable that is.
Funny, indeed! Here's the result page from a Yahoo! on the subject. Indeed, your reference shows up as one of 19. The first link up is the PubMed Abstract of the original Science article. But that one wouldn't do for you. It lists Baumgarnder.
The Science article is not directly available, but the coauthors Grand and Bunge can be seen listing Baumgardner as a fellow author. Hmmm! The plot indeed thickens. However, those data points wouldn't do for your purposes so you skipped those.
Number 5 is the one you skipped back here with, represting it as the true, canonical, and ONLY thing in the world on the subject. You didn't come back saying, "Well, one of nineteen sources lists all the other guys and not Baumgardner." That wouldn't be very impressive. The listener might assume it was some sort of clerical error, or that Baumgardner had after the fact caught some grief for the kind of schizo behavior he exhibits in simultaneously publishing articles supporting and attacking an old earth and asked to have his name removed from a listing or two. No, we don't want to distract the dummies.
So you have provided a nice model of ICR-style scholarship. Just take what's good. Whatever you do, don't say how much data you left behind on the discard heap. You just run in and say, "Look-a here what I got! No, don't look over there! Look-a here! Just look at this! Never mind that! Look at this! Did I say, 'Look at this?' What have we got here, some kind of attention deficit disorder? Look at me, Zippy! Look-a here!"
CLUE: I have not taken issue with your silly position so please stop directing this crap at me.
OK.
Of course. You can never prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any God. Your skepticism is based on your faith.
HINT: Jim Jones was a human, not a god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.