The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution

There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. A clue to both the recent success — and the eventual collapse — of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

Intelligent Design (ID) pays tribute to its rival, by demanding to be recognized as a direct and “scientific” competitor with the Theory of Evolution. Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution.

True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was.

What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth.

These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles. One might paraphrase the new position, that has been expressed by President Bush and many others, as follows:

What do evolutionists have to fear? Are they so worried about competition and criticism that they must censor what bright students are allowed to hear? Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves!

One has to appreciate not only irony, but an implied tribute to the scientific enlightenment, when we realize that openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth are now the main justifications set forward by those who still do not fully accept science. Some of those promoting a fundamentalist- religious agenda now appeal to principles they once fiercely resisted. (In fairness, some religions helped to promote these concepts.) Perhaps they find it a tactically useful maneuver.

It’s an impressive one. And it has allowed them to steal a march. While scientists and their supporters try to fight back with judicious reasoning and mountains of evidence, a certain fraction of the population perceives only smug professors, fighting to protect their turf — authority figures trying to squelch brave underdogs before they can compete. Image matters. And this self-portrayal — as champions of open debate, standing up to stodgy authorities — has worked well for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). For now.

Yet, I believe they have made a mistake. By basing their offensive on core notions of fair play and completeness, ID promoters have employed a clever short-term tactic, but have incurred a long-term strategic liability. Because, their grand conceptual error is in believing that their incantation of Intelligent Design is the only alternative to Darwinian evolution.

If students deserve to weigh ID against natural selection, then why not also expose them to…

This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands — possibly millions — of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith. Yes, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and our earliest ancestors emerged from a stew of amino acids that also led to crabs, monkeys and slime molds who are all distant relatives. Still, a creative force may have been behind the Big Bang, and especially the selection of some finely tuned physical constants, whose narrow balance appears to make the evolution of life possible, maybe even inevitable. Likewise, such a force may have given frequent or occasional nudges of subtle guidance to evolution, all along, as part of a Divine Plan.

There is one advantage — and drawback — to this notion (depending on your perspective): it is compatible with everything we see around us — all the evidence we’ve accumulated — and it is utterly impossible to prove or disprove. Not only does this let many scientists continue both to pray and do research, but it has allowed the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations to accept (at long last) evolution as fact, with relatively good grace.

Most Judeo-Christian sects dislike speculating about possible origins of the Creator. But not all avoid the topic. Mormons, for example, hold that the God of this universe — who created humanity (or at least guided our evolution) — was once Himself a mortal being who was created by a previous God in a prior universe or context.

One can imagine someone applying the very same logic that Intelligent Design promoters have used.

There is no way that such a fantastic entity as God could have simply erupted out of nothing. Such order and magnificence could not possibly have self-organized out of chaos. Only intelligence can truly create order, especially order of such a supreme nature.

Oh, certainly there are theological arguments that have been around since Augustine to try and quell such thoughts, arguing in favor of ex nihilio or timeless pre-existence, or threatening punishment for even asking the question. But that’s the point! Any effort to raise these rebuttals will:

1. make this a matter of theology (something the ID people have strenuously avoided). 2. smack as an attempt to quash other ideas, flying against the very same principles of fair play and completeness that ID proponents have used to prop up this whole effort.

IDOID will have to be let in, or the whole program must collapse under howling derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

Yes, you read me right. Recent advances in cosmology have led some of the world’s leading cosmologists, such as Syracuse University’s Lee Smolin, to suggest that each time a large black hole forms (and our universe contains many) it serves as an “egg” for the creation of an entirely new “baby universe” that detaches from ours completely, beginning an independent existence in some non-causally connected region of false vacuum. Out of this collapsing black hole arises a new cosmos, perhaps with its own subsequent Big Bang and expansion, including the formation of stars, planets, etc. Smolin further posits that our own universe may have come about that way, and so did its “parent” cosmos, and so on, backward through countless cycles of hyper-time.

Moreover, in a leap of highly original logic, Smolin went on to persuasively argue that each new universe might be slightly better adapted than its ancestor. Adapted for what? Why, to create more black holes — the eggs — needed for reproducing more universes.

Up to this point we have a more sophisticated and vastly larger-scale version of what Richard Dawkins called the evolution of evolvability. But Lee Smolin takes it farther still, contending that, zillions of cycles of increasingly sophisticated universes would lead to some that inherit just the right physical constants and boundary conditions.

Well, now it’s our turn to take things even farther than Smolin did. Any advocate of completeness would have to extend this evolutionary process beyond achieving mere sapience like ours, all the way to producing intelligence so potent that it can then start performing acts of creation on its own, manipulating and using black holes to fashion universes to specific design.

In other words, there might be an intelligent designer of this world … who nevertheless came into being as a result of evolution.

Sound a little newfangled and contrived? So do all new ideas! And yet, no one can deny that it covers a legitimate portion of idea space. And since “weighing the evidence” is to be left to students, well, shouldn’t they be exposed to this idea too? Again, the principles now used by proponents of ID — fair play and completeness — may turn around and bite them.

Perhaps the whole thing does not have a clear-cut beginning or end, but rolls along like a wheel? That certainly would allow enough macro-time for everything and anything to happen. Interestingly, the cyclical notion opens up infinite time for both evolution and intelligent designers … though not of any kind that will please ID promoters. Shall Hindu gurus and Mayan priest kings step up and demand equal time for their theories of creation cycles? How can you stop them, once the principle is established that every hypothesis deserves equal treatment in the schools, allowing students to hear and weigh any notion that claims to explain the world? 5. Panspermia

This one is venerable and quite old within the scientific community, which posits that life on Earth may have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Panspermia was trotted out for the “Scopes II” trial in the 1980s, when Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge were among the few first-rank scientists to openly disbelieve the standard Origins model — the one that posits life appeared independently out of nonliving chemicals in Earth’s early oceans. Their calculations (since then refuted) suggested that it would take hundreds of oceans and many times the age of the Earth for random chemistry to achieve a workable, living cell.

Alas for the Creationists of that day, Hoyle and Wickramasinge did not turn out to be useful as friendly experts, because their alternative offered no comfort to the biblical Genesis story. They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets — and comets too — they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through … well … evolution. (Needless to say, Creationists found Hoyle & Wickramasinge a big disappointment.)

So far, we have amassed quite a list of legitimate competitors … that is, if Intelligent Design is one. Now a cautionary pause. Some alternative theories that I have left out include satirical pseudo-religions, like one recent internet fad attributing creation to something called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” These humorous jibes have a place, but their blows do not land on-target. They miss the twin pillars of completeness and fair play, upon which promoters of Intelligent Design have based their attack against secular-modernist science. By erasing all theological details, they hoped to eliminate any vulnerabilities arising from those details. Indeed, since the Spaghetti Monster is purported to be an Intelligent Designer, they can even chuckle and welcome it into the fold, knowing that it will win no real converts.

Not so for the items listed here. Each of these concepts — adding to idea-space completeness and deserving fair play — implies a dangerous competitor for Intelligent Design, a competitor that may seduce at least a few students into its sphere of influence. This undermines the implicit goal of ID, which is to proselytize a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

There are other possibilities, and I am sure readers could continue adding to the list, long after I am done, such as…

* We’re living in a simulation… * We’ve been resurrected at the Omega Point… * It’s all in your imagination … and so on.

I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on.

Each of these viewpoints can muster support from philosophers and even some modern physicists, and can gather as much supporting evidence as ID. In any case they are all equally defensible as concepts. And only censoring bullies would prevent students from hearing them and exercising their sovereign right to decide for themselves, right? Or, perhaps, they might even start private sessions after school, to study the science called … biology.

A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone.

Okay, here it is: Show that the theory of evolution is true. And be specific, give genuine facts, hard facts, not the vague inferences to a 'mountain of evidence'. And then buttress your claims with true arguments of substance (and not evo word games) and with links other than to a propaganda web site like talk-origins.

While I cannot "prove" that the theory of evolution is true any more than I can prove any other scientific theory, such as gravity or electromagnetism, I can references a small sample of the evidence that has further established confidence in the validity of the theory amongst biologists and other life-science professionals.

The first line of evidence that suggested such a concept as common descent to anyone -- even before Darwin's time -- was the layout of the fossil record. As early as the late 18th century, scientists observed that fossils appeared sorted in "layers" arranged by their relative ages, and it was clear from the fossil record that certain forms existing in a past time period did not exist in a future time period and vice versa, however there were similarities amongst the chronologically ascending order of fossils that suggested some sort of connection between the different organism types. It is also important to note that one prediction -- a consequence, if you will -- of the theory of evolution is that fossilized remains of more "advanced" organisms -- that is, organisms determined to have not appeared until a specific geological time frame -- should never appear in geological strata of "older" time frames. A specific example would be a rabbit fossil found in Precambrian strata.Such a discovery would turn the notion of common descent onto its head. Thus far, no such observation has occured.

That alone, however, is not the entire line of reasoning leading to conclusons of common descent based on the fossil record. There are also observations of similar structures throughout the fossil record, and also in the skeletal structures. There are clear similarities in limb structures even when limbs have distinctively different functions (such as a forelimb used for writing by humans, locomotion by mice and flight by bats). This further strengthens the claim of common descent, and the claim of "common design" becomes somewhat specious when it is considered that less related organisms may have completely different physical structures for performing the same task -- often even more efficient; as an example, bats -- which are mammals -- have wings clearly derived from forelimbs similar to human arms and mouse front legs however the wing structure of birds -- which enables the same feature of flight -- is entirely different.

Most of that information I have pulled from this resource, however if you wish for a more in-depth analysis of a specific lineage established through the fossil record, please say so and I will be happy to research the necessary information. If you believe that elements of the fossil record actually contradict evolution, please be specific in justifying the claim so that it may be evaluated; too often I have observed creationists asserting that the fossil record "disproves" evolution, but they offer no specific examples or -- in cases where they have claimed that the record "appears as if caused by a global flood" -- they offer no references to support the claim.

A more recent -- and perhaps more compelling -- discovery further establishing confidence in the theory of evolution lies within elements of DNA; specifically, endogenous retroviral elements, or ERVs.

This requires a bit of explanation, followed by some specific examples.

An ERV is a parasitic element -- a retrovirus -- that inserts itself into the DNA of a cell, effectively becoming a part of the genome. In some cases, this is has a clearly harmful effect, but it is also possible for the ERV to insert itself into a non-coding region of the DNA, resulting in transforming a non-functional section of DNA into a different-looking non-functional section of DNA. Less commonly, this kind of insertion can occur within a germ cell (a sperm or egg cell in sexually reproducing organisms). When this happens, the non-functional genetic information of the ERV insertion is passed on to offspring organisms, who then pass the non-functional ERV code to their offspring. Such an occurance -- especially in the same location in the DNA -- is so rare that if the same ERV sequence is found within two different organisms at the same location in the genome, it is almost certain that they are related.

Now, having said that, this does open up a claim regarding creationist arguments rooted in probability, as some creationists might note that "probability arguments" against evolution are often rejected, and I bring this point up now to head off such objections. Probability arguments against evolution are rejected for two reasons: the first is that the probabilities are rarely, if ever, justified and the second is that the probability arguments are often against concepts not addressed by the theory of evolution, such as abiogenesis. In the case of ERV insertions, the probability arguments are well-justified and the probability directly relates to the ERV insertion, which is the topic at hand.

That covers the basics of ERV. What has led ERV discoveries to further confidence in common descent is the nature of such discoveries across primate DNA, including the DNA of humans. Lineages of descent based upon the fossil record had already led biologists to conclude that in the history of ape evolution, orangutans branched off initially from a common ancestor, and then later -- after the ancestor ape organisms migrated from Asia to Africa -- branched into chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and humans. This has consequences for researching ERV insertions across primate species: if the previously established lineages are accurate, then an identical ERV insertion found in both orangutans and chimpanzees must also be found in gorillas, bonobos and humans or a "damned good reason" must exist for why such an insertion could be missing in one such species. Thus far, there has been no need for any "damned good reasons", as ERV insertion discoveries have fit the pattern of such insertions in orangutans and chimpanzees also existing in the other three species. On the other hand, there is no reason to expect that an ERV found in both chimpanzees and gorillas must always appear in orangutans, as it is possible for such insertions to have occured after the orangutang branch. Various relevant articles and abstracts can be found here, here and here.

ERV insertions do not only suggest common descent amongst primates. This abstract summarizes an article detailing such finds in elephants and closely related species.

ERV research has brought forth some of the most compelling information suggesting common descent, so much so that at least a few creationists (Michael Denton comes to mind) have recently suggested acceptance of common descent, even if they insist upon an Intelligent Designer being responsible for ultimately tying all organisms together. There are a large number of other fields of research and relevant information, but I would rather save discussion of such concepts for a more specialized digression. That is to say, if you wish for information on any specific subject -- such as speciation, mutation, the lineage and relation of any specific set of organisms -- then please ask for that specifically and I will dedicate one posting to that entire subject. If you wish to dispute or question any of the information that I have provided, feel free to do so. You may ask me for further information, clarification or justification for any statement that I have made above. If you wish to refute anything that I have said, I ask that you please be specific in both the subject of refutation and why you believe the subject refuted, so that I may be able to refine the information upon which I rely and even refine my sources should you illustrate any inaccuracies.

Before I begin forgive the format that this response is in. I thought I had HTML down for this sort of thing but apparently I was mistakent. As early as the late 18th century, scientists observed that fossils appeared sorted in "layers" arranged by their relative ages

How were their ages established just by observing?

From your supporting resource: A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species.

So tell me, when did this sudden change happen based on another article that is up your alley?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/91

I hope you notice all the questionable data referenced in this article. Nothing has been verified. Matter of fact most everything is still up in the air awaiting the great enlightening. While I cannot "prove" that the theory of evolution is true

WOW! What a revelation. So if you can't prove it why is it taught as the only answer to our being? Your data cannot be proven so to me it is inconclusive and should not be taught.

Here is some helpful data from another source: To the average person, the most powerful witness to claims of vast prehistoric ages is the testimony of sometimes thousands of feet of sedimentary-rock layers and the fossils they contain. The sight of the Grand Canyon with its layer upon layer of sedimentary rock seems to imply the requirement of vast amounts of time. Evolutionists believe and propose that each layer represents an ancient world that long since perished. Recent-creationists, on the other hand, believe that these rock layers were all deposited quickly under catastrophic conditions in the relatively recent past. The occurrence of polystrate fossils in numerous places around the world is one dramatic piece of evidence that the recent-creationists may be right. In order to see why, remember that fossil formation requires rapid burial and sealing from atmospheric and surface elements. Any organic material, such as wood, that is so exposed will not turn into a fossil. Rather, it will rot. Therefore, just as with the whale in the diatomite deposit, the entire length of a fossil tree trunk had to be buried quickly in order for it to fossilize. However, in polystrate fossils, these tree trunks extend vertically and are incorporated into rock layers supposedly laid down in epochs separated by millions of years of time. The most obvious and straightforward interpretation of these fossils is that the sedimentary layers engulfing them were laid down in rapid succession during a single catastrophe in the past. They constitute a sort of frozen clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly.

By the way, you never answered my question of "where did the spruce tree seed come from? And since we are here please provide an explanation of why there are so many different languages if we are all descended from same kind.

And when did this occur?

Shifts in language are not one-time events.

And what tree would that be from?

A previous tree life form. At some point in time plants shifted and became more and more like what we see as trees today.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Radiodating.html

An interesting article. I have examined it.

In the following, we will take a closer look at these and other methods, and we will make an assessment of their accuracy. At the end we shall conclude that these dating methods are so unreliable that ultimately rocks and fossils cannot be dated by these, thus evolutionists must rely solely on theory.

The opening statement misrepresents the word "theory". Apparently the author of this article is unaware of the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context. Curious that the author misuses the word in exactly the same fashion that you do. This does not speak well of the author's credibility.

We have seen on the previous pages, that evolution cannot happen, regardless of how much time is available; one thousand or one billion years. Long time does not make possible the impossible. A tornado could rumble through a junkyard for billions of years, and still would not be able to assemble a Rolls Royce, let alone a whole Rolls Royce factory!

The author here employs a false analogy, comparing elements of a junkyard and a Rolls Royce as analagous to biochemicals and imperfectly replicating organisms. Not only is the analogy invalid because of the differences of the objects involved, but the events being described are also not analagous to the process of evolution. Again, it appears as though the author knows little about evolution, or is not being honest.

Since evolution has not been observed in our time

This statement is simply false.

and it has not been observed in the past either,

Artifical selection has been practiced in the past for centuries. Evolution "in the wild" has not been readily observed in the past because no one was looking for it.

the only hope remaining for evolutionists is the availability of unimaginably long periods of time. Their utmost desire is to demonstrate the existence and scientific validity of these long periods of times.

The author here is misrepresenting the strength of evidence for evolution.

Several types of radiodating methods are used today, but when applied to the same sample, they give different dates[1].

The author provides a source for this claim, but it is in the form of one sentence written in 1956, without any context. I am unable to evaluate whether the quote is from a writing that actually supports the author's conclusion; there are known factors in dating methods that can yeild inaccurate results, but researchers are aware of these factors and can compensate for them, without the context of the referenced article, I am unable to determine whether or not the author of the reference was actually claiming that dating methods are not usable.

A very good example of how scientists interpret the results of their radiodating method is presented in reference [2].

Again, no context is provided for the reference, just a single quote. Given that creationists frequently select single statements, employed out of context to make it appear as though the speaker was delivering a point completely contradictory to the position that they actually hold and the statement that they actually made, I am reluctant to automatically trust the authority of this claim.

They select only the "most reasonable" dates, the ones that agree with the evolutionary theory of long ages and discard the ones that do not fit in. Well, this method is far from an objective and precise scientific approach!

This claim is without any actual evidence. The author provides no information to show that the selection of ages from a list of varying ages is done solely to support the theory of evolution.

The author then lists a series of problems with radiometric dating, however geologists are already aware of potential factors that can skew results. This is, in fact, why multiple redundant dating techniques are used, and why study is done on the material to be dated to rule out potentially inaccurate tests.

Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than two centuries old have been dated at up to 3 BILLION years old!

This is a rather well-known creationists misrepresentation.

Laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which to ignore.

This claim is made without evidence.

2. Radiocarbon Dating

Given how frequently I have observed creationists misrepresent the facts of carbon dating, I am reluctant to continue. However, I will analyze the claims made.

If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it.

This is another quote without any context. A bit of research shows that this quote specifically related to study of Egyptian archeology, not a study of biology or evolution in particular.

mortar from the 785 year old Oxford Castle in England was dated at 7,370 years old

This is a very strange claim. I was not aware that mortar was the remains of organic material. I was also not aware that the mortar used in constructing castles approximately 800 years ago came into existence spontaneously with the construction of the castle. For this claim to have meaning, however, both must be true.

# freshly killed seals were dated at 1,300 years and seals dead for 30 years at 4,600 years
# living snails being dated at 2,300 years old

Seals and other aquatic life cannot be accurately carbon dated for known reasons. Researchers are aware of this limitation and thus carbon dating is not used for such specimens.

Snails and mollusks cannot be carbon dated for the same reason.

new wood cut from growing trees after few days was dated at 10,000 years

I am unable to find any references for this claim. That is, I cannot find a documented example where this has occured, thus I cannot evaluate the accuracy or honesty of the claim.

muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk was dated to 24,000 years, while the the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb was established to be 17,200 years—a rather long living animal as it appears!

I am unable to find any references to the study that produced these dates. The earliest publication to which I have tracked this is Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth authored by Wayne Jackson. No references to any peer reviewed articles regarding this can be located. However, I will note that this claim does appear markedly similar to a creationist claim regarding different ages derived from a single mammoth specimen, except that despite creationist claims, the different dates actually derived from different mammoths.

We cannot just assume that the C-14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle has always been constant, that the cosmic ray flux has always been the same [8] and that no contamination of the sample occurred.

This is true. This is why researchers use a calibration curve to account for different levels of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and why they make themselves aware of contamination sources to avoid dating samples that are potentially contaminated.

These assumptions are obviously erroneous, otherwise how can one explain that hair from a mammoth has been dated at 26,000 years while the peat right above the carcass at only 5,610 years?

The author demonstrates that he has done little research; as you can see, I have already addressed this claim. The claim is false, yet creationists continue to make it.

Because of the short half-life of C-14, this method is only suitable for dating relatively young samples. Practically, any organic material would be left with an undetectable amount of radioactive carbon after 10 half-lives of C-14.

This is true, and known. Carbon-14 dating is not used for dating samples to more than 50,000 years.

This means that most of the fossils claimed to be millions of years old, would have to show an "infinite" age. It is not so.

The author is correct that it is not so, but not for the reasons that he gives. Fossils are not dated with radiocarbon dating. The author is either misinformed, or not being honest with his claims when he imlpies that Carbon-14 dating is used on fossils.

Radiocarbon dating of coal deposits gave ages less than 50,000 years, when the evolutionary theory claimed them to be millions of years old.

It is not the theory of evolution that dates coal, but existing dating procedures. An explanation of Carbon-14 dates of coal can be found here.

After the discovery of the radiocarbon dating method, scientists tried to correlate their results with the dates "established" a century before.

The author claims this, but provides no evidence that this has occured.

But they have not been able to do so.

The author also has provided no actual evidence to show that dating techniques are as wildly inaccurate as he claims. He has provided a very small selection of out-of-context quotes with no actual research backing them up, and a few incidents that are indicative only of creationist ignorance of dating methods and techniques.

Of thousands of measurements, they have been able to correlate only three.

No reference is provided for this claim.

These three successes were enough to make the original century old fossil/strata dating "scientific". It is on this basis that evolutionists claim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals!

Again, no references are provided.

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.