A Grand Unified Model of Creation
Creation was in 4140
b.c.e ± 0, and the Flood was in 2480
b.c.e. ± 0. These facts, based on the
biblical text, mean that the earth is < 6200 years old, and the geological
record of the Flood destruction is < 4500 years old. The geological
history of the earth begins with God creating an engineered foundational
structure for the continents and seas. Proverbs 8:24-30 describes
the nature of this process as one involving wisdom or intelligence:
When there were no t'homot1, I was brought
forth;
when there were no springs3
abounding with water.
Before the hills were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor
the fields,
nor the first part of the dust of the world.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the
depth:
When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened2
the springs3 of the t'hom:
When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was by him, as one brought up with
him:
and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him; |
1. deep, of subterranean waters, Gn. 49:25, Dt.
33:13 [the deep that lies beneath], Gn. 7:11, 8:2; Job. 28:14; 38:16 (have
you entered into the springs of the sea and in searches of the deep have
you walked?) Ps. 36:7; Ps. 33:7 (he gathered as a heap the waters of the
sea; he put in storehouses the deeps).
2. The Hebrew word connotes "strength." Could special enigeering
be implied here, such that the crust is supported over the waters without
breaking under the weight?
3. Springs, as in water coming out of the ground |
Before the flood there was no
disorder or destruction in the rock systems of the earth. The crust
was designed to support life; it channeled the rivers, springs and
waters to the surface. There were no fossils or bones buried in the
earth; in fact the God considers bones unclean and a defilement.
God did not create a defiled earth, but an earth that was "very good."
In the orginal earth all the continents were
connected together (Gen. 1:9) into one giant supercontienent with shallow
seas, and a vast "deep" ocean around the perimeter. That continent
is usually called Pangea. Here
is one reconstruction. Additionally, this giant continent
was built up over this vast deep ocean (see
cross section) Notice the water under the continental plate.
The continent was held up by what the bible calls "pillars" and "foundations."
Additionally, the water was connected to the surface through channels,
to the inland seas, and to the bottom of the oceanic "deep" (Gen. 7:11).
This water was heated from below, and rose up through the channels in the
crust to water the earth with a mist (Gen. 2:6). The river systems
of earth were also part of this system. Their sources began with
subterrainian water welling up from channels in the earth. It was
then possible for a river to flow in a circle, due to the flatness of some
areas of the earth (2:13). And besides the tributaries merging into
larger rivers, the reverse could happen. Rivers could split up into
more channels (Gen. 2:10). It is worth noting that designing rivers
in this fashion is much less erosive of the landscape than post flood rivers,
which wreck havoc on top soil. The lack of violent rain also means
that there were no local floods.
In the Age to Come, part
of this subcontinental water may be re-established, and this is hinted
at by the waters emanating from the threshold of the prophetic Temple of
Ezekiel 40-48. These waters multiply, perhaps by being supplied from
below in ever increasing amounts as the river flows away from the temple.
Whereever it goes, the waters become fresh.
It is likely that, except
for the region of Eden, the earth was empty (cf. Gen. 1:28), and except
for the the local sea and air that the far off regions were empty also
(cf. Gen. 1:22). Genetic variation was still only buried in the codes
of the basic kinds (cf. Gen. 1:11). God brought the animals to Adam,
and he named them (Gen. 2:19-20). After this, life began to spread
and fill the earth with its many variations as programmed by the Creator.
Since the earth was watered
by mists and water welling up from below, there was no violent rain, as
we observe in thunderstorms today, with hail and high winds. It is
likely that earth's axis was not then tilted, and that it later went through
radical swings at the time of the flood due to mass redistribution of the
drifting land masses. So different biomes, like a jungle and a desert
could be only a mountain range apart. The desert would have fewer
"mist vents," and fewer water channels. There could even be arctic
regions near the poles, if we allow for the current hydrological cycle
to operate over the vast perimeter sea, but to be kept in check by low
mountains along the coast. Any number of habitats could have been
designed by God. .
The prime cause of the flood was the divine
action of God in cursing the creation at the Fall of Man. At this
point the speed of light began to decay exponentially
from near infinite values. This explains why light now takes billions
of years to reach us. It also explains the high ratio's of daughter
products to parent products in radioactive decay (which invalidates radiometric
dating). As the speed of light decreased, planck's constant increased,
and as a result the larger atoms destabalized first in a quantum manner
(in jumps). This process became critical at the beginning of the
flood when Uranium began to decay. Polonium and other short half-life
elements did not begin to decay until the end of the flood. The
evidence for this is the Po-halos in coalified wood.
Again, the initial events
of the flood began with runaway radioactive heating
at the top of the earth's mantle. As the earth's mantle heated up, the
presure on the water chamber increased.
This caused it to rupture ( See figure) flooding
the earth. As rock was eroded along the rift, the gap became
wider and wider. Eventually, enough weight was unloaded out of the
rift that the floor of the deep sprang up and shoved the continents aside.
Continental drift was intiated, and continued until the water beneath was
depleted. By this time the land masses had so much drift enertia
that when they ran aground on the floor of the deep, they compressed and
thickened. This raised the land masses out of the water. For
a more detailed description of the hydroplate theory, see
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation
and the Flood. For a discussion of some problems yet to be resolved,
see Discussion of Hydroplate
Theory.
Now when the plates hit
the floor of the deep (after the water was depleted), they imparted a good
deal of their inertial component to the oceanic plates. This tends
to pull material away from the ridges from which the land masses drifted.
This is partly why the sea floor spreads at the ridges. The other
reason is that the mantle is much closer to the surface under the ridges,
and magma from that source wells up and expands. This expansion pushes
the ridges apart causing the sea floor to spread at low rates (less than
20cm/year). This spreading effect is a left over effect of the flood,
but it is not the cause of continental separation. Also, there is
no evidence of "convection currents" of molten rock in the interior of
the earth.
Another damaging fact against
long term sea floor spreading, is the fact that sediments on the floor
of the ocean are not deformed as they are on the continents. If there
had been more than a few hundred meters of movement in geologic time, we
would expect massive deformities to occur in flat layers of sediment.
It is often claimed that Paleomagnetic anomolies show that the sea floor
has spread over geologic time. Actually, as the ridge rose off the
bottom of the deep, it rifted paralell to the ridge axis, deep enough for
molten magma to fill in the bottom of the fractures. The tops of
the rifts were still solid, and retained the preflood magnetic orientation,
which was the same as today. The bottoms filled in and cooled when
the field had reversed polarity during the geomagnetic disturbance caused
by rapid continental drift at the end of the flood. Furthermore,
alternating layers of sediments show reversed polarities going down into
the rifts, as well as going away from the ridge axis. How spreading
produces this phenomenon is a mystery. However, it can be explained
by rapid field reversals in conjunction with the rapid deposition of the
sediments. That rapid reversal's do occur was demonstrated by Coe
and Privot who found that the field had swung through 90° in the 7
days it took a lava flow to cool.
Another problem (mentioned
by Brown) is the overlapping ridge axis. In that case, the spreading
hypothesis would have to postulate a subduction process right between the
overlapping axis. But there is no evidence for this.
We can explain this feature by saying that the as the fissure tried to
propagate forward, it ran into resistence, but that the new fissure began
parallel to the old one.
The reversal patterns and
current spreading rates are used to "date" the rate of continental drift
by Evolutionists, who come up with some 200 million years. We must
notice that these dates are not obtained by radiometric dating across the
axis of the ridge. It is only based on the assumption that the observed
spreading continued for 200 million years at current rates, when actually,
the spreading has only been for 4500 years at current rates. The
cause of the spreading must be attributed to expanding magma at the ridge,
and the transfer of the continent's inertial component to the sea floor
when they ran aground.
Brown proposes that the
cause of the magnetic anomolies may be that deep in the rifts the quantity
of solidified rock below the Curie point is greater than at the tops.
This gives a positive anomoly over the rifts, but a lower intensity of
field over the crests of the rifts. If the overall field intensity
is interpreted as being x, and a measurement y, less than x, is obtained,
then they assume that the reversed polarity of the rocks are cancelling
out part of the x field to produce the y measurement. But this would
be invalid if the overall intensity did not subtract out the remnant magnatism
of the "normal" rocks. The only way to be sure that the low intensity
rocks are actually reversely magnetised is to measure the direction of
their field after cancelling out the effects of the earth's field.
Another observation that
needs to be explained is the offset nature of the ridge axis. When
the axis is realigned, then the anomolies are said to line up also.
This may be explained if we assume that the original fissure or crack that
encircled the globe ran into resistances such that it was forced to propagate
sideways for a space before resuming its forward propagation. So
far, so good, but what about the anomolies? The plates would erode
at the fissure, which was offset. Then the bottom of the deep would
rise in this offset pattern. Drifting would initiate. If we
suppose that the rates of erosion and drift were symetrical about the axis,
at least for the first 500-1000 km, and that as the ridge rose to the level
of the present sea bottom, the rock cooled below the Curie Point,
so that it recorded the field direction at the time of cooling, then a
matchable stripped pattern would be produced, even though it was never
matched up in the first place!
The Declining Power of
Post Flood Volcanos
Evidence that the plates are slowing down
Twentieth-Century Earthquakes:
Confronting An Urban Legend - Austin
Could Tribulation quakes be caused by man's drilling of the crust?
Earthquakes in These
Last Days - Austin
Global Warming and the
Flood- Vardiman
Cooling of the Ocean
After the Flood - Vardiman
Evidence for a Young
Sun - Davies
Non-fusion source of power
Creation and the Curse
- Stambaugh
Scientific implication of curse on nature. I would
add that the curse
probably includes the negative habits of pesky insects and
dangerous snakes. It is possible that insects did not eat
insects before the fall.
Out of Whose Womb Came
the Ice?* (*Job 38:29) - Vardiman
Precipitation climate model for post flood ice-age.
Tree Rings and Biblical
Chronology - Lorey
Verifying 2480 b.c.e. limit on oldest living trees. Warning!
The 4900 year old
estimate for Methuselah is 400 years too old. The location of the
tree is kept "secret," so the claims that it is older than the flood
cannot be verified. However, the fact that it is close, is good
evidence for the date of the flood.
The Dating Gap - Lubenow
Between C-14 and K-Ar, i.e. 40,000 b.p. and 400,000 b.p.
The Earth's Magnetic
Field is Young - Humphreys
Including explanation of reversal's.
The Mystery of the Earth's
Magnetic Field - Humphreys
Earth's Magnetic Age:
The Achilles Heel of Evolution - Barnes
The Greenhouse Effect
and Pre-Flood Days - Cooper
Important data on current warming trend
Ice Cores and the Age
of the Earth - Vardiman
Of the Greenland Ice Sheet
Excessively Old Ages
For Grand Canyon Lava Flows - Austin
Comparing "old" dates of surface lava to "younger" dates of deep lava.
Grand Canyon Lava Flows:
A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods - Austin
Radiometric Dating Using
Isochrons - Akridge
A Parable: mixing vs. decay.
Were Grand Canyon Limestones
Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas? - Austin
Support for the idea of flood water transport of lime.
Beyond Neptune: Voyager
II Supports Creation - Humphreys
Confirmation of Humphrey's Magnetic Field Predictions
The Chinese Language
and the Creative Hands of God - Nelson
Writing System reveals origins
Flight of Migratory Birds
- Gitt
From Alaska to Hawaii
The Chemistry of Oil
Explained by Flood Geology - McQueen
The Paluxy River Mystery
- J. Morris
Possible Evidence of Evolutionists Tampering with Evidence?
Paluxy River Tracks -
J. Morris
The Paluxy Dinosaur/Man
Track Controversy
An argument that all tracks are dinosaur. By Evolutionist Glen J.
Kuban.
Warning! This site abounds with lies and
falsehoods.
Photo-Galery of Paluxy Tracks
Note: Eyewitness testimony of track destruction by Kuban!
Warning! This site teaches anti-Sabbath heresies.
If creationists
should learn from the Sabbath, they should learn it is a day for
remembering creation! (Other heresies here include: denial of the
sleep of the dead, denial of anihilation in the lake of fire, etc.)
Up, Up, and Away! The
Helium Escape Problem - Vardiman
Too much Helium for 4.5 by of Radioactive decay!
Consequences of Time
Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives - Rybka
The dangers of extrapolation
Springs of the Ocean
- Austin
Hydrothermal Vents. Remnants of the Foutains of the deep?
Amino Acid Racemization
Dating Method - Gish
Produces dates discordant with other methods.
Polonium Halos in Flood Rocks
Pleochroic Halos Revisited-Part
I
Pleochroic Halos Revisited-PART
II
Pleochroic Halos Revisited-Part
III
Pleochroic Halos Revisited-Part
IV
Return to Narrative
Are
These Photographs of Fossilized Nephilim?
Ancient Airplanes
Ancient
Batteries
The Abydos
Mystery- Ancient Vehicles
The London
Artifact: An Iron Hammer In Stone
Fossilized
Human Finger
Anomalously
Occuring Fossils
Creationists
Take Over Dinosaur Dig, Worst Fears Realized by Evolutionists
New Zealand Plesiosaur caught
by Japanese Fishing Ship
Walt
Brown's Presentation of the Plesiosaur
An Analysis of a Supposed
Plesiosaur Carcass Netted in 1977
Again Glen Kuban attacks the evidence by overrating the protein analysis
which did rule out mammalian origin, and by claiming it was a Basking Shark
See Basking Sharks - WWW-board for a rebuff
to Kuban's
Basking Shark theory.
More on Dinosaurs
and Other Megafauna - Ica Stones depict Dinosaurs
Fossil DNA in amber and
implications for geological time
The two models
The Creationist assumes that there exists an intelligent thinking personal
being who made the Universe. This being has capabilities or characteristics
greater than or equal to the highest form of being or life in the
Universe. The Creationist also assumes that this being cares about
the well being of his creatures so that he informs the creatures that are
capable of understanding about himself and his creation and that
he is actively involved in maintaining or restoring the creation.
The Evolutionist assumes that there does not exist an intelligent thinking
personal being who made the Universe. He assumes that the universe
came into being based on principles less than or equal to the highest form
of life or being in the universe. Other than the highest form of
being or life that we can "see" there is no ultimate being who cares or
who informs us about the world or who actively involves himself in either
maintaining or restoring the world.
Other models
There
are undoubtably many other mixtures of theory that could be made on the
origin of the Universe. These are the two most popular models.
So they are chosen first. We can only compare the merits of
two models at the same time and arrive at a decisive result on which model
really makes more assumptions than the other, and which model is parsimonious
and explains the evidence the best. These two models are also ideal
for comparison because they represent the possible extremes. Most
other models can be derived from these two as combinations. If one
understands the merits and demerits of these two models, then one will
be in a good position to judge the others. For example, the theistic
evolution model assumes that there is a being who cares, but that evolution
occured. The evolution occured assumption is addressed by the evidence
when we discuss the evolutionary model, and the being who cares assumption
is addressed in the other model. So we have no need to address theistic
evolution for the theistic evolutionist to be able to evaluate his theory.
The remaining models that are not combinations of these two, or which are
not addressed in our discussion can be taken care of in this way:
At least one of the models above can be proven to be so probably true that
all other models are unreasonable, because the other models offer
no such probalistic proof that comes close to the quality of the one that
we will offer. Probability is a mathematical measure of the parsimony
of a theory. If the assumptions are shown to be improbable by experiment
and evidence, then it is termed an improbable, unplausible, or ridiculous
theory. If the assumptions are born out by the evidence then the
theory is parsimonious. You will also find that bad theories tend
to multiply their speculative assumptions in order to save the first assumptions
it made from the conclusion of improbability. A good theory
maintains a plausible first set of assumptions, and as new evidence comes
along finds a lesser need to add or modify assumptions.
Methods of Evaluating Theories
The Creationist theory claims that the Deity cares and that he informed
us about the world. Since the Deity cares, then we may expect the
Deity to prove in the best way possible that he is the Deity and to certify
his chosen information source by this proof. The best form of proof
would be for the Deity to (1) demonstrate that he is all-powerful, and
the best way to do this is to show that he controls the future by (a) predicting
it, and (b) making it come out the way he wishes --- over and above
any objections. (2) The second form of proof is to show
that the natural world fits the Deity's description of how things got the
way they are --- which relates to 1a in the present, i.e. we show
that the Creator predicts the way things are also.
If the Creationist theory yeilds a null result from the above method, then
this will be evidence for the Evolutionary theory, because the Creationist
theory excludes the Evolutionary theory. If the Creationist theory
is not provable in the manner described, then the Evolutionary theory becomes
possible.
Now the evolutionary theory only becomes possible; it is not proved
if the deity of the creationist theory fails to come forward. Therefore,
the method of proof the Evolutionist will choose will be to show that the
(1) natural evidence fits his theory best, (2) that the claims of a Deity's
predictions of how things are or how they will be are false, and
(2) that things don't come out as the Deity wishes.
Underhanded Tactics
Eventually
the question of "religion vs. science" will come up. If religion
is emotion, feeling, or worship of the Deity, then we are going to leave
that out of the scientific phase of our investigation. Certainly
conclusions in favor of the Creationist lead to implications that there
should be good emotions about the Deity and that we owe the Deity some
kind of credit for what he has done, but such obligations are not evidence
for creation. Obviously the bible is a necessary reference
for the Creationist, because it (a) contains descriptions of the world
and (b) contains predictions of what will happen to the world. In
as much as the bible contains descriptions and predictions, it must be
considered a complete description of the creationist model (by the way
the Bible is the only historical document that can qualifiy as a description
of any creationist model --- certainly not the Koran or the Bagavad
Ghavita, or any other document.) So to cry "religion"
when the Creationist brings the bible forward to describe his model is
simply to deny the Creationist the right to describe his model. As
long as the creationist compares the description of the bible with the
actual evidence or the bible's predictions with the actual historical outcome,
then his method will not be unscientific.
Now it must be clear that we have here expanded the definition of science
to include historical science -- i.e. the study of the past. Pure
observational science (known as the empirical method) can only deal with
the present, not the past. Both evolutionists and creationists need
the historical sciences to even be able to talk about origins.
Since logic and reason can be applied to information about the past, then
information from the past can be evaluated. The evolutionist (believe
it or not) uses written sources of revelation just as much as the creationist.
For example, the evolutionary paleoentologist
trusts the writings of the evolutionary geologist, who, in turn, trusts
the data given him from labs that specialize in radiometric dating.
So to say that the evolutionist does not depend on the historical validation
of his sources and the reliability of the data presented would be falacious.
The evolutionist can challenge the reliability of the bible legitimately
only by using historical scientific methods. The creationist analogue
is to question the evolutionists recorded data based on the same methods.
So both the creationist and the evolutionist depend on the historical reliability
of their sources.
In any debate with an evolutionist, one can expect to be scoffed at and
ridiculed. One can expect semantic games. One can expect attacks
on credentials. One can expect to be lied to. One can expect
evidence to be misquoted, unverified, or believed because the majority
believes it. One can expect theistic evolutionists to make especially
unfair attacks because they are caught in the middle, and some have switched
sides. The Creation Model predicted this sort of behaviour.
Mankind is going from bad to worse. The Creation model predicts that
this age will end in an organized rebellion against God in which the creationist
position is suppressed.
Public Opinon and Authority
It would seem that number of educated men on one side of the question or
the other would be evidence for that point of view. Since history
is replete with counter examples of the rightness of the majority opinion,
it follows that such evidence cannot argue either way. Furthermore,
the creationist position argues that rebellion against God will increase
until the end of the Age.
Key Arguments for Evolution
(1) Radioactive Dating methods show that the
earth is 4 billion years old, which gives enough time for evolution to
occur.
(2) The fossil record shows increasing complexity
from lower strata to higher strata indicating that evolution has taken
place.
(3) Species regularly adapt to their environments,
and the source of the ability to adapt is an increase in the genetic variability
of the species.
(4) There direct evidence of transition from ape
to man, small horses to large, and from reptile to bird.
Key Arguments for Creation
(1a) The bible accurately describes the world.
i. A world wide flood can explain the fossil and geological records.
ii. Archeaology regularly confirms that the biblical record is accurate.
(1b) The bible certifies ifself as accurate by making predictions
that come true.
i. The coming of Christ was predicted 483 years in advance.
ii. The bible predicted the rise of Greece and Rome to
Superpower status before the fall of the Babylonian Empire.
iii. The bible predicted the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple.
iv. The bible predicted the demise of Tyre.
(2) Supernova dating methods show that the universe is no more
than 7000 years old. Evidence at the 95% confidence level for light
speed decay shows that light need no more than 7000 years to arrive at
earth. Light speed decay also predicts an increase in planck's constant
and and increase in the rate of radioactive decay in the past.
(3) The fossil record shows evidence of hydraulic sorting of species
from those with high density and lower habitats to those with lower density
and higher habitats which correlates to a world wide flood.
(4) Species adapt to environments based on genetic variability present
from the beginning.
(5) The fossil record shows no historically reliable transitional forms.
Design
The Evolutionist argues
that the visible universe and life on earth came into existence by chance.
The creationist argues that the God of the bible designed the universe
and life on earth. There is much evidence for the creationist assumption.
Everything that appears to be designed, whose origin we witnessed, actually
was designed by a surperior intellect. Usually that would be
people who engineered something useful. On the other hand, there
is no object that appears to be designed, whose origin we witnessed to
in fact be by random chance. Therefore, the evidence supports the
creationist assumption that a design requires a designer. Since all
the appearances of designs whose origins we can discover turn out to be
in fact designed, it follows that the probability of an appearance of a
design that we do not know the origin of, is most probably desinged by
a surperior intellect.
Furthermore, suppose that
the Evolutionist can come up with that rare example or two of something
that "appears to be designed," whose origin we know to be random chance.
The very fact that such examples would be "rare" in comparison to appearances
of design, which turn out to be designed, shows that the probability
of the Evolutionist being right in unkown cases is still extremely low.
There is a question
as to what "appearance of design" means. A good definition would
be any object whose capabilities are greater than the individual parts
of the object. Capabilities would be ability to move in a non random
fashion or do something useful. The evolutionist might press us for
a fully measureable definition of "appearance of design," (i.e. he might
want us to quantify it), and he would argue that possible inability to
quantify the design component of an object (apart from its parts) in a
universally applicable way would mean that our argument about design was
inconclusive, because our definition of "design" might not be measurable
all the time.
But in
order for the evolutionist to argue that objects, which appear to
be designed by a designer, come about by random chance, he must first
be able to distinguish between the concept of design by a designer, and
design by random chance. I would then submit that if the evolutionist
cannot quantify the difference between the two concepts, that then his
preceeding objection to our argument would be inconclusive because if the
two concepts exist (as assumed by the evolutionist), but are unquantifiable,
then the evolutionist has no basis for insisting on measurement of the
concepts. In otherwords, if he insists that we quantify "design,"
then we insist that he quantify it before he uses the concpet to deny that
it came about by a desinger.
So, we are back to square
one. The available evidence supports the need for a designer for
every design. What design is, I leave to human experience and intellect
to grasp. For such capabilities in people are in the ultimate sense
"spiritual" things, which are part of "thought" and "consciousness."
And I suspect that physical things which submit to measurement and spiritual
things are in different categories. This brings us to the root of
the philosophy of naturalistic evolution: the evolutionist only believes
that all realitiy is composed of matter.
Rock Strata.
lack of soil
layers
ripple marks, footprints,
and polystrate fossils.
lack of soil layers:
The Evolutionist argues that
sedimentary rocks, i.e. the layers of rocks laid down underwater composed
of sediments settling out of water, are produced quickly, but that their
are large gaps of time between each layer on the order of millions of years.
The Creationist argues that the entire sedimentary geological column was
laid down under water with only so much time between layers as to allow
for a shift in current with a new sediment load, or a change in tide.
What does the evidence have to say about these assumptions?
It has been observed that
any exposed surface in the biosphere above water or under water, over time,
attracts colonization by life forms --- at the very least lichens which
slowly decompose the hardest of rocks into soil. It is also observed
that the boundaries between layers of sedimentary rock are entirely lacking
in the vast majority of cases any soils or signs of colonization by life.
It would seem with millions of years between layers that one might expect
evidence of life's mark on the surface of the layer. But the evidence
is lacking. This would support the creationist contention, then,
that the layers were all laid down too quickly for life to thrive on the
exposed surface.
The evolutionist will reply that
the surface of the old layer of sedimentary rock was scraped clean by erosion
just before deposition of the next layer, so that every layer lacking
evidence of life in the million+ year gap had its surface eroded just before
the new layer was quickly produced. This, of course, is an additional
assumption, and at that an ad hoc assumption. Since the creationist
does not have to make this assumption, the creationist theory satisfies
the parsimony criteria better.
Besides noting the additional
assumption, we must ask if it is reasonable. Let us suppose that
x% of sedimentary layers show no evidence of soil or colonization by life
forms in the top layer. Let us suppose that we check all the landscapes
that were covered by historical floods that left sediment to see if the
soil layer is still there. Let us say we find y% of the landscapes
were scoured clean before deposition of sediment. Now if x = y, then
the evolutionist has evidence for his assumption. But if x >> y (x
is much greater than y), then the evolutionist not only has an additional
assumption, he has a poor one. I suspect that when this reasearch
actaully comes to light that the result will be x >> y.
ripple marks, footprints, and polystrate fossils:
Obviously
if a fossil in one layers extends to another layer, the whole sequence
must have been laid down at the same time rapidly. These fossils
are called "polystrate," (many strata). Trees are typical polystrate
fossils because their long length allows them to bridge many layers at
once. Sometimes sedimentary surfaces have ripple marks from
the water that laid the layer down, which argues that they were not exposed
to erosion for any length of time. The presence of footprints would
also argue the same.
Radiometric Dating
Certain Radioactive elements
decay into other elements over time at a given rate. The most popular
is Potassium to Argon. By measuring the amount of argon
and potassium in a sample, one can extrapolate backward over time using
the rate to determine the time when the argon content would be zero.
The validity of the method depends on three assumptions (1) No argon was
present when the rock with the potassium was formed. (2) The rate of decay
from Potassium (K) to Argon (Ar) has not changed. (3) No argon or potassium
was added or subtracted from the rock system between the time of formation
and the time of measurement.
Obviously, if these assumptions
hold, then Evolution must be true and Creation wrong. The Question
is, then, what does the evidence say about the assumptions, i.e. is there
evidence in their favor? Remember that the better theory will make
fewer assumptions. In this case the Evolutionist had made three assumptions,
and the Creationist has made only one: i.e. at least one of the Evolutionist's
assumptions is incorrect. So the score is three to one.
Now what does the evidence
say? The only possible test of radioactive dating methods is to date
a rock of known historical age to see if the historical age agrees with
the radiometric age. Barring this, the evolutionist's assumptions
are untestable. So what happens? When lava flows of known
historical age are radioactively dated, the radiometric date is in excess
of the historical date by many orders of magnitude. The
vote of the evidence, then, is "no confidence" in all cases except Carbon-14
dating. And since the half-life of C-14 is 5700 years, too little
carbon remains after 12 half-lives for it to be useful. That is,
C-14 is always inconclusive for dates greater than 60,000 years.
Furthermore, C-14 is historically verified (with a lot of fuzziness) only
back to 2000 b.c.e. That means, that what we said about the other
methods must be said about C-14 dates between 4000 and 60000 b.p. (before
present).
So, when the Evolutionary
apologist brings us radiometric dating, it is proper to ask him for a list
of "control" experiments to validate the method he is using --- i.e. a
list of radiometric dates that agree in age in rocks of known historical
age. Otherwise, the claims of the apologist are based on mere speculative
assumptions. Should such a list be provided (I doubt it can be) then
care must be taken to make sure the list truly represents the evidence,
by (a) using the blind method -- the testing lab must not know the
source or that the sample has a historical date, and (b) making sure the
the list was not created by selectively weeding out many discordant dates.
(Radiometric dating might be accidentally right sometimes, and we would
not want to weed out all the dates except the accidentally correct ones).
Finally, (c) since discordant dates do occur as addmited by the evolutionist,
a statistical analysis in order to determine the confidence level of the
"correct" dates by factoring in the "incorrect" dates.
Now it is not up to the
creationist to perform such tests! Such precautions (a)-(c)
are merely good science, and should be done by those claiming validity
for radiometric dating.
References: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html.
This is the best technical discussion of radiometric dating that I have
found so far. Another site http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx8f.htm
The HTML Writer's Guild.
HTML Syntax
Gold Mining Outlook
Dallas Gold and Silver Exchange
E-Gold
JavaScripts
Platinum Market
Ancient
Near East
ANE
WISCAT
Mesopotamia
Karaite-
New Moons
Trailerlife
Review - Teton 30'
All Rights Reserved.
Send us email.
www.parsimony.org
