Getting the basics wrong

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

@RichardG

i just see dismissal. You clearly do not want to know.

That’s dismissal.

This is pointless.

You have no respect for me and it shows.

Just sit in your own conceitedness and leave me be

Richard

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

1 Timothy 1 has some comments on those who presume to teach what they do not know nor understand. The semester starts in a week, so I need to prepare and not fall under that admonition myself. But that is the original point. Those who claim to be presenting scientific information on creation should display a grasp of basic scientific principles. Creation science, in contrast, functions as a conspiracy theory. Sowing distrust in THEM, not accuracy, is the goal.

Science and religion are mutually compatible. There are plenty of places where it’s not clear how they fit together, and plenty of specific religious claims that clash with science. But those show need for further investigation. Fundamentally, science depends on regular behavior of creation, our ability to perceive those patterns, and honest reporting of results. All of those philosophical requirements can be supported biblically. Conversely, science gives helpful information to better understand and apply religious principles. If we know theologically that we should love our neighbors, science tells us quite a lot about possible actions likely to have positive or negative effects on them. If we are trying to figure out just what a biblical passage means, linguistics and archaeology provide clues. Knowing more about regional geopolitics, for exaple, gives insights into what various kings of Israel and Judah were up to.

The question of how unique humans are, like questions of biological variation generally, is problematic because there are many types of variation and many ways to measure. Somewhere I have, I think from the journal Science, a brief article that responds to the claim that, if frogs did taxonomy, they would label humans as just another chimpanzee. (In other words, we think we’re different just because it’s us.) Comparing general body dimensions for many types of frogs versus how humans and chimps measure, they found that our build is in fact quite different from chimps. Genetically, those physical differences reflect much smaller DNA differences, however. “These differences seem big [or small] to me” is a matter of perspective. Gould’s claims about the Cambrian faunas being wildly variable reflect thinking along the lines of “modern arthropods fit into four big categories based on the number, location, and types of body regions and appendages. Here we have lots of combinations not found in any post-Paleozoic arthropod. What bizarre variation!” Conway Morris, in contrast, emphasizes “these are variations on the arthropod theme. If we could start from a situation like the Early Cambrian and ended up with insects having two pairs of antennae and only two body regions, would that be all that different?”

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@RichardG

What I learn is not what people think it is. Oh, there are some interesting Scientific discoveries that I have missed, but in general, what I really learn is how people think and how to answer them. It is amazing how ignorant people here think I am, and I am happy for them to continue to do so. It lets their guard down. They reveal more about themselves than I do about me, and i know exactly what buttons to press.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

This is pointless.

You have no respect for me and it shows.

Just sit in your own conceitedness and leave me be

You’re right - I don’t have any respect for you.

But if you want me to leave you be, then don’t reply to my posts.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@jammycakes

Then there’s Mount St Helens. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to remind young earthists who bring that one up of the simple fact that newly formed unconsolidated ash is not the same as hard, durable, erosion resistant rocks such as limestone and sandstone.

I am not familiar with all the arguments, but let me address the issue of Mount St. Helens.

Here are the claims that YEC makes about Mount St Helens:

1. The eruption event–from the initial eruption and the events that followed–is a mini laboratory for understanding catastrophic geological events–as we know the conditions prior, during, and following the events.
2. We observed finely graded laminae and strata being laid down in hours, not over many years or thousands of years.
3. We subsequently observed unconsolidated sediment being eroded rapidly.
4. We also observed consolidated sediment that was there prior to the eruption that eroded rapidly. No, not all the erosion was material from the eruption itself, but also “durable erosion resistant rock.” So don’t claim YECers are ignorant because of your ignorance.
5. It was predicted that it would take 1000 years for biological recovery. But in fact, the recovery started just weeks and months after the eruption. Gophers covered by ash surfaced within weeks, and began tilling up the surface. Frogs reproduced before maturity, reproducing as tadpoles! Elk had triplets rather than the usual single births.

Here was an opportunity to see geological processes in real time, rather than trying to understand them solely from looking at past events.

Someone here claims, if I read and remember correctly, that intensity can’t be substituted for time.

But it can. Here is another example, the collapse of the Oroville Dam spillway https://creation.com/oroville-dam-spillway-crisis-california:

Here is a partial quote: "As the flow resumed it eroded more concrete and started to gush alongside the spillway down the embankment. However, operators continued discharging water for more than two weeks until the lake had reduced to a safe level.

When they eventually shut off the flow, the immensity of the erosion was astounding. Half way down the spillway the water had excavated an enormous plunge pool—140 m (450 ft) wide, 75 m (250 ft) long, and 40 m (130 ft) deep. Beyond that, most of the concrete structure had been washed away.

Alongside the spillway the water had excavated a long, deep canyon into the rock abutment of the main dam. It was 400 m (1,300 ft) long, 120 m (400 ft) wide, and up to 50 m (160 ft) feet deep (figure 4). Except for a few enormous chunks of rock, the canyon was swept clean of debris, which is typical of a canyon formed by large water flows. The sides of the canyon were steep, a tell-tale sign of being eroded recently."

This is another illustration of erosion that was actually observed in real time. All this erosion took place in just a little over two weeks, through the consolidated “durable erosion resistant” rocks which are the kinds of rocks on which dams are built. This erosion did not take thousands or millions of years, just a few weeks. This is another observable case of erosion from intensity rather than time.

And then there is the Great Missoula Flood. J Harlen Bretz, geologist, was scorned for decades for proposing such a catastrophic origin for the Eastern Washington scablands and the Columbia River Gorge. It wasn’t until young geologists were willing to go with Bretz and see what he had observed, and others flew over the scablands that he and his view were finally exonerated.

No, the Columbia River Gorge was not carved out over hundreds of thousands or millions of years by the mighty Columbia River. It was carved out by a catastrophic flood event in the matter of a few days. Yes, intensity, not lots of time.

Now we come to the Grand Canyon. You may not agree with the premises or the conclusions of YEC geologists, but please understand and argue from what they actually believe, rather than triumphally destroying straw man arguments that you set up.

1. Most of the sedimentary layers we find were laid down during the worldwide flood in Genesis.

2. During the receding phase of the Flood, and during the following ice age, most of the landscapes we see today were created. The Grand Canyon, for example, seems to have been created when an upstream lake was breached, and rapidly carved the canyon. Yes, there is ample evidence of large lakes in the western part of the US that are no longer there. And even given millions of years, it is unlikely that the Colorado River could have carved out the Grand Canyon. This is another evidence of intensity rather than time. And some of the sediments may not have yet been fully consolidated as it was during or shortly after the Flood event.

And by the way, to avoid misplaced argumentation, it was probably carved out from front to back as the lake emptied, not the other way around. Like we observe that Niagara Falls is being carved out today.

So you don’t need to agree with the YEC assessment. But please don’t argue against positions that responsible YECers don’t hold, and then demolish them. That only demonstrates ignorance of the YEC position, not that their position is unsustainable.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@jammycakes

This is why young earthists’ claims about radiocarbon in ancient samples such as diamonds fall so far short of the mark. They insist that the value should be zero. But there is no such thing as a zero error bar. To insist that contamination should be zero, or to dismiss it as a “rescuing device” or an “evolutionist paradigm” or a “different worldview” is to deny the validity of one of the most basic and elementary principles of accurate and honest measurement that there is.

It seems that the correct error bar is that no c14 should be found after 100,000 years, with an error bar of plus or minus 50,000 years.

[Bill_II]

@cewoldt

We also observed consolidated sediment that was there prior to the eruption that eroded rapidly.

It would be very interesting to read the paper where this was reported. I did find one paper at ICR but it doesn’t document rapid erosion of “durable erosion resistant rock.” All of the erosion examples in this paper are just rapid cuts in pumice layers, some of which predate the eruption. It is a volcano after all.

[Bill_II]

@cewoldt

Alongside the spillway the water had excavated a long, deep canyon into the rock abutment of the main dam.

Consulting the all knowing Goggle AI with the query “did the oroville dam spillway failure actually cut through solid rock” results in

It’s important to note that the erosion was not of perfectly solid, unweathered rock. Instead, the bedrock in some sections was weak and fractured, making it vulnerable to the hydraulic forces unleashed during the spillway failure.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@cewoldt

Here are the claims that YEC makes about Mount St Helens:

Mount St Helens was not the first volcano in history, and there is nothing that came as as surprise to geologists. YEC never discover anything.

@cewoldt

It seems that the correct error bar is that no c14 should be found after 100,000 years

and none is.

[Roy]

@cewoldt

@jammycakes

This is why young earthists’ claims about radiocarbon in ancient samples such as diamonds fall so far short of the mark. They insist that the value should be zero. But there is no such thing as a zero error bar. To insist that contamination should be zero, or to dismiss it as a “rescuing device” or an “evolutionist paradigm” or a “different worldview” is to deny the validity of one of the most basic and elementary principles of accurate and honest measurement that there is.

It seems that the correct error bar is that no c14 should be found after 100,000 years, with an error bar of plus or minus 50,000 years.

So…

1. What will be the outcome of c14 dating an object that is 100,000 years old?

2. If an object is c14 dated to 80,000 years old, what are the error bars on that date?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

But if you want me to leave you be, then don’t reply to my posts.

You have spent the lart 6 months or more chasing me round this forum to try and point out my mistakes.

That is not me instigating responses.

I cannot just ignore you when you do such things.

Richard

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@cewoldt

The eruption event–from the initial eruption and the events that followed–is a mini laboratory for understanding catastrophic geological events–as we know the conditions prior, during, and following the events.

You need to account for differences in scale and differences in the hardness and erosion resistance of the rock formations.

The Grand Canyon is 277 miles long, a mile deep and up to eighteen miles wide. That is far, far larger than Mount St Helens. In fact, you could fit the whole of Mount St Helens into the Grand Canyon more than 150 times.

@cewoldt

We also observed consolidated sediment that was there prior to the eruption that eroded rapidly. No, not all the erosion was material from the eruption itself, but also “durable erosion resistant rock.” So don’t claim YECers are ignorant because of your ignorance.

You’ll need to cite your sources. You’ll also need to explain how much of the erosion was durable, erosion resistant rock.

@cewoldt

It was predicted that it would take 1000 years for biological recovery. But in fact, the recovery started just weeks and months after the eruption. Gophers covered by ash surfaced within weeks, and began tilling up the surface. Frogs reproduced before maturity, reproducing as tadpoles! Elk had triplets rather than the usual single births.

Just because some things can happen quickly doesn’t mean that everything can happen quickly. It’s one thing for an ecosystem to recover quickly in only a few years. It’s a different matter altogether getting lead into zircon crystals in only a few years.

@cewoldt

Someone here claims, if I read and remember correctly, that intensity can’t be substituted for time.

But it can.

Only to a limited extent, not without changing the evidence that gets left behind, and certainly not by a factor of a million.

Contrary to young earth claims, nobody is claiming that rapid, intense processes don’t happen. But the evidence that they leave behind looks very different to slow, gradual ones.

@cewoldt

And then there is the Great Missoula Flood. J Harlen Bretz, geologist, was scorned for decades for proposing such a catastrophic origin for the Eastern Washington scablands and the Columbia River Gorge. It wasn’t until young geologists were willing to go with Bretz and see what he had observed, and others flew over the scablands that he and his view were finally exonerated.

The evidence left behind by the Missoula floods looks very, very different to the Grand Canyon.

@cewoldt

It seems that the correct error bar is that no c14 should be found after 100,000 years, with an error bar of plus or minus 50,000 years.

Where did you get these figures, Craig? Did you just make them up, or did you quote them from someone who just made them up?

100,000 years is about 17.5 half lives of carbon-14. In a sample containing 1mg of carbon, that will leave about 250 atoms of ¹⁴C.¹ It’s about 0.0005% modern carbon, or one part in 200,000. The environment alone (the atmosphere, the experimenter’s breath, even the gloves that they’re wearing) can introduce between 10 and 100 times as much contamination as that (corresponding to an age of 80,000–60,000 years) even with high quality lab protocols.

Contamination is a well studied phenomenon that is very difficult to avoid and that needs to be correctly accounted for, period. There is nothing “evolutionist” about this whatsoever; it is simply how every scientific discipline works. The young earthist insistence that radiocarbon levels should be zero is totally unrealistic and demonstrates an ignorance of the elementary basics of how measurement works in every area of science.

---

¹ This is straightforward maths here: the Avogadro constant is 6.022×10²³ and modern carbon contains one part carbon-14 to 10¹² parts carbon-12.

[knor (Kai)]

@cewoldt

It was predicted that it would take 1000 years for biological recovery. But in fact, the recovery started just weeks and months after the eruption. Gophers covered by ash surfaced within weeks, and began tilling up the surface. Frogs reproduced before maturity, reproducing as tadpoles! Elk had triplets rather than the usual single births.

Where did you get the predicted figure, 1000 years to recovery?
1000 years is a completely unrealistic estimate. Even if all life would have been destroyed from the area, recovery would have taken a much shorter time. Within 500 years, much of the area would probably have looked like a pristine forest.

It is well known that an eruption of a volcano does not usually destroy all life, unless everything is covered by very hot lava. Parts of stumps or tree trunks may survive and protect some life beneath the surviving parts. Plants may sprout from these surviving spots and provide food for herbivores. Insects, spiders and other mobile animals may disperse tens or even hundreds of km from the edges of the surviving area within a year, and the same is true for plant seeds carried by wind. If there is food for the arriving animals, they may live, reproduce and start the recovery rapidly. The same is true for plant seeds - if there is suitable ground for germination and rooting, vegetation starts to recover within two years. Full recovery may take hundreds of years but some life becomes established within months after the ground has cooled.

You mentioned elks. Elks cannot live without food plants. Having large litters indicates much high quality food. In this case, soils fertilised by ash may explain the high quality of the vegetation. I guess these observations were made close to the edge of the area that was covered with ash because the edges would have dense vegetation sooner than the central parts.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Roy

There are very few YEC claims I’ve seen that can’t be demolished using only high-school level skills and knowledge. Many can be demolished by 5th grade maths.

Most claims made by YECs can be refuted by the simple process of:

1. Reading what the YEC has written;
2. Reading the original source;
3. Highlighting the differences between the YEC claim and the original source.

It really is that straightforward.

you know the funny thing about that is this, this is a Christian forum, not an atheistic one. Despite that, i dont see too many supporting biblical texts in the above 90 odd responses to this thread…typical of the “science first” approach here.

If ANE worldview truly had a solid theological argument, we would find answers above full of bible passages that support the views of Biologos posters here…but the facts are…bible texts are unsurprisingly few and far between!

Ultimately, this thread leaves one with a simple choice:

1. God and the Bible first, Darwinian Evolutionary science second - If there is no God, then both the atheist and Christian end up the same…so the Christian has nothing to lose

2. Darwinian Evolutionary science first, God second - This results in eternal damnation and death if it turns out the Darwinian Evolutionary claims are wrong

It really isnt relevant to attempt to demand that the bible must fit the science…salvation is only available to those who follow the biblical model.

One cannot follow the biblical model if one does not believe that the Bible theme (Fall, salvation, redemption) are literal. These are only literal if one is willing to accept that Christs physcial death on the cross occured because mankind physically sinned and requires physical redemption!

Choose to think whatever you like, the theological reality is the above Biblical theme. Without it, the gospel is pointless and Christ was a delusional idiot who thought if he died on a cross he would save humanity from the wages of sin is death!

[knor (Kai)]

@adamjedgar

you know the funny thing about that is this, this is a Christian forum, not an atheistic one. Despite that, i dont see too many supporting biblical texts in the above 90 odd responses to this thread…typical of the “science first” approach here.

Your comment reminds me of medieval scholastics. It is told that if a scholastic was asked how many teeth a horse has, he would have searched for the information from books instead of looking at the mouth of the horse standing close to him.

The Bible does not tell how many teeth a horse has and does not tell much about the other details of the nature. That is to be expected because biblical scriptures are not textbooks of nature or science, they intend to teach us something about God and His will. Scientific facts deviating from the current worldview would just compete from the attention of the receivers and might hinder or prevent the acceptance of the key messages about God.

If someone presents claims about scientific facts, it is natural that the claims will be compared to what science has revealed about the creation - please remember that biblical scriptures do not tell this information. The ‘second book’ of God, creation, can reveal such answers if we study honestly this ‘book of acts’.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@adamjedgar

you know the funny thing about that is this, this is a Christian forum, not an atheistic one. Despite that, i dont see too many supporting biblical texts in the above 90 odd responses to this thread…typical of the “science first” approach here.

This is the Biblical text you’re looking for, Adam.

¹³ Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. ¹⁴ Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. ¹⁵ You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. ¹⁶ For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

— Deuteronomy 25:13-16

What you call a “science first” approach is simply a question of making sure your facts are straight. Honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can quote Bible verses until you’re blue in the face, but if you’re not getting your facts straight then you’re not getting your facts straight. Accusing people of “putting science over the Bible” and speaking hell fire and damnation when all they’re doing is telling you to make sure your facts are straight is demanding the right to tell lies. And that is something that the Bible itself condemns in no uncertain terms.