creationism and evolution

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

So, what is it about the geologic column that you have a problem with?

Peace

Tim

I do not have problem with the geological column, necessarily. I merely said it is impossible to verify the accuracy of it, much like radiometric dating. There is no way to verify that the range of ages given to the various layers is correct.

Why do I point this out? Because many evolutionists, including some in this thread, continue to present evolution as fact, and argue that there is such demonstrable evidence that it cannot be argued against.

But in reality, the radiometric half-lives assigned to elements cannot be verified, the results of radiometric dating cannot be verified, and the age ranges presented in the geological column cannot be verified. So the arguement seems to be, “well, we can gauge the accuracy by using more than one method”. That seems like smoke and mirrors to me, when none of the methods can actually be verified, because there is no base sample with which to compare results older than the capability of C14 dating.

One cannot say radiometric dating is accurate because it matches the geological column, and then argue that the geological column must be correct because radiometric dating agrees. That is a circular argument.

Evolution is not fact. It is not supported by demonstable evidence that should cause unquestioned belief it it.

Now, if a person accepts the geological column, and the radiometric half lives assigned to elements, and a few other key assumptions (.i.e. assuming a certain parent to daughter ratio in the beginning, that no unforeseen temperatures or pressures could have affected the sample, etc) then yes, evolution might seem to make sense. But I am skeptical about those assumptions, for reasons mentioned in the previous posts.

Peace,
Chris

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Here is a good article for geologic column deniers

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota
Radiometric Dating Does Work! by Dalrymple

That one pretty much does the trick.

Phil P

Thanks Phil. I do not argue that the geological column doesn’t exist, or even against its organization. I merely said the dates assigned to the various layers is impossible to verify. If you disagree with that statement, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how it could be done.

Regarding radiometric dating. I have read quite a bit about the subject, including some work by Dalrymple, and including others who argue against it. Are you suggesting that there is a non-theoretical way to verify that something is say 600 million years old? Please don’t tell me they can compare results against what they’d expect to find in the geological column (see my response to Orogeny regarding the circular argument).

 

[Chris_W]

Kevin Walker:

Hi,

This appears to be so much academic fence sitting. …- they are general existence statements, just like the theory of evolution.

Well, kinda. Except our kids aren’t taught in school the fact of the Easter Bunny, whereas they are taught the supposed fact of evolution.
Kevin Walker:

Just bear in mind while analyzing the subject to death that the Vatican is not threatened by the theory of Evolution; the Vatican takes a dim view towards ‘Darwinism’ and that is where all this analytic energy on a Catholic forum, in my humble opinion, should be concentrated.

Interesting. I think I agree. My problem is I cannot see as clear line where evolution stops and Darwinism begins. I do try to bear in mind that the Church does not condemn the theory of evolution. At the same time, I see some real negative effects of belief in evoution:

It is my belief that there is a direct connection between the rise in popularity of evolution, and the rise in use of artifical contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues related to the belief of whether or not God creates the life.

Theistic evolutionists say God is the creator of life, but none can explain it. They can expain in great details all the intricate processes of evolution, but when it comes to answering the question of how to reconcile evolution and Catholicism, things become rather quiet.

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

But in reality, the radiometric half-lives assigned to elements cannot be verified

You are wrong. Half-lives can be verified by just weighing and counting.

1 Take a lump of pure Uranium-238, or any other radioactive isotope, and weigh it.
2 Look up the atomic weight of Uranium-238 and work out how many atoms of U238 there are in your lump.
3 Put some Geiger counters around your lump of Uranium and count the number of atoms that decay in one hour.
4 You now know how many atoms there were at the start and how many of then decayed in a period of one hour. This gives you enough information to work out how long it would take for half the number of atoms originally present to decay.
5 Congratualtions! You have just found the half-life of Uranium-238.

Your argument fails because it is based on the non-verifiability of half lives, which is a false premise. Any argument based on a false premise fails.

Please bear in mind that scientists do not just pull these numbers out of a hat. They are worked on very hard by many scientists, measuring and re-measuring to ever greater accuracy. If you have a difficulty with the consequences of these numbers then that is your problem. The numbers are correct to within the stated limits.

rossum

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Perhaps you can elaborate. It seems to me, whether the method is empiracle, deductive reasoning, or other, the fact of the matter is, it is theoretical because it cannot actually be verified.At best, a person could verify the empiracle formulas work on sample of a known age, which limits the test to the range of C-14 capbility which to my understanding is about 6000 years. 6000 years is a very very small number compared to the billions of years dealt with in radiometric dataing.

Right. What we know fairly precisely is the rate of decay — for C-14, we know that half of a sample of C-14 will remain after 5730 years. This is the empirical part, and can be verified by anyone in a lab, as has been done reliably for about a thousand different radioactive isotopes. So after 11,460 years, a quarter of the original sample remains. The only real problem arises when trying to measure concentrations of C-14 thousands of times smaller than the original sample, which would be the case for an artifact around 50,000 years old. This is really the practical limit for C-14. Fortunately, there are many other isotopic decays with half-lives of 10,000 - 100,000 years so that we may cross check our results and extend the method back millions of years. This is the beginning of the “dating ladder”.

there is no way to actually demonstrate that radiometric dating works accurately. As mentioned before, C-14 dating cannot come anywhere near the dates given by radiometric dating, which means it cannot verify the method works beyond its capabilities, which I think Libby said was about 6000 years.

Lucky for us there are more radioactive isotopes than just C-14 around.

What other methods are you talking about? The geological column? That is at least as unverifiable as radiometric dating.

There is some small error associated with both. However, when both agree on not just the order of stratoforms, but the thickness of each layer, in thousands of independent samples, one must suspect that they are reliable in general.

 

[wanerious]

wanerious:

This is the beginning of the “dating ladder”.

(Replying to myself…) Interestingly, towards the longer end of the ladder, astrophysicists can actually radioactively date some extremely old stars in the halo of our galaxy by measuring the abundance of thorium, which has a half-life of around 14 billion years. The resulting age (12 billion years, ± 1 by) meshes well with the independent measurements based upon universal expansion and also gravitational lensing.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Chris W:

Well, kinda. Except our kids aren’t taught in school the fact of the Easter Bunny, whereas they are taught the supposed fact of evolution.

Interesting. I think I agree. My problem is I cannot see as clear line where evolution stops and Darwinism begins. I do try to bear in mind that the Church does not condemn the theory of evolution. At the same time, I see some real negative effects of belief in evoution:

It is my belief that there is a direct connection between the rise in popularity of evolution, and the rise in use of artifical contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues related to the belief of whether or not God creates the life.

Theistic evolutionists say God is the creator of life, but none can explain it. They can expain in great details all the intricate processes of evolution, but when it comes to answering the question of how to reconcile evolution and Catholicism, things become rather quiet.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, The New Advent, has a real nice definition on Evolution and Darwinism.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

It is my belief that there is a direct connection between the rise in popularity of evolution, and the rise in use of artifical contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues related to the belief of whether or not God creates the life.

I think you might be right, but I contend the error is to be found in our theology and application to behaviors and not in the science of evolution itself. Again, I believe God is the ultimate author of life, as well as everything else, but I’m one who does not have a problem with homosexuality or contraception. Those fertilized artificially are still ensouled the same as those conceived traditionally. Evolutionary theory (and really all of modern science) can be (perhaps rightly) understood to be a refutation of fundamentalist thinking and naive theology, but we should consider whether our theology needs new interpretation as opposed to the science.

Theistic evolutionists say God is the creator of life, but none can explain it. They can expain in great details all the intricate processes of evolution, but when it comes to answering the question of how to reconcile evolution and Catholicism, things become rather quiet.

Yes — it is here that we ought to be getting noisy. Let’s assume that both are fundamentally correct. Organisms differ genetically from one generation to the next, and this has been going on for billions of years. Also, the revealed Truth in the Gospels is at least spiritually inerrant. Where are the conflicts? Let’s see if we can make some sense out of them.

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

You are wrong. Half-lives can be verified by just weighing and counting.

1 Take a lump of pure Uranium-238…
…5 Congratualtions! You have just found the half-life of Uranium-238.

Your argument fails because it is based on the non-verifiability of half lives, which is a false premise. Any argument based on a false premise fails.

I’ve read enough to be familiar with what you’ve described. Please bear with my ignorace, but with the procdure you outlined, haven’t you merely verified the current rate of decay, and in one particular environment?

 

[Chris_W]

Kevin Walker:

The Catholic Encyclopedia, The New Advent, has a real nice definition on Evolution and Darwinism.

That was helpful. Thank you. I am guilty of mixing the two in a confusion of ideas.

I had not heard the term polygenetic evolution, but that concept makes it a little more palatable I guess. Is that a popular notion in evolutionist circles? If it is more commonly accepted than monogenetic evolution, then that would seem to create a larger gap between abiogenesis and evolution, which would be comforting as well.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

I think you might be right, but I contend the error is to be found in our theology and application to behaviors and not in the science of evolution itself. …

Oh, wanerious! I was just starting to let my guard down a little, and then you gotta go say that…

wanerious:

Again, I believe God is the ultimate author of life, as well as everything else, but I’m one who does not have a problem with homosexuality or contraception. Those fertilized artificially are still ensouled the same as those conceived traditionally. Evolutionary theory (and really all of modern science) can be (perhaps rightly) understood to be a refutation of fundamentalist thinking and naive theology, but we should consider whether our theology needs new interpretation as opposed to the science…

…what are you doin’ wanerious? You try to pursuade a Catholic to accept the theory of evolution, only to confirm my suspicions (that it leads ultimatley to the conclusion that the Catholic Church must be wrong)?

En Guarde, evolutionist ! ! !

wanerious:

Yes — it is here that we ought to be getting noisy. Let’s assume that both are fundamentally correct. Organisms differ genetically from one generation to the next, and this has been going on for billions of years. Also, the revealed Truth in the Gospels is at least spiritually inerrant. Where are the conflicts? Let’s see if we can make some sense out of them.

Agreed…for now. I will temporarily give up the abiogenesis complaints, and pointing out the limitations of the scientific evidence (so long as no one starts calling evolution a fact again ), so as to explore the potential conflicts between evolution and Christianity and more specifically Catholicism. I think this is what Kevin is suggesting as well, and it certainly is my ONLY interest in evolution.

Shall we start with Adam and Eve being the first two humans, from whom all mankind has decended? Does evolution confirm or deny this Biblical claim?

 

[PhilVaz]

Read a little more Dalrymple ChrisW, maybe a lot more…

Here I typed in virtually half his book to help Sungenis and his bad science

Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation Part 2

I’ve read plenty from the creationist side over the years, and they don’t deal with Dalrymple that deeply. As stated above, the half-lives of the radioactive elements or nuclides are directly measured by counting experiments in the lab. Here is what we know:

(1) As for the decay constants listed here, these have been determined by direct laboratory counting experiments and with the possible exception of 187Re, are known to within an accuracy of about 2%. The decay constants of 87Rb, 147Sm, 176Lu, and 187Re are known to 2% accuracy, while the decay constants of 40K, 232Th, 235U, and 238U are known to an accuracy of better than 1%. These small uncertainties do not significantly affect the values for the ages of the Earth, Moon, or meteorites.

(2) Virtually all investigators worldwide use the same decay constants and isotopic compositions for their calculations, and updating them occurs every decade or so.

(3) Modern analytical instruments especially the mass spectrometers used for isotopic measurements have been refined to the point where the precision of the laboratory measurements usually far exceeds the errors introduced by geological factors. Most isotope ratios can now be measured to an accuracy of a few tenths of a percent or better.

(4) Isochron slopes, concordia-discordia intercepts, and other relevant quantities are not determined graphically but are calculated by appropriate formulae and statistical methods. The numbers themselves are still the most rigorous way to determine how well a set of data fit or do not fit an isochron.

(5) The uncertainty in a radiometric age is usually an estimate of the precision of the age measurement at the “two-thirds confidence” level. Sometimes, the 95% confidence level will be used instead of two-thirds. The main point is that the errors, although expertly determined, highly useful, and generally realistic, are statistically-based approximations and do not define precise limits within which the “real age” must fall.

(6) Geochronologists do not rely entirely on error estimates and the self-checking features of age-diagnostic diagrams to evaluate accuracy. Whenever possible, they repeat the analytical measurements to minimize analytical errors. Another strategy is to make age measurements on several samples (minerals or rocks) from the same rock unit. This technique helps to identify post-formation geological disturbances (re-heating or chemical changes, etc).

(7) The use of different decay schemes on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks running at different rates give the same age, this is powerful evidence that the ages are correct. This approach is similar to checking the time in your house by comparing various clocks (wristwatch, pendulum, electric, battery, etc). If all agree within a few minutes, then we are confident we know the time of day. In the same way, different radiometric methods may be compared. If all agree on the same age, our confidence in the accuracy of the results is greatly increased (Dalrymple [1991], pages 122-124).

How do you verify what time it is in your house? Same idea.

Phil P

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

I’ve read enough to be familiar with what you’ve described. Please bear with my ignorace, but with the procdure you outlined, haven’t you merely verified the current rate of decay, and in one particular environment?

Yes, but it’s important to understand that the decay rate is the same for all similar atoms in any environment. The nucleus of the atom doesn’t know what environment it is in, nor what time it is in the cosmological sense.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

…what are you doin’ wanerious? You try to pursuade a Catholic to accept the theory of evolution, only to confirm my suspicions (that it leads ultimatley to the conclusion that the Catholic Church must be wrong)?

Well, I’m not Catholic, so that is one possibility. I’ve had many discussions with a Catholic physicist friend of mine, and I don’t think the situation is so intractable. He is able to make a nice synthesis of the two positions while still holding to the infallibility of the Church’s authority.

Agreed…for now. I will temporarily give up the abiogenesis complaints, and pointing out the limitations of the scientific evidence (so long as no one starts calling evolution a fact again ),

Deal, although I stipulate that what so many call the “fact” of evolution is that animals are genetically different from their parents, just as the “fact” of gravity is that objects are observed to fall towards the center of the Earth.

Shall we start with Adam and Eve being the first two humans, from whom all mankind has decended? Does evolution confirm or deny this Biblical claim?

As usual, it depends. If you hold to a literal view of only two beings, from whom we all derive our DNA, then paleontology as well as molecular biology both firmly put this out of the realm of likelihood. Recent results, as Alec had posted on numerous other threads, indicate that the smallest population bottleneck was no fewer than 59 individuals at any given time, with the most likely number being around 10,000.

If one be willing to modify their theological understanding, then there is the following possibility: God, at some point in the past, ensouled two individuals out of the extant population. As the succeeding generations interbreed, those “mere brutes” were the unsuccessful line, and at some later time all humans were ensouled. The spiritual truth of Genesis is unaltered and inerrant, though we would understand it not to be a strictly historical account.

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

Read a little more Dalrymple ChrisW, maybe a lot more…

…different radiometric methods may be compared. If all agree on the same age, our confidence in the accuracy of the results is greatly increased (Dalrymple [1991], pages 122-124).

Agreed. It increases the likelihood of accuracy. So What? If you apply the same theory and procedures to multiple elements it stands to reason they would produce similar results.

Using your clock analagy, you must admit it is possible that when the homeowner determined the time, before setting the clocks, the homeowner was in error, thus leading to consistency, but not necessarily accuracy.

Curiosity question: Why do you have confidence (assuming you do) that the decay rates have always remained constant throughout time?

 

[Chris_W]

PhilVaz:

How do you verify what time it is in your house? Same idea.

Phil P

I have numerous ways to doublecheck the time, as you mentioned, but ultimately I make a decision to trust someone else. I am comfortable with that leap of faith, so to speak, because if I am perhaps wrong with the time, it doesn’t conflict with my religious beliefs.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Chris W:

Curiosity question: Why do you have confidence (assuming you do) that the decay rates have always remained constant throughout time?

This seems very similar to the question about whether the speed of light or other “universal constants” have remained constant for all of time. Changing radioactive decay rates would probably involve changes in magnitude of the weak nuclear force or something like this. I don’t know what all of the implications of such things are, but I’m curious what magnitude of changes would people propose, e.g. are we talking these things changing by 0.1% over the lifetime of the universe (which would make little difference to various dating techniques), or changing by a factor of 100 or 1000 over the lifetime of the universe?

I think the short answer though is that there is no emperical evidence suggesting that these things aren’t constant. I think some theoretical work has suggested that maybe some constants have changed, but you know how it is with those darn theories…

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

If one be willing to modify their theological understanding, then there is the following possibility: God, at some point in the past, ensouled two individuals out of the extant population. As the succeeding generations interbreed, those “mere brutes” were the unsuccessful line, and at some later time all humans were ensouled. The spiritual truth of Genesis is unaltered and inerrant, though we would understand it not to be a strictly historical account.

Hmmm. So it would require a belief that at some point in time there were two kinds of humans roaming the earth…those with souls and those without souls, and for some reason those without souls died off. Those with souls were therefore said to be in the image and likeness of God and those without souls were not in the image and likeness of God? So the soul would ultimately be what makes us in the image and likeness of God…not our physical nature as well? This would seem to answer a second problem with Genesis (who was it that Adam and Eve’s offspring mated with?). Hmmmmm.

I’ll give it some thought and respond when I’ve had time to digest it more.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Hmmm. So it would require a belief that at some point in time there were two kinds of humans roaming the earth…those with souls and those without souls, and for some reason those without souls died off. Those with souls were therefore said to be in the image and likeness of God and those without souls were not in the image and likeness of God?

Yep. At least, that’s the only way I can reconcile them. I’m of course open to other possibilities.

So the soul would ultimately be what makes us in the image and likeness of God…not our physical nature as well? This would seem to answer a second problem with Genesis (who was it that Adam and Eve’s offspring mated with?). Hmmmmm.

I’ll give it some thought and respond when I’ve had time to digest it more.

Sure, I’d be interested to hear other thoughts. Yes, I believe it is our soul that is the image and likeness, while our bodies are the product of evolutionary processes. For me, it is not just that God is the ultimate architect of life, such as the animals have, but spiritual Life. For this we are indeed blessed.

 

[Chris_W]

Bobby Jim:

I think the short answer though is that there is no emperical evidence suggesting that these things aren’t constant. I think some theoretical work has suggested that maybe some constants have changed, but you know how it is with those darn theories…

That’s a fair response I suppose.

I know I probably irritate evolutionists in these threads, but it is important to me, as with other aspects of my faith, that I understand the implications of and the reasons for my beliefs. I hope that is viewed as a worthwhile endeavor.

Believe it or not, I am not argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Peace,
Chris