Re: [asa] Old Earth/Young life creationism - (from Oklo as graveyard)

Charles,
You're right, but you are not taking into account the foolishness that
undergirds the view. They hold that the rocks without fossils can be
ancient (but don't have to be), but those with fossils are younger than 4
Ka, because those 4-6 Ka (and some of those older than 6 Ka and belonging
to the time before life) were torn up by the flood. In other words, they
are trying to have a variant on gap theory without any ancient life. My
point in bringing up Oklo was to show that the earth is something like 2
Ga minimum, with the physical constants then and now the same, and have
it simple enough for those without much background in science to follow.
This may make them realize that there is something solid to the
geological record. But just hitting them with ancient stromatolites
produces the response: either stromatolites have to be produced
physically rather than biologically or they have to be younger than 6 Ka.
This is recognizable as invincible ignorance. Note that there are places
where stromatolites are still growing.

May I remind you of your previous post listing a series of lies. If they
are committed YECs, they will believe the lies rather than your
corrections. They certainly will not believe your geological dating for
stromatolites.
Dave

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:02:59 -0500 "Charles Carrigan"
<CCarriga@olivet.edu> writes:
Iain,

The basic problem with old earth/young life view is that it simply
doesn't fit with the geologic record. If we are going to accept that the
Earth has a long history from the evidence, then why throw out the same
evidence when fossils are included? The oldest confirmed fossils are
~3.5 Ga (Ga = giga anum = billion years geology lingo) stromatolites;
these are single celled prokaryotes if memory serves correctly. They are
found within rocks, as all fossils are. If we can use the geologic
record to say those rocks are ~3.5 Ga, then the fossils within them must
be the same age. Same goes for ~1.5 Ga fossils, ~1.0 Ga fossils, or any
other age fossils found in the geologic record. It simply isn't
reasonable that the rocks are that old, but the fossils in them are
somehow young.

Best,
Charles

_______________________________
Charles W. Carrigan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Geology
Olivet Nazarene Univ., Dept. of Physical Sciences
One University Ave.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
PH: (815) 939-5346
FX: (815) 939-5071
ccarriga@olivet.edu
http://geology.olivet.edu/

"To a naturalist nothing is indifferent;
the humble moss that creeps upon the stone
is equally interesting as the lofty pine which so beautifully adorns the
valley or the mountain:
but to a naturalist who is reading in the face of the rocks the annals of
a former world,
the mossy covering which obstructs his view,
and renders indistinguishable the different species of stone,
is no less than a serious subject of regret."
          - James Hutton
_______________________________

>>> "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com> 4/17/2007 7:47 AM >>>
Here's a new one I came across today. I'm wondering if anyone else has
encountered this particular species of creationist.

I had passed on George's very interesting post about Oklo to a couple
creationists I know and am attempting to reason with. (To be honest I'm
beginning to lose heart - I think I've made more progress debating with
Moonies in the past).

One of them dismissed George's arguments out of hand because he said he
didn't believe in the Big Bang or Stellar Evolution, so the argument
meant nothing to him.

The other one came up with the theory that the earth had lain "void and
empty" for potentially billions of years before God spoke light into
existence on Day 1. It was his opinion that this time allowed for
radioactive decays to occur to explain radio-dating, and that Oklo could
have happened during this time. He said that the creation of light had
nothing to do with rocks. I rebutted this patently ridiculous argument
by pointing out that rocks and chemical elements can't exist without the
electromagnetic interaction mediated by the exchange of virtual photons -
that radioactive decays emit gamma photons, and even visible light in the
form of Cerenkov radiation is emitted (particularly with high energy beta
decays - I've seen the spent reactor ponds at Harwell to prove it!!).
Hence this theory means that light existed before it was created!

What I'm wondering is if this view, which he described as "Old
Earth/Young life Creationism" has any following in the mainstream
creation/id camps, and if so, whether there should be come swift rebuttal
along the lines of "What about Cerenkov radiation - which is light by any
definition you care to mention?".

Iain

-- 
-----------
After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
----------- 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.