Re: [asa] Old Earth/Young life creationism

Dave,

The goal of my post was simply to point out the inconsistency of the old earth young life view, which accepts scientific evidence on the one hand, but rejects the very same evidence on the other.

I agree that the Oklo case is very strong evidence for the antiquity of the Earth - but I guess I see it as a bit unnecessary as part of the argument for an old Earth. The reason is that the Oklo natural reactor is a geologically unique case, and it is over in Africa where exceedingly few of us westerners will ever get to see it. There is so much more evidence that is just as easily understood and can be seen right in our own "backyard", if you will, in the more "normal" rocks that can be found world wide. I simply have a preference for appealing to the materials that are more common and easily accessible than to such a strong anomaly.

I cannot, nor can anyone else, convince those who will not be convinced by evidence. However, those who at least accept some geologic evidence for an old Earth are not stricty YECs, and may be able to be swayed by additional evidence that supports the anitquity of life as well. So again, the goal of my post was simply to point out the inconsistency of the view, and those who can be swayed by evidence hopefully will.

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
_______________________________


>>> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 4/17/2007 5:07 PM >>>
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.
Received on Wed Apr 18 11:56:38 2007