Creation: Good Old Young Universe Part VIII
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by writing posts on the subject of his primary ministry. This is a topic that is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. The topic, Creationism vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications. He chooses to conclude each post with a message intended to hearten and bolster believers. However, for believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account or secular guesses about the origins of human life on earth.
A Brief Recap
The last seven Sunday posts in a row have concentrated on evidences that indicate that the earth is certainly not billions of years old, possibly not even millions of years old, and maybe even not more than a few thousand years old based on scientific evidence and logic. This has been kind of a lark as mental exercises go because even if the earth was billions of years old, Darwinism is still flatly impossible.
Today, I will conclude the series on the age of planet earth documenting evidence from living things and demonstrating some mathematical evidences.
The Odds of Darwinian Evolution
The late Dr. Carl Sagan Ph. D., a highly vocal secular humanist and advocate of random evolution, calculated the odds of human life “evolving” on the earth as 1 chance in 10 followed by 2 billion zeros. Nearly a century ago, Dr. Emilé Borel formulated the irrefutable law of mathematical impossibility stating that the chances of any event occurring where the odds are greater than 1 in 1 followed by 50 zeros (1: 1050) will never take place. “We can state with certainty that it will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.”
William Demski Ph. D. puts those odds at 1 in 10150. Even so, neither of them come close to Sagan’s 1 in 102,000,000,000 chance. Given the further restriction of only a scant few hundred million years in which these nearly infinite changes must occur, and impossibility is multiplied exponentially by further impossibility. There may well be a “materialistic” explanation for how life, the universe, and everything came to be. But the fact is that Darwinism is absolutely not that explanation. It is, at best, a laughable placeholder while secular humanists scramble for a more plausible and less completely impossible explanation.
Mutation Load
It is worth noting that in the early 1960s, Dr. H.T. Band PhD discovered that natural selection was not eliminating the “genetic load.” That is, “evolution” is not eliminating the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms. Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations, based on genetic load, indicate that all forms of life could not have continued more than just a few thousands of years and still remain as free from mutational defects as they presently are.
The Oldest Living Organism
The oldest living organism on the planet is a tree. Specifically, it is a Bristlecone Pine known as “Methuselah” located at an elevation of 10,400 feet in the White Mountains of California. Earth’s oldest living inhabitant “Methuselah” at 4,767 years old, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.
Hold on! Shout Darwinists at the top of their fallacious lungs. What about the stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world’s ‘oldest known living organism’? Newspaper reports claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering 2.5 acres is all part of the ONE TREE, since all these ‘trees’ appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, ‘snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root’. The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1
Hate to disappoint. Turns out, the source of the reported ‘age’ isn’t even an estimate. It is, what scientists working on the site called a ‘guesstimate’ based purely on sedimentary sampling not from the trees themselves but from a lake bed below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more fallible assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, though probable.
Naturally, traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the Huon pine site so far reveals an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages — in fact hundreds of years younger — than the oldest living bristlecone pines based on tree-rings and they are still the world’s oldest living organisms.
But wait! Darwinists screech. What about the 9550 year old spruce scientist claim to have found in the Dalarna province of Sweden?
Hate to disappoint. Turns out this age is based on Darwinists making the claim that the trees all have “identical DNA” and radiocarbon dating the living roots of the trees. I must point out that radiocarbon dating has displayed up to a 93% margin of error dating parts of the SAME SAMPLE and is notoriously erroneous when dating living samples. A living snail was dated at 30,000 years old. A freshly killed seal was dated at over 21,000 years old.
Naturally, traditional tree-ring dating on any of the timber found growing at the Dalarna site so far reveals an age of no more than about 6 hundred years old, thousands of years less than the Bristlecone Pine.
Admittedly, there are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is also by no means absolute. For example, trees can — and often do — form more than one ring per year. This may give a seven year old tree eleven rings, for example. Even so, the fact is that the maximum tree-ring ages for any living trees fall well within a 4,780 year range. Apart from the Biblical global flood, there seems no reason why if certain trees are capable of living for 4,700 or more years, some should not have lived for many, many, MANY more years.
Question: If the earth is billions of years old, and life on earth is millions or hundreds of millions of years old, why are there no trees older than about 4,700 years old? Why do we not have 8 or 10 thousand year old trees at least? Why not a tree with an age of even 6,000 years worth of actual ring growth?
The giant sequoias of California, Sequoia gigantea, have no known enemies except man. It is only very in history that man, armed with machine saws, had the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not seem to bother them, nor even forest fires. Sequoia gigantea never have any dead trees (“snags”) among them, and these giant redwoods in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains appear to be the original trees that have always existed in their timber stands. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die. Today we have just one, single generation of the Sequoia gigantea. Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4,000 years at most.
Question: If the earth is billions of years old, and life on earth is millions of years old, why is no Sequoia gigantea ever older than about 4,000 years?
In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life span. In fact, 2,000 years from now, assuming the sequoia are left to their own devices, they will grow to be 6000 years old. The fact is that there is no record of any tree — or any other living thing — on planet earth that is older than any reasonable date given for the Biblical global flood described in the book of Genesis.
Writing
The oldest writing is pictographic Sumerian inscribed on tablets in the Near East. The oldest of these tablets have been dated at about 3500 B.C. and were found in the Sumerian temple of manna.
The earliest Western-type script was the proto-Sinaitic, which appeared in the Sinai peninsula about 1550 B.C. This was the forerunner of our Indo-Aryan script, from which descended our present alphabet.
Civilizations
It is highly significant that no truly verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating, from methods other than written human records, or from the disputed and highly suspect Egyptian king-list.
Human Languages
Mankind is so intelligent that languages were soon put into written records, which were left lying about on the surface of the earth. Believers can rely upon authoritative scripture and know that differences in dialect and language suddenly developed shortly after the Biblical global flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).
Interestingly, records of ancient languages never go back beyond circa 3000 B.C. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large “language families”; and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia. For example, the Japhetic peoples, listed in Genesis 10, traveled to Europe and India, where they became the so-called Aryan peoples. These all use what we call the Indo-European Language Family today. Recent linguistic studies reveal that these languages originated at a common center in southeastern Europe on the Baltic. This would be very close to the Ararat range in modern Turkey.
Fun with Math
In 1862, *Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. Thirty-five years later, in 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, *J. Joly said it was 90 million. *Rayleigh, in 1921, said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. Eleven years later, *W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion (1,600,000,000). *A Holmes in 1947 declared it to be 3.35 billion (3,350,000,000); and, in 1956, he raised it to 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000). Up until 2008, the age of the earth stood at about 5 billion years when the Hubble Variable Constant had to be lowered for other Darwinist nonsense math to work out. The age of the earth fell to 4.2 billion years where it will stand until Big Bang is replaced and the Hubble Variable Constant can be varied again.
Dr. A.E.J. Engel, Professor of the California Institute of Technology, comments that the age for the earth accepted by most geologists rose from a value of about 50 million years in 1900 to about 5 billion years by 1960. He suggests facetiously that ‘if we just relax and wait another decade, the earth may not be 4.5 to 5 aeons [1 aeon = 1 billion years], as now suggested, but some 6 to 8 or even 10 aeons in age.”
These Darwinian dates for the age of the earth have changed at a measurable rate, doubling on average every fifteen years. None of these dates are supportable with what we used to call facts or evidence if you realize that the geologic column does not actually exist and discard it as a baseless assumption of circular reasoning.
Population Statistics
Our present population explosion is especially the result of improved sanitary conditions at childbirth and thereafter. In earlier centuries, many more children died before the age of three.
It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages.
One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family of human beings.
The rate of world population growth has varied greatly throughout history as a result of such things as pestilences, famines, wars, and catastrophes like floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and fires. Even with all this in mind, estimates generally focus on 300 million as the population of the earth at the time of Christ. Based on small sized families, from the time of the Flood (circa 2300 to 2700 B.C.) to the time of Christ, the population by that time would have been about 300 million people. The many census’ conducted by Rome statistically confirm this number.
If, in contrast, the human race had been on earth for one million years, as the evolutionists declare, even with a very low growth rate of 0.01 (1/100) percent annually, the resulting population by the time of Christ would be 2 times 1043 which is the numeral 2 followed by 43 zeros times 10. A thousand solar systems, with nine planets like ours could barely hold that many people standing close enough to each other to hold hands.
The Truth
The truth is that no person either living or dead has ever come up with a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be, how the galaxies and stars and planets follow their orderly paths, how the moon and the earth are so perfectly placed, how life on our planet even exists — without all of it having been created. There is no sound theory in existence that leaves out the Creator.
In the last 8 posts, including this one, I have documented a surprising number of solid evidences for a young earth. I discussed (1) only a thin layer of moon dust; (2) short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes found in moon rocks; (3) the moon is receding from earth at a speed which requires a very young earth;—and on and on through all eight weeks.
Each and every point presents a “limiting factor” that the fairy tale told by Darwinists must explain or refute before their quaint 200 year old notion can be said to hold even a drop of water. They do not and cannot refute even one single point I have documented in a logical, organized, scientific manner without either begging the question or hurling epithets and ad homenim attacks.
Next week, I will dive into the quagmire of ridiculousness that is abiogenesis — life from non-life.
Until then, God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
I wanted to respectfully make a few objections on some of the arguments I feel qualified to challenge.
I respect the sincere effort you put into piling all of this together, but some of the reasoning behind your evidence is, for lack of a better, respectful, term, unscientific.
I will start with the “Odds of Darwinian Evolution” segment. The quote from Carl Sagan is taken out of context, and what he was originally referring to with the estimate is the opportunity for diversity in the evolutionary chain. Kind of like how Sonic advertises 168,000 drink combinations. However, a drink is the result of the order either way. (Imagine humans with webbed toes and six fingers, along with sharp canines..still evolutionarily viable but not the exact same combination that makes us who we are today.)
“The Oldest Living Organism”
One of the most important objections I would like to make is in the far too common attack on the inaccuracy of carbon dating. The consistency is far higher than 7%, and the attacks on carbon dating almost always mention animals such as snails. The reason why snails can be miscalculated so often is because they naturally pick up traces of dirt as they roam around. The traces of dirt on top of the crust can easily be dated within 10,000 years for the most part.
As far as the trees, I don’t have much experience in horticulture, so there are bound to be people better qualified than I to tell you why the logic is not sound. However, I will make the point that there is nothing living past the age of 5,000 years for plenty of reasons. Aging alone is a self-depreciating process. There is no need for maggots or chainsaws to take a tree down. On a micro level, all living organisms decay at the cellular level. On a macro level, the result of the cellular decay can result in tissue, as well as organ decay. This process is also prevalent in plants. Just as a car can fall apart, even if you don’t get in a wreck, trees decay too. I would have to say that the aging of the trees dating back to a “worldwide flood” is simply coincidental, if even accurate.
“Fun with Math”
The age of Earth is the result of all sorts of calculations. For one, scientists date rocks. However, this is not an accurate prediction of the Earth’s age because plate tectonics constantly replenish the Earth’s surface. A number like 4.2 billion comes from the dating of objects such as meteorites. This number is not just “made up” in order to coincide with evolution. In fact, the number, as it was the result of completely separate sciences, tends to simply prove that evolution occurs.
The age of the universe was calculated based on the constant rate that galaxies move away from our own (Hubble’s Constant). We come to an estimate that the universe is about 13.2 billion years old because objects in space are separated equally apart, and to trace their heritage at the rate of expansion, it would take 13.2 billion years for all of the mass of the universe to fall back into a singularity.
“Population Statistics”
I would like to see a citation for the “one family” that existed 3300 BC.
Also, evolutionists declare that humans have been on earth not just 1 million, but 6 million years.
“The Truth”
Actually, Newton explained how everything in the universe follows their orderly paths: gravity. It ties everything in the universe together.
Our fortunate luck to live on such a habitable planet is a result, not an end in itself. That is the same luck that makes each of us the result of 1 of millions of sperm cells to fertilize an egg. Its not that we are pre-determined, but that we are post-determined.
Please feel free to shoot me an email, but I would like to think that I respectfully pointed out some of the shortcomings here.
Sincerely,
Tait Wayland
You say, “I respect the sincere effort you put into piling all of this together, but some of the reasoning behind your evidence is, for lack of a better, respectful, term, unscientific.”
.
I respectfully disagree. Operational science is based on observation. The facts and evidence listed by me here is observed. Assumptions, however, when stated as conclusions or the foundation of conclusions, are entirely unscientific. The majority of Darwinism is based on unfounded and unsupported assumptions. A very good definition of Darwinism is, “A collection of unsupported guesses about unobserved events in the past.” The conclusions of Darwinism do not rely on observation, and largely are not supported by either operational or empirical science, but rather are founded upon assumptions which depend largely upon a philosophical bias. Therefore, Darwinism is, in fact, less scientific than the facts, evidence, and conclusions stated in this little blog post on a home making web site. As ironic as that is, it stands as true. Also, I must also point out that to accuse me of being less than scientific amounts to either a question begging epithet or an ad hominem abusive, either of which or both are logical fallacies and have no place in informed, intelligent, reasoned debate.
.
With respect to dating methods, all of them have problems and all of them also rely on assumptions. The issue is not how accurate they are. The issue is that when the age of an object is known, it is assumed that dating methods are more or less inaccurate while when the age of an object is unknown, dating methods are then assumed to be highly accurate provided they support the Darwinian philosophical bias. This bias does not agree with logic.
.
To state that no living thing can possibly be older than about 5000 years due to the listed self-deprecating processes you outline is what is known as a rescue device. If nothing can live beyond 5000 years, then every 5000 year old living thing should logically and suddenly die tomorrow before they grow even one second older. It is not logical to assume or declare that a plant which can live to be 1000, or 2000, or 5000 years old that it cannot live to be 5500 or 6000 or 6500 years old. It is not surprising that this strikes you as a coincidence. The philosophical bias of Darwinism filters any evidence that supports a Biblical account of creation as “mere coincidence” as a tenet of methodological naturalism.
.
With respect to the age of the earth, the truth is that no one at any time in history and no one living today can accurately determine how old even one single shovel full of dirt is. With respect to the age of the universe, the assumptions you state as facts are not facts, but rather assumptions. Assuming that the Hubble constant can be treated as a variable and assuming that red shift works the way that we assume it works and assuming that solar collapse is not responsible for stellar heat and assuming that there was a big bang in the first place etc. etc. ad infinitum. And, I am sorry to say, not scientific since none of these assumptions are observed as facts in empirical or operational science.
.
You state, “[Darwinists] declare that humans have been on earth not just 1 million, but 6 million years.” This makes the math far more interesting. Using even a minor population curve, I must estimate that the population of the earth should now exceed several sextillion human beings if that is the case. Additionally, we should be up to our elbows in human remains and fossils. There are several excellent (and highly scientific) population calculations with accompanying charts here: http://ldolphin.org/popul.html
.
With respect to the truth, actually, Newton theorized gravity as the way “…in which the Creator sustains all things.” Furthermore, we later came to understand that while such forces as gravity and the strong and weak atomic force exist, there is no explanation for how or why they exist at the exact tolerances with which they operate absent the “anthropic principle.” It is not surprising that this all strikes you as a “our fortunate luck” which stems from the pagan belief in the god “Fortuna” by the way. The philosophical bias of Darwinism filters any evidence that supports a Biblical account of creation as “fortunate luck” or “mere coincidence” as a tenet of methodological naturalism, which is somehow perceived as scientific despite the odds against it and the probabilistic outcomes being determined as well beyond mathematical impossibility. Speaking scientifically, luck, good fortune, mere coincidence and the like are expressed mathematically as “chance” and math is rather unforgiving when it comes to possible good chance outcomes in a field of possible bad chance outcomes, particularly when the possible bad chance outcomes exponentially outnumber the paltry possible good chance outcomes.
.
I thank you for your comment and sincerely hope that I have given you some food for thought.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Woah, I’m sorry it took me this long to reply, I just saw this when a friend of mine googled my name. >.<
When you claim that Darwinism is based on assumption, you have a point to a degree. BUT, you also have to take into the consideration that creationism is also an assumption. People attach their own bias and an interpretation to everything, including science.
* I just want to note that throwing the term "Darwinism" around is a bit misleading. You make a huge assumption when you say that all sciences cater to the doctrine of evolution.
I fail to see how the process of self-deprecation is a rescue device. I threw the term "5000" out there because its way beyond the age of any living thing. To say that something could live to be 5000 by natural means is drastic enough. 6000-6500 is just way out of the picture. Very few Sequoiahs are anywhere near 4000 years old…so it only makes sense that no tree is older than 4000 years old. Very few humans can sprint a 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Its logical to assume that going below 7 seconds is impossible for a human to achieve. (also when you rely on the dating of these trees, you rely on evidence that you have already attempted to rebuke. Notice how when carbon dating tends to favor your argument, you will rely on it to make a point, but when carbon dating favors a "darwinistic" argument, you label it unreliable.)
If anything, the Hubble's constant is the most reliable evidence in my argument. There is very little to be wrong about. This is simply applied calculus. If you throw something like Hubble's constant out of the picture, you could just as easily throw everything we know about gravity out of the picture. The universe expands at a well-known rate.
I would like to note that anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old, not the scapegoat "darwinists."
In terms of population, these calculators are actually highly unscientific because they dont take into account any sort of variables. You have to acknowledge that any sort of natural disaster/disease/famine has a much more critical effect on the population curve the earlier it happens…and it has happened frequently in the history of our species…I mean the Black Plague alone practically reset the entire population curve.
Lets throw out darwinism and creationism for a second because that sort of cyclic scapegoat-ism just instills bias and gets people nowhere….there are two ways to interpret our place in the universe. You can look at our favorable planet as the result of divine inspiration, or you can see our planet as the result of a cosmological crackshot. Its just simply more logical to assume that it is the former because the universe is just so big that there are bound to be many many more of such favorable planets. If the universe had only a handful of solar systems, divine inspiration would make a lot more sense. However, that isn't the case…there are trillions upon trillions of solar systems out there..so its just natural to assume that each one of those has a chance of having a favorable planet…and a favorable planet in the scheme of such an extraordinary amount of solar systems becomes not such an unlikely thing. We would not exist period if the planet wasnt favorable..so its not like we could live on a planet that is 1000 degrees hotter and say "well, thats just probability for you." Also, the same sort of "chance" as you call it takes place when a person is conceived…millions of sperm have a chance at fertilizing an egg, but only one does…you are the result of that 1 in several-million lottery….but you would never know if you weren't because you wouldn't exist. For every one person who exists…there are several million other potential people that could have existed…but there are tons and tons of sperm cells out there that each have a rare chance of being a zygote. In a sense you are "lucky" to be that person..but its not so unrealistic that you are here…because its a no-outs situation.
When you claim that Darwinism is based on assumption, you have a point to a degree.
.
False claim. My claim is that Darwinism is based on SEVERAL assumptions. Hundreds. And this is, of course, true.
.
I just want to note that throwing the term "Darwinism" around is a bit misleading.
.
I use the term to describe a very specific secular religious belief. Call it a philosophical bias, call it a combination of methodological materialism coupled with secular humanism. Call it whatever you want. It means what it means.
.
I threw the term "5000" out there because its way beyond the age of any living thing. To say that something could live to be 5000 by natural means is drastic enough. 6000-6500 is just way out of the picture.
.
So, to say that the Great Barrier Reef, a coral reef that has been built up for 4200 years, should be much older is way out of the picture? How so? Please use logic or evidence that go beyond a wink and a shrug to substantiate your point and support your claim. I submit that if a reef grows for 2000 years it can grow for 3000. If it grows for 3000 years it can grow for 4000. If it grows for 4000 years, why not 5? Why not 6? Why is that “just way out of the picture” exactly? Are you saying that the Great Barrier Reef must now stop growing and aging and attain some kind of stasis?
.
Very few Sequoiahs are anywhere near 4000 years old…so it only makes sense that no tree is older than 4000 years old.
.
Do you even understand how utterly circular that claim is? Sequoias can’t live to be more than 4000 years old because there are no Sequoias older than 4000 years old. Oh really? Are you familiar with the term “logic”?
.
Very few humans can sprint a 100 meter dash in under 10 seconds. Its logical to assume that going below 7 seconds is impossible for a human to achieve.
.
The ability of a human being to exert 7 seconds of energy in a short distance run may not be the best analogy as compared to the age of a tree or a reef that has lived for several millennia. You may have just defined a “weak analogy” fallacy.
.
(also when you rely on the dating of these trees, you rely on evidence that you have already attempted to rebuke. Notice how when carbon dating tends to favor your argument, you will rely on it to make a point, but when carbon dating favors a "darwinistic" argument, you label it unreliable.)
.
No. I contend that Darwinist dating methods are all fallible and each contains its own set of assumptions. It should be understood that when I say “Darwinists estimate the age at…” that I am granting that assumption for the purpose of debate.
.
If anything, the Hubble's constant is the most reliable evidence in my argument. There is very little to be wrong about. This is simply applied calculus. If you throw something like Hubble's constant out of the picture, you could just as easily throw everything we know about gravity out of the picture. The universe expands at a well-known rate.
.
I seriously don’t mean this as an insult. The fact is, based on this statement alone, it is clear that you are far too ignorant on this entire topic for me to intelligently debate this with you. I would have to first educate you on what you allegedly believe in order to show you how fallible and wrong what you think you believe actually is. Since I don’t believe it in the first place, because I lack your obvious ignorance of the topic, I only ask this: Please do some research and comment again when you are better informed. I’ll start you down the path…
.
“Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe,…But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…[it] is intolerable…moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the [big bang] theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.”
–Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937
.
You see, even Hubble himself recognized the conflicting apparent homogeneity his “varible” actually demonstrated.
.
I would like to note that anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old, not the scapegoat "darwinists."
.
I’m sorry — but is it your claim that 100% of all anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old? And that ONLY anthropologists believe this to be the case? Is there an indoctrination ceremony where they swear never again to be open minded on the question of the age of humanity complete with frock and secret handshake? Of course not.
.
The truth is that only anthropologists who subscribe to the religion of Darwinism make this claim. Other Darwinists who are not anthropologists — such as yourself, presumably — then saddles themselves with this belief as well. There is a difference between scapegoat and specificity. A scapegoat is a sacrificial innocent. That term doesn’t even make sense in this context. I think you only mean to throw it out as an epithet.
.
In terms of population, these calculators are actually highly unscientific because they dont take into account any sort of variables. You have to acknowledge that any sort of natural disaster/disease/famine has a much more critical effect on the population curve the earlier it happens…and it has happened frequently in the history of our species…I mean the Black Plague alone practically reset the entire population curve.
.
The bubonic plague was an epidemic that largely affected the northern Mediterranean portions of the African continent and central Europe and the islands we call Great Britain today. In the course of a century, 375 million estimated deaths occurred. It did not affect the population curve of Indochina, Australia, North or South America, etc. A better example of your point might be the pandemic Spanish ‘flu (influenza) outbreak at the end of the first world war which wiped out an estimated 6% of the population of the planet in 2 short years.
.
Neither of these affect the statistical model and in fact are simply an example of a logical fallacy called a red herring.
.
…there are two ways to interpret our place in the universe. You can look at our favorable planet as the result of divine inspiration, or you can see our planet as the result of a cosmological crackshot. Its just simply more logical to assume that it is the former because the universe is just so big that there are bound to be many many more of such favorable planets.
.
You say you lean toward the former — so, you believe our favorable planet is the result of divine creation, then. I agree. It is simply more logical. And I not only understand logic, but understand the grammatical difference between the former and the latter.
.
If the universe had only a handful of solar systems, divine inspiration would make a lot more sense. However, that isn't the case…there are trillions upon trillions of solar systems out there..so its just natural to assume that each one of those has a chance of having a favorable planet…and a favorable planet in the scheme of such an extraordinary amount of solar systems becomes not such an unlikely thing.
.
You are misquoting the famously misquoted Drake equation. “If only 1 out of a million suns had planets, and only 1 out of a million of those planets were capable of supporting life, and only 1 out of a million of those had life, and only 1 out of a million of those had intelligent life, you still end up with a bajillion planets currently hosting intelligent life!” There are two problems with this philosophy. One is, it is misquoted. The other is, Drake figured out he was wrong.
The Anthropic Principle greatly reduces even those skewed odds. Sol is a yellow-orange, main sequence dwarf star (G2 V) and has about 50 percent more heavy elements than other stars of its age. There are less than 150 G type stars within 50 light years of our solar system. Our Milky Way galaxy spans 80-120 thousand light years in diameter and contains 200-400 billion estimated stars. However, only about an estimated 16 million of those stars exist in so called “goldilocks” zones. Of those 16 million stars, only about 1 in 1.5 million are G2 V stars. Now, apply even your misquoted Drake equation to those 10.66_ remaining stars. But don’t stop there. Planets have a goldilocks zone in their order in the solar systems. Large gas giants must exist to act as “catchers” for debris such as comets and asteroids so that deep impacts rarely occur. Etc. etc.
.
We would not exist period if the planet wasnt favorable..so its not like we could live on a planet that is 1000 degrees hotter and say "well, thats just probability for you."
.
What point are you trying to make?
.
Also, the same sort of "chance" as you call it takes place when a person is conceived…millions of sperm have a chance at fertilizing an egg, but only one does…you are the result of that 1 in several-million lottery….but you would never know if you weren't because you wouldn't exist.
.
Did you lapse into existentialism?
.
For every one person who exists…there are several million other potential people that could have existed…but there are tons and tons of sperm cells out there that each have a rare chance of being a zygote. In a sense you are "lucky" to be that person..but its not so unrealistic that you are here…because its a no-outs situation.
.
If you are reducing me to my DNA, then you are mistaken. Consider that 100% of all the 23 chromosome sets obtained from each of my parents both came from my parents to form my 46 chromosomes. My father could not have added variablility to his genetic contribution outside of any combination of his existing 46 chromosomes any more than my mother could have, which, again, greatly reduces the odds. I don’t think you understand the difference between odds, probability, and chance.
.
An existentialist argument is irrelevant because it is circular and cuts both ways. If we weren’t here, then we would not be here to observe. True. But irrelvant. What is relevant is that we ARE here and we DO observe it. But, if it were not observable, we could not be here to observe it. Also true and equally irrelvant. It IS observable and we ARE here to observe it. The greater realities are relevant in a debate of minds.
.
Thanks for your comment.
God bless,
Gregg
Okay, I’ll go ahead and give you this…I wrote a sloppy response. Some of my arguments were thought on a whim because I was doing this around 1:00 in the morning if I recall.
First off if you ever want to be respected in a debate, a cardinal rule is to not throw out ad-hominem attacks. I bet Jesus really smiles up at you from the grave when you lead people like me further away from your type.
“False claim. My claim is that Darwinism is based on SEVERAL assumptions. Hundreds. And this is, of course, true.”
Please name ten assumptions atheists/agnostics make that are completely out of the picture and not supported by any scientific or otherwise mathematical evidence. Actually, just name three if you can’t do that.
“I use the term to describe a very specific secular religious belief. Call it a philosophical bias,- ”
When you call people “Darwinists” for adopting credible scientific theories into their beliefs about the universe, its almost like your deliberately trying to associate them with Social Darwinists. It seems like the word was cleverly chosen in order to be derogatory in that sense.
“So, to say that the Great Barrier Reef, a coral reef that has been built up for 4200 years, should be much older is way out of the picture? ”
Coral reefs are just built-up calcium carbonate secreted by nearby coral. The actual coral doesn’t live to be 4200 years. Did you even bother looking that up before you posted it?
“No. I contend that Darwinist dating methods are all fallible and each contains its own set of assumptions. It should be understood that when I say “Darwinists estimate the age at…” that I am granting that assumption for the purpose of debate.”
So, this is a cop-out. If you don’t believe in carbon dating why even make the point? How does that help your cause if the evidence you bring up is, by your own standards, unreliable? I don’t have to grant truth to divine intervention, to make an argument for naturalism. you shouldn’t have to make an argument for intelligent design that relies on so-called flawed scientific methodology.
““Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe,…But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…[it] is intolerable…moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the [big bang] theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.”
–Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937”
So based on all of the astronomy conducted by 1937, Edwin Hubble could assert that Hubble’s Law conflicts with the Big Bang theory and that the universe was, if fact, not homogeneous? You could very well be right that the Big Bang didn’t happen the way astronomers think it did. Many physicists would actually agree with you, I might agree with you actually. But when you bring this quote up, you rely on incredibly dogmatic science. (moreover outdated) So when you imply that I just blindly accept all science thrown in my direction, its kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Also, you’re essentially just trying to blow a hole in my argument without offering a scientifically credibly solution. If Hubble’s Law conflicts with the idea that the universe emerged from a singularity, how did the universe come into existence?
“I’m sorry — but is it your claim that 100% of all anthropologists declare humans to be 6 million years old?”
Show me an anthropologists that doesn’t believe this. In fact, show me a credible biologist who believes in creationism. Scientists don’t blindly accept things based on authority. Christians and other creationists already do enough of that in the rational world. Almost all anthropologists believe humans have been around for 6 million years. Does that sound better?That leaves room for the possibility of discrepancy.
Also, I want to point out that almost none of your points actually give weight to your argument. You’re points simply try to blow holes in scientific notion. Hardly anything you bring up proves that the Universe is 10,000 years old and that an intelligent designer made it all. Lets just get to the elephant in the room and say that nothing you have brought up actually leads credibility to the Judeo-Christian God that I will assume you believe in at this point. Nothing you say here proves that there was a 40-day world-wide flood where a man named Noah put two of every animal on a 40 foot wide ark. Nothing you say here proves that a man named Jonah lived in a whale. Nothing you say here prooves that humans walked among dinosaurs. Nothing you say here proves God created the universe in 7 days, and that all animals coexisted side by side. Nothing you say here proves Jesus rose from the dead, or was born of a virgin.
Now, since you’ve had plenty of opportunities to blow a hole into Naturalistic doctrine, I’ll go ahead and have my shot at intelligent design. If every creature was created individually and designed intelligently, why do roosters have teeth?
First off if you ever want to be respected in a debate, a cardinal rule is to not throw out ad-hominem attacks. I bet Jesus really smiles up at you from the grave when you lead people like me further away from your type.
.
First of all, it is utterly irrelevant whether I am respected or not. Even so, it is obvious you respect me or else you would not take time to debate/annoy me. Secondly, it is difficult to feel rebuked about some alleged ad hominem fallacy when your very next sentence is an ad hominem. What exactly is “my type” anyway? What a bigoted and closed minded remark. Thirdly, Christ isn’t in the grave. He was only in the grave for 72 hours. The grave is empty. Hence, He cannot be smiling up from a place where He is not.
.
Please name ten assumptions atheists/agnostics make that are completely out of the picture and not supported by any scientific or otherwise mathematical evidence. Actually, just name three if you can’t do that.
.
You could spare me the time of constantly repeating myself by reading some of my other posts. But here you go.
1) Cosmic evolution — that the universe was absolutely nothing that got hot, dense, spun, then exploded.
2) Stellar evolution — that stars formed when gas condensed in the vacuum of space when all gas ever does in a vacuum is rarify.
3) Chemical evolution — that the stars exploded over and over to create enough really intense heat sufficient to fuse past iron and create heavy minerals when nothing in the universe actually ever explodes more than once.
4) That the earth was really hot for a very long time despite polonium halos and other evidence that indicates the earth was formed cold then got hot.
5) Abiogenesis — that dirt and rocks decided to form the first living cell on earth.
6) That all forms of life on earth sprang from that mythical original ancestor.
7) That macro-evolution can occur (say, fish to a mammal, lizard to a bird, etc.) via gradual changes over time due to mutation and selection and other assorted speciation events which has never been observed (thus an assumption) and there is certainly not enough time for it to occur anyway.
8) That homology is indicative of darwinian evolution.
9) That ontological recapitulation is still valid though proven false nearly 200 years ago (still taught in college level biology as factual)
10) that 4000 year old trees can’t get any older because the oldest ones are only 4000 years old which is an assumption that depends upon some pretty strong circular reasoning. Oh, you only wanted three.
.
Coral reefs are just built-up calcium carbonate secreted by nearby coral. The actual coral doesn’t live to be 4200 years. Did you even bother looking that up before you posted it?
.
Dude — coral is a living thing. A coral reef is built up of discarded skeletons. It isn’t a secretion. It’s a graveyard covered with living coral in the current generation. I note that you didn’t actually address the question. You simply attempted to insult my intelligence which obviously backfired. Why is the oldest reef 4200 years old and why can it not get any older if that is your position?
.
If Hubble’s Law conflicts with the idea that the universe emerged from a singularity, how did the universe come into existence?
.
Good question. Obviously, Hubble knew he was wrong. There doesn’t appear to be a solid materialistic answer, does there?
.
In fact, show me a credible biologist who believes in creationism.
.
Define “credible” using a definition that isn’t a “real Scottsman” fallacy.
.
Christians and other creationists already do enough of that in the rational world.
.
You’re just throwing a little tantrum, now. That remark isn’t even rational in and of itself.
.
… Noah put two of every animal on a 40 foot wide ark.
.
Wrong.
.
Now, since you’ve had plenty of opportunities to blow a hole into Naturalistic doctrine, I’ll go ahead and have my shot at intelligent design. If every creature was created individually and designed intelligently, why do roosters have teeth?
.
So they can chew. Or maybe they are a “missing link” between toothy reptiles and crowing fowl?
.
Thanks for your comment.
.
God bless,
Gregg
So, I too just Googled Tait’s name and found this discussion.
This argument is like a gunfight with nothing but Colt .45’s: almost all of the shots are strong and accurate, but occasionally they jam. For example, Gregg says:
“A coral reef is built up of discarded skeletons. It isn’t a secretion. It’s a graveyard covered with living coral in the current generation.”
This directly contradicts your own statement about them being 4200 years old! I mean, sure, the skeletons maybe that old, but the living organism itself is not. And what if it could live to be 4200 years old; considering the simplicity of cnidarian reproduction, how big should the coral reefs be today?
Tait, I too fail to see the self-depreciation argument as a rescue device simply because it didn’t rescue you. Sure, self-depreciation is a good argument for this, but you undermined it by suggesting that “no tree is older than 4000 years old.” Really? Why can’t they just keep depreciating at a very slow rate?
Regardless of any inaccuracies (factual or logical), I’ve really enjoyed reading both of your comments, and now that I’m done I can’t help but throw in my own two cents. I believe in God, yes, but I believe in God because of science. The answer in marrying the two, in my calm objective opinion, is DNA. We can look at so many chemical and physical aspects of science, but the biological is a bit of an enigma. Sure, it builds upon the principles of chemistry, as chemistry does upon physics, but it’s different because of DNA. Every form of life requires DNA; at the very least, RNA had to exist before the first life form, right? But if there was nothing there to encode for, then why were these acids linking together with such crazy precision? It’s almost literally a chicken-or-the-egg argument. On top of this, the transcription/translation process and DNA it self is all a literal code, and the precision (not accuracy) of it all seems bizarrely indicative of intelligence and intervention. I guess that Tait could easily respond with his “one in a million sperm” theory. You two can probably whip up some other explanation too, something involving ribosomes and biochemistry. I’m just too lazy to prove myself wrong, and not naive enough to think that either science or religion can be proven absolutely.