Introduction: A Road Well-Traveled
Website: Studying the Word of God
Authors: Brian K. McPherson and Scott McPherson
Web Address (URL):
Evolution Study Outline
Section One
Introduction: Plotting the Road Ahead
3 In this study we will take a closer look at the debate between evolution and creationism concerning:
i. the origin of the universe,
ii. the origin of life,
iii. and the origin of species.
4 The study will be broken down into a few main sections:
iv. Some of the common objections and perceptions in the origins debate to overcoming the initial entrenchment and gridlock that typically short-circuit the origins debate before it gets underway.
v. Defining and establishing the actual competing theories in the origins debate, evolution and creation.
vi. Presentation of the evidence.
I. The Origin of Theories
5 In science, all theories start with observation
“Science – Science covers the broad field of knowledge that deals with observed facts and the relationships among those facts…Scientists use systematic methods of study to make observations and collect facts. They then work to develop theories that help them order or unify related facts.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History and the History of Science, City University of New York.
“Empiricism – a philosophical approach that views experience as the most important source of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists. Empiricists try to answer as many questions as possible by using information gathered by the senses.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.
“Scientific theory – In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.” –
“Science, philosophy of, Elements of scientific enterprise – From the beginning, scientists themselves have been interested not merely in cataloging and describing the world of nature as they find it but in making the workings of nature intelligible with the help of compact and organized theories…Empirical data and their theoretical interpretation – First are the empirical elements. The task of science is to explain actual events, processes, or phenomena in nature…those empirical facts…On the one hand, the facts in question may be discovered by using observational methods…” –
6 In order to maintain clarity, we must be able to distinguish the observations, the empirical data or evidence, from the theory that attempts to explain them
Evidence and Interpretation
8 An indispensable element that often goes overlooked in debates is…
9 The ability to discern between evidence and a particular interpretation of that evidence
10 The ability to discern between the observed data and the various theories explaining that data
11 In origins debates, both views are, in fact, looking at and utilizing the same evidence
12 It is not the case that evolutionists are looking at one set of empirical data while creationists are looking at an entirely different set of empirical data
13 The empirical data doesn’t change
14 It’s only the interpretation of that data that differs
15 (This is why it is so important to let the data, the empirical evidence, speak.)
16 There are only 3 ways to disprove any given interpretation
17 First, either a single, decisive piece of evidence or, perhaps more usually, a combination of evidences can be shown to be incompatible with a particular interpretation
18 Second, if more evidence is shown to rationally lean toward an alternative explanation, then an interpretation is generally considered to be defeated
19 Third, a particular interpretation can be disproved if it is shown to be irreparably self-contradicting in its various components.
20 Characterization and Mischaracterization through Biased Language
21 In debates, language, adjectives, and adverbs used by a particular side to describe or characterize the evidence can become synonymous with the evidence itself
22 Distinguishing between evidence and the presuppositions of one interpretation also requires the ability to distinguish between the stark characteristics of the evidence itself and the characterizations that a particular side would like to ascribe to that evidence.
Section Two – Preliminary Application to the Origins Debate
23 Should creationism be disqualified on the grounds that it results from unscientific processes?
24 Premature Dismissal in the Origins Debate: Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 1)
25 3 basic suggested reasons for dismissing creationism from scientific consideration.
26 Dismissing creationism on the grounds that it is based upon presupposition, “blind faith,” and not upon evidence such as observation and experimentation, as science should be.
27 Dismissing creationism on the grounds that it is un-falsifiable.
28 Dismissing creationism on the grounds that it does not make predictions, which is a central part of the scientific process.
29 Evaluating the grounds for creationism’s dismissal that it is not scientific, but is instead blindly presuppositional
30 What is meant by the idea of faith?
31 Faith is simply another word for “belief”
32 (This is especially true in the Judeo-Christian tradition, from which creationism springs.)
33 In a modern, colloquial sense, faith is often thought of as being synonymous with “blind faith” or assumption.
34 You believe because you don’t have evidence.
35 You believe in spite of evidence.
36 That is what makes it faith.
37 That is the way people often use the term “faith” in common, everyday discourse.
38 This can also be called a “pre-suppositional” approach to faith since it is faith based upon things that are effectively “presupposed to be true.”
39 Some religions, particularly Platonism and eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, have historically asserted this kind of inner, subjective path to belief apart from external evidence.
40 If creationist “faith” is synonymous with “blind faith” or “something you hold to be true regardless of evidence,” creationism is disqualified immediately as unscientific.
41 Science has to do with conclusions that can be reached from observation and evidence, not simply assumed.
42 Where does the notion of faith as presuppositional, subjective, and blind come from?
43 As discussed in detail in our “Why Christianity?” article series, the world’s religions fall into two distinct categories
44 (Syncretistic religions are a mixture between the following two categories.)
45 Propositional Mysticism and its faith
46 Disregard for the external, physical, and material.
47 Truth is subjective and learned through inward enlightenment that is independent of the external realities of the physical, material world.
48 Degrade and disregard the role of external experience in favor subjective, inner discovery when it comes to perceiving truth.
49 Evidentiary Monotheism and its faith
50 Insist upon external demonstration for all truth claims.
51 Subjective, internal perception is subordinated to what can be objectively known.
52 Judaism and Christianity originated as evidentiary religions.
53 Many modern Christian sects now center on a pre-suppositional approach to truth.
54 This pre-suppositional approach in modern Christianity is most recently a product of the influence of Calvinist (or Reformed) sects, which assert that belief is something directly inserted into someone by God and kept their by God’s unilateral action, regardless of evidence.
55 These pre-suppositional teachings are the result of Propositional Mysticism influencing later Christian traditions through syncretistic processes.
56 This idea enters into the hybrid half-Christian, half-platonic Gnosticism, and from those roots into the Roman Catholic views asserted by Ambrose and Augustine in the fourth century.
57 These concepts were maintained and even further articulated over time until asserted in their more recognizable, modern form in the Reformed tradition of John Calvin (from which springs Calvinist theology).
58 Judeo-Christianity began as a faith that was grounded in external, observable, objectively veriable evidences and experiences.
59 Examining the earliest Judeo-Christian writings to see how the religious texts themselves define the religion – consider Moses and Jesus, the respective founders of these traditions.
60 Moses did not come simply insisting that others accept him as God’s messenger or to simply follow their hearts on the matter. Instead, he gave external signs to the people of Israel and Egypt.
Exodus 3:16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt: 17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. 18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God…4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee. 2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. 3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: 5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. 6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. 7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. 9 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.
i. Jesus is recorded as providing a multitude of external signs for the very purpose that those signs would demonstrate the veracity of his claims.
John 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
ii. Jesus’ disciples followed this same pattern, providing external signs to demonstrate the truth of their message.
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
a. The Judeo-Christian tradition strongly rejects merely internal, subjective “truth” as seen in passages that outright condemn “truths” that originate in men’s hearts only.
Jeremiah 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.
Jeremiah 23:16 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
b. The types of information that can be learned from these evidences also includes 2 closely-related categories:
i. 1) Theological concepts
ii. 2) Moral rules
c. Examples of natural experience as the basis of belief in the earliest Judeo-Christian tradition – the words of Paul in Romans 1-2.
Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith (4102) to faith (4102): as it is written, The just shall live by faith (4102). 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest (5318) in them; for God hath shewed (5319) it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
i. Paul speaks the visible world as providing evidence for theological concepts, such as God’s existence and his ability, “his eternal power and Godhead.”
ii. Paul places morality in the category of truths deduced from objective observations, not one’s own subjective opinion.
1. Paul states that sexual morality is revealed by the physical structure of the male and the female body as observed in the natural world.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
iii. These are appeals and arguments based upon what is externally, observable.
1. These are not arguments that truth is learned through subjective perception rather than external evidence.
d. Examples of natural experience as the basis of belief in the earliest Judeo-Christian tradition – concerning the central doctrine of resurrection.
i. God himself puts Abraham into an external situation to force Abraham to ponder the experience of death and the deductions that can be made from it.
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting (2049) that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
ii. The Greek word translated as “accounting” here in Hebrews 11 is “logizomai” (Strong’s No. 3049)
1. Logizomai means to “to count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate, to reckon up all the reasons.”
2. When God wanted to put Abraham to a test, he commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac.
3. Faced with the experience of his son’s death, Abraham deliberated and pondered these things and the result was his belief, or faith, that God could raise Isaac from the dead.
4. Even in such matters, what a man believes is depicted as being a result of contemplating the things he experiences, in this case, human death.
e. Adam also himself saw proof of the Creator firsthand.
i. Chapter 2 of Genesis provides an expanded, more detailed account of the creation of Adam on Day 6 of the creation week.
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
ii. Genesis 1 clearly records that God created the birds on Day 5 and all the land animals on Day 6 before the creation of man.
iii. But, in Genesis 2, after He makes Adam, God once again created both the birds and land animals right in front of Adam while standing there in the Garden of Eden.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed…15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it…18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
iv. Adam saw proof with his own eyes that there was a Creator and that the being interacting with him was that Creator.
61 Since the creationist model arises out of an evidentiary approach, it cannot be rejected on the grounds that it is unscientific because it is based upon presupposition.
62 Premature Dismissal in the Origins Debate: Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 2)
63 The second suggested reason for dismissing creationism is on the grounds that it is un-falsifiable.
64 Modern science and most modern scientists subscribe to the necessity for any theory to be demonstrated by empirical means.
65 Empiricism involves the acquiring of knowledge or information by means of actual experience and observations.
“Empiricism – in philosophy, the attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon only if they first have been confirmed by actual experience.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Empiricism – a philosophical approach that views experience as the most important source of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists. Empiricists try to answer as many questions as possible by using information gathered by the senses.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.
1. The requirement of empiricism is at the heart of the scientific method itself, and is connected with “falsifiability,” another closely-related aspect of the scientific method.
2. “Falsifiability” was first proposed as a criterion for valid science by Sir Karl Raimond Popper.
“Popper, Karl Raimund – Popper, Karl Raimund (1902-1994), was an Austrian-born philosopher whose central concern was analyzing the nature of science…Popper was born in Vienna, Austria, and taught there until 1937, when he left the country because of the rise of the Nazis. He served as professor of logic and scientific method at the London School of Economics and Political Science from 1949 to 1969. Queen Elizabeth II knighted him in 1965, making him Sir Karl Popper.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Ivan Soll, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
a. Popper was chiefly focused on distinguishing between science and non-science, between what was and was not scientifically valid.
3. According to Popper, the distinction between what is science and what is not science is the criterion of falsifiability.
“Positivism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific) and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Empiricism, Criticism and evaluation, Criticism and evaluation – One important philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has rejected the inductivism that views the growth of empirical knowledge as the result of a mechanical routine of generalization. To him it is falsifiability by experience that makes a statement empirical.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. According to Popper, for a theory to be considered scientific, it had to be possible for that the theory to be disproved by empirical evidence.
i. This did not mean a theory had to be actually disproved, but merely that it would be at least possible for evidence to exist, which could disprove it.
b. Such a criterion does not conflict with the evidentiary approach to truth discovery that underlies the Judeo-Christian tradition.
4. Both empiricism and falsifiability are essential to the approach used by most scientists today.
“Empiricism – a philosophical approach that views experience as the most important source of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.
“Science, philosophy of, Historical development, The 20th-century debate: Positivists versus historians – Meanwhile, the qualified Realism of Planck and Hertz was carried further by such men as Norman Campbell, an English physicist known for his sharpening of the distinction between laws and theories, and Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher recognized for his theory of falsifiability, both of whose views reflect the explicit methodology of many working scientists today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
66 The belief in God is often categorized as “unscientific” on the grounds that God transcends (or exists beyond) the universe and, therefore, is not subject to empirical verification or falsification.
“Atheism, Atheism and metaphysical beliefs – In coming to understand what is meant by “God” in such discourses, it must be understood that God, whatever else he is, is a being that could not possibly be seen or be in any way else observed. This, in effect, makes it a mistake to claim that the existence of God can rightly be treated as a hypothesis and makes it a mistake to claim that, by the use of the experimental method or some other determinate empirical method, the existence of God can be confirmed or disconfirmed as can the existence of an empirical reality…God could not be a reality whose presence is even faintly adumbrated in experience, for anything that could even count as the God of Judeo-Christianity must be transcendent to the world. Anything that could actually be encountered or experienced could not be God…But then there is no way, directly or indirectly, that even the probability that there is a God could be empirically established.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“God, V Grounds for Belief, A Varieties of Disbelief – Arguments against belief in God are as numerous as arguments for it. Atheists absolutely deny the existence of God…Positivists believe that rational inquiry is restricted to questions of empirical fact, so that it is meaningless either to affirm or deny the existence of God (see Positivism).” – "God," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
67 Whether or not the general idea of God is directly falsifiable is not really all that consequential to the debate for 2 reasons.
5. First, even if the general idea of God is deemed to be non-scientific on the grounds that it is not “falsifiable” by empirical means, creationism and evolution are on equal footing.
a. Creationism and evolution are on equal footing because, whether the first cause is claimed to be a supernatural being or an impersonal force or process of some kind, first causes cannot be tested, repeated in a lab, or falsified.
b. First causes, whether supernatural or otherwise, must be indirectly demonstrated to be the most reasonable conclusion on the basis of the parts of the theories that can be tested and falsified.
6. Second, even if the general idea of God is deemed to be non-scientific on the grounds that it is not “falsifiable” by empirical means, creationism is scientific and falsifiable.
a. Contrary to popular belief, creationism is not simply the idea that a God exists.
i. That is theism.
1. In contrast to pantheism, in theism, including Judeo-Christian theism, God is viewed as existing outside the material, created universe.
a. Thus, God is said to transcend the material universe.
2. If “God” is left simply as some undefined, transcendent being beyond the universe, then truly such a vague concept of God cannot be disproved or falsified.
b. Creationism (and the Judeo-Christian tradition it comes from) doesn’t merely assert that a God exists, but instead creationism is specifically the assertion that God is necessary as a Creator.
i. Identifying God as Creator takes the concept of God from merely a transcendent and undetectable being and makes him detectable by means of his interaction through his creative work in the universe.
ii. From its earliest statements, the Judeo-Christian tradition has defined God as the necessary Creator of the universe.
1. This ties the definition of God directly to the characteristics of the universe.
c. Creationism’s definition of God makes the claim that the universe will have characteristics that require foresight in order to exist as they do.
i. The assertion, “God exists” cannot be falsified because it provides no predictions or claims about evidence for God.
ii. But what about the much more defined hypothesis “The characteristics of the universe necessitate a cause that has intelligent foresight”?
1. Is this hypothesis equally un-falsifiable? Certainly not.
d. A definition of God as the necessary and purposeful Creator of the universe is sufficiently well-defined to make predictions and claims that can be compared to the evidence and, therefore, potentially falsified.
i. If the evidence (the observable characteristics in the universe) are explainable in terms of automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight, then the necessity of an intelligent, foresighted cause will be disproved and falsified.
ii. Conversely, if the characteristics of the universe exist in such a way that their formation defies automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight or defies even the probability for such automatic, routine causes, then the necessity of intelligent foresight will be upheld as a property of the universe’s cause.
1. Consequently, the initial Judeo-Christian presentation of God as the necessary creator of the universe is both falsifiable in principle and potentially provable by the evidence.
7. A theory becomes un-falsifiable when its claims become detached from the evidence.
a. This happens in one of 2 ways.
i. First, when a theory’s primary claims are defined in such a way that they have no relationship to the observable evidence.
1. Such as the general idea “a God exists who transcends the universe.”
ii. Second, when the theory itself is accepted despite the fact that its primary claims have been disproved by the evidence.
b. Creation passes both of these criteria.
i. However, creationism is scientific because it is falsifiable – this is proven by the fact that many modern scientists consider its key elements to have been falsified.
1. Creationism and the age of the universe
2. New kinds of plants and animals do not emerge from previous kinds, but all kinds of organisms will only produce their same kind.
a. Verses 11-12, 20-22, and 24-25 of Genesis 1 state that all the plants and the animals multiply “after their kind.” New kinds of plants and animals do not emerge from previous kinds.
“Creationism, I INTRODUCTION – In the second half of the 20th century, the most visible and politically active creationists maintained that the entire universe was created within the past 6000 to 10,000 years…II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Despite mounting evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth (see Paleontology), many Christians continued to accept the traditional biblical account of a relatively recent six-day creation in the Garden of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam and Eve.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Creationism, Creationist beliefs – Strict creationists take the Biblical story of the Creation literally. They believe that God created the universe just thousands of years ago, and that He created all life forms within six 24-hour days…All creationists believe that each species (type of life form) on earth has remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and that no species has evolved from any other.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Raymond A. Eve, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Arlington.
3. The Biblical assertion of a “young” creation is said to be disproved by evidences for a much older earth and universe based on…
a. Geologic evidences (such as the geologic column and radiometric dating)
b. Astronomical considerations (such as the billions of years it takes starlight to reach the earth).
4. Evolutionist measure the age of the earth and the universe and conclude it is much older than the Biblical claim.
“Hubble's constant – The reciprocal of Hubble's constant lies between 10 billion and 20 billion years, and this cosmic time scale serves as an approximate measure of the age of the universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
5. The Biblical (creationist) claim that kinds only reproduce their own kind is said to be falsified.
a. This claim is said to be falsified by evidence demonstrating evolution’s claim that new species evolve from distinct, preceding species using…
i. The fossil record
ii. Morphology (similar structure shared by distinct organisms).
“Creationism, II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Before English naturalist Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, most people in the West-including the great majority of scientists-accepted creationism in some form, although they rarely used that term to describe their views. Despite mounting evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth (see Paleontology), many Christians continued to accept the traditional biblical account of a relatively recent six-day creation in the Garden of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam and Eve. Writing in 1852, American commentator William B. Hayden estimated that one-half of the Christian public remained loyal to the traditional view; the other half had adopted one or the other of two popular reinterpretations of the creation account in the biblical book of Genesis. These reinterpretations permitted Christians to accept the accumulating paleontological evidence without abandoning their faith…III DARWIN AND EVOLUTION – Darwin nevertheless left room for an initial act of creation: "I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number," he wrote at the conclusion of his book. He added that the presence of analogous physical structures across many different species implied "that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed" (see Adaptation). Darwin later expressed regret over this concession to creationism, and for the rest of his life he ruled out any role for God in the origin and development of living things.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Conclusions concerning dismissing creationism as unfalsifiable.
68 Evolutionists consider the various claims of the Biblical account of creation to be falsifiable, but they consider the very same claims to be, in fact, falsified by known empirical data.
69 One simply cannot say that a theory’s claim has been empirically proven false while at the same time asserting that the same claim is unscientific because it is “un-falsifiable.”
70 The Biblical model of creation is fit for scientific consideration and cannot be dismissed as unscientific on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable.
71 Premature Dismissal in the Origins Debate: Is Faith Unscientific? (Part 3)
72 A vital part of the scientific process is the ability to make predictions.
73 Worldbook’s Encyclopedia article on the “Inductive Method” describes the role of induction and prediction in science.
“Inductive method – To make discoveries, scientists first obtain general theories by using induction. From these general theories, they then deduce new, particular predictions. These predictions are tested by observation and experiment. The test results may be used in a new inductive step to obtain a better general theory.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Morton L. Schagrin, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, State University of New York, Fredonia.
iii. Given the role of predictions in the scientific method, evolutionists critique creationism theory as unscientific on the grounds that it does not involve predictions or even that predictions are not even possible from the Biblical descriptions.
1. Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University of Detroit, Michigan asserted the necessity of being able to make predictions, inferences, and computations from any particular theory.
a. To support this necessity, Dr. Moore quoted Dr. Richard Feynman, 1965 Nobel-prize winner for physics, and explained Feynman’s description of the scientific method.
“This is one scientist’s statement as to what scientific method is. He says, ‘In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess…Don’t laugh. It’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see if this law that we guessed is right, what it should imply. Then we compare those computation results with nature, with say, to experiment or experience. We compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how smart you, who made the guess, or what his or her name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.’ This short, whimsical even facetious statement is actually a fairly concise and complete statement for the scientific method, as simple as it is. One of the most interesting phrases in Feynman’s description…” – Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video
b. Later on in the debate, Dr. Moore returns to this statement from Feynman and applies it directly as a criticism of creationism, asserting that the creationist model and approach cannot make predictions, and therefore, are not scientific.
“Regardless of how many kinds there were, maybe we could figure that out if we could determine what distinguishes one kind from another in a genetic sense. What is the barrier? When would we know that we’ve crossed from one kind to another?...In order to begin to do that sort of research, which actually I do…but first before I could write a sensible proposal, you’d have to tell me what a kind is so I could begin to figure out what it is that I’m looking for that distinguishes them. There has to be some aspect of your theory that leads to predictions. We have to be able to do these computations that Feynman alludes to. And I just don’t see it in Genesis. There’s no room for computation.” – Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video
iv. Examples of creationist claims making predictions that are empirically computable and testable.
1. The creationist “guess” or “theorization” that animals only reproduce after their kinds does make empirically testable predictions.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day…20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
a. The predictive nature of these statements from Genesis 1 is readily apparent.
i. General prediction:
1. The various kinds of plants, the various kinds of water animals, the various kinds of birds, and the various kinds of land organisms will all only bring forth after their kind.
2. They will only reproduce the same kinds that they are.
3. One kind will never produce something other than its own kind.
b. These predictions are readily comparable with observation and experimentation.
2. The creationist claim that there was a global flood makes empirically testable predictions.
a. The flood account in Genesis 7:10-8:14 implies and predicts that predominantly geological features form from catastrophe.
b. This theory that geologic features form by catastrophe is both predictive and it can be compared and tested against observable evidence.
3. Creationist claims that from the Bible state that the heavens (where the stars reside) were stretched out.
Psalms 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.
Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
a. The writing of these passages date back to before the time of Jesus Christ, which makes them well-over 2,000 years old.
b. Yet, the expansion of the universe was not discovered until after the turn of the 19th century A.D.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth. The Doppler shift, and therefore the speed of the galaxy, was greater for more distant galaxies. Galaxies in different directions at equivalent distances from the earth, however, had equivalent Doppler shifts. This constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Red Shift – The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble, in 1929, linked the red shift observed in spectra of galaxies to the expansion of the universe.” – "Red Shift," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
v. Conclusions about Creationism, Evolution, and Empirically Testable Predictions
1. A great majority of the aspects of creationist theory can be compared to observation of those phenomena in nature or through experimentation,
2. The creationist model is on equal footing with the evolutionary model regarding claims about initial causes and the origin of the universe.
a. The creationist claim that God created the universe and all that it in it (including all the organisms) remains beyond direct observation and cannot be tested or repeated through experiment.
b. The evolutionary model is unable to directly observe or experimentally repeat the initial mechanisms and events that began the universe in its model either.
i. The big bang itself is beyond such observation and cannot even be modeled.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – Current methods of particle physics allow the universe to be traced back to earlier than one second after the big bang explosion initiated the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the negative 43 power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. The creationist model and evolutionary model are on equal footing regarding metaphysical assumptions.
a. Evolutionary biologist Dr. Moore stated that the creationist and evolutionist models are on equal footing when it comes to any metaphysical assumptions at the foundation of each model.
i. According to Dr. Moore, uniformitarian geologic principles must be assumed and supposed and cannot be defended, deduced, or proved.
ii. In Dr. Moore’s words “We can’t really defend these assumptions…We can’t prove it to be true. We can simply make it a part of our philosophical system and see how successful that system is in leading us to new discoveries.”
b. The exact same can be said concerning the creationist model.
i. The idea of actually observing God creating the universe is beyond what is available to us.
ii. However, we can build a model including this suggested concept.
iii. And we can see how successful that model or system is in fitting with what we do discover in the world around us.
74 Conclusions regarding the 3 possible grounds for dismissing creationism as unscientific
75 The criticisms that creationism is unscientific because it is based upon presupposition or blind faith, is un-falsifiable or un-testable, or does not and cannot make predictions are all shown to be false.
76 Creationism, historically and originally is part of an objective and evidentiary, not pre-suppositional or subjective, approach to truth.
77 The possibility of falsifying creationism’s claims can be seen in the fact that evolutionists consider the biblical model to, in fact, have been falsified on particular points.
78 This includes creationism’s claims about the age of the universe and the reproductive origin of organisms.
79 Creationism’s claims are inherently predictive and available for testing against the observable and experimental data.
80 This is most clearly seen in creationism’s prediction that organisms will always reproduce their own kind, never a new or different kind.
81 In these categories, creationism is on equal footing with evolution as a scientific theory or model.
82 Creationism is also on equal footing with evolution concerning the fact that the original events in both models are not available for scientific observation, this includes:
83 God creating the universe
84 The big bang explosion itself.
85 Both systems contain assertions, which cannot be proven, but the models and systems that they are built into can be tested and compared to discoveries and observations.
86 For example: evolution’s assumption of uniformitarianism cannot be proven.
Proof by Presupposition and Characterization in the Origins Debate:Is God an Obsolete, Primitive Concept?
87 Another attempt to dismiss creationism is on the grounds that the idea of a Creator is a left-over or obsolete explanation developed by more primitive human cultures to explain natural phenomena, which they did not understand.
88 This view states that as mankind and culture evolved, scientific processes were developed, which now allow humanity to actually understand the causes of natural phenomena in terms of fields like physics and chemistry.
89 This characterization of religious development is an application of the evolutionary model to the cultural and religious history of man.
“Religions, Classification of, Principles of classification, Morphological – Considerable progress toward more scientific classifications of religions was marked by the emergence of morphological schemes, which assume that religion in its history has passed through a series of discernible stages of development, each having readily identifiable characteristics and each constituting an advance beyond the former stage. So essential is the notion of progressive development to morphological schemes that they might also be called evolutionary classifications…The pioneer of morphological classifications was E.B. Tylor, a British anthropologist, whose Primitive Culture (1871) is among the most influential books ever written in its field…Of immediate interest is the classification of religions drawn from Tylor's animistic thesis. Ancestor worship, prevalent in preliterate societies, is obeisance to the spirits of the dead. Fetishism, the veneration of objects believed to have magical or supernatural potency, springs from the association of spirits with particular places or things and leads to idolatry, in which the image is viewed as the symbol of a spiritual being or deity. Totemism, the belief in an association between particular groups of people and certain spirits that serve as guardians of those people, arises when the entire world is conceived as peopled by spiritual beings. At a still higher stage, polytheism, the interest in particular deities or spirits disappears and is replaced by concern for a “species” deity who represents an entire class of similar spiritual realities. By a variety of means, polytheism may evolve into monotheism, a belief in a supreme and unique deity. Tylor's theory of the nature of religions and the resultant classification were so logical, convincing, and comprehensive that for a number of years they remained virtually unchallenged.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
vi. The development of the theory of religious evolution
1. Worldbook Encyclopedia begins with evolutionary assumptions.
a. The article then goes on almost immediately to cite the evolutionary models proposed by anthropologists such as Tylor.
“Religion, The origin of religion – The earliest recorded evidence of religious activity dates from only about 60,000 B.C. However, anthropologists and historians of religion believe that some form of religion has been practiced since people first appeared on the earth about 2 million years ago. Experts think prehistoric religions arose out of fear and wonder about natural events, such as the occurrence of storms and earthquakes and the birth of babies and animals. To explain why someone died, people credited supernatural powers greater than themselves or greater than the world around them…Leading theories were developed by Edward Burnett Tylor, Friedrich Max Muller, and Rudolf Otto.” – World Book 2005
2. Microsoft Encarta expresses this idea that religion originates as part of the evolution of human understanding and culture.
a. Encarta’s article on mythology refers to Tylor’s work Primitive Culture.
b. Encarta states that the evolutionary model applied to religion by Tylor was borrowed from Charles Darwin himself.
c. The article goes on to describe further articulations of this theory by Sir James George Frazer
i. Frazer stated that these evolutionary processes, which initially produced religion to explain “natural phenomena” eventually took the next evolutionary step forward into what we call “science.”
“Mythology – Later in the 19th century the theory of evolution put forward by English naturalist Charles Darwin heavily influenced the study of mythology. Scholars excavated the history of mythology, much as they would excavate fossil-bearing geological formations, for relics from the distant past. This approach can be seen in the work of British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor. In Primitive Culture (1871), Tylor organized the religious and philosophical development of humanity into separate and distinct evolutionary stages. Similarly, British anthropologist Sir James George Frazer proposed a three-stage evolutionary scheme in The Golden Bough (3rd edition, 1912-1915). According to Frazer's scheme, human beings first attributed natural phenomena to arbitrary supernatural forces (magic), later explaining them as the will of the gods (religion), and finally subjecting them to rational investigation (science).” – "Mythology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. According to the view in which religion is part of an evolution from the more primitive to the scientifically enlightened, creationism (and the idea of god, in general) is often viewed as a throw-back or vestigial idea to which some people still cling.
vii. Conceptions of religion as the product of evolutionary forces are not consistent with the anthropological evidence.
1. After discussing evolutionary models like those of Tylor, Britannica Encyclopedia goes on to discuss the dominant, current approach to religious study.
a. The current, dominant approach is known as the phenomenological approach.
“Religions, Classification of, Principles of classification, Phenomenological – All the principles thus far discussed have had reference to the classification of religions in the sense of establishing groupings among historical religious communities having certain elements in common. While attempts have been made to classify entire religions or religious communities, in recent times the interest in classifying entire religions has markedly declined, partly because of an emerging interest in the phenomenology of religion. This new trend in studies, which has come to dominate the field, claims its origin in the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, a German Jewish–Lutheran scholar, and has found its greatest exponents in The Netherlands… Phenomenologists are especially vigorous in repudiating the evolutionary schemes of past scholars, whom they accuse of imposing arbitrary semiphilosophical concepts in their interpretation of the history of religion.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Britannica observes that the phenomenological approach is “vigorous in repudiating the evolutionary schemes of past scholars.”
a. This negative assessment of the evolutionary models is articulated near the end of Britannica’s own section on such morphological studies of religion.
“Religions, Classification of, Principles of classification, Morphological – Trends in the comparative study of religions have retained the interest in morphology but have decisively rejected the almost universal 19th-century assumption of unitary evolution in the history of religion. The crude expression of evolutionary categories such as the division of religions into lower and higher or primitive and higher religions has been subjected to especially severe criticism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Other theories of religion cite anthropological evidence suggesting a non-evolutionary model.
“Religion, study of, Anthropological approaches to the study of religion, Theories concerning the origins of religion – These and other evolutionary schemes came in for criticism, however, in the light of certain facts about the religions of primitive peoples. Thus, the Scottish folklorist Andrew Lang (1844–1912) discovered from anthropological reports that various primitive tribes believed in a high god—a creator and often legislator of the moral order. Marett and other anthropologists contended that Lang's attempt to argue for an Urmonotheismus (primordial monotheism) was contrary both to evolutionary ideas and to the established view of the lack of sophistication and half-animal status of the so-called savage. Since Lang was more of a brilliant journalist than an anthropologist, his view was not taken with as much seriousness as it should have been. The German Roman Catholic priest and ethnologist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954), however, brought anthropological expertise to bear in a series of investigations of such primitive societies as those of the Tierra del Fuegians (South America), the Negrillos of Rwanda (Africa), and the Andaman Islanders (Indian Ocean). The results were assembled in his Der Ursprung der Gottesidee (“The Origin of the Idea of God”), which appeared in 12 volumes from 1912 to 1955. Not surprisingly, Schmidt and his collaborators saw in the high gods, for whose cultural existence they produced ample evidence from a wide variety of unconnected societies, a sign of a primordial monotheistic revelation that later became overlaid with other elements (this was an echo of earlier Christian theories invoking the Fall to similar effect). The interpretation is controversial, but at least Lang and Schmidt produced grounds for rejecting the earlier rather naïve theory of evolutionism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. According to Britannica, there is “ample evidence” for concluding that monotheism was present in the earliest societies “from a variety of unconnected societies.”
b. In light of this anthropological evidence, Britannica clearly qualifies the evolutionary classification of religions as “naïve.”
c. Note that the non-evolutionary model offered by Andrew Lang was rejected on the grounds that it was “contrary both to evolutionary ideas and to the established view of the lack of sophistication and half-animal status of the so-called savage.”
i. In other words, Lang’s non-evolution model was rejected on the grounds that sub-points of the larger evolutionary interpretation were true.
ii. This is an example of proof by presupposition.
1. An attempt to disprove an opposing interpretation of the evidence merely by appealing to sub-points of one’s own interpretation.
4. Britannica summarizes the current status of the debate in the following way.
“Religion, Philosophy of, Religion as a fact in human experience, culture, and history, The findings of the history of religions – Conclusions in the history of religions have been largely determined by the particular ideas of man or history with which the study was approached. Some scholars have supposed that at the dawn of human existence there was a belief in a single god and that only later there occurred a development into a belief in many gods as well as animism (a belief in souls or spirits in man and other aspects of nature). Other scholars have supposed an evolutionary development of religion, which only reached monotheism—considered to be the highest form of religious belief—after a long period of purification. The two approaches sponsor, respectively, two contrasting myths about primitive man. According to the one, there was once a golden age of innocence and harmony; according to the other, the life of the earliest man was nasty, brutish, and short.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Evolutionary models of religion are themselves unsettled and contested
b. Despite anthropological data that undermine the theory of an evolution of religion, the characterization of creationism as the outdated trait of more primitive man still somehow suffices as grounds to dismiss creationism from consideration.
90 So, should creationism be rejected on the grounds that it is an obsolete artifact from a more primitive stage of human evolution?
91 Things to remember
92 Creationism, the idea of a transcendent Designer, is a competing interpretation of the empirical data.
93 Evolution is another interpretation of that empirical data.
94 The criticism that creationism should be discarded because it is an earlier step in the long evolution of human culture requires the following assumptions.
95 It assumes that humanity was more primitive earlier in history.
96 It assumes an evolutionary model for not only human intellect but also human culture.
97 And it assumes a certain degree of long periods of time for this evolution to occur.
98 All of these concepts are components, sub-points, or conclusions of an evolutionary interpretation of the empirical data.
viii. You cannot disprove an opponent’s interpretation by citing parts of your own interpretation as though they were already proven.
The Origin of Theories in the Origins Debate: Should Creationism Be Considered a Scientific Theory?
99 Creationism is an ancient, but scientific theory
ix. Like all scientific theories, creationism starts with an evidentiary approach rather than with a blind faith based upon presupposition from an inward, subjective realization.
x. Even the evolution view the belief in a God originated as early man’s explanation for things he observed and experienced in the world around him.
1. Since it originates as an explanation for observed phenomena, creationism must be regarded as a theory, even for those who regard it as a primitive one.
xi. Creationism is a scientific theory that was put forward historically by more ancient men and more ancient cultures.
1. It is a theory that was included in many of the ancient writings produced by those cultures, including the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
2. Ancient cultures believed the existence of a creator God was a fact because they understood it to be well-attested to by the observable world around them.
3. Ancient man believing God’s existence was a fact is very much like the present case where evolutionary theory is widely regarded as a fact.
xii. Believing a theory to be fact on the grounds that it is the best theory, or perhaps historically the only available theory, simply does not mean that theory is based upon a presumption or blind faith or, consequently, that it is unscientific.
100 Conclusions, Remaining Questions and Looking Ahead
101 As long as the idea of an intelligent Creator remains a conclusion that is derived from the evidence, it is just as scientific as evolution.
102 Whether or not creationism fits the evidence as well as evolution is another question.
103 This question can only be answered by looking at the evidence.
104 So, which theory best fits the evidence, evolution or intelligent creation?
105 To answer that question, two items remain:
106 First, to define each theory
107 Second, to examine the evidence to see to what extent it favors or contradicts either theory.
The Two Theories
108 The Crux of the Debate
109 Defining Theories and Evaluating Evidence
110 The purpose of this section will be to identify precisely what each theory entails in its current, most prominent form.
111 Finding the Crux of the Issue – The Mechanisms of Theories
112 About theories
113 Theories are explanations of observed evidence.
114 Theories are defined by the mechanisms they describe.
115 Mechanisms are the items that bring the evidence about.
116 The debate over origins is essential a debate over mechanisms.
117 Teleology (Foresight) the Crux of the Creation-Evolution Debate
118 The entire argument can be reduced to a debate over the necessity of a mechanism known as “teleology” or “foresight.”
119 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines teleology as the concept that the characteristics of natural phenomena indicate they are shaped by purpose.
“Teleology – Etymology: New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia –logy. 1a: the study of evidences of design in nature b: a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c: a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes 2: the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose 3: the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
1. American Scientist article identifies teleology or foresight as the critical issue of the debate
“An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
a. de Duve states that although evolutionary scenarios involving an RNA-only stage toward the origin of life from non-living matter are “a matter of dogma,” but in reality, the prospect of life arising from non-living matter without foresight has so far utterly failed.
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Today it is almost a matter of dogma that the evolution of life did include a phase where RNA was the predominant biological macromolecule. Origin and Evolution of the RNA World – On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time. Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable. There could be no replication without a robust chemical underpinning continuing to provide the necessary materials and energy. The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
b. de Duve correctly identifies the critical criterion for determining whether or not foresight and purpose are required in order for a particular scenario to occur.
i. When referring to the “foresight” involved in evolutionary experiments to simulate the origin of life, de Duve specifies that “chance combinations of circumstances” can either be classified as tenable or untenable for any particular theoretical scenario.
ii. And once again, when describing the interdependent relationship of DNA and proteins, for example, de Duve comments again on the critical nexus of probability, coinciding origination of functionally interdependent elements, and foresight.
“Scientists considering the origins of biological molecules confronted a profound difficulty. In the modern cell, each of these molecules is dependent on the other two for either its manufacture or its function. DNA, for example, is merely a blueprint, and cannot perform a single catalytic function, nor can it replicate on its own. Proteins, on the other hand, perform most of the catalytic functions, but cannot be manufactured without the specifications encoded in DNA. One possible scenario for life's origins would have to include the possibility that two kinds of molecules evolved together, one informational and one catalytic. But this scenario is extremely complicated and highly unlikely.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
c. De Duve comments on the critical dynamic between probability, coinciding origination of functionally interdependent elements, and foresight when describing the evolutionary theory concerning the origin of the DNA base pairs.
“It seems very unlikely that protometabolism produced just the four bases found in RNA, A, U, G and C, ready by some remarkable coincidence to engage in pairing and allow replication. Chemistry does not have this kind of foresight.” – The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
120 Statistical probability is the critical factor for determining whether or not a scenario could arise with or without teleological foresight.
2. If the statistical probability that the essential elements of a particular scenario will coincide is too low to realistically be expected to occur, then the coinciding of those elements is deemed to require foresight, or in other words, conscious, deliberate arrangement.
3. On the other hand, if the essential elements of a particular scenario are statistically calculated to have realistic probability of coinciding occurrence, then deliberate arrangement (teleology) is not required.
121 Probability is a frequently discussed, critical factor, in all essential aspects of Evolution Theory
122 Probability issues arise regarding the precise balance or intricate interdependence of numerous factors necessary in order for particular theoretical scenarios to occur.
123 Probability issues arise regarding evolutionary explanations of the formation of the large-scale structure of the universe
124 Pro-evolution commentaries analyze whether or not various theoretical explanations work at all
125 Pro-evolution commentaries analyze whether or not theoretical explanations that do work are “too ideally balanced” to fit with the strict, non-teleological assumptions of evolutionary theory.
126 Probability issues arise regarding the origin of life
127 Pro-evolution commentators assess whether or not particular scenarios defy probability requirements for a non-teleological origin of a living cell, just as in the American Scientist article cited above.
128 Probability issues arise regarding the origin of species
129 Pro-evolution commentaries assess the probability behind the evolutionary mechanism of beneficial mutations.
130 In our closing table of evidences, we will see the issue of probability vs. teleology in the Anthropic Principle, which addresses the combined probability of all the factors necessary for life to exist in the universe.
131 At every step in the process, concerning each aspect of the evidence, the question of foresight emerges.
132 Foresight is the essential difference in the theories.
133 Foresight is the essential difference in their explanatory mechanisms.
134 Evolution theory assesses that all of the world around us, all of the observable evidence, conforms to what can be explained in terms of processes that occur without foresight, without preparation and anticipation of later steps, without interdependent factors whose required coincidence defy probability.
135 Creation theory assesses that all of the world around us, all of the observable evidence, involves preparation and anticipation of function, interdependent factors whose required coincidence defies probability, and consequently requires foresight and purpose.
136 The presence or absence of foresight as a mechanism for the characteristics of the observable evidence is the defining component of each theory concerning every aspect of the observable universe.
137 Creationism is a theory that is based upon and that points to positive evidence.
138 By positive evidence we mean that creationism is not merely a “God of the gaps theory.”
139 The phrase “God of the gaps” refers to the criticism that there is no evidence that inherently points to God’s existence but instead, God is asserted only when there is minor gap, shortcoming, or lack of explanation in current evolutionary theory. According to this criticism:
140 “God” is inserted to fill in the “gaps” where evidence or explanations are missing
141 The absence of evidence or explanations acts as sort of a negative evidence, a “minus sign” in the evolution column
142 This “minus sign” indicates that God is necessary as a “plug” to fill in what’s missing.
143 Creationism is not merely the result of asserting “God” as the solution to holes in evolutionary theory.
144 Creationism actually points to positive evidence.
145 Positive evidence means that, far from God being necessitated simply because something is “missing,” God is necessitated expressly because of what is present.
146 Creationism is not based upon asserting God’s involvement whenever we don’t know what the evidence indicates or how the evidence works.
147 Creationism is based upon looking at actual particular traits of the evidence and observing that those particular traits actually indicate foresight, design, and teleology.
148 There is positive evidence that points to foresight and teleology, not just “missing pieces” in the evolutionary theory.
149 Examples of Positive Evidence for Creationsm – Chicken and Egg Problems
150 Various chicken-and-egg scenarios arise from the observable evidence about the origin of the universe and of life that cannot be solved without insurmountable improbabilities.
151 Creationism asserts that extremely improbable coincidences that bring about necessary functions are positive proof of purposeful orchestration, or teleology.
152 Evolutionists may argue about whether foresight or automatic, routine processes are required to solve these and other obstacles.
153 However, it is inaccurate for evolutionists to argue that creationism doesn’t point to positive evidence or that the only evidence that creationism has are the shortcomings of evolutionary theory.
154 Defining the Two Theories
155 In the origins debate, there are essentially 5 major categories of evidence that prompt explanation.
156 1) The origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy
157 2) The variety and distribution of the astronomical objects in the universe
158 3) The origin of the geological features of the earth
159 4) The origin of life
160 5) The variety and distribution of organisms on earth
Creation Theory
161 Describing the creation theory (and its explanatory mechanisms) with regard to the 5 categories of evidence (listed above).
1) The origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy are not explainable by means of blind, automatic processes. Instead, a supernatural entity that exists outside the space-time, matter-energy universe is required to cause the beginning of the space-time, matter-energy universe. And that supernatural entity that exists outside of time must be an intelligence not just an automatic, routine force in order to explain the finite emergence of the universe at a particular point in time. The combination of the historical record, astronomical features, the rates of natural processes, geologic features, and the biological features of the universe (described below) all lead to the conclusion that the universe began about 6,000-10,000 years ago.
2) Likewise, the formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies, as well as the formation of stars, planets, and smaller astronomical objects require balance that is too ideal and exhibit traits and behaviors contrary to blind, automatic, routine processes and instead requires foresight.
3) Specific geological features as well as widely distributed geological features negate the possibility of formation by slow, normal processes over multiple thousands or millions of years. Instead, certain geologic features require both rapid and recent formation under ten thousand years. Furthermore, independent historical records all over the earth recount the occurrence of a massive, worldwide flood. Consequently, both the specific traits of the geologic evidence and the historical record indicate that the origin of the geologic features of the earth occurred rapidly in a matter of months as a result of a catastrophic, worldwide flood, with lingering climatological effects taking perhaps a few hundred years to stabilize.
4) The origin of life inherently involves more than one of what are known as “chicken-and-egg dilemmas” in which multiple required components all have to arrive at the same time in order to function and bring about life. This irreducible interdependent functionality defies the probability limits for automatic, routine processes and instead requires foresight.
5) The origin of species by automatic, routine processes would require beneficial mutations that occur at a rate and in a functional, chronological order, both of which defy the probability limits for automatic, routine processes and instead require foresight. The many varieties of structures and organs among the varieties of organisms also exhibit irreducible, functional interdependencies requiring coinciding originations that defy the probability limits for automatic, routine process and instead requires foresight. Furthermore, both the geologic evidence and the universal testimony from direct observation and experimentation reveal that each kind of organism always and only reproduces its own kind, never a new or different kind of organism. Consequently, all of the varieties of organisms on earth today exist in unique, static lineages called “kinds” and require foresight for their origination. Furthermore, given the absence of automatic, routine mechanisms for the production of new, beneficial genetic material and the fact that all the observable evidence including the fossil record depicts static reproductive lineages that do not change into new organisms, the variety present among the kinds of organisms must have been built-in to their original genetic make-up to allow for the resilience to environmental changes necessary for the survival of each kind, which in turn again requires foresight.
163 Expanded Commentary: Creation Theory
164 The critical aspect of creation theory is the concept of “kinds” needs to be expounded.
165 The issues surrounding “kinds” are probably the most misunderstood and the most important aspects of the entire origins debate.
xiii. There are 6 issues surrounding the concept of “kinds” that need to be discussed for clarity
1. 1) Taxonomy and Vocabulary
2. 2) The Actual Observations and Evidence
3. 3) The Gene Pool
4. 4) Defining the Boundaries of Kinds and Species
5. 5) Actual Differences between the 2 Theories
6. 6) Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution
166 Taxonomy and Vocabulary
xiv. Taxonomy is the science of classifying organisms into different groups. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “taxonomy” as follows.
“Taxonomy – 1: the study of the general principles of scientific classification: systematics 2: classification; especially: orderly classification of plants and animals according to their presumed natural relationships.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
1. The modern classification system is a hierarchical arrangement.
2. Larger categories are comprised of small subcategories in a series of levels.
a. The largest category is the kingdom.
b. The smallest subcategory is the species.
3. There are 5 levels between those two extremes.
“Classification, Scientific, Groups in classification. Seven chief groups make up a system in scientific classification. The groups are: (1) kingdom, (2) phylum or division, (3) class, (4) order, (5) family, (6) genus, and (7) species. The kingdom is the largest group. The species is the smallest.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Theodore J. Crovello, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, California State University, Los Angeles.
xv. 2 important facts that need to be understood about classification systems, including the modern classification system.
1. First, the very nature of categorizing organisms is subjective and is artificially derived for convenience.
a. This system is simply to establish a conceptual ladder in which we can arrange organisms into an order that is easy to reference.
b. The major kingdoms can be placed into super-kingdoms or domains, such as Prokaryota and Eukaryota.
c. Even the smallest subcategory of species can be further divided into subspecies or breeds.
d. These terms are applied along a sliding scale.
i. For example, there is simply no objective standard that guarantees that what is deemed to be a “family” level in the plant kingdom is equivalent to the “family” level in the animal kingdom.
ii. The same is true for the other kingdoms and the other subcategories as well.
e. The subjective nature of this process and the somewhat ad hoc nature of the subcategories results in difficulties in settling certain areas of classification.
i. Often there is more than one alternative classification scheme for such difficult areas.
“Taxonomy, Current systems of classification, A classification of living organisms – The use of “division” by botanists and “phylum” by zoologists for equivalent categories leads to a rather awkward situation in the Protista, a group of interest to both botanists and zoologists. As used below, the terms follow prevailing usage: phylum for the primarily animal-like protozoa and division for other protistan groups that are more plantlike and of interest primarily to botanists. The discussion above shows the difficulty involved in classification; for example, one traditional classification of the Aschelminthes, presented below and in the article aschelminth, divides the phylum Aschelminthes into five classes: Rotifera, Gastrotricha, Kinorhyncha, Nematoda, and Nematomorpha. An alternative classification elevates these classes to phyla, and still another classification establishes different relationships between the groups: phylum Gastrotricha, phylum Rotifera, phylum Nematoda (containing classes Adenophorea, Secernentea, and Nematomorpha), and phylum Introverta (containing classes Kinorhyncha, Loricifera, Priapulida, and Acanthocephala). The true relationships between these pseudocoelomates remain to be established.”
f. That is not to say that the commonalities between any 2 organisms aren’t objectively real.
i. Certainly, 2 different land-dwelling animals undeniably share the trait of being land-dwellers.
g. There is no one right way to name and enumerate levels of classification.
2. Second, in addition to the convenient and subjective nature of classification categories, the modern classification system is a refinement of systems developed in the 18th century.
“Taxonomy – Modern taxonomic classification, based on the natural concepts and system of the Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus, has progressed steadily since the 18th century, modified by advances in knowledge of morphology, evolution, and genetics.” – "Taxonomy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. The modern five-kingdom classification system was established during the 1950-60’s with the recognition of fungi as a fifth kingdom.
“Classification, Scientific, Groups in classification – Until the 1960's, most biologists formally recognized only two major kingdoms-Animalia, the animal kingdom, and Plantae, the plant kingdom. But as more information about the microscopic structure and biochemistry of organisms became known, scientists realized that a two-kingdom classification system was not exact enough. Today, most biologists use a system that recognizes five kingdoms of organisms. These are Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryotae.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Theodore J. Crovello, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Dean, Graduate Studies and Research, California State University, Los Angeles.
“Classification, II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS THROUGH HISTORY – In the 1950s, a fifth kingdom, Kingdom Fungi, was established, based on fungi's unique method of obtaining food.” – "Classification," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. The Biblical language is not going to correspond to the language of modern classification systems.
i. Modern classifications originate in the 18th century and did not reach their current form until the 1950-60’s.
ii. The Bible was written millennia ago
xvi. In order to efficiently compare the two theories, we need to understand how the terms in each relate to the terms in the other – because they don’t use the same terms.
1. The creation model employs the concept of “kinds” found in the text of ancient scripture.
2. In Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species,” evolutionary theory focuses on the concept of “species.”
xvii. We have to understand how these species and kinds relate and differ from one another.
1. Species and kinds are not simply 2 different words for the same concept.
2. Defining a kind
a. A “kind” is not a “species.”
b. If it is necessary to describe “kinds” in terms of our modern classification systems, it was probably at least loosely closer to the level that we call a “family.”
i. Creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, Debate with evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University,
c. Kind is a much broader group than a species.
d. Species would then be a far narrower subcategory within a “kind.”
3. As Dr. Hovind commented, creationist theory employs the term “variety” as equivalent but preferential to the term “species.”
a. A “kind” and the varieties in it might be thought of as roughly similar to the relationship between a “family” and the species in it.
b. Creationists recognize that organisms exist within groups called a “kind” and within each kind we would still find “varieties” or “variations.”
4. Descriptions of evolution theory use “varieties” and “species” interchangeably.
a. When talking about the 10-30 million “species” on the planet today, Britannica refers to this number as “virtually infinite variations.”
“Evolution – More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates…The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Britannica’s description of evolution also refers to the more generic category of distinctions between organisms as “types” and “pre-existing types.”
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The term “kinds” is also used in evolution to describe the broader distinctions between general categories of organisms.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Darwin sought to explain the splendid multiformity of the living world: thousands of organisms of the most diverse kinds, from lowly worms to spectacular birds of paradise, from yeasts and molds to oaks and orchids.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. When the creationist model or the Biblical text, refers to “kinds,” the evolutionist knows what basic concept is being referred to by this term.
i. Britannica explains that distinguishing between kinds is something that “everyone knows” from “everyday experience”
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Everyday experience teaches that there are different kinds of organisms and how to identify them. Everyone knows that people belong to the human species and are different from cats and dogs, which in turn are different from each other.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xviii. However, families and kinds don’t correspond exactly, absolutely, or in all cases.
xix. On the differences between the two theories
1. The difference between the 2 theories is not over terminology or the exact location of the sliding scale for levels like families or kinds
2. The difference is over whether or not the varieties found in such larger categories like families and kinds are capable of becoming an actual new type of organism different from its original family or kind.
167 The Actual Observations and Evidence
168 What is observed in nature is this:
A group of organisms that have previously been considered to be part of a larger group become reproductively separated from that larger group. Originally being part of the same larger group, the two groups could fully interbreed. But one or more of a number of factors cause a portion of that original larger group to stop mating with the other members of that group. These factors include living in different geographic locations, living in different habitats in the same geographic location, differences in reproductive preference or behavior, or simple physical, mechanical issues such as the size and shape of reproductive organs. This process is very gradual and starts off very minor. However, as they continue to reproduce separately, one or both of the groups begin to acquire distinctions from the other due to a rise in prominence of what are typically external traits (such as beak length, height, or color). And in time, after more and more generations of separated reproduction, the two groups might, although not necessarily, become limited in their ability to reproduce with members of the original larger group.
169 Both evolution and creationism theories accept speciation itself as presented in the above basic description of the observed facts – where they disagree is about whether or not this process has the potential to produce all organisms on the planet.
170 Evolutionists refer to this process as speciation and it is an essential element of evolution theory
171 Evolutionary theory was advanced and accepted largely through Darwin’s book entitled, The Origin of Species.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – Darwin sought to explain the splendid multiformity of the living world: thousands of organisms of the most diverse kinds, from lowly worms to spectacular birds of paradise, from yeasts and molds to oaks and orchids. His Origin of Species is a sustained argument showing that the diversity of organisms and their characteristics can be explained as the result of natural processes. Species come about as the result of gradual change prompted by natural selection. Environments are continuously changing in time, and they differ from place to place. Natural selection, therefore, favours different characteristics in different situations. The accumulation of differences eventually yields different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. The cornerstone of evolutionary theory is the origin of new, genetically distinct, and non-interbreeding groups called “species” from already existing “species.”
i. Britannica affirms this describing this process of “speciation” as “one of the fundamental processes of evolution.”
ii. Notice how much Britannica’s description of speciation parallels the basic observations outlined above.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The origin of species, A model of speciation – Since species are groups of populations reproductively isolated from one another, asking about the origin of species is equivalent to asking how reproductive isolation arises between populations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Species – biological classification comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are capable of interbreeding. The term speciation designates the process by which one species of organism splits into two or more species. Speciation is one of the fundamental processes of evolution…Organisms are grouped into species partly according to their morphological, or external, similarities, but more important in classifying sexually reproducing organisms is the organisms' ability to successfully interbreed. Individuals of a single species can mate and produce viable offspring with one another but not with members of other species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. The evolutionary model asserts that this observed processes of “speciation” in turn was able to produce all forms of organisms on earth today from a single, common ancestor.
a. Once again the basic concept of “how evolution occurs” is attributed to Charles Darwin whose evolutionary model centered on “the origin of species”
i. “The origin of species” is the title of Darwin’s Book describing his theory of evolution.
“Species – Because genetic variations originate in individuals of a species and because those individuals pass on their variations only within the species, then it is at the species level that evolution takes place. The evolution of one species into others is called speciation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations…The diversity of the living world is staggering. More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates…The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors…Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time. The 19th-century English naturalist Charles Darwin argued that organisms come about by evolution, and he provided a scientific explanation, essentially correct but incomplete, of how evolution occurs…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. In the evolution model, the large-scale arrival of all forms or organisms on earth today from a single ancestor is the gradual, long-term result of this process occurring at the smaller, species level.
xx. So, both creationists and evolutionists recognize that variation occurs within a larger type of organisms through factors like geographic isolation.
1. The agreed-upon result is that smaller subsets of that larger group emerge, which differ from the original larger group (or other subsets of it) in terms of the specific collection of genetic traits that they possess and manifest.
2. Both sides also recognize that in some cases this leads to reproductive isolation from the original larger group or at least from other subsets of that original larger group.
3. Evolutionists call this speciation whereas creations may refer to this as variation or variety within a kind.
172 The Gene Pool
173 The process of “speciation,” as outlined above and as agreed upon by both theories, can be described in terms of a “gene pool.”
174 The scientific field of genetics was founded by an Austrian monk by the name of Gregor Mendel in the middle of the 1800’s.
“Mendel, Gregor – original name (until 1843) Johann Mendel Austrian botanist and plant experimenter, the first to lay the mathematical foundation of the science of genetics, in what came to be called Mendelism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heredity, Basic features of heredity, Early conceptions of heredity – Many experiments on plant hybrids were made in the 1800s. These investigations revealed that hybrids were usually intermediate between the parents. They more or less incidentally recorded most of the facts that later led Gregor Mendel (see below) to formulate his celebrated rules and to found the theory of the gene. Apparently, none of Mendel's predecessors saw the significance of the data that were being accumulated.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. As proposed by Mendel, populations have an existing “gene pool,” which is the total number of genes possessed collectively by all of the members of the population.
“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations. The gene pool – A Mendelian population is said to have a gene pool. The gene pool is the sum total of the genes carried by the individual members of the population. The gene pool also continues through time. The genes of the individuals of the generation now living come from a sample of the genes of the previous generation; if these individuals reproduce, their genes will pass into the gene pool of the following generations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
5. The gene pool continues over time as the genes of one generation are passed on from parents to offspring in successive generations.
6. Although giving a uniquely evolutionary articulation, the following quote reflects the basic role that gene pools play in speciation.
“Species – Interbreeding only within the species is of great importance for evolution in that individuals of one species share a common gene pool that members of other species do not. Within a single pool there is always a certain amount of variation among individuals, and those whose genetic variations leave them at a disadvantage in a particular environment tend to be eliminated in favour of those with advantageous variations. This process of natural selection results in the gene pool's evolving in such a way that the advantageous variations become the norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xxi. Relevance of the Gene Pool to the process of speciation
1. Both theories agree that the distribution of existing genes changes or shifts around in each successive generation depending on which parents interbreed to produce offspring.
a. And, in some cases, over time certain genes that were present in the original population may cease to be present in particular subpopulations if members with those genes don’t reproduce or survive to reproduce.
xxii. Avoiding equivocation, providing clarity concerning Britannica’s statement “the gene pool is evolving.”
1. The English word “evolve” is a synonym for “change,” this process of shifting distribution of existing genes can be referred to as the gene pool “evolving” or “changing”
2. But to infer that such shifts in an existing gene pool prove that all modern organisms originated from a common ancestor is simply an equivocation on the term “evolve.”
a. In one sense, the word “evolve” simply refers to the shifting of the distribution and availability of existing genes from generation to generation.
b. In the other sense, “evolution” is perceived to be a technical term denoting the theory that all forms of life came from a single, common ancestor.
Fallacies of Ambiguity:
Equivocation – the same term is used with two different meanings.
3. Setting aside any equivocation, we can see that both sides agree that…
a. What is observed is that the distribution of existing genes in a gene pool shift around in each generation according to the advantages certain genes and traits have for a particular environment.
b. The basic effect this shifting of genes can potentially have on the different organisms sharing that gene pool if particular subgroups of the population begin to breed in isolation from the larger gene pool.
i. The peppered moths of England are often cited as an example of these factors.
ii. Changes in their surrounding environment are stated to have resulted in an advantage for dark coloration over light coloration, resulting in a rise in the occurrence of dark coloration in the population as more and more light colored moths failed to live to reproduce.
“Evolution, VI SPECIATION – When the British countryside near cities became blackened by smoke from industrial processes, the lighter moths, previously well disguised against light-colored tree trunks, were easily found by birds and thus became less fit. The dark moths became common because they were more difficult to discern against the darker background. A single gene, coding for the dark color rather than the light color, was spread by means of natural selection and raised to a high frequency in industrial regions. Subsequent reduction of smoke pollution resulted in a reduction of the dark moth variety. The light and dark moth varieties belong to the same species and interbreed freely. If pollution had continued, however, the rural moth population would have become entirely light and the industrial entirely dark. Then each population would be subject to somewhat different selective pressures because the two environments vary. In time, the dark and light populations would differ by groups of genes, with each group advantageous locally. The moth populations might eventually become incapable of interbreeding.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. The removal of genetic variety from 1 or both of the populations of peppered moths living in different environments could have ultimately led to the 2 groups becoming incapable of interbreeding.
xxiii. The function of a gene pool and its relationship to the production of “varieties and kinds” or “species” can be rendered in terms of the following 2 illustrations.
1. (See Gene Pool Figures 1 and 2.)
2. These 2 illustrations are
a. Identical renderings of the description of the actual observations agreed upon by both evolutionists and creationists and outlined in the previous segment.
b. Different only in that in 1 figure the evolutionary terms are used and on the other the roughly equivalent creationist terms are used.
3. The illustrations depict that both sides agree that:
a. Over time, reproductively isolated populations move toward the shallow end of the gene pool, where genetic variety is lessened from the larger, original pool.
b. The organisms go from more heterozygous genetic make-up in the original, larger gene pool to a more homozygous genetic make-up the farther they are toward the shallower end of the pool.
c. If a subgroup becomes sufficiently inbred moving toward the far, shallow end of the original gene pool, eventually the organisms can become actually genetically incapable of interbreeding with some or all other members of the original, larger gene pool
i. Just as stated in the previous illustration involving the peppered moths.
4. In the creationist model
a. The original gene pool is known as the “kind” and it might be thought of as loosely equivalent to the level of a “family” in the modern classifications system.
b. The process of moving toward a more and more homozygous area of the gene pool is described in terms of “varieties being produced from the kind,” which is the original gene pool.
5. In the evolution model
a. The process of moving toward a more and more homozygous area of the gene pool is described in terms of what was once a “family” that shared the same gene pool splitting up into different “species.”
6. Understanding equivolent terms of the two theories
a. The term “kinds” and “family” are roughly equivalent to the original gene pool
b. The terms “variety” and “species” or “variation” and “speciation” are roughly equivalent, denoting the narrowing of the gene pool among certain populations through reproductive isolation.
xxiv. Heterozygous and homozygous genes
1. Heterozygous and homozygous refer to the genetic make-up of an individual organism.
2. Organisms usually have 2 corresponding genes for each specific trait.
a. If both genes code for the exact same version of the trait (such as short and short or tall and tall) then the individual is homozygous concerning that trait.
b. If both genes code for different versions of the same trait (such as one short and one tall) then the individual is heterozygous concerning that trait.
3. Consequently, the physical appearance of an organism is determined by its heterozygous or homozygous genetic composition
a. (Note: dominant genes often cause heterozygous individuals (one dominant and one recessive gene) to look the same as individuals that are homozygous in which both genes are of the dominant version.)
“Homozygote – an organism with identical pairs of genes (or alleles) for a specific trait. If both of the two gametes (sex cells) that fuse during fertilization carry the same form of the gene for a specific trait, the organism is said to be homozygous for that trait. In a heterozygous organism, or heterozygote, the genes for a specific trait are different. Because genes may be either dominant or recessive, the genetic composition (genotype) of an organism cannot always be determined by the physical appearance (phenotype).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Population genetics asserts that the genetic composition of an entire population can be described in terms of gene frequency of the gene pool itself.
“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg principle – The genetic composition of a population can meaningfully be described in terms of the frequencies of various alleles of the genes in the gene pool.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. A portion of the original population becomes reproductively isolated and lost genetic variety can be considered more homozygous than the original gene pool of the original population.
175 Gene Frequency in the creationist model
5. The original population of a kind would have been heterozygous at least either in terms of:
a. The overall representation of all the genes among all of the original members
b. Or more probably in terms of the original members of the kind each being heterozygous.
6. There is a uniform population in which:
a. The fullness of the original gene pool is maintained
b. Most of the members of the species are going to look very similar, without producing widely distinct varieties as we see today as a result of more homozygous populations
i. (Such as the cheetah among its particular kind or family of cat.)
xxv. Gene frequency will tend to stay the same from generation to generation unless affected by external conditions.
1. This is stated both in the Hardy-Weinberg principle and as a general rule of Mendelian genetics.
“Heredity, Heredity and evolution, The gene in populations, The Hardy–Weinberg principle – In 1908, Godfrey Harold Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg independently formulated a theorem that became the foundation of population genetics. According to the Hardy–Weinberg principle, two or more gene alleles will have the same frequency in the gene pool generation after generation, until some agent acts to change that frequency.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heredity and evolution, Selection as an agent of change, Natural selection and Darwinian fitness – Sexual reproduction under simple (Mendelian) inheritance is a conservative force that tends to maintain the genetic status quo in a population. If a gene frequency is 1 percent in a population, it tends to remain at 1 percent indefinitely unless some force acts to change it. Outside of the laboratory, the most powerful force for changing gene frequencies is natural selection.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xxvi. There are only 2 possible mechanisms for changing the frequency or content of genetic variety in a gene pool:
1. Mutation
2. Environmental change
a. Environmental change can occur as portions of the population migrate geographically or even just locally into new habitats in the same area.
3. But, mutations would not change the genetic composition of a gene pool unless there was an accompanying change of environment as well.
a. This includes the hypothetical beneficial mutations that evolution theory asserts
“Evolution, VI SPECIATION – Because all the established genes in a population have been monitored for fitness by selection, newly arisen mutations are unlikely to enhance fitness unless the environment changes so as to favor the new gene activity, as in the gene for dark color in the peppered moth. Novel genes that cause large changes rarely promote fitness and are usually lethal.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
xxvii. The importance of environmental change for shifting genetic frequency
1. Variations in environment are the only force that can alter the genetic content and the gene frequency of populations, even as the following quote plainly states.
“Species – Interbreeding only within the species is of great importance for evolution in that individuals of one species share a common gene pool that members of other species do not. Within a single pool there is always a certain amount of variation among individuals, and those whose genetic variations leave them at a disadvantage in a particular environment tend to be eliminated in favour of those with advantageous variations. This process of natural selection results in the gene pool's evolving in such a way that the advantageous variations become the norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. As portions of a population move into new environments or as the environments themselves change, the gene frequencies will shift and some variety will be removed by natural selection.
a. Important Note: This is a process of removing genetic variety, not adding variety.
b. The loss of variety will produce a more homozygous subpopulation, which will now start to look more externally distinct among the overall original population.
3. It is a significant fact that the contents of the gene pool are going to stay uniform in all subpopulations no matter how much they separate geographically until or unless they encounter actual, different environmental conditions.
a. The creationist model of the earth’s environment before the Flood contains little or no variations in habitat or climate anywhere on the earth’s surface.
i. This is based upon Genesis 8:21-22 which is the first mention of alternation between seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, hot and cold.
Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
b. Being the first mention of winter and cold and their alternation with summer and heat is understood within the creationist model to designate the onset of seasonal variations in temperature over the surface of the earth.
c. To avoid an unnecessary tangent, this model can be summarized as follows.
i. The earth receives its surface temperature as a result of the sun heating its atmosphere.
“Earth, The atmosphere and hydrosphere, The atmosphere – It is not surprising that the Earth, as a small planet (with a rather weak gravitational field) at fairly warm temperatures (due to its proximity to the Sun)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. The earth’s seasonal shifts from warm to cold or summer and winter are a result of the tilt of earth’s rotational axis.
“Earth, Basic planetary data – The tilt (inclination) of the Earth's axis to its orbit (23.5°), also typical, is responsible for the change of seasons.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Season – any of four divisions of the year according to consistent annual changes in the weather. The seasons—winter, spring, summer, and autumn…Outside the tropics and the polar regions, the essential characteristic of the annual cycle is a temperature oscillation between a single maximumand a single minimum. This oscillation results from the annual variation in the angle at which the Sun's rays reach the Earth's surface and from the annual variation in the duration of sunlight on the Earth's surface each day. As the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, its axis maintains an early constant orientation in space, inclined about 66°33′ to the orbital plane. During the six-month half of each orbit when the North Pole is inclined toward the Sun, a point in the Northern Hemisphere receives the Sun's rays at an angle closer to 90° than does a point in the Southern Hemisphere; this causes greater heating and more hours of daylight in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. During the other six months, these conditions are reversed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. Based upon Genesis 8, the creationist model asserts that the earth’s axis would not have been tilted prior to the Flood.
iv. Instead, the tilt and the Flood resulted from a potential asteroid impact that triggered several items
v. Prior to this catastrophic event:
1. The axis is hypothesized to have had no tilt,
2. The sun would have heated the entire surface of the earth uniformly,
3. And consequently there was no seasonal variation in temperature.
vi. The uniform climate in turn would have drastically reduced the variety of environments themselves.
4. The catastrophic global flood contributed significantly to the large-scale environmental differences that we see present in the world today and impacting speciation or variation as described above.
a. Thus, the pre-flood world, prior to the catastrophic environmental changes brought about by the flood…
i. Would not have had the environmental diversity that we see today
ii. Would have promoted stability (and homogeneity rather than variety) in the gene pool of any particular kind of organism worldwide.
xxviii. Relevance of a global flood to our current focus on the preservation of the full variety of the gene pool
1. Without the large-scale, post-flood, environmental differentiation, the gene pools of every subpopulation on the planet would be static and would not shift to produce wide swings in variety.
2. No matter how far it migrated, each subpopulation would retain the heterozygous gene pool of the original kind.
3. An individual such as Noah could collect the individuals from each kind without worrying about creating a genetic bottleneck by accidentally picking a pair that was drastically homozygous and reduced in variety.
4. The wide swings in variety that we see today are unique to the post-flood environment.
5. The wide range of differences we see in subpopulations today result from certain existing traits being brought to the surface with increased prominence as natural selection removes disadvantageous traits from individual subpopulations according to their particular environment.
xxix. Difficulty in reconstructing the original kinds
1. It is more difficult to reconstruct the original “kinds” today than it would have been before or even right after the Flood
a. Before or just after the Flood the existing population was comprised of individuals more closely representing the heterozygous, original gene pool.
b. Today all of the existing subpopulations are comprised of varieties produced by much more homozygous representations of the original gene pool.
2. Before and right after the Flood it would have been easy to identify the boundaries of a kind, because all of the members would have looked roughly the same, representing what the full kind looked like.
a. Today, we attempt to reconstruct the kind from more homozygous varieties, we would have had access to individuals exhibiting the full, original gene pool.
176 Defining the Boundaries of Kinds and Species
177 A critical issues for each theory involves defining the critical group that is the focus of the theory.
178 In evolution theory
179 The focus is on the species.
180 On a large-scale all life forms originated through descent from a common ancestor results from the small-scale process of new species originating from existing species.
181 It is essential to be able to identify with certainty that a new species has in fact formed.
182 And according to ideal evolutionary norms, a new species has formed when two groups that were formerly the same species can no longer interbreed on the genetic level.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – External similarity is the common basis for identifying individuals as being members of the same species. But there is more to it than that; a bulldog, a terrier, and a golden retriever are very different in appearance, but they are all dogs because they can interbreed. People can also interbreed with one another, and so can cats, but people cannot interbreed with dogs or cats, nor these with each other. It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species. This is expressed in the following definition: Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. The ability to interbreed is of great evolutionary importance, because it determines that species are independent evolutionary units.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Important Evidentiary Questions
i. Since the ability or inability to interbreed is the described as the definition for whether or not two groups are the same species or different species…
1. What if all the different species were actually able to interbreed with at least some other members of the species in an interconnected web?
2. Are they really different species?
3. And if they are not really different species, is the arrival of new organisms really occurring?
c. Although the ability to interbreed is used as the distinguishing definition for species, this factor does not actually work as ideally as the theory states.
i. The following quote from Britannica explains the difficulty.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons. One is lack of knowledge; it may not be known for certain whether individuals living in different sites belong to the same species, because it is not known whether they can naturally interbreed. The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process. Two geographically separate populations that at one time were members of the same species later may have diverged into two different species. Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Defining species by the inability to interbreed is not fully applied in the real practice of defining species because the process in which “new, different organisms” are formed is so slow.
d. In evolutionary theory, it takes so long for a “new and different organism” to arrive, that the steps along the way are virtually imperceptibly minute.
i. This makes identifying exactly when two groups actually become definitely 2 species impossible.
ii. It is likewise impossible to identify exactly how far along toward that threshold the two groups are at any given point in time.
iii. Wayne State University evolutionary biologist Dr. William Moore acknowledged and then gave the following description of this problem.
“Let me speak actually to this issue of what is a species. This is my area of research and to be honest with you, I don’t know. Now actually, and this is a pervasive problem – or a pervasive topic of conversation, let me put it that way – it’s really not a problem in evolutionary biology. I just came back from an international ornithological congress in Durban, South Africa and there was a whole session, symposium, devoted to species definitions and believe me it was very contentious. However, Darwin, in a sense, wrote the origin of species, but he also created the problem, ‘What is a species?’…what Darwin said is a species arises in a continuum. And the problem is that when we see species, we see distinct entities. Even though wolves and dogs can interbreed, anyone, at least anyone better be able to tell the difference between a dog and a wolf. There is a profound difference between them. There is this discontinuity. There are really few intermediate forms…And the problem with defining species, I argue, is the same as that in defining kind. A process of evolution has occurred and as a result, there are circumstances, there are situations that are in transition. One of the groups of birds that I work on, the flickers, red and yellow-shafted flickers of North America are a prime example of two entities that were recognized as distinct species. They were described as such, actually I think, by Linnaeus, and certainly recognized as such by Audubon and then suddenly, one day there was a small hybrid zone found on the Great Plains. And it was found that they interbreed. It’s a case where they are in the process of speciation. And this is why evolutionary biologists have a difficult time defining species. There are these intermediate situations…It is by a process of descent with modification through insensibly distinct intermediate forms. It’s a continuum. And as I mentioned earlier that’s the problem with defining species because the concept of species involves the discontinuity that we observe between carp and goldfish, between red-shafted flickers and yellow-shafted flickers…I might add that there are actually a number of cases among animals and many cases in plants, where “species” – I’m going to begin to put that in quotes – have different chromosome numbers and yet hybridize to some extent.” – Evolutionary Biologist Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video
3. The creationist and evolutionist models are on equal ground concerning defining boundaries of kinds and species.
a. There is a continuum in the creationism model as well, which causes difficulty in establishing the boundaries of a kind.
b. In both models, the difficulty in defining the boundary surrounds the issue of interbreeding.
4. Further examination and definition of the creationist concept of a “kind.”
a. Using illustrations to depict the issues for both sides using their corresponding terminology.
i. (See Gene Pool Figures 3 and 4.)
1. Figure 3 depicts the creationist model using the creationist terms “kinds” and “varieties”
2. Figure 4 is a similar illustration but instead uses the corresponding evolution terms “families” and “species”
ii. Both illustrations depict that…
1. Different varieties are produced all along the gene pool, particularly along the movement toward more homozygous populations.
b. In both theories the different varieties produced all along the gene pool are produced by the processes of natural selection.
i. Natural selection is simply the process by which certain genes are reduced and eventually eliminated from different local populations due to the fact that those traits are less advantageous in the conditions of that particular local environment.
ii. Natural selection is the mechanism responsible for “shallowing” the gene pool causing certain “varieties” or “species” to experience a reduced collection of genetic material.
5. Continuums and defining the boundaries of kinds and species – an issue for both theories
a. As Dr. Moore articulated the problem with defining the boundaries of a species is that…
i. “a species arises in a continuum. And the problem is that when we see species, we see distinct entities.”
b. Likewise if we want to reconstruct the boundaries of the original kind, at any given point in time, all we can observe are the existing varieties produced by a kind.
c. In creationism the process of defining a kind is conceptually the reverse of speciation.
i. In defining a kind, if two groups can interbreed, they are probably just different varieties of the same original kind.
ii. Thus, connecting all the varieties or species that are able to interbreed at least with some other variety or species is at least one initial way to reconstruct a kind.
1. (See Defining Kind Boundaries Figure 1.)
iii. Just as is the case in with speciation, the ability to interbreed is an ideal that is cannot be fully implemented as an absolute standard for practical reasons.
1. In the creation model, some varieties may have become so homozygous, so far into the shallow end of the gene pool that they are no longer able to interbreed with any members of the original kind to which they belong.
a. This effect is predicted by the creationist understanding of how kinds produce and relate to individual varieties toward a shallow end of a gene pool.
b. Thus, just as evolutionists argue that the ability to interbreed does not necessarily mean 2 groups are the same species, in the creationist model, just because 2 groups are unable to interbreed does not necessarily mean they aren’t the same kind.
iv. Just as the essential evolutionary model internally predicts and explains why the dilemma arises with regard to speciation, the creationist model internally predicts and explains why the dilemma arises with regard to eventual limits on interbreeding within a kind.
6. Further Clarifications about Creationist Claims and the Difference between the 2 Theories
a. It is often perceived that the creationist model requires and predicts that all members of the same kind will be able to reproduce with one another at all times.
b. This is not the case at all.
c. If we look at the text that asserts the model, we can see that it does not in any way stipulate that all members of a kind will or should perpetually be able to interbreed with one another.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day…20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
d. Genesis 1:11-25
i. The model says nothing whatsoever about the ability of all members of a kind to perpetually interbreed.
ii. All that the model asserts is that…
1. Members of a kind will always reproduce that same kind.
2. No matter how many other members of its kind an organism becomes reproductively isolated from, no new kind will ever result as that isolated organism reproduces.
3. No matter how isolated and inbred it becomes, it will always and only produce its own kind.
iii. As articulated by Genesis 1, the creationist model…
1. Is minimalist in the sense that it’s only inherent assertion is a denial its evolutionary counterpart
2. Creationism denies that members of one type of organism will eventually and gradually reproduce a new and different type of organism.
e. Illustratingthe Critical Difference – Figures 5 and 6
i. (See Gene Pool Figures 5 and 6.)
ii. Figure 6
iii. As illustrated above both theories…
1. Agree to the observations that larger gene pools, (termed families or kinds), have enough genetic variety that when subpopulations enter into different environments, the disadvantageous genes and traits are lost due to natural selection.
2. Agree that as this process continues toward the shallow end of that original gene pool and more and more traits are lost.
3. Agree that eventually a particular subpopulation may no longer be able to interbreed with other members of the original population.
iv. Figure 5 Depicts that Creation theory…
1. Draws an unbreakable boundary or limit around this observed process, stating that varieties are produced only by the loss of genetic material in subpopulations of a kind.
2. Denies the inflow of new beneficial genes that create new traits, features, organs, and structures not present in the original gene pool.
3. States that because variety does not result from the addition of new, beneficial genes and traits but simply the manifestation of genes already existing in the gene pool, each kind (or family) is an isolated entity.
a. As a result, no new kind will ever be produced from a previous kind of organism.
4. Provides that there is a continuum within each kind but that continuum does not extend from one kind to another.
v. Figure 6 Depicts that Evolution theory…
1. Asserts that beyond this process, there is also an inflow of new, beneficial genetic material that was not at all present in the existing gene pool.
2. Asserts that this new and beneficial genetic material is created by the mechanism of beneficial mutation.
3. States that the inflow of new genes through the process of beneficial mutation is represented by the stream of new genes pouring into the shallow end of the gene pool, causing it to spill over as new genes fill up an entirely new gene pool with traits, features, organs, and structures not present in the previous gene pool.
a. As a result, new kinds are produced from previous kinds of organisms.
4. Asserts an extension of that continuum between all kinds or families, between every different category and type of organism.
7. Proving a Theory
a. Proving Evolution over Creationism
i. It is simply not enough to point to the process of continuum within a kind.
1. What must be proved is the existence of the inflow of new genes for new traits, features, organs, and structures sufficient to create a different gene pool with a whole new composition of genes that didn’t exist before.
ii. It is not simply enough to point to existing gene pools manifesting varieties of the same kind of organism with all the same traits, features, structures, and organs that were present in the original gene pool
1. (Creationism also recognizes this process.)
2. What must be proved is that one member of any existing gene pool has ever produced an organism with beneficial traits, features, structures, or organs not present in the existing gene pool.
3. What must be proved is not a kind manifesting different varieties of what is still the same kind, but in effect a kind ever producing something other than its own, same kind of organism.
b. Example of Proof for Evolution In Real Terms
i. It is not enough for evolution to demonstrate…
1. Different species of finches varying from one another
2. Different species of finches perhaps eventually not being able to reproduce with each other
3. One species of bird not being able to reproduce with other species of birds.
ii. Creationism also recognizes and accounts for these things.
iii. In order to disprove creationism, evolution must demonstrate through observation and empirical evidence is something akin to a bird being produced by a reptile.
xxx. None of the Critical Evidence Proving Evolution and Disproving Creationism is Observed Anywhere.
1. Neither the fossil record nor current observations in nature do or even can prove Evolution theory over Creation theory.
2. Evolutionists admit that no evidence for the critical difference between evolution and creationism is observed
a. Evolutionists admit that even if they did occur, changes would be so subtle from one generation to the next as to be imperceptible and defy detection.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons…The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process. Two geographically separate populations that at one time were members of the same species later may have diverged into two different species. Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Let me speak actually to this issue of what is a species. This is my area of research and to be honest with you, I don’t know. Now actually, and this is a pervasive problem – or a pervasive topic of conversation, let me put it that way – it’s really not a problem in evolutionary biology. I just came back from an international ornithological congress in Durban, South Africa and there was a whole session, symposium, devoted to species definitions and believe me it was very contentious. However, Darwin, in a sense, wrote the origin of species, but he also created the problem, ‘What is a species?’…what Darwin said is a species arises in a continuum…There are these intermediate situations…It is by a process of descent with modification through insensibly distinct intermediate forms. It’s a continuum. And as I mentioned earlier that’s the problem with defining species…” Evolutionary Biologist Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video
b. Evolutionists admit that the fossil record is utterly incapable of providing the critical evidence for evolution and against creationism because…
i. By its very nature, the fossil record simply cannot tell us whether or not similar organisms could interbreed.
“The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Speciation involves, therefore, the development of reproductive isolation between populations previously able to interbreed. Paleontologists recognize species by their different morphologies as preserved in the fossil record, but fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation because new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestors are often morphologically indistinguishable from them.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons. One is lack of knowledge; it may not be known for certain whether individuals living in different sites belong to the same species, because it is not known whether they can naturally interbreed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Consequently, even if an organism of one kind ever produced an organism of another kind, it would be (empirically) undetectable and it would not be revealed in the fossil record either.
3. How do you falsify a theory with a prediction like that?
a. It’s either false because…
i. It makes a prediction that we never see occurring and that we see contradicted by every reproduction that we do see
ii. It’s unscientific because the nature of the prediction is un-falsifiable.
4. With no evidence from either present observations or the fossil record to demonstrate the theoretical continuum extending between different kinds or families or types of organisms, that part of the theory of evolution must be accepted on blind, pre-suppositional belief for which there is no evidence or corroborating observation.
183 Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution
184 Often origins debates between creationists and evolutions will include the terms “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution.”
185 These 2 terms simply refer to the distinctions and processes discussed above.
186 Micro-evolution
187 The continuum strictly within a kind or family, within a type of organism in which we see varieties of that kind as natural selection removes existing genes from the subpopulations.
188 Creationists prefer to call micro-evolution by the term “variation” or “variation within a kind”
189 This is in order to avoid the logical fallacy of equivocation
190 Macro-evolution
191 The extension of a continuum between all kinds or families or types of organisms, so that not only is natural selection removing existing genes from subpopulations, but subpopulations are turning into new types of organisms because beneficial mutation is adding new genes, new traits, features, structures, and organs, so that all life on earth today descended from a common ancestor by means of this process of beneficial mutation.
192 Ultimately, it is macro-evolution that must be proved.
193 Both theories agree with the process of micro-evolution and both theories incorporate that process into their respective models.
Evolution Theory
194 Introductory Notes
195 Although some of the items listed as “acknowledged” parts of the theory by the evolutionary community itself may at first seem controversial, the expanded discussion that follows the summary will substantiate each point in detail.
196 Describing the evolution theory and its explanatory mechanisms with regard to the 5 categories of evidence listed in the preceding introduction results in the following summary of the theory.
1) What caused the origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy is not known or stated even in theory. As a result, several questions are left unaddressed and are even largely regarded as un-addressable. Why did the universe originate a finite time ago rather than an infinite time ago if its origination is due to automatic, routine forces or processes? What automatic, routine forces or processes caused the origin of the universe? Why do those automatic, routine forces or processes exist? Are they eternal or were they caused by something else? How can the insufficiency problem of infinite regress be avoided by the suggestion of automatic, routine forces or processes? How does the suggestion of automatic, routine forces or processes avoid the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor, which prohibits multiplying causes and elements endlessly beyond the bare minimum necessary to explain the observable evidence? Although all such questions are considered un-answerable by evolutionary theory and although they all have essential relevance concerning whether or not automatic, routine forces are sufficient to cause the universe, an automatic, routine force or process that has not been identified or defined is advanced as the cause for the origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy.
2) A special location near the center of the universe would be too coincidental to avoid teleology. In order to construct a universe that is feasibly caused by automatic, routine processes, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it has uniform distribution and consequently will appear uniformly distributed when viewed in every direction. The formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies require that 96 percent of the universe is composed of dark matter and energy, which have not been detected or observed and the properties of which are also not known. Furthermore, although neither detected nor observed, different types of dark matter have been theorized, each possessing different properties that are necessary for the formation and distribution of the universe’s large-scale structures. In addition, the exact proportion of respective speculative types of dark matter required to result in the formation and current distribution of these structures is acknowledged to either not work at all or to be “too ideal” to conform to non-teleological, automatic, routine processes. Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future. Lastly, when selectively filtered, the observed evidence concerning the phenomenon of redshift can be presented to indicate the 10-20 billion-year age of the universe.
3) Two categories of processes are acknowledged to cause the earth’s geologic features, slow, gradual processes (such as erosion) and rapid catastrophes. Although rapid catastrophes have been directly observed to cause major features while slow, gradual processes by definition require to much time for any human to observed, the earth’s geologic features are assumed to predominantly be the result of these slow, automatic, routine processes, which given their slow nature, indicate that it would take a very long time for the earth’s features to be formed. As a consequence, slow, uniform processes then lead to a very old age for the earth. Although in order for a fossil to form, the organism must be buried rapidly, the rock layers, which buried fossilized organisms, were laid down very slowly over tens of thousand to millions of years. And although it is acknowledged that the order in which rock layers are found by its nature cannot denote the rate of their formation, dates and ages separated by many thousands or millions of years are nevertheless assigned to each rock layer. This process is known as relative dating. And even before the onset of radioactive dating methods, it was this practice of assigning hypothetical ages to rock layers that was accepted as disproving the previously established 6-10 thousand year “young age” of the earth asserted in the Bible. Furthermore, these hypothetical ages asserted from relative dating make radioactive dating methods possible and are the first step in radioactively dating any sample. On their own radioactive dating methods, even the most prominent of them, are based upon equations in which the critical factors for age determination are unknown and have to be assumed and adjusted in order for any age calculation to even be possible. And although the relationship between radioactive dating and relative dating is circular, the dates are accepted because they confirm each other and because they conform to expectations for the hypothetical evolutionary time scale for the earth.
4) Various theoretical scenarios are offered for the origin of life. And although each individual scenario is acknowledged to be insufficient due to environmental prohibitions involving chemicals and energy sources, the known geologic history of the earth, and statistical improbabilities particularly those surrounding the arrival of cellular systems that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent, the origin of life is asserted to be the result of automatic, routine processes, in a yet unobserved environment perhaps even occurring on another planet at an unknown time in the past when conditions and time allotments would be ideal.
5) Although the production of a new or different organism from an existing organism occurs in steps that are too subtle and slow to be observed directly and although the fossil record likewise contains no intermediate or transitional forms, it is advanced that all the varieties of organisms on earth today are not reproductively static, but came into being as generations of offspring from one original organism changed over time into new and different types of organisms. Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.
199 Expanded Commentary: Evolution Theory
200 In this section we will take an up-close look at 2 particular avenues of evidence that deal with the issue of time.
201 The sources used are common reference sources such as Britannica Encyclopedia, Microsoft Encarta, Worldbook Encyclopedia, as well as notable scientific magazines such as Discover and American Scientists, even the journal Science.
202 The articles are written by non-creationist professionals who possess doctorates in the field and teach or work at established, non-creationist institutions, as can be seen particularly at the end of the Worldbook Encyclopedia quotes.
203 Controversy concerning our defining evolution theory to indicate that there really is no working evolutionary theory or explanation for the central origins issues, such as the origin of the universe’s structures, the origin of life, and the origin of species.
204 Our point is not that the mere presence of disagreement or differing opinions among evolutionists means that their theory is wrong.
205 A view is not disproved by the mere fact that its adherents disagree on some points, but by whether or not that view has any viable, working form at all.
206 Barriers to Evolution theory on the Origin of Life
207 The “known geologic history” of the earth and its environmental composition are a barrier that so far has unraveled all attempts to offer specific scenarios for how life originated on earth from automatic, routine processes.
208 The irreducibly, functionally interdependent relationships of the components of cellular systems is another such barrier.
5. In this way, this expanded commentary on evolutionary theory really will serve to establish the defining positions of evolutionary theory on…
a. Cell components
b. The origin of life
c. The Geologic history, the timing, and the environment in which evolutionary theory asserts that life emerged.
209 Evolution on the Origin of Life: Irreducible Functional Interdependencies
210 The second barrier to the origin of life is the fact that all observable cellular systems are comprised of components that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent.
211 Identifying some of those basic cell components and how they relate to one another.
212 Cells are the “the basic unit of which all living things are composed” and “the smallest units retaining the fundamental properties of life.”
6. Cells are comprised of proteins.
7. Proteins, which are essential to a living cell, are made up of polypetides.
8. Polypeptides are made up of amino acids.
“Protein – complex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organisms…All known enzymes, for example, are proteins…Proteins are sometimes referred to as macromolecular polypeptides because they are very large molecules and because the amino acids of which they are composed are joined by peptide bonds…Amino acids are joined together to form long chains; most of the common proteins contain more than 100 amino acids…The vast majority of the proteins found in living organisms are composed of only 20 different kinds of amino acids, repeated many times and strung together in a particular order. Each type of protein has its own unique sequence of amino acids; this sequence, known as its primary structure, actually determines the shape and function of the protein.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Amino acid – Although more than 100 amino acids occur naturally, only 20 are commonly used in protein synthesis; these are the same in all living organisms, from protozoa to plants and animals…A peptide bond is formed by a condensation (water-loss) reaction between the carboxyl group of one amino acid and the amino group of the next amino acid occurring in a protein. Thus, proteins are formed by the linear arrangement of amino acids in a particular order. Most of the common proteins contain more than 100 amino acids. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) contains the genetic information that dictates the specific sequence of amino acids found in all proteins.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
9. Cells also contain enzymes, which are also required for the basic functions of a living cell.
10. Cells also contain DNA and RNA, which are both nucleic acids.
a. Nucleic acids are polynucleotides, which are chains of “many” nucleotides.
b. A nucleotide is a molecule comprised of a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), a phosphate, and a nitrogen base (DNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine; RNA: uracil instead of thymine).
“Nucleic acid, General considerations, Classification – There are two classes of nucleic acids: ribonucleic acids (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA)…Basic components – Nucleic acids are polynucleotides, long chain compounds consisting of repeating structural units called nucleotides (Figure 1). They may be composed of more than 1,000,000 of these nucleotides. The nucleotides themselves consist of three subunits. Each of them contains a pentose (or five-carbon) sugar, a purine or pyrimidine base, and a phosphate residue. The pentose sugar is ribose in RNA and 2-deoxyribose in DNA...It was the fact that adenine and thymine are present in approximately equal amounts in DNA, as are guanine and cytosine, together with information from X-ray crystallography of DNA that led Nobel Prize winners J.D. Watson and F.H.C. Crick to postulate that the DNA molecule consists of two chains or strands of polynucleotides coiled around each other to form a double helix, the bases of one helical strand being paired with complementary bases of the other by hydrogen bonds: adenine paired with thymine and cytosine with guanine (see Figure 2).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
11. Finally, although not all cells have membranes around their nucleus, all cells do have an outer membrane.
xxxi. Key Issue – cell origin and formation without foresight (teleology)
1. Keep in mind that evolutionary theory asserts that all of these foundational cell components came about and assembled themselves together through automatic, routine processes without the foresight of intelligent agency.
a. Consequently, evolutionary scientists have undertaken experiments designed to corroborate this prediction.
b. For example, experiments using lightning and ultraviolet light have produced amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acids.
“Perhaps the most influential first surfaced four decades ago, when in a dramatic experiment a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller simulated the creation of life in a laboratory…When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein…And the simple experiment (It’s so easy to do--high school students now use it to win their science fairs, Miller says) stimulated a rush of studies, with the result that a number of other organic compounds, including adenine and guanine, two of the ingredients of RNA and DNA, were produced by similar procedures.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Sagan, Carl Edward – Later in the 1960s Sagan built on the work of American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. In the 1950s Miller and Urey had combined methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, the probable components of the earth's early atmosphere, in a flask. They introduced electrical sparks into the mixture to simulate lightning. When they analyzed the contents of the flask, they found that the chemicals had combined to form amino acids and hydroxy acids, the building blocks of the proteins in living things. Sagan followed a similar method, but refined the primordial soup mixture to include methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide. He also exposed the mixture to ultraviolet light to simulate the effect of sunlight on the chemicals. His mixture produced amino acids as well as several kinds of sugars and nucleic acids.” – "Sagan, Carl Edward," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. Clarifications on that such experiments are not proof of the origin of life without intelligent foresight.
a. The Miller and Urey Experiment
i. The Miller and Urey experiement is acknowledged to have been based upon the wrong natural environment.
1. The environment they used was critically way too friendly to the formation of pre-biotic compounds
2. The environment they used was not available on the early earth.
“For example, what if the primordial atmosphere wasn’t anything like the one Miller and Urey imagined? Would it be so easy to produce organics then? The Miller-Urey experiment was a strong foundation because it was consistent with theories at the time, says geochemist Everett Shock of Washington University in St. Louis. The problem is that subsequent research has swept away a lot of those ideas. The Miller-Urey atmosphere contained a lot of hydrogen. But now the atmosphere of the early Earth is thought to have been more oxidized. That makes Miller’s scenario less probable, because it’s a lot harder to make organic molecules in the presence of oxygen. A hydrogen-rich atmosphere is relatively unstable. When zapped by lightning or other sources of energy, molecules in that environment readily tumble together into organic compounds. Not so in a heavily oxidized atmosphere. While an infusion of energy may cause a few simple organics to form, for the most part the results are inorganic gases like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. These are the constituents of smog, says Shock. So basically what you’re getting is a lot of air pollution.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
ii. The Miller and Urey experiment did produce amino acids, but just producing a collection of raw amino acids isn’t far enough along to constitute proof of the emergence of life without foresight from automatic, routine processes.
1. First, the most common proteins are 100 amino acids long and require the right amino acids in the right order to function for living processes.
2. Second, the amino acids produced in such laboratory experiments are always a mixture of both right-handed and left-handed mirror-images.
“Life, The origin of life, The earliest living systems – Molecules made of the same units can be put together in complementary ways like a left- and right-handed glove. The same building blocks can be used to produce molecules that are three-dimensional mirror images of each other…The laboratory simulation experiments always produce both types.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Amino acids in living things are all left-handed and any mixture of amino acids will eventually revert to include right-handed versions.
b. A mixture involving both right-handed and left-handed amino acids results in “proteins that no longer function”
iii. This means that the amino acids and proteins produced by Miller and Urey are useless to the formation of a cell.
“Another risk involves changes in the structure of amino acids, a kind of spontaneous twisting known as racemization. Amino acids can exist in either left- or right-twisting versions, but living cells use only left-twisting ones. If a cell becomes completely dormant, it cannot repair proteins that spontaneously flip to the right-twisted form, and these harmful errors can build up. After 3 million years, a revived bacterium would find itself with proteins that no longer function.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
b. Microsoft Encarta’s statement that “nucleic acids” have been formed in experiments.
i. When found in nature nucleic acids (polynucleotides) themselves are not self-replicating.
1. What is actually observed is that replication requires both DNA and RNA along with the presence of specific enzymes, which are proteins.
“Protein – complex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organisms. Their central role in biological structures and functioning was recognized by chemists in the early 19th century when they coined the name for these substances from the Greek word proteios, meaning "holding first place." Proteins constitute about 80 percent of the dry weight of muscle, 70 percent of that of skin, and 90 percent of that of blood. The interior substance of plant cells is also composed partly of proteins. The importance of proteins is related more to their function than to their amount in an organism or tissue. All known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances-other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids-that are necessary for life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Replication is part of the essential definition of life.
3. The mere production of basic nucleic acids is not sufficient to allow or cause replication.
ii. So, even if simple nucleic acids were produced in experimentation, or if either DNA or RNA were to be actually produced in experimentation, without the other and without the specific enzymes, this would not be sufficient to demonstrate the origination of life from automatic, routine processes.
iii. The nucleic acids formed in such experiments are not as complex as functional DNA and RNA.
1. The nucleic acids (polynucleotides) formed in such experiments…
a. Have not been self-replicating
b. Have not caused amino acids to assemble into proteins, which would be required for the basic self-replication involved in life.
xxxii. Irreducible functional interdependence and evolutionary speculations suggested to avert this obstacle
1. Britannica describes what we have referred to as the “irreducible functional interdependence” between cell components.
“Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code – So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules [polynucleotides such as DNA and RNA and proteins, including enzymes] that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. There is a universally observed interdependent relationship between such molecules as DNA, RNA, enzymes, and proteins that has prompted evolutionists to refer to the origin of life in terms of a “chicken and egg dilemma”
3. Evolutionary theory has proposed that irreducible functional interdependence might be resolved by RNA (itself a polynucleotide or nucleic acid) serving in the role currently performed by enzymes.
a. Important notes to keep in mind:
i. When found in nature nucleic acids (polynucleotides) themselves are not self-replicating.
ii. No such catalytic RNA has been produced in the experiments above by Miller, Urey, or Carl Sagan.
iii. Instead, only pre-biotic compounds have been assembled from gases and energy in such experiments.
“Ordinarily, it takes the complex biochemical machinery of a cell to reproduce protein molecules. The building blocks of life simply don't replicate themselves by themselves they need help – lots of it – from enzymes and above all from information carried in DNA and RNA. How the whole business of molecular replication got started has been and remains one of the central mysteries of the origin of life. The origin of life is a classic "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. In the presumed molecular evolution on primitive Earth, what came first, proteins or the nucleic acids RNA and DNA? And remember that the enzymes necessary to make proteins are themselves proteins, where did they come from?” – “PRIMITIVE LIFE, Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers,” By Eugene F. Mallove, Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. At one time or another, one of these molecular classes has seemed a likely starting point, but which?" – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“Scientists believe that life on Earth emerged from carbon compounds and other simple chemicals. But it has long been a mystery how those raw materials were transformed into DNA. After all, DNA can’t survive without proteins. So the question has been: What came before DNA? RNA could be the answer.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
b. The quote above suggests that RNA “could be” the solution to the chicken and egg dilemma.
i. Even Britannica Encyclopedia reflects the evolutionary theorization that RNA might be able to serve in this capacity.
“Enzyme, Chemical nature – All enzymes were once thought to be proteins, but since the1980s the catalytic ability of certain nucleic acids, called messenger RNAs, has been demonstrated, refuting this axiom.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Midway through the quote below, the author states that “the chicken-or-egg conundrum” disappeared with the understanding that an RNA molecule could “catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands,” which became “theoretically possible” due to the discovery by Sydney Altman and Tom Cech of RNA molecules that could “catalytically excise portions of themselves or other RNA molecules.”
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. At one time or another, one of these molecular classes has seemed a likely starting point, but which? To answer that, we must look at the functions performed by each of these in existing organisms…For a while, the only thing RNA did not seem capable of doing was catalyzing chemical reactions. That view changed when in the late 1970s, Sydney Altman at Yale University and Thomas Cech at the University of Colorado at Boulder independently discovered RNA molecules that in fact could catalytically excise portions of themselves or of other RNA molecules. The chicken-or-egg conundrum of the origin of life seemed to fall away. It now appeared theoretically possible that an RNA molecule could have existed that naturally contained the sequence information for its reproduction through reciprocal base pairing and could also catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands...In 1986, Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert coined the term "RNA world" to designate a hypothetical stage in the development of life in which 'RNA molecules and cofactors [were] a sufficient set of enzymes to carry out all the chemical reactions necessary for the first cellular structures.' Today it is almost a matter of dogma that the evolution of life did include a phase where RNA was the predominant biological macromolecule.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
d. At first glance, the assertion that “the chicken-or-egg conundrum” disappeared with the understanding that an RNA molecule could “catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands,” may make it sound like a self-replicating RNA molecule has been found experimentally.
i. This is not the case.
4. Problems with the claim that “the chicken-or-egg conundrum” disappeared with the understanding that an RNA molecule could “catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands”
a. The first problem centers on the meaning of the word “excise.”
i. RNA excising portions of itself does NOT demonstrate that RNA could or ever did replicate itself.
ii. While RNA does in some instances operate with the status of a self-deconstructing molecule, RNA has not ever been observed to operate as a self-replicating or self-constructing molecule.
“Excise – Function: transitive verb: to remove by or as if by excision.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Excision – Function: noun: the act or procedure of removing by or as if by cutting out; especially: surgical removal or resection.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
iii. Sydney Altman and Tom Cech discovered that RNA could catalyze the removal of portions of itself or other RNA molecules, which is quite different and distant from, and in fact the opposite of, building an RNA molecule.
1. Their discovery is specifically about RNA breaking itself down or “hacking itself apart.”
“In the early 1980s Tom Cech, then a young biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uncovered evidence that RNA does more than simply relay messages from DNA to proteins. In an experiment that earned him a Nobel Prize, he found that a single-celled creature named Tetrahymena possessed some RNA molecules that could act like simple enzymes. These molecules, which came to be known as ribozymes, twisted into a complicated snarl that allowed them to hack themselves apart. In other words, RNA could carry information like DNA and carry out biochemistry the way proteins do.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
iv. The quote below from the same article specifically states that RNA breaking itself down is still a far cry from replicating another RNA.
1. As the quote states, for life to be based upon RNA only would require RNA to do “a lot more” than the simple deconstruction demonstrated by the experiment
“In a world before DNA, RNA molecules would have had to be a lot more accomplished than the Tetrahymena ribozyme. Most important of all, RNA would have to function as an enzyme (known as a replicase) that could replicate other RNA molecules.” – What Came Before DNA?, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
v. The fact that RNA was only found to deconstruct itself rather than assemble itself from new components is also attested to later on in the American Scientist article when the same author states that…
1. all attempts to engineer “an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far”
2. “the idea of RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced…is not tenable.”
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Origin and Evolution of the RNA World – On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time. Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable. There could be no replication without a robust chemical underpinning continuing to provide the necessary materials and energy. The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
a. Notice particularly from the quote above the mention of the word “foresight.”
b. Foresight is simply a synonym for purposeful intelligence or teleology.
c. Once again, the dividing line between the 2 theories is foresight.
vi. These “failed experiments” failed while attempting to create far shorter RNA molecules, up to 100 times short than those observed in modern cells, as the following quote from the same article indicates.
“Most likely, the first RNA genes were very short, no longer than 70 to 100 nucleotides (the modern gene runs several thousand nucleotides), with the corresponding proteins (more like protein fragments, called peptides) containing no more than 20 to 30 amino acids.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
1. If generating self-replicating RNA that is significantly shorter and less complex is impossible by automatic, routine processes that lack foresight, this only adds to the severe improbability of producing the full-length RNA that we see today without foresight.
vii. As the quote above states, it has so far been impossible to resolve the chicken-and-egg dilemma using only automatic, routine processes, which proceed without the benefit of foresight.
b. The second problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma involves the fact that, as we saw above, the experiments themselves have significant problems and do not correspond to necessary conditions.
c. The third problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma involves the fact that production of RNA itself is too complex to be considered at all probable.
“Cell, The evolution of cells, The development of genetic information – Life could not exist until a collection of specific catalysts appeared that could promote the synthesis of more catalysts of the same kind. Early stages in the evolutionary pathway presumably centred on RNA molecules, which not only present specific catalytic surfaces but also contain the potential for their own duplication through the formation of a complementary RNA molecule. It is assumed that a small RNA molecule eventually appeared that was able to catalyze its own duplication. Such an autocatalytic RNA molecule would have multiplied faster than its neighbours, usurping the RNA precursor molecules in the primeval soup. Primitive RNA replication would have been imperfect, so that many variant autocatalytic RNA molecules would have arisen. Any variations that increased the speed or the fidelity of self-replication would have enabled those variant RNA molecules to out multiply their neighbour RNA. Simultaneously, there would have been the natural selection of other small RNA molecules existing in symbiosis with autocatalytic RNA molecules, being replicated in return for catalyzing a useful secondary reaction such as the production of better precursor molecules. In this way, sophisticated families of RNA catalysts would eventually have evolved, in which cooperation between different molecules produced a system that was much more effective at self-replication than a collection of individual RNA catalysts. The next major step in the evolution of the cell would have been the development, in one family of self-replicating RNA, of a primitive mechanism of protein synthesis. Protein molecules cannot provide the information for the synthesis of other protein molecules like themselves. This information must ultimately be derived from a nucleic acid sequence. Protein synthesis is much more complex than RNA synthesis, and it could not have arisen before a group of powerful RNA catalysts evolved. Each of these catalysts presumably has its counterpart among the RNA molecules that function in the current cell: (1) There was an information RNA molecule, much like messenger RNA (mRNA), whose nucleotide sequence was read to create an amino acid sequence; (2) there was a group of adaptor RNA molecules, much like transfer RNA (tRNA), that could bind to both mRNA and a specific activated amino acid; and (3) finally, there was an RNA catalyst, much like ribosomal RNA (rRNA), that facilitated the joining together of the amino acids aligned on the mRNA by the adaptor RNA…It is often assumed that the first cells appeared only after the development of a primitive form of protein synthesis. However, it is by no means certain that cells cannot exist without proteins, and it has been suggested as an alternative that the first cells contained only RNA catalysts. In either case, protein molecules, with their chemically varied side chains, are more powerful catalysts than RNA molecules; therefore, as time passed, cells arose in which RNA served primarily as genetic material, being directly replicated in each generation and inherited by all progeny cells in order to specify proteins. As cells became more complex, a need would have arisen for a stabler form of genetic information storage than that provided by RNA. DNA, related to RNA yet chemically stabler, probably appeared rather late in the evolutionary history of cells. Over a period of time, the genetic information in RNA sequences was transferred to DNA sequences, and the ability of RNA molecules to replicate directly was lost. It was only at this point that the central process of biology—the synthesis, one after the other, of DNA, RNA, and protein—appeared.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code – The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“But while this proposed RNA world was certainly closer to the origin of life, it clearly wasn’t the beginning. Although much simpler than bacteria, RNA is still a complicated piece of molecular machinery, containing more than 30 atoms connected in an intricate, interlocking fashion. It couldn’t have sprung wholly formed into the primordial landscape. Something preceded it.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
d. The fourth problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma is that even if it existed, the most successful self-replicating RNA process would NOT have led to life or the production of the basic building-blocks of life known as proteins.
“Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code – Imagine a primitive ocean filled with nucleotides and their phosphates and appropriate mineral surfaces serving as catalysts. Even in the absence of the appropriate enzyme it seems likely, although not yet proved, that spontaneous assembly of nucleotide phosphates into polynucleotides occurred. Once the first such polynucleotide was produced, it may have served as a template for its own reproduction, still of course in the absence of enzymes. As time went on there were bound to be errors in replication. These would be inherited. A self-replicating and mutable molecular system of polynucleotides, eventually leading to a diverse population of such molecules, may have arisen in this way. Alternatively, the primitive hereditary material may have involved some other molecule altogether, but no concrete suggestion for such a molecule has ever been proposed. In any case, a population of replicating polynucleotides cannot quite be considered alive because it does not significantly influence its environment. Eventually, all the nucleotides in the ocean would have been tied in polynucleotides and the entire synthetic process would then have ground to a halt. So far as is known, polynucleotides have no an catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. The fifth problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma is that even the purely speculative ability of messenger RNA to function as self-replicating would not overcome the difficulties involved in how (energy) and where (safety from harmful environmental factors) such molecules formed and eventually thrived.
i. (This will be covered more in the next segment.)
xxxiii. Conclusion: Evolution has no viable explanation or evidence for the formation of cells without foresight only some speculation, which itself hasn’t been worked out into a full explanation.
1. The following sources regard the RNA solution to the chicken-and-egg dilemma as merely presumption, assumption, or speculation at best and as failed at worst because of the observed facts listed above, including:
a. The inability of RNA to construct itself,
b. The overly-contrived nature of even the failed experiments,
c. The improbabilities related to the arrival of RNA itself
d. The fact that even a successfully self-replicating RNA would not lead to the metabolic processes that constitute life
2. Britannica supports the conclusion that evolution theory on the origin of life is purely speculative and not based upon what is actually known and observed.
“Enzyme, Chemical nature – All enzymes were once thought to be proteins, but since the1980s the catalytic ability of certain nucleic acids, called messenger RNAs, has been demonstrated, refuting this axiom. Because so little is yet known about the enzymatic functioning of RNA, this discussion will focus primarily on protein enzymes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cell, The evolution of cells, The development of genetic information – Life could not exist until a collection of specific catalysts appeared that could promote the synthesis of more catalysts of the same kind. Early stages in the evolutionary pathway presumably centred on RNA molecules, which not only present specific catalytic surfaces but also contain the potential for their own duplication through the formation of a complementary RNA molecule. It is assumed that a small RNA molecule eventually appeared that was able to catalyze its own duplication…It is often assumed that the first cells appeared only after the development of a primitive form of protein synthesis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. When speaking of what is “known” and fact, Britannica asserts that polynucleotides, such as RNA, “have no catalytic properties.”
“Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code – So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. When discussing what is actually observed, not simply mere speculation, Britannica states plainly that “all known enzymes…are proteins” not polynucleotides.
“Protein – All known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances-other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids-that are necessary for life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Britannica, when describing the status of observations of living cells, asserts that the irreducible functional interdependence between DNA, RNA, and enzymes is all that is ever observed.
“Life, Life on Earth, Nucleic acids – Now DNA, RNA, and the enzymes have a curiously interconnected relation, which appears ubiquitous in all organisms on Earth today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Ubiquitous – Function: adjective: existing or being everywhere at the same time: constantly encountered: widespread.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
3. Other sources also conclude that evolution theory on the origin of life is purely speculative.
“What can we conclude from this scenario, which, though purely hypothetical, depicts in logical succession the events that must have taken place if we accept the RNA-world hypothesis?” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
a. Stanley Miller of the famed Miller-Urey experiment sums up the current status and the problematic nature of getting actual self-replicating polymers or RNA in the following way.
“When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein. The lightning had reorganized the molecules in the atmosphere to produce organic compounds…People were stunned. Articles appeared in major newspapers across the country, prompting predictions that, like Dr. Frankenstein, researchers would soon concoct living organisms in their labs…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self- replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
b. Worldbook Encyclopedia states that the current theory of evolution is “incomplete” with regard to the origin of life from automatic, routine processes.
“Life, The origin of life – Although scientists have experimental evidence to support parts of the theory of chemical evolution, many questions remain. One example is the question of how biological molecules could have become organized into cell-like organisms. Biologists are also trying to discover how nucleic acids and proteins became related in such a way that nucleic acids determine the kinds of proteins a cell produces. A complete theory of the origin of life will have to explain this relationship, which is a basic characteristic of life as we know it.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
xxxiv. As stated by the above sources, evolution doesn’t even have a full, working theory for the origin of life without intelligent foresight.
1. The chicken-and-egg dilemma that arises from the irreducible functional interdependence of basic cell components has NOT been even theoretically let alone experimentally resolved by evolutionary theory.
2. The probability of these things arriving at the same time and coming together, ready to function as a whole is impossibly small.
3. So far, a cause possessing foresight is the only apparent solution to the existence of such irreducible interdependence.
xxxv. A list of irreducibly functional, interdependent cell components that produce insurmountable, irresolvable (“chicken and egg”) problems for the formation of the cell (the origin of life) from automatic, routine, unintelligent forces.
1. Lists from sources
a. American Scientist lists nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and fats.
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
b. Britannica lists chromosomes, ribosomes, and membranes.
“Cell, The history of cell theory, Contribution of other sciences – On the contrary, molecular biology has become the foundation of cell science, for it has demonstrated not only that basic processes such as the genetic code and protein synthesis are similar in all living systems but also that they are made possible by the same cell components—e.g., chromosomes, ribosomes, and membranes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Membranes are also listed as essential by Carl Deamer of Discover Magazine.
“Essential Ingredients – ‘Water is necessary for life,’ says Steven Benner. ‘At some point the nucleotide components had to move into an aqueous environment.’ Also essential are fats, from which cell membranes are constructed. In every organism, genetic material is housed inside a membrane that keeps dangerous substances out while letting in food and other necessary molecules. After the ribose, nucleobases, and phosphate combine to form nucleotides, fats are required to make this membrane.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
“All organisms alive today keep their DNA, RNA, and proteins together inside cell membranes. These oily bubbles prevent big molecules from getting out while letting smaller food molecules in.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
d. Britannica lists DNA, RNA, and enzymes as well as specifying at least 2 different varieties of RNA.
“Life, Life on Earth, Nucleic acids – Now DNA, RNA, and the enzymes have a curiously interconnected relation, which appears ubiquitous in all organisms on Earth today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code – So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Total list of irreducibly functional, interdependent cell components causing insurmountable, irresolvable (“chicken and egg”) problems for the formation of the cell (the origin of life) from automatic, routine, unintelligent forces.
a. Nucleic acids of both adapter and messenger RNA,
b. DNA in the format of chromosomes,
c. Proteins (which are comprised of amino acids) including enzymes, ribosomes, carbohydrates, fats,
d. Membranes
e. (All of the above cell components are required in order for a cell to function, which constitutes life.)
“Cell – in biology, the basic unit of which all living things are composed. As the smallest units retaining the fundamental properties of life, cells are the “atoms” of the living world. A single cell is often a complete organism in itself, such as abacteriumor yeast.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cell, The history of cell theory, Formulation of the theory, Early observations – Two German biologists, Theodore Schwann and Matthias Schleiden, clearly stated in 1839 that cells are the “elementary particles of organisms” in both plants and animals and recognized that some organisms are unicellular and others multicellular…Schleiden and Schwann's descriptive statements concerning the cellular basis of biologic structure are straightforward and acceptable to modern thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xxxvi. A source of energy can also be included as a component in this chicken-and-egg dilemma.
213 Evolution on the Origin of Life: Energy and Safety, a Suitable Environment
214 The other barrier to the origin of life is the geologic history of the earth.
215 The obstacles present in earth’s geologic history concern 2 aspects:
216 energy
217 safety
218 Even if the currently unresolved chicken-and-egg dilemmas of cell components are resolved, evolutionary theory would still have to identify a suitable environment in which there was:
219 Sufficient energy to fuel the origin of life
220 Sufficient protection from environmental factors that would destroy any progress toward life.
221 Earth’s geologic history is where such an environment must be identified.
222 Identifying when such an environment existed on earth is critical to this barrier.
223 Therefore, events surrounding the formation of the solar system are relevant to earth’s geologic history and the origin of life.
xxxvii. Determining when life emerged on earth – How Evolution theory measures the age of the earth
1. With a universe that is somewhere between 10-20 billion years old, evolutionary theory describes the age of the earth as about 4.6 billion years old.
“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years…It is widely accepted by both geologists and astronomers that the Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. The oldest rocks on earth are 3.8 billion years old
a. This limits the farthest point of the fossil record simply because, fossils cannot go back farther than the existing rock record.
“Geologic sciences, Study of surface features and processes, Earth history, Historical geology and stratigraphy – Radiometric dating also helped geochronologists discover the vast span of geologic time. The radiometric dating of meteorites revealed that the Earth, like other bodies of the solar system, is about 4,600,000,000 years old and that the oldest rocks so far discovered formed roughly 3,800,000,000 years ago. It has been established that the Precambrian time occupies seven-eighths of geologic time, but the era is still poorly understood in comparison with the Phanerozoic Eon—the span of time extending from about the beginning of the Cambrian Period to the Holocene Epoch during which complex life forms are known to have existed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. This timeframe of approximately 3.8 billion years ago as the front end of the fossil record is where we encounter significant obstacles to the evolutionary origin of life in terms of the geologic history of the earth.
xxxviii. Determining when life emerged on earth – The timeframe for life to originate on earth.
1. Earth’s environment was hostile to life from 3.5-4.5 billion years ago.
a. Earth was “heavily bombarded” by tens of thousands of meteorites up until about 3.9 billion years ago.
“A World Without Water, Figure 4. Impact craters on the Moon, most obviously visible on the lunar highlands (left), offer evidence of an era when the inner solar system was subject to a heavy bombardment of small bodies. The impact rate (deduced from the density of the craters) and their age (based on radioactive dating of lunar rocks) conform to a theoretical model of cometary bombardment (right, black curve), which is based on changing rates of cometary flux to the inner solar system from the regions of the giant planets in the outer solar system (colored lines). The observational data (crosses) suggest that the first 600 million years of bombardment can be explained by a large flux of comets from Jupiter’s zone. After one billion years the excess impacts (crosses above the black curve) indicate another source, possibly asteroids. (Image courtesy of NASA.)” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years. The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only about 3.9 billion years. There is, in effect, a stretch of 700 million years for which no geologic record exists, and the evolution of this pregeologic period of time is not surprisingly the subject of much speculation. To understand this little-known period, the following factors have to be considered: the age of formation at 4.6 billion years ago, the processes in operation until 3.9 billion years ago, the bombardment of the Earth by meteorites, and the earliest zircon crystals…It is known from direct observation that the surface of the Moon is covered with a multitude of meteorite craters. There are about 40 large basins attributable to meteorite impact. Known as maria, these depressions were filled in with basaltic lavas caused by the impact-induced melting of the lunar mantle. Many of these basalts have been analyzed isotopically and found to have crystallization ages of 3.9 to 4 billion years. It can be safely concluded that the Earth, with a greater attractive mass than the Moon, must have undergone more extensive meteorite bombardment. According to the English-born geologist Joseph V. Smith, a minimum of 500 to 1,000 impact basins were formed on the Earth within a period of about 100 to 200 million years prior to 3.95 billion years ago. Moreover, plausible calculations suggest that this estimate represents merely the tail end of an interval of declining meteorite bombardment and that about 20 times as many basins were formed in the preceding 300 million years. Such intense bombardment would have covered most of the Earth's surface, with the impacts causing considerable destruction of the terrestrial crust up to 3.9 billion years ago. There is, however, no direct evidence of this important phase of Earth history because rocks older than 3.9 billion years have not been preserved.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Large cometary impacts were not becoming rare until as late as 3.5 billion years ago.
i. However, such impacts did occur and that they had such consequences as to boil off oceans.
“The Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and water into space. Under these chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
ii. “ocean-boiling” impacts continued until right up until the oldest fossils, which likewise date to approximately 3.5 billion years ago.
“Conclusion – There is now considerable evidence to support the idea that we owe the existence of our biosphere to a heavy bombardment of comets in the very early history of our planet. Indeed the delivery of water and prebiotic molecules explains why life emerged so soon after the conditions ceased to be utterly hostile. The oldest fossil imprints of bacteria date to about 3.456 billion years ago (in Australian rocks), and there is indirect evidence that life was present 3.8 billion years ago in the ancient sediments of Greenland (Figure 10).” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
iii. This environment was hostile to the formation of life for the following reasons.
“Although about 100 times as many asteroids as comets approach Earth, comets pack a bigger punch—they plunge toward the sun several times faster than asteroids. That means a comet could hit Earth with about 10 times as much energy as an asteroid with the same mass…In 1994 Jupiter's gravity shredded comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into 21 visible chunks, which then plunged into the gas giant piece after piece. A typical piece detonated with the force of about 25,000 megatons of TNT. A chain of blasts around Earth might wreak more havoc than a single impact.” – “To Catch a Comet,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 24 No. 10, October 2003
“Chemical Evidence – The separation of these layers dates to the earliest period of the Earth’s formation, when it was still accumulating mass by the accretion of planetesimals. The energy of the accretionary impacts was transformed into a heat so intense that Earth’s surface was covered with a thick layer of molten lava, perhaps to very great depths.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“Meteorite – Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the nearby environment, and they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years. Many scientists believe that the event that caused the crater in the Yucatán Peninsula may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Advanced forms of life existed on earth at least 3.55 billion years ago. In rocks of that age, fossilized imprints have been found of bacteria that look uncannily like cyanobacteria, the most highly evolved photosynthetic organisms present in the world today…On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“Astronomers and geologists were discovering that Earth had a violent infancy--hundreds of millions of years after the planet had formed, giant asteroids and comets still crashed into it, burning off its young atmosphere and boiling away its oceans. In the process, they also destroyed all the chemicals that researchers assumed were in liberal supply on the early Earth, including the building blocks of lipids.” – “First Cell,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER, Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
xxxix. Evolutionary scientists believe that life must have originated between 3.8 billion years ago.
1. The timeframe for this event is limited by several factors
a. According to evolutionary theory, the earliest fossilized life forms date to around 3.4 or 3.5 billion years ago.
“Evolution, I INTRODUCTION – The earliest known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. However, the earliest life forms in the fossil record are themselves already “highly evolved” and “complicated.”
“Life, The origin of life, The antiquity of life – Among the oldest known fossils are those found in the Fig Tree chert from the Transvaal, dated at 3,100,000,000 years old…Even procaryotes, however, are exceedingly complicated organisms and very highly evolved.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“The fossil record and modern genetic analysis suggest that humans and all other living species are descended from bacteria-like microbes that first appeared about 4 billion years ago. But bacteria, appearances notwithstanding, are very complex. They can be packed with thousands of genes, along with proteins and other molecules, working together in an intricate struggle to stay alive.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
i. Because the first fossilized life forms are themselves “highly evolved,” evolutionists believe that there must have been even more primitive life forms from which these earliest fossils evolved.
“Evolutionary biologists have traced our family tree to bacteria, one-celled organisms that have been found in rock formations 3.5 billion years old. But even these primitive creatures were already quite sophisticated. They had genes of DNA and RNA and were made of protein, lipids, and other ingredients. Something simpler must have preceded them.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
c. Evolution theory states that the very earliest, most primitive cells came into existence even earlier beforehand, about 3.8 billion years ago.
i. Britannica indicates that oxygen-producing life forms existed at 3.8 billion years ago
1. Indicated partially by the existence of iron formations whose chemical composition contains oxygen.
“Exobiology, V PROSPECTS FOR DISCOVERY – Scientists now believe that life on Earth dates back to at least 3.85 billion years before present, so living organisms have populated Earth for more than 80 percent of its history.” – "Exobiology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The earliest primitive organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their living cells and had to be removed. Fortunately for the development of life on the early Earth there was extensive volcanic activity, which resulted in the deposition of much lava, the erosion of which released enormous quantities of iron into the oceans. This ferrous iron is water-soluble and therefore could be easily transported, but it had to be converted to ferric iron, which is highly insoluble, before it could be precipitated as iron formations. In short, the organisms produced the oxygen and the iron formations accepted it. Iron formations can be found in the earliest sediments (those deposited 3.8 billion years ago) at Isua in West Greenland, and thus this process must have been operative by this time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Worldbook similarly refers to the presence of “chemicals created by living things in rocks” dating from 3.8 billion years ago
1. This necessitaes the existence of life forms by that point in time.
“Earth [planet], History of Earth, Life on Earth – Fossils help scientists learn which kinds of plants and animals lived at different times in Earth's history. Scientists who study prehistoric life are called paleontologists. Many scientists believe that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed. There is evidence for chemicals created by living things in rocks from the Archean age, 3.8 billion years old. Fossil remains of microscopic living things about 3.5 billion years old have also been found at sites in Australia and Canada.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
iii. The American Scientist and Discover magazines assert that the oldest life forms must predate the fossil record by about 300 million years, placing the origin of life around 3.8 billion years ago
“Conclusion – There is now considerable evidence to support the idea that we owe the existence of our biosphere to a heavy bombardment of comets in the very early history of our planet. Indeed the delivery of water and prebiotic molecules explains why life emerged so soon after the conditions ceased to be utterly hostile. The oldest fossil imprints of bacteria date to about 3.456 billion years ago (in Australian rocks), and there is indirect evidence that life was present 3.8 billion years ago in the ancient sediments of Greenland (Figure 10).” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“‘Bugs are very clever,’ Kasthuri Venkateswaran says with affection. ‘They started out on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, when nothing else was here!’…Venkateswaran quietly examines the machinery itself, searching for any clever microbes—‘bugs,’ he calls them—that might try to tag along.” – “Seeding the Universe,” by Alan Burdick, DISCOVER, Vol. 25 No. 10, October 2004, Astronomy & Physics
2. Consequences of the timeframe 2 factors above
a. The timeframe for the origin of life is very short in geological terms – 100-200 million years
b. Given this short timeframe, evolutionists regard the origination of life as occurring “easily” or “quickly”
i. This stands in direct contrast to the exceeding complexities, improbabilities, and “long evolutions” described above for the origin of life
“Earth [planet], History of Earth, Life on Earth – Many scientists believe that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Life, The origin of life, The antiquity of life – Among the oldest known fossils are those found in the Fig Tree chert from the Transvaal, dated at 3,100,000,000 years old…Even procaryotes, however, are exceedingly complicated organisms and very highly evolved. Since the Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old, this suggests that the origin of life must have occurred within a few hundred million years of that time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The estimation of the “quickness” or “ease” with which life originated on earth under hostile conditions leads to the estimation of “high probability,” “normalcy,” and even “chemical necessity” for life to occur universally (throughout the universe), wherever and whenever “conditions allow.”
i. Once again in contrast to the extreme complexities, improbabilities, and “long evolutions” described above
“Life, Likelihood of life – Because of the apparent rapidity of the origin of life on Earth, as implied by the fossil record, and because of the ease with which relevant organic molecules are produced in primitive-Earth simulation experiments, the likelihood of the origin of life over a period of billions of years seems high…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth [planet], History of Earth, Life on Earth – Many scientists believe that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Conclusion – There is now considerable evidence to support the idea that we owe the existence of our biosphere to a heavy bombardment of comets in the very early history of our planet. Indeed the delivery of water and prebiotic molecules explains why life emerged so soon after the conditions ceased to be utterly hostile. The oldest fossil imprints of bacteria date to about 3.456 billion years ago (in Australian rocks), and there is indirect evidence that life was present 3.8 billion years ago in the ancient sediments of Greenland (Figure 10).” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
3. Within this narrow window of opportunity, there would have to exist a suitable environment for the origin of life, which would include:
a. An energy source
b. Safety from prohibitive factors
xl. Determining where life emerged on earth – Identifying an energy source capable of fueling the origin of life.
1. An energy source is necessary for life
“Even if they succeed, many questions will remain before anyone will be able to build a functioning cell. How does it manage growth and division--a process that demands mind-boggling choreography even in a microbe? How exactly is this dance powered with energy?” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
“Life – One of the central questions about life is how it originated. The generally accepted theory is that early in the history of the earth some system of replication powered by external sources of energy must have been formed. – "Life," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Life, Life on earth, Metabolism – The chemical bonds that make up living organisms have a certain probability of spontaneous breakage. Accordingly, mechanisms must exist to repair this damage, or to replace the broken molecules. In addition, the meticulous control that cells exercise over their internal activities requires the continued synthesis of new molecules. These processes of synthesis and breakdown of the organic molecules of the cell are collectively termed metabolism, and for synthesis to keep ahead of the thermodynamic tendencies toward breakdown, energy must be supplied to the living system.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Suggestions for the location of the origin of life is placed around potential energy sources.
“Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested.” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
3. 5 important questions regarding a potential energy source for the origin of life without implying foresight
a. First, did that source of energy occur in sufficient amounts to facilitate the origin of life?
b. Second, were the pre-biotic chemical compounds located in a place where they would have had access to that energy?
c. Third, have experiments utilizing a particular source actually produced life or merely, non-living compounds?
d. Fourth, concerning the “safety” issue, does the environment in which this energy source is available also contain damaging elements that prevent the origin of life?
e. Fifth, is that source of energy regarded as adequate by evolutionary scientists themselves?
4. Lightning considered not a viable energy source
a. Early experiments replicated this potential energy source, but currently lightning has been discarded on the grounds that it would not have been sufficiently available.
i. Early experiments using lightning: the Miller and Urey experiment
ii. Recent experients do not use lightning: the experiments of Carl Sagan
“Britannica, Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – The first deliberate experimental simulation of these primitive conditions was carried out in 1953 by a U.S. graduate student, S.L. Miller, under the guidance of the eminent chemist H.C. Urey. A mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapour, and hydrogen was circulated through a liquid water solution and continuously sparked by a corona discharge elsewhere in the apparatus. The discharge may be thought to represent lightning flashes on the early Earth. After several days of exposure to sparking, the solution changed colour. Subsequent analysis indicated that several amino and hydroxy acids, intimately involved in contemporary life, had been produced by this simple procedure…Subsequent experiments have substituted ultraviolet light or heat as the energy source or have altered the initial abundances of gases. In all such experiments amino acids have been formed in large yield. On the early Earth there was much more energy available in ultraviolet light than in lightning discharges...Following such reasoning, a U.S. astrophysicist, Carl Sagan, and his colleagues made amino acids by long wavelength ultraviolet irradiation of a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and H2S.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Miller and Urey’s experiment
i. Now acknowledge to have depended upon the use of inaccurate simulations of the early earth’s atmosphere.
“The first hints that this might be so came from the laboratory, before evidence for it was found in space, through the historic experiments of Stanley Miller, now recalled in science textbooks…Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought by Urey…” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“For example, what if the primordial atmosphere wasn’t anything like the one Miller and Urey imagined? Would it be so easy to produce organics then? The Miller-Urey experiment was a strong foundation because it was consistent with theories at the time, says geochemist Everett Shock of Washington University in St. Louis. The problem is that subsequent research has swept away a lot of those ideas. The Miller-Urey atmosphere contained a lot of hydrogen. But now the atmosphere of the early Earth is thought to have been more oxidized. That makes Miller’s scenario less probable, because it’s a lot harder to make organic molecules in the presence of oxygen. A hydrogen-rich atmosphere is relatively unstable. When zapped by lightning or other sources of energy, molecules in that environment readily tumble together into organic compounds. Not so in a heavily oxidized atmosphere. While an infusion of energy may cause a few simple organics to form, for the most part the results are inorganic gases like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. These are the constituents of smog, says Shock. So basically what you’re getting is a lot of air pollution.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
ii. Concerning the results of his own lightning simulating experiments, Stanley Miller regards the resulting chemicals that were produced as a far cry from even the basic molecules needed for the production of life.
“Perhaps the most influential first surfaced four decades ago, when in a dramatic experiment a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller simulated the creation of life in a laboratory…And the simple experiment (It’s so easy to do--high school students now use it to win their science fairs, Miller says) stimulated a rush of studies, with the result that a number of other organic compounds, including adenine and guanine, two of the ingredients of RNA and DNA, were produced by similar procedures…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
c. Concerning our 4 questions
i. Lightning fails to qualify as a working energy source for the origin of life.
ii. Evolutionary scientists do not consider lightning to have occurred in sufficient supply.
iii. The chemical byproducts resulting from lightning simulations are too far removed from the basic chemical elements necessary for life.
5. Ultraviolate light – a difficult prospect for an energy source
a. Related issues
i. Evolutionists suggest that the early earth (even prior to 600 million years ago as the next quote states) did not have much oxygen in its atmosphere.
ii. Due to the absence of oxygen, ultraviolet light would have reached the surface of the earth in large amounts, providing a great deal of energy.
“Life, The origin of life, The antiquity of life – The fossil record, in any complete sense, goes back only about 600,000,000 years. In the layers of sedimentary rock known by geological methods and by radioactive dating to be that old, most of the major groups of invertebrates appear for the first time. All these organisms appear adapted to life in the water, and there is no sign yet of organisms adapted to the land. For this reason, and because of a rough similarity between the salt contents of blood and of seawater, it is believed that early forms of life developed in oceans or pools. With no evidence for widespread oxygen-producing photosynthesis before this time, and for cosmic abundance reasons described above, the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere in Precambrian times was very likely less than today. Accordingly, in Precambrian times, solar ultraviolet radiation, especially near the wavelength of 2,600 Å, which is particularly destructive to nucleic acids, may have penetrated to the surface of the Earth, rather than being totally absorbed in the upper atmosphere by ozone as it is today. In the absence of ozone, the ultraviolet solar flux is so high that a lethal dose for most organisms would be delivered in less than an hour. Unless extraordinary defense mechanisms existed in Precambrian times, life near the Earth's surface would have been impossible. Sagan suggested that life at this time was generally restricted to some tens of metres and deeper in the oceans, at which depths all the ultraviolet light would have been absorbed, although visible light would still filter through…It has been suggested that the colonization of the land, about 425,000,000 years ago, was possible only because enough ozone was then produced to shield the surface from ultraviolet light for the first time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The first obstacle facing the ultraviolet light source suggestion pertains to the question of sufficiency of its quantity
i. Lower oxygen content allows a sufficient quantity of ultraviolet light necessary to fuel the origin of life.
ii. How much oxygen was present?
1. One quote above said there is “no evidence for widespread oxygen-producing photosynthesis before this time.”
a. The designation “this time” refers to “600,000,000 years ago” as stated at the start of the quote.
2. But there is evidence…
a. The 3.8 billion-year-old rocks are rich in oxygen indicating the presence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere
b. The presence of such quantities of oxygen is attributed to primitive organisms that “produced free oxygen as a by-product” of metabolism.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The earliest primitive organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their living cells and had to be removed. Fortunately for the development of life on the early Earth there was extensive volcanic activity, which resulted in the deposition of much lava, the erosion of which released enormous quantities of iron into the oceans. This ferrous iron is water-soluble and therefore could be easily transported, but it had to be converted to ferric iron, which is highly insoluble, before it could be precipitated as iron formations. In short, the organisms produced the oxygen and the iron formations accepted it. Iron formations can be found in the earliest sediments (those deposited 3.8 billion years ago) at Isua in West Greenland, and thus this process must have been operative by this time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. This evidence “for widespread oxygen-producing photosynthesis before this time,” would…
1. Cause “the oxygen content of the Earth's atmosphere in Precambrian times” to be relatively high and, therefore, comprised partially of ozone,
2. Prevent a sufficient amount of ultraviolet light from reach earth’s surface or oceans to fuel an evolutionary origin of life.
c. The second obstacle facing the ultraviolet light source suggestion pertains to the question of where pre-biotic chemical compounds would have had safe access to ultraviolet energy.
i. Ultraviolet light would be “lethal” to “most organisms” within “less than an hour” and would even destroy cyanobacteria present in the water.
ii. Consequently, the origination of life on the land or surface of the ocean was NOT possible due to the destructively prohibitive presence of ultraviolet light.
“Bacteria, VII BACTERIA IN OUR DAILY LIVES – During photosynthesis, cyanobacteria also release oxygen, which dissolves in the water. A great variety of aquatic organisms rely entirely on this oxygen for their survival. Many scientists are concerned that breakdown of the ozone layer may damage cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton, threatening the survival of the organisms that depend on them for food and oxygen.” – "Bacteria," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Life, Extraterrestrial life, The chemistry of extraterrestrial life – Life on Earth is structurally based on carbon and utilizes water as an interaction medium…The planet, therefore, should have an atmosphere and some near-surface liquid, although not necessarily an ocean. If the intensity of ultraviolet light or charged particles from the sun is intense at the planetary surface, there must be some place, perhaps below the surface, that is shielded from this radiation but that nevertheless permits useful chemical reactions to occur…Organisms that live slightly subsurface, however, may avoid ultraviolet and charged particle radiation and at the same time acquire sufficient amounts of visible light for photosynthesis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, Extraterrestrial life, Molecular factors – But life does require an interaction medium, an atmosphere, and some protection from ultraviolet light and from charged particles of solar origin.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“On July 20, 1976, the Viking 1 spacecraft had touched down on Mars, and the Friedmanns, along with millions of other Americans, had listened to Cronkite describe the historic landing…But mission biologists eventually concluded that the soil on Mars was sterile: no life, they said, could survive the combination of ultraviolet solar radiation, extreme dryness, and lethally oxidizing compounds found on the planet’s surface.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
“Even if frozen, Friedmann says, microorganisms cannot survive forever. Radiation--either from radioactivity in rock or from cosmic rays falling from the sky--will damage bacterial DNA and over millions of years will almost certainly kill a microbe.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
iii. Millions of years without protection by ozone from ultraviolet radiation would destroy primitive life forms.
1. (This “millions of years” timeframe is significant since scientists believe the timeframe available for life to originate on earth was only millions of years and at a time without oxygen in the atmosphere.)
iv. Even with the protective ozone present in the earth today, strong sunlight kills microorganisms in the desert.
“Porous rock, Friedmann soon realized, is a better habitat for a microbe than parched desert soil. A rock can store water in its pores, and because it is often translucent, it can admit sunlight, allowing photosynthesis, yet filtering the extremes of strong light that kill microorganisms in the desert.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
v. The problems presented by ultraviolet light negate the possibility of a surface level or near-surface origination of life on earth.
d. Hypothesis that life originated deep underwater
i. Water acts as a buffer zone allowing sunlight in for photosynthesis but keeping out the lethal extremes of sunlight that are even present with ozone protection.
“Life, The origin of life, The antiquity of life – In the absence of ozone, the ultraviolet solar flux is so high that a lethal dose for most organisms would be delivered in less than an hour. Unless extraordinary defense mechanisms existed in Precambrian times, life near the Earth's surface would have been impossible. Sagan suggested that life at this time was generally restricted to some tens of metres and deeper in the oceans, at which depths all the ultraviolet light would have been absorbed, although visible light would still filter through…It has been suggested that the colonization of the land, about 425,000,000 years ago, was possible only because enough ozone was then produced to shield the surface from ultraviolet light for the first time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. First obstacle for life originating under water – water is even more counteractive to the assembly of pre-biotic compounds than ultraviolet light.
i. Water has the tendency to break down any pre-biotic compounds of significance.
“Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – Despite the breakdown by water of molecular intermediates, condensing agents are often quite effective in inducing polymerization, and polymers of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides have all been made this way. A famous British scientist, J.D. Bernal, suggested that adsorption of molecular intermediates on clays or other minerals may have concentrated these intermediates. Such concentration could offset the tendency for water to break down polymers of biological significance.”– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. In order to avoid the breakdown of essential pre-biotic compounds by water it would be necessary for those molecules to be collected together by adhering in thin layers to the surfaces of clays or other minerals whose chemical composition would prevent such a breakdown
“Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – Despite the breakdown by water of molecular intermediates, condensing agents are often quite effective in inducing polymerization, and polymers of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides have all been made this way. A famous British scientist, J.D. Bernal, suggested that adsorption of molecular intermediates on clays or other minerals may have concentrated these intermediates. Such concentration could offset the tendency for water to break down polymers of biological significance. Of special interest is the possibility that such concentration matrices included phosphates, for this would help explain how phosphorus could have been incorporated preferentially into prebiological organic molecules at a time when biological concentration mechanisms did not yet exist. Mineral catalysis implies that organic synthesis could also occur in deep water where ultraviolet light had been filtered out.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. In the quote above, the term “adsorption” means that the “molecular intermediates” such as polymers of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides may have been concentrated by adhering in extremely thin layers to the surface of solid clays or minerals.
a. This definition of “absorption” is also articulated by the quotes below.
“Adsorption – Function: noun: the adhesion in an extremely thin layer of molecules (as of gases, solutes,or liquids) to the surfaces of solid bodies or liquids with which they are in contact — compare absorption” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Life, The origin of life, Modern theories – Scientists have developed three major theories to explain the transition from early organic molecules to living cells. All three theories are based on the idea that the simple organic compounds formed more complex ones, which then gave rise to the structures that make up cells. The oldest of these theories states that chemical reactions in the ocean or in lakes led to the formation of large molecules. These molecules then acted as catalysts (substances that speed up chemical reactions) to cause the formation of complex organic compounds. A second view holds that chemical reactions producing the first complex organic compound took place on the surfaces of clays or of minerals called pyrites. In this view, the clays or pyrites acted as catalysts…Scientists are experimenting to determine which, if any, of these theories corresponds most closely to the known facts.” Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
f. Second obstacle for life originating under water – limitations regarding the depth of the water.
i. It has to be shallow enough that the clay surfaces are still exposed to sunlight
ii. It has to be deep enough to avoid damage from ultraviolet light
“Extraterrestrial life, The chemistry of extraterrestrial life – If the intensity of ultraviolet light or charged particles from the sun is intense at the planetary surface, there must be some place, perhaps below the surface, that is shielded from this radiation but that nevertheless permits useful chemical reactions to occur…Organisms that live very far subsurface will be in the dark, making photoautotrophy impossible.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Too great of a depth below the surface makes “photoautotrophy impossible.”
a. The term “photoautotrophy” refers to organisms that produce energy from sunlight using photosynthesis.
“Community Ecology, Biotic elements of communities, Trophic pyramids and the flow of energy, Autotrophs and heterotrophs – All biological communities have a basic structure of interaction that forms a trophic pyramid…The base of the pyramid is composed of species called autotrophs, the primary producers of the ecosystem. They do not obtain energy and nutrients by eating other organisms. Instead, they harness solar energy by photosynthesis (photoautotrophs) or, more rarely, chemical energy by oxidation (chemoautotrophs) to make organic substances from inorganic ones.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
g. The probability for the origination of life using ultraviolet light as an energy source exists in a very narrow band and walks a very thin line of improbability.
i. It requires just the right amount of ultraviolet light.
1. Too much or too little and the origination won’t occur.
ii. It cannot be less than a “some tens of meters” deep but not so deep as to prevent sunlight from reaching the essential chemical compounds.
iii. There has to be clays of the right chemical composition to prevent the water itself from breaking down the pre-biotic chemical compounds and prevent the origination of life.
iv. Below we will address how even under ideal conditions the presence of oxygen produced by photoautotrophy, (photosynthesis) itself, would destroy and prohibit any origination for life in water.
h. Conclusions about ultraviolet light as an energy source
i. The ultraviolet light suggestion suffers from quantity, safety, and availability obstacles.
ii. The ultraviolet light suggestion does not produce sufficient chemical products and ultimately even evolutionary scientists question and fail to accept its adequacy.
1. No experiment (including those of Carl Sagan using ultraviolet light) has ever produced more than the most basic components, nowhere near the types of complex molecules necessary for life to occur.
“Britannica, Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules –Subsequent experiments have substituted ultraviolet light or heat as the energy source or have altered the initial abundances of gases. In all such experiments amino acids have been formed in large yield…Following such reasoning, a U.S. astrophysicist, Carl Sagan, and his colleagues made amino acids by long wavelength ultraviolet irradiation of a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and H2S.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sagan, Carl Edward – Later in the 1960s Sagan built on the work of American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey…Sagan followed a similar method, but refined the primordial soup mixture to include methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide. He also exposed the mixture to ultraviolet light to simulate the effect of sunlight on the chemicals. His mixture produced amino acids as well as several kinds of sugars and nucleic acids.” – "Sagan, Carl Edward," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. The insufficiency of ultraviolet scenario and the barriers to it described above are so well recognized by evolutionists themselves.
1. Alternate scenarios have been proposed substituting either a different location or another energy source in the place of problematic ultraviolet light.
6. Chemosynthesis, rather than photosynthesis (and ultraviolet light) suggested as an energy source for the origin of life.
a. Chemoautotroph is the term used to designated organisms that utilize organic or inorganic compounds.
i. Photoautotrophs use sunlight.
ii. Heterotrophs use organic compounds from other living organisms for energy.
“Community Ecology, Biotic elements of communities, Trophic pyramids and the flow of energy, Autotrophs and heterotrophs – The base of the pyramid is composed of species called autotrophs, the primary producers of the ecosystem. They do not obtain energy and nutrients by eating other organisms. Instead, they harness solar energy by photosynthesis (photoautotrophs) or, more rarely, chemical energy by oxidation (chemoautotrophs) to make organic substances from inorganic ones. All other organisms in the ecosystem are consumers called heterotrophs, which either directly or indirectly depend on the producers for food energy.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The process of using organic or inorganic compounds instead of sunlight for energy is called chemosynthesis.
i. The location for these early life forms are “deep-sea hydrothermal vents.”
"Archaebacteria – Archaebacteria often live in extreme conditions that were once considered inhospitable to life. Some archaebacteria live in deep-sea hydrothermal vents in the Pacific Ocean. Located at depths of 3 km (2 mi), the hot vents provide a dark environment with extremely high temperature and pressure where few creatures can survive. Instead of deriving energy from the sun, these microorganisms obtain energy by oxidizing inorganic chemicals that spew from the hot vents. In a process known as chemosynthesis, archaebacteria harvest energy from chemical reactions involving hydrogen sulfide and other inorganic compounds." – "Archaebacteria," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Ocean, Life in the Ocean, The Food Cycle – Hot vents support thriving communities of marine life. However, the food cycle at hot vents is not based on phytoplankton. Instead, such microscopic organisms as bacteria and archaea serve as the food base. Archaea are single-celled organisms that rank among the oldest forms of life on Earth. In a process called chemosynthesis, these microorganisms use energy from chemicals in the water instead of sunlight to produce food and grow." - Worldbook, Contributor: Dana R. Kester, Ph.D., Professor of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island.
c. The chemosynthesis scenario hypothetically locates the origin of life to the deep floor of the ocean where hydrothermal vents of water are heated by cracks in the floor’s surface.
“And that, says Jack Corliss, is where hydrothermal vents come into the picture. Since his discovery of the Galápagos hot springs, Corliss, who now works at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland, and a growing number of his colleagues have been promoting the notion that hydrothermal vents were the birthplace of life. The thing about the hot springs, Corliss says, is that they provide a nice, safe, continuous process by which you can go from very simple molecules all the way to living cells and primitive bacteria. The crux is the word continuous. For besides providing safe harbor for the development of life, vents offer a natural temperature gradient. The vents have it all, from the cracking front in the interior, where temperatures reach 1300 degrees and cool water filtering down from above cracks the superheated rock, to the 40-degree seafloor. Whatever temperature you want, says Corliss, you have your choice. And any chemist will tell you that where you find a temperature gradient is where you’ll find chemical reactions--maybe even the ones that began life.” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Evolution, IX STEPS IN EVOLUTION – Widely accepted evidence suggests that the first organisms were archaebacteria, primitive cells without nuclei. These cells may have evolved in waters with extremely high temperatures and no oxygen.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. The first obstacle to chemosynthesis in deep sea vents as the energy source and location for the origin of life – the presence of oxygen.
1. Oxygen is a significant obstacle to the formation of pre-biotic compounds, because it also causes the breakdown of any existing compounds – more later.
2. The above quotes state that there is “no oxygen” in these deep ocean, high temperature vents.
3. However, Discover magazine directly asserts the presence of oxygen is not only a byproduct of these vents but one that is essential to the formation of organic compounds.
“The vents have it all, from the cracking front in the interior, where temperatures reach 1300 degrees and cool water filtering down from above cracks the superheated rock, to the 40-degree seafloor. Whatever temperature you want, says Corliss, you have your choice. And any chemist will tell you that where you find a temperature gradient is where you’ll find chemical reactions--maybe even the ones that began life. The reactions Corliss envisions began at the cracking front, half a mile deep in the planet’s crust, where seawater encountered hot magma. There, in this seething caldron, elements like carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur interacted to form new, organic compounds. Just as in the Miller-Urey experiments, says Corliss, if you heat simple molecules to high temperature, you can make organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
4. The second obstacle to chemosynthesis in deep sea vents is that strictly chemical reactions are not likely to produce enough energy to fuel inorganic reactions.
“Extraterrestrial life, The chemistry of extraterrestrial life – Since after a certain period of evolution, lives of unabashed heterotrophy lead to malnutrition and death, autotrophs must exist. Chemoautotrophs are, of course, a possibility but the inorganic reactions that they drive usually require a great deal of energy; at some stage in the cycle, this energy must probably be provided by sunlight. Photoautotrophs, therefore, seem required. Organisms that live very far subsurface will be in the dark, making photoautotrophy impossible. Organisms that live slightly subsurface, however, may avoid ultraviolet and charged particle radiation and at the same time acquire sufficient amounts of visible light for photosynthesis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. The third obstacle to chemosynthesis in deep sea vents as the energy source and location for the origin of life – safety and improbability due to highly restricted temperature limitations.
1. The maximum temperature in which life is possible appears to be 230 degrees.
“Meanwhile deep-sea thermophiles have been found near vents at temperatures as high as 230 degrees.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
2. First, chemosynthesis would have to take place within a very narrow range of temperatures…
a. Hot enough for reactions to occur
b. But not too hot or the same compounds would be ruined.
3. While heat could provide a potential source of energy, heat also poses a problem because it has the tendency to break down important pre-biotic chemical compounds.
“Extraterrestrial life, The chemistry of extraterrestrial life – Life on Earth lies within a rather narrow range of temperature. Above the normal boiling point of water, much loss of configurational structure or three-dimensional geometry occurs. At these temperatures proteins become denatured, in part because above the boiling point of water the hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces between water and the protein disappear. Also, similar bonds within the protein molecule tend to break down. Proteins then change their shapes, their ability to participate in lock-and-key enzymatic reactions is gravely compromised, and the organism dies…Molecular factors – While the bonds that characterize life on Earth are too weak at high temperatures, they are too strong at low temperatures, tending to slow down the rates of chemical reactions generally.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Enzyme, Mechanism of enzyme action – In most chemical reactions, an energy barrier exists that must be overcome for the reaction to occur. This barrier prevents complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids from spontaneously degrading, and so is necessary for the preservation of life. When metabolic changes are required in a cell, however, certain of these complex molecules must be broken down, and this energy barrier must be surmounted. Heat could provide the additional needed energy (called activation energy), but the rise in temperature would kill the cell. The alternative is to lower the activation energy level through the use of a catalyst. This is the role that enzymes play.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“But heat is a double-edged sword. It facilitates chemical reactions, but it can also destroy the products of those reactions. If exposed to high heat for too long, organic compounds decompose. It’s a very simple argument: if you keep a roast too long in an oven that’s too hot, it’s going to get charred, says Miller, who has little use for this scenario either. The vent hypothesis is a real loser. I don’t understand why we even have to discuss it, he says, his voice rising to an exasperated falsetto.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
4. Due to the over-heating problem, Stanley Miller rejects the “vent hypothesis” as a “real loser” that is not even worthy of discussion.
a. Even supporters of the deep ocean vent theory admit that in order for it to work, you’d have to get the compounds so hot to interact properly that they’d need to cool “very rapidly.”
b. This creates an improbability obstacle for the deep-sea thermal vent suggestion.
“Corliss, however, thinks he has an ace in the hole: a vent’s temperature gradient. He thinks it likely that the circulating seawater cooled the newly formed compounds almost immediately. If you quenched them very rapidly, you could preserve them, he says. Then they rose and mixed and worked their way up in the hot springs, through this huge complex of fractures, cooling as they went.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
iii. The fourth obstacle to chemosynthesis in deep sea vents as the energy source and location for the origin of life – dangers posed by the watery setting
1. Water itself breaks down any potential formations of important pre-biotic chemicals
2. At these depths, any pre-biotic compounds that did manage to form would dissipate into the ocean without every encountering another organic molecule to interact with and eventually form life.
“Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – Despite the breakdown by water of molecular intermediates, condensing agents are often quite effective in inducing polymerization, and polymers of amino acids, sugars, and nucleotides have all been made this way. A famous British scientist, J.D. Bernal, suggested that adsorption of molecular intermediates on clays or other minerals may have concentrated these intermediates. Such concentration could offset the tendency for water to break down polymers of biological significance.”– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Finally the organic compounds were deposited onto the clay minerals lining the mouth of a vent. And there they stayed. Rather than simply emerging and dissipating into the vast ocean where they might never encounter another organic molecule, the compounds accumulated on the clay surface. There, in a concentrated colony, they were able to interact with one another and with the endless supply of new compounds rising in the hot springs, until over time the first stirrings of primitive life emerged.” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
iv. The fifth obstacle to chemosynthesis in deep sea vents as the energy source and location for the origin of life – added improbability of the presence of clay surfaces in the deep ocean
1. The above obstacles could be avoided if the pre-biotic compounds adhered to the presence of clay surfaces.
2. Stanley Miller even considers this scenario, including the added role of the clays, as “too far-fetched.”
“This scenario, attractive as it may seem, is--like so many others--too farfetched for Miller. It’s not that I don’t want to entertain new ideas--that’s fine, he says. The question is, does this chemistry work? Actually work in the lab? Either it does or it doesn’t. His point is well taken. Whatever else may be said about Miller’s ideas, his experiments worked. Talk, even informed talk, is cheap. If they’re to have an impact comparable to Miller’s, these champions of crystals and vents and interstellar particles must demonstrate their scenarios. But how? You can’t try to make early life at existing hot springs--they’re already replete with bacteria and other life-forms, so the environment just can’t be the same as it was on the primordial planet. And re-creating an ancient hydrothermal vent in the lab is a mind-boggling prospect. Still, vent researchers are busily conducting experiments designed to do just that…And Cairns-Smith is investigating the chemical relationships between minerals and organic compounds. But while he recognizes the importance of experimental proof, Cairns-Smith cheerfully acknowledges that he may never come up with any.” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
d. Problems with chemosynthesis and the hydrothermal vent hypothesis
i. Evolutionary scientists themselves (such as Stanley Miller) state that there is no experimental data at all to support or demonstrate this chemosynthesis, hydrothermal vent scenario.
ii. Proponents of the hydrothermal vent scenario admit…
1. That there is no experimental support for it.
2. That they may never be able to generate any experiment or experimental data even capable of supporting it.
iii. The chemosynthesis suggestion attains the status of being un-testable, therefore un-falsifiable, and consequently unscientific.
7. Alterations to the ultraviolet light as an energy source hypothesis.
a. Added Obstacle – the presence of oxygen prevents the formation of pre-biotic compounds.
i. The requirement that there must be “no oxygen” present is stipulated when describing the possibility of pre-biotic compounds assembling on the early earth.
“Evolution, IX STEPS IN EVOLUTION – Life originated about 3.5 billion years ago, when the earth's environment was very different than it is today. Especially important was the lack of significant amounts of free oxygen in the atmosphere. Experiments have shown that rather complicated organic molecules, including amino acids, can arise spontaneously under conditions that are believed to simulate the earth's primitive environment.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, IX STEPS IN EVOLUTION – Widely accepted evidence suggests that the first organisms were archaebacteria, primitive cells without nuclei. These cells may have evolved in waters with extremely high temperatures and no oxygen.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. However, modern evolutionists now understand that…
1. Oxygen was more present in the early earth than before and in enough quantity that it would inhibit any form of energy from bringing about the assembly of pre-biotics in the first place.
2. Because oxygen is more stable than other suggested components it would tend to inhibit lightning or other sources of energy from assembling pre-biotic compounds, causing other compounds, such as “smog,” to form instead.
“For example, what if the primordial atmosphere wasn’t anything like the one Miller and Urey imagined? Would it be so easy to produce organics then? The Miller-Urey experiment was a strong foundation because it was consistent with theories at the time, says geochemist Everett Shock of Washington University in St. Louis. The problem is that subsequent research has swept away a lot of those ideas. The Miller-Urey atmosphere contained a lot of hydrogen. But now the atmosphere of the early Earth is thought to have been more oxidized. That makes Miller’s scenario less probable, because it’s a lot harder to make organic molecules in the presence of oxygen. A hydrogen-rich atmosphere is relatively unstable. When zapped by lightning or other sources of energy, molecules in that environment readily tumble together into organic compounds. Not so in a heavily oxidized atmosphere. While an infusion of energy may cause a few simple organics to form, for the most part the results are inorganic gases like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. These are the constituents of smog, says Shock. So basically what you’re getting is a lot of air pollution.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
iii. Oxygen would…
1. Prohibit the formation of any pre-biotic compounds.
2. Breakdown any pre-biotic compounds that did manage to form.
“Life, The origin of life, The earliest living systems – The cell may have arisen in response to the need for maintaining a high concentration of scarce building blocks or enzymes, or as protection against the gradually increasing abundance of oxygen on the primitive Earth. Oxygen is a well-known poison to many biological processes, and in contemporary higher organisms the mitochondria that handle molecular oxygen are kept in the cytoplasm, far from contact with the nuclear material...As the competition for building blocks increased among early life forms, and also perhaps as the abiological production of organic molecules dwindled because of the increasing oxygen abundance, the strictly heterotrophic way of life became more and more costly.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – Primitive organisms, such as blue-green algae (or cyanobacteria), cause carbon dioxide and water to react by photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates, which they need for growth, repair, and other vital functions, and this reaction releases free oxygen...The earliest primitive organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their living cells and had to be removed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. Utilizing ultraviolet light as an energy source for the origin of life inherently involves photosynthetic processes.
1. Photosynthesis (or photoautotrophy) inherently produces free oxygen as a byproduct and releases it into the environment immediately surrounding the pre-biotic compound or even the photosynthetic organism.
2. Photoautotrophs on land would not only be susceptible to lethal ultraviolet radiation, but they also release oxygen into the surrounding atmosphere.
“Life, Life on earth, Metabolism – A green plant is a typical example of a photoautotroph. It uses sunlight to break water into oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen is then combined with carbon dioxide to produce such energy-rich organic molecules as ATP and carbohydrates, and the oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“On July 20, 1976, the Viking 1 spacecraft had touched down on Mars, and the Friedmanns, along with millions of other Americans, had listened to Cronkite describe the historic landing…But mission biologists eventually concluded that the soil on Mars was sterile: no life, they said, could survive the combination of ultraviolet solar radiation, extreme dryness, and lethally oxidizing compounds found on the planet’s surface.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
3. Photoautotrophs in water release oxygen into their surrounding water.
“Bacteria, VII BACTERIA IN OUR DAILY LIVES – During photosynthesis, cyanobacteria also release oxygen, which dissolves in the water. A great variety of aquatic organisms rely entirely on this oxygen for their survival. Many scientists are concerned that breakdown of the ozone layer may damage cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton, threatening the survival of the organisms that depend on them for food and oxygen.” – "Bacteria," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. There is simply no way for the ultraviolet light scenario to work.
i. Even if all the improbabilities and obstacles facing the origin of a self-replicating RNA molecule also capable of causing protein synthesis were overcome at the right depth of ocean water with submarine clays available to prevent the water from breaking them down, there still would be nothing to protect these molecules from destruction by oxygen.
ii. Consequently, even if the chicken-and-egg dilemma between DNA, RNA, and enzymes were solved by RNA, the larger chicken-and-egg dilemma would remain.
8. The membrane solution – To protect essential molecules from oxygen.
a. Added coincidences and compounding improbabilities – this requires…
i. The arrival of RNA and a membrane at the same time and at the same location
ii. That these 2 items would somehow combine and interact to bring about this essential protective function
iii. That these 2 items would combine without isolating the RNA from other resources needed for self-replication and protein synthesis.
iv. This coinciding arrival and assembly of RNA and a functional membrane again defies probability to the point of implying foresight
b. Membranes are necessary to protect against harmful chemicals and elements in the environment in general.
i. Below we will see that oxygen is specifically listed as one of these harmful elements.
"Cell, The plasma membrane – A thin membrane, some .005 micrometre across, surrounds every living cell, delimiting the cell from the environment around it. Enclosed by this plasma membrane are the cell's constituents, often large, water-soluble, highly charged molecules such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and substances involved in cellular metabolism. Outside the cell, in the surrounding water-based environment, are ions, acids, and alkalis that are toxic to the cell, as well as nutrients that the cell must absorb in order to live and grow. The plasma membrane, therefore, has two functions: first, to be a barrier keeping the constituents of the cell in and unwanted substances out; and second, to be a gate allowing transport into the cell of essential nutrients and movement from the cell of waste products." – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“The membrane of any cell has to do many things at once. It has to be impermeable enough to keep essential things (like DNA) in and harmful things (like viruses and poisons) out. Yet a cell membrane can’t form a perfect seal. It has to be able to flush out waste and heat from its own system and take in nutrients from the surrounding medium. And the first cell membrane, like the membranes of many single-celled organisms today, probably had to be able to collect energy as well.” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
ii. (Free nucleic acids are contrasted with the idea of nucleic acids inside a cell.)
“Life, The origin of life, The earliest living systems – Even the evolution of enzymatic reaction chains may have occurred in free nucleic acids before the origin of the cell. The cell may have arisen in response to the need for maintaining a high concentration of scarce building blocks or enzymes, or as protection against the gradually increasing abundance of oxygen on the primitive Earth. Oxygen is a well-known poison to many biological processes, and in contemporary higher organisms the mitochondria that handle molecular oxygen are kept in the cytoplasm, far from contact with the nuclear material...As the competition for building blocks increased among early life forms, and also perhaps as the abiological production of organic molecules dwindled because of the increasing oxygen abundance, the strictly heterotrophic way of life became more and more costly.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. All life that we observe today has a membrane.
“All organisms alive today keep their DNA, RNA, and proteins together inside cell membranes. These oily bubbles prevent big molecules from getting out while letting smaller food molecules in.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
d. Membranes are regarded as an absolutely necessary, early step in any progression toward the origin of life.
“Cell, The evolution of cells, The development of genetic information – At some point in the evolution of biologic catalysts the first cell was formed. This would have required the partitioning of the primitive soup of biologic catalysts into individual units, each surrounded by a membrane. Membrane formation might have occurred quite simply, since many amphiphilic molecules—half hydrophobic (water-hating) and half hydrophilic (water-loving)—aggregate to form bilayer sheets in which the hydrophobic portions of the molecules line up in rows to form the interior of the sheet and leave the hydrophilic portions to face the water. Such bilayer sheets can spontaneously close up to form the walls of small, spherical vesicles, as do the phospholipid bilayer membranes of present-day cells. As soon as the biologic catalysts became compartmentalized into small individual units, or cells, the units would have begun to compete with one another for the same ingredients in the surrounding soup. Now the development of variant, but efficient, catalysts would have served only the cell itself and its progeny, rather than being dissipated throughout a much larger volume.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. Membranes are so necessary in order for the origin of life to occur that some evolutionary scientists have advanced what they call “the membrane first” hypothesis.
“When he returned to Davis, Deamer pursued the membrane first hypothesis, experimenting with mixtures of three compounds researchers believed existed on the early Earth: fatty acids, glycerol, and phosphates. In the right concentrations, he found, they formed into lipids, and in turn, the lipids spontaneously assembled into liposomes.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
i. The relegation of membranes as first in the chain of events, highlights the need for RNA and membranes to originate and assemble in a coinciding functional manner that defies probability to the point of requiring teleology.
f. Precursors to modern membranes
i. The term “liposome” is a reference to hypothetical bubble-like structures that have been suggested as potential precursors of modern membranes.
ii. The reason that these lipid bubbles are believed to be a potential precursor to modern membranes, is that modern membranes, although much more sophisticated, are also comprised of lipids.
“When Deamer began his work on membranes as a graduate student in the early sixties, biologists were just learning what membranes were made of: thin films of oil composed of molecules called lipids, tadpolelike things with little heads and long tails. The heads are made of charged groups of atoms, such as sugars or phosphates, while the tails are long chains of uncharged carbon and hydrogen atoms.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
g. Lipids are also essential for life
i. This is in addition to proteins and nucleic acids and also membranes.
“Protein – complex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organisms…All known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances-other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids-that are necessary for life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
h. Forming membranes and getting pre-biotic compounds into them
i. Important Questions:
1. How exactly did the liposomes (the simple, hypothetical bubble-like precursors to modern membranes) might form?
2. How did the essential pre-biotic molecules get associated with them and eventually get inside them?
ii. Lipid Formation
1. The quote below asserts with very little detail that these liposomes simply form spontaneously in mixtures of lipids and water and simply that the chemical reactions might have taken place on their surface or inside them.
a. This is just a summary
b. No explanation is given for how and why these things might occur.
“Life, The origin of life, Modern theories – Scientists have developed three major theories to explain the transition from early organic molecules to living cells. All three theories are based on the idea that the simple organic compounds formed more complex ones, which then gave rise to the structures that make up cells…A third theory is based on the facts that cell-like structures with membranes will form spontaneously in mixtures of certain lipids and water and that such structures fold into shells the size of small cells. This theory claims that the chemical reactions leading to the formation of complex organic compounds took place inside and on the surface of these shells. Scientists are experimenting to determine which, if any, of these theories corresponds most closely to the known facts.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
2. Discover magazine includes the details theorizing how these 2 crucial events might unfold.
a. The origination of liposomes starts with fatty acids, glycerol, and phosphates
i. All of which evolutionists believe existed on the early earth.
“When he returned to Davis, Deamer pursued the membrane first hypothesis, experimenting with mixtures of three compounds researchers believed existed on the early Earth: fatty acids, glycerol, and phosphates. In the right concentrations, he found, they formed into lipids, and in turn, the lipids spontaneously assembled into liposomes.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
b. These elements then form lipids, which will naturally assemble into the small “shells” (or liposomes) mentioned in the Worldbook article above.
“In the early sixties biophysicist Alec Bangham of the Animal Physiology Institute in Cambridge, England, made a remarkable discovery about lipids: they can put themselves together. When he extracted lipids from egg yolks and threw them into water, he found that the lipids would naturally organize themselves into double-layered bubbles roughly the size of a cell. Bangham’s bubbles soon became known as liposomes. Deamer was intrigued when he learned of these cellular shells.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
iii. Getting the pre-biotic compounds into the membranes
1. In order to explain the origin of life, you have to explain how essential pre-biotic molecules “got encapsulated in a cell.”
“To most who search for life's origins, genes are everything. But as David Deamer keeps reminding them, without a container for those genes, there can be no life…Part of the definition of life, says David Deamer, is that it is in a place…For the past 18 years, though, Deamer has been gently reminding his colleagues that these questions define only part of the puzzle of life. DNA does not float loosely through the oceans. Life is constrained in a place--or, to be more specific, within a boundary. Life is chemical interaction, and for that interaction to occur, life’s molecules must be close to one another. Without a physical boundary of some sort, without a skin, a bark, or a cell membrane, an organism is nothing more than a diffusing blur of molecules. To explain how the first creature came to be, you have to explain how its innards got to be distinguished from its surroundings. In other words, you’ve got to explain how the first single-celled creature got encapsulated in a cell…A cell membrane’s importance to life is often underappreciated, says Deamer. People say, ‘Well, it’s just a little bag.’ But it’s much more. It’s the interface between life and everything that’s outside.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
2. To get the necessary pre-biotic compounds inside these “shells” or liposomes, you have to…
a. Put them in shallow pools, heated by the sun until they were fully dried
b. Then re-hydrate them.
“There are many exotic new ideas these days about where life originated. Some researchers say the grand event took place around the furnaces of underwater hydrothermal vents; others look in the spray of ocean bubbles; and still others prefer clay. But Deamer’s choice is tide pools, an idea that harks back at least as far as Darwin’s warm, still ponds. Twenty years ago researchers showed that the wet and dry cycles of actual tide pools could bond together several precursors of RNA. It seemed reasonable to think that these pools could have been the cradle for genetic molecules, and it was likely that liposomes would have sloshed into the pools as well.” – “First Cell,” By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
“A short trek inland, in a grove of redwoods, is Deamer’s new lab, where he has been for the past year. Santa Cruz is a more appropriate setting for his work than the flat farms around Davis; what is happening down on the beach is much like what Deamer thinks happened at the dawn of life. He [Deamer] opens a jar of lipids, extracted from egg yolk, and mixes some of the clear oil into a small test tube of water. To the naked eye the water seems unchanged, except that it has taken on a slightly milky quality; in actuality it is now full of microscopic bilayered bubbles. Deamer extracts a few drops from the mixture and puts them on a glass slide…Why don’t we get the hot plate going?...That’s our tide pool, Deamer says, nodding toward the hot plate. Imagine a primitive sun beaming down on that. We’re going to let it dry down…After a few minutes of primordial heat, the lipids and DNA on the slide have dried into a thin film. Deamer fills his tide pool again by adding a few drops of water…Looking through the eyepieces, you can see lipids squirting out from the dried film into the surrounding water. At first they writhe like snakes; gradually they swell into bubbles. Some of them are dim, but others glow with the intense fluorescent green dye attached to the DNA. The glow is clear proof that as the planes of lipids curled up into vesicles, the DNA that had been sandwiched in between them got trapped inside.” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
“There are many exotic new ideas these days about where life originated. Some researchers say the grand event took place around the furnaces of underwater hydrothermal vents; others look in the spray of ocean bubbles; and still others prefer clay. But Deamer’s choice is tide pools, an idea that harks back at least as far as Darwin’s warm, still ponds. Twenty years ago researchers showed that the wet and dry cycles of actual tide pools could bond together several precursors of RNA. It seemed reasonable to think that these pools could have been the cradle for genetic molecules, and it was likely that liposomes would have sloshed into the pools as well. All this organic stuff is accumulating on early beaches, Deamer says, and the sun is heating and drying it, and lots of natural experiments are taking place that I’m trying to re-create in the laboratory.” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
i. Problems with the membrane-development scenario, which in turn leaves the ultraviolet scenario without a working solution.
i. Evolutionary scientists question the viability of the “dry heating and return to solution” for forming amino acids and placing them into membranes
“Life, The origin of life, Production of polymers – Dehydrating agents must be used to initiate polymerization. The polymerization of amino acids to form long protein-like molecules was accomplished through dry heating by a U.S. investigator, S.W. Fox. The polyamino acids that are formed are not random polymers and have some distinct catalytic activities. The geophysical generality of dry heating and return to solution, however, has been questioned.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Even when these questionable re-hydrating techniques were used to get RNA inside the liposomes, the RNA doesn’t and “can’t do anything” but simply “fills up” the entire “primitive membrane.”
“The researchers began by forming liposomes out of 14-carbon lipids and used Deamer’s tide pool method to capture an enzyme known as an RNA polymerase. In modern cells this enzyme grabs nucleotides and puts them together into RNA. Four nucleotides are needed to make real RNA, but for simplicity’s sake, Deamer and his co-workers used only one…The liposomes had indeed allowed nucleotides to enter through their pores, and the polymerase had assembled them into RNA. The researchers thus showed that primordial liposomes forming in tide pools could have performed some essential cellular tricks…As an analogy to early life, their quasi cell has obvious limits, Deamer and Chakrabarti know. It builds simplified RNA, using only one nucleotide rather than the full complement of four, and once the RNA is produced, it can’t do anything--it simply fills up the liposome.” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
iii. Even total success in these experiments would still be a long way from the origin of life because essential parts of the process remain without explanation, including…
1. How growth and division are managed.
2. A much fuller model for exactly how energy is utilized in this process.
iv. Scientists have to simplify the process in order to make it work.
1. They use only one single nucleotide as opposed to the usual four required in all observed life.
a. Using only one nucleotide, the experiment doesn’t address the prohibitive improbabilities of…
i. Life originating without foresight using all four nucleotides
ii. Each originating on its own
iii. All four being available at the same place and time.
v. These experiments use “rare,” specially selected liposomes with smaller 14-carbon-long tails NOT the lipids found in modern cells that are have tails “16 to 18 carbon atoms long”
1. The scientists selected lipids with tails from 10 to 14 carbon atoms long even though tails of 12 or less carbon atoms are never found in observed cells and tails of 14 carbon atoms are “rare.”
2. They select liposomes with tails 14-carbon atoms long because other sizes don’t allow the process to work.
“One big problem was that these early membranes would simply have been too good at separating what they enclosed from the environment outside. A cell needs to pull in ions and toss them out all the time, so it overcomes its membrane’s impermeability with intricate channels, pumps, and shuttles. Swallowed by a liposome, a primitive genetic molecule would have been unequipped to manufacture channels through the membrane. The liposome would not be a shelter but a prison--or at least, so it seemed. People think that membranes are permeable to nutrients and ions only if you put a channel through them, says Deamer. That’s the end of the story, because that’s the way it’s brought up in textbooks. But he has recently discovered that the textbooks are wrong. Modern cells contain lipids with tails 16 to 18 carbon atoms long, with the rare 14-carbon tail appearing in some microbes. Tails with 12 or fewer atoms don’t appear in any cell membranes, anywhere. To determine the effect of tail length on permeability, Deamer prepared lipids with a range of tails and tried to make liposomes with them. By measuring how well they could trap charged dye molecules, he could measure their impermeability. Short tails, he found, couldn’t form bilayers at all; the best they could manage were little clumps of particles. Lipids with tails of at least 16 atoms, on the other hand, formed tightly sealed liposomes that held their dye stubbornly. However, tails with 10 to 14 atoms could also form liposomes, though they were leaky…In 1992, Chakrabarti managed to slip amino acids, which are three times bigger than potassium, through the leaky membrane. Perhaps, the researchers speculated, the earliest membranes were made of such short-tailed lipids; then, once the first cells had the genetic machinery up and running to make protein channels, they could make lipids with longer tails for better insulation without starving themselves.” – By Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
3. Lipids with short tails (apparently less than 10 carbon atoms long) don’t form liposomes or bubbles at all.
4. Lipids with tails of 16 carbon atoms or longer, such as found in modern cells, formed liposomes with that were so tightly sealed that they prevented the experimental chemicals from getting either in or out.
5. This kind of contemplative selection process, which was necessary in order to guarantee functionality, is equivalent to employing foresight during the experiment.
a. It completely countermands any attempt to demonstrate the origin of life through automatic, routine processes that occur without foresight.
vi. The initial chemical reactions necessary to transform basic pre-biotic compounds in a forward process toward life are “highly unstable” and would require “aid” from catalysts to keep them from “spontaneously degrading.”
“As the basic molecules of life move from space to a planetary environment, they begin to interact and undergo chemical reactions that produce larger and more complicated molecules. These larger molecules will ultimately become the building blocks of the earliest life-forms. The initial chemical reactions are highly unstable and require the aid of minerals to keep the newly formed organic building blocks from spontaneously degrading. Steven Benner, a biochemist at the University of Florida, theorizes that minerals containing borate may have acted as a catalyst in “stabilizing and guiding” these vital chemical processes.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
1. Not only would RNA and all 4 nucleotides have to make it inside the membrane
2. But also these hypothetical “minerals” necessary to keep the initial chemical reactions inside the liposome from “spontaneously degrading.”
vii. The most significant barrier to the membrane-development scenario – location
1. To get the necessary pre-biotic compounds inside these “shells” or liposomes, you have to put them in shallow pools, heated by the sun until they were fully dried, then re-hydrate them.
2. The pools must be shallow, because they have to frequently dry up and then re-hydrate in order to get RNA trapped inside the liposome bubble.
3. Remember, the membrane-development scenario is necessary in order to make the ultraviolet scenario work by providing protection from oxygen that would prohibit the origination of life.
a. However, the ultraviolet light itself would destroy the pre-biotic compounds if they were too near the water’s surface
b. To protect from the UV light the process would have to take place “some tens of meters” deep.
c. Without protection by dozens of meters of water, ultraviolet light will eradicate any potential progression toward life.
4. In attempting to provide the ultraviolet light scenario with the necessary protection from oxygen (by means of a membrane), the membrane-development scenario requires a shallow environment (to get the organic material inside the membrane)
a. This results in direct exposure to destructive ultraviolet light.
b. Evolutionary theory as a whole has no explanation for how to avoid both prohibitive damage by ultraviolet light and oxygen at the same time in a single scenario.
j. Difficulties with the membrane scenario
i. The membrane-development scenario is necessary for the ultraviolet light scenario to avoid failure due to the presence of oxygen.
ii. Re-hyrdradition is needed to get the pre-biotic compounds into the membrane, however, re-hydration is questioned by some scientists as damaging the compounds.
iii. The chemical compounds involved have been highly simplified and specially designed and selected for functionality.
1. This incorporates teleology and nullifies automatic, routine processes as the mechanisms.
iv. The high degree of simplification avoids addressing the enormous improbabilities of life originating without foresight in a real scenario that accurately reflects what we actually observe all around us in nature.
v. Even when the simplified RNA enters into the specially selected liposome, it can’t do anything further along the progression toward life but simply fills up the space.
vi. The minerals necessary to keep the unstable, complex chemical reactions inside the liposome from degrading are still missing.
vii. The shallow water setting required to get pre-biotic compounds into the membrane robs the entire process of necessary protection from lethal ultraviolet radiation that prevents the origination of life.
viii. The coinciding origin and assembly of a membrane and a self-replicating, catalytic precursor, such as some hypothetical form of RNA, likewise defies probability to the point of indicating teleology and foresight.
1. This is in addition to the improbability of the coinciding origin of proteins and DNA or all four base pairs functionally ready to interact with one another.
xli. Conclusions about Evolution Theory on the Origin of Life on Earth: Energy and Safety, a Suitable Environment
1. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands does not have a working scenario for how automatic, routine processes proceeding without foresight could result in the origin of life.
a. A lack of time for life to originate
i. Life-prohibiting meteorite and cometary bombardment of the earth at the exact timeframe when life would have to originate on earth creates a lack of time for life to originate at any point in the known history of the earth.
“That’s worried people for the last 10 to 15 years, says Christopher Chyba, a planetary scientist based at NASA’s Ames Research Center, south of San Francisco. There seems to be a contradiction between the fact that we’re here and evidence that early Earth was not very hospitable to the formation of organics. How do you resolve the dilemma?” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
b. The lack of any feasible environment in which life could originate
i. Obstacles involving the need for energy as well as safety from other prohibitive factors create an additional chicken-and-egg scenario
ii. Items like ultraviolet light or oxygen have to be both present and cannot be present, in order for life to originate.
c. Lack of identifiable, observable, empirically detected, experiementally verified mechanisms for producing irreducibly complex, functionally interdependent cell components.
i. Obstacles involving the functional interdependence among cell components such as RNA, DNA, proteins, enzymes, ribosomes, carbohydrates, fats, and membranes create an irreducible complexity and a lack of the simplicity necessary for items to slowly evolve from basic chemicals to sophisticated, interacting, chemical systems.
d. Defying Probability and Implying Foresight
i. Resolving the “energy and safety environmental” chicken-and-egg dilemma as well as the interdependent cell component chicken-and-egg dilemma at just the right time, just when hostile meteoric conditions were subsiding, creates a situation that inherently requires coinciding events that defy probability and display the foresight and purposeful coordination of teleology.
2. These facts have been established using secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines.
a. Even Stanley Miller himself asserted that simply no one knows how the first self-replicating system could have originated, no matter what energy source or environment they are utilizing.
“When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein. The lightning had reorganized the molecules in the atmosphere to produce organic compounds…People were stunned. Articles appeared in major newspapers across the country…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self- replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
3. Consequently, our definition of evolutionary theory on the issue of the origin of life is not a biased description.
a. It is entirely accurate to describe the evolutionary theory for the origin of life in the following terms:
4) Various theoretical scenarios are offered for the origin of life. And although each individual scenario is acknowledged to be insufficient due to environmental prohibitions involving chemicals and energy sources, the known geologic history of the earth, and statistical improbabilities particularly those surrounding the arrival of cellular systems that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent, the origin of life is asserted to be the result of automatic, routine processes, in a yet unobserved environment perhaps even occurring on another planet at an unknown time in the past when conditions and time allotments would be ideal.
224 Evolution on the Origin of Life: Relocating the Origin of Life to another Planet
225 The origin of life without foresight is sometimes regarded as a highly unlikely or improbable event by evolutionary scientists themselves.
226 Because the factors outlined above and the improbabilities that they create are so well-recognized, evolutionary scientists relocate the origin of life to some other planet besides earth.
227 While evolutionary scientists assert the theory of life originating on another planet, they also demonstrate it to be unfeasible.
228 The improbability of the origin of life by automatic, routine processes.
4. Discover magazine and Britannica Encyclopedia on the improbability of the origin of life by automatic, routine processes.
“The origin of life depended on all sorts of accidental circumstances. Proving how it happened will take another piece of luck.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: …[4] Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions. Such reactions may have been likely or may have required one or more highly improbable chemical events.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
5. Even if an RNA molecule came about that was capable of self-replication, without the right “circumstances” (energy, components, environment) and “a long time” even this “chance combination” necessary to produce this RNA world “simply is not tenable.”
"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Origin and Evolution of the RNA World – On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time. Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable. There could be no replication without a robust chemical underpinning continuing to provide the necessary materials and energy. The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
a. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “tenable” as “capable of being held, maintained, or defended” and “reasonable.”
"Tenable – Function: adjective: capable of being held, maintained, or defended: defensible, reasonable." - Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
b. The “chances” for an RNA first theory are so improbable that this theory is not able to be “held, maintained, or defended” without “a lot of time” in the right environment with the right components and sufficient energy.
c. The occurrence of even one step toward the origin of life, the arrival of a molecule capable of self-replication, is so improbable that attempts to recreate this event in the lab using automatic, routine processes have failed even while employing “considerable amounts of foresight.”
d. The improbability of the origin of life by stating that there had to be “billions of unsuccessful” attempts for life to originate before life actually occurred.
“Cell, The evolution of cells – It is highly unlikely that scientists will ever re-create the crucial “experiment” that led to the origin of life. Billions of unsuccessful experiments must have been carried out in countless ponds and marshes before life first evolved, and these experiments lasted for hundreds of millions of years. During this period, conditions on Earth were different from those today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
6. Billions of failures for even 1 successful attempt creates a probability of billions to 1.
a. Events with odds of a billion to 1 are admittedly “impossibilities” according to evolutionary scientists.
b. When commenting on the possibility of life originating in another galaxy and then migrating to earth, Discover magazine refers to the odds of such an event as “one in a billion,” a probability which is quickly characterizes by saying, “Given those odds, the probability is virtually nil.”
“Still, migrating microbes face significant obstacles. Until recently, no researchers had evaluated every stage of the scenario. Then a Swedish scientist rounded up a team to do just that…They soon found that panspermia seems viable only within our own solar system. One hitch in the old theory, he explains, was that interstellar nomads would face lethal radiation from cosmic rays, which strike far more frequently beyond the sun's magnetic shield. Even more important, Mileikowsky's team has calculated the probability of ejected planetary material reaching Earth from elsewhere in the Milky Way or from another galaxy. ‘It is one in a billion,’ says Mileikowsky. Given those odds, the probability is virtually nil that even one ejecta from the galaxy with still-viable microorganisms on board could have arrived on Earth during its first 500 million years. So Mileikowsky concludes, ‘Our ancestor cell must have been created within our own planetary system or in a nearby sister system born at the same time.’” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
c. When evolutionists admit that the probability of life originating on earth by automatic, routine processes is a billion to 1, they are…
i. affirming its virtual impossibility
ii. placing it within an improbability range that, effectively, necessitates intelligent foresight.
7. Britannica denotes that the origin of life on earth would require countless attempts lasting “hundreds of millions of years” and “under conditions” that “were different” than the modern earth.
“Cell, The evolution of cells – It is highly unlikely that scientists will ever re-create the crucial “experiment” that led to the origin of life. Billions of unsuccessful experiments must have been carried out in countless ponds and marshes before life first evolved, and these experiments lasted for hundreds of millions of years. During this period, conditions on Earth were different from those today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. The different conditions relate to the reasons for suggesting a more ideal environment on another planet.
b. The basis for both suggestions is the same:
i. The known environment on earth throughout its history provides significant obstacles to the origin of life by automatic, routine processes.
8. The timeframe of hundreds of millions of years for the unsuccessful attempts at life to eventually succeed is a crucial limiting factor.
a. In evolutionary geological terms hundreds of millions of years isn’t much time.
b. For example, consider the following quotations concerning Jupiter.
“Life, Extraterrestrial life, Venus and the superior planets – A similar speculation can be entertained with regard to the lower clouds of Jupiter. On Jupiter the atmosphere is composed of hydrogen, helium, methane, ammonia, and probably neon and water vapour. But these are exactly those gases used in primitive-Earth simulation experiments directed toward the origin of life…There is also an apparent absorption feature near 2,600 Å, in the ultraviolet spectrum of Jupiter, which has been attributed both to aromatic hydrocarbons and to nucleotide bases. In any event it is likely that organic molecules are being produced in significant yield on Jupiter; it is possible that Jupiter is a vast planetary laboratory that has been operating for 5,000,000,000 years on prebiological organic chemistry.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Jupiter, The outer layers, The atmosphere, Other likely atmospheric constituents –
The initial chemical processes leading to the formation of living organisms on the Earth may have occurred in transient microenvironments that resembled the present chemical composition of Jupiter—without the enormous amount of hydrogen and helium. The active Jovian cloud system is known to be a source of lightning discharges, while solar ultraviolet radiation, precipitation of charged particles, and the internal energy of the planet are also available to drive chemical reactions in the Jovian atmosphere. Thus, Jupiter may well represent an enormous natural laboratory in which the initial steps toward the origin of life are being pursued again and again. – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Jupiter’s atmosphere is considered to be similar to that of the primitive earth at the time that life would have had to originate on earth.
ii. Jupiter is considered to have similar energy sources to fuel the origination of life.
iii. The phrase “likely that organic molecules are being produced in significant yield on Jupiter” indicates that Jupiter is considered to have critical pre-biotic compounds such as “nucleotide bases” in enough quantities to mark a notable “absorption” feature in its enormous atmosphere.
c. Despite these similarities and perhaps as much as 4 billion years more time, Jupiter’s similar conditions are said to be…
i. stuck.
ii. “the initial steps toward the origin of life are being pursued again and again” but without success
iii. Jupiter has remained in a “prebiological” stage for its entire 5 billion year existence.
d. Jupiter defines the odds
i. If we assume only 1 chance at the origin of life taking place every year in the presence of nucleotide bases and similar atmospheric conditions, that would be literally near 4 or 5 billion failed chances for life to emerge on Jupiter.
ii. If we assume 10 chances a year, that’s 40 or 50 billion failed chances for life.
iii. However, the article makes it sound as though these conditions are a frequent and ongoing aspect of Jupiter’s enormous atmosphere.
1. It is implied that these chances for life are occurring all the time all over the atmosphere of Jupiter
2. This would result in literally trillions of failed attempts at life.
xlii. The example from Jupiter gives us some insight into why evolutionists consider the “hundreds of millions of years” of time available for life on earth to be “too short” – reasons include:
1. The complexities and obstacles outlined above for the origination of life on earth.
2. These complexities and improbabilities are usually offset by the inclusion of additional time, which provides additional opportunities, thus reducing improbability.
xliii. $$$$ Due to the short time period available on earth, some evolutionists that life originated on earth by being transported here after first originating on some other planet where there was more time and fewer obstacles.
“That’s worried people for the last 10 to 15 years, says Christopher Chyba, a planetary scientist based at NASA’s Ames Research Center, south of San Francisco. There seems to be a contradiction between the fact that we’re here and evidence that early Earth was not very hospitable to the formation of organics. How do you resolve the dilemma? One way is to take advantage of the fact that asteroids and especially comets are rich in organic compounds. Maybe there was a way that those organics reached early Earth intact. In other words, maybe the beginnings of life came from interstellar space.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“At this point in Friedmann’s conjectures, another planet--Mars, of all places--becomes convenient for completing the tale. Indirect evidence for life on Earth (organic compounds preserved in rocks, produced only by life) goes back at least 3.8 billion years. Yet life could not have appeared on the planet’s surface, most agree, before about 4 billion years ago, when heavy meteorite showers were still vaporizing the oceans. As proof for the existence of full-blown cellular life keeps pushing closer to 4 billion years, evolutionary biologists wonder if there was enough time for such life to arise from basic organic molecules. Perhaps life only arrived on the surface of Earth after it originated somewhere else. It’s been suggested that it started deep in Earth, where it is still abundant, and later moved up to the surface. Another suggestion, which Friedmann favors, is that it arrived ready-made from another planet. Mars is smaller than Earth and farther from the sun. Therefore Mars cooled down earlier. Probably the conditions suitable for life to arise happened earlier on Mars than on Earth, says Friedmann. And because the gravity of Mars is weaker than Earth’s, it is much easier for something to travel from Mars to Earth than the other way--something like a meteor, chipped off the surface. So if we assume that life originated on Mars and came to Earth, Friedmann continues, then we gain more time to explain the origin of life.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
1. Benefits to relocating life’s origin to another planet.
a. Additional time
b. Conditions favorable to pre-biotic chemistry – a hospitable environment
i. “successful” experiments using conditions incompatible with earth’s early history (such as the Miller-Urey experiment), remain relevantly insightful for the origin of life if we assume those favorable conditions, were present on another world – planet x.
“The first hints that this might be so came from the laboratory, before evidence for it was found in space, through the historic experiments of Stanley Miller, now recalled in science textbooks…Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought by Urey, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
xliv. Relocating life’s origin to another planet is not a “fringe” theory
1. The theory of relocating the origin of life to another world has been put forward by prominent scientists in the evolutionist camp such as Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, and Fred Hoyle.
“Elsewhere, Chyba is collaborating with Carl Sagan and others in an attempt to nail down the possible link between extraterrestrial objects and the origin of life.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth. This duration was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Hence suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even, as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“Bacterial Evangelists – The eminent British astronomer Fred Hoyle and his former student astrophysicist Chandra Wickramasinghe of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology in Wales promote a far-reaching— and, to most scientists, far-fetched— view of panspermia. They believe that microbes migrate within comets and their dusty remnants.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
xlv. The theory that life on earth came here from another planet or place in the universe is called “panspermia.”
“The idea of life vagabonding through the cosmos has been around for millennia, but scientists first considered it seriously in the mid-19th century. In 1871, British physicist William Thomson Kelvin told his colleagues in Edinburgh: ‘We must regard it as probable in the highest degree that there are countless seed-bearing meteoritic stones moving about through space. If at the present instant no life existed upon this earth, one such stone falling upon it might . . . lead to its becoming covered with vegetation.’ Three decades later, Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius agreed, but he took issue with part of Kelvin's scenario. The fiery trauma of a meteoroid ejected from a planet or out of the solar system, he argued, would incinerate any cells it harbored. Instead of hitching rides within rocks, Arrhenius said, life could travel unaided. In 1903, he proposed that spores of plants and germs might drift through space propelled by the gentle pressure of starlight. He called this idea panspermia (from the Greek for ‘seeds everywhere’).” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“When astronomers later grasped the true distances between stars and the vast size of the Milky Way, panspermia fell out of favor…Now panspermia is gaining credence again, but with more caveats. Planetary geologist Jeffrey Moore of the NASA Ames Research Center says that if panspermia simply means exchanges of life among bodies in our solar system, Kelvin's ‘seed-bearing meteoritic stones’ could be spot on. ‘Panspermia redefined is perceived as reasonable by virtually everybody,’ Moore explains. ‘Say you have several places in the solar system where organisms could multiply. Once one gets it, all the planets and moons with suitable environments come down with life. It's the day-care effect. They infect each other.’ The inner solar system, he adds, with its friendly temperatures and hard surfaces, is the most likely place for such exchanges.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. It is central to many scientific and philosophical problems and to any consideration of extraterrestrial life. Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: [1] The origin of life is a result of a supernatural event; that is, one permanently beyond the descriptive powers of physics and chemistry. [2] Life-particularly simple forms-spontaneously and readily arises from nonliving matter in short periods of time, today as in the past. [3] Life is coeternal with matter and has no beginning; life arrived on the Earth at the time of the origin of the earth or shortly thereafter. [4] Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions. Such reactions may have been likely or may have required one or more highly improbable chemical events…Toward the end of the 19th century Hypothesis 3 gained currency, particularly with the suggestion by a Swedish chemist, S.A. Arrhenius, that life on Earth arose from panspermia, microorganisms or spores wafted through space by radiation pressure from planet to planet or solar system to solar system. Such an idea of course avoids rather than solves the problem of the origin of life. In addition, it is extremely unlikely that any microorganism could be transported by radiation pressure to the Earth over interstellar distances without being killed by the combined effects of cold, vacuum, and radiation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Panspermia includes under the heading of “Modern theories” and a “major theory of the origin of life,” right alongside “chemical evolution.”
a. Here panspermia is described more generally as spores landing on earth from some other part of the universe, without stipulating how they traveled.
“Life, The origin of life, Modern theories – Scientists think that life probably arose on Earth more than 3 1/2 billion years ago, and so they cannot base their understanding of that event on direct observation. As a result, their understanding of how life began is far less certain than their knowledge of such subjects as cell structure and biochemistry. Scientists construct explanations of the origin of life. They base their explanations on their knowledge of living things and on their understanding of the early physical conditions on Earth. Scientists have proposed two major theories of the origin of life. They are (1) the theory of panspermia and (2) the theory of chemical evolution. The theory of panspermia states that spores from some other part of the universe landed on Earth and began to develop. However, some scientists doubt that spores could survive a journey through the harsh conditions of outer space. Even if the theory is true, it explains only the origin of life on Earth and not how life arose in the universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
xlvi. Panspermia “avoids rather than solves the problem of the origin of life” explaining “only the origin of life on Earth” and not “how life arose in the universe.”
1. So, even if life traveled to earth from somewhere else, it would still be necessary to understand how it originated originally.
2. This fact is also attested to in the following quotes from American Scientist and Discover magazines.
“Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“Knowing that some microbes easily hopscotched from planet to planet doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to pinpointing the fountainhead of life.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?, by Robert Irion,” DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
xlvii. The possibility of panspermia is doubted by some scientists due to the harsh conditions of traveling through space – (as many of the quotes above state)
1. (The quote below also indicates that this idea has been resisted, even previously by the author himself.)
“There is little doubt in my mind that our oceans and our atmosphere were delivered on the backs of comets that bombarded the newly formed Earth in its first few hundred million years. What is more, the comets also appear to have brought prebiotic molecules—organic building blocks that could be used to get life started. These ideas have a fairly long history but have been resisted for various reasons over the decades. I have been studying the chemistry of comets for more than 50 years, and I admit that early in my career I too was reluctant to accept the possibility that comets had played such a crucial role in our planet’s history. But the evidence has continued to accumulate over the decades, and it now seems irrefutable. Here I provide an overview of the reasoning behind this extraordinary idea.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
2. Panspermia fell out of favor historically and remained so into recent times due to the improbability of organic molecules surviving travel through space.
“When astronomers later grasped the true distances between stars and the vast size of the Milky Way, panspermia fell out of favor…Now panspermia is gaining credence again, but with more caveats.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life…Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: …[3] Life is coeternal with matter and has no beginning; life arrived on the Earth at the time of the origin of the earth or shortly thereafter…In addition, it is extremely unlikely that any microorganism could be transported by radiation pressure to the Earth over interstellar distances without being killed by the combined effects of cold, vacuum, and radiation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, The origin of life, Modern theories – Scientists have proposed two major theories of the origin of life. They are (1) the theory of panspermia and (2) the theory of chemical evolution. The theory of panspermia states that spores from some other part of the universe landed on Earth and began to develop. However, some scientists doubt that spores could survive a journey through the harsh conditions of outer space.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
3. Despite former rejections and the improbabilities involved, the idea of panspermia is gaining some acceptance now.
a. The reason it is gaining acceptance now is because the geological history of earth is proving to be so prohibitive to the origin of life
b. Panspermia becomes the only remaining alternative for evolutionary theory.
xlviii. Panspermia has gained popular acceptance within the evolutionary community today
1. The sheer number of quotes below from American Scientist, Discover, and even Microsoft Encarta are intended to demonstrate the extent to which panspermia has gained popular acceptance within the evolutionary community.
“The Primeval Biosphere, Figure 11. The primeval biosphere awoke to a tempestuous world of intermittent comet impacts, a steaming-hot ocean, a very thick atmosphere and torrential acid rains. Giant comet impacts would have ejected large amounts of material into space and spun off violent hurricanes and tornadoes…Prebiotic organic molecules, delivered by the comets, would have provided the ‘seed’ for the evolution of the first life.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“Geological Germination – As the basic molecules of life move from space to a planetary environment, they begin to interact and undergo chemical reactions that produce larger and more complicated molecules. These larger molecules will ultimately become the building blocks of the earliest life-forms.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine
“Chunks of planets were flying all over the place when the solar system was young— and some may have carried hitchhikers…Microbiologists Rocco Mancinelli and Lynn Rothschild have a thing for salt. Jagged hunks of it crowd the shelves of the couple's offices at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Their favorite pieces are laced with translucent reds and greens that look like algae in a neglected pool. These crystals harbor colonies of hardy, salt-loving microbes called halophiles, a class of bacteria that can thrive in very nasty settings. So impressive are the survival skills of these single-celled organisms that Mancinelli and Rothschild suspect the microbes might be able to survive long journeys through the vacuum and radiation of space. And that possibility, in turn, could help explain how life began on Earth. So impressive are the survival skills of these single-celled organisms that Mancinelli and Rothschild suspect the microbes might be able to survive long journeys through the vacuum and radiation of space. And that possibility, in turn, could help explain how life began on Earth.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“Mancinelli and Rothschild belong to a cadre of researchers who are reviving an old idea that seems straight out of science fiction: Organisms might have hopped from planet to planet, spreading life far beyond their birthplace. The scenario is simple. When our solar system was young, comets and asteroids crashed into planets and moons, which blasted surface rocks back out into space (a few such impacts still happen today). If the space-bound rocks harbored lifeforms, they might migrate to other planets. Recent lab tests suggest that bacteria can withstand the shocks of such blasts. And decent-sized rocks could shield the ejected cells from radiation in space. What's more, some studies suggest that sheltered microbes can survive tens or hundreds of millions of years of dormancy, plenty of time to drift to a new home. Add it all up and you've got a case that life could have drifted to Earth from someplace like Mars.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“Advanced forms of life existed on earth at least 3.55 billion years ago. In rocks of that age, fossilized imprints have been found of bacteria that look uncannily like cyanobacteria, the most highly evolved photosynthetic organisms present in the world today…On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth. This duration was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Hence suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even, as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization…But it seems very likely that the first building blocks of nascent life were provided by amino acids and other small organic molecules such as are known to form readily in the laboratory and on celestial bodies. To what extent these substances arose on earth or were brought in by the falling comets and asteroids that contributed to the final accretion of our planet is still being debated.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
xlix. Meteorites suggested as the source of life
1. Meteorites are sought as the source of:
a. Basic organic compounds
b. Amino acids
c. Mmembranes as well
“Astronomers and geologists were discovering that Earth had a violent infancy--hundreds of millions of years after the planet had formed, giant asteroids and comets still crashed into it, burning off its young atmosphere and boiling away its oceans. In the process, they also destroyed all the chemicals that researchers assumed were in liberal supply on the early Earth, including the building blocks of lipids…Research now suggests that the source was extraterrestrial. Comets and meteorites evidently brought seeds of creation to replace the ones they had destroyed, in the form of hundreds of different organic carbon molecules synthesized when the solar system was a swirling disk of gas and dust. After the last atmosphere-killing impacts--about 4 billion years ago--smaller comets, meteorites, and dust from space could, in the space of a few hundred million years, have brought enough organic carbon to cover the planet in a layer ten inches deep. Deamer wondered whether space could also supply him with his membranes; specifically, he wondered whether he could dig them out of a 200-pound meteorite that had fallen in Murchison, Australia, in 1969 and that was positively tarry with organic carbon. In 1985 he traveled to Australian National University in Canberra to study it…Deamer was encouraged by this work--he had found hints that meteorites supplied material to form membranes that could have enclosed complex genetic molecules and could have trapped energy.” – First Cell, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER, Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
l. Transportation Hypothesis and Problems
1. Two means of transportation have been suggested.
a. The first alternative is transportation by meteorite or comet.
b. The second alternative is transportation in a space ship by intelligent life forms.
“This duration was once considered too short for the emergence of something as complex as a living cell. Hence suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to earth from outer space with cometary dust or even, as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization. No evidence in support of these proposals has yet been obtained.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
li. Timing also crucial to panspermia.
1. The timing for when the meteorites and comets might have brought the pre-biotic compounds or even life itself to earth is identified as around 3.5-3.9 billion years ago.
“Exobiology, V PROSPECTS FOR DISCOVERY – Current exobiology research focuses on understanding how life arose on Earth and discovering potential life-supporting environments other than Earth. Scientists now believe that life on Earth dates back to at least 3.85 billion years before present, so living organisms have populated Earth for more than 80 percent of its history...Meteorites from Mars and studies of the interchange of materials blasted into space by large asteroid impacts suggest that some life forms may have traveled in space over billions of years.” – "Exobiology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Advanced forms of life existed on earth at least 3.55 billion years ago…On the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids, remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system, some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300 million years for the appearance of life on earth…But it seems very likely that the first building blocks of nascent life were provided by amino acids and other small organic molecules such as are known to form readily in the laboratory and on celestial bodies. To what extent these substances arose on earth or were brought in by the falling comets and asteroids that contributed to the final accretion of our planet is still being debated.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
2. Specific meteorites that have been found on earth have been dated to this timeframe of around 3.6 billion years ago, at the “tail end” of meteorite bombardment of the earth.
a. This provides potential as a means of explaining how life might have traveled to earth at around the right time when life is believed to have began on earth 3.8 billion years ago.
“Life, The search for life on other planets – In 1976, two United States space probes, Viking 1 and Viking 2, landed on Mars and performed several experiments to test for life. These experiments indicated chemical activity in Martian soil, but failed to detect any living organisms. In 1996, scientists claimed they found evidence of Martian life from a meteorite discovered in Antarctica. This meteorite, over 3.6 billion years old, contained objects resembling fossils of bacteria. It also contained compounds that are produced by living organisms on Earth. The question of life remains unsettled, but most scientists consider it very unlikely.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
“Exobiology – In 1976, two United States Viking space probes landed on Mars and conducted experiments. But these experiments did not uncover any living organisms. In 1996, scientists claimed they found evidence of Martian life from a meteorite discovered in Antarctica. This meteorite, which scientists believe came from Mars, is over 3.6 billion years old. It contained objects resembling fossils of bacteria. The meteorite also contained compounds that are produced by living organisms on the earth. Although the question of life on Mars remains unsettled, most scientists consider it very unlikely.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Tobias C. Owen, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy, Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
b. The timing of these meteorite impacts is the same time when the most primitive life forms would have had to be present on earth in order for them to evolve into the earliest organisms in the fossil record around 3.5 billion years ago.
i. As stated in an earlier segment, the earliest fossils date to 3.4 billions years ago.
“Earth [planet], History of Earth, Life on Earth – Fossils help scientists learn which kinds of plants and animals lived at different times in Earth's history. Scientists who study prehistoric life are called paleontologists. Many scientists believe that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed. There is evidence for chemicals created by living things in rocks from the Archean age, 3.8 billion years old. Fossil remains of microscopic living things about 3.5 billion years old have also been found at sites in Australia and Canada.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Exobiology, V PROSPECTS FOR DISCOVERY – Scientists now believe that life on Earth dates back to at least 3.85 billion years before present, so living organisms have populated Earth for more than 80 percent of its history.” – "Exobiology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, I INTRODUCTION – The earliest known fossil organisms are single-celled forms resembling modern bacteria; they date from about 3.4 billion years ago.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
lii. Panspermia attempts to solve (avoid) significant problems
1. The arrival of life or at least essential pre-biotic chemicals by means of meteorites and comets has gained favor in the evolutionary community because it solves 3 critical problems facing evolutionary theory.
a. First, it resolves the problem created by the bombarding of the earth
i. It turns that problem into a solution by asserting those meteorites and comets were the source of the organic material.
b. Second, it resolves the timing problem caused by the need for more primitive to have existed for the few hundred million years necessary for them to evolve into the earliest, yet still highly complex organisms found in the very first part of the fossil record.
c. Third, it resolves the problems raised by other environmental hazards by relocating the origin of life to a more idealized environment on another world.
2. It is important to note that, despite the advantages this Panspermia infuses into the meteorite bombardment period of early earth history, the meteorite bombardment period is not an artificial construct created merely to facilitate these advantages.
a. The understanding that the earth was bombarded by meteorites until about 3.9 billion years ago is based upon independent geological considerations, such as the number of craters on the moon and mars.
“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years. The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only about 3.9 billion years. There is, in effect, a stretch of 700 million years for which no geologic record exists, and the evolution of this pregeologic period of time is not surprisingly the subject of much speculation. To understand this little-known period, the following factors have to be considered: the age of formation at 4.6 billion years ago, the processes in operation until 3.9 billion years ago, the bombardment of the Earth by meteorites, and the earliest zircon crystals…It is known from direct observation that the surface of the Moon is covered with a multitude of meteorite craters. There are about 40 large basins attributable to meteorite impact. Known as maria, these depressions were filled in with basaltic lavas caused by the impact-induced melting of the lunar mantle. Many of these basalts have been analyzed isotopically and found to have crystallization ages of 3.9 to 4 billion years. It can be safely concluded that the Earth, with a greater attractive mass than the Moon, must have undergone more extensive meteorite bombardment. According to the English-born geologist Joseph V. Smith, a minimum of 500 to 1,000 impact basins were formed on the Earth within a period of about 100 to 200 million years prior to 3.95 billion years ago. Moreover, plausible calculations suggest that this estimate represents merely the tail end of an interval of declining meteorite bombardment and that about 20 times as many basins were formed in the preceding 300 million years. Such intense bombardment would have covered most of the Earth's surface, with the impacts causing considerable destruction of the terrestrial crust up to 3.9 billion years ago. There is, however, no direct evidence of this important phase of Earth history because rocks older than 3.9 billion years have not been preserved.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. If panspermia is false, scenarios locating the origin of life to earth itself still have to contend with the prohibitive obstacle posed by the massive meteorite and comet bombardment of the earth during the very timeframe when life would have needed to originate here.
liii. Panspermia has serious problems
1. First, meteors would have to be within a certain size range and might even have to break up in the atmosphere in order for organic molecules to complete the journey to earth.
“During the solar system’s infancy, when huge meteorites were regularly smashing into the planets, a fair amount of Mars could have made its way to Earth in a matter of months, and some of it could have been infected with Martian microbes…Bacteria on small meteorites would die as their spaceships burned up in Earth’s atmosphere, while large meteorites would detonate on impact. But a medium-size one would be braked gently by the atmosphere, would not get too hot in its core, and would hit the ground relatively softly. Bacteria riding these impactors might well survive the landing: such meteorites also have a habit of breaking up while still in the air, and the fragments would disperse microbes over a large surface area, like interplanetary seedpods.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
2. Even assuming proper-sized meteors, evolutionary scientists debate the feasibility of key compounds in meteorites surviving due to…
a. the heat of both exit and entry impacts,
b. the speed of exit,
c. the cold of space,
d. the violent break-up that occurs upon entry and impact
“In 1871, British physicist William Thomson Kelvin told his colleagues in Edinburgh: ‘We must regard it as probable in the highest degree that there are countless seed-bearing meteoritic stones moving about through space. If at the present instant no life existed upon this earth, one such stone falling upon it might . . . lead to its becoming covered with vegetation.’ Three decades later, Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius agreed, but he took issue with part of Kelvin's scenario. The fiery trauma of a meteoroid ejected from a planet or out of the solar system, he argued, would incinerate any cells it harbored. Instead of hitching rides within rocks, Arrhenius said, life could travel unaided. In 1903, he proposed that spores of plants and germs might drift through space propelled by the gentle pressure of starlight. He called this idea panspermia (from the Greek for ‘seeds everywhere’).” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“However, says Chyba, it’s likely that most organics aboard meteorites and comets never made it to Earth. At these velocities, at least 10 to 15 miles per second, the temperatures you reach on impact are so high that you end up frying just about everything. And those organics that survived would probably have been too few and too scattered to evolve into life.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
e. (Still other scientists point to evidence as indicating it is possible that certain parts of asteroids or comets might not even reach such damaging temperatures at all, making survival possible.)
“Another anticipated hurdle would be the intense heat at launch from one planet and the heat at impact on another. Yet last year a team led by graduate student Benjamin Weiss of the California Institute of Technology found that the inside of a Martian meteorite (ALH84001, made famous by researchers who believe that it contains clues of ancient life) never grew hotter than a summer day in Palm Springs. The team figured this out by analyzing faint traces of a magnetic field preserved within the meteorite. When researchers heated a small slice of it to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, the rock's magnetic signature— imprinted during its early days on Mars— vanished. That meant the meteorite's interior had never exceeded that temperature, not even during its odyssey to Earth.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
3. Break-ups that occur at impact are believed to be an obstacle that would destroy any important compounds in the meteorite.
a. (Still some evolutionary scientists assert that meteors and any pre-biotic compounds they contained would survive the break-ups that occur upon impact as well.)
“In the 1980s, new evidence turned up. Analysis of trace gases within meteorites found on Earth revealed that some had originated on Mars or on our moon. ‘That changed everything,’ says Jay Melosh, an astronomer at the University of Arizona. ‘Suddenly, interplanetary transfer was feasible.’ It turns out that a high-speed impact on a planet's surface doesn't pulverize all the rock on the ground below. Instead, some rocks at the edge of the impact get lofted into space at tremendous speeds and remain intact.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
4. The speed of escape velocity is also seen as a significant obstacle to the survival of any relevant pre-biotic compounds.
a. (Still, some evolutionists assert there is evidence that this issue is not really a problem.)
“The team's work established that a transfer of rocks could occur easily and often between planets in the inner solar system. The next question: Could microbes aboard survive ejection and impact? To escape a planet's gravity, a rock must accelerate from zero to at least 11,500 miles per hour in a thousandth-of-a-second jerk so intense it would liquefy a human. But when Jay Melosh and his colleague Rachel Mastrapa loaded bacteria into bullet casings and shot them into cold plastic modeling clay, they found that most bacteria survived. Mileikowsky, too, has tested this idea by firing cannon shells stuffed with pebbles holding hundreds of millions of ordinary bacteria. Again, most of the cells lived.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
5. Cometary dust alternative suggested due to volatile and prohibitive nature of meteor or comet impacts
a. Evolutionary scientists who regard the heat and break-up at impact to be prohibitive assert an alternative.
b. Pre-biotic compounds or even living microbes could waft gently into earth’s atmosphere in the form of dust from comets rather than impacting meteorites.
“The Primeval Biosphere – At the same time, some of the organic molecules delivered by the comets may have had a few interesting chemical interactions of their own—actually giving a “jump start” to the first life on our planet. Although some have questioned whether organics could survive the heat of an impact, the issue now seems to be resolved. The survival of 74 different amino acids (most of which are not known on the Earth) on carbonaceous chondrites, such as the Murchison meteorite, suggest that organics could at least survive a minor impact. And recent studies by Elisabetta Pierazzo, of the University of Arizona, and Christopher Chyba of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, suggest that some amino acids could even survive the shock heating of kilometer-sized cometary impacts. In any case, Anders and I have, independently, argued that an extremely large flux of interplanetary dust particles (derived from the tails of comets that missed the Earth during its first 600 million years) could have salted the young Earth with enormous quantities of prebiotic molecules. Indeed, in 1985 Don Brownlee of the University of Washington, Seattle, showed that cometary dust grains, captured in the upper atmosphere, contain undamaged organic molecules.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“But interplanetary dust particles (IDPs for short) are another matter. In contrast to their larger cousins, these particles, tiny specks no larger than .004 inch across, routinely reach Earth. They get slowed way up in the atmosphere, says Chyba. Then they remain floating around for months, even years, before they come down. NASA samples IDPs directly in the atmosphere with modified U2 spy planes fitted with adhesive collectors on the wings. What researchers have found is that IDPs also contain organic material--although only about 10 percent worth. Perhaps, then, dust seeded early Earth with the stuff of life.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
c. The cometary dust scenario still has problems
i. It only averts problems upon arrival in earth’s atmosphere
ii. Still retains…
1. interplanetary survival problems
2. exit impact problems that would arise earlier in the journey.
6. This makes the travel time prohibitive to any pan-spermia theory.
a. Very improbable that either life or pre-biotic compounds could survive the sheer amount of time they would be in space.
b. It is generally agreed that any life forms could not survive more than a half a dozen years in space at the most.
c. Crossing from one planet to another requires…
i. for even the shortest hypothetical trips between earth and Mars – multiple decades or millennia
ii. normally, such trips would start from more distant locations and would take millions of years.
“In order to make the journey, a microbe would have to be a rugged generalist. Being tough, it would last for months in space, and once dropped onto a new planet, a generalist could thrive almost anywhere. If specialists survived the ride, by contrast, they would quickly die unless they were lucky enough to land on a spot to their liking.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
“Microbial havens could, therefore, survive the trip between planets. ‘The only question is the lifetime of the bacteria,’ says Mileikowsky. ‘It is the aspect that must be tested more than anything else.’ A few experiments show that bacteria can persist in space for at least a few years. Microbiologist Gerda Horneck of DLR, the German space agency, found that out when she sent organisms into a six-year orbit on a NASA satellite in the 1980s. The star performer was Bacillus subtilis. When deprived of nutrients, these bacteria form spores, hardened nuggets that protect each cell's vital components. Horneck found that although ultraviolet radiation killed all the spores in a top layer, the dead spores formed a protective shield for those beneath. Many survived the vacuum, cold, and lack of water, including about 30 percent of those embedded in salt.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“Two years ago, Rocco Mancinelli followed up by sending his salt-loving microbes into space for two weeks on BioPan, a European satellite. Mancinelli showed that halophiles also survive, but they don't make spores. His result may mean that many ordinary, non-spore-forming microbes could travel within meteoroids. Horneck and Mancinelli acknowledge that short satellite flights can't compare with the millions of years required for most interplanetary crossings, or even the decades to millennia required for fast transfers between Earth and Mars.” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
7. The extreme cold of space is also a serious prohibitive factor.
a. Extreme cold is a factor even during trips with short duration.
“Bacteria forced into subfreezing habitats usually become dormant: they slow their metabolic activity to a very low level. Years later, many can revive if thawed. But not after millions of years.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
b. Mars, an example of prohibitive nature of extreme cold for life due to lack of atmosphere
i. One reason for why life could not be present on Mars is extreme cold, colder than any bacteria have survived in on earth.
ii. Any primitive life form on a meteor, comet, or asteroid would like Mars have no atmosphere to help trap and retain heat for the long durations between exit and impact.
“As far as his own research went, the stories were reasonably accurate: he had shown that the microbes were certainly alive, although at that point he knew almost nothing about how they managed to survive in frozen rock. But the stories also suggested, wrongly, that such microbes could still be alive on Mars today. In fact the Martian atmosphere vanished almost completely billions of years ago, along with liquid water on the surface, and the climate over most of the planet became colder than Antarctica. Cryptoendoliths may once have lived on Mars, but they would now be long gone.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
“Bacteria forced into subfreezing habitats usually become dormant: they slow their metabolic activity to a very low level. Years later, many can revive if thawed. But not after millions of years.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
““During the solar system’s infancy, when huge meteorites were regularly smashing into the planets, a fair amount of Mars could have made its way to Earth in a matter of months, and some of it could have been infected with Martian microbes…Assume, for a moment, that microbes are riding one of those rocks, possibly inside it. Little DNA would be damaged in such a short period of time, and so they could simply turn off their metabolic engines in the cold vacuum of space.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
“One hitch is that Martian permafrost temperatures average about 100 degrees below zero, which is quite a bit colder than the -16 degree soils that Friedmann probed in Antarctica. Another hitch is that such microbes would be required to survive 3 billion years rather than 3 million.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
iii. The average temperature on Mars is -195 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit (-125 to 20 degrees Celsius).
1. This is “quite a bit colder than the -16 degrees” of soils in Antarctica.
2. The average temperatures on Antarctica range from -4 to -94 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter (-20 to -70 degrees Celsius) and from -31 to 32 degrees Fahrenheit (-35 to 0 degrees Celsius) in the summer.
“Antarctica, Physical geography, The land, Climate – Mean temperatures of the coldest months are −4 degrees to −22 degrees F (−20 degrees to −30 degrees C) on the coast and −40 degrees to −94 degrees F (−40 degrees to −70 degrees C) in the interior, the coldest period on the polar plateau being usually in late August just before the return of the sun. Whereas midsummer temperatures may reach as high as 59 degrees F (15 degrees C) on the Antarctic Peninsula, those elsewhere are usually much lower, ranging from a mean of about 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) on the coast to between −4 degrees and −31 degrees F (−20 degrees and −35 degrees C) in the interior.”
c. The Temperature of Space is Too Cold
i. Given that the temperature in Antarctica is uninhabitable to most life and the temperature on Mars is completely uninhabitable, what is the temperature of space?
ii. When discussing the temperature of space, scientists use phrases such as “background radiation temperature.”
1. According to Big Bang theory, originally the universe was very hot and background radiation is the left over energy from that Big Bang.
2. After billions of years of expansion, the universe has cooled
3. This is reflected in the current background radiation.
iii. The temperature of the current background radiation is 3-5 degrees, not above zero, but above absolute zero.
“Cosmos, Other components, Microwave background radiation – Beginning in 1948, the American cosmologist George Gamow and his coworkers, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, investigated the idea that the chemical elements might have been synthesized by thermonuclear reactions that took place in a primeval fireball. The high temperature associated with the early universe would give rise to a thermal radiation field, which has a unique distribution of intensity with wavelength (known as Planck's radiation law), that is a function only of the temperature. As the universe expanded, the temperature would have dropped, each photon being redshifted by the cosmological expansion to longer wavelength, as the American physicist Richard C. Tolman had already shown in 1934. By the present epoch the radiation temperature would have dropped to very low values, about 5° above absolute zero (0 K, or -273° C) according to the estimates of Alpher and Herman.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Background Radiation, I INTRODUCTION – Background radiation represents energy left over from the "big bang," the explosion at the beginning of the universe (see Big Bang Theory)...The big bang theory of the beginning of the universe holds that the universe was extremely hot and dense in its first moments and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Models of the early universe and its evolution predict that some of the radiation caused by the extremely high temperature of the early universe will still be present, but that it will exist at a much lower temperature because the universe has expanded so much. Scientists can measure the intensity of the background radiation at infrared, microwave, and radio wavelengths to determine how the intensity of the radiation relates to its wavelength. Planck's law, developed in the early 1900s by German physicist Max Planck, predicts the curve of intensity versus wavelength for the radiation of an object of a given temperature. The curve that results from measurement of the background radiation matches exactly the curve predicted for a body radiating energy at a little less than 3 K (a little less than -270° C, or about -450° F).” - "Background Radiation," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iv. At around -450 degrees Fahrenheit (-270 degrees Celsius), the temperature of space is…
1. double the lowest average temperatures of Mars (-195 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit, -125 to 20 degrees Celsius)
2. anywhere from three to ten times as low as the average temperatures in Antarctica (-94 degrees Fahrenheit, -70 degrees Celsius in the winter to -31 degrees Fahrenheit, -35 degrees Celsius in the summer).
v. These temperatures are simply prohibitive to the idea of any organism making any interplanetary journey that lasts for more than a few years
vi. This rules out any interplanetary journey on a comet or meteorite, since such journeys take thousands, or more typically, millions of years.
8. Exposure to cosmic radiation is another significant obstacle to panspermia.
“Even if frozen, Friedmann says, microorganisms cannot survive forever. Radiation--either from radioactivity in rock or from cosmic rays falling from the sky--will damage bacterial DNA and over millions of years will almost certainly kill a microbe. Another risk involves changes in the structure of amino acids, a kind of spontaneous twisting known as racemization. Amino acids can exist in either left- or right-twisting versions, but living cells use only left-twisting ones. If a cell becomes completely dormant, it cannot repair proteins that spontaneously flip to the right-twisted form, and these harmful errors can build up. After 3 million years, a revived bacterium would find itself with proteins that no longer function.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
a. Scientists open to this possibility that life could survive radiation from space only regard such microbes as having a “decent chance.”
“BACILLUS NEALSON II – A double-spore coating makes this bac-terium especially resistant to gamma radiation, one of the chief obstacles to any potential life on Mars. B. nealsonii, a new species, is particularly well adapted to the dry environment of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory SAF, where it was first discovered…As Venkat discovered, the second spore coating also offers a secondary benefit: It makes the organism unusually resistant to gamma rays, a form of cosmic radiation that, in large doses, is fatal to men and microbes alike. (Earth’s atmosphere screens out most gamma radiation; Mars, in contrast, is a gamma-ray frying pan.)…But what’s notable, Venkat says, is that the very traits that render these bugs impervious to decontamination also grant them a decent chance of surviving the radiation shower they would encounter en route to and on the surface of a place like Mars.” – “Seeding the Universe,” by Alan Burdick, DISCOVER, Vol. 25 No. 10, October 2004, Astronomy & Physics
b. Even with a “decent” chance of surviving radiation, such microorganisms would still face serious additional problems such as…
i. the cold of space
ii. a hostile environment if they managed to survive the cold of space,
iii. the sheer acceleration of ejection speeds,
iv. the dangers of impact
9. Only particular microorganisms landing at a particular time in a particular place could survive to evolve on the primitive earth.
a. Not just any microorganism would survive on earth to grow and reproduce for evolution.
i. Only a particular type of microorganism would survive on its new home.
ii. And it would also have to arrive at just the right environmental spot on earth as well (and at just the right time).
“The Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and water into space. Under these chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
“There’s another possible drawback to the notion of an extraterrestrial origin of life, acknowledged by Chyba himself. The surface of early Earth would have been a very hostile place, he says. The biggest impacts would have generated enough heat to evaporate the entire ocean, probably several times. And leaving the biggest impacts aside, the upper tens of meters of the oceans would routinely have been evaporated and the surface of Earth sterilized by these giant impacts.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“In order to make the journey, a microbe would have to be a rugged generalist. Being tough, it would last for months in space, and once dropped onto a new planet, a generalist could thrive almost anywhere. If specialists survived the ride, by contrast, they would quickly die unless they were lucky enough to land on a spot to their liking.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
b. Landing on just the right spot on the otherwise inhospitable planet is regarded by some evolutionists as quite a difficult prospect.
i. According to some scientists, the only feasible place for survival in this hostile world would have been the hydrothermal vents in the depths of the oceans.
“The biggest impacts would have generated enough heat to evaporate the entire ocean, probably several times. And leaving the biggest impacts aside, the upper tens of meters of the oceans would routinely have been evaporated and the surface of Earth sterilized by these giant impacts. Where, then, in such a nightmarish environment, could emerging life have been sufficiently protected? The only safe place--safe, at least, after the last total evaporations were over and done with--would have been in the deep ocean. And that, says Jack Corliss, is where hydrothermal vents come into the picture.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
c. Only particular types of organisms could survive
i. In order to survive the journey through space and survive on the hostile environment of earth’s past, a microorganism would have to be “a rugged generalist.”
ii. If the organism were “a specialist,”…
1. it wouldn’t survive the journey through space
2. if it did, it would likely die rather quickly on earth due to the improbability of it finding just the right spot that it is “specialized for.”
d. “the only safe place” in earth’s hostile environment would have been the deep sea hydrothermal vents
i. The microorganisms that live near the hydrothermal vents are decisively “specialists” not “rugged generalists.”
ii. Discover describes the organisms capable of populating hydrothermal vents as “extremophiles,”
1. These are organisms suited to particular, extreme environments rather than “medium conditions.”
“Friedmann keeps a large collection of such death-defying organisms in his lab and studies them between treks to exotic environments. Over the course of his career he has become a connoisseur of extreme habitats--the worst on Earth. If you think you know what extreme means, think again. Friedmann has been mulling the concept for decades. It is not easy to define an extreme environment, he says. It is simply different from ours-- what we ourselves do not like. Among the denizens of the extreme are thermophiles that love water so hot it would kill us, psychrophiles that thrive in places so cold, halophiles in salt brine so strong, and barophiles under pressure so high that we’d expire. Together, such microbes are sometimes called extremophiles, as opposed to mesophiles--creatures, like us, that prefer medium conditions. Of course, from an extremophile’s point of view, we are the ones who live at extremes…Meanwhile deep-sea thermophiles have been found near vents at temperatures as high as 230 degrees.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
e. No compatible survival scenarior for particular microorganisms in a particular place
i. The only microorganisms that are likely to survive the interplanetary journey are rugged generalists.
ii. The only organisms that could survive after the journey in the hostile environment of the earth at the time are extreme specialists.
iii. There is no compatible scenario and no working or accepted explanation for panspermia within the evolutionary community.
10. Timing Problems – just the right organism at just the right spot at just the right time, too.
a. Any organism would have to arrive at just the spot where it was specialized to live and at right time in earth’s history, after the last of “ocean-evaporating” impacts.
i. This “improbability” seems to turn right into “impossibility” given the fact that, as we have seen, “ocean-boiling” impacts only became “increasingly rare” 3.5 billion years ago.
“In order to make the journey, a microbe would have to be a rugged generalist. Being tough, it would last for months in space, and once dropped onto a new planet, a generalist could thrive almost anywhere. If specialists survived the ride, by contrast, they would quickly die unless they were lucky enough to land on a spot to their liking.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
“The biggest impacts would have generated enough heat to evaporate the entire ocean, probably several times. And leaving the biggest impacts aside, the upper tens of meters of the oceans would routinely have been evaporated and the surface of Earth sterilized by these giant impacts. Where, then, in such a nightmarish environment, could emerging life have been sufficiently protected? The only safe place--safe, at least, after the last total evaporations were over and done with--would have been in the deep ocean. And that, says Jack Corliss, is where hydrothermal vents come into the picture.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“The Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and water into space. Under these chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.” – “An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere,” Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004
ii. But, evolutionary theory requires that life was present on earth 3.8 billion years ago.
1. This is necessary in order to have time to develop into the earliest organisms in the fossil record, which appear at 3.5 billion years ago and were already “quite sophisticated.”
“Evolutionary biologists have traced our family tree to bacteria, one-celled organisms that have been found in rock formations 3.5 billion years old. But even these primitive creatures were already quite sophisticated. They had genes of DNA and RNA and were made of protein, lipids, and other ingredients. Something simpler must have preceded them.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Exobiology, V PROSPECTS FOR DISCOVERY – Scientists now believe that life on Earth dates back to at least 3.85 billion years before present, so living organisms have populated Earth for more than 80 percent of its history.” – "Exobiology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth [planet], History of Earth, Life on Earth – Fossils help scientists learn which kinds of plants and animals lived at different times in Earth's history. Scientists who study prehistoric life are called paleontologists. Many scientists believe that life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions allowed. There is evidence for chemicals created by living things in rocks from the Archean age, 3.8 billion years old. Fossil remains of microscopic living things about 3.5 billion years old have also been found at sites in Australia and Canada.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“‘Bugs are very clever,’ Kasthuri Venkateswaran says with affection. ‘They started out on Earth 3.8 billion years ago, when nothing else was here!’…Venkateswaran quietly examines the machinery itself, searching for any clever microbes—‘bugs,’ he calls them—that might try to tag along.” – “Seeding the Universe,” by Alan Burdick, DISCOVER, Vol. 25 No. 10, October 2004, Astronomy & Physics
iii. The only feasible timeframe for life to migrate to the earth from space is after the ocean-boiling impacts, which ended at 3.5 billion years ago, 300 million years too late, 300 million years after the organisms would have needed to arrive.
iv. Not only is there insufficient time for life to originate on earth, but there simply isn’t any time at which microorganisms could migrate to the earth from some space either.
11. Limitations on panspermia’s origin
a. Evolutionary scientists state that panspermia is possible only if it occurs within the solar system.
“The fanciful notion that life spread through space--known as panspermia--has been tossed around for decades. Originally it was proposed as an interstellar inoculation, but now researchers are beginning to think seriously about a local, Mars-to-Earth version.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
i. The odds of panspermia occurring from outside the galaxy are “1 in a billion” – such a scenario is deemed impossible.
“Still, migrating microbes face significant obstacles. Until recently, no researchers had evaluated every stage of the scenario. Then a Swedish scientist rounded up a team to do just that…They soon found that panspermia seems viable only within our own solar system. One hitch in the old theory, he explains, was that interstellar nomads would face lethal radiation from cosmic rays, which strike far more frequently beyond the sun's magnetic shield. Even more important, Mileikowsky's team has calculated the probability of ejected planetary material reaching Earth from elsewhere in the Milky Way or from another galaxy. ‘It is one in a billion,’ says Mileikowsky. Given those odds, the probability is virtually nil that even one ejecta from the galaxy with still-viable microorganisms on board could have arrived on Earth during its first 500 million years. So Mileikowsky concludes, ‘Our ancestor cell must have been created within our own planetary system or in a nearby sister system born at the same time.’” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
b. The other, more remote possibility is that the organic molecules came from a nearby “sister system”
i. However, the sister system scenario possesses neither the additional time nor the necessary environmental conditions that the panspermia suggestion exists to solve in the first place.
ii. In evolutionary theory, planet forming processes are automatic, routine, uniform, and universal.
1. Since the “sister system” would have formed around the same time as the earth…
a. it wouldn’t have had a different climate or environment
b. it would have been going through the same general early stages of planet and solar system formation.
2. The origination of life in a “sister system born at the same time” would face…
a. The exact same environmental hazards as the origination of life on earth
b. The same the planet-forming processes behind earth’s hazardous conditions would be at the same point in a nearby, sister system’s geologic history as well
iii. Likewise, its formation at nearly the same time as our solar system would be too late for any interstellar journey to be made in time to reach earth 3.8 billion years ago.
iv. The untenable nature of the sister system hypothesis is unavoidable without making unscientific and unobservable assumptions…
1. that the conditions there were different from our own solar system
2. that the conditions there were, for some unknown reason, optimum for the origin of life.
12. Mars, the nearest and most likely candidate for Panspermia within the solar system, is also problematic.
“But were enough rocks launched to make arrivals on the young Earth likely?...’It's surprisingly easy to get material from Mars to Earth,’ says Gladman. ‘If you launch stuff off Mars, there aren't a lot of other places to go.’ He found that up to 5 percent of the rocks launched from Mars land on Earth within 10 million years. Many arrive much sooner— some within a few years. Mileikowsky's team then deduced that 50 billion Martian rocks landed on Earth during the first 500 million years of the solar system. Of those, about 20,000 rocks struck Earth within a decade…If life ever existed on Mars, it's quite possible that it contaminated Earth repeatedly.” – Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?, by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
a. This scenario doesn’t offer any avoidance to the problems posed by earth’s violent early history, even though those are the very problems it is intended to resolve.
i. The timeframe for a migration from Mars is identified as the very same time periods during which the earth is being bombarded with life-killing meteorites and comets.
“If you go to the moon, says Chyba, or look at the craters on Mars or Mercury, what you see is that the whole inner solar system was being subjected to a very intense bombardment from space at that time. You can infer that the same was true for Earth.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
"Mars [planet], Physical features of Mars, Craters and impact basins. – Many meteoroids have struck Mars over its history, producing impact craters. Impact craters are rare on Earth for two reasons: (1) Those that formed early in the planet's history have eroded away, and (2) Earth developed a dense atmosphere, preventing meteorites that could have formed craters from reaching the planet's surface…Evolution of Mars - Periods of evolution. Scientists know generally how Mars evolved after it formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Their knowledge comes from studies of craters and other surface features...Researchers have ranked the relative ages of surface regions according to the number of impact craters observed. The greater the number of craters in a region, the older the surface there...During the Noachian Period, a tremendous number of rocky objects of all sizes, ranging from small meteoroids to large asteroids, struck Mars. The impact of those objects created craters of all sizes.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven W. Squyres, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University.
“Earth [planet], History of Earth – After the main period of planet formation, most of the remaining debris in the solar system was swept up by the newly formed planets. The collisions of the newly formed planets and debris material were explosive. The impacts created the cratered surfaces of the moon, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. Earth was also struck, but the craters produced by the impacts have all been destroyed by erosion and plate tectonics.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
1. The lethal levels of bombardment are what is supplying the meteorites coming from Mars in the first place.
ii. Any organisms originating on Mars would only face the same lethal environments on Mars before they left and would face them again on Earth once they arrived.
liv. Conclusions about the necessity and viability of Panspermia and its effectiveness for Evolution theory.
1. The possibility of relocating the origin of life to another planet contains 2 contradicting facts admitted by evolutionary scientists.
a. First, the factors and obstacles surrounding the prospect of life originating on earth itself result in a probability so low that panspermia is very necessary.
b. Second, the theory of panspermia itself is faced with the following list of prohibitive obstacles and improbabilities:
i. the sheer amount of time involved in interplanetary travel,
ii. the heat of escape impacts,
iii. the heat of entry impacts,
iv. the velocity of escape impacts,
v. the near absolute zero temperature of space,
vi. the radiation exposure in space,
vii. the destructive break-up that occurs at impact,
viii. the need for any candidate organism to be both a generalist and a specialist at the same time,
ix. the improbability of such an organism finding survivable environment on earth when it arrived,
x. the fact that the only feasible timeframe for such a migration is 300 million years too late in earth’s history,
xi. the lack of a suitable planetary origin either within the solar system or in a nearby system or galaxy.
2. The combination of all these obstacles together only exponentially multiplies the improbabilities of panspermia as a feasible explanation for the origin of life without involving foresight.
3. Evolutionists’ own assestment of the viability of panspermia.
a. With all of these obstacles and improbabilities, it is no wonder, evolutionary scientists themselves consider this scenario, at best, an unknown speculation.
“‘We don't have an answer yet for whether life could withstand space travel,’ muses Mancinelli. ‘But if it can, I wouldn't be surprised if a halophilic organism is the first extraterrestrial we find.’” – “Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?,” by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
“The fanciful notion that life spread through space--known as panspermia--has been tossed around for decades. Originally it was proposed as an interstellar inoculation, but now researchers are beginning to think seriously about a local, Mars-to-Earth version…Evidence is short for assigning life on Earth such a dramatic origin, and Friedmann is not acting as the idea’s evangelist.” – “Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places,” by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
b. A large number of evolutionary scientists regard the suggestion of life from spaces as outright impossible and ridiculous.
i. The famed Stanley Miller regards any version of this theory as “garbage,”
ii. Miller includes the criticism that even if pre-biotic material did manage to reach the earth it would never be in sufficient amounts to lead to bring about life on this planet.
c. “mainstream astrobiologists scoff at such ideas” as mere “wild speculation.”
“Not surprisingly, not everyone thinks so. If you have to depend on such low amounts of organic material as that found in IDPs, says Miller, then from the standpoint of making life on Earth you’re bankrupt. You’re in Chapter Eleven. Because you just don’t have enough. His point rests on simple common sense: the greater the amount of organics, the greater the possibility that they would have interacted with one another. Too few organics, and odds are that they could never have gotten together to begin the process of life in the first place. Organics from outer space, Miller scoffs. That’s garbage, it really is.” – How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Bacterial Evangelists – The eminent British astronomer Fred Hoyle and his former student astrophysicist Chandra Wickramasinghe of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology in Wales promote a far-reaching— and, to most scientists, far-fetched— view of panspermia. They believe that microbes migrate within comets and their dusty remnants…Mainstream astrobiologists scoff at such ideas. No evidence supports the notion that comets harbor watery, microbial havens. Nor are there distinctive signs of bacterial life in the heavens. ‘That's wild speculation,’ says Peter Jenniskens, a meteor specialist at the NASA Ames Research Center.” – Did Life on Earth Come From Mars?, by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 22 No. 08, August 2001
4. Two insurmountable problems with panspermia scenarios
a. First, no matter what form it takes, panspermia simply postpones origin of life dilemmas
i. It relocates the environmental and energy dilemmas facing such origins on earth to another world at another time.
“Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. It is central to many scientific and philosophical problems and to any consideration of extraterrestrial life. Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: …[3] Life is coeternal with matter and has no beginning; life arrived on the Earth at the time of the origin of the earth or shortly thereafter…Such an idea of course avoids rather than solves the problem of the origin of life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, The origin of life, Modern theories – Scientists have proposed two major theories of the origin of life. They are (1) the theory of panspermia and (2) the theory of chemical evolution. The theory of panspermia states that spores from some other part of the universe landed on Earth and began to develop…Even if the theory is true, it explains only the origin of life on Earth and not how life arose in the universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.
ii. Panspermia does not identify or demonstrate what processes overcame the chicken-and-egg dilemma created by the irreducible functional interdependence of cell components.
iii. Panspermia does not identify or demonstrate exactly how those processes were fueled by a sufficient energy supply while remaining in a safe environment that would prevent the pre-biotic chemicals from breaking down from normal, thermodynamic processes.
iv. At best…
1. Even if some version of panspermia were true it still would not provide evolutionary theory with any working scenario for how the origin of life actually came about by automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight
2. Panspermia could only provide an explanation for how life came to earth after that origination already occurred on some other world by unknown processes.
b. Second, panspermia is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable.
i. Testability, falsifiability, and confirmation by empirical experience are requirements for any theory if that theory is to be considered science rather than mere pseudoscience or non-science.
ii. By relocating the origin of life to an unknown world, panspermia scenarios relegate evolutionary theories for the origin of life directly to the realm of un-testability and un-falsifiability.
iii. Because it is an identified location in an identified timeframe with identified conditions, the early earth does provide at least some measure of a test for the suggested theories of the origin of life.
iv. Relocating the origin of life to an unknown planet in the unknown and distant past where conditions are unknown does 2 things.
1. First, panspermia allows for avoiding what modern evolutionary science does consider to be “known facts” pertaining to the early history of the earth.
a. Against these “known facts” evolutionary theories for the origin of life could be at least partially tested.
2. Second, panspermia makes testing and falsifying evolutionary theories for the origin of life impossible because there is no way to know what conditions were like on an unknown planet at an unknown time.
a. This being the case, we cannot check the hypothesis to see if it fits with observable facts and evidence about such an imaginary setting.
v. Evolutionary scientists Imre Friedmann indicates that origins theories, which require life to originate on another planet, are “speculation” and are not “real” because they are not “here” and, therefore, cannot be “checked.”
“All these facts about Mars--along with new data about other worlds in our solar system and beyond--have restored the excitement to exobiology. But for Friedmann, facts about Earth have always come first. Distant planets inspire speculation, but so does the one planet where, for now, we can check hunches about where to find life against nature’s actual results. And when the search gets down to microbes, much of Earth remains unexplored. I do believe it is better to work on terrestrial samples, Friedmann says. Which are real. Which are here.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics
1. In other words, panspermia theories are “un-testable” and “un-falsifiable.”
5. Theories relocating the origin of life to other planets are by their very nature, fundamentally un-falsifiable, they are not scientific and therefore cannot help the theory of evolution if that theory is to remain within the realm of science rather than pseudo-science.
lv. Conclusions on modern evolutionary theory on the origin of life.
1. Modern evolutionary theory simply has no working hypothesis for the origin of life…
a. Evolution has no working location for the origin of life
i. neither from space nor on earth,
ii. neither in deep sea vents, on land, in shallow pools, or tens of meters deep in the ocean,
b. Evolution has no working energy source for the origin of life
i. not fueled by lightning,
ii. not ultraviolet light,
iii. not heat or chemical reactions,
2. So, our definition of evolutionary theory is once again shown to be accurate rather than the product of bias.
a. This fact is even more cemented by the fact that all of the quotes and sources cited to demonstrate these claims have been from secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines themselves, not creationist sources.
4) Various theoretical scenarios are offered for the origin of life. And although each individual scenario is acknowledged to be insufficient due to environmental prohibitions involving chemicals and energy sources, the known geologic history of the earth, and statistical improbabilities particularly those surrounding the arrival of cellular systems that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent, the origin of life is asserted to be the result of automatic, routine processes, in a yet unobserved environment perhaps even occurring on another planet at an unknown time in the past when conditions and time allotments would be ideal.
3. For emphasis, we close this section by once again citing evolutionists own quotes concerning the current status of evolutionary theory on the issue of the origin of life by automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight.
a. From the beginning of evolutionary theory, Darwin himself considered the origin of life question to be exceedingly difficult and one that was not answered by his evolution theory.
“The (from life), The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Although Darwin would not commit himself on the origin of life, others subscribed to Hypothesis 4 more resolutely, notably the famous British biologist T.H. Huxley in his Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life (1869), and the British physicist John Tyndall in his “Belfast Address” of 1874...The primitive atmosphere – Darwin's attitude was: ‘It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. To this day, nothing has changed.
i. Evolution still has no working or accepted theory for the origin of life.
ii. All evolutionists have is a philosophical dislike for teleology, no matter how much the evidence indicates that intelligent foresight is necessary to explain the extraordinary coincidence of circumstances that are necessary for the origin of life.
“Even if life came from elsewhere, we would still have to account for its first development. Thus we might as well assume that life started on earth. How this momentous event happened is still highly conjectural, though no longer purely speculative.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
“Questions about life’s origin are as old as Genesis and as young as each new morning. For scientists, there are no definitive answers. But if no one has yet pinned down the secret, it hasn’t been for lack of trying. Those investigating the origin of life are a rambunctious, scrappy group, in which no two people see things quite the same way; and it doesn’t help that it’s awfully tough to prove or disprove any particular contention…What were those first organic compounds? And how did they form? The questions bedevil origin-of-life researchers. Over the years they have come up with a host of imaginative and intensely debated possibilities.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
“Perhaps the most influential first surfaced four decades ago, when in a dramatic experiment a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller simulated the creation of life in a laboratory…And the simple experiment (It’s so easy to do--high school students now use it to win their science fairs, Miller says) stimulated a rush of studies, with the result that a number of other organic compounds, including adenine and guanine, two of the ingredients of RNA and DNA, were produced by similar procedures…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine
229 Evolution on the Origin of Species: Introduction
230 In this segment, we turn to point 5, which defines the current status of evolutionary theorization concerning the origin of species.
231 Current evolutionary theory on the origin of species was defined as follows:
5) Although the production of a new or different organism from an existing organism occurs in steps that are too subtle and slow to be observed directly and although the fossil record likewise contains no intermediate or transitional forms, it is advanced that all the varieties of organisms on earth today are not reproductively static, but came into being as generations of offspring from one original organism changed over time into new and different types of organisms. Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.
4. There are 2 crucial parts of this definitional statement that will need to be established as acknowledged by evolutionary scientists and secular sources.
a. One pertains to evidence
b. The other pertains to the explanatory mechanisms of evolutionary theory itself.
5. We can also assess the theory of evolution on these 2 grounds.
a. First, does evolution have a mechanism capable of even theoretically explaining and producing the origination of species?
b. Second, does the observable evidence support the evolutionary pillar that there is an overall, universal continuum in which each species and even each different, general type of organism emerged from those preceding it?
i. Or does the evidence indicate each different, general type of organism exists in a static condition, reproductively unrelated and isolated from one another?
6. The centrality of theorization on the origin of species to the entire theory of evolution.
a. Remember Darwin’s theory of evolution left out and did not discuss the origin of life.
“The (from life), The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Although Darwin would not commit himself on the origin of life, others subscribed to Hypothesis 4 more resolutely, notably the famous British biologist T.H. Huxley in his Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life (1869), and the British physicist John Tyndall in his “Belfast Address” of 1874...The primitive atmosphere – Darwin's attitude was: ‘It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Darwin’s theory was focused on and defined as a theory of how different species come about.
ii. Darwin’s book publicizing this theory was titled, The Origin of Species.
“Evolution, III DARWINIAN THEORY – A successful explanation of evolutionary processes was proposed by Charles Darwin. His most famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), is a landmark in human understanding of nature.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, History of the theory of evolution – Darwin's theory. In 1858, Charles R. Darwin presented a joint paper written by him and Alfred R. Wallace, another British naturalist, that proposed a theory of evolution. This theory, in modified form, is accepted by almost every scientist today. It states that all species evolved from a few common ancestors by means of natural selection. Darwin developed the theory more thoroughly in his book, The Origin of Species (1859). The book became a best-seller.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
b. Darwinian evolutionary theory originated as a focus on the origin of species.
i. It wasn’t until after this that the origin of life began to be included in the concept of biological evolution.
1. Within a decade after the publication of Darwin’s theory on evolution, other evolutionary authors began to include the origin of life as part of the theory of evolution.
“Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins – Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: ...[4] Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions. Such reactions may have been likely or may have required one or more highly improbable chemical events...Although Darwin would not commit himself on the origin of life, others subscribed to Hypothesis 4 more resolutely, notably the famous British biologist T.H. Huxley in his Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life (1869), and the British physicist John Tyndall in his “Belfast Address” of 1874. Although Huxley and Tyndall asserted that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals, they had extremely vague ideas about how this might be accomplished.
2. Consequently, modern evolutionary theory has come to include the “origin” or “formation” of life.
“Evolution – Evolution is a process of change over time. The word evolution may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution. Many astronomers think that the stars and planets evolved from a huge cloud of hot gases. Anthropologists study the evolution of human culture from hunting and gathering societies to complex, industrialized societies. Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the formation and development of life on Earth. The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species is known as the theory of organic evolution. Most people call it simply the theory of evolution.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
ii. Despite the inclusion of the origin of life, the changing of one species into another remains the central, defining concept of evolution, just as it has been since the beginning.
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, Main ideas of evolutionary theory – The theory of evolution consists of a set of several interrelated ideas. The basic idea states that species undergo changes in their inherited characteristics over time. There are two main types of change in organic evolution: anagenesis and cladogenesis. Anagenesis refers to changes that occur within a species over time. Because of anagenetic change, the forms and traits of many species today differ from the forms and traits of their ancestors. Cladogenesis refers to the splitting of one species into two or more descendant species. This branching process, also called speciation, can be repeated to create many species. Current evolutionary theory holds that all species evolved from a single form of life which lived more than 3 1/2 billion years ago. Over time, repeated speciation events and anagenetic changes have produced the more than 10 million species inhabiting Earth today.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
c. After Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, subsequent major works and steps in the theory of evolution continued to maintain focus on the origin of species.
i. This is exemplified in the development of the mutation and synthetic theories of evolution.
1. In Darwin’s time, genetics were not understood.
2. This left Darwin without a mechanism to explain the new traits and resulting changes in a species.
“Evolution, III DARWINIAN THEORY – Thus, according to Darwin's theory, evolution proceeds by the natural selection of well-adapted individuals over a span of many generations. The parts of Darwin's theory that were the most difficult to test scientifically were the inferences about the heritability of traits, or characteristics, because heredity was not understood at that time. The basic rules of inheritance became known to science only at the turn of the century, when the earlier genetic work of Gregor Mendel came to light.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, History of the theory of evolution – Darwin had observed that the characteristics of organisms may change during the process of being passed on to offspring. However, he could not explain how or why these changes took place because the principles of genetics were not yet known. The genetic principles of variation and mutation filled this gap in Darwin's theory. Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, had discovered the principles of genetics in the 1860's. Mendel's findings remained unnoticed until the early 1900's, when the science of genetics was established.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
ii. When Gregor Mendel’s studies in genetics were “rediscovered,” this led to the new idea that genetic mutation was the cause of evolutionary changes.
1. And this evolutionary theory became known as mutationism.
“Evolution, History of evolutionary theory, Modern conceptions, The synthetic theory – The rediscovery in 1900 of Mendel's theory of heredity, by Hugo de Vries of The Netherlands and others, led to an emphasis on the role of heredity in evolution. De Vries proposed a new theory of evolution known as mutationism, which essentially did away with natural selection as a major evolutionary process. According to de Vries (joined by other geneticists such as William Bateson in England), there are two kinds of variation that take place in organisms. One is the “ordinary” variability observed among individuals of a species, which is of no lasting consequence in evolution because, according to de Vries, it could not “lead to a transgression of the species border even under conditions of the most stringent and continued selection.” The other consists of the changes brought about by mutations, spontaneous alterations of genes that yield large modifications of the organism and gave rise to new species: “The new species thus originates suddenly, it is produced by the existing one without any visible preparation and without transition.”
iii. As discussion on the mechanisms for the origination of new species continued, the synthetic theory of evolution was developed.
1. The synthetic theory of evolution combined Darwin’s natural selection mechanism with the mechanism of mutation championed by mutationism.
“Evolution, History of the theory of evolution – The synthetic theory was formulated during the 1930's and 1940's by a number of scientists, including four American biologists-Sewall Wright, George G. Simpson, Russian-born Theodosius Dobzhansky, and German-born Ernst W. Mayr-and two British geneticists, Ronald A. Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane. Their theory synthesizes (combines) Darwin's theory of natural selection with the principles of genetics and other sciences.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
2. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a main contributor to synthetic evolution,
a. Wrote a book entitled, “Genetics and the Origin of Species.”
b. This book exhibits that the focus of evolutionary theory remained the origin of species.
“Evolution, IV POPULATION GENETICS – Even while mutationism was replacing Darwinism, the leading evolutionary theory, the science of population genetics was being founded by Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, and several other geneticists, all working independently...Despite the mathematical support that was developed for this view of evolution, most evolutionists adhered to the theory of evolution by random mutations until the late 1930s. At that time Theodosius Dobzhansky, in Genetics and the Origin of Species, extended the mathematical arguments with a wide range of experimental and observational evidence.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, The synthetic theory – The main writers who, together with Dobzhansky, may be considered the architects of the synthetic theory were the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Sir Julian Huxley, the paleontologist George G. Simpson, and the botanist George Ledyard Stebbins. These researchers contributed to a burst of evolutionary studies in the traditional biological disciplines and in some emerging ones—notably population genetics and, later, evolutionary ecology. By 1950 acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was universal among biologists, and the synthetic theory had become widely adopted.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. The ongoing focus among evolutionists on identifying the mechanisms for the origin of species demonstrates that the origin of species has always been and still remains the core, defining concept of evolutionary theory.
i. It was in the decades after the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species,” that the origin of life quickly joined the origin of species as the 2 main pillars of evolutionary theory,
7. Because of its position as the core of evolutionary theory, it is utterly crucial for evolutionary view to have a very well-established and thoroughly evidenced explanation on how species originate.
a. But, our definition of evolutionary theory reflected that evolutionary theory does NOT have an explanation that is either well-established or evidenced for how species originate.
i. As a result, this definition may at first seem controversial and perhaps biased.
b. We will demonstrate that evolutionary theory does NOT have a viable explanation using secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines.
i. The definition will not in any way rely upon creationist writings or characterizations of evolutionary theory.
232 Evolution on the Origin of Species: Evolution’s Mechanisms
233 Our fifth definitional point for the theory of evolution addressed 2 critical issues, which need to be established as objective fact rather than a mere biased description.
234 First, does evolution have a mechanism capable of even theoretically explaining and producing the origination of species?
235 Second, does the observable evidence support the evolutionary pillar that there is an overall, universal continuum in which each species and even each different, general type of organism emerged from those preceding it?
236 In this segment, we will address the issue of the mechanism for speciation asserted by evolutionary theory.
237 We will also later discuss the second half of our definition where we state that there are probability obstacles that strongly negate evolutionary theories explanatory mechanism for speciation.
5) …Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.
238 (Note that while we are using the evolutionary term speciation, what really is at issue isn’t how variations may occur within an existing type of organism, but how new types of organisms originate.)
lvi. Modern evolutionary theory maintains the position of synthetic evolution theory that the 2 mechanisms for the origination of species are:
1. genetic mutation
2. natural selection
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Much evolutionary change results from the interaction of two processes: (1) mutation and (2) natural selection. Mutation produces random (chance) variation in the biological makeup of a species or a population-that is, individuals of the same species living in the same area. Natural selection sorts out these random changes according to their value in enhancing the individual's reproduction and survival.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The concept of natural selection – Evolution can be seen as a two-step process. First, hereditary variation takes place; second, selection is made of those genetic variants that will be passed on most effectively to the following generations. Hereditary variation also entails two mechanisms: the spontaneous mutation of one variant to another, and the sexual process that recombines those variants to form a multitude of variations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
lvii. How mutation and natural selection function in evolution theory
1. According to evolution theory, mutation is the only mechanism in evolution that produces and increases genetic variety.
a. Without new variety becoming available you can’t get new kinds of organisms to originate from previously existing organisms.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The concept of natural selection – The central argument of Darwin's theory of evolution starts from the existence of hereditary variation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations – Life originated about 3,500,000,000 years ago in the form of primordial organisms that were very simple and very small. All living things have evolved from these lowly beginnings. At present there are more than 2,000,000 known species, which are widely diverse in size, shape, and way of life, as well as in the DNA sequences that contain their genetic information. What has produced the pervasive genetic variation within natural populations and the genetic differences among species? There must be some evolutionary means by which existing DNA sequences are changed and new sequences are incorporated into the gene pools of species. The information encoded in the nucleotide sequence of DNA is, as a rule, faithfully reproduced during replication, so that each replication results in two DNA molecules that are identical to each other and to the parent molecule. But heredity is not a perfectly conservative process; otherwise, evolution could not have taken place. Occasionally “mistakes,” or mutations, occur in the DNA molecule during replication, so that daughter cells differ from the parent cells in the sequence or in the amount of DNA.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations – The process of mutation provides each generation with many new genetic variations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, Dynamics of genetic change, Processes of gene frequency change, Mutation – The allelic variations that make evolution possible are generated by the process of mutation; but new mutations change gene frequencies very slowly, since mutation rates are low.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, The process of evolution, The operation of natural selection in populations, Natural selection as a process of genetic change – Hereditary variants, favourable or not to the organisms, arise by mutation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Only such mutations can introduce new hereditary characteristics. For this reason, mutations are the building blocks of evolutionary change and of the development of new species.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Some mutations, however, help organisms adapt better to their environment…This type of beneficial mutation provides the raw material for evolutionary change.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – For natural selection to operate, two biological conditions must be met. First, the individuals of a population must differ in their hereditary characteristics...The second requirement for natural selection is that some inherited differences must affect chances for survival and reproduction.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
b. Mutation is a mechanism of addition.
i. Mutation is what causes new genes, genes that never existed before, to form.
2. By contrast, natural selection does not add new genes or variety at all.
a. Natural selection simply takes the existing variety that was created by mutation and decreases it.
i. Through natural selection individuals in the population with less advantageous genes fail to survive and reproduce.
ii. Over time, those non-advantageous genes are removed from the population.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The concept of natural selection – The central argument of Darwin's theory of evolution starts from the existence of hereditary variation. Experience with animal and plant breeding demonstrates that variations can be developed that are “useful to man.” So, reasoned Darwin, variations must occur in nature that are favourable or useful in some way to the organism itself in the struggle for existence. Favourable variations are ones that increase chances for survival and procreation. Those advantageous variations are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous ones. This is the process known as natural selection. The outcome of the process is an organism that is well adapted to its environment, and evolution often occurs as a consequence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Natural Selection – Natural Selection, in biology, the process by which environmental effects lead to varying degrees of reproductive success among individuals of a population of organisms with different hereditary characters, or traits. The characters that inhibit reproductive success decrease in frequency from generation to generation. The resulting increase in the proportion of reproductively successful individuals usually enhances the adaptation of the population to its environment.” – "Natural Selection," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, V THE SYNTHETIC THEORY – Mutations are now known to be changes in the position of a gene, or in the information coded in the gene, that can affect the function of the protein for which the gene is responsible. Natural selection can then operate to favor or suppress a particular gene according to how strongly its protein product contributes to the reproductive success of the organism.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Much evolutionary change results from the interaction of two processes: (1) mutation and (2) natural selection. Mutation produces random (chance) variation in the biological makeup of a species or a population-that is, individuals of the same species living in the same area. Natural selection sorts out these random changes according to their value in enhancing the individual's reproduction and survival. Such selection ensures that variations that make individuals better adapted to their environment will be passed on to future generations. At the same time, natural selection eliminates variations that make individuals less able to survive.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, The operation of natural selection in populations, Natural selection as a process of genetic change – Natural selection refers to any reproductive bias favouring some genes or genotypes over others. Natural selection promotes the adaptation of organisms to the environments in which they live; any hereditary variant that improves the ability to survive and reproduce in an environment will increase in frequency over the generations, precisely because the organisms carrying such a variant will leave more descendants than those lacking it. Hereditary variants, favourable or not to the organisms, arise by mutation. Unfavourable ones are eventually eliminated by natural selection; their carriers leave no descendants or leave fewer than those carrying alternative variants.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Natural selection is a subtractive mechanism.
i. It does not add new genetic information or variety
ii. It eliminates the weaker or disadvantageous genetic varieties from a population.
c. Natural selection works on variety that already exists in a population.
lviii. Natural selection and our 2 theories (evolution and creationism)
1. But both theories include the mechanism of natural selection and agree on its function of ensuring a strong population geared for survival in the surrounding environment.
a. Natural selection is completely compatible with and accepted by creationist theory.
i. Creationism asserts that each species was created with an existing, very broad variety of genes and that natural selection works on that existing gene pool.
1. (This function for natural selection in the creationist model is outlined by the gene pool illustrations in our expanded commentary on creation theory.)
b. Evolutionists assert that each species emerges as new genes are formed by the mechanism of mutation and that natural selection then works on those new genes.
2. Proving natural selection has no bearing on which is a more viable theory (evolution or creationism).
a. Because both theories acknowledge and incorporate natural selection into their respective models…
i. The key question between evolution and creation theory is NOT whether a mechanism exists, such as natural selection, which will remove disadvantageous genes and traits from a population in a particular environment in order to keep that population as survivable and strong as possible.
ii. Simply proving that natural selection occurs does NOT do anything to support evolutionary theory over creation theory.
3. Where the theories differ is on the source of the existing genetic variety.
a. The origination of new species requires new genes.
i. New genetic material is the very substance of new species (and new kinds of organisms).
ii. The only way to get new genetic material is by mutation.
1. Natural selection cannot produce new genes or new species (or new kinds of organisms).
a. Natural selection makes sure that the new species that mutation produces are ones that are fit for survival.
b. But as such, natural selection only limits the process to the production of only survivable species.
c. Natural selection does not cause this process.
lix. It is mutationa alone (not natural selection) that must be established as a viable, efficient, and frequent enough occurrence to produce enough new genetic material to produce new species and whole new types of organisms.
1. Without the production of new beneficial genetic material by mutation, natural selection will only operate exactly as described in the creation model.
a. (As outlined in the gene pool discussion during our expanded commentary on creationism.)
2. In order for the origin of species to occur by evolution, mutation must be a viable mechanism.
a. If mutation is not sufficient to produce enough new genetic material that is beneficial, then evolutionary theory simply does not have a working mechanism for the origination of species (specifically new kinds of organisms) by automatic, routine processes.
lx. Is mutation capable of producing new species (new kinds of organisms), and in fact, for producing all of the species (kinds of organisms) that we see today?
1. Important related information.
a. There are over 2,000,000 (2 million) species that we know about today and scientists estimate that there may be at least 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 (10-30 million) more left to be discovered.
“Evolution – More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. What secular and evolutionary sources state about the likelihood, constraints, and efficiency of producing new genetic information and new species (new kinds of organisms) by mutation.
a. First, mutations, in general, are rare.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations – The information encoded in the nucleotide sequence of DNA is, as a rule, faithfully reproduced during replication, so that ^each replication results in two DNA molecules that are identical to each other and to the parent molecule. But heredity is not a perfectly conservative process; otherwise, evolution could not have taken place. Occasionally “mistakes,” or mutations, occur in the DNA molecule during replication, so that daughter cells differ from the parent cells in the sequence or in the amount of DNA.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, XI MUTATIONS – Although the replication of DNA is very precise, it is not uniformly perfect. Very rarely, changes occur in DNA during replication, and the new piece of DNA contains one or more changed nucleotides. Such a change, known as a mutation, may take place in any part of the DNA.” – "Genetics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, Dynamics of genetic change, Processes of gene frequency change
Mutation – The allelic variations that make evolution possible are generated by the process of mutation; but new mutations change gene frequencies very slowly, since mutation rates are low.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Second, because most mutations are harmful or neutral they are removed by natural selection and cannot and do not contribute to the origin of new species (or rather, new kinds of organisms).
i. These mutations are removed by natural selection because they either provide no advantage or provide a disadvantage.
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Mutations occur regularly but are usually infrequent, and most of them produce unfavorable traits…In most cases, such mutant genes are eliminated by natural selection because most individuals that inherit them die before producing any offspring.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
“Evolution, XI MUTATIONS, A Gene Mutation – Most gene mutations are harmful to the organisms that carry them; the function of a complex system such as a protein is more easily destroyed than improved by a random change.” – "Genetics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, XI MUTATIONS, B Chromosome Mutations – The substitution of one nucleotide for another is not the only possible kind of mutation. Sometimes a nucleotide may be entirely lost or one may be gained. In addition, more dramatic and obvious changes may occur, or the chromosomes themselves may alter in form or number…Sometimes a piece of chromosome will be lost from one member of a pair of homologous chromosomes and gained by the other member. One of the pair is then said to have a deficiency and the other a duplication. Deficiencies are usually lethal in the homozygous condition, and duplications are often so…Another kind of mutation occurs when a pair of homologous chromosomes fails to separate at meiosis. This can produce gametes-and hence zygotes-with extra chromosomes and others with one or more chromosomes missing. Individuals with an extra chromosome are known as trisomics, and those with a missing chromosome as monosomics. Both conditions tend to result in severe disabilities.” – "Genetics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Gene – Mutations occur when the number or order of bases in a gene is disrupted. Nucleotides can be deleted, doubled, rearranged, or replaced, with each alteration having a particular effect. The mutation generally has little or no effect; when it does alter an organism, the change is frequently lethal. A beneficial mutation will rise in frequency within a population until it becomes the norm.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Third, in order to contribute to the origination of a new species, a mutation must be beneficial (as opposed to harmful, lethal, or neutral and irrelevant.)
“Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – Some mutations, however, help organisms adapt better to their environment…This type of beneficial mutation provides the raw material for evolutionary change.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
i. Mutations in general are rare.
1. Most mutations are harmful and neutral mutations
2. Beneficial mutations are even more infrequent than harmful or neutral mutations.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations – The consequences of gene mutations may range from negligible to lethal…Newly arisen mutations are more likely to be harmful than beneficial to their carriers, because mutations are random events with respect to adaptation; that is, their occurrence is independent of any possible consequences.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Therefore, beneficial mutations are the rarest kind of mutation.
b. (We will cover more on the rarity of beneficial mutations below.)
d. Fourth, mutations are random and independent.
i. Their occurrence is not determined by or related to any potential adaptive advantage, which would constitute foresight and teleology.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations – …mutations are random events with respect to adaptation; that is, their occurrence is independent of any possible consequences.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, III DARWINIAN THEORY – The basic rules of inheritance became known to science only at the turn of the century, when the earlier genetic work of Gregor Mendel came to light…The discovery was then made that inheritable changes in genes, termed mutations, could occur spontaneously and randomly without regard to the environment.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. This severely limits the likelihood of getting a series of mutations necessary to produce any new functional structure or organ.
1. This is because such items are controlled by more than one gene.
2. The arrival of even 2 new beneficial genes that relate to one another in function is highly improbable and indicative of foresight and purposeful order in mutation.
e. Fifth, to contribute to the eventual production of a new species, a mutation must occur in an organism that actually produced fertile offspring, offspring which in turn, also reproduced.
"Evolution, Causes of evolutionary change – If the parents produce a limited number of offspring, some of their genes may not be passed on." – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.
f. Sixth, to contribute to the origin of species, mutation must occur in the gametes of an organism.
i. Gametes are the reproductive cells of an organism.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Chromosomal mutations – The reproductive cells (gametes) are an exception; they have only half as many chromosomes as the body (somatic) cells.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. If a mutation is not present in the reproductive cells, it will not be passed on to the next generation and, therefore, cannot contribute to the origin of a new species.
g. Seventh, not all gametes contribute to an offspring.
i. To contribute to the origin of species, a mutation must not only occur among the gametes in general but the mutation must be present in the specific individual gamete that participates in fertilization of the next generation.
1. Chromosomes occur in pairs.
2. Each chromosome in a pair is different from its counterpart because each chromosome in a pair comes from a different parent.
"Chromosome, IV CHROMOSOME NUMBER – In the cells of most organisms that reproduce sexually, chromosomes occur in pairs: one that is inherited from the female parent, and one that is inherited from the male parent. The two chromosomes of each pair contain genetic information that corresponds to the same inherited characteristics.” – "Chromosome," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Each gamete, or reproductive cell, has only 1 of the chromosomes in the chromosome pair so that they have half of the number of chromosomes found in normal body cells.
1. In humans, for example, reproductive cells have only 23 chromosomes, while normal body cells have 46.
iii. When gametes combine with the gamete from the other parent or gamete during fertilization, the newly formed cell then has a full set of chromosomes, half from each parent or gamete.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Chromosomal mutations – The reproductive cells (gametes) are an exception; they have only half as many chromosomes as the body (somatic) cells.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Heredity, Sex cells and reproduction – Sexual reproduction generally involves two parents, each of which contributes half the chromosomes to the offspring. Sexual reproduction starts with the production of specialized sex cells that are called gametes. Gametes-that is, sperm, pollen grains, and eggs-are produced in a process of cell division called meiosis. Meiosis results in the sex cells' having half the number of chromosomes found in the body cells. In human beings, therefore, meiosis produces sperm and egg cells that have 23 chromosomes each. In dogs, the number of chromosomes in each sex cell is 39. The uniting of an egg cell and a sperm cell, called fertilization, restores the full number of chromosomes. In human beings, the resulting cell, known as a fertilized egg, has 46 chromosomes, 23 pairs. One chromosome of each pair comes from the mother's egg, and the other from the father's sperm." - Worldbook, Contributors: Philip W. Hedrick, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Arizona State University, Robert F. Weaver, Ph.D., Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor, Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Kansas.
iv. This removal of one of the chromosomes in a chromosome pair during the formation of the gametes occurs, not just in animals, but in most plants as well.
“Reproductive system, plant – Reproduction in plants is basically either asexual or sexual. Asexual reproduction in plants involves a variety of widely disparate methods for creating new plants identical in every respect to the parent. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, depends on a complex series of basic cellular events, involving chromosomes and their genes, that take place within an elaborate sexual apparatus evolved precisely for the creation of new plants in some respects different from the two parents that played a role in their production…General features of sexual systems – In most plant groups both sexual and asexual methods of reproduction occur. Some species, however, seem secondarily to have lost the capacity for sexual reproduction. Such cases are described below (see Variations in reproductive cycles).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
v. Evolutionary scientists estimate that mutations in general (not specifically the rarer beneficial mutations) only occur in 1 out of 100,000 gametes to 1 out of 1,000,000 gametes.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations – Mutation rates have been measured in a great variety of organisms, mostly for mutants that exhibit conspicuous effects. Mutation rates are generally lower in bacteria and other microorganisms than in more complex species. In humans and other multicellular organisms, the rate typically ranges from about one per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 gametes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
vi. This means that the odds against any gamete with a mutation being involved in fertilization are typically between 100,000 or even 1 million to one in multicellular organisms.
1. The likelihood is even lower for beneficial mutations.
vii. Therefore, even if a mutation gives an organism survival advantage or reproductive advantage, that mutation will not pass on to the next generation and contribute to the origin of species unless it is on the actual chromosome from the chromosome pair that actually makes it into the specific gamete, which fertilized to form the offspring.
h. Eighth, mutations are usually recessive and, consequently, do not manifest until or unless the other parent or other gamete also possesses the same mutation.
“Evolution, XI MUTATIONS, A Gene Mutation – Mutations are usually recessive, and their harmful effects are not expressed unless two of them are brought together into the homozygous condition. This is most likely to occur as a result of inbreeding, the mating of closely related organisms that may have inherited the same recessive mutant gene from a common ancestor.” – "Genetics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. Since most mutations are recessive and therefore will not manifest…
1. They will not produce an advantage to the organism
2. Consequently, they are likely to be removed by natural selection rather than being passed on to contribute to the origin of a new species.
i. Ninth, new genes, even beneficial ones, will be removed by natural selection unless there is an accompanying change to the environment.
“VI SPECIATION – Because all the established genes in a population have been monitored for fitness by selection, newly arisen mutations are unlikely to enhance fitness unless the environment changes so as to favor the new gene activity, as in the gene for dark color in the peppered moth. Novel genes that cause large changes rarely promote fitness and are usually lethal. The genes already established by selection are carefully adjusted to one another so their biochemical effects are coordinated.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. Any new genes which are recessive and, therefore, do not actually manifest an advantage in the environment, are not going to contribute to the origin of species (or new kinds of organisms).
ii. This means that lightning must strike in the same place twice.
iii. Since mutations are recessive, in order to manifest and thereby contribute to the origination of a new species and avoid removal by natural selection, the following would have to occur…
1. Although providing no competitive advantage because it does not manifest, a beneficial mutation would need to avoid elimination by natural selection for enough generations that the particular mutation would be distributed sufficiently throughout the population to the extent that two individuals mate, which were both carrying the mutation
2. A beneficial mutation would need to avoid elimination long enough for the recessive mutation to by chance end up in the particular gametes that fertilized the next generation.
iv. Only in this way could a generation arrive in which the beneficial mutation would manifest in an individual organism with only the 2 recessive mutated genes.
lxi. Conclusions about mutation as a mechanism for producing new kinds of organisms
1. The above 9 facts dramatically inhibit the possibility of beneficial mutation producing new species.
2. Those factors can be summarized as follows.
a. (The quotes in the summary below represent statements taken directly from the excerpts above.)
b. First, “DNA is, as a rule, faithfully reproduced during replication,” and consequently mutations are “very rare.”
c. Second, “gene mutations may range from negligible to lethal” so that “mutation generally has little or no effect; when it does alter an organism, the change is frequently lethal.”
d. Third, as such, in order to contribute to the origination of a species, a mutation must be beneficial, adding an advantageous function rather than removing or harming existing functions.
i. It is “beneficial mutation” that “provides the raw material for evolutionary change.”
e. Fourth, “mutations are random events…their occurrence is independent of any possible consequences” and “without regard to the environment.”
i. As such, to the extent that multiple genes are required for a new trait, structure, or organ, gene mutations are not likely to occur conveniently all at once or in the sequence necessary for development.
f. Fifth, “If the parents produce a limited number of offspring, some of their genes may not be passed on."
i. Consequently, to contribute to the origin of a new species, the mutation must occur in an individual organism that actually produces new offspring.
g. Sixth, to contribute to the origin of a new species, the mutation must occur in the gametes, the reproductive cells of the organism.
h. Seventh, to contribute to the origin of a new species, the mutation must actually be present in the exact gamete that participates in fertilization.
i. Eighth, “Mutations are usually recessive,” and, therefore, whether beneficial or harmful, their “effects are not expressed unless two of them are brought together” during fertilization.
i. This means that both gametes from both parents have to posses the exact same mutation.
ii. If this does not occur, no advantage will be manifested by the new gene, and as such, natural selection will work to eliminate the new gene from the population.
j. Ninth, “newly arisen mutations are unlikely to enhance fitness unless the environment changes so as to favor the new gene activity”
i. As a result, without a change to the environment, any new gene, even a beneficial one, is going to be eliminated by natural selection.
3. All of these factors, particularly when considered collectively, indicate that the prospect of new species (new kinds of organisms) originating by beneficial mutation is untenable.
a. Consider the improbability of a mutation occurring…
i. that is neither harmful or negligible but beneficial,
ii. in an organism that survives long enough to reproduce,
iii. makes it to the gametes,
iv. ends up in the gamete that participates in fertilization,
v. is present through this process in the other parent or gamete involved in reproduction,
vi. in right genes in the right order to develop structures and organs that are controlled by multiple genes,
vii. simultaneously with a corresponding change in the environment at just the right time
4. The idea of mutation as the mechanism for evolution theory’s origination of different kinds of organisms defies probability.
a. Even if such a series of events did happen to coincide, the unlikelihood of each step and the further unlikelihood of all the steps would indicate the presence of foresight and teleological orchestration.
5. Add to this that in order to account for all of the genetic variety that is produced in every living organism that exists today within 3.8 billion years this highly improbably series of coincidences must have repeated over and over again quite frequently.
239 Evolution on the Origin of Species: Evidence and the Rate of Speciation
240 Review
241 In the beginning of this segment on “Evolution and the Origin of Species,” we stated that there were 2 crucial parts of our definitional statement that would need to be established as acknowledged by evolutionary scientists and secular sources
242 One of these crucial parts pertained to evidence
243 The other pertained to the explanatory mechanisms of evolutionary theory itself.
244 Pertaining to the mechanism of speciation – beneficial mutation
245 Given the criteria and probabilities by secular and evolutionary sources, we concluded that beneficial mutation simply is not a tenable mechanism for the origin of species.
246 Focusing on the observable evidence in the fossil record to see what support might be found in it for evolution’s general theory of speciation.
247 (We have already seen that evolution’s mechanism for speciation isn’t at all sufficient.)
248 But is there evidence that speciation has occurred as evolution states?
249 The evidence from the fossil record further indicates that evolution is effectively without a coherent theory on the subject of speciation (and the origin of new kinds of organisms).
250 This segment will be broken down to address 3 fundamental issues:
251 1) What present observation and the fossil record cannot show,
252 2) What present observation and the fossil record do not show,
253 3) What present observation and the fossil record do show.
254 (All 3 of these issues directly relate to whether or not the evolutionary origin of species is falsifiable, and therefore, whether or not it is scientific.)
255 $$$$ What the fossil record cannot show
256 Recall a fundamental requirement of the scientific method that in order to be considered “truly scientific” a theory has to be at least falsifiable in principle by empirical evidence.
257 As we also noted, empiricism is…
258 the “philosophical outlook of most scientists”
259 the idea that “beliefs are to be accepted only if they have been confirmed by actual experience.”
“Empiricism – a philosophical approach that views experience as the most important source of knowledge. It is the philosophical outlook of most scientists.” – Worldbook Encyclopedia, Contributor: W. W. Bartley, III, Ph.D., Former Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University.
“Empiricism – in philosophy, the attitude that beliefs are to be accepted and acted upon only if they first have been confirmed by actual experience.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Science – A theory developed by a scientist cannot be accepted as part of scientific knowledge until it has been verified by the studies of other researchers. In fact, for any knowledge to be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly tested experimentally and found to be true. This characteristic of science sets it apart from other branches of knowledge. For example, the humanities, which include religion, philosophy, and the arts, deal with ideas about human nature and the meaning of life. Such ideas cannot be scientifically proved. There is no test that tells whether a philosophical system is "right." No one can determine scientifically what feeling an artist tried to express in a painting. Nor can anyone perform an experiment to check for an error in a poem or a symphony.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History and the History of Science, City University of New York.
“Empiricism, Criticism and evaluation, Criticism and evaluation – One important philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has rejected the inductivism that views the growth of empirical knowledge as the result of a mechanical routine of generalization. To him it is falsifiability by experience that makes a statement empirical.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Science, philosophy of, Historical development, The 20th-century debate: Positivists versus historians – Meanwhile, the qualified Realism of Planck and Hertz was carried further by such men as Norman Campbell, an English physicist known for his sharpening of the distinction between laws and theories, and Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher recognized for his theory of falsifiability, both of whose views reflect the explicit methodology of many working scientists today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Positivism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific) and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
6. We will focus on how the scientific criteria of falsifiability and empiricism apply to the evolutionary theory that each type of plant or animal today came from previous distinct and different types of organisms.
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. In evolutionary theory, the process of a new species emerging takes thousands of generations and thousands of years.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Evolution as a genetic function, The origin of genetic variation: mutations, Gene mutations – Mutation rates have been measured in a great variety of organisms, mostly for mutants that exhibit conspicuous effects. Mutation rates are generally lower in bacteria and other microorganisms than in more complex species. In humans and other multicellular organisms, the rate typically ranges from about one per 100,000 to one per 1,000,000 gametes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
7. The process of speciation takes too long to be observed actually occurring.
a. 2 alternative evolutionary views on the rate and process of speciation both assert timeframes that are much longer than any human being could observe (or has even been observing)
i. Punctuated Equilibrium
1. The shortest potential time scale for the transformation of one species into another is thousands of years.
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE - For this reason, in part, a number of evolutionists-most notably Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History-have proposed a variant concept of "punctuated equilibria" for species evolution. According to this concept, species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced suddenly by newer and more successful forms. These sudden changes are the "punctuations" in the state of equilibrium that give this concept its name. Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over periods of thousands of years, most evolutionists tend to consider the punctuated-equilibrium concept only another possible mode of evolutionary change that could take place along with the processes described by the modern synthesis, rather than as a supplanting model for evolution theory.” – Worldbook, "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Gradualist Evolution
1. The alternative to punctuated equilibrium.
2. Asserts that transformations take even longer than thousands of years.
“Gould, Stephen Jay – Unlike the gradualist theory, which would have species evolve gradually over long periods of time, the punctuated equilibrium theory holds that the evolution of a species consists of rapid changes in small, relatively isolated populations, followed by long periods of stability.” – "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. The process and evolution of new species is so slow and so gradual that is impossible to detect.
i. In a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, Wayne State University evolutionary biologist Dr. William Moore stated that the process of decent is so slow, subtle, and “insensibly distinct” that it cannot actually be observed even in principle.
“This is why evolutionary biologists have a difficult time defining species. There are these intermediate situations…It is by a process of descent with modification through insensibly distinct intermediate forms. It’s a continuum. And as I mentioned earlier that’s the problem with defining species...” – Evolutionary Biologist Dr. William Moore, “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video
ii. Britannica Encyclopedia also acknowledges that the inability to detect when speciation has occurred is a fact of evolutionary theory.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that…individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons…The other reason for ambiguity is rooted in the nature of evolution as a gradual process…Since the process is gradual, there is not a particular point at which it is possible to say that the two populations have become two different species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
8. If the process of evolution is undetectable what does the evidence show?
a. We cannot observe the actual transition of one type of plant or animal into a new, distinct type.
b. We can only observe…
i. The presence of different existing types of plants and animals that already cannot interbreed.
ii. All that we can actually observe is static lineages of organisms that already cannot interbreed.
9. We cannot observe speciation today, but we should be able to observe evidence for evolution in the fossil record.
a. While evolution takes too long for any human to observe its occurrence, in evolutionary theory the fossil record spans the history of the earth.
b. In principle then, there is a “recording” that has been going on long enough to “record” evolution and allow us to see what happened over periods of time that are longer than human beings actually live.
10. Possible indications of evolution in the fossil record
a. There are only 2 ways to identify distinct species:
i. distinct form (also known as morphology)
1. The term “morphology” simply refers to “the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.”
“Morphology – 1a: a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants b: the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts.” – Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
ii. the inability to interbreed.
11. The fossil record cannot show evidence for the evolution of different species using morphology and the ability to interbreed.
a. The fossil record only shows gross morphological structure
i. However, organisms with the same morphology may not be of the same species.
1. Species that can no longer interbreed “are often morphologically indistinguishable” from one another in the fossil record.
ii. The fossil record simply does not provide any information regarding whether two organisms could or did interbreed.
1. This problem of demonstrating speciation from the fossil record is considered “insuperable” meaning that this problem simply cannot be solved.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Speciation involves, therefore, the development of reproductive isolation between populations previously able to interbreed… Paleontologists recognize species by their different morphologies as preserved in the fossil record, but fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation because new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestors are often morphologically indistinguishable from them…This situation creates an insuperable difficulty for resolving the question whether morphological evolution is always associated with speciation events. If speciation is defined as the evolution of reproductive isolation, the fossil record provides no evidence of a necessary association between speciation and morphological change.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. The fossil record only shows external morphological structure, it cannot reveal any potential changes that might have been taking place in the “genetic makeup” of the overall organism.
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Fossils primarily show gross morphological changes, whereas changes taking place in genetic makeup could be extensive even though overall body structures do not reveal these shifts in populations of species.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. These limitations simply make it impossible to use the fossil record to determine whether or not organisms that look alike in terms of form or structure were different species or even in the process of becoming different species.
i. Therefore, “the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development” are not “of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species.”
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – In addition, the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development according to the modern synthesis are themselves not necessarily of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species, however complete it might be over a given stretch of time.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
12. Even in principle, the fossil record cannot by definintion show us evidence of new species evolving from earlier species.
a. The buildup of new genetic material and the inability to reproduce are evolution’s defining marks of speciation
b. But the fossil record cannot reveal…
i. the genetic buildup of beneficial mutations necessary for speciation,
ii. whether or not organisms that have the same basic structure could interbreed,
iii. whether or not organisms of slightly different size and shape might be able to interbreed.
c. Any changes are either so small or so undetectable that they escape the fossil record just as much as they inherently evade observation today.
13. If the evolution of species cannot be observed today or in the fossil record…
a. How is the theory of the evolution of species falsifiable?
b. How can the theory of the evolution of species possibly be confirmed?
c. How can the theory of the evolution of species be disconfirmed, disproved, or falsified even in principle if it is of such a nature that there will be no way to observe it even in a fossil record of billions of years?
d. What possible evidence could there conceivably ever be that could falsify a theory that by its very nature escapes detection and recording in the observable evidence?
14. Conclusions on what the fossil record cannot show us.
a. The theory of the evolution of species is beyond detection, beyond either confirmation or disconfirmation by the available evidence, and therefore is, unfalsifiable, which relegates this theory to the realm of the unscientific.
lxii. What present observation and the fossil record does not show us.
1. The evolutionary community acknowledges that the fossil record does not contain transitional forms showing one species or kind of organism in transition to becoming another.
a. If the fossil record is taken to be a record of biological history on earth, then the fossil record actually records that there were no transitional forms where the actual evolution from one species or kind to another is taking place.
2. This fact has begun a debate of 2 alternative views – punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.
a. In both views, the evolutionary theory of speciation is constructed in such a way as to evade any potential falsification by observable.
b. The two alternate views on speciation within the evolutionary community center on exactly how evolutionary speciation occurs in the real world…
i. does it happen slowly and gradually?
1. Gradualism asserts the position of slow, gradual changes.
ii. does it happen more all-at-once in quick, shorter bursts?
“Fossil, IV LEARNING FROM FOSSILS, A Evolution – The fossil record suggests that evolution may have progressed at different rates-sometimes gradually, and at other times in short bursts…This is difficult to prove, however, because sedimentation is rarely continuous over long periods of time.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. Punctuated equilibrium asserts the position of quick, large-scale changes
c. Understanding a few facts about the fossil record will explain the reasoning behind these 2 evolutionary views.
3. Gaps in the fossil record
a. There are gaps in the fossil record.
b. The fossil record is divided up into strata.
i. Where one stratum meets the strata above or below it, there is estimated to be tens of thousands of years of history that is unrecorded between any 2 strata.
“Evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – The fossil record indicates that morphological evolution is by and large a gradual process. Major evolutionary changes are usually due to a building up over the ages of relatively small changes. But the fossil record is discontinuous. Fossil strata are separated by sharp boundaries; accumulation of fossils within a geologic deposit (stratum) is fairly constant over time, but the transition from one stratum to another may involve gaps of tens of thousands of years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The strata themselves (where fossils are found) contain no transitional forms between species and kinds of organisms
i. (For an illustration of how the fossil record works in evolutionary theory as described in the numerous quotes below, please see Speciation and the Fossil Record Figure 1.)
d. Evolutionists know that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.
i. Darwin understood from the onset of the theory of evolution that the transitional forms are not in the fossil record.
“Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduate organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323 (Cited on “A Question of Origins,” Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, , 43 minutes)
ii. The absence of transitional forms, intermediates, or “missing links” in the fossil record in the fossil record continues to be a recognized fact among evolutionists today.
1. Transitional forms are the “missing links” where one species or kind of organism is literally turning into another and actually appears somewhere between the two.
“Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown…” – Alfred G. Fisher, evolutionist, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section (Cited on “A Question of Origins,” Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, , 51 minutes, 50 seconds)
e. Evolutionary theorists still do not have an agreed-upon, working explanation for why there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Because understanding of the actual evolutionary events that took place over earth's long history depends largely on interpretations of an incomplete fossil record, much latitude remains for differences in such interpretations. One of the issues that is currently being debated among theorists derives from a notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. Attempts to explain the absense of transitional forms in the fossil record has resulted in the punctuated equilibrium view and the gradualist view.
1. Notice the statement below that…
a. there are “discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution”
“Eldredge, Niles – American paleontologist who, with fellow paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolutionary changes occur in relatively short, abrupt bursts after long periods in which few changes take place…After several analyses of the trilobite fossil record, Eldredge concluded that trilobites evolved in short, concentrated bursts, rather than the gradual and continuous change predicted by Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution. In 1972 Eldredge collaborated with Gould to publish the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to reconcile the discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In his theory of punctuated equilibrium, Eldredge postulates that species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, only to be abruptly replaced by newer and more successful forms-sporadic changes that appear as "punctuation" in the fossil record.” – "Eldredge, Niles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Gould, Stephen Jay – He taught at Harvard University from 1967. Gould (with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History) originated the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, a theory based on the fact that very few transitional forms are found in the fossil record. Unlike the gradualist theory, which would have species evolve gradually over long periods of time, the punctuated equilibrium theory holds that the evolution of a species consists of rapid changes in small, relatively isolated populations, followed by long periods of stability.” – "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. The absence of transitional forms in the fossil record poses problems for the gradualist evolutionary view which predicts that changes are constant, slow, and gradual.
1. If this were the case, constant, gradual intermediate forms should have made it into the fossil record.
2. But they are not and instead, organisms remain unchanging, rather than evolving, in the fossil record.
iii. On account of this discrepancy, or “discontinuity” as Encarta describes it, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was formulated to explain why the fossil record is a record of organisms that don’t transition from one to the next.
1. According to punctuated equilibrium…
a. evolution has escaped recording in the fossil record because it does not happen slowly, constantly, and gradually as traditionally theorized, but instead happens abruptly, with major changes occurring in brief time periods that are too short to be recorded in the fossil record.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Some paleontologists have proposed that the discontinuities of the fossil record are not artifacts created by gaps in the record, but rather reflect the true nature of morphological evolution, which happens in sudden bursts associated with the formation of new species.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis. For this reason, in part, a number of evolutionists-most notably Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History-have proposed a variant concept of ‘punctuated equilibria’ for species evolution. According to this concept, species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced suddenly by newer and more successful forms. These sudden changes are the ‘punctuations’ in the state of equilibrium that give this concept its name.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. “morphological evolution” is “jerky”
c. evolution occurs on 2 levels
i. First, the continuous aspect of evolution is only on the genetic level, where it cannot be detected, particularly in the fossil record.
ii. Second, the actual visible, morphological change in structure occurs quickly, in events that are too rapid to be recorded in the fossil record.
“Evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – The proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model propose not only that morphological evolution is jerky but also that it is associated with speciation events. They argue that phyletic evolution—that is, evolution along lineages of descent—proceeds at two levels. First, there is continuous change through time within a population. This consists largely of gene substitutions prompted by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and other genetic processes that operate at the level of the individual organism. The punctualists maintain that this continuous evolution within established lineages rarely, if ever, yields substantial morphological changes in species. Second, they say, there is the process of origination and extinction of species, in which most morphological change occurs. According to the punctualist model, evolutionary trends result from the patterns of origination and extinction of species rather than from evolution within established lineages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Punctuated equilibrium is really an attempt to explain…
a. Why no evidence for evolution can be found in the fossil record even in principle
b. Why all of the actual transitioning and transitional forms necessary for evolution to occur are not present in the recorded biological history that we call the fossil record.
5. Falsifiability and the 2 views
a. Gradualism, the traditional established evolutionary view, is…
i. falsifiable and
ii. falsified by “discontinuities” (i.e. discrepancies) it has with the fossil record
b. Punctuated equilibrium…
i. Solves this falsification by the evidence presented in the fossil record by becoming unfalsifiable
ii. Places evolutionary theory outside the realm of falsifiabity, and subsequently outside the realm of science.
c. In the mainstream of evolutionary scientists, neither side, neither gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, escapes the criticisms of falsification and un-falsifiability.
i. This is because most evolutionary scientists have accepted a version of evolutionary theory that merges gradualism and punctuated equilibrium together, asserting that both occur depending on the circumstances.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution –Intensive study of a favourable and abundant set of fossils may be expected to substantiate punctuated or gradual evolution in particular cases. But the argument is not about whether only one or the other pattern ever occurs; it is about their relative frequency. Some paleontologists argue that morphological evolution is in most cases gradual and only rarely jerky, whereas others think the opposite is true.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Although these proposed periods of rapid change would be abrupt only in terms of the geological time scale and would actually occur over periods of thousands of years, most evolutionists tend to consider the punctuated-equilibrium concept only another possible mode of evolutionary change that could take place along with the processes described by the modern synthesis, rather than as a supplanting model for evolution theory.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Evolutionary scientists further admit that there is no way to resolve this debate and decide which of the 2 evolutionary theories is correct.
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – The very incompleteness of the fossil record does not permit any such clear choice to be made, because the record of almost any species is highly selective over geological time. In addition, the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development according to the modern synthesis are themselves not necessarily of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species, however complete it might be over a given stretch of time. Fossils primarily show gross morphological changes, whereas changes taking place in genetic makeup could be extensive even though overall body structures do not reveal these shifts in populations of species. Arguments from the known nature of small-scale evolutionary change do not, in fact, necessarily establish long-term evolutionary events, as following either the model proposed by the modern synthesis or the one proposed by punctuated equilibrium. Evolution may just as well have proceeded along both routes.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
^
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Whether morphological evolution in the fossil record is predominantly punctuational or gradual is a much debated question. The imperfection of the record makes it unlikely that the issue will be settled in the foreseeable future.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. The fact that evolutionary theory will never be able to determine from the evidence which of these 2 views is correct inherently leaves evolution without a working theory for the origin of species.
6. Conclusion on what present observation and the fossil record do not show.
a. Present observation and the fossil record do not show or reveal any detectable transitional forms where one species or kind of animal is turning into another.
lxiii. What present observation and the fossil record do show.
1. Present observation and the fossil record…
a. Cannot show the evolution of species occurring
b. Do not show any transitional forms in which one species or kind of animal is transitioning into another
2. Present observation and the fossil record do show…
a. That new species and forms appear suddenly without the gradual, transitioning precursors predicted and necessitated by evolutionary theory
b. That species are static and “stable,” “remaining unchanged” (unevolving) for the entire time they appear in the fossil record.
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – As was explained earlier, at specific stratigraphic boundaries certain types of fossils either appear or disappear or both in some cases. Such biostratigraphic boundaries separate larger or smaller units of time that are defined as eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Most boundaries in recent geologic time coincide with periodic extinctions and appearances of new species…II DIVISION OF TIME – An explosion of invertebrate life marks the end of the Proterozoic and the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic Eon started 570 million years before present and continues into the present…The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras. The Paleozoic Era is divided into six periods. From oldest to youngest they are the Cambrian (570 million to 500 million years before present), Ordovician (500 million to 435 million years before present), Silurian (435 million to 410 million years before present), Devonian (410 million to 380 million years before present), Carboniferous (380 million to 290 million years before present), and Permian (290 million to 240 million years before present). The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world. It ended with the extinction of over 90 percent of all living organisms at the end of the Permian Period. The cause of this event is currently unknown…The Mesozoic began with the appearance of many new kinds of animals, including the dinosaurs and the ammonites, or extinct relatives of modern squid. The Mesozoic ended with another major extinction in which about 80 percent of all living organisms died. This extinction may have been the result of a large asteroid that crashed into the earth on the present-day northern Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – New species, characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes, typically appear at the boundaries between strata, whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Because understanding of the actual evolutionary events that took place over earth's long history depends largely on interpretations of an incomplete fossil record, much latitude remains for differences in such interpretations. One of the issues that is currently being debated among theorists derives from a notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Eldredge, Niles – In 1972 Eldredge collaborated with Gould to publish the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to reconcile the discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In his theory of punctuated equilibrium, Eldredge postulates that species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, only to be abruptly replaced by newer and more successful forms-sporadic changes that appear as "punctuation" in the fossil record.” – "Eldredge, Niles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. That variation does occur within each kind of organism, but that each species and kind only reproduces its own kind, with no detectable new species or kind emerging,
d. That the fossil record also only records the existence of static lines of organisms that appear without transitioning precursors and that remain unchanged (unevolving) for the millions of years and all the strata in which they appear in the fossil record.
3. (These facts are summarized and illustrated in Speciation and the Fossil Record Figure 1.)
lxiv. More on the scientific requirement of falsifiablility, evolution’s predictions, and the evidence
1. Key questions answered
a. Does evolutionary theory predict that there will be large numbers of intermediate forms transitioning between one species and another and one kind and another? Yes.
b. Do we find that prediction met by the evidence? No.
c. Does evolution predict that species and kinds are not static but transition from one into another from the most basic to the most complex organisms on earth? Yes.
d. Does the evidence fit that prediction? No, the evidence only shows static, non-transitioning, unchanging lineages of animals.
e. Does evolutionary theory subsequently redefine the process of speciation in such a way that it can exist even though its predictions are disconfirmed by the evidence? Yes.
f. And does that make the evolution of species un-falsifiable by its very nature? Yes.
lxv. Admitted openly by the quotes above from the evolution community…
1. Evolution is in a state in which its traditional theory is falsified by the fossil record
2. Evolution’s new solution proposed to avert the problems in the evidence actually relegates evolution to the realm of un-falsifiability and non-science.
3. We cannot directly observe the process of evolution (or speciation) actually occurring.
4. The nature of the fossil record is such that it is admitted this dilemma for evolution is by its nature permanently unsolvable.
5. Thus, having established this from secular and evolutionary sources, it is accurate to define evolutionary theory as lacking any actual working theory on the core issue of the origin of species.
5) Although the production of a new or different organism from an existing organism occurs in steps that are too subtle and slow to be observed directly and although the fossil record likewise contains no intermediate or transitional forms, it is advanced that all the varieties of organisms on earth today are not reproductively static, but came into being as generations of offspring from one original organism changed over time into new and different types of organisms. Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.
lxvi. The evidence and Creationism
1. What happens if we ask the same questions above concerning creation theory and the evidence?
a. Does creationist theory predict that there will no intermediate forms transitioning between one kind and another? Yes.
i. Creationism predicts that there will be no evidence ever observed of one kind of organisms evolving into another and that each kind will only be observed to reproduce its same kind.
b. Do we find that prediction met by the evidence? Yes, the fossil record and present observation reveal no detectable transitioning organisms.
c. Does creationism predict that kinds are static and do not transition from one into another from the most basic to the most complex? Yes.
d. Does the evidence fit that prediction? Yes, the evidence only shows static, non-transitioning, unchanging lineages of animals.
e. Are the predictions and defining points of creation theory falsifiable in principle? Yes, the discovery of the missing, identifiable transitioning forms would disprove the creationist predictions that such forms do not exist because the lineages of kinds are static.
f. Is creationism both scientific because it is falsifiable in principle and at the same time supported by the observable evidence? Yes.
2. It would appear that the creationist prediction that kinds will not be observed evolving into new kinds is irrefutably true because it is simply not even possible to observe the arrival of a new species or kind.
260 Conclusion about the Theory of Evolution and the Evidence
261 Evolution really lacks any working theory for the 2 core issues at the very center of evolution itself:
262 the origin of life
263 the origin of species
264 The evolutionary theory on the central issue of the origin of species faces prohibitive factors…
265 on the underlying genetic level,
266 on the practical level of how speciation actually takes place in real time and space,
267 and on the level of the observable evidence itself.
268 Our 2 definitional points (4 and 5) for evolutionary theory on the origin of species and the origin of life have been shown to be accurate representations of secular and evolutionary descriptions of evolutionary theory.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Time and Age
269 2 fundamental lines of evidence that deal with the issue of time.
270 The redshifting of starlight is used to determine the age of the universe
271 Geologic dating methods to determine the age of the earth.
272 Geologic dating methods to determine the age of the earth can also be broken down into 2 categories
273 relative dating methods
274 absolute, or radioactive, dating methods.
275 Therefore, this section on Time and Age will be divided into 3 total parts for this section:
276 Redshift and the age of the universe,
277 Relative dating methods and the age of the earth,
278 Absolute (radioactive) dating methods and the age of the earth.
279 These remaining sections of this study will address the remaining 3 definitional points for the theory of evolution.
280 1) The origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy
281 2) The variety and distribution of the astronomical objects in the universe
a. Point 2 will be addressed as we cover the topic of redshift and the age of the universe.
282 3) The origin of the geological features of the earth
283 Point 3 will be addressed as we cover the topic of geologic dating methods and the age of the earth.
284 We will establish these definitions to be facts openly admitted by secular and evolutionary sources, not a biased description on our part.
285 The quotes establishing these definitions will come from secular sources, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines.
286 (A few notes on the quotes
287 Quotes below originally used scientific notation, which employs a superscript character.
288 These figures have been converted either to standard numbers or, if standard numbers are too large to be written out, into a designation such as “10 raised to the 35th power.”
289 This was done for 2 reasons.
290 First, to keep such numbers simple and readily apparent for the lay person reading these articles,
291 Second to avoid any unnecessary complications that special characters, such as raised superscripts, pose concerning webpage display and coding.)
292 The amount of time that has passed in the history of the universe and the history of the earth is critical to both the evolution theory and the creation theory.
293 If the earth, or the universe, is not billions of years old, then there simply isn’t enough time for evolution to occur and the theory is disproved.
294 If the earth and the universe are billions of years old rather than simply thousands of years, then the historical records that set forth creation theory are falsified and creation theory is demonstrated not to be the product of reliable accounts and reliable observation.
295 Creation theory asserts that the universe is only about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
296 Evolutionary scientists claim that creation theory has been falsified on the grounds that creation’s time claims have been proven wrong by observation.
297 The young age of the universe and the earth is foundational to…
298 creation theory,
299 creationism’s historical origins,
300 the reliability of creationism’s record of observations.
“Creationism, I INTRODUCTION – In the second half of the 20th century, the most visible and politically active creationists maintained that the entire universe was created within the past 6000 to 10,000 years…II EARLY VIEWS ON CREATION – Despite mounting evidence of the great antiquity of life on earth (see Paleontology), many Christians continued to accept the traditional biblical account of a relatively recent six-day creation in the Garden of Eden, culminating in the appearance of Adam and Eve.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Creationism, Creationist beliefs – Strict creationists take the Biblical story of the Creation literally. They believe that God created the universe just thousands of years ago, and that He created all life forms within six 24-hour days…All creationists believe that each species (type of life form) on earth has remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and that no species has evolved from any other.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Raymond A. Eve, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Texas, Arlington.
lxvii. If the earth and the universe are older than the timeframe of 6,000 to 10,000 years, then…
1. creationism’s historical origination is shown to be incorrect,
2. creationism’s underlying record of observations is shown to be unreliable,
3. creationism itself is shown to be the product of flawed development and unreliable observations.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Redshift and the Age of the Universe
301 Review of how evolution theory calculates the age of the universe
302 In evolutionary theory the age of the universe is calculated based upon the distance of stars and the speed at their light travels to the earth.
4. The wavelengths of sound or light become longer if the source of the wave and the observer of that wave are moving away from each other.
a. This phenomenon is known as the Doppler Effect and it is occurring with regard to the light from stars.
5. As observed from earth, the light from stars is longer in wavelength, shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.
a. This shift toward the longer, red wavelengths indicates that the star, the source of the light, is moving away from the earth.
“Doppler effect – the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source…The following is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly, the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer wavelength) if the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to search for double stars and is an integral part of modern theories of the universe. See also red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The occurrence of the Doppler Effect with regard to the light from stars is known as “red shift.”
“Red shift – displacement of the spectrum of an astronomical object toward longer (red) wavelengths. It is generally attributed to the Doppler effect, a change in wavelength that results when a given source of waves (e.g., light or radio waves) and an observer are in rapid motion with respect to each other.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Taking note of the red shift in starlight, an astronomer named Edwin Hubble established that the Doppler Effect was occurring in starlight because the stars, the source of the light waves, were moving away from the earth, the place where the waves were observed.
6. The fact that the stars are moving away from the earth establishes that the universe is expanding.
a. Moreover, red shift is central to the Big Bang theory, which is based upon the concept that the universe is expanding.
“Redshift – In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the larger its redshift and thus the faster it is moving away. Hubble's discovery indicated that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is a key part of the big bang theory, the modern theory of the beginning of the universe. According to this theory, all space expanded from a hot, dense, pointlike concentration called a singularity.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Wendy Freedman, Ph.D., Astronomer, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
7. Based upon the measurement of the redshift in the light from distant galaxies, scientists have been able to establish a consistent relationship between the distance of galaxies and their speed of movement.
a. This relationship is known as Hubble’s constant and it is designated by the letter “H.”
“Hubble's constant – in cosmology, constant of proportionality in the relation between the velocities of remote galaxies and their distances. It expresses the rate at which the universe is expanding. It is denoted by the symbol H and named in honour of Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer who attempted in 1929 to measure its value.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
8. This constant rate of expansion, which is based upon the phenomenon of red shift, is then used to determine the age of the universe.
“Hubble constant – Hubble constant is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Astronomers use this number in estimating the age of the universe.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)
a. The “reciprocal of Hubble’s constant” is used to calculate the age of the universe.
i. (“Reciprocal” simply means “inverse” or “opposite.” It is derived from the verb “reciprocate,” which in this sense means, “to move forward and backward alternately.”)
“Reciprocal – 1a: inversely related: opposite.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Reciprocate – intransitive senses 1: to make a return for something 2: to move forward and backward alternately.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
9. In short, here’s the age of the universe is measured using starlight
a. Hubble’s constant indicates how much the universe moves apart as time moves forward.
b. The reciprocal of Hubble’s constant indicates how much closer together the parts of the universe were in the past.
c. If we go far enough back into the past, all the parts of the universe come together around 10 to 20 billion years ago.
i. The exact age depends upon the exact figure that is used for Hubble’s constant.
“Hubble's constant – The reciprocal of Hubble's constant lies between 10 billion and 20 billion years, and this cosmic time scale serves as an approximate measure of the age of the universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
10. Conclusion
303 The evolutionary age of the universe is calculated based upon the phenomenon of red shift, which itself depends upon the distance of stars and the speed at which their light travels to the earth.
304 The distance of stars and the speed at which their light travels to the earth are understood to be evidence disproving the Bible’s assertion that the earth and the universe are only about six thousand years old.
305 Learning from this review
306 We learn the basics of how evolutionary theory calculates the age of the universe
307 We can also see how the issue of time is an important piece of evidence capable of falsifying both creation and evolutionary theories.
308 The evolutionary theory for the origin (beginning and formation) of the universe is essential as a basis for biological evolution
“Cosmos – Events hypothesized to have occurred in the first few minutes of the creation of the universe turn out to have had profound influence on the birth, life, and death of galaxies, stars, and planets. Indeed, there is a direct, though tortuous, lineage from the forging of the matter of the universe in a primal furnace of incredible heat and light to the gathering on Earth of atoms versatile enough to serve as a chemical basis of life. The intrinsic harmony of the resultant worldview has great philosophical and aesthetic appeal and perhaps explains the resurgence of public interest in this subject.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
lxviii. So, although how the universe began may seem not to be essential or relevant to Evolution’s theory on the origin of life and the origin of species, it is in fact an essential underpinning for both.
1. The evolutionary origin of the universe serves as the source for the automatic, routine chemical and physical processes that evolution argues produced all the forms of life on earth without any need of foresight and teleology.
2. If the evolutionary theory about the origin of the universe is shown to be invalid or untenable, then biological evolution is deprived of its theoretical basis.
3. In short, you can’t have the evolution of life without the evolutionary origin of the universe.
a. This will be important to keep in mind as we analyze evolutionary theory on the origin of the universe.
309 A review of our assessment of Evolution theory definition point 2
2) A special location near the center of the universe would be too coincidental to avoid teleology. In order to construct a universe that is feasibly caused by automatic, routine processes, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it has uniform distribution and consequently will appear uniformly distributed when viewed in every direction. The formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies require that 96 percent of the universe is composed of dark matter and energy, which have not been detected or observed and the properties of which are also not known. Furthermore, although neither detected nor observed, different types of dark matter have been theorized, each possessing different properties that are necessary for the formation and distribution of the universe’s large-scale structures. In addition, the exact proportion of respective speculative types of dark matter required to result in the formation and current distribution of these structures is acknowledged to either not work at all or to be “too ideal” to conform to non-teleological, automatic, routine processes. Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future. Lastly, when selectively filtered, the observed evidence concerning the phenomenon of redshift can be presented to indicate the 10-20 billion-year age of the universe.
310 Using secular, evolutionary scientists, and mainstream scientific magazines we will establish the claims of the above definition that…
311 a special location for the earth near the center of the universe is concluded to be too teleological by evolutionary scientists,
312 the distribution of matter throughout space is crucial to the evolutionary age of the universe but merely an assumption,
313 evolution once again actually lacks a working theory for how the large-scale structures of the universe formed such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies,
314 dark matter and energy have not been empirically detected,
315 dark matter and energy are simply further assumptions needed to solve the problems preventing the formulation of a working theory,
316 dark matter and energy have not solved those problems,
317 in order to work dark matter and energy would have to operate in a proportion so coincidental that it indicates teleology,
318 the information from redshift has to be “filtered” to create a date as old as 10-20 billion years,
319 evolution simply lacks any coherent, working theory for the formation and age of the universe.
320 [in summary] evolution is founded on the theorization that the universe was brought about by automatic, routine processes that proceed with no need of foresight or teleology, however, evolution currently has no theory identifying such processes and how they operate.
321 (Consequently, evolution is not only without an actual theory on the origin of life and the origin of species, but also on the origin of the universe and its structures.)
322 Both redshift and expansion are at the core of the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe and for determining the age of the universe
323 Calculating the age of the universe is inherently related to our understanding of its structure.
324 Current observations of the redshifting of starlight reveal that the universe has expanded.
325 The expansion of the universe is fundamental to how the structure of the universe formed and to determining the universe’s age.
326 Astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929 first discovered that the universe is expanding.
327 Hubble’s discovery of expansion was based upon his observation of the redshifting of starlight as observed from earth.
“Redshift – In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the larger its redshift and thus the faster it is moving away. Hubble's discovery indicated that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is a key part of the big bang theory, the modern theory of the beginning of the universe. According to this theory, all space expanded from a hot, dense, pointlike concentration called a singularity.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Wendy Freedman, Ph.D., Astronomer, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
328 The Big Bang theory
329 The part of Evolution theory that discusses the origin and structure of the universe.
330 A theory of general assertions, that is really devoid of an actual theory when it comes to specifics.
331 As such the formation of the universe in Evolution theory remains without a solution or explanation at the most foundational points of the Evolution theory.
332 The Big Bang model does not correspond to what is actually observed about the universe.
333 And what is actually observed about the structure and content of the universe prevents the Big Bang model from working.
334 To correct this problem Big Bang theory is make additional explanatory amendments about things that aren’t and haven’t been empirically observed, but are simply invented or assumed to make the theory workable.
335 Dark matter and dark energy – an example of ad hoc solutions to inconsistencies between Big Bang theory and observations of the universe.
336 In order to explain the formation (or evolution) and structure of the universe, Big Bang theory hypothesizes the existence of large amounts of dark matter and dark energy
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Thus far, theorists have not been able to establish whether the universe will continue to expand forever. The problem centers on the amount of mass estimated to exist in the universe, because current estimates do not fit in neatly with other predictions of the big bang theory.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
lxix. What is dark matter and dark energy?
1. Dark matter is NOT the same as antimatter.
a. Unlike dark matter, antimatter is a substance that has been made in experimental conditions.
b. Antimatter particles are counterparts to ordinary matter particles but they have the opposite charges.
c. For example, the electron found in ordinary matter has an antimatter counterpart called the positron, which has the same mass as an electron but the opposite charge.
“Galaxy, Emissions from galaxies – Electrons and protons are forms of ordinary matter, but positrons are antimatter particles. They are the antimatter opposites of electrons-that is, they have the same mass (amount of matter) as electrons, but they carry the opposite charge. See ANTIMATTER.” – Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Matter, Unusual forms of matter – Scientists have discovered an unusual form of matter called antimatter. Dark matter, which may be fundamentally different from ordinary matter, apparently also exists. Physicists do not know what it is made of, however. Antimatter – Physicists can convert energy into matter with particle accelerators. When subatomic particles collide at high speeds, they create new particles. Whenever particles of matter are created, an equal number of particles of antimatter are also made. Antimatter particles are equal in mass to the equivalent particles of matter but opposite in electric charge and certain other properties. For example, positrons, which are positively charged, are the antimatter equivalents of electrons. If a matter particle meets an equivalent antimatter particle, the two particles destroy each other. Both particles are converted into energy.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Robert H. March, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics and Integrated Liberal Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
“Astronomy – Antimatter is matter composed of particles called antiparticles. Each antiparticle has the same mass as a corresponding particle of ordinary matter but carries an opposite electric charge.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
d. In contrast to antimatter…
i. Dark matter has not been created experimentally
ii. Dark matter is a purely speculative form of matter that is required in order for the evolutionary cosmology, the Big Bang model, to work.
2. Willem de Sitter and Albert Einstein hypothesize the existence of extra matter in the universe in order to balance the equations for the formation of the universe by automatic, routine processes.
a. This matter had not been empirically detected or observed.
b. This matter was called “dark matter.”
c. The adjective “dark” was used as an analogy to reflect the fact that this extra matter and energy have not been seen but remain hidden.
i. They are hidden because they do not emit electromagnetic radiation.
“De Sitter, Willem – His work also helped familiarize astronomers with the theory of relativity proposed by German-born American astronomer Albert Einstein…In 1919 de Sitter presented an alternate solution to Einstein's field theory equations. His solution took advantage of the very low density of matter in the universe by creating a model of a universe with no mass. The assumption of a massless universe yielded a model that did not exactly match the observable universe. In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter collaborated and refined both men's earlier cosmological theories to create the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe. This model was the first prediction that dark matter, or matter that does not emit electromagnetic radiation and so had not yet been detected, should exist in the universe. See also Cosmology; Big Bang Theory; Steady-State Theory.” – "De Sitter, Willem," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Electromagnetic radiation is the flow of energy waves in a spectrum that includes visible light, which we can see, as well as radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.
“Electromagnetic radiation – in terms of classical theory, the flow of energy at the universal speed of light through free space or through a material medium in the form of the electric and magnetic fields that makeup electromagnetic waves such as radio waves, visible light, and gamma rays.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Radiation, General background, Types of radiation – Radiation may be thought of as energy in motion either at speeds equal to the speed of light in free space—approximately 3 × [10 raised to a power of 10] centimetres (186,000 miles) per second—or at speeds less than that of light but appreciably greater than thermal velocities (e.g., the velocities of molecules forming a sample of air). The first type constitutes the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared rays, visible light, ultraviolet rays, X rays, and gamma rays, as well as the neutrino (see below).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Spectroscopy, Survey of optical spectroscopy, General principles, Basic features of electromagnetic radiation – Electromagnetic radiation is composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that have the ability to transfer energy through space. The energy propagates as a wave, such that the crests and troughs of the wave move in vacuum at the speed of 299,792,458 metres per second. The many forms of electromagnetic radiation appear different to an observer; light is visible to the human eye, while X rays and radio waves are not. The distance between successive crests in a wave is called its wavelength. The various forms of electromagnetic radiation differ in wavelength. For example, the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum lies between 4 × [10 raised to a power of -7] and 8 × [10 raised to a power of -7] metre (1.6 × [10 raised to a power of -5] and 3.1 × [10 raised to a power of -5] inch): red light has a longer wavelength than green light, which in turn has a longer wavelength than blue light. Radio waves can have wavelengths longer than 1,000 metres, while those of high-energy gamma rays can be shorter than [10 raised to a power of -16] metre, which is one-millionth of the diameter of an atom.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. The convenient explanation for why we can’t empirically observe dark matter and energy is that they simply don’t emit any form of energy that would allow us to detect them in time or space.
i. Because they don’t emit any energy waves of any kind along the electromagnetic spectrum, they are called “dark.”
ii. Given this reason, they might just as well have been called “invisible matter” and “invisible energy”
1. Such titles probably come too close to revealing an inherent lack of credibility
2. In contrast the terms “dark matter” and “dark energy,” which sound exotic, mysterious, highly technical, and consequently, more credible.
e. In order to remove the mystique surrounding what dark matter and dark energy are, we are going to simply use the terms “invisible matter” and “invisible energy.”
lxx. Invisible matter is pure speculation and has not been empirically detected
1. Invisible matter started out merely as a hypothetical speculation.
a. At the time it was theorized invisible matter had not been observed or detected.
b. To this day invisible matter still has not been detected or observed.
“Cosmology, The future of the universe – The universe is presently expanding, but its distant future depends on its present density. Suppose all the matter detected to date is all that exists. There would be an average of about one atom of hydrogen in 1 cubic yard (0.76 cubic meter) of space. The universe would be open. It would continue to expand without limit. Eventually, all stars would exhaust the energy that makes them shine. But suppose the universe contains large amounts of dark matter, material that has not yet been detected. If the average density of matter in space were as much as 10 atoms of hydrogen per cubic yard, the universe would be closed. In perhaps 20 billion to 40 billion years, the expansion would stop. The galaxies would then start to come together again, and matter would approach infinite density.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
2. The undetectable nature of invisible matter is not limited solely to emissions along the electromagnetic spectrum.
a. Some versions of invisible matter include the idea that although it could be 100 times more massive than ordinary matter
b. Yet it is said that…
i. This matter could literally bombard the surface of the earth and we still wouldn’t be able to touch it or feel it either.
ii. We could run right into it or pass right through it and still not detect it.
“Cosmos, Other components, Dark matter – Numerous candidates for the dark matter component in the halos of galaxies and clusters of galaxies have been proposed over the years, but no successful detection of any of them has yet occurred. If the dark matter is not made of the same material as the nuclei of ordinary atoms, then it may consist of exotic particles capable of interacting with ordinary matter only through the gravitational and weak nuclear forces. The latter property lends these hypothetical particles the generic name WIMPs, after weakly interacting massive particles. Even if WIMPs bombarded each square centimetre of the Earth at a rate of one per second (as they would do if they had, for example, individually 100 times the mass of a proton and collectively enough mass to “close” the universe; see below), they would then still be extremely difficult—though not impossible—to detect experimentally.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
lxxi. Not only has invisible matter not been observed or detected, but the properties of invisible matter also remain “un-deciphered.”
1. “Physicists do not know what it is made of” and that it “is composed of undiscovered particles.”
a. The nature and properties of invisible matter are largely a matter of assumption and choice.
b. Properties of invisible matter are hypothesized based upon whatever is necessary in order to make the theory work.
“Matter, Unusual forms of matter – Scientists have discovered an unusual form of matter called antimatter. Dark matter, which may be fundamentally different from ordinary matter, apparently also exists. Physicists do not know what it is made of, however…Dark matter – More than 99 percent of the visible universe is made up of the two lightest kinds of atoms, hydrogen and helium. It appears, however, that most of the matter in the universe is invisible dark matter. Scientists have detected dark matter only through the influence of its gravitational force on the motions of visible matter. Many scientists believe that dark matter is composed of undiscovered particles.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Robert H. March, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Physics and Integrated Liberal Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
2. The next quotes states that invisible matter is “exotic forms of elementary particles whose properties have yet to be deciphered.”
“Cosmos, Gravitational theories of clustering, Modes of gravitational instability – Among these assumptions is the choice of the form of the dark matter or hidden mass. If the hidden mass is not ordinary matter but instead is contained in exotic forms of elementary particles whose properties have yet to be deciphered, then one needs to specify if and when this hidden mass decouples from the thermal radiation field.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Invisible matter “consists of exotic” and “hypothetical particles” the mass of which is unknown but assumed to be quite large.
“Cosmos, Other components, Dark matter – Numerous candidates for the dark matter component in the halos of galaxies and clusters of galaxies have been proposed over the years, but no successful detection of any of them has yet occurred. If the dark matter is not made of the same material as the nuclei of ordinary atoms, then it may consist of exotic particles capable of interacting with ordinary matter only through the gravitational and weak nuclear forces. The latter property lends these hypothetical particles the generic name WIMPs, after weakly interacting massive particles. Even if WIMPs bombarded each square centimetre of the Earth at a rate of one per second (as they would do if they had, for example, individually 100 times the mass of a proton and collectively enough mass to “close” the universe; see below), they would then still be extremely difficult—though not impossible—to detect experimentally… Another possibility is that the dark matter is (or was) composed of ordinary matter at a microscopic level but is essentially nonluminous at a meaningful astronomical level…If the objects are only extremely faint (e.g., brown dwarfs), they can eventually be found by very sensitive searches, perhaps atnear-infrared wavelengths. On the other hand, if they emit no light at all, then other strategies will be needed to find them—for example, to search halo stars for evidence of “microlensing” (i.e., the temporary amplification of the brightness of background sources through the gravitational bending of their light rays).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Iinvisible matter is“mass of an unknown character” and “of an unknown form.”
lxxii. The only reason necessitating the existence of invisible matter is that without it, the Big Bang theory and the prospect of the universe originated by automatic, routine processes doesn’t work.
1. Despite the fact that the character and form of invisible matter are unknown, Big Bang theory statest that invisible matter is said to affect both the density and expansion of the universe.
a. (How could we know that invisible matter affects such things if the character and form of invisible matter are not known?)
“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – Huge regions of mass of an unknown character affect the motion of galaxies, because of the attractive gravitational forces this mass produces, and make galaxies deviate from Hubble's constant. Additionally, motions of galaxies within their clusters and the rotation rates of spiral galaxies seem to indicate that much or most of the mass in the universe is of an unknown form. This so-called dark matter affects both the density and the expansion rate of the universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. How much invisible matter and invisible is needed in order for such evolutionary models to work?
a. According to the quote below, about 23 percent of the universe must be comprised of invisible matter and about 73 percent of the universe must be comprised of invisible energy.
“Universe, Changing views of the universe – Studies of nearby stars, distant galaxies, and the CMB radiation give scientists an idea of the types of matter and energy that make up the universe. These studies suggest that the universe consists of about 4 percent ordinary matter and radiation. The matter consists mainly of hydrogen and helium. The radiation includes light, radio, and other waves as well as cosmic rays. The rest of the universe is made up of matter and energy that scientists cannot directly observe. About 23 percent of the universe is dark matter, matter that does not emit, reflect, or absorb observable light or other radiation. The remaining 73 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy. Dark energy is a little-understood form of energy that is apparently making the universe expand more and more quickly.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
b. This means that the matter and energy that we can observe comprise only 4 percent of the universe.
3. In order for evolutionary models like the Big Bang (which rely strictly on automatic, routine processes) to work…
a. There has to be 24 times as much matter and energy in the universe than what we can observe
b. This extra matter and energy must have properties that solve the problems even though we don’t know what those properties are.
lxxiii. What the invisible matter hypothesis tells us about Big Bang theory.
1. Evolutionary scientists are asserting that the universe can come about by automatic, routine processes if 96 percent of the universe is comprised of matter and energy that we can’t detect or see.
a. When asked, “If so much of the universe is comprised of this matter and energy, why can’t we see it?” the explanation offered by evolutionary scientists is simply, “We can’t see it because it’s invisible.”
b. And when asked, “What about this extra mass and energy solves the problems facing the Big Bang theory?” the evolutionary scientists simply answer, “We don’t know. They just do.”
2. Implications of Hypocrisy on the Part of Evolution Theorists
a. It’s hard to see how such approaches and answers can be offered by the same community that claims creationism theory provides no answers to scientific questions.
b. It is hard to see how such approaches and answers can be offered by the same community, which criticizes that creationists simply fill in the gap by claiming the existence and work of an empirically undetectable entity (God) without explaining how that entity works to solve the issue.
i. How can such a criticism of creationism not at least be equally applied to evolutionists’ own hypothesis of invisible matter and invisible energy?
337 Formation of large-scale structures such as superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and even stars – another example of ad hoc solutions to inconsistencies between Big Bang theory and observations of the universe.
lxxiv. Granting the existence of massive amounts of undetectable, invisible matter and energy with unknown properties still doesn’t make Big Bang theory into a working model.
lxxv. A chicken-and-egg dilemma – Big Bang theory does not have an explanation for how these structures formed by automatic, routine processes.
1. Big Bang theory cannot answer the fundamental question, “Which formed first and how then did they lead to the formation of the others?”
lxxvi. In general, gravity is understood to be mechanism for the formation of these structures, but how gravity works to form these structures is not resolved.
1. The major Big Bang theories on the structure of the universe are called “Gravitation theories of clustering”
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe, although not uniform, contains structure.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Two alternative “gravitational theories” have been supposed but, as we will see, neither of them works without invoking coincidence on the level of teleology.
a. Both alternatives are versions of the Big Bang theory.
i. The first alternative is designated with the title “top-down theories,” which are associated with warm dark matter.
ii. The second alternative is designated with the title, “bottom-up theories,” which are associated with cold dark matter.
b. Notice:
i. The speculative, problem-solving
ii. The unknown properties of invisible matter continue to form the basis of both alternatives.
“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Scientists have proposed two main kinds of theories of the origin of galaxies: (1) bottom-up theories and (2) top-down theories. The starting point for both kinds of theories is the big bang, the explosion with which the universe began 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. Shortly after the big bang, masses of gas began to gather together or collapse. Gravity then slowly compressed these masses into galaxies. The two kinds of theories differ concerning how the galaxies evolved. Bottom-up theories state that much smaller objects such as globular clusters formed first. These objects then merged to form galaxies. According to top-down theories, large objects such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies formed first. The smaller groups of stars then formed within them. But all big bang theories of galaxy formation agree that no new galaxies-or very few-have formed since the earliest times.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – The scenarios described in the previous subsection turn out, in the extremes, to lead to two different pictures for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, which can be given the labels “top-down” and “bottom-up.” In top-down theories the regions with the largest scale sizes, comparable to superclusters and clusters, collapse first, yielding flat gaseous “pancakes” of ordinary matter (a description coined by the primary proponent of this theory, the physicist Yakov B. Zeldovich of Russia) from which galaxies condense. In bottom-up theories the regions with the smallest scale sizes, comparable to galaxies or smaller, form first, giving rise to freely moving entities that subsequently aggregate gravitationally (perhaps by a hierarchal process) to produce clusters and superclusters of galaxies. Adiabatic fluctuations of ordinary matter tend to yield a top-down picture, and isothermal fluctuations a bottom-up picture. When hidden mass is added to the calculations, warm dark matter tends to give a top-down picture, and cold dark matter a bottom-up picture.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
lxxvii. Types of structures in the universe
1. Globular clusters are different from clusters and superclusters.
a. Globular clusters are smaller than galaxies.
i. Galaxies contain “hundreds of millions” of stars.
“Galaxy, II NTRODUCTION – Galaxy, a massive ensemble of hundreds of millions of stars, all gravitationally interacting, and orbiting about a common center.” – "Galaxy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Globular clusters only contain “thousands to hundreds of thousands of stars.”
“Star cluster, General description and classification – Open clusters contain from a dozen to many hundreds of stars, usually in an unsymmetrical arrangement. By contrast, globular clusters are old systems containing thousands to hundreds of thousands of stars closely packed in a symmetrical, roughly spherical form.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The term “globular cluster” refers to a grouping of stars.
2. The term “cluster” refers to groupings of galaxies.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe – On smaller scales, galaxies tend to bunch together in clusters and superclusters…Clustering of galaxies – Clusters of galaxies fall into two morphological categories: regular and irregular. The regular clusters show marked spherical symmetry and have a rich membership. Typically, they contain thousands of galaxies, with a high concentration toward the centre of the cluster…Galaxies of all types can be found in irregular clusters: spirals and irregulars, as well as ellipticals and S0s.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. The term “supercluster” refers to a collection of multiple clusters of galaxies.
“Supercluster: a group of gravitationally associated clusters of galaxies.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
lxxviii. “bottom-up theories” assert that…
1. the smallest structures of the universe formed first
a. such as galaxies and globular clusters, which are smaller than galaxies
2. then these small structures merged to form the larger structures
a. such as clusters and superclusters of galaxies.
lxxix. “top-down theories” assert that…
1. the largest structures of the universe formed first,
a. such as superclusters and clusters
2. then these larger structures further condense to form smaller the smaller structures within them
a. such as galaxies.
lxxx. Warm and Cold properties of invisible matter – an example of how the unknown properties of invisible matter are invented in order to meet the unresolved needs of evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe.
1. The properties of invisible matter are not known, so…
a. properties are simply being assumed
b. different imaginary properties are further assumed to relate to whether or not the largest structures of the universe or the smallest structures form first
2. No matter what the imagined properties are, neither top-down nor bottom-up theories work.
a. What we know about the universe seems to require both top-down and bottom-up theories to explain its current structures, such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies.
i. Top-down theories…
1. explain what we observe about the spatial distribution of large-scale structures in the universe
2. require a formation of clusters and galaxies that is too recent to fit with evolutionary interpretations of the evidence that pertains to the age of the universe.
ii. Bottom-up theories…
1. are necessary in order to yield celestial objects and structures with the mass that we observe,
2. (which start with the smaller structures) cannot explain the largest-scale structures.
3. In order for both top-down and bottom-up scenarios to have occurred, it would require a mixture of warm and cold invisible matter that is “roughly equal”
a. This equal mixture is too ideal, too “artificial,” particularly because it is lacking supportive evidence.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – When this is done and models are computed, it is found that top-down theories tend to give a better but still imperfect account of the observed spatial distributions (flattened superclusters and large holes and voids) and streaming motions of galaxies. Unfortunately, cluster formation and galaxy formation take place at a redshift z less than 1, too recently relative to the present epoch to be compatible with the observational data…Bottom-up theories that include cold dark matter can yield objects with the proper masses (i.e., dark halos), density profiles, and angular momenta to account for the observed galaxies, but they fail to explain the largest-scale structures (on the order of a few times 108 light-years) seen in the clustering data. A possible escape from this difficulty lies in the suggestion that the distribution of galaxies (made mostly of ordinary matter) may not trace the distribution of mass (made mostly of cold dark matter). This scheme, called biased galaxy formation, may have a physical basis if it can be argued that galaxies form only from fluctuations that exceed a certain threshold level… Unfortunately, counter simulations show that no amount of biasing can reproduce both the large-scale spatial structure and the magnitude of the observed large-scale streaming motions.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering, Top-down and bottom-up theories – On the problem of the formation of galaxies and large-scale structure by purely gravitational means, therefore, cosmologists face the following dilemma. The universe in the large appears to require aspects of both top-down and bottom-up theories. Perhaps this implies that the hidden mass consists of roughly equal mixtures of warm dark matter and cold dark matter, but adopting such a solution seems rather artificial without additional supporting evidence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
lxxxi. “biased galaxy formation” – an alternative to the joint top-down and bottom-up theory
1. This alternative theory is non-valid as well, because “no amount of biasing” can match the observable structure of the universe.
lxxxii. Thus, the evolutionary view is simply without an actual, working theory that matches the observations concerning the formation of the universe.
1. (Britannica qualifies this as a “dilemma” that modern evolutionary cosmology continues to face.)
lxxxiii. Since these gravity based models don’t work, does evolution have any working theories that employ alternate mechanisms other than gravity?
1. The answer to this question is “no.”
2. “alternative mechanisms” to gravity are…
a. still considered “unorthodox” in evolutionary cosmology
b. deemed even more problematic than the gravitational theories.
“Cosmos, Unorthodox theories of clustering and galaxy formation – Given the somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs with gravitational theories for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, some cosmologists have abandoned the orthodox approach altogether and have sought alternative mechanisms…In summary, it can be seen that mechanisms alternative to the growth of small initial fluctuations by self-gravitation all have their own difficulties. Most astronomers hope some dramatic new observation or new idea may yet save the gravitational instability approach, whose strongest appeal has always been the intuitive notion that the force that dominates the astronomical universe, gravity, will automatically promote the growth of irregularities. But, until a complete demonstration is provided, the lack of a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster will remain one of the prime failings of the otherwise spectacularly successful hot big bang theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Since alternates to gravitational theories suffer even worse problems, gravitational theories remain the popular view held by the majority of evolutionary scientists despite the fact that they don’t work.
lxxxiv. The Status of the Big Bang model regarding the formation of the universe by gravitational forces
1. Notice that the quote above concludes that…
a. gravitational theories are in an “unsatisfactory state of affairs,”
b. are in need of “saving,”
c. “lack a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster.”
d. the status and problems are regarded as “one of the prime failings” not just of gravity as a mechanism, but of the big bang theory itself.
2. The following quote similarly concludes that…
a. “no consensus has been reached” concerning how the universe formed,
b. the big bang model remains the “theory of choice among nearly all astronomers.”
c. “most astronomers” regard the theory as having “shortcomings,” being “incomplete,” and in need of “major modifications.”
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – Big bang cosmology, augmented by the ideas of inflation, remains the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers, but, apart from the difficulties discussed above, no consensus has been reached concerning the origin in the cosmic gas of fluctuations thought to produce the observed galaxies, clusters, and superclusters. Most astronomers would interpret these shortcomings as indications of the incompleteness of the development of the theory, but it is conceivable that major modifications are needed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Leading evolutionary scientists in this field admit to the fact that they have no working theory on the formation of the universe’s structures, including even the most central object, the star.
a. Concerning star formation…
i. The dust and gas clouds from which stars are said to form cannot condense into stars due to several factors, including:
1. their “ internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars,”
2. “the centripetal support due to rotation,”
3. “magnetic field pressure,”
4. and the simple fact that they are too far spread out for gravity to cause their collapse.
5. even if such a cloud did collapse, the decrease in size would bring about an increase in pressure that would trigger re-expansion, preventing the further collapse needed for a star to form.
“Many aspects of the evolution of galaxies cannot yet be determined with any certainty.” – Joseph Silk, (Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), The Big Bang, 2001, p. 195 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Galaxies must have condensed out of the gases expanding from the big bang…Details of the formation of galaxies are still highly uncertain, as is their subsequent evolution.” – The Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 172 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“The complete birth of a star has never been observed. The principles of physics demand some special conditions for star formation and also for a long time period. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a sufficiently small size so that gravity dominates. In space, however, almost every gas cloud is light-years in size, hundreds of times greater than the critical size needed for a stable star. As a result, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to spread out farther, not contract.” – Don De Young, Ph. D. in Physics, Astronomy and the Bible, 2000, p. 84 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star…is still a challenging theoretical problem…Astronomers have yet to see an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse.” – Fred Whipple, The Mystery of Comets, (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute Press, 1985), pp. 211, 213 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“To many astronomers, it seems reasonable that stars could form from these clouds of gas. Most astronomers believe that the clouds gradually contract under their own weight to form stars. This process has never been observed, but if it did occur, it would take many human life times. It is known that clouds do not spontaneously collapse to form stars. The clouds possess considerable mass, but they are so large that their gravity is very feeble. Any decrease in size would be met by an increase in gas pressure that would cause a cloud to re-expand.” – Danny Faulkner, Ph. D. Astronomy (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation…The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.” – Charles Lada and Frank Shu (both astronomers), “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,” Science, 1990, p. 572 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Stars are formed by the gravitational collapse of cool, dense gas and dust clouds…There are problems, however, in initiating the collapse of a gas cloud. It resists collapse because of firstly its internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars, secondly, the centripetal support due to rotation, and thirdly, the magnetic field pressure.” – Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 434 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” – Marcus Chown, “Let there be Light,” New Scientist, Feb. 7, 1998 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the ‘generally accepted’ theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics.” – Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize winner), Gustaf Arrhenius, “Evolution of the Solar System,” NASA, 1976, p. 480 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
b. The lack of a working theory on how stars form by automatic, routine processes is regarded by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven as “one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics.”
lxxxv. Spiral galaxies – an example of a lack of explanation in the Big Bang theory for observations of the universe.
1. Like superclusters of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and galaxies in general, evolutionary scientists still do not have a theory for how spiral galaxies came into being or how it is at all possible that they still exist.
2. The problem is caused by their spiral arms
a. These arms rotate around the center of the galaxy in such manner that in less than 2 billion years these arms should have blurred into a continuous mass of stars instead of the clearly-defined arms that we see today.
“Galaxy, Evolution of spiral galaxies – Astronomers do not understand clearly how galactic spirals evolved and why they still exist. The mystery arises when one considers how a spiral galaxy rotates. The galaxy spins much like the cream on the surface of a cup of coffee. The inner part of the galaxy rotates somewhat like a solid wheel, and the arms trail behind. Suppose a spiral arm rotated around the center of its galaxy in about 250 million years-as in the Milky Way. After a few rotations, taking perhaps 2 billion years, the arms would "wind up," producing a fairly continuous mass of stars. But almost all spiral galaxies are much older than 2 billion years.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
338 Inflation and a “graceful exit” from inflation to the “normal expansion” that we see in the universe today – an example of ad hoc solutions to inconsistencies between Big Bang theory and observations of the universe.
lxxxvi. Inflation is an added explanatory mechanism
1. It is an additional idea intended to support a problem with the original Big Bang theory.
2. On its own, the Big Bang theory does not fit with the observation of isotropy and the assumption of homogeneity.
lxxxvii. Evolutionary cosmologists understand that the initial explosion would not have produced an even distribution of matter or temperature throughout space on the large scale.
“Cosmology, The future of the universe – Other scientists suggest that the big bang theory is basically correct, but that the universe underwent an early period of rapid expansion called inflation.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Big bang – The original big bang theory does not indicate how the temperature of the radiation could have become so uniform. An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
lxxxviii. The term “inflation” refers to the theory that the universe expanded extremely rapidly to 10 to the 50th power times its original size in the first micro-fractions of a second after the initial explosion.
“Big bang – An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however. According to this theory, the universe expanded by an enormous amount in the early moments of the big bang.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – The inflationary theory deals with the behavior of the universe for only a tiny fraction of a second at the beginning of the universe. Theorists believe that the events of that fraction of a second, however, determined how the universe came to be the way it is now and how it will change in the future. The inflationary theory states that, starting only about 1 x [10 raised to a power of -35] second after the big bang and lasting for only about 1 x [10 raised to a power of -32] second, the universe expanded to 1 x [10 to a power of 50] times its previous size. The numbers 1 x [10 raised to a power of -35] and 1 x [10 raised to a power of -32] are very small-a decimal point followed by 34 zeros and then a 1, and a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then a 1, respectively. The number 1 x [10 to a power of 50] is incredibly large-a 1 followed by 50 zeros.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. The rapidness of this expansion is said to explain why matter and temperature became homogeneous.
a. (Homogeneity is the assumption that matter and temperature are virtually uniform throughout the universe.)
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – This extremely rapid inflation would explain why the universe appears so homogeneous: The universe had been compact enough to become uniform, and the expansion was rapid enough to preserve that uniformity.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Big bang – An added theory called cosmic inflation proposes an explanation, however. According to this theory, the universe expanded by an enormous amount in the early moments of the big bang. The theory shows that the inflationary expansion would have tended to smooth out temperature variations occurring over widely separated parts of the universe. Small variations in density would have led to the formation of galaxies.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
lxxxix. The addition of inflation theory is necessary in order for the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe, which is the basic model of the Big Bang cosmology, to work.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes. First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature, and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly like an Einstein–de Sitter universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xc. 2 important problems for the inflation addition to evolutionary theory.
1. First, many observational cosmologists do not accept inflation because it does not fit with actual observations.
a. (This is despite the fact that…
i. Inflation is necessary on a theoretical level in order for the Big Bang model to work.
ii. Many theoretical cosmologists accept inflation for that philosophical reason)
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because the geometry of space and the gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in the Einstein–de Sitter model, many people with a philosophical bent have long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe the actual universe. During the late 1970s strong theoretical support for this viewpoint came from considerations of particle physics (the model of inflation to be discussed below), and mounting, but as yet undefinitive, support also seems to be gathering from astronomical observations.”
b. The Einstein-de Sitter model – the longstanding basis of modern cosmology…
i. Is maintained because of the result of “a philosophical bent,”
ii. Needs to be supported by “the model of inflation”
iii. Is not defined or necessitated by the observations, but is “yet undefinitive” as far as the actual observations
c. Cosmologists whose focus is actual observation tend to reject the inflationary theory.
i. Recent studies in the 1990’s show that the predictions of inflationary theory are incorrect.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, E Inflationary Theory – Though many theoretical cosmologists seem to favor the inflationary theory, it is not as widely accepted among observational cosmologists. Several astronomers and cosmologists performed studies in the late 1990s that seemed to show that the universe may be decidedly open, and not as close to the boundary between open and closed as the inflationary theory predicts.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. This indicates that Big Bang cosmology relies on theory that simply does not fit with actual observations.
2. Second, expansion during the inflation period is so different from the expansion that we see today, that the transition between the 2 poses an obstacle to inflation and Big Bang theories.
a. Inflation theory stipulates that the expansion that we observe today is drastically different from the expansion that occurred initially as a result of the Big Bang explosion itself.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes. First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature, and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly like an Einstein–de Sitter universe…When inflation ended and the universe reheated and resumed normal expansion, these different portions, through the natural passage of time, reappeared on our horizon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
xci. Conclusions on the additional explanatory amendment of inflation
1. The inflation hypothesis
a. is necessary in order to provide the uniform distribution of matter that the Big Bang theory assumes for the universe,
b. is necessary to support the Einstein-de Sitter model,
c. “has been the guiding modern cosmological thought,”
d. BUT inflation “has not resolved all internal difficulties.”
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties. The most serious concerns the problem of a “graceful exit.” Unless the effective potential describing the effects of the inflationary field during the GUT era corresponds to an extremely gently rounded hill (from whose top the universe rolls slowly in the transition from the false vacuum to the true vacuum), the exit to normal expansion will generate so much turbulence and inhomogeneity (via violent collisions of “domain walls” that separate bubbles of true vacuum from regions of false vacuum) as to make inexplicable the small observed amplitudes for the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Arranging a tiny enough slope for the effective potential requires a degree of fine-tuning that most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Inflation theory itself requires such a finely-tuned balance that evolutionary scientists disregard it because of its inherent implications of foresight and teleology.
a. In order for inflation theory to work and transition from inflation expansion to the normal expansion that we observe today, “a degree of fine-tuning” is required that “most cosmologists find philosophically objectionable.”
b. Fine-tuning is inherently a feature of foresight and teleology.
i. Once again, Big Bang cosmology does not work without necessitating teleology, the very concept evolutionary cosmology asserts is not necessary.
1. Big Bang theory needs inflation theory in order to work.
2. The Einstein-de Sitter basis for the Big Bang theory needs inflation theory in order to work.
c. (We also saw that such fine-tuning was the case with the need for both top-down and bottom-up theories concerning the formation of the universe’s structure)
3. The Big Bang theory seeks to explain the origin and structure of the universe without teleology.
a. In order to avoid teleology, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere).
b. But the model of the Big Bang, which is based on the observation of expansion, is not likely to have produced homogeneity in the universe.
c. In order to explain how the universe could be homogeneous, it is suggested that an inflationary form of expansion occurred in the fractions of a second at the very beginning of the Big Bang, which is very different from the expansion that is actually observed in the universe.
d. This inflation hypothesis is of absolute necessity for the Big Bang model as a whole and to its avoidance of teleology.
e. The inflation hypothesis is accepted despite…
i. the fact that it has internal problems, which haven’t entirely been worked out yet
ii. the fact that it doesn’t fit with observations of the universe.
4. Thus, the evolutionary theory for the formation of the universe without foresight (the big bang theory) really lacks any actual, working theory.
a. Inflation is just one example of this fact concerning the principle elements of Big Bang evolutionary cosmology.
b. Our second defining point for evolutionary theory is right to conclude the following:
2) …Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future.
339 Bang theory does not and cannot explain or discuss the main elements of cosmological inquiry
340 Modern cosmology (which is the Big Bang model) is the field of research that “seeks to understand the structure of the universe.”
341 Important notes from the quotes below:
342 The big bang is the modern cosmology that is based upon the discoveries of Edwin Hubble, Alexander Friedmann, and Albert Einstein.
343 “Most astronomers interpret their data in terms of the big bang model.”
344 So, most astronomers interpret the observable data in light of a theory that does not work in terms of the structure of the universe.
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Cosmology seeks to understand the structure of the universe. Modern cosmology is based on the American astronomer Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances. In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed. Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
5. The Big Bang theory makes claims about…
a. What happened “immediately after the explosion”
b. The formation of the large-scale structures of the universe, such as galaxies, clusters, and superclusters, as well as the formation of stars.
“Universe, Changing views of the universe – The big bang theory provides the best explanation of the basic observations of the universe. According to the theory, the universe began with an explosion-called the big bang-13 billion to 14 billion years ago. Immediately after the explosion, the universe consisted chiefly of intense radiation and hot particles. This radiation, along with various kinds of matter and energy, formed a rapidly expanding region called the primordial fireball. After thousands of years, the fireball cooled. In time, the matter broke apart into huge clumps. The clumps became galaxies, many of them grouped into clusters, superclusters, and filaments. Smaller clumps within the galaxies formed stars. Part of one of these clumps became the sun and the other objects in the solar system.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
6. Even though the model is titled Big Bang, it only attempts to explain what happened after the “explosion” that is said to have began the universe.
a. The explosion itself, the actual Big Bang…
i. Cannot be studied.
ii. Instead, “its existence is inferred.”
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Modern cosmologists base their theories on astronomical observations, physical concepts such as quantum mechanics, and an element of imagination and philosophy. Cosmologists have moved beyond trying to find the earth's place in the universe to explaining the origins, nature, and fate of the universe…Current methods of particle physics allow the universe to be traced back to earlier than one second after the big bang explosion initiated the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the -43rd power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
7. It is the current expansion of the universe that is thought to infer an initial explosion.
a. The expansion of the universe is the “immediate” indicator that the universe had a beginning, a big bang, and that since that beginning its structure has “evolved.”
“Cosmos – The observed expansion of the universe immediately raises the spectre that the universe is evolving, that it had a beginning and will have an end.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The observation of expansion is the basis for assuming an initial explosion.
“Cosmos – Cosmology is, in effect, the study of the universe at large. A dramatic new feature, not present on small scales, emerges when the universe is viewed in the large—namely, the cosmological expansion…On cosmological scales, galaxies (or, at least, clusters of galaxies) appear to be racing away from one another with the apparent velocity of recession being linearly proportional to the distance of the object. This relation is known as the Hubble law (after its discoverer, the American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble). Interpreted in the simplest fashion, the Hubble law implies that roughly [10,000,000,000] years ago, all of the matter in the universe was closely packed together in an incredibly dense state and that everything then exploded in a “big bang,” the signature of the explosion being written eventually in the galaxies of stars that formed out of the expanding debris of matter.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – The big bang theory describes a hot explosion of energy and matter at the time the universe came into existence. This theory explains why the universe is expanding and why the universe seems so uniform in all directions and at all places.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
8. Thus, Big Bang theory cannot be derived by simply extrapolating the kind of expansion that we currently see back in time for 2 reasons…
a. It is a non-sequitur to assume that just because the universe is expanding now that it explanded all the way from an initial explosion.
i. Especially when this initial explosion cannot be studied or observed directly.
ii. We are simply pointing out that the basis for Big Bang theory is an assumption NOT actual observation or logical necessity.
b. Big Bang theory itself requires a dramatically different type of expansion called inflation, which occurred in the time period immediately after the initial explosion.
i. Transitioning between inflation and current expansion requires fine-tuning, which implies teleology.
345 Summary on the status of the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe as demonstrated by dark (invisible) matter and energy, bottom-up and top-down gravitational theories, and the inability to actually study the “bang” itself
xcii. Modern Cosmology relies on a theory (the Big Bang) that has no working explanations of the formation and structure of the universe
1. And modern astronomers interpret data according to a theory that doesn’t have any working explanations of the formation and structure of the universe and contradicts observed evidence.
xciii. The explosion itself, from which the name “Big Bang” is derived, cannot be studied.
1. This again demonstrates that evolution lacks a working theory that is capable of explaining important aspects regarding the origin of the universe (and its structure) such as even the initial explosion.
xciv. To explain the explosion, evolution would need a theory that merges gravity with Einstein’s general relativity.
1. Evolutionists don’t have such a theory.
a. So they can’t study the explosion itself.
xcv. Since they don’t have a theory for how the Big Bang could have occurred, there really is no such thing as a Big Bang theory.
1. There is no theory explaining the explosion called the Big Bang.
2. There is simply the assertion that there was such an explosion, even if there is no theory explaining it.
xcvi. Big Bang theory superior to Creationism?
1. How can Big Bang theory be superior to creationism with…
a. Its lack of explanations to essential questions,
b. assertions contrary to and not supported by actual observation,
c. unresolved theoretical difficulties,
d. unwarranted assumptions
2. Big Bang theory may be preferred to Creationism because it avoids teleology and therefore, potential accountability to a Creator, but this is not a scientific basis, just a personal philosophical preference.
xcvii. What we are left with is an evolutionary theory that…
1. Cannot study the big bang itself
a. Big Bang theory provides no working theory regarding the initial explosion
2. Focuses instead on its aftereffects, which comprise the formation of the main structures of the universe as we know it today,
3. Cannot explain those aftereffects either.
a. Big Bang theory provides no working theory for what happened afterward in the formation of the universe’s structure and major objects
xcviii. This begs the question, if not the explosion itself and if not the formation of the universe after the explosion, what does the Big Bang theory does actually explain?
1. And the answer is that it explains nothing.
xcix. Evolutionary theory for the origin of the universe is essential as the basis for biological evolution
1. Since there is no working theory for the evolutionary origin of the universe without foresight, what does this mean for biological evolution, which is based on cosmological evolution?
346 A brief reiteration of the supreme importance of expansion in cosmology
347 Expansion dominates cosmology
348 Information that we gain from observations about the universe’s expansion are determinant to cosmological reality and the validity of cosmological theories.
349 In Big Bang theory the expansion of the universe is the foundation and bedrock of the Big Bang theory and the age of the universe.
350 So, whatever we observe about expansion cannot be ignored when cosmological models are formulated.
351 To formulate cosmologies according to some observations about expansion while wholly ignoring other observations about expansion reveals a biased handling of the evidence.
352 There are specific observations about expansion, which are being ignored in order to accommodate the evolutionary Big Bang model and its rejection of teleology.
353 These discoveries…
354 Were made by secular scientists, not creationists.
355 Have been acknowledged and asserted in all of the major mainstream scientific journals and magazines.
356 Significance of ignoring observed data about the expansion of the universe
357 If known observations are being ignored this implies that philosophical preference is interfering with interpretation of the evidence.
358 (Remember the quote above that astronomers interpret the data in accordance with Big Bang theory.)
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
359 We will do two things in order to sufficiently discuss the relevance of expansion, ignored evidence, and philosophical bias:
360 First, we will demonstrate how much philosophical bias plays a role in science, particularly secular cosmology.
361 This demonstration will be established from secular and evolutionary sources.
362 We will understand what the Big Bang, evolutionary picture of the universe is and what the key components of that picture are, so that…
363 We can understand the significance of the observations about expansion that are being ignored
364 We will be ready to see the relevance that the ignored expansion data has for…
365 Big Bang and evolutionary cosmology
366 Creationism
367 The debate over the origin of the universe as a whole.
Focus on Critical Evidence: The Central Role of Philosophical Preference
368 Demonstrating that philosophical preference plays a dominant role at the foundation of formulating evolutionary theory
369 This is not really a difficult point to prove.
370 It is a fact that is widely and often admitted to.
371 Philosophical preference is the reason that Big Bang theory is accepted (in spite of the fact that it cannot explain the observed evidence)
372 “modern cosmologists base theories on” a mixture of observations, “concepts,” “imagination,” and “philosophy.”
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Modern cosmologists base their theories on astronomical observations, physical concepts such as quantum mechanics, and an element of imagination and philosophy.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The Einstein-de Sitter universe, which remains the longstanding base model for evolutionary cosmology, is preferred due to a “philosophical bent.”
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because the geometry of space and the gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in the Einstein–de Sitter model, many people with a philosophical bent have long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe the actual universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ci. Biological evolution is dependent upon cosmological evolution, but public acceptance of either is based upon philosophical appeal
1. Public interest in the origin of the universe is based upon the philosophical appeal of the joint biological and astrophysical evolutionary theory.
a. So, from start to finish the theory of evolution is publicly accepted because the public finds it philosophically appealing.
“Cosmos – Events hypothesized to have occurred in the first few minutes of the creation of the universe turn out to have had profound influence on the birth, life, and death of galaxies, stars, and planets. Indeed, there is a direct, though tortuous, lineage from the forging of the matter of the universe in a primal furnace of incredible heat and light to the gathering on Earth of atoms versatile enough to serve as a chemical basis of life. The intrinsic harmony of the resultant worldview has great philosophical and aesthetic appeal and perhaps explains the resurgence of public interest in this subject.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
cii. The gravitational mechanism, which is favored and central in evolutionary cosmology, is accepted simply because it has “intuitive appeal” despite the fact that it doesn’t work.
“Cosmos, Unorthodox theories of clustering and galaxy formation – Given the somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs with gravitational theories for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, some cosmologists have abandoned the orthodox approach altogether and have sought alternative mechanisms…In summary, it can be seen that mechanisms alternative to the growth of small initial fluctuations by self-gravitation all have their own difficulties. Most astronomers hope some dramatic new observation or new idea may yet save the gravitational instability approach, whose strongest appeal has always been the intuitive notion that the force that dominates the astronomical universe, gravity, will automatically promote the growth of irregularities. But, until a complete demonstration is provided, the lack of a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster will remain one of the prime failings of the otherwise spectacularly successful hot big bang theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
373 Historical pattern of philosophical preference, NOT evidence, as the basis of cosmological theories – the Steady-State theory
ciii. Even the Big Bang model was long resisted simply because idea that the cosmos had a beginning is so philosophically distasteful due to the inherently implied (and inherently theological) “creation event”
1. The Big Bang theory only and finally accepted because the alternative steady-state theory became impossible on the evidence.
“Cosmos – The observed expansion of the universe immediately raises the spectre that the universe is evolving, that it had a beginning and will have an end. The steady state alternative, postulated by a British school of cosmologists in 1948, is no longer considered viable by most astronomers. Yet, the notion that the Cosmos had a beginning, while common in many theologies, raises deep and puzzling questions for science, for it implies a creation event—a creation not only of all the mass-energy that now exists in the universe but also perhaps of space-time itself. The issue of how the universe will end seems, at first sight, more amenable to conventional analysis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
civ. The Big Bang’s predecessor, the Steady-State theory was also accepted for philosophical reasons because it asserted that the universe was eternal, and therefore avoided the philosophically undesirable “creation event” with all of its inherent theological implications.
“Steady-state theory – A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale—i.e., the average density and arrangement of galaxies—is the same.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. There was never an observational basis that made the steady-state theory more valid than the Big Bang.
2. The only reason for the steady-state theory was that “the idea of a sudden beginning of the universe” was “philosophically unacceptable” to cosmologists.
“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – The steady-state theory's main advantage is that it avoids the problem of having to describe how the universe began. The theory's appeal is largely philosophical-there have never been particular observations that implied it was better or more valid than the big-bang theory.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – When the big bang theory was developed in the mid-20th century, some cosmologists found the idea of a sudden beginning of the universe philosophically unacceptable. They proposed the steady-state theory, which said that the universe has always looked more-or-less the same as it does now and that it does not change over time. The steady-state theory could not explain the background radiation, though, and essentially all cosmologists have abandoned it.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
cv. Philosophy overrides evidence
1. The philosophical appeal of a universe with no beginning, and therefore no “creation event,” was so strong that the steady-state theory continued for a long time despite mounting evidence of the expansion of the universe, which was understood to be proof of the Big Bang theory.
2. At first, the desire to avoid a beginning and a “creation event” was so strong that in order to reconcile the preferable “eternal universe” with the observation of expansion, some cosmologists preferred the steady-state concept that matter was “continually created out of nothing.”
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – In the 1940s British scientists Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were philosophically opposed to the requirements that the big bang theory put forth for the extreme conditions in the early universe. The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle suggested an additional postulate, which they called the perfect cosmological principle. This principle stated that the universe is not only homogeneous and isotropic but also looks the same at all times. Since the universe is expanding, though, one might think that the density of the universe would decrease. Such a decrease would be a change that would not fit with the perfect cosmological principle. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle thus suggested that matter could be continuously created out of nothing to maintain the density over time. The rate at which matter would have to be created was much too low to be observationally testable, however. They called this theory the steady-state theory.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
cvi. The very reason for the final demise of the steady-state theory was either a “conscious or unconscious preference” to avoid numerous “creation events,” which would have been necessary in order for the steady-state theory to survive growing proof for expansion.
1. It would seem that if one creation event posed theological implications, that the non-stop creation of more matter out of nothing multiplied that distasteful concept literally to an infinite degree.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – By that year, of course, the universe was known to be expanding; therefore, the only way to explain a constant (steady state) matter density was to postulate the continuous creation of matter to offset the attenuation caused by the cosmic expansion. This aspect was physically very unappealing to many people, who consciously or unconsciously preferred to have all creation completed in virtually one instant in the big bang.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
374 Historical pattern of philosophical preference, NOT evidence, as the basis of cosmological theories – Einstein’s model
cvii. Even Einstein’s model of the universe was fundamentally based upon assumptions that were NOT necessitated by his mathematics.
1. The first two of Einstein’s assumptions of were based upon an “attractive” and “appealing” “philosophical notion.”
a. These assumptions were so philosophically appealing that other scientists took them even further in the effort to assert the steady-state theory.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle. Given the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is a natural one…The second assumption was to suppose that this homogeneous and isotropic universe had a closed spatial geometry. As described in the previous section, the total volume of a three-dimensional space with uniform positive curvature would be finite but possess no edges or boundaries (to be consistent with the first assumption). The third assumption made by Einstein was that the universe as a whole is static—i.e., its large-scale properties do not vary with time. This assumption, made before Hubble's observational discovery of the expansion of the universe, was also natural; it was the simplest approach, as Aristotle had discovered, if one wishes to avoid a discussion of a creation event. Indeed, the philosophical attraction of the notion that the universe on average is not only homogeneous and isotropic in space but also constant in time was so appealing that a school of English cosmologists—Hermann Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and Thomas Gold—would call it the perfect cosmological principle and carry its implications in the 1950s to the ultimate refinement in the so-called steady state model.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Einstein’s original model was also based upon the assumption “that the universe as a whole is static” which means that “its large-scale properties do not vary with time.”
a. Einstein’s original model could suppose this third assumption because Hubble had not yet discovered the expansion of space.
3. Even in Einstein’s model, these assumptions are present as part of a longstanding desire to avoid “a creation event.”
375 Summation of the historical pattern of philosophical preferences role in cosmological theories
cviii. The quotes presented above sufficiently demonstrate…
1. that philosophical preference plays a role at the foundation level of theories
2. the extent to which much of the philosophical preference is a desire to avoid a “creation event” and its theological implications.
376 Philosophical preference and the scientific criterion of falsifiability
377 With no observations for the core concepts of an initial explosion or the subsequent formation of the structures of the universe, the basis for the Big Bang theory remains solely philosophical preference.
378 Concerning the foundational points of evolutionary cosmology, observation does NOT play a joint role with philosophical preference.
379 This is because the principle components of Big Bang cosmology simply cannot be observed.
380 The Big Bang explosion itself cannot be modeled.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY – Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the -43rd power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. And, like the origin of life, no human was around to observe the Big Bang explosion.
ii. And the formation of the major structures of the universe also has not and cannot be observed.
1. (such as superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and even stars)
2. Like the origin of species, these processes take too long to actually observe or identifiably observe.
3. Any processes that might relate to or even hypothetically simulate these core concepts occur at locations in the universe that are inaccessible to our observation.
“Astronomy, Computer modeling – This kind of model can help astronomers because many important processes occur much too slowly for astronomers to observe. Other important processes that can be simulated occur in inaccessible places, such as the interiors of stars.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
cix. Since the only 2 observable evidences for the Big Bang theory fit with creation theory as well, philosophical preference (not observation) is shown to be the sole determining factor for the basic evolutionary cosmology.
1. Current expansion and isotropy – 2 points that are observable, but don’t fit the Big Bang theory any better than they do the creationist model.
a. Isotropy
i. Isotropy is a term that refers to the fact that every direction that we look into space, we seem to see a roughly even distribution of matter, at least on the largest scale.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic…Indeed, the philosophical attraction of the notion that the universe on average is not only homogeneous and isotropic in space but also constant in time was so appealing that a school of English cosmologists—Hermann Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and Thomas Gold—would call it the perfect cosmological principle and carry its implications in the 1950s to the ultimate refinement in the so-called steady state model.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – In the 1940s British scientists Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were philosophically opposed to the requirements that the big bang theory put forth for the extreme conditions in the early universe. The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. The expansion of the universe
i. The only other truly observable fundamental concept to the Big Bang model is the current expansion of the universe
ii. But expansion we can observe at the present time…
1. Does not necessarily imply expansion all the way back in time to a starting explosion.
2. Is very different from the early inflation expansion Big Bang theory asserts, which we can’t observe
cx. Philosophical preference, not observation, remains the only reason to accept Big Bang theory and reject Creationism
1. Specifically the philosophical bias to avoid a “creation event” with its theological implications.
381 Creationism is not on the same footing as evolutionary cosmology regarding philosophical preferences
382 The Big Bang is based upon assumptions that go beyond what is observed and observable.
383 Examples:
384 The expansion that we observe today…
385 Does not necessitate expansion all the way from an initial explosion
386 Is drastically different from the kind of expansion Big Bang theory hypothesizes in the very beginning of the universe and which it needs to work.
387 Big Bang cosmology, which uses expansion as its observational base, actually ignores known observations about expansion.
388 Once factored in, the previously ignored observations about expansion inherently indicate teleology and foresight.
389 We will see exactly why this is the case later on when we cover the ignored observations.
390 Unlike evolutionary cosmology, creationism is not relying solely on philosophical assumptions for which there is no observation.
391 Observations about expansion inherently indicate teleology.
392 The core concepts of creationist cosmology rely on three observations about the universe (NOTmere philosophical preference)…
393 the observation of expansion,
394 the observation of isotropy,
395 and one other known observation that the Big Bang evolutionary theory has to ignore, which we will cover later.
396 The scientific criterion of falsifiability and the implications of Big Bang cosmology being formulated and accepted on the grounds of philosophical preference not observation
397 Falsifiable theories
398 When a theory is accepted or rejected on the grounds of how well it fits the observable evidence, that theory can be falsified.
399 When a theory is formulated out of correspondence with actual observable evidence, then that theory is likely to be falsifiable by its nature.
400 Unfalsifiable theories
401 Philosophical preferences, however, cannot be falsified, even as indicated by the quotes below.
402 When a theory is formulated merely from philosophical preferences without any observations necessitating it, then that theory is likely to be un-falsifiable by its nature.
“Positivism, Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism, The earlier Positivism of Viennese heritage, The verifiability criterion of meaning and its offshoots – It was in coming to this juncture in his critique of Positivism that Karl Popper, an Austro-English philosopher of science, in his Logik der Forschung (1935; The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959), insisted that the meaning criterion should be abandoned and replaced by a criterion of demarcation between empirical (scientific) and transempirical (nonscientific, metaphysical) questions and answers—a criterion that, according to Popper, is to be testability, or, in his own version, falsifiability; i.e., refutability. Popper was impressed by how easy it is to supposedly verify all sorts of assertions—those of psychoanalytic theories seemed to him to be abhorrent examples. But the decisive feature, as Popper saw it, should be whether it is in principle conceivable that evidence could be cited that would refute (or disconfirm) a given law, hypothesis, or theory.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Science – A theory developed by a scientist cannot be accepted as part of scientific knowledge until it has been verified by the studies of other researchers. In fact, for any knowledge to be truly scientific, it must be repeatedly tested experimentally and found to be true. This characteristic of science sets it apart from other branches of knowledge. For example, the humanities, which include religion, philosophy, and the arts, deal with ideas about human nature and the meaning of life. Such ideas cannot be scientifically proved. There is no test that tells whether a philosophical system is "right." No one can determine scientifically what feeling an artist tried to express in a painting. Nor can anyone perform an experiment to check for an error in a poem or a symphony.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Joseph W. Dauben, Ph.D., Professor of History and the History of Science, City University of New York.
a. When a theory is accepted merely out of philosophical preference while competing theories are rejected merely out of philosophical preference and not because of the evidence, then that theory is most certainly un-falsifiable.
2. The Big Bang model is unfalsifiable and unscientific because in contrast to both the Steady-State model and the creationist model, it is based and accepted on philosophical preferences and not on observed evidence.
a. Big Bang theory has been accepted and creationist cosmology rejected…
i. Despite the Big Bang’s lack of an actual working theory for areas where the theory makes its defining claims…
1. the initial explosion,
2. the fractions of seconds that immediately follow the explosion,
3. or the formation of the structures of the universe since that time
ii. Despite the fact that the evidence in these areas has so far proved to be irreconcilable with evolutionary Big Bang cosmology
iii. Despite the Big Bang theory’s “unsatisfactory status” with regard to the lack of working explanations and irroncilability with the observed evidence.
iv. Even though it is admitted by secular and evolutionary sources that observations, which pose problems for the Big Bang model, require foresight and fine-tuning balance in order to be solved.
v. Even though current expansion and isotropy, the only 2 actual observations incorporated into the Big Bang model, are equally fitting to the creationist model.
cxi. In contrast with Creationism, Big Bang theory has proven to be un-falsifiable because the basis of its acceptance is not observation and evidence but philosophical preference, which cannot be tested or falsified.
1. Comparison
a. Creationists repeatedly argue for how the observed evidence actually proves creationism.
i. Thus, creationism is not detached from the evidence.
b. Evolutionists admit that they accept the theory despite the fact that its central claims do not fit with the observable evidence and also fail to provide a functional explanation.
i. Thus, as evidenced by the quotes above, evolutionists admit that they accept the Big Bang theory despite the fact that the observable evidence disproves its current formulations.
2. A theory becomes un-falsifiable when its claims become detached from the evidence.
a. This happens in one of 2 ways.
i. First, when a theory’s primary claims are defined in such a way that they have no relationship to the observable evidence.
ii. Second, when the theory itself is accepted despite the fact that its primary claims have been disproved by the evidence.
3. Big Bang theory is un-falsifiable because in light of the admissions by evolutionists that Big Bang theory does not work with the observed evidence, Big Bang theory has shifted its claims to be less specific so that the theory will no longer be vulnerable to disproof by testing it against observations.
a. Big Bang theory, augmented by inflation theory, is accepted as “the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers” despite…
i. its “unresolved internal difficulties,”
ii. its lack of an actual working theory for the formation of the universe’s structures, “shortcomings,”
iii. the “need for major modifications,”
iv. a resulting “incompleteness.”
b. By contrast, the problem with the Steady-State model, the alternative to the Big Bang model, was that…
i. it “had the virtue of making very specific predictions,
ii. it was vulnerable to observational disproof.”
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – As influential as inflation has been in guiding modern cosmological thought, it has not resolved all internal difficulties…Steady state theory and other alternative cosmologies – Big bang cosmology, augmented by the ideas of inflation, remains the theory of choice among nearly all astronomers, but, apart from the difficulties discussed above, no consensus has been reached concerning the origin in the cosmic gas of fluctuations thought to produce the observed galaxies, clusters, and superclusters. Most astronomers would interpret these shortcomings as indications of the incompleteness of the development of the theory, but it is conceivable that major modifications are needed…However, the apparent difficulty motivated Bondi, Hoyle, and Gold to offer the alternative theory of steady state cosmology in 1948. By that year, of course, the universe was known to be expanding; therefore, the only way to explain a constant (steady state) matter density was to postulate the continuous creation of matter to offset the attenuation caused by the cosmic expansion. This aspect was physically very unappealing to many people, who consciously or unconsciously preferred to have all creation completed in virtually one instant in the big bang. In the steady state theory the average age of matter in the universe is one-third the Hubble time, but any given galaxy could be older or younger than this mean value. Thus, the steady state theory had the virtue of making very specific predictions, and for this reason it was vulnerable to observational disproof.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. “making predictions,” which are “specific” enough to be “vulnerable to disproof” by observations, is intended as a contrast to Big Bang cosmology, which has survived when Steady-State has not.
i. Big Bang cosmology has survived (while Steady-State cosmology has not) because Big Bang cosmology does not suffer from this same “virtue” of “making very specific predictions” which make it “vulnerable to observational disproof.”
d. (As a side note, adherents to Big Bang cosmology criticize Steady-State theory as both un-falsifiable and yet falsified with regard to the very same point.)
i. Steady-State theory was “vulnerable to disproof” regarding its “very specific prediction” in which it “postulated the continuous creation of matter.”
ii. However, Steady-State theory’s claim about the continuous creation of matter was “much too low to be observationally tested” or “verified.”
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – In the 1940s British scientists Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were philosophically opposed to the requirements that the big bang theory put forth for the extreme conditions in the early universe. The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle suggested an additional postulate, which they called the perfect cosmological principle. This principle stated that the universe is not only homogeneous and isotropic but also looks the same at all times. Since the universe is expanding, though, one might think that the density of the universe would decrease. Such a decrease would be a change that would not fit with the perfect cosmological principle. Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle thus suggested that matter could be continuously created out of nothing to maintain the density over time. The rate at which matter would have to be created was much too low to be observationally testable, however. They called this theory the steady-state theory.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Therefore, the steady-state theory says that new matter must form as existing matter spreads apart…The amount of mass that would form under the steady-state theory is so small that it would be too small for scientists to measure for verification.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. It is one thing to say that particular points of a theory have been falsified but that the theory as a whole is un-falsifiable.
1. Here there is a distinction between an individual point and the whole theory.
2. This distinction allows for the 2 different objects (the individual point and the whole theory) to be categorized separately.
iv. It is another thing to say that a particular point of a theory is itself both falsified and un-falsifiable.
1. Here there is no such distinction, but the same object, the particular point, is deemed as both un-falsifiable and as having been falsified at the same time.
2. Evolution theory is asserting that Steady-State theory is un-falsifiable in its prediction that matter is continuously created out of nothing and at the same time regarding that very same prediction as being falsified because it was so specific that it was “vulnerable to disproof by observation.”
v. This is much similar to the common charge by evolutionists that creationism’s main claims are both un-falsifiable while also simultaneously charging that those very same claims have been falsified.
cxii. Conclusions on Philosophical Preferences of the Big Bang theory and Unfalsifiability
1. Big Bang evolutionary theory suffers from the criticisms that it levies against its competition.
2. Big Bang theory is un-falsifiable because it is held without regard for what the evidence actually indicates.
a. Big Bang evolutionists admit that their theory does not fit with observations and yet they hold to it anyway.
3. The definition of Big Bang theory is shifting to a more vague series of claims so devoid of specifics that the theory is no longer vulnerable to falsification by the observed evidence (that contradicts it).
a. This shift to more vague claims, which don’t specify a testable relationship to the evidence, results in the lack of any actual working theory on central issues of…
i. the universe’s formation,
ii. its origin
iii. the development of its major structures.
4. On both of those issues, we have seen that evolution lacks any specific, working theory but instead reverts merely to the more vague, un-testable claim that the universe, life, and species originate from undefined, unidentified automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight.
a. Big Bang cosmology has simply reverted to the vague, bare minimum claim that the universe came into existence by unobserved, undefined, unidentified automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight.
b. This is the exact same status that we have seen concerning the evolutionary claims about the origin of life and the origin of species as well.
5. Because this is the case for evolutionary cosmology, our second definitional point for evolutionary theory is not biased but accurate when it asserts the following conclusion.
2) …Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Understanding the Cosmological Model
403 Preview –
404 In this segment, we will examine…
405 What the modern cosmological model is,
406 where it came from,
407 the key components of it.
408 This will allow us to understand…
409 the role of expansion in that model
410 the role of the known evidence about expansion that is ignored in order for evolutionary cosmology to continue.
411 The Big Bang model is based upon 3 foundational assumptions, which are not necessitated by the observations.
412 The first assumption is homogeneity.
413 Homogeneity refers to having a “uniform structure or composition throughout.”
“Homogeneity – 1: the quality or state of being homogeneous.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Homogeneous – 1: of the same or a similar kind or nature 2: of uniform structure or composition throughout.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Both the big bang theory and the steady-state theory are based on what Bondi called the "cosmological principle." This principle states that on a large scale, the universe is homogeneous, meaning the universe looks about the same at every point, and isotropic, meaning the universe looks the same in every direction. Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same-for example, a universe that grows denser with distance from the observer would still look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
6. Homogeneity is intended to apply only to the universe on the large scale.
a. Homogeneity is not intended to apply to the smaller-scale or local level of the universe.
i. Thus, there may be a lack of homogeneity on smaller levels or regions of the universe.
b. In particular, as indicated by the quotes below, homogeneity is said to be at work only on the very largest scale, superclusters, with dimensions larger than 100,000,000 light years.
i. In other words, there is no “clustering of superclusters.”
ii. Superclusters are evenly distributed throughout the universe.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe – Hubble inferred a uniformity in the spatial distribution of galaxies through number counts in deep photographic surveys of selected areas of the sky. This inference applies only to scales larger than several times [100,000,000] light-years. On smaller scales, galaxies tend to bunch together in clusters and superclusters, and Hubble deliberately avoided the more conspicuous examples in order not to bias his results. This clustering did excite debate among both observers and theorists in the earliest discussions of cosmology, particularly over the largest dimensions where there are still appreciable departures from homogeneity and over the ultimate cause of the departures. In the 1950s and early 1960s, however, attention tended to focus on homogeneous cosmological models because of the competing ideas of the big bang and steady state scenarios. Only after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background—which, together with the successes of primordial nucleosynthesis, signaled a clear victory for the hot big bang picture—did the issue of departures from homogeneity in the universe again attract widespread interest.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Clustering of galaxies, Superclusters – In 1932 Harlow Shapley and Adelaide Ames introduced a catalog that showed the distributions of galaxies brighter than 13th magnitude to be quite different north and south of the plane of the Galaxy. Their study was the first to indicate that the universe might contain substantial regions that departed from the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy…Also apparent in the Shapley-Ames maps were three independent concentrations of galaxies, separate superclusters viewed from a distance. Astronomers now believe superclusters fill perhaps 10 percent of the volume of the universe. Most galaxies, groups, and clusters belong to superclusters, the space between superclusters being relatively empty. The dimensions of superclusters range up to a few times [100,000,000] light-years. For larger scales the distribution of galaxies is essentially homogeneous and isotropic—that is, there is no evidence for the clustering of superclusters.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
cxiii. The second assumption is isotropy.
1. Isotropy refers to the idea that on a large scale the universe “looks the same in all directions.”
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
414 Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same.
415 A universe may look isotropic without being homogeneous.
“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Both the big bang theory and the steady-state theory are based on what Bondi called the "cosmological principle." This principle states that on a large scale, the universe is homogeneous, meaning the universe looks about the same at every point, and isotropic, meaning the universe looks the same in every direction. Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same-for example, a universe that grows denser with distance from the observer would still look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. Isotropy is a concept based upon how the universe looks from the earth.
a. This is implicit in common sense because where else would we have observed the universe from besides the earth?
“Universe, Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size. Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Universe, Size of the universe – Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
3. Because isotropy is based upon how the universe looks from earth, isotropy is an assumption that is based upon observation.
a. (In contrast, homogeneity and the extrapolation of a Big Bang explosion are not assumptions based on observation.)
4. When isotropy makes claims about how the universe would look from other locations besides the earth, then it too becomes an assumption that goes beyond the observable evidence.
a. This is because we simply have no observations of the universe from any other location beside the earth on which to base such an extrapolation of isotropy.
5. Isotropy is just as much a part of the creationist model as it is the evolutionary model.
a. In fact, for reasons that will be described later on, isotropy is arguably more indicative of the creationist model than the evolutionary model.
cxiv. An additional assumption of modern cosmological models is that the universe has no edge or boundary (regardless of whether or not it is finite or infinite.)
1. Consequently, the idea that the universe has no boundary or edge results in a universe with no center.
“Big-bang model – The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
416 Using these assumptions the Big Bang model assumes that all matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe and there is no center to the distribution of that matter.
cxv. As such, there are no “special” locations in the universe because all parts of the universe are uniform.
cxvi. It could be said that the assumption that there is “no special place” in the universe forms the basis of the other assumptions.
1. For example, Einstein’s original model, including its assumptions about homogeneity and isotropy, were outgrowths of what is known as “the Copernican revolution” or “the Copernican principle.”
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle. Given the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is a natural one.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. History of the Copernican Principle
i. Nicolaus Copernicus was a scientists in the 1540’s A.D., who asserted that the earth was not the center of the universe as the Greek philosopher Aristotle has supposed, but instead, the sun was the center.
“Astronomy, Observing the sky, Earth-centered theories – Ancient scholars produced elaborate schemes to account for the observed movements of the stars, sun, moon, and planets. In the 300's B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a system of 56 spheres, all with the same center. The innermost sphere, which did not move, was Earth…Sun-centered theories – By the early 1500's, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had developed a theory in which the sun was at the center of the universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies – Until the 16th century, most people (including early astronomers) considered the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe…By the mid-17th century, most scientists in western Europe accepted the Copernican universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Impact of Copernicus’ model
i. Copernicus unseated the idea that the earth had a special location in the universe as a result of divine purpose.
ii. It is this principle, that the earth does not have a special place in the universe, which evolutionary cosmologists admit was the assumption that “lead directly to” the Big Bang model.
“The idea that we are not located in a special spatial location has been crucial in cosmology leading directly to the [big bang theory].” – Richear Gott (Ph. D. Astrophysics), Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects, Nature, 1993 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
iii. Concerning Einstein’s assumptions about the uniform distribution of matter in the universe Britannica stated, “Given the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is a natural one.”
cxvii. A important clarification on the terms “bound” and “unbound”
1. Often in cosmology, you will find the terms “bound” and “unbound universe.”
2. These terms do NOT refer to whether or not the universe has an edge or boundary.
a. The terms “open” or “unbound universe” refer, not to whether or not it has an edge or boundary, but instead refer to the notion that the universe will continue to expand forever.
b. The terms “closed” or “bound universe” refer to the notion that the universe will not expand forever, but will one day stop expanding and eventually collapse in a process opposite the big bang.
“Cosmos – The issue of how the universe will end seems, at first sight, more amenable to conventional analysis. Because the universe is currently expanding, one may ask whether this expansion will continue into the indefinite future or whether after the passage of some finite time, the expansion will be reversed by the gravitational attraction of all of the matter for itself. The procedure for answering this question seems straightforward: either measure directly the rate of deceleration in the expansion of the galaxies to extrapolate whether they will eventually come to a halt, or measure the total amount of matter in the universe to see if there is enough to supply the gravitation needed to make the universe bound. Unfortunately, astronomers' assaults on both fronts have been stymied by two unforeseen circumstances. First, it is now conceded that earlier attempts to measure the deceleration rate have been affected by evolutionary effects of unknown magnitude in the observed galaxies that invalidate the simple interpretations. Second, it is recognized that within the Cosmos there may be an unknown amount of “hidden mass,” which cannot be seen by conventional astronomical techniques but which contributes substantially to the gravitation of the universe. The hope is that, somehow, quantum physics will ultimately supply theoretical answers (which can then be tested observationally and experimentally) to each of these difficulties.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Bound and unbound universes and the closure density – The different separation behaviours of galaxies at large time scales in the Friedmann closed and open models and the Einstein–de Sitter model allow a different classification scheme than one based on the global structure of space-time. The alternative way of looking at things is in terms of gravitationally bound and unbound systems: closed models where galaxies initially separate but later come back together again represent bound universes; open models where galaxies continue to separate forever represent unbound universes; the Einstein–de Sitter model where galaxies separate forever but slow to a halt at infinite time represents the critical case. The advantage of this alternative view is that it focuses attention on local quantities where it is possible to think in the simpler terms of Newtonian physics—attractive forces, for example. In this picture it is intuitively clear that the feature that should distinguish whether or not gravity is capable of bringing a given expansion rate to a halt depends on the amount of mass (per unit volume) present. This is indeed the case; the Newtonian and relativistic formalisms give the same criterion for the critical, or closure, density (in mass equivalent of matter and radiation) that separates closed or bound universes from open or unbound ones…If the actual cosmic average is greater than this value, the universe is bound (closed) and, though currently expanding, will end in a crush of unimaginable proportion. If it is less, the universe is unbound (open) and will expand forever.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, D The Universe Through Time – A fundamental issue addressed in cosmology is the future of the universe-whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse. The first case (eternal expansion) is known as an open universe, and the second case (eventual collapse) is known as a closed universe. A closed universe would require sufficiently high density to cause gravity to stop the universe's expansion and begin its contraction.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – For a universe with very low density, the age of the universe would be directly related to its expansion rate. This universe would expand forever; this eternal expansion defines an open universe. If, on the other hand, the density of a universe is sufficiently high, the expansion rate is changing-slowing down as the universe ages. This universe would eventually stop expanding and begin contracting, which defines it as a closed universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. Currently, the question of whether or not the universe is bound or unbound, whether or not it will expand forever or eventually collapse back together, is considered unresolved in modern cosmology.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, The ultimate fate of the universe – In the absence of definitive observational conclusions, one can only speculate on the possible fate of the actual universe. If the universe is unbound, the cosmological expansion will not halt, and eventually the galaxies and stars will all die, leaving the Cosmos a cold, dark, and virtually empty place. If the universe is bound, the mass-energy content in the distant but finite future will come together again; the cosmic background radiation will be blueshifted, raising the temperature of matter and radiation to incredible levels, perhaps to reforge everything in the fiery crucible of the big squeeze. Because of the development of structure in previous epochs, the big squeeze may not occur simultaneously everywhere at the end of time as its explosive counterpart, the big bang, seems to have done at the beginning of time. Discussions of recurring cycles of expansions and contractions thus remain highly speculative.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Universe, The future of the universe – Many studies indicate that the universe will continue to expand. Measurements of the brightness and redshift of supernovae in distant galaxies suggest that at the present time the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Observations of the CMB radiation provide evidence that the universe has the appropriate mixture of matter and energy to continue expanding. Both of these types of studies give similar predictions for the rate at which the universe is expanding. Theories of the universe based on the German-born physicist Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity allow for the possibility that all of the matter in the universe could come back together again in a big crunch. This would happen if the gravitational pull of all of the universe's matter was strong enough to overcome its expansion. The entire universe would eventually collapse and then explode, entering a new phase that might resemble the present one. However, studies of the CMB radiation strongly suggest that the universe has an infinite mass and volume and that it will expand forever.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
a. The theoretical question of “bound or unbound” deals with understanding what will happen in the future
i. As such, it is not as important as the fact that evolutionary cosmology lacks an actual, working theory concerning the past events that brought about the universe that we do see today.
b. A working origins theory must explain how the known conditions of the present arrived, but it does not need to define what will happen in a future.
i. Since the future is unknown, it is perfectly acceptable for a theory not to be able to explain its unidentified characteristics.
ii. But, any viable origins theory must be able to explain the identified characteristics that know exist at the present.
417 The significance of the “no edge or boundary” concept to Big Bang theory
418 The significance of the “no edge or boundary” concept to Big Bang theory is articulated in the following quote by Isaac Newton.
419 If there is an edge to the distribution of matter, then there is also a center.
420 As Newton explains, if the universe has a center, then that center of matter is also a center of gravity, which in turn would pull all the matter back toward that central location.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe, although not uniform, contains structure. This natural idea, which is the basis of much of the modern theoretical work on the problem, had already occurred to Newton in 1692. Newton wrote to the noted English scholar and clergyman Richard Bentley: ‘It seems to me, that if the matter of our Sun & Planets & all ye matter in the Universe was eavenly scattered throughout all the heavens, & every particle had an innate gravity towards all the rest & the whole space throughout wch [sic] this matter was scattered was but finite: the matter on ye outside of this space would by its gravity tend towards all ye matter on the inside & by consequence fall down to ye middle of the whole space & there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter was eavenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never convene into one mass but some of it convene into one mass & some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all yt infinite space. And thus might ye Sun and Fixt stars be formed supposing the matter were of a lucid nature.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Space being “infinite” was proposed by Newton as a solution to the problem of a gravity well at the center if space were finite.
a. Specifically take note of Newton’s phrase “ye Sun and Fixt stars.”
5. Notice that Britannica’s comment on Einstein’s model describes Einstein’s assumptions as an outgrowth of Newton’s model, even with a reference to Newton’s phrase, “ye Sun and Fixt stars.”
cxviii. The “no boundary or edge” assumption is also essential to Einstein’s model.
1. Einstein’s model altered the model proposed by Newton by addressing the gravity well problem by supposing that space is curved like the surface of a sphere or a balloon.
a. Einstein proposed “curved space” as a solution to the gravity well problem.
i. Because there is no center to the surface of a sphere, the problem of a center with a gravity well was avoided.
b. In Einstein’s model, parallel lines actually converge due to the warping and bending (i.e. curving) effect of gravity upon space.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological principle. Given the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is a natural one. Newton himself had it implicitly in mind in his letter to Bentley (see above) when he took the initial state of the Cosmos to be everywhere the same before it developed ‘ye Sun and Fixt stars.’ The second assumption was to suppose that this homogeneous and isotropic universe had a closed spatial geometry. As described in the previous section, the total volume of a three-dimensional space with uniform positive curvature would be finite but possess no edges or boundaries (to be consistent with the first assumption).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas – When one looks to great distances, one is seeing things as they were a long time ago, again because light takes a finite time to travel to Earth. Over such great spans, do the classical notions of Euclid concerning the properties of space necessarily continue to hold? The answer given by Einstein was: No, the gravitation of the mass contained in cosmologically large regions may warp one's usual perceptions of space and time; in particular, the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines never cross need not be a correct description of the geometry of the actual universe. And in 1917 Einstein presented a mathematical model of the universe in which the total volume of space was finite yet had no boundary or edge. The model was based on his theory of general relativity that utilized a more generalized approach to geometry devised in the 19th century by the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Big-bang model – The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Einstein did not need to suppose that space was infinite as Newton did, but was free to propose that space was finite.
a. As a result the question of whether or not the universe is infinite or finite became more or less irrelevant to cosmological models.
i. Whether or not the universe is infinite or finite remains an unresolved question in modern evolutionary theory.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – Beginning in the 17th century, scientists wondered why the sky was dark at night if space is indeed infinite (an idea proposed in ancient Greece and still accepted by most cosmologists today) and stars are distributed throughout that infinite space.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas – Immediate issues that arise when anyone contemplates the universe at large are whether space and time are infinite or finite. And after many centuries of thought by some of the best minds, humanity has still not arrived at conclusive answers to these questions.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Universe, Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size. Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
cxix. Learning about modern cosmology by following the progression of the theory about the shape of the universe.
1. Einstein’s model
a. Einstein’s model is that the overall shape of the universe could be described analogously to the surface of a sphere, in which parallel lines would converge due to the bending or curving of space by gravity.
b. In the first illustration Einstein’s original 1917 model of space (not time) as a piece of graph paper “rolled up into a cylinder on its side.”
“Cosmos, Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – The principle of equivalence in general relativity allows the locally flat space-time structure of special relativity to be warped by gravitation, so that (in the cosmological case) the propagation of the photon over thousands of millions of light-years can no longer be plotted on a globally flat sheet of paper. To be sure, the curvature of the paper may not be apparent when only a small piece is examined, thereby giving the local impression that space-time is flat (i.e., satisfies special relativity). It is only when the graph paper is examined globally that one realizes it is curved (i.e., satisfies general relativity). In Einstein's 1917 model of the universe, the curvature occurs only in space, with the graph paper being rolled up into a cylinder on its side, a loop around the cylinder at constant time having a circumference of 2?R—the total spatial extent of the universe. Notice that the “radius of the universe” is measured in a “direction” perpendicular to the space-time surface of the graph paper. Since the ringed space axis corresponds to one of three dimensions of the actual world (any will do since all directions are equivalent in an isotropic model), the radius of the universe exists in a fourth spatial dimension (not time) which is not part of the real world. This fourth spatial dimension is a mathematical artifice introduced to represent diagrammatically the solution (in this case) of equations for curved three-dimensional space that need not refer to any dimensions other than the three physical ones. Photons traveling in a straight line in any physical direction have trajectories that go diagonally (at 45° angles to the space and time axes) from corner to corner of each little square cell of the space-time grid; thus, they describe helical paths on the cylindrical surface of the graph paper, making one turn after traveling a spatial distance 2?R. In other words, always flying dead ahead, photons would return to where they started from after going a finite distance without ever coming to an edge or boundary. The distance to the “other side” of the universe is therefore ?R, and it would lie in any and every direction; space would be closed on itself. Now, except by analogy with the closed two-dimensional surface of a sphere that is uniformly curved toward a centre in a third dimension lying nowhere on the two-dimensional surface, no three-dimensional creature can visualize a closed three-dimensional volume that is uniformly curved toward a centre in a fourth dimension lying nowhere in the three-dimensional volume. Nevertheless, three-dimensional creatures could discover the curvature of their three-dimensional world by performing surveying experiments of sufficient spatial scope.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1915 German-American physicist Albert Einstein, who was working in Switzerland, advanced a theory of gravitation known as the general theory of relativity. His theory involves a four-dimensional space-time continuum that bends in the presence of massive objects. This bending causes light and other objects that are moving near these massive objects to follow a curved path, just as a golfer's ball curves on a warped putting green. In this way, Einstein explained gravity.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. Einstein’s 1917 model was later modified by Russian meteorologist and mathematician Aleksandr A. Friedmann in 1922 and Georges Lemaitre in 1927.
d. As Einstein’s original model of the universe was modified, the illustrations for the “shape” of the universe were also modified.
2. Friedmann and Lemaitre’s models…
a. along with Einstein’s, still provide the basis of cosmology today.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – Einstein's theory also made several predictions that were not part of Newton's theory. When these predictions were verified, Einstein's theory was accepted. Einstein's equations were very complicated, though, and it was other scientists who eventually found widely accepted solutions to Einstein's equations. Most of cosmology today is based on the set of solutions found in the 1920s by Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann. Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaitre also developed cosmological models based on solutions to Einstein's equations. ” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. correspond to “big bang cosmologies,” meaning that they are earlier Big Bang cosmological models and they are part of the evolution to the current form of the Big Bang theory.
c. maintained Einstein’s assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – In 1922 Aleksandr A. Friedmann, a Russian meteorologist and mathematician, and in 1927 Georges Lemaitre, the aforementioned Belgian cleric, independently discovered solutions to Einstein's equations that contained realistic amounts of matter. These evolutionary models correspond to big bang cosmologies. Friedmann and Lemaitre adopted Einstein's assumption of spatial homogeneity and isotropy (the cosmological principle).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. rejected Einstein’s third assumption that the universe is static and does not change with time.
i. Einstein’s 1917 model was effectively a primitive form of the Steady-State model since Einstein’s third assumption was that space doesn’t change over time.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations…The third assumption made by Einstein was that the universe as a whole is static—i.e., its large-scale properties do not vary with time. This assumption, made before Hubble's observational discovery of the expansion of the universe…the philosophical attraction of the notion that the universe on average is not only homogeneous and isotropic in space but also constant in time was so appealing that a school of English cosmologists—Hermann Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and Thomas Gold—would call it the perfect cosmological principle and carry its implications in the 1950s to the ultimate refinement in the so-called steady state model.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. by assuming that the universe evolved with time the models proposed by Friedmann in 1922 and Lamaitre in 1927 “anticipated” Hubble’s discovery of expansion in 1929 (as indicated by the second quote below).
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – The decision to abandon a static model meant that the Friedmann models evolve with time. As such, neighbouring pieces of matter have recessional (or contractional) phases when they separate from (or approach) one another with an apparent velocity that increases linearly with increasing distance. Friedmann's models thus anticipated Hubble's law before it had been formulated on an observational basis. It was Lemaître, however, who had the good fortune of deriving the results at the time when the recession of the galaxies was being recognized as a fundamental cosmological observation, and it was he who clarified the theoretical basis for the phenomenon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth…This constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. Hubble’s discovery of expansion changes the “shape” of the universe.
a. Hubble’s discovery of expansion is so central to modern cosmology because it…
i. marked the demise of Steady-State models, including Einstein’s original 1917 model,
ii. proved that in the large-scale the universe was changing over time, namely the change of expansion.
b. Tracing the changes of the cosmological shape through the illustrations
i. Einstein’s original 1917 “cylinder” curve model was altered in accordance with the work of Friedmann and Lamaitre.
ii. The addition of “change over time” transformed Einstein’s cylinder into the image of a “barrel on its side,”
1. new curves at both ends of the “barrel” representing that temporal change caused by expansion.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – The geometry of space in Friedmann's closed models is similar to that of Einstein's original model; however, there is a curvature to time as well as one to space. Unlike Einstein's model, where time runs eternally at each spatial point on an uninterrupted horizontal line that extends infinitely into the past and future, there is a beginning and end to time in Friedmann's version of a closed universe when material expands from or is recompressed to infinite densities. These instants are called the instants of the “big bang” and the “big squeeze,” respectively. The global space-time diagram for the middle half of the expansion-compression phases can be depicted as a barrel lying on its side. The space axis corresponds again to any one direction in the universe, and it wraps around the barrel. Through each spatial point runs a time axis that extends along the length of the barrel on its (space-time) surface. Because the barrel is curved in both space and time, the little squares in the grid of the curved sheet of graph paper marking the space-time surface are of nonuniform size, stretching to become bigger when the barrel broadens (universe expands) and shrinking to become smaller when the barrel narrows (universe contracts). It should be remembered that only the surface of the barrel has physical significance; the dimension off the surface toward the axle of the barrel represents the fourth spatial dimension, which is not part of the real three-dimensional world. The space axis circles the barrel and closes upon itself after traversing a circumference equal to 2?R, where R, the radius of the universe (in the fourth dimension), is now a function of the time t. In a closed Friedmann model, R starts equal to zero at time t = 0 (not shown in barrel diagram), expands to a maximum value at time t = t m (the middle of the barrel), and recontracts to zero (not shown) at time t = 2t m, with the value of t m dependent on the total amount of mass that exists in the universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. This “barrel on its side” concept of the universe is depicted in the following illustration from Britannica Encyclopedia and the subsequent caption below.
[pic]
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – Curved space-time in a matter-dominated, closed universe during the middle half of its expansion-compression phases. At each instant of time t, the space axis forms a closed loop with radius R(t), the so-called radius of the universe, in an unobservable fourth dimension. – From F.H. Shu, The Physical Universe (1982); University Science Books.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. In 1932, Einstein and de Sitter proposed another modification to the basic model.
a. This 1932 model assumed that space is infinite and curved, and most importantly, it retained the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy.
“De Sitter, Willem – His work also helped familiarize astronomers with the theory of relativity proposed by German-born American astronomer Albert Einstein…In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter collaborated and refined both men's earlier cosmological theories to create the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe. This model was the first prediction that dark matter, or matter that does not emit electromagnetic radiation and so had not yet been detected, should exist in the universe. See also Cosmology; Big Bang Theory; Steady-State Theory.” – "De Sitter, Willem," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter proposed that the cosmological constant should be set equal to zero, and they derived a homogeneous and isotropic model that provides the separating case between the closed and open Friedmann models; i.e., Einstein and de Sitter assumed that the spatial curvature of the universe is neither positive nor negative but rather zero. The spatial geometry of the Einstein–de Sitter universe is Euclidean (infinite total volume), but space-time is not globally flat (i.e., not exactly the space-time of special relativity). Time again commences with a big bang and the galaxies recede forever, but the recession rate (Hubble's “constant”) asymptotically coasts to zero as time advances to infinity.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Although modified by additional support components, like inflation theory, the Einstein-de Sitter Big Bang cosmology remains the basic model today.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation – Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes. First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature, and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly like an Einstein–de Sitter universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because the geometry of space and the gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in the Einstein–de Sitter model, many people with a philosophical bent have long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe the actual universe. During the late 1970s strong theoretical support for this viewpoint came from considerations of particle physics (the model of inflation to be discussed below), and mounting, but as yet undefinitive, support also seems to be gathering from astronomical observations.”
c. The final modern concept of the model can be illustrated like the surface of a “sphere” or “balloon,” as depicted in the following illustration from Microsoft Encarta.
i. In the illustration and its caption, we can see how the spherical surface of a balloon represents both the “curvature” of space as well as how space expands.
[pic]
“Expanding Universe Experiment – One way to understand the concept of an expanding universe is to draw dots, representing galaxies, on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, each dot moves away from all the others. To a person viewing the universe from a galaxy, all other galaxies would seem to be receding. The distant galaxies appear to be moving away faster than the near ones, which demonstrates Hubble's law. Some astronomers believe that this expansion will continue forever, whereas others think that at a certain point the universe will begin contracting. “ – Encarta, Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
421 Summary on Einstein’s 3 assumptions and the current model of the universe.
422 Only 2 out of Einstein’s 3 original assumptions have been retained in modern cosmology.
423 Those 2 remaining assumptions are homogeneity and isotropy.
424 Both of these 2 assumptions reflect the notion that on the large scale the distribution of matter in universe is roughly the same everywhere.
425 Einstein’s third assumption has since been disproved by expansion.
426 This assumption was that on the large scale the universe remains the same over time, an assumption which
427 The Predominant Significance of the Copernical Principle in modern cosmological models
428 Review
429 The Copernican Principle is the preference for a universe in which earth, its solar system, and its galaxy are not near the center and have no special place in the universe.
cxx. The Copernican Controversy – Not an example of Christians hijacking science
1. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church of Copernicus’ day strongly opposed his sun-centered theory is often cited as an analogy to modern creationism.
a. The criticism is that creationism is a return to the backward science of the Middle Ages under the Church in which observable reality is suppressed by blind faith
2. This analogy of creationism to the Copernican controversy is not valid.
a. Number one, the Roman Catholic Church was simply upholding an ancient secular, Gentile, or Pagan cosmological view put forward by Aristotle and Ptolemy, not the Bible.
i. Therefore, this historical episode is an example of the problems that ensue when the texts of the Bible are bent out of their context to support the ideas of secular science.
“Astronomy, History – Aristotle's system of physics and astronomy, developed in the 300's B.C., survived for almost 2,000 years. In Aristotle's system of astronomy, Earth was the center of the universe. During the A.D. 100's, Ptolemy modified Aristotle's system to account for the retrograde motion of the planets. Ptolemy also maintained that Earth was the center of the universe, however. Developing the modern view – By the early 1500's, Nicolaus Copernicus had developed a theory in which Earth and the other planets revolved about the sun…In 1609, Galileo heard that an optical device had been built that made distant objects appear closer. He soon built his own telescope. The discoveries Galileo made with this instrument backed the Copernican theory over the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In 1616, however, the Roman Catholic Church warned Galileo not to teach that Earth revolves about the sun. A book of Galileo's published in 1632 was interpreted as a violation of the ban, and Galileo was put under house arrest. Only in 1992 did the Catholic Church confirm that Galileo should not have been tried or convicted.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies – Until the 16th century, most people (including early astronomers) considered the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe. A sun-centered universe neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky: Because Earth is closer to the sun, Earth moves faster than Mars. When Mars is ahead of or relatively far behind Earth, Mars appears to move across Earth's night sky in the usual west-to-east direction. As Earth overtakes Mars, Mars's motion seems to stop, then begin an east-to-west motion that stops and reverses when Earth moves far enough away again. Copernicus's model also explained the daily and yearly motion of the sun and stars in the earth's sky. Scientists were slow to accept Copernicus's model of the universe, but followers grew in number throughout the 16th century. By the mid-17th century, most scientists in western Europe accepted the Copernican universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astronomy, Observing the sky, Earth-centered theories – Ancient scholars produced elaborate schemes to account for the observed movements of the stars, sun, moon, and planets. In the 300's B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a system of 56 spheres, all with the same center. The innermost sphere, which did not move, was Earth. Around Earth were 55 transparent, rotating spherical shells. The outermost shell carried the stars, believed to be merely points of light. Other shells carried the sun, moon, and planets. These shells rotated inside other shells that rotated within still other shells in ways that accounted for almost all the observed movements. During the A.D. 100's, Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, offered an explanation that better accounted for retrograde motion. Ptolemy said that the planets moved in small circles called epicycles. The epicycles moved in large circles called deferents. Earth was near the center of all the deferents. Sun-centered theories – By the early 1500's, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had developed a theory in which the sun was at the center of the universe. This theory correctly explained retrograde motion as the changing view of the planets as seen from a moving Earth. The theory also correctly explained the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across the sky. This movement is due to the west-to-east rotation of Earth about its own axis, rather than an actual motion of the sun and stars.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
b. Number 2, the suggestion that the Bible teaches the sun revolves around the earth requires an erroneous interpretive leap that takes the passage far beyond the normal usage of the expressions in the passage.
i. The passage in question, Joshua 10:12-13, was misapplied to support the earth-centered universe of the ancient pagan Greeks and Egyptians.
ii. An illustration…
1. Notice that in the quotes…
a. Worldbook asserts that Copernicus’ theory “correctly explained the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across the sky.”
b. Microsoft Encarta states that Copernicus’ theory “neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky.”
c. Modern people refer to sunrise or sundown
2. When we come across such statements from modern reference books or modern people…
a. We don’t assume that the authors believe that the sun, stars, or Mars actually move across the sky or that it is their intention to communicate that idea.
b. We don’t assume that people believe the sun is moving around the earth.
c. We assume they are either speaking poetically or casually without intending their words as technical descriptions of the structure of the universe.
iii. Yet, when we read a passage in the Bible such as Joshua 10:12-13, which similarly states “the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,” why do we interpret that statement differently as though it actually is intended as a technical description of the structure of the universe? Why the double standard?
1. The double-standard is due to our mistakenly interpreting the Bible in light of our presumption that these were more primitive people who had wrong ideas about the structure of the universe.
2. Thus, our preconceived biases are causing us to interpret the text differently than we would if we heard the same words uttered in common speech today.
3. However, one of the rules in the interpretive, textual science of hermeneutics is that figures of speech in the text must be taken as figures of speech, rather than taken literally.
a. Joshua 10 is simply a classic case of misinterpreting a text, taking a common figure of speech, such as the ones we see in Worldbook and Encarta above, and interpreting it literally.
iv. The Roman Catholic Church in Copernicus’ day made a misinterpretation motivated by a desire to uphold the current, secular scientific view of their day, which had been advanced by Aristotle and Ptolemy.
1. In the case of modern persons, the misinterpretation is the result of…
a. approaching the text with the presumption that evolution, including cultural evolution, is true
b. then interpreting the text in light of those assumptions rather than letting it speak for itself and judging its words in the same manner we would if we read or heard them anywhere else.
3. For these reasons, it is incorrect to conclude that the episode between Copernicus and Aristotle exemplifies creationism suppressing observable reality in favor of blind faith.
a. Instead, what really occurred was a highly-syncretistic form of Christianity made a presumptuous interpretation of a casual, everyday statement taken out of context from an isolated passage in order to bend support toward an erroneous secular scientific view proposed by Aristotle and Ptolemy, not the Bible.
cxxi. Summary and Notes from the Copernican Controversy
1. “simpler” theories and explanations of the existing observations are considered superior and preferable to complicated ones.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, B Sun-Centered Universe – Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. This suggestion will become more and more relevant as we explore the known evidence about expansion and its implications for cosmological models.
2. Ultimately, Copernicus’ model did not stand.
a. Copernicus merely replaced the earth-centered universe with a universe in which the sun was the center.
b. Scientists now know that our sun is not the center of the universe either.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1917 American scientist Harlow Shapley measured the distance to several groups of stars known as globular clusters. He measured these distances by using a method developed in 1912 by American astronomer Henrietta Leavitt. Leavitt's method relates distance to variations in brightness of Cepheid variables, a class of stars that vary periodically in brightness. Shapley's distance measurements showed that the clusters were centered around a point far from the sun. The arrangement of the clusters was presumed to reflect the overall shape of the galaxy, so Shapley realized that the sun was not in the center of the galaxy. Just as Copernicus's observations revealed that the earth not at the center of the universe, Shapley's observations revealed that the sun was not at the center of the galaxy. Cosmologists now realize that the earth and sun do not occupy any special position in the universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astronomy – The Milky Way is about 100,000 light-years across, and the sun is roughly 25,000 light-years from its center.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
3. It is not Copernicus view of the universe that is so admired about him, but simply his basic rejection of the idea that the earth has special or central place in the universe.
a. (The fact that Copernicus’ own model has been rejected highlights that this is actually what is embraced about Copernicus.)
b. Evolutionary science embraces such a preference against a central or special location for the earth on the grounds that it indicates teleology, a purposeful placement of the earth in a specific location.
4. From Einstein’s original model in 1917 right through the modifications to the 1932 Einstein-de Sitter universe which serves as the basis for Big Bang cosmology to this day, the model is formulated on the basis of assumptions and philosophical preferences, which themselves stem from this Copernican principle in which the earth has not central or special place in the universe.
430 The role of expansion, how observations about expansion cause problems in the underlying assumptions of Big Bang theory, and how Big Bang theory ignores such evidences
431 Whether all of space is filled with matter is not an observation, but purely an assumption because we cannot and will not ever be able to see beyond a certain distance into space “even in principle.”
432 There are 2 reasons for this.
433 Number one, dust in the Milky Way prevents us from seeing “very far in any direction.”
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – In the 19th century, counts of the numbers of stars appearing in different directions in the sky left astronomers with the incorrect idea that the earth and sun were approximately in the center of the universe. This conclusion did not take into account the modern idea that dust in our Milky Way Galaxy prevented astronomers from seeing very far in any direction.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. This limited ability to see beyond a certain point is associated with Olber’s paradox.
1. Olber’s paradox is an articulation of the following apparent contradiction.
a. If space is infinite and matter is distributed infinitely throughout space, then there should be an infinite number of stars.
b. An infinite number of stars should make the night sky bright rather than dark.
c. Yet the sky is dark.
d. So, how can there be an infinite number of stars throughout space?
“Olbers's Paradox, I INTRODUCTION – Olbers's Paradox, in astronomy and cosmology, apparent contradiction between a dark night sky and an infinite universe. If the universe is infinitely large, every line of sight possible from the earth should end in a star. Thus the sky should be completely bright. But astronomers know from common observation that the sky is dark at night between the stars. Arriving at opposite results by using two apparently valid methods of reasoning is called a paradox. Olbers's paradox is named for German physician and astronomer Wilhelm Olbers, who wrote about the paradox in the 1820s.” – "Olbers's Paradox," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – Beginning in the 17th century, scientists wondered why the sky was dark at night if space is indeed infinite (an idea proposed in ancient Greece and still accepted by most cosmologists today) and stars are distributed throughout that infinite space. An infinite amount of starlight should make the sky very bright at night. This cosmological question came to be called Olbers's paradox after the German astronomer Heinrich Olbers, who wrote about the paradox in the 1820s. The paradox was not solved until the 20th century.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. Number two, the answer to Olber’s paradox comes in terms of “a spherical surface” known as “the cosmic event horizon” at 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) light years away from the earth.
i. We cannot see beyond this spherical horizon because 10 billion light years is the age of the universe and, therefore, that is the maximum amount of time that light has had to travel to the earth.
1. Effectively, anything farther than 10 billion light years has not had enough time for its light to travel to the earth so that we can see it.
ii. According to Britannica’s assessment, we cannot and will not be able to see anything beyond 10 billion light years “even in principle.”
1. This statement indicates that the problem is permanent.
“Cosmos, Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas – In 1610 Kepler provided a profound reason for believing that the number of stars in the universe had to be finite. If there were an infinity of stars, he argued, then the sky would be completely filled with them and night would not be dark! This point was rediscussed by the astronomers Edmond Halley and Jean-Philippe-Loys de Chéseaux of Switzerland in the 18th century, but it was not popularized as a paradox until Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers of Germany took up the problem in the 19th century. The difficulty became potentially very real with Hubble's measurement of the enormous extent of the universe of galaxies with its large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. His discovery of the systematic recession of the galaxies provided an escape, however…The modern consensus is, however, that a finite age for the universe is a far more important effect. Even if the universe is spatially infinite, photons from very distant galaxies simply do not have the time to travel to the Earth because of the finite speed of light. There is a spherical surface, the cosmic event horizon (roughly [10 raised to the power of 10 or 10,000,000,000] light-years in radial distance from the Earth at the current epoch), beyond which nothing can be seen even in principle; and the number (roughly [10 raised to the power of 10 or 10,000,000,000]) of galaxies within this cosmic horizon, the observable universe, are too few to make the night sky bright.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Olber’s Paradox, III MODERN THEORIES – The current understanding of Olbers's paradox and its solution was framed by American astronomer Edward Harrison in the 1960s. Harrison showed that the sky is dark at night because we do not see stars infinitely far away. Harrison's solution depends on the universe having a finite age. Because light takes time to reach the earth, looking deep into space is like looking back in time. Each line of sight from the earth does not have to end on a star because the light from the farthest stars needed to create Olbers's paradox has not reached the earth. In the time that the universe has existed, stars have not emitted enough energy to make the night sky bright.” – "Olbers's Paradox," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. Expansion plays a role in the evolutionary solution to Olber’s paradox.
1. Hubble’s “discovery of the systematic recession of the galaxies provided an escape” to Olber’s paradox.
2. Since expansion is the basis for the Big Bang and the age of the universe in evolutionary cosmology, expansion provided a limited time for light from stars to reach the earth.
3. Any star farther from the earth than light could travel in the limited time since the Big Bang would not be visible to illuminate the night sky.
cxxii. Implications of the fact we cannot see beyond 10 billion light years (the age of the universe) “even in principle,”
1. We simply cannot know whether or not matter is uniformly distributed throughout all of space or whether matter is distributed only partially into space and then stops.
a. Science can never disprove either the “entirely-filled” or the “partially-filled” options because we cannot see far enough to do so.
2. Therefore, 2 options are equally reasonable and scientific assumptions
a. Option 1 – Matter is distributed uniformly throughout space.
b. Option 2 – Matter stops at some point even though space may continues.
i. Implications of Option 2 – if matter stops where space continues, then…
1. Even if space were infinite, there would still be an edge to the distribution of matter.
2. There would also be a center to the distribution of matter.
3. There would be an accompanying gravity well at that center of the distribution of matter.
ii. On this point, whether or not space is curved is irrelevant.
1. Even if space itself has no edge or center because it is curved like the surface of a sphere, matter could still be only partially distributed throughout space, in which case the distribution of matter would have an edge, a center, and a central gravity well.
2. Consequently, the model of spherical space that is only partially-filled with matter is equally valid as the model in which matter is uniformly distributed throughout all of space.
cxxiii. Thecentral role that redshift plays in demonstrating expansion and subsequently the Big Bang and the age of the universe.
1. (The known but ignored observations about expansion are specifically observations about redshift.)
2. Because redshift is the indispensable foundation for Big Bang cosmology and so we cannot simply throw out or disregard known facts about redshift.
3. Redshift is not a peripheral issue.
a. Redshift is determinant to cosmology on a foundational level and, as such, its characteristics are of the utmost significance.
4. The Big Bang is a reverse extrapolation of expansion, which is determined by redshift.
a. Expansion is demonstrated by redshift.
“Universe, Changing views of the universe – The discovery of the redshift of distant galaxies led to the theory of the expanding universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Universe, Size of the Universe – Astronomers interpret the large redshifts of faraway objects as evidence that the universe is expanding-that is, every point in the universe is moving away from every other point.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
b. Redshift refers to the phenomenon in which light from stars and other celestial objects, such as quasars, is shifted toward the red end of the visible light spectrum.
i. The red end of the spectrum has the longest wavelengths of visible light.
c. The redshift of light was a result of the expansion of space.
i. The wavelengths become lengthened as a result of passing through space as space expands.
“Universe, Size of the universe – Astronomers can determine the distance to a faraway object by measuring the object's redshift. Redshift is a stretching of the wavelength of light or other radiation emitted by an object. Wavelength is the distance between successive crests of a wave. The stretching is called redshift because red light has the longest wavelength of any visible light. Objects farther away from Earth have larger redshifts.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth. The Doppler shift, and therefore the speed of the galaxy, was greater for more distant galaxies. Galaxies in different directions at equivalent distances from the earth, however, had equivalent Doppler shifts. This constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly. The uniform relationship between velocity of expansion and distance from the earth is known as Hubble's law.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Most astronomical observations made to date support big bang theories. According to these theories, the universe is still expanding. Two kinds of observations strongly support the idea of an expanding universe. These observations indicate that all galaxies are moving away from one another and that the galaxies farthest from the Milky Way are moving away most rapidly. This relationship between speed and distance is known as the Hubble law of recession (moving backward), or Hubble's law. The law was named after American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble, who reported it in 1929. Astronomers estimate the speed at which a galaxy is moving away by measuring the galaxy's redshift. The redshift is an apparent lengthening of electromagnetic waves emitted by an object moving away from the observer. A redshift can be measured when light from a galaxy is broken up and spread out into a band of colors called a spectrum. The spectrum of a galaxy contains bright and dark lines that are determined by the galaxy's temperature, density, and chemical composition. These lines are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum if the galaxy is moving away. The greater the amount of redshift, the more rapid the movement. See REDSHIFT.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmology, Movement of galaxies – In the early 1900's, astronomers analyzed light from stars in distant galaxies. They passed this light through a prism, which broke it up into a rainbowlike band of colors called a spectrum (plural spectra). At one end of the spectrum of visible light is red, the color with the longest wavelength (distance between successive wave crests). At the other end is violet, which has the shortest wavelength. The spectrum of light sent out by any star has bright and dark lines that indicate the composition of the star's outer layers and atmosphere. The astronomers then compared the spectra of the light from the stars in the distant galaxies with spectra of similar stars in our home galaxy, the Milky Way. They discovered that the spectral lines of the distant stars are closer to the red end of the spectrum than are the corresponding lines in the light from our neighboring stars. The astronomers concluded that this redshift is caused by the distant galaxies moving rapidly away from the Milky Way. Calculations of the speeds of various galaxies indicate that the universe is expanding and that all galaxies began moving away from one another 10 billion to 20 billion years ago. – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Red Shift – Red Shift, shift toward longer wavelengths observed in the lines of spectra (see Spectrum) of celestial objects. The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble, in 1929, linked the red shift observed in spectra of galaxies to the expansion of the universe. Hubble theorized that this red shift, called the cosmological red shift, is caused by the Doppler effect and hence indicates the speed of recession of the galaxies-and, by using Hubble's law, the distances of the galaxies (see Cosmology).” – "Red Shift," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Doppler effect – The following is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly, the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer wavelength) if the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to search for double stars and is an integral part of modern theories of the universe. See also red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Red shift – The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929 that the distant galaxies were receding from the Milky Way system, in which the Earth is located, and that their red shifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance. This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble's law, which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from the Earth. That is to say, the greater the red shift manifested by light emanating from such an object, the greater the distance of the object and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble's constant). This law of red shifts has been confirmed by subsequent research and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Clustering of galaxies, Statistics of clustering – The description of galaxy clustering given above is qualitative and therefore open to a charge of faulty subjective reasoning. To remove human biases it is possible to take a statistical approach, a path pioneered by the American statisticians Jerzy Neyman and Elizabeth L. Scott and extended by H. Totsuji and T. Kihara in Japan and by P.J.E. Peebles and his coworkers in the United States. Their line of attack begins by considering the correlation of the angular positions of galaxies in the northern sky surveyed by C.D. Shane and C.A. Wirtanen of Lick Observatory, Mount Hamilton, Calif…In addition to angular positions, it is possible to derive empirical information about the large-scale distribution of galaxies in the direction along the line of sight by examining the redshifts of galaxies under the assumption that a larger redshift implies a greater distance in accordance with Hubble's law.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Cosmology seeks to understand the structure of the universe. Modern cosmology is based on the American astronomer Edwin Hubble's discovery in 1929 that all galaxies are receding from each other with velocities proportional to their distances. In 1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble observed.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – The universe's density, expansion rate, and age are all related…If cosmologists measure the rate of expansion by examining galactic red shifts and estimate the density of the universe, they can calculate an estimate of the universe's age.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
5. The age of the universe is based upon the rate of expansion (Hubble’s contant), which is determined by examining redshifts.
a. The Hubble constant (or Hubble’s constant) is a measure of the rate of expansion and it is the number used in estimating the universe’s age.
“Hubble constant – Hubble constant is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe. Astronomers use this number in estimating the age of the universe.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)
6. A problem – Evolutionary scientists cannot determine the exact value of the Hubble constant and therefore cannot determining the exact age of the universe.
a. The problem arises in terms of the need to measure the distance to any given galaxy “in some way independent of Hubble’s law.”
i. This is difficult to do and different methods give different values for the Hubble constant.
“Galaxy, Calculating the age of the universe – Determining the Hubble constant involves three steps: (1) measuring the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving away from the Milky Way, (2) measuring the distance to that galaxy in some way independent of Hubble's law, and (3) dividing the first measurement by the second to find the Hubble constant. The equation for the division operation, H0 = v ¸ d, is a rearrangement of the equation given previously for Hubble's law. Astronomers measure the speed of a galaxy by determining its redshift, a shift in the wavelength of certain radiation sent out by the galaxy. For a discussion of this phenomenon, see REDSHIFT. Scientists use several different methods to measure the distance to a galaxy. For various technical reasons, these methods give somewhat different results. It is because of these differences that different values have been proposed for the Hubble constant.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)
ii. Consequently, the exact value for the Hubble constant “is an issue of controversy among astronomers” and there are currently “discrepancies” concerning what is the correct figure.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, The extragalactic distance scale and Hubble's constant – The exact value of Hubble's constant is an issue of great controversy among astronomers. Modern estimates for H 0 range from 15 to 30 km/sec per million light-years. The source of the discrepancy lies partly in the interpretation of the amount of distortion superimposed atop a pure Hubble flow by the gravitational effects of the Local Supercluster in which the Local Group and the Virgo cluster are embedded and partly in the different calibrators used or emphasized by different workers for the distances to various extragalactic objects.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. As recently as the late 1990’s, scientists still did not know whether they were within 10 percent of the actual value of the Hubble constant.
“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – Several groups of astronomers conducted observational projects to determine Hubble's constant, the most important cosmological parameter, during the late 1990s. Notably, the American astronomers Wendy Freedman, Robert Kennicutt, and Barry Madore used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies, following the Leavitt-Shapley method. The Hubble Space Telescope can distinguish and follow such stars in galaxies much farther away from earth than ground-based telescopes can. The researchers hope to determine Hubble's constant to within 10 percent of its actual value. Groups using distant supernovas, which are the very bright explosions of stars, are extending tests of Hubble's law to even greater distances. Other astronomers used mainly ground-based telescopes to try to determine Hubble's constant. The American astronomer Alan Sandage and the Swiss astronomer Gustav Tammann have used a variety of methods to come up with an expansion estimate of 55 km/sec/megaparsec (about 34 mi/sec/megaparsec). A megaparsec is 1000 parsecs, and a parsec is about 3.26 light years (a light year is the distance that light could travel in a year-9.5 x 1012 km, or 5.9 x 1012 mi). So far, the cosmologists using the Hubble Space Telescope have found a value of about 70 km/sec/megaparsec (44 mi/sec/megaparsec) for the expansion rate of the universe. These expansion rates correspond to a universe between 8 billion and 13 billion years old.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. Consequently, the age of the universe is often expressed as a range reflecting the the high and low end of the estimate range of values for the Hubble constant.
i. Such as “between 8 billion and 13 billion years”
ii. The fact that the age of the universe is rendered as a range, on its own, does not mean that range is necessarily inaccurate.
d. Determing the age of the universe is simply not a perfect process or a finalized result, which is why different sources provide different ages
i. such as 8 to 13 billion years, 10 to 20 billion years, or 10 to 15 billion years, etc. for the age of the universe.
“Cosmology, IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – These expansion rates correspond to a universe between 8 billion and 13 billion years old.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – According to the theory, the big bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Big bang – Big bang refers to the most widely held scientific theory of the origin of the universe. According to this theory, the universe began with a hot, explosive event-a ‘big bang’-about 10 billion to 20 billion years ago.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – Current calculations place the age of the universe at 10 billion to 15 billion years.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Big-bang model – widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density—the so-called big bang that occurred at least 10,000,000,000 years ago. " – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Universe – According to the theory, the universe began with an explosion-called the big bang-13 billion to 14 billion years ago.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
e. These ages necessarily disagree with one another – they are all within the same basic 8-20 billion year range.
i. Notice how imprecise our value of Hubble’s constant is if it can yield differening results of 8 and 20 billion years.
1. 20 billion years is more than twice the amount of the lowest estimate of 8 billion years.
2. This requires quite a variable range for the expansion rate of the universe (Hubble’s contant.)
ii. But, the values needed for that calculation have not been fully worked out.
iii. This dispels the potential misperception that the exact age of the universe has been identified with certainty and finality or that the process for making this calculation is a perfect one.
7. Redshift indicates that space is expanding between the major structures of matter (such as galaxies), creating a greater distance between those structures as time moves forward.
a. Notes on expansion:
i. Only space is expanding, the matter in space is not expanding.
“Universe, Size of the Universe – Astronomers interpret the large redshifts of faraway objects as evidence that the universe is expanding-that is, every point in the universe is moving away from every other point. This expansion does not cause the matter within a particular object to expand, however, because attraction among its atoms and molecules holds the object together. Similarly, the force of gravity prevents the stars in a galaxy from moving away from one another. But the galaxies are moving away from one another. The expansion of the universe is a basic observation that any successful theory of the universe must explain.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models – The global space-time diagram for the middle half of the expansion-compression phases can be depicted as a barrel lying on its side. The space axis corresponds again to any one direction in the universe, and it wraps around the barrel. Through each spatial point runs a time axis that extends along the length of the barrel on its (space-time) surface. Because the barrel is curved in both space and time, the little squares in the grid of the curved sheet of graph paper marking the space-time surface are of nonuniform size, stretching to become bigger when the barrel broadens (universe expands) and shrinking to become smaller when the barrel narrows (universe contracts)… Imagine now that galaxies reside on equally spaced tick marks along the space axis. Each galaxy on average does not move spatially with respect to its tick mark in the spatial (ringed) direction but is carried forward horizontally by the march of time. The total number of galaxies on the spatial ring is conserved as time changes, and therefore their average spacing increases or decreases as the total circumference 2?R on the ring increases or decreases (during the expansion or contraction phases). Thus, without in a sense actually moving in the spatial direction, galaxies can be carried apart by the expansion of space itself. From this point of view, the recession of galaxies is not a “velocity” in the usual sense of the word. For example, in a closed Friedmann model, there could be galaxies that started, when R was small, very close to the Milky Way system on the opposite side of the universe. Now, [10,000,000,000] years later, they are still on the opposite side of the universe but at a distance much greater than [10,000,000,000] light-years away. They reached those distances without ever having had to move (relative to any local observer) at speeds faster than light—indeed, in a sense without having had to move at all…In other words, the wavelength has grown in direct proportion to the linear expansion factor of the universe. Since the same conclusion would have held if n wavelengths had been involved instead of one, all electromagnetic radiation from a given object will show the same cosmological redshift if the universe (or, equivalently, the average spacing between galaxies) was smaller at the epoch of transmission than at the epoch of reception. Each wavelength will have been stretched in direct proportion to the expansion of the universe in between.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Stars within galaxies are held at their distances by gravity, but the distances between galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters are expanding because the space between them is expanding.
c. And the light passing between one galaxy and another, one cluster or supercluster and another, is stretching as it moves across expanding space.
8. Redshift and Hubble’s Law are based upon observations from the earth (or from the Milky Way Galaxy where the earth resides.)
a. So, the Big Bang model is based upon observing redshift from the earth.
“Doppler effect – The following is an example of the Doppler effect: as one approaches a blowing horn, the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached and then becomes lower as the horn is passed. Similarly, the light from a star, observed from the Earth, shifts toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency or longer wavelength) if the Earth and star are receding from each other and toward the violet (higher frequency or shorter wavelength) if they are approaching each other. The Doppler effect is used in studying the motion of stars and to search for double stars and is an integral part of modern theories of the universe. See also red shift.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Red shift – The American astronomer Edwin Powell Hubble reported in 1929 that the distant galaxies were receding from the Milky Way system, in which the Earth is located, and that their red shifts increase proportionally with their increasing distance. This generalization became the basis for what is called Hubble's law, which correlates the recessional velocity of a galaxy with its distance from the Earth. That is to say, the greater the red shift manifested by light emanating from such an object, the greater the distance of the object and the larger its recessional velocity (see also Hubble's constant). This law of red shifts has been confirmed by subsequent research and provides the cornerstone of modern relativistic cosmological theories that postulate that the universe is expanding.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Galaxy, Origin of galaxies – Two kinds of observations strongly support the idea of an expanding universe. These observations indicate that all galaxies are moving away from one another and that the galaxies farthest from the Milky Way are moving away most rapidly. This relationship between speed and distance is known as the Hubble law of recession (moving backward), or Hubble's law. The law was named after American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble, who reported it in 1929…The greater the amount of redshift, the more rapid the movement. See REDSHIFT.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Galaxy, Calculating the age of the universe – Determining the Hubble constant involves three steps: (1) measuring the speed at which a distant galaxy is moving away from the Milky Way, (2) measuring the distance to that galaxy in some way independent of Hubble's law, and (3) dividing the first measurement by the second to find the Hubble constant.” – World Book 2005 (Deluxe)
“Universe, Size of the universe – Astronomers can determine the distance to a faraway object by measuring the object's redshift. Redshift is a stretching of the wavelength of light or other radiation emitted by an object. Wavelength is the distance between successive crests of a wave. The stretching is called redshift because red light has the longest wavelength of any visible light. Objects farther away from Earth have larger redshifts.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum. This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists soon interpreted these red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies were moving away from the earth. The Doppler shift, and therefore the speed of the galaxy, was greater for more distant galaxies. Galaxies in different directions at equivalent distances from the earth, however, had equivalent Doppler shifts. This constant relationship between distance and speed led cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly. The uniform relationship between velocity of expansion and distance from the earth is known as Hubble's law.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. So, all of our information about redshift are based upon redshift as it is observed from the earth.
cxxiv. Summary of critical information covered so far on redshift, the expansion of space, the age of the universe, and the Big Bang cosmological model
1. First, Big Bang cosmology simply doesn’t work.
a. It doesn’t have a working theory for the actual Big Bang explosion.
b. It doesn’t have a working theory for the subsequent events after the explosion that formed the major structures of the universe, including stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies.
2. Second, Big Bang cosmology is formulated and accepted on the basis of philosophical preferences, not because it is necessitated by any observations.
a. Adherents to the evolutionary Big Bang cosmology reject alternate theories on the basis of philosophical preferences, not observations.
3. Third, the Big Bang model was specifically formulated on the basis of 3 assumptions:
a. All of these 3 assumptions were made in order to avoid a creation event if possible and any special or central location in the universe for the earth (i.e. the Copernican principle).
i. homogeneity,
ii. isotropy,
iii. the trait of being static in time
b. The “curvature” of space introduced by Einstein was also based on the philosophical preference to remove a center to the universe.
4. Fourth, a creation event, a “beginning” to the universe, was unavoidable and so the third assumption that the universe was static in time was discarded.
a. The assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy remain.
5. Fifth, there is a limit to how far we can see into the universe “even in principle”
a. Homogeneity, the assumption that matter is distributed uniformly throughout all of space…
i. must remain an assumption
ii. cannot be proven
iii. isn’t based on observation.
b. It is therefore, equally possible that matter is only distributed through a portion of space, then stops, having an edge and therefore a center.
6. Sixth, the desire to avoid an edge and a center to the distribution of matter were related to the desire to avoid a gravity well at the center of the universe.
7. Seventh, the earth is not the center of the universe and neither is earth’s sun.
8. Eighth, redshift was the cornerstone basis of expansion, the Big Bang model, and the age estimates of the universe.
9. Ninth, all observations of redshift are observations of redshift from the earth.
cxxv. Key questions about the model regarding the inherent assumptions
1. Since the notion that there is no edge or subsequent center to the distribution of matter in the universe is merely an assumption, which cannot be demonstrated by observation, what happens to the model of the universe if there is an edge and a center?
2. What evidence is there that the universe has a center?
cxxvi. 2 evidences that the universe has a center
1. Isotropy – the first piece of evidence, which indicates that the universe might have a center.
a. Isotropy is the only 1 of the 3 assumptions in Einstein’s original 1917 model that had any basis in actual observation.
b. The fact is that when we look into space from the earth, from our present location, matter seems to be uniformly distributed around us.
i. This is observation.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory – The big bang theory describes a hot explosion of energy and matter at the time the universe came into existence. This theory explains why the universe is expanding and why the universe seems so uniform in all directions and at all places.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions) on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond – In the 19th century, counts of the numbers of stars appearing in different directions in the sky left astronomers with the incorrect idea that the earth and sun were approximately in the center of the universe. This conclusion did not take into account the modern idea that dust in our Milky Way Galaxy prevented astronomers from seeing very far in any direction.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Universe, Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size. Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
c. Isotropy becomes an assumption when we extrapolate that this is true, not just for the earth, but for every location in the universe.
i. We have not looked into space from any other location besides earth and so, it is merely an assumption that matter would appear uniformly distributed or would be uniformly distributed around other locations as it is around the earth.
d. Consequently, on its own, isotropy does not favor one theory over another.
i. Big Bang cosmology can accommodate this piece of evidence by adding additional unproven assumptions
1. That the universe looks the same from any and all locations – we have not and cannot actually observe this claim.
ii. But if we want to remain minimal in the number of assumptions, on face value the fact that matter seems evenly distributed all around the earth is a remarkable indication that earth, or at least earth’s galaxy, is near the center of the universe.
2. Olber’s paradox – the second piece of evidence, which indicates that the universe might have a center.
a. The darkness of the sky at night is an important fact in the modern understanding of all cosmological models.
i. It has even been assessed to have equal weight in cosmology to the recession and expansion.
“Cosmology – Five observations have contributed much to modern cosmology: (1) the sky is dark at night; (2) galaxies move away from one another; (3) the entire sky gives off radio waves; (4) helium is abundant in the universe; and (5) the age of the oldest stars is 10 billion to 20 billion years. The dark sky – During the 1700's and 1800's, astronomers wondered why the sky is dark at night. In the simplest universe they could imagine, stars would be distributed evenly throughout an infinite space. The entire night sky would therefore appear to be a solid mass of stars as bright as the sun. The inconsistency between this imaginary sky and the actual dark sky indicates that the universe has a complex structure. This inconsistency has been named Olbers's paradox after its author, German astronomer Heinrich Olbers.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
b. Like isotropy, Big Bang cosmology can accommodate Olber’s paradox by adding more unproven assumptions.
i. It is possible to explain why the sky is dark by assuming that…
1. matter is infinitely distributed throughout infinite space
2. matter is distributed across a distance so great that there has not been enough time for light to travel from the earth.
c. So, on its own Olber’s paradox is not conclusive proof that the universe has a center.
i. Just as with isotropy, if we want to keep assumptions to a minimum number, the fact that the sky is dark at night is also a remarkable indication that there is only a limited distribution of stars and matter throughout the universe
1. This would indicate that there is both an edge and a center to that distribution of matter.
3. Big Bang theory’s additional assumptions and the preference for simplicity in scientific theories.
a. Taken together isotropy and Olber’s paradox constitute at least mounting evidence for the notion that the universe has a center.
i. When viewed individually, it only takes one assumption to accommodate each.
ii. But when viewed together, it becomes clear that in order to fit with the evidence, evolutionary theory requires 2 additional assumptions.
b. When covering the history of Copernicus, we took note that “simpler” theories are “more sound philosophically” than more complicated ones because they more “neatly” explain the observations.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies – Until the 16th century, most people (including early astronomers) considered the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered universe. A sun-centered universe neatly explained why Mars appears to move backward across the sky: Because Earth is closer to the sun, Earth moves faster than Mars. When Mars is ahead of or relatively far behind Earth, Mars appears to move across Earth's night sky in the usual west-to-east direction. As Earth overtakes Mars, Mars's motion seems to stop, then begin an east-to-west motion that stops and reverses when Earth moves far enough away again. Copernicus's model also explained the daily and yearly motion of the sun and stars in the earth's sky.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The theory that the earth, or rather the earth’s home galaxy, is near the center of a finite distribution of matter is a far simpler, neater and therefore philosophically more sound explanation for…
i. Why we see an even distribution of matter all around the earth no matter which direction we look
ii. Why the sky is dark at night
d. Big Bang cosmology contains a more complicated explanation using 2 purely speculative assumptions that cannot be based on observation…
i. We see an even distribution because all of space has an even distribution
ii. We only see a limited number of stars because other stars are too far away for their light to have arrived yet
e. In these terms, it becomes quite clear that the explanation, which requires assuming the least amount of unknowns, is the theory that the universe has a center and earth’s galaxy is near to that center.
i. Such an explanation simply explains the observations and it does not require making assumptions about the distribution of matter in parts of space that we cannot observe.
ii. As we saw, Copernicus’ model won out, not because of new observations, but because his explanations of the existing observations were simpler, neater, and therefore, more philosophically sound.
iii. Consequently, even judging just by isotropy and Olber’s paradox, the same criteria that weighed in favor of Copernicus’ model, weigh in favor that a centered-universe theory is a more sound explanation and therefore should be philosophically preferable to a center-less universe theory.
cxxvii. The third evidence – known but ignored evidence that the universe has a center and that the earth’s home galaxy, the Milky Way, is uniquely near that center.
1. The evidence that the Milky Way has a central location within the universe is inherent to what we observe about redshift itself, the central pillar of evolutionary Big Bang cosmology.
2. Redshifts occur in quantized shells or spheres occurring at regular distances around the location of the Milky Way, earth’s home galaxy, as their center.
a. This fact is attested to repeatedly by non-creationist, mainstream scientists and authors in science magazines and journals, including…
i. Astrophysical Journal,
ii. the Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy,
iii. Sky and Telescope,
iv. Scientific American,
v. the Journal Science, and Discover.
b. At the end of these mainstream quotes have we included 3 comments on this subject from creationists.
i. The creationists’ descriptions of the redshift phenomenon in question are identical to what is described in the mainstream scientific literature.
“There is now very firm evidence that redshifts of galaxies are quantized…” – W.G. Tifft and W.J. Cocke, Global redshift quantization, Astrophysical Journal, 1984 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps – certain preferred values – is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence.” – Halton Arp (Staff astronomer at the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatory for 29 years), Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987, p. 195 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Abstract: Radio wavelength studies of red shifts have reinforced William G. Tifft's claims that redshifts do not occur in a swift continuum. Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, had been claiming that redshifts occur in groups, with estimated intervals of between 24 to 72 kilometers per second.” – “Quantized redshifts: what's going on here?” Sky & Telescope, August 1992, v.84, n.2, p. 128
“Abstract: Astronomer William G. Tifft claims that his statistical analyses of different galaxies have indicated that redshifts are not continuous, but fall on evenly spaced steps. This finding indicates that redshifts do not necessarily correspond to their recessional velocity.” – Tim Beardsley, “Quantum dissidents: is there unexpected order in the cosmos? (red shifts)” (Special Year-End Section: The Search for Answers), Scientific American, Dec 1992, v.267, n.6, p. 39
“Abstract: A recent study of many parts of the sky supported a controversial 1976 claim that redshift of celestial objects appear only in quantized speeds. Standard models of the universe give no reason why redshift would be restricted to multiples of one fundamental speed, which was measured at 37.2 kill/sec. Full Text: In a study of redshifts - a measure of velocity away from the Earth - for more than 200 galaxies, Bill Napier of Oxford University and Bruce Guthrie, a retired astronomer from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, claim to have the best evidence yet for a 20-year-old claim: that redshifts fall into packets, clustered around specific values. Few astronomers have taken the notion of "quantized redshifts" seriously in the past, but some galaxy specialists who have seen the new results - slated to appear in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics - are no longer dismissing them out of hand…Harvard galaxy expert John Huchra, another other longtime skeptic, goes further: ‘My curiosity is now sufficiently whetted that I'm thinking of writing an observing proposal for checking to see if [the effect] holds up with other galaxies.’ If it does, standard cosmology might be turned on its ear: ‘It would mean abandoning a great deal of present research,’ says Disney…The expansion stretches the light of distant galaxies, shifting the spectral lines it contains toward longer - and thus redder - wavelengths. And according to current models of the expansion of the universe, galaxy speed, and hence redshift, should increase steadily with distance, rather than bunching around particular values. In 1976, however, William Tifft of the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona claimed that visible-light redshift measurements suggested that galaxies in a cluster in the constellation Coma have redshifts that fall into distinct velocity packets. The velocities, he said, always came out at some multiple of about 72 kilometers per second (km/s). A year later, Tifft claimed to have found a similar "quantization" in the velocities of galaxies closer to our own. The claim met with widespread indifference, but Tifft and his colleague W. John Cocke continued to amass more evidence for the effect throughout the 1980s…[Napier and Guthrie] focused on the velocities of spiral galaxies spread right across the sky to the edge of the Local Supercluster, at a distance of about 100 million lightyears - making their study the most extensive test yet of quantized redshifts. To minimize the chances that the effect is simply an instrumental quirk, Napier and Guthrie gathered redshift measurements from eight different, widely spread radio observatories, from Effelsberg in Germany to Arecibo in Puerto Rico. In all, they studied 97 spirals, each with redshift measurements from several of the observatories…The analysis revealed a quantization consistent with a fundamental velocity of 37.5 km/s. According to the astronomers, the probability of getting so strong an effect by random chance alone is around 1 in 10,000. At the request of a referee appointed by Astronomy and Astrophysics, Napier and Guthrie went on to repeat the whole process with a further set of 117 galaxies, and the same quantization showed up, this time with a probability of 5 in 10,000 that the effect was a fluke. The fact that both these independent data sets yield the same quantization, says Napier, implies ‘an overall probability of getting so strong an effect by chance alone of around 5 in 100 million.’…Responds Napier, ‘If there's a way out of this conclusion, we haven't seen it. And it's not for lack of trying.’” – Robert Matthews, “Do galaxies fly through the universe in formation? (redshift observations suggest galaxies travel at quantized speeds),” Science, Feb 9, 1996 v.271, n. 5250, p. 759
“Abstract: William Tifft's data that suggests that redshifted light from distant galaxies is dependent on the type of galaxy and not on recession speed, a notion which could upend the Big Bang theory. He also claims that redshifts are quantized like the energy states of an atom. Full Text: If you believe William Tifft's data, there are problems with the modem cosmos. For instance, maybe--repeat, maybe-it isn't expanding…If a galaxy's light is redshifted only by the expansion of space (and its own smaller motion through space), the amount of redshift should depend on its distance and not on what type of galaxy it is. And the redshifts of all galaxies together should form a random distribution, reflecting the random distribution of distances at which galaxies are observed. Tifft's observations over the past 20 years have convinced him that neither of these conditions applies to the real universe…Observing other clusters and pairs of equidistant galaxies, Tifft made an even more startling discovery. He found that his galactic redshifts took on only certain discrete values instead of being randomly distributed. In other words, redshifts appeared to increase by quantum leaps--specifically, by a leap of 45 miles per second, if the redshift was redshifts of some types of galaxies were distributed at intervals of a third or a half of 45 miles per second. But the basic idea remained: galactic redshifts are quantized, like the energy states of an atom. That idea has never gone over very well with most of Tifft's peers. The editors of the Astrophysical Journal grudgingly published his first quantized-redshift paper in 1976, but they announced in an unusual disclaimer that they couldn't endorse the idea (although they also couldn't find anything wrong with the underlying observations). The reasons for their dislike are not hard to fathom. If the universe isn't expanding, there would be no reason to believe it was ever compressed into a single point--no reason, that is, to believe it began with a Big Bang. If redshift isn't a simple measure of velocity, then the argument that most of the universe is "dark" matter, which is based primarily on elaborate measurements of galactic velocities, would probably also fall apart. Cosmologists are generally loath to toss twentieth-century cosmology into the dustbin…That Tifft canot explain why red shifts are quantized does not, of course, prove that they aren't. There have been several attempts to refute his observations; in the most recent one, Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, working at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies--and surprised themselves by uncovering data that support the case for quantized redshifts. The redshifts they measured were spaced at intervals of about half of Tifft's original quantum of 45 miles per second.” – Dava Sobel, “Man stops universe, maybe. (William Tifft believes the universe may not be expanding)” Discover, April 1993, v. 14, n.4, p. 20
“…the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques.” – W. Napier and B. Guthrie, Quantized redshifts: a status report, Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy, 1997 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“…the quantized distribution of galactic redshifts, observed by various astronomers seems to contradict the Copernican principle and all cosmologies founded on it – including the big bang.” – Russell Humphreys, Ph. D. Physics, Starlight and Time, 1994, p. 129 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are ‘quantized,’ tending to fall into distinct groups…That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy.” – Russell Humphreys, Ph. D. Physics, Technical Journal, 2002 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
“The quanta are at 1 million light-year intervals with nothing in between…The Hubbell telescope has confirmed this out beyond a billion light years.” – “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
c. (For an illustration of quantized galaxy distribution around the central Milky Way Galaxy, please see Cosmology Figure 1.)
3. The location of the earth’s home galaxy, the Milky Way, at the center of concentric spherical “shells” of galaxies and other objects is actual observational fact.
a. the secular mainstream authors describe the “observational evidence” for the quantization of redshift as…
i. “now very firm,”
ii. “reinforced” by subsequent research and observation,
iii. “overwhelming,”
iv. “amassed,”
v. “extensive,”
vi. “unable to be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques,”
vii. as not possible to be merely “random or a fluke.”
b. The factuality of the centrality of the Milky Way is contrasted with the assumption of homogeneity
i. Homogeneity is the notion that matter is distributed uniformly throughout the entire universe, which is and can only ever be a mere assumption.
1. As indicated earlier in Microsoft Encarta’s article on the Steady-State theory, “homogeneity and isotropy are not the same” because the universe could “look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.”
“Steady-State Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same-for example, a universe that grows denser with distance from the observer would still look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.” – "Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The quantization of redshift from earth indicates 2 significant facts regarding isotropy, homogeneity, and the Big Bang model
i. The distribution of matter looks isotropic from the earth because earth is near the center of quantized distribution
ii. The distribution of matter is not homogeneous, because other locations are not at the center of the quantized distribution.
4. Second, philosophical bias is clearly at work again in the resistance and ignoring of quantized redshift by evolution scientist.
a. The mainstream quotes contained repeated admissions that, despite how well-attested the quantization of redshift is, secular cosmologists were reluctant to accept it.
i. The long quote near the end from Discover explicitly states:
“That idea has never gone over very well with most of Tifft's peers. The editors of the Astrophysical Journal grudgingly published his first quantized-redshift paper in 1976, but they announced in an unusual disclaimer that they couldn't endorse the idea (although they also couldn't find anything wrong with the underlying observations). The reasons for their dislike are not hard to fathom. If the universe isn't expanding, there would be no reason to believe it was ever compressed into a single point--no reason, that is, to believe it began with a Big Bang.”
b. Astronomers tend to resist any empirically observed data that contradict the Big Bang model because their practice is, instead, to “interpret their data in terms of the Big Bang model.”
“Astrophysics, IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – Most astronomers today interpret their data in terms of the big bang model, which in the early 1980s was further refined by the so-called inflationary theory, an attempt to account for conditions leading to the big bang.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The philosophical reasons for denying the quantization of redshift include the overriding desire to avoid the galactocentric implications of such a quantization.
i. Philosophical preference has played the foundational role in formulating cosmological models and in rejecting alternate models…
1. from Aristotle
2. to Einstein
3. to the Steady-State theory
ii. Quantized redshift, an acknowledged, un-dismissible, well-attested to fact is being ignored so that the philosophically preferred evolutionary Big Bang model and the Copernican Principle can survive.
d. The demise of the Copernican Principle under the weight of observed evidence showing that there is both a center to the universe and that our galaxy is near that center would have strong teleological implications.
i. Such teleological implications have been avoided by evolutionary theorists in order to protect the philosophical preferences maintained by the Big Bang theory.
ii. The need to deny any evidence for a galactocentric universe is due to the inherent effects such evidences would have on the viability of Big Bang cosmology.
5. Third, evolutionary cosmologists Napier and Guthrie explicitly assert that redshift quantization is centered “in the galactocentric frame of reference.”
“…the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artifacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques.” – W. Napier and B. Guthrie, Quantized redshifts: a status report, Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy, 1997 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, )
a. The term “galactocentric” is meant to correspond to the terms…
i. “geocentric,” which means “earth-centered,”
1. The cosmological models of Aristotle and Ptolemy the universe was earth-centered and, subsequently titled, “geocentric.”
ii. “heliocentric,” which means “sun-centered.”
1. Likewise, Aristotle and Ptolemy’s models were replaced by the theory of Copernicus in which the universe was sun-centered and thus titled, “heliocentric.”
“Geocentric system – any theory of the structure of the solar system (or the universe) in which Earth is assumed to be at the centre of all. The most highly developed geocentric system was that of Ptolemy of Alexandria (2nd century AD). It was generally accepted until the 16th century, after which it was superseded by heliocentric models such as that of Nicolaus Copernicus.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Heliocentric system – a cosmological model in which the Sun is assumed to lie at or near a central point (e.g., of the solar system or of the universe) while the Earth and other bodies revolve around it.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Both the geocentric model and the heliocentric model were disproved.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1917 American scientist Harlow Shapley measured the distance to several groups of stars known as globular clusters. He measured these distances by using a method developed in 1912 by American astronomer Henrietta Leavitt. Leavitt's method relates distance to variations in brightness of Cepheid variables, a class of stars that vary periodically in brightness. Shapley's distance measurements showed that the clusters were centered around a point far from the sun. The arrangement of the clusters was presumed to reflect the overall shape of the galaxy, so Shapley realized that the sun was not in the center of the galaxy. Just as Copernicus's observations revealed that the earth not at the center of the universe, Shapley's observations revealed that the sun was not at the center of the galaxy. Cosmologists now realize that the earth and sun do not occupy any special position in the universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astronomy – The Milky Way is about 100,000 light-years across, and the sun is roughly 25,000 light-years from its center.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
i. Assuming an evolutionary cosmology and an evolutionary view of culture, Britannica comments that “humanity has traveled a long road since self-centred societies imagined the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon as the main act, with the formation of the rest of the universe as almost an afterthought.”
“Cosmos – This article traces the development of modern conceptions of the Cosmos and summarizes the prevailing theories of its origin and evolution. Humanity has traveled a long road since self-centred societies imagined the creation of the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon as the main act, with the formation of the rest of the universe as almost an afterthought. Today it is known that the Earth is only a small ball of rock in a Cosmos of unimaginable vastness and that the birth of the solar system was probably only one event among many that occurred against the backdrop of an already mature universe.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The assertion in the Journal Astrophysics and Astronomy by Napier and Guthrie that the universe is structured in a galactocentric fashion indicates that our galaxy (and therefore, on a universal scale, the planet Earth) is very much located near the center of the universe, a position that is not shared by any other galaxy.
i. While humanity was wrong about geocentric and heliocentric models, the reality is now observationally demonstrated to be a galactocentric universe.
1. Mankind was right about being in the center all along. We were just wrong about exactly how we were in the center.
2. It would seem that after perhaps traveling this long road, humanity has found ourselves right back where we started, located at the center of the universe.
d. Since these comments and admissions originate in the secular, mainstream science literature from evolutionary cosmologists, it is not biased interpretation when creationists borrow these same terms and cite these same facts.
i. Creationist Thomas Kendall states that the earth’s Milky Way Galaxy is so near to the center of the universe that if the Milky Way were located just 1-2 million light years in a different direction, we would not be able to observe the quantization of redshift at all.
“If we just take our galaxy 2 million light-years off center in any direction three dimensionally, it changes the angle, not that much, but enough to make a difference where we would not physically be capable of observing the quantized effect in any direction we looked three dimensionally. It only works physically and optically if we are at or very near the center. Now, 2 million light-years sounds like a lot but the universe is so big, that’s nothing compared to the scale of the known, observed universe.” – “Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth,” Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, , 9 minutes
ii. 1-2 million light years is a very small amount compared to the estimated size of the entire universe considering that…
1. Number one, the Milky Way Galaxy itself is only 100,000 light-years in size.
“Galaxy – The Milky Way has a diameter of about 100,000 light-years.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
2. Number two, just the portion of the universe that we can see is large enough to contain over 100 billion galaxies.
“Galaxy – Scientists estimate that there are more than 100 billion galaxies scattered throughout the visible universe.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
a. Since just the visible universe contains 100 billion galaxies, the size of the Milky Way Galaxy is nothing compared to the known size of the universe.
b. Yet the Milky Way would only have to move a distance 10-20 times its own size in order to be out of center.
3. Number three, the most distant objects ever seen are 10-13 billion light years away.
“Galaxy – The most distant galaxies ever photographed are as far as 10 billion to 13 billion light-years away.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
a. Assuming these are not the farthest objects, the universe would be at least 10,000 of times larger than the 1-2 million light years the Milky Way would have to move in order to no longer in the visible center of the universe.
4. Number four, we can see just how precisely and uniquely close to the center the Milky Way must be, especially since the nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is 1-2 million light-years away.
“Andromeda Galaxy – the nearest external galaxy (except for the Magellanic Clouds, which are companions of the Milky Way Galaxy, in which the Earth is located). The Andromeda Galaxy is one of the few visible to the unaided eye, appearing as a milky blur. It is located about 2,000,000 light-years from the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Moving the Milky Way Galaxy 1-2 million light-years in any direction to would make redshift quantization undetectable
b. The next nearest galaxy is 2 million light-years from the Milky Way
c. Therefore, the closest galaxy to the Milky Way…
i. Is in a location that is not as near to the center of the universe
ii. Could not observe or detect the quantization of redshift.
5. 1-2 million light years is between 0.02-0.0077 percent of the 10-13 billion light years of the most distant objects observed.
a. Thus, the earth’s home galaxy is in a uniquely central location in the universe that no other galaxy is in.
iii. (For additional explanation and illustration of how quantization can only apply to one unique location in the universe rather than to numerous locations, please see Cosmology Figures 2a-2d.)
6. Fourth, some of the articles above hint that quantized redshift might lead to the conclusion that the universe is not and has never expanded, and therefore, did not have a beginning at a “big bang.”
a. But the idea of an eternal universe is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics.
i. The second law of thermodynamics describes the phenomenon of entropy. Entropy is the loss of available energy as disorder increases in a system.
1. The “Steady-State”proposingan eternal universe was…
a. acknowledged as “philosophically preferable” because it avoided the “theological” implications of a “creation event”
b. rejected on these grounds.
"Food Web, III ENERGY FLOW - The process whereby energy loses its capacity to do work is called entropy." - "Food Web," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed (or isolated) system, entropy always increases.
"Hawking, Stephen William - For instance, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, must increase with time." - "Hawking, Stephen William," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Entropy - The idea of entropy is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, the direction of spontaneous change in isolated systems is toward maximum disorder...Taken together, all processes occurring now will result in a universe of greater disorder. Because the entropy of the universe is always increasing, a state of greater entropy must be one that occurs later in time. For this reason, entropy has been called 'time's arrow.'" - Worldbook, Contributor: Melvyn C. Usselman, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario.
"Thermodynamics, IV SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - The second law of thermodynamics gives a precise definition of a property called entropy. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; it can also be thought of as a measure of the disorder in the system. The law states that the entropy-that is, the disorder-of an isolated system can never decrease. Thus, when an isolated system achieves a configuration of maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium. Nature, then, seems to "prefer" disorder or chaos." - "Thermodynamics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. When a system reaches this state of maximum entropy, it is said to have reached equilibrium and the temperature becomes uniform.
1. This state is called heat death.
2. At that point no work or change can occur.
"Heat, Heat/Learning about heat, Thermodynamics - According to the second law, all spontaneous (natural) events act to increase the entropy within a system. Until a system reaches its maximum entropy, it can do useful work. But as a system does work, its entropy increases until the system can no longer perform work." - Worldbook, Contributor: Ared Cezairliyan, Ph.D., Former Research Physicist, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
"Physics, IV NEWTON AND MECHANICS, E Thermodynamics, 3 The Second Law of Thermodynamics - From the second law, it follows that in an isolated system (one that has no interactions with the surroundings) internal portions at different temperatures will always adjust to a single uniform temperature and thus produce equilibrium...The entropy of an isolated system, and of the universe as a whole, can only increase, and when equilibrium is eventually reached, no more internal change of any form is possible. Applied to the universe as a whole, this principle suggests that eventually all temperature in space becomes uniform, resulting in the so-called heat death of the universe." - "Physics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Physics, The scope of physics, The study of heat, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics, Second law - Another formulation of the second law is that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases with time...Statistical mechanics - From a microscopic point of view the laws of thermodynamics imply that, whereas the total quantity of energy of any isolated system is constant, what might be called the quality of this energy is degraded as the system moves inexorably, through the operation of the laws of chance, to states of increasing disorder until it finally reaches the state of maximum disorder (maximum entropy), in which all parts of the system are at the same temperature, and none of the state's energy may be usefully employed. When applied to the universe as a whole, considered as an isolated system, this ultimate chaotic condition has been called the 'heat death.'" – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. In modern scientific terms, the universe is a closed system.
1. All that exists is a closed system.
2. Given enough time, a state of maximum entropy would occur in which there is no available energy in the universe.
3. If the universe were eternal, this state of maximum entropy, in which there was no available energy, no work being done, and no change occurring, would have been reached a long time ago.
4. Since the universe still has available energy and work and change still take place, it cannot be eternally old but must have had a beginning in the finite past.
7. Conclusions based on the observation of redshift
a. The observation of redshift is what indicates that space has expanded.
b. The observation that redshift is quantized from earth indicates that the universe has uniquely expanded from a central location near the Milky Way Galaxy.
c. The observable evidence clearly establishes that the earth’s home galaxy is uniquely near to the center of the universe.
d. This fact drastically impacts the age of the universe due to the fact that a universe with a center would a gravity well at its center.
cxxviii. Impact of the universe having a center and the resulting gravity at the center on time.
1. First, gravity warps space, electromagnetic radiation, and, perhaps most importantly, time.
“Astronomy – Both radio astronomers and optical astronomers have studied a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing. This phenomenon occurs, for example, where radiation emitted by a small, distant galaxy passes near a massive galaxy that is between the object and Earth. The gravitational force of the galaxy apparently bends the radiation much as an ordinary optical lens bends light rays that pass through it.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
“Cosmology, II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1915 German-American physicist Albert Einstein, who was working in Switzerland, advanced a theory of gravitation known as the general theory of relativity. His theory involves a four-dimensional space-time continuum that bends in the presence of massive objects. This bending causes light and other objects that are moving near these massive objects to follow a curved path, just as a golfer's ball curves on a warped putting green. In this way, Einstein explained gravity.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmos – Under these circumstances, Albert Einstein taught in his theory of general relativity that the gravitational field of everything in the universe so warps space and time as to require a very careful reevaluation of quantities whose seemingly elementary natures are normally taken for granted.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – The principle of equivalence in general relativity allows the locally flat space-time structure of special relativity to be warped by gravitation, so that (in the cosmological case) the propagation of the photon over thousands of millions of light-years can no longer be plotted on a globally flat sheet of paper.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos, Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – To understand why gravitation can curve space (or more generally, space-time) in such startling ways, consider the following thought experiment that was originally conceived by Einstein…There is no need to distinguish locally between acceleration and gravity—the two are in some sense equivalent. But if that is the case, then it must be true that gravity—“real” gravity—can actually bend light. And indeed it can, as many experiments have shown since Einstein's first discussion of the phenomenon. It was the genius of Einstein to go even further. Rather than speak of the force of gravitation having bent the photons into a curved path, might it not be more fruitful to think of photons as always flying in straight lines—in the sense that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points—and that what really happens is that gravitation bends space-time? In other words, perhaps gravitation is curved space-time, and photons fly along the shortest paths possible in this curved space-time, thus giving the appearance of being bent by a “force” when one insists on thinking that space-time is flat…The American physicist John Archibald Wheeler and his colleagues summarized Einstein's view of the universe in these terms: ‘Curved spacetime tells mass-energy how to move; mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Second, in simple terms, the stronger the gravity the greater the time dilation and the slower that times moves.
a. This is true even in the evolutionary Big Bang model where the distribution of matter has no edge.
i. The greater the role of gravity in slowing present expansion of the universe, the younger the universe, just as indicated in the quote below.
“Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, The age of the universe – An indirect method of inferring whether the universe is bound or unbound involves estimates of the age of the universe. The basic idea is as follows. For a given present rate of expansion (i.e., Hubble's constant), it is clear that the deceleration produced by gravitation must act to make the expansion faster in the past and slower in the future. Thus, the age of the universe (in the absence of a cosmological constant) must always be less than the free expansion age, H 0?1, which equals 1.5 × 1010 years. The bigger the role for gravity, the smaller the true age compared to the Hubble time H 0 ?1.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Third, while greater gravity slows time even when the distribution of matter has no edge, the gravitational warping of time is much more pronounced when matter is finitely distributed and therefore has an edge or boundary to it.
a. Newton described this fact in his discussion of whether or not the universe is finite or infinite.
i. In Newton’s comments, we find the plain statement that when the distribution of matter is finite, then the collective gravity of the whole would manifest at the center of the distribution.
“Cosmos, Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe, although not uniform, contains structure. This natural idea, which is the basis of much of the modern theoretical work on the problem, had already occurred to Newton in 1692. Newton wrote to the noted English scholar and clergyman Richard Bentley: ‘It seems to me, that if the matter of our Sun & Planets & all ye matter in the Universe was eavenly scattered throughout all the heavens, & every particle had an innate gravity towards all the rest & the whole space throughout wch [sic] this matter was scattered was but finite: the matter on ye outside of this space would by its gravity tend towards all ye matter on the inside & by consequence fall down to ye middle of the whole space & there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter was eavenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never convene into one mass but some of it convene into one mass & some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances from one to another throughout all yt infinite space. And thus might ye Sun and Fixt stars be formed supposing the matter were of a lucid nature.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Consequently, the closer that all matter is, the greater the gravitational attraction and the greater the warping of space and time.
a. More importantly, the greater the gravity, the slower that time moves.
b. Redshift indicates both that…
i. the universe has expanded
ii. the earth is near the center of the universe.
c. When the expansion was just beginning and all the matter in the universe was much closer together, the time dilation near the center of the universe where the earth is located would have been enormous.
i. The effect would even cause time on earth to be moving so slowly that while billions of years passed farther from the center and the gravity well, only days would pass on earth.
1. The starlight would have billions of years to travel from distant stars to earth while only 6 days pass on earth.
a. This is just as the Genesis account asserts.
b. Physicist, Dr. Russell Humphreys explains this phenomenon.
“When matter has a center in space, it distorts space. Inside the depression, physical processes and time slow down. Today the distortion is minor compared with the size of the universe and the passage of time varies by just a few percent across the width of the depression. But the cosmos is expanding and in the past the universe was smaller…In the beginning, when the universe was smaller than it is today, all the matter in the cosmos was closer together. That caused an enormous depression in the fabric of space. On the earth, near the center of the universe and deep within the depression, time slowed down. During creation week on earth, time passed as just ordinary days. But near the edge of the observable universe during the same period, billions of years of physical processes occurred. Thus, the most distant starlight could easily traverse the vast expanse of the cosmos from the edge to the center in just a few short earth days.” – 2 “Starlight and Time,” Dr. Russell Humphreys, RealOne Player, 14 minutes, 25 seconds; 16 minutes, 45 seconds
ii. Since the passage of time would differ throughout the universe, in order to designate a single, official age for the entire universe, a specific location would have to be selected.
1. Once again, Dr. Russell Humphreys explains.
“The differential rate of time…is scientifically sound. Both experiments and Einstein’s theory of relativity confirm that in a cosmos only partially filled with matter, the rates of physical processes would be slower at the center of the matter than at the edge.” – 2 “Starlight and Time,” Dr. Russell Humphreys, RealOne Player, 18 minutes, 40 seconds
“In a bounded [i.e. having an edge] universe, clocks in different places can tick (or register time) at drastically different rates. So, which set of clocks is the Bible referring to in Genesis 1, or in Exodus 20:11, when it says that God made the universe in six ordinary weekdays?...Therefore, it looks as if the Bible is telling us that God made the universe in six days E.S.T.—Earth Standard Time.” – Starlight and Time, Dr. Russel Humphreys, Ph.D., (in physics), Copyright 1994 by Master Books, United States of America, p. 29
2. If earth was selected as the location for keeping time, which it is in the Genesis account, then the age at that particular location would be the official age of the whole universe, even though time passed differently in other areas.
5. (For illustrations of how having an edge and a center to the distribution of matter in the universe creates a time dilation so that distant starlight can reach the earth even while only 6 days pass as described in Genesis 1, please see Cosmology Figures 3a-3f.)
434 Conclusions on the critical evidence of time and age and as it pertains to the methodology for dating the universe.
cxxix. We have demonstrated that in regard to evolution theory…
1. The evolutionary assumptions that the earth has no special or central location in the universe were mere philosophical preferences and are not observationally driven.
2. The evolutionary assumptions that the earth has no special or central location in the universe have been observationally proven false due to the observed quantization of redshift.
cxxx. We have demonstrated that in regard to creation theory…
1. Thus, with the evidence from observing cosmology is not an obstacle, but rather a support, for the creationist model against the evolutionary model
2. There is nothing that we know scientifically today from observation that disproves the Genesis model concerning the age of the universe.
a. Because of the observable evidence of both expansion and the central location, light from distant stars and redshift do not in any way disprove the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth or even the 6 day creation week reported in Genesis 1.
i. Instead the evidence actually peculiarly supports the Genesis account.
3. If we use only the observations about the universe, the evidence demands that the amount of time that passed on earth has been far less than the billions of years required for the biological evolution of life and the origin of species.
4. The creationist model has been judged on the evidence and consequently, it has proven to be a theory that affirmed in a testable and potentially falsifiable manner rather than by blind presupposition or mere philosophical preference.
cxxxi. The only thing contradicting the six-day, six-thousand year model of Genesis is philosophical preference of evolutionist resulting in a theory that is…
1. more complicated,
2. more heavily assumption-laden,
3. less philosophically sound,
4. not warranted by the observations,
5. ultimately disproved by direct observational evidence of redshift quantization.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Dating Methods, Introduction and Perceptions
435 Evidence related to the geologic dating methods for the age of the earth.
436 Geologic dating methods have to do with dating the earth’s rocks, rock layers, minerals, fossils and other landform features.
437 The methods can be divided into 2 broad categories known as “relative dating” and “absolute dating.”
438 Relative dating methods deal directly with the order in which rock layers are found.
439 It is perhaps the most crucial geologic feature for dating the earth that rock formations are distributed in layers.
440 Absolute dating is the dating of items through radioactive isotopes.
i. Absolute dating is also commonly called radiometric dating.
cxxxii. Using these geological dating methods, evolutionary scientists assert that the earth’s age has been determined to be about 4-5 billion years old.
“Dating Methods, I INTRODUCTION – Dating Methods, in earth science, methods used to date the age of rocks and minerals. By applying this information, geologists are able to decipher the 4.6-billion-year history of the earth.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geologic sciences, Study of surface features and processes, Earth history, Historical geology and stratigraphy – Radiometric dating also helped geochronologists discover the vast span of geologic time. The radiometric dating of meteorites revealed that the Earth, like other bodies of the solar system, is about 4,600,000,000 years old and that the oldest rocks so far discovered formed roughly 3,800,000,000 years ago.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – By determining the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay (each radioisotope has its own decay constant), the isotopic age of the sample can be calculated…Also by extrapolating backward in time to a situation when there was no lead that had been produced by radiogenic processes, a figure of about 4,600,000,000 years is obtained for the minimum age of the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
cxxxiii. This age and these dating methods form the basis for the rejection of creation theory by many people.
1. Creation theory asserts an age that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years for the earth, a figure that these methods indicate is much too young.
2. Consequently, this issue creates a general impression that creationists are either ignorant of the facts, unreasonable, have a faith that is unconcerned with facts, or are simply in plain, old-fashioned denial.
3. For this reason, it is important to clearly address such perceptions at the very beginning of this segment.
441 Dealing with Perceptions about Geological Dating Methods
cxxxiv. Dating methods do not work in the way people commonly conceive of them and the evolutionary time scale is not constructed in the way people commonly think it is.
1. Perception Figures 1-8 depict some common ways that people might conceive of the way that calculating ages and proving evolutionary time work.
a. (See Perception Figures 1-8.)
2. With these common misperceptions, many people ask, “How can creationists argue with this?”
a. For example, if the geologic column and all its fossils are arranged after a machine or computer scans them and tells us their exact age, how can anyone argue with that?
3. Despite their persistent and pervasive nature, all of the perceptions about geologic dating depicted in the illustrations are completely false.
442 By contrast, some simple (and perhaps rarely understood) facts about how dating processes actually work (that we will see are stated in secular and evolutionary sources.)
443 (See Dating Facts Figure 1.)
a. The process of geologic dating does not start with radiometric dating.
b. There is no machine or computer that can “scan” or analyze a rock and tell its age.
c. In fact, of all the factors that must be known in order to radiometrically date a rock, ONLY 1 can be tested for or observed.
d. Four out of the five factors necessary for determining radiometric age CANNOT be tested for or observed.
e. Fossils older than 50,000 years CANNOT be radiometrically dated.
f. All fossils are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock CANNOT be radiometrically dated.
g. The geologic column is NOT created by arranging rock layers according to their radiometric dates.
h. There is NO place where the geologic column actually exists.
i. There is NO place where more than a few layers of the geologic column exist, particularly in the right “evolutionary” order.
cxxxv. In reality, dating procedure actually works in a much more complicated, much more problematic, and far less certain manner as depicted in Dating Figures 1-13.
1. (See Dating Procedures Figures 1-13.)
cxxxvi. The common perception that creationists are attempting to deny observable facts, but the reality is that the dating processes upon which the evolutionary timescale is based are simply not a matter of observable fact or evidence.
1. These dating processes …
a. Are constructs derived from stacking together a number of mere assumptions.
b. Are flawed individually
c. Require circular reasoning between relative dating methods, absolute dating methods, and evolutionary theory itself.
444 Preview on Covering Geologic Dating Methods
cxxxvii. We will take a look at the main questions concerning the amount of time that has passed on earth.
1. When it comes to the age of the earth, are creationists simply in denial of inarguable, concrete evidence?
2. Or, is the idea of an earth that is billions of years old based merely empty equations that presuppose evolution and use assumed and adjustable numbers rather than real, objective numbers?
cxxxviii. We will answer these questions and document the facts summarily presented in the illustrations above.
cxxxix. We will start by covering the most basic foundations of each theory’s view of geologic history.
cxl. We will proceed to analyze and discuss the details of how relative dating and absolute dating (radiometric dating) work.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Basic Views of Geology
445 Geologic Time – a Critical Issue: How the earth’s physical features formed.
446 Alternatives and Questions
447 Did these features take a long time to form?
448 If geologic features form from slow processes and take a long time to form, then the earth might very well be millions or billions of years old.
449 Or did they form quickly and within a 6,000 to 10,000 year period?
450 If geologic features form from fast-acting process that do not require more than days, weeks, months or several years, then the earth might very well be quite young.
451 2 views concerning the age of the earth and whether or not geologic features form quickly or slowly, which form the backbone of all geologic dating
452 uniformitarianism
453 catastrophism
454 Uniformitarianism is the current, underlying theory of geology and evolutionary science.
455 This view asserts that all of the geologic features of the earth were formed slowly by the same normative processes that occur today and everyday.
456 Uniformitarianism is the backbone of…
457 relative dating,
458 radioactive dating
459 this is due to the circular reasoning between relative and radiometric dating
460 simply, radioactive dating is dependent on relative dating, which is dependent on the principle of uniformitarianism
461 Basic facts about uniformitarianism.
462 First, uniformitarianism is a “fundamental” concept to modern geology.
463 Second, uniformitarianism is defined by the idea that geologic features formed from slow processes that require long ages.
464 Third, uniformitarianism provides the basis for calculating “old” ages of the earth.
465 Fourth, uniformitarianism contrasts to “biblical explanations” for the earth’s features, such as the biblical flood.
466 Fifth, uniformitarianism was introduced in 1875 by James Hutton and became popularly accepted in the 1800’s through the efforts of Sir Charles Lyell.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875) was a British geologist whose writings established uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology. Uniformitarianism is the theory that the gradual processes shaping the earth today, such as erosion, also formed the earth's features in the past. James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, had introduced this theory in 1785. In Lyell's day, however, most scientists still believed the earth had been shaped by rare and sudden events that were unique to the past. Lyell convincingly set forth the theory of uniformitarianism in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-1833). He stated that most of the earth's structural features could be explained as the result of constantly occurring processes over millions of years. Lyell supported his theory by analyzing the long-term effect of observable events, such as the erosion of land by rivers.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.
“Uniformitarianism – in geology, the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at present are sufficient to account for all geologic change. Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832…This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, The rock dispute – In 1795, in a book called Theory of the Earth, Hutton presented what would later be called the principle of uniformitarianism. He claimed that Earth was gradually changing in a variety of ways and would continue to change in the same ways…Hutton died in 1797, before other scientists accepted his ideas. But in 1802, John Playfair, a Scottish mathematician, expanded on Hutton's work in the book Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth. This book presented Hutton's ideas clearly and with illustrations. It became a leading guide to the development of the field of geology.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle – Hutton's formulation of the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that Earth processes occurring today had their counterparts in the ancient past, while not the first time that this general concept was articulated, was probably the most important geologic concept developed out of rational scientific thought of the 18th century. The publication of Hutton's two-volume Theory of the Earth in 1795 firmly established him as one of the founders of modern geologic thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Hutton's words were not lost on the entire scientific community. Charles Lyell, another Scottish geologist, was a principal proponent of Hutton's approach, emphasizing gradual change by means of known geologic processes. In his own observations on rock and faunal successions, Lyell was able to demonstrate the validity of Hutton's doctrine of uniformitarianism and its importance as one of the fundamental philosophies of the geologic sciences…This, along with the increased recognition of the utility of fossils in interpreting rock successions, made it possible to begin addressing the question of the meaning of time in Earth history.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism, or actualism, helps geologists use their knowledge of modern processes and events to reconstruct the past.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – From the time of Hutton's refinement of uniformitarianism, the principle found wide application in various attempts to calculate the age of the Earth. As previously noted, fundamental to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes of the past operated in much the same way as those processes operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of the various ancient processes could be considered the same as those of the present day. Therefore, it should be possible to calculate the age of the Earth on the basis of the accumulated record of some process that has occurred at this determinable rate since the Creation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton, James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the actions of natural processes. His chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian principle, was put forward in his papers presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's view as stated in these papers was that the world's geologic phenomena can be explained in terms of observable processes, and that those processes now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity over immensely long periods of time. These two papers marked a turning point for geology; from that time on, geology became a science founded upon the principle of uniformitarianism…Hutton claimed that the totality of these geologic processes could fully explain the current landforms all over the world, and no biblical explanations were necessary in this regard. Finally, he stated that the processes of erosion, deposition, sedimentation, and upthrusting were cyclical and must have been repeated many times in the Earth's history. Given the enormous spans of time taken by such cycles, Hutton asserted that the age of the Earth must be inconceivably great.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton, James – Hutton, James (1726-1797), British geologist, who originated the modern theory of the gradual evolution of the earth's crust…Hutton formulated the uniformitarian theory of geology, which suggested that such processes as sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion caused changes in the surface of the earth and had been operating in the same manner and at the same rate over a very long period of time. Thus, he saw the earth as being much older than had been previously thought; this aroused strong opposition from those who believed in James Ussher's biblical chronology published in 1650, which stated that the world was created in 4004 BC (BCE). Hutton summarized his theories in Theory of the Earth (2 volumes, 1795).” – "Hutton, James," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its present form through the past occurrence of processes still in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism...Uniformitarianism also became the working principle for a growing number of geologic historians, notably William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell, in the 19th century. This was necessary as Lyell argued increasingly that geologic change was incremental and gradual. He needed a longer time scale if this approach was to work, and geologic historians were finding it for him.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton, James – Hutton, James (1726-1797), British geologist, who originated the modern theory of the gradual evolution of the earth's crust…Hutton formulated the uniformitarian theory of geology, which suggested that such processes as sedimentation, volcanism, and erosion caused changes in the surface of the earth and had been operating in the same manner and at the same rate over a very long period of time. Thus, he saw the earth as being much older than had been previously thought; this aroused strong opposition from those who believed in James Ussher's biblical chronology published in 1650, which stated that the world was created in 4004 BC (BCE). Hutton summarized his theories in Theory of the Earth (2 volumes, 1795).” – "Hutton, James," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875), Scottish geologist, whose writings strongly influenced the development of modern geology…Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism. This theory says that the natural processes that change the earth in the present have operated in the past at the same gradual rate.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hutton, James – (1726-1797), a Scottish philosopher and chemist, was a pioneer in the field of geology. His main contributions included the ideas that Earth was immensely old and that its features were constantly and gradually changing. He argued that many such changes were caused by heat within Earth. Hutton discussed this geological change in his book Theory of the Earth (1795). His theory that geological forces are the same now as in the past became known as uniformitarianism… According to Hutton, rocks were constantly breaking down into soil. The soil was washed off the continents and carried into the sea by rain and rivers. Then, heat from under Earth's surface consolidated the soil into new layers of rock and eventually elevated the rock above sea level. This process led to the creation of new continents, which replaced those that had been worn away. Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much too low.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.
“Archaeology, History, Beginnings – By the early 1800's, geologists had determined that rock formation resulted from extremely slow processes, such as erosion and volcanic activity. This view, known as uniformitarianism, led most scholars to believe that the earth was much older than previously thought.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
1. The long ages of evolutionary time were developed long before radiometric dating was even invented – This is an important point.
a. The uniformitarian principle was the first step that “led most scholars to believe that the earth was much older than previously thought,” emerged in the 1800’s, long before radiometric dating was developed.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – Versions of the modern mass spectrometer were invented in the early 1920s and 1930s, and during World War II the device was improved substantially to help in the development of the atomic bomb. Soon after the war, Harold C. Urey and G.J. Wasserburg applied the mass spectrometer to the study of geochronology.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In 1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic time proposed by Lord Kelvin.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. This demonstrates that the evolutionary timescale and history of the earth simply was not developed from radiometric dating.
2. Hutton’s principle of uniformitarian is described as “comparable” to the “revolution in thought” brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo.
a. From our last segment we recall that the “Copernican Revolution” and the “Copernican Principle” are popularly regarded among evolutionists who associate the historic events surrounding men like Copernicus with steps away from…
i. the biblical view of history
ii. the world in which the earth was specially created by an intelligent, supernatural being only several thousand years ago.
b. Here Hutton is being given credit for furthering the removal of the biblical worldview.
3. Uniformitarianism and slow, gradual processes
a. Examples of the kinds of slow, everyday processes that uniformitarianism asserts are responsible for geologic features, including such processes as:
i. volcanism, sedimentation, erosion, weathering, running water, moving ice, and gravity.
“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle – Ample evidence from Hutton's Scotland provided the key to unraveling the often thought but still rarely stated premise that events occurring today at the Earth's surface—namely erosion, transportation and deposition of sediments, and volcanism—seem to have their counterparts preserved in the rocks. The rocks of the Scottish coast and the area around Edinburgh proved the catalyst for his argument that the Earth is indeed a dynamic, ever-changing system, subject to a sequence of recurrent cycles of erosion and deposition and of subsidence and uplift. Hutton's formulation of the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that Earth processes occurring today had their counterparts in the ancient past, while not the first time that this general concept was articulated, was probably the most important geologic concept developed out of rational scientific thought of the 18th century.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its present form through the past occurrence of processes still in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism…In this area of study, research emphasis is placed on observing what can be accomplished by a contemporary geologic agency such as running water. Later, the role of moving ice, gravity, and wind in the molding of valleys and hillslopes came to be appreciated by study of these phenomena.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism – The idea that the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his ideas—later published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)—at meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In this work Hutton showed that the Earth had along history and that this history could be interpreted in terms of processes observed at the present, of which he gave examples. He showed, for instance, how soils were formed by the weathering of rocks and how layers of sediment accumulated…the effect of his ideas on the learned world can be compared only with the earlier revolution in thought brought about by Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo when they displaced the concept of a universe centred on the Earth with the concept of a solar system centred on the Sun.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The uniformitarian view states that fossils are formed by the gradual laying down of rock layers by these normal, slow processes.
i. Sir Charles Lyell operated on Hutton’s notion that earth’s soil and rock layers were formed by such normal, slow processes.
“Uniformitarianism – The idea that the laws that govern geologic processes have not changed during the history of the Earth were articulated by the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, who in 1785 presented his ideas—later published in two volumes as Theory of the Earth (1795)—at meetings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh…He showed, for instance, how soils were formed by the weathering of rocks and how layers of sediment accumulated…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Since those rock layers were understood to take long ages to form, Lyell then supposed the following.
1. First, that the fossils in the layers must have been buried as those layers formed.
2. Second, that the organisms in the fossil record must themselves date from very long ages ago in the past.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – (1797-1875) Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. Uniformitarianism is foundational to the process of dating fossils according to the rock layers they are found in.
i. As indicated by the quote above, this process is called stratigraphy.
1. We will cover more on stratigraphy later on.
d. Also notice that Lyell’s divisions of time into the Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene epochs are “still used today.”
i. Once again, we see that the basic evolutionary timescale and history were already developed without radiometric dating, long before radiometric dating was even invented.
cxli. Catastrophism – a contrast to uniformitarianism
1. Catastrophism was the established geological view before the arrival of uniformitarianism.
a. (As indicated by the previous reference to Copernicus in one of the quotes above.)
b. Like the views of Copernicus, uniformitarianism effectively replaced catastrophism as the dominant view in geology.
2. Catastrophism is defined as the view that geologic features were formed rapidly by catastrophic events.
a. Particularly the flood recorded in the book of Genesis.
b. Thus, in this view, the earth was formed only several thousand years ago by a supernatural, intelligent being.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – was a British geologist whose writings established uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology…In Lyell's day, however, most scientists still believed the earth had been shaped by rare and sudden events that were unique to the past.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.
“Hutton, James – Hutton devoted his time to extensive scientific reading and traveled widely to inspect rocks and observe the actions of natural processes. His chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian principle, was put forward in his papers presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785…Hutton's ideas were astonishing when viewed in the context of the opinion of his day. By the late 18th century, much knowledge had been gained about rocks, strata, and fossils, but none of this wealth of data had been synthesized into a workable general theory of geology. Such a task was seriously impeded by the still-accepted belief that the Earth had been created only about 6,000 years ago, according to the narrative in the biblical book of Genesis. The world's sedimentary rocks were believed by some geologists to have been formed when immense quantities of minerals precipitated out of the waters of the biblical flood. Erosional processes had long been recognized, but there was no equivalent explanation for the creation of land surfaces, as opposed to their destruction by erosion.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism posits that natural agents now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity through immensely long periods of time. When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that the Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology, The emergence of modern geologic thought, James Hutton's recognition of the geologic cycle – In the late 1780s the Scottish scientist James Hutton launched an attack on much of the geologic dogma that had its basis in either Werner's Neptunist approach or its corollary that the prevailing configuration of the Earth's surface is largely the result of past catastrophic events which have no modern counterparts…Hutton took issue with the catastrophist and Neptunist approach to interpreting rock histories and instead used deductive reasoning to explain what he saw. By Hutton's account, the Earth could not be viewed as a simple, static world not currently undergoing change.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Lyell, Sir Charles – Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about 6000 years old. Most scientists believed that catastrophism was consistent with the Bible's account of the earth's creation.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Creationism, V RECENT TRENDS – Flood geology gained wider acceptance after the publication of The Genesis Flood (1961), jointly authored by conservative biblical scholar John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and hydraulic engineer Henry M. Morris. This immensely influential book promoted Price's views as fundamentalist orthodoxy, and prompted the formation in 1963 of the Creation Research Society. The society is dedicated to the promotion of what has come to be known as young-earth creationism (by contrast with the old-earth creationism associated with the Day-Age and Gap theories). The most distinctive feature of young-earth creationism is its reliance on catastrophism, the doctrine that large-scale changes in the earth's crust are to be explained by violent, unrepeatable geologic events, such as the biblical flood.” – "Creationism," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hutton, James – Many thinkers of Hutton's day accepted Biblical evidence that Earth was about 6,000 years old. Hutton thought that this figure was much too low. Most theorists also believed that only rare disasters, such as earthquakes, could change Earth's appearance.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Dennis R. Dean, Ph.D., Former Professor of English and Humanities, University of Wisconsin, Parkside.
3. Within catastrophism, examples of geologic feature formation from catastrophic events include:
a. the flood recorded in the Bible,
b. volcanic eruptions,
c. asteroid impacts,
d. hurricanes, etc.
e. All such catastrophic events fit into catastrophism because of their ability to form major geologic features very rapidly rather than requiring long ages of slow processes.
“Continental landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – Asteroid impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods, and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Catastrophism assertions about fossils:
a. Fossils are laid down quickly as rock layers are formed by catastrophe,
b. The majority of earth’s fossils were formed in this way particularly by the flood recorded in Genesis.
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – doctrine that explains the differences in fossil forms encountered in successive stratigraphic levels as being the product of repeated cataclysmic occurrences and repeated new creations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Darwin, Charles Robert, II VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE – In his geological observations, Darwin was most impressed with the effect that natural forces had on shaping the earth's surface. At the time, most geologists adhered to the so-called catastrophist theory that the earth had experienced a succession of creations of animal and plant life, and that each creation had been destroyed by a sudden catastrophe, such as an upheaval or convulsion of the earth's surface (see Geology: History of Geological Thought: 18th and 19th Centuries). According to this theory, the most recent catastrophe, Noah's flood, wiped away all life except those forms taken into the ark. The rest were visible only in the form of fossils. In the view of the catastrophists, species were individually created and immutable, that is, unchangeable for all time. The catastrophist viewpoint (but not the immutability of species) was challenged by the English geologist Sir Charles Lyell in his three-volume work Principles of Geology (1830-33). Lyell maintained that the earth's surface is undergoing constant change, the result of natural forces operating uniformly over long periods.” – "Darwin, Charles Robert," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hutton, James – By the late 18th century, much knowledge had been gained about rocks, strata, and fossils, but none of this wealth of data had been synthesized into a workable general theory of geology. Such a task was seriously impeded by the still-accepted belief that the Earth had been created only about 6,000 years ago, according to the narrative in the biblical book of Genesis. The world's sedimentary rocks were believed by some geologists to have been formed when immense quantities of minerals precipitated out of the waters of the biblical flood.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
5. Clarification between Catastrophism and Neptunism.
a. Neptunism…
i. Also presents the idea of the rock formation occurring as rock layers were laid down by water
ii. Is a related but distinct theory to catastrophism
iii. Was also prominent before the age of uniformitarianism.
iv. Is named after the god of the sea in Roman mythology.
“Geology, The rock dispute – Theorists who based their ideas on the notion that all rocks were formed from a global ocean were called Neptunists-after Neptune, the Roman god of the sea.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
b. While Neptunism and catastrophism have some overlap, they are not one and the same – they are different
i. Mechanisms of formation
1. Neptunism focuses solely on the ocean as the mechanism for rock formation
2. Catastrophism can assign an equal role to other events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid impacts, etc.
“Earth sciences, The 16th-18th centuries, Geologic sciences, Earth history according to Werner and James Hutton – The two major theories of the 18th century were the Neptunian and the Plutonian. The Neptunists, led by Werner and his students, maintained that the Earth was originally covered by a turbid ocean. The first sediments deposited over the irregular floor of this universal ocean formed the granite and other crystalline rocks. Then as the ocean began to subside, "Stratified" rocks were laid down in succession.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Rate of formation
1. Catastrophism is defined by its emphasis on mechanisms that rapidly produce geologic features
2. Neptunism’s focus on the ocean as the mechanism for geologic features does not require rapid action but can allow for slower formation in a longer timescale.
cxlii. Uniformitarianism is an un-provable assumption.
1. The formation of geologic features by the slow, gradual, everyday processes of uniformitarianism is simply beyond observation.
a. This is because uniformitarianism involves excessively long ages of time, much longer than any human lifespan,
2. No one has ever observed geologic features being formed over long ages of time by such slow processes.
a. All we can simply see is existing features being affected only in a minor way by such processes.
3. Consequently, uniformitarianism cannot be tested or confirmed observationally.
4. Uniformitarianism is an uncertain assumption.
a. When speaking of geologic processes, such as weathering and the accumulation of sedimentary rock layers, Britannica Encyclopedia admits to the fact that “it is not at all certain on a priori grounds whether such rates are representative of the past.”
“Geochronology, Nonradiometric dating – In addition to radioactive decay, many other processes have been investigated for their potential usefulness in absolute dating. Unfortunately, they all occur at rates that lack the universal consistency of radioactive decay. Sometimes human observation can be maintained long enough to measure present rates of change, but it is not at all certain on a priori grounds whether such rates are representative of the past…Nonradioactive absolute chronometers may conveniently be classified in terms of the broad areas in which changes occur—namely, geologic and biological processes, which will be treated here… Geologic processes as absolute chronometers, Weathering processes – During the first third of the 20th century, several presently obsolete weathering chronometers were explored…Accumulational processes – The fossiliferous part of the geologic column includes perhaps 122,000 metres of sedimentary rock if maximum thicknesses are selected from throughout the world. During the late 1800s, attempts were made to estimate the time over which it formed by assuming an average rate of sedimentation.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. In a debate with creationist Dr. Kent Hovind, evolutionary biologists Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan likewise admits that uniformitarian principles…
i. “cannot be deduced or proven to be true,”
ii. are “simply taken to be true by assumption and supposition,”
iii. that evolutionists “can’t really defend these assumptions.”
c. Dr. Moore goes on to state that the first geological views asserting that the earth…
i. were developed in the 18th and 19th century (by such men as Lyell and Hutton)
ii. were “essentially” the result of these indefensible, un-deducible, unproven and un-provable assumptions and suppositions.
d. Dr. Moore admits that the philosophical preference (rather than observation) that is the driving force behind evolutionary models is also the driving force in uniformitarianism.
i. In the case of uniformitarianism and geologic time it is a philosophical preference for an old earth.
“What I see as the foundation, the key to understanding this conflict, lies at the various deepest levels in the philosophies of science and religion. That is, in the metaphysics of the contrasting philosophical systems. So, what I’m going to say here for the next few minutes is going to sound like philosophy of science 101…I also point out that I use the word metaphysics…as that area of philosophy that deals with first principles, with those things that cannot be deduced or proven to be true. We simply take them to be true by assumption and supposition. We might say, for example, let’s suppose that the geological forces of erosion, volcanism, glaciation, etc., etc. that we see operating today have always worked in the same way. What could we learn from this? What would this lead to as a set of inferences about the earth’s history that may seem sensible. We can’t really defend these assumptions…We can’t prove it to be true. We can simply make it a part of our philosophical system and see how successful that system is in leading us to new discoveries. This is essentially what geologists did in the late 18th and 19th century. And this led to the very first inkling that the earth must be a pretty old place. At the base of science, I think, is a very small and clear set of first principles, the metaphysics of science. And that leads to the so-called scientific method.” – “The History of Life: Creation or Evolution?” Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 29 minutes, 30 seconds
5. The philosophical preference for an old earth.
a. Like the counterpart philosophical preferences in cosmology, long ages of time remove special attention to humankind, special creation, and teleology – all of which are inherent to a young earth.
b. Long ages of time are also necessary for biological evolution to occur.
i. Without long ages of time the earth is very young.
ii. If the earth is very young evolution has not occurred because there isn’t enough time.
iii. If evolution has not occurred then there are unavoidable teleological and theological implications.
c. Uniformitarianism, and modern geology which uses this principle as a foundation, are based upon an un-provable, philosophical desire to have the long ages of time necessary for evolution.
6. Sir Charles Lyell developed uniformitarianism based on an unprovable and unobservable assumption
a. Sir Charles Lyell constructed uniformitarianism concepts in conjunction with the idea that organisms took long ages to reach their present form.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism… Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about 6000 years old…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Lyell “needed a longer time scale” if his view that “geologic change was incremental and gradual…was to work.”
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Uniformitarianism – The Huttonian proposal that the Earth has largely achieved its present form through the past occurrence of processes still in operation has come to be known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism...Uniformitarianism also became the working principle for a growing number of geologic historians, notably William Smith and Sir Charles Lyell, in the 19th century. This was necessary as Lyell argued increasingly that geologic change was incremental and gradual. He needed a longer time scale if this approach was to work, and geologic historians were finding it for him.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
7. Conclusions about Uniformitarian
a. Both in terms of how it originated historically and even present practice, uniformitarianism begins simply with the desire for the earth to be very, very old.
b. The formation of geologic features by uniformitarianism remains an indefensible, un-proven, un-provable, un-deducible, and un-observable assumption based upon mere philosophical preference
cxliii. Catastrophism is the only view that is actually observable.
1. An obseravation and real example of catastrophism – Mount St. Helens…
a. Provides an excellent example in which rapid, large-scale geologic feature formation has been directly observed
b. Occurred and was observed in the last half of the twentieth century.
c. (Other examples of catastrophism will be included in the last section of this article series, a closing list of all the evidences.)
2. Comparing Catastrophism and Uniformitarianism
a. On observation
i. Uniformitarianism is an unobserved, unobservable, un-provable philosophical preference competing with another view
ii. Catastrophism, is observable, has been observed, and therefore is actual empirical science, not just a mere preferencial assumption.
b. On being scientific
i. Catastrophism is clearly the more scientific because it is based upon observation rather than presupposition.
ii. Uniformitarians is based on philosophical preference and assumption, cannot be observed, and cannot be tested or proven.
cxliv. Uniformitarianism contradicts its own base assumption.
1. There is so much direct, observational evidence for catastrophism that modern geologic science and uniformitarianism actually admit that catastrophe does form major geologic features.
2. Catastrophe is acknowledged as having a place within modern uniformitarian theory, but Charles Lyell rejected any significant role for catastrophes at any point in history.
a. Lyell argued that violent geologic events only occur at the rate and significance that they do at present, never at a greater or more significant rate than the present.
i. Notice the second to last sentence of the quote below specifically states that, according to Lyell, the surface features of the Earth are not altered by even “occasional cataclysmic phenomena” but are entirely the product of small, gradual changes.
“Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Lyell, however, imposed some conditions on uniformitarianism that perhaps had not been intended by Hutton: he took a literal approach to interpreting the principle of uniformity in nature by assuming that all past events must have conformed to controls exerted by processes that behaved in the same manner as those processes behave today. No accommodation was made for past conditions that do not have modern counterparts. In short, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and other violent geologic events may indeed have occurred earlier in Earth history but no more frequently nor with greater intensity than today; accordingly, the surface features of the Earth are altered very gradually by a series of small changes rather than by occasional cataclysmic phenomena. Lyell's contribution enabled the doctrine of uniformitarianism to finally hold sway, even though it did impose for the time being a somewhat limiting condition on the uniformity principle.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Modern geology and modern uniformitarianism reject Lyell’s “extreme” position that violent geologic events (such as massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteorites, and floods) only happened at their current rates and significance.
3. Modern geology and modern uniformitarianism acknowledge that …
a. Catastrophes not only play a minor role today at their current rates and size
b. At particular points in earth’s history, catastrophes may have played an even larger and more significant role.
c. (Despite these acknowledgements, uniformitarian processes are maintained as the major cause of the bulk of earth’s geologic features.)
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Gradualism – Lyell's almost total rejection of any geologic process that was abrupt and suggestive of catastrophe, however, was in itself an extreme posture. Research has shown that both gradual and rapid changes occur.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Continental landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – During the late 18th and early 19th century, the leading proponent of this view was the German mineralogist Abraham Gottlob Werner. According to Werner, all of the Earth's rocks were formed by rapid chemical precipitation from a “world ocean,” which he then summarily disposed of in catastrophic fashion. Though not directed toward the genesis of landforms in any coherent fashion, his catastrophic philosophy of changes of the Earth had two major consequences of geomorphic significance. First, it indirectly led to the formulation of an opposing, less extreme view by the Scottish scientist James Hutton in 1785. Second, it was in some measure correct: catastrophes do occur on the Earth and they do change its landforms. Asteroid impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods, and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Floods, volcanic explosions, and asteroid impacts are all acknowledged as a factor in forming earth’s geologic features (by Hutton and uniformitarian scientists since Lyell.)
a. The phrase “not all change is catastrophic” is a clear acknowledgement that some change is caused by catastrophe.
b. Uniformitarianism can include “past catastrophes” such as “floods or earthquakes” that effected earth’s geologic features and history.
“Geology, II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism contrasts with, for example, the idea that past events such as floods or earthquakes were caused by divine intervention or supernatural causes. Catastrophism, which calls on major catastrophes to explain earth's history, is also sometimes contrasted with uniformitarianism. However, uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
cxlv. Maintaining equity in evaluating uniformitarianism and catastrophism in relation to their claims and observed evidence
1. Important questions and equity
a. Why is it acceptable for uniformitarianism to accommodate a minor role for catastrophes, but catastrophism is not allowed to accommodate a minor role for normal, slow processes?
i. Catastrophes (even at their current rates) are accommodated with a minor role in uniformitarian theory.
1. The last line of the quote above states, “uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.”
b. Why is it that the mere occurrence of normal processes eroding and changing features to a small degree very slowly is thought to disprove that catastrophes are the cause of major feature formation?
c. Why does the observation of the extremely minor effects of processes like erosion necessarily contradict the theory that features are formed by catastrophe?
d. Can’t catastrophism accommodate a very minor role for normal processes in minutely affecting geologic features after their formation by major catastrophes?
2. The minor impacts of slow, gradual processes do not in anyway contradict catastrophism
a. Catastrophism fully recognizes the actual, minor role that we observe these slow processes playing, a role that slightly alters existing features but does not form them.
b. And that is all that we see this slow, normative processes doing.
3. The difference between the 2 views is a question of percentage (or proportion) – which one better fits what can actually be observed?
a. Which one, uniformitarianism or catastrophism, is a more reasonable conclusion based upon what we actually see?
i. Are major features being formed by slow, normal processes but once in a while catastrophes change existing features that were already formed by normal, slow processes?
ii. Or, are major features being formed by catastrophes but afterward normal, slow processes have a minor impact on those existing features that were formed by catastrophes?
4. The actual observations pose a problem for uniformitarianism because normal, slow processes can only, even in principle, be observed having minor effects on existing major structures.
a. Slow processes have never been seen producing major features.
b. Major features have only been seen formed by catastrophes.
5. This is a geological parallel to biological evolution where small variations within a species have been observed but no one has ever observed the emergence of a new kind of animal.
a. On both issues, creationism is simply an assertion of what we can and do actually observe.
i. We never see new types of organisms being reproduced from an existing type.
1. Even if true that process would take too long for us to detect or observe it.
ii. We never see geologic features being formed from slow, gradual, normative processes.
1. Even if true that process would take too long for us to observe.
iii. What we have seen is nothing more and nothing less that what creation theory asserts…
1. each type of organism only produces its own type
2. geologic features only form from catastrophes.
6. It is uniformitarianism and biological evolution that fill in gaps, going beyond the empirical evidence and what is observed to insist that speculations we can never observe are “proven” to be scientifically true not because of scientific observation, but because of mere philosophical preferences such as a desire to avoid teleology.
cxlvi. Exactly how “minor” is the role of catastrophe even in uniformitarianism?
1. In uniformitarianism catastrophes are acknowledged as having a much larger and significant role during the very earliest history of the earth (and at particular points since then) than they do now.
a. Massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteors, and floods are all acknowledged by modern uniformitarians to have occurred at greater, more significant rates at particular points in the past than they do today and, consequently, to have played a greater role in geologic feature formation at that time.
2. Uniformitarianism claims major volcanic activity had a significantly larger role in the past than their counterpart processes today.
a. Uniformitarianism asserts that all the earth’s features can be accounted for in terms of assuming the same slow processes occurred in the past in the same manner that they do today.
b. However, within the uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview, the earliest stages of earth’s history assert that there was much greater volcanic activity and that this increased activity was crucial to the formation of the earth’s geology.
i. Volcanic activity was much greater before the Proterozoic era, which started about 2.5 billion years ago and has been “much less” since then.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Development of the oceans – The abundance of volcanic rocks of Archean age (3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago) is indicative of the continuing role of intense volcanic degassing, but since the early Proterozoic (from 2.5 billion years ago), much less volcanic activity has occurred.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Basics about volcanic phenomena establish the truly catastrophic nature of having an extensive increase in volcanic activity
1. Lava is “poured out” onto the earth’s surface between approximately 700 to 1,200 degrees Celcius (1,300 to 2,200 degress Fahrenheit).
“Lava – magma (molten rock) poured out onto the Earth's surface at temperatures from about 700° to 1,200° C (1,300° to 2,200° F).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Although the top surface of the crust is comprised of “a very thin veneer” of sedimentary rock, igneous rocks are the predominant form of rock that comprises the Earth.
“Igneous rock – any of various crystalline or glassy rocks formed by the cooling and solidification of molten earth material. Igneous rocks comprise one of the three principal classes of rocks, the others being metamorphic and sedimentary. Igneous rocks are formed from the solidification of magma, which is a hot (600° to 1,300° C, or 1,100° to 2,400° F) molten or partially molten rock material. The Earth is composed predominantly of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Such an increase would certainly be catastrophic, as it certainly would be regarded if an increase of this magnitute (or even a mere fraction of it) occurred today.
c. The increased volcanic activity in the earth’s past is said to have played a major role in the large-scale formation of igneous rocks (rocks formed by lava) and also iron rock formations.
i. Not only is the increase significant but the role of that increase is extremely significant.
d. It is necessary for volcanic activity and the depositing of lava to be so much more “extensive” during the earliest earth history in order for biological evolution to occur.
i. In fact, these events are said to have occured in a large enough quantity to allow life to “bloom” on earth when beforehand it could only have occurred to a narrow, small degree.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – Primitive organisms, such as blue-green algae (or cyanobacteria), cause carbon dioxide and water to react by photosynthesis to produce carbohydrates, which they need for growth, repair, and other vital functions, and this reaction releases free oxygen…What happened to all the oxygen that was released? It might be surprising to learn that it took at least 1 billion years before there was sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere for oxidative diagenesis to give rise to red beds (sandstones that are predominantly red in colour due to fully oxidized iron coating individual grains) and that 2.2 billion years passed before a large number of life-forms could evolve. An idea formulated by the American paleontologist Preston Cloud has been widely accepted as an answer to this question. The earliest primitive organisms produced free oxygen as a by-product, and in the absence of oxygen-mediating enzymes it was harmful to their living cells and had to be removed. Fortunately for the development of life on the early Earth there was extensive volcanic activity, which resulted in the deposition of much lava, the erosion of which released enormous quantities of iron into the oceans. This ferrous iron is water-soluble and therefore could be easily transported, but it had to be converted to ferric iron, which is highly insoluble, before it could be precipitated as iron formations. In short, the organisms produced the oxygen and the iron formations accepted it. Iron formations can be found in the earliest sediments (those deposited 3.8 billion years ago) at Isua in West Greenland, and thus this process must have been operative by this time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. The acknowledged role for volcanoes constitutes another major contradiction of uniformitarianism.
i. Uniformitarianism asserts that all the earth’s features can be accounted for in terms of assuming the same slow processes occurred in the past in the same manner that they do today.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – As previously noted, fundamental to the principle was the premise that various Earth processes of the past operated in much the same way as those processes operate today. The corollary to this was that the rates of the various ancient processes could be considered the same as those of the present day.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hutton, James – Hutton's view as stated in these papers was that the world's geologic phenomena can be explained in terms of observable processes, and that those processes now at work on and within the Earth have operated with general uniformity over immensely long periods of time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Uniformitarianism – in geology, the doctrine that existing processes acting in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity as at present are sufficient to account for all geologic change.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. The uniformitarian, evolutionary worldview breaks from its defining assumption by describing a role for volcanoes that is remarkably different than the present rate and role of volcanic processes.
1. Uniformity is discarded in terms of…
a. the amount of volcanic activity
b. the nature or type of volcanic activity.
2. Even the “component gases” emitted by the volcanoes of the past is asserted to have been different than in modern volcanic processes.
3. Effectively, geology is inventing a level of volcanic activity and a type of volcanic activity that has no counterpart in the present, normative volcanic processes that we observe today.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The Earth's secondary atmosphere began to develop at the time of planetary differentiation, probably in connection with volcanic activity. Its component gases, however, were most likely very different from those emitted by modern volcanoes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
f. Summary on uniformitarianism’s contradictory role for catastrophy
i. Uniformitarianism sets aside its defining principle of “uniformity” whenever it is necessary and whenever it suits evolutionary theory, particularly when setting it aside is necessary for biological evolution to occur.
1. According to uniformitarianism, you have much more massive and extensive volcanic activity and lava deposits during earlier eras than occur now.
2. This much more extensive volcanic activity also had different component gases than today’s volcanoes.
ii. Not only is uniformitarianism an un-provable philosophical preference, but its one that adherents to uniformitarianism themselves show to be incorrect by discarding and contradicting it.
3. Uniformitarianism claims meteorite and asteroid impacts had a significantly larger role in the past than their counterpart processes today.
a. “studies of the moon” have actually demonstrated how “meteorite impacts helped shape the Earth’s surface” during its early history, around “3.5 billion years ago” causing “a violent infancy” for the planet, which lasted for “hundreds of millions of years.”
i. The catastrophic nature of this increase become clear when we consider how such an increase in meteorite bombardment (or even just a fragment of it) would be considered catastrophic today.
“Geology, History, Geology of the solar system – Geologists also apply what they have learned about other objects to the study of Earth. For instance, studies of the moon showed how meteorite impacts helped shape Earth's surface.” Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
“The Primeval Biosphere, Figure 11. The primeval biosphere awoke to a tempestuous world of intermittent comet impacts, a steaming-hot ocean, a very thick atmosphere and torrential acid rains. Giant comet impacts would have ejected large amounts of material into space and spun off violent hurricanes and tornadoes.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
“The Primeval Biosphere – About 3.5 billion years ago large cometary impacts would have become increasingly rare, but when they did occur, they produced enormous cataclysms. The oceans would have boiled near the impact site, causing hurricanes and gigantic waterspouts with fantastic ejections of gas and water into space. Under these chaotic and seemingly inhospitable conditions, a phenomenon occurs that is going to have astonishing consequences: Bacteria begin to multiply in the hot waters of the first oceans.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
“Astronomers and geologists were discovering that Earth had a violent infancy--hundreds of millions of years after the planet had formed, giant asteroids and comets still crashed into it, burning off its young atmosphere and boiling away its oceans…After the last atmosphere-killing impacts--about 4 billion years ago--smaller comets, meteorites, and dust from space could, in the space of a few hundred million years, have brought enough organic carbon to cover the planet in a layer ten inches deep.” – First Cell, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER, Vol. 16 No. 11, November 1995, Biology & Medicine
“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years. The oldest known rocks, however, have an isotopic age of only about 3.9 billion years. There is, in effect, a stretch of 700 million years for which no geologic record exists, and the evolution of this pregeologic period of time is not surprisingly the subject of much speculation. To understand this little-known period, the following factors have to be considered: the age of formation at 4.6 billion years ago, the processes in operation until 3.9 billion years ago, the bombardment of the Earth by meteorites, and the earliest zircon crystals…It is known from direct observation that the surface of the Moon is covered with a multitude of meteorite craters. There are about 40 large basins attributable to meteorite impact. Known as maria, these depressions were filled in with basaltic lavas caused by the impact-induced melting of the lunar mantle. Many of these basalts have been analyzed isotopically and found to have crystallization ages of 3.9 to 4 billion years. It can be safely concluded that the Earth, with a greater attractive mass than the Moon, must have undergone more extensive meteorite bombardment. According to the English-born geologist Joseph V. Smith, a minimum of 500 to 1,000 impact basins were formed on the Earth within a period of about 100 to 200 million years prior to 3.95 billion years ago. Moreover, plausible calculations suggest that this estimate represents merely the tail end of an interval of declining meteorite bombardment and that about 20 times as many basins were formed in the preceding 300 million years. Such intense bombardment would have covered most of the Earth's surface, with the impacts causing considerable destruction of the terrestrial crust up to 3.9 billion years ago. There is, however, no direct evidence of this important phase of Earth history because rocks older than 3.9 billion years have not been preserved.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Although about 100 times as many asteroids as comets approach Earth, comets pack a bigger punch—they plunge toward the sun several times faster than asteroids. That means a comet could hit Earth with about 10 times as much energy as an asteroid with the same mass…In 1994 Jupiter's gravity shredded comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 into 21 visible chunks, which then plunged into the gas giant piece after piece. A typical piece detonated with the force of about 25,000 megatons of TNT. A chain of blasts around Earth might wreak more havoc than a single impact.” – To Catch a Comet, by Robert Irion, DISCOVER, Vol. 24 No. 10, October 2003
“Chemical Evidence – The separation of these layers dates to the earliest period of the Earth’s formation, when it was still accumulating mass by the accretion of planetesimals. The energy of the accretionary impacts was transformed into a heat so intense that Earth’s surface was covered with a thick layer of molten lava, perhaps to very great depths.” – An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere, Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientists, Volume 89, 2004
“Meteorite – Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the nearby environment, and they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years. Many scientists believe that the event that caused the crater in the Yucatán Peninsula may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
4. Uniformitarianism relies on major catastrophic volcanic activity and asteroid impacts throughout earth’s history to explain the geologic and biological history of the earth.
a. The Permean Period
i. In geologic time, the Permean Period is relatively recent compared to 3.5 billion years ago.
ii. The Permean Period spans from 286 to 245 million years ago.
“Permian period – last period of the Paleozoic Era. It began about 286 million years ago and ended 245 million years ago, extending from the close of the Carboniferous to the outset of the Triassic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. During the Permean Period around 250 million years ago volcanic activity in Siberia is asserted to have increased so massively that it caused the greatest global extinction in the history of the earth.
“Earth, History of Earth – Several times in Earth's history, there have been great extinctions, periods when many of Earth's living things die out. The greatest of these events, called the Permian extinction, happened about 250 million years ago. Almost 90 percent of the species on Earth during the Permian became extinct in a relatively short time. The cause of this event is a mystery, though many scientists suspect that huge volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia may have disturbed the climate, causing many organisms to die out.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. Such a massive rise in volcanic activity effecting “a relatively short time” in geologic history constitutes a significant departure from uniformitarianism.
b. The Cretaceous Period
i. After the Permian Period, there is another extinction involving the dinosaurs near the end of the Cretaceous Period.
ii. The Cretaceous Period was about 65 million years ago.
iii. This extinction is largely believed to have been caused by an asteroid impact in the Yucatan peninsula of North America, which would have had enormous effects on climates and the surface features of the earth.
iv. This asteroid impact and its timing are regarded as fact even it did not singularly cause the extinction of dinosaurs.
1. This massive impact is attested to by other means and is not simply a hypothetical for explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs.
v. Concerning the extinction of the dinosaurs, a significant increase in volcanic activity is also listed as an alternate or auxiliary explanation.
vi. Both the volcanic activity and the asteroid impact in the Cretaceous Period constitute a major departure from uniformitarianism’s view that all the earth’s features can be accounted for in terms of assuming the same slow processes occurred in the past in the same manner that they do today.
“Dinosaurs, The search for dinosaurs, The K–T boundary event – It was not only the dinosaurs that disappeared 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous–Tertiary, or K–T, boundary. Many other organisms became extinct or were greatly reduced in abundance and diversity, and the extinctions were quite different between, and even among, marine and terrestrial organisms…Whatever factors caused it, there was undeniably a major, worldwide biotic change near the end of the Cretaceous. But the extermination of the dinosaurs is the best-known change by far, and it has been a puzzle to paleontologists, geologists, and biologists for two centuries. Many hypotheses have been offered over the years to explain dinosaur extinction, but only a few have received serious consideration. Proposed causes have included everything from disease to heat waves and resulting sterility, freezing cold spells, the rise of egg-eating mammals, and X rays from a nearby exploding supernova. Since the early 1980s, attention has focused on the so-called asteroid theory put forward by the American geologist Walter Alvarez, his father, physicist Luis Alvarez, and their coworkers. This theory is consistent with the timing and magnitude of some extinctions, especially in the oceans, but it does not fully explain the patterns on land and does not eliminate the possibility that other factors were at work on land as well as in the seas…The asteroid theory – The discovery of an abnormally high concentration of the rare metal iridium at, or very close to, the K–T boundary provides what has been recognized as one of those rare instantaneous geologic time markers that seem to be worldwide. This iridium anomaly, or spike, was first found by Walter Alvarez in the Cretaceous–Tertiary stratigraphic sequence at Gubbio, Italy, in the 1970s. The spike has subsequently been detected at hundreds of localities in Denmark and elsewhere, both in rock outcrops on land and in core samples drilled from ocean floors…Because the levels of iridium are higher in meteorites than on the Earth, the Gubbio anomaly is thought to have an extraterrestrial explanation…The level of iridium in meteorites has been accepted as representing the average level throughout the solar system and, by extension, the universe. Accordingly, the iridium concentration at the K–T boundary is widely attributed to a collision between the Earth and a huge meteoror asteroid. The size of the object is estimated at about 10 km (6.2 miles) in diameter and one quadrillion metric tons in weight; the velocity at the time of impact is reckoned to have been several hundreds of thousands of kilometres per hour. The crater resulting from such a collision would be some 100 km or more in diameter. Such an impact site (called an astrobleme), known as the Chicxulub crater, may have been identified in the Yucatán Peninsula. The asteroid theory is widely accepted as the most probable explanation of the K–T iridium anomaly, but it does not appear to account for all the paleontological data. An impact explosion of this kind would have ejected an enormous volume of terrestrial and asteroid material into the atmosphere, producing a cloud of dust and solid particles that would have encircled the Earth and blocked out sunlight for many months, possibly years. The loss of sunlight could have eliminated photosynthesis and resulted in the death of plants and the subsequent extinction of herbivores, their predators, and scavengers. The K–T mass extinctions, however, do not seem to be fully explained by this hypothesis…It is entirely possible that a culmination of ordinary biological changes and some catastrophic events, including increased volcanic activity, took place around the end of the Cretaceous.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dinosaur, VII EXTINCTION, Controversy surrounds the extinction of the dinosaurs – According to one theory, dinosaurs were slowly driven to extinction by environmental changes linked to the gradual withdrawal of shallow seas from the continents at the end of the dinosaurian era. Proponents of this theory postulate that dinosaurs dwindled in number and variety over several million years. An opposing theory proposes that the impact of an asteroid or comet caused catastrophic destruction of the environment, leading to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Evidence to support this theory includes the discovery of a buried impact crater (thought to be the result of a large comet striking the earth) that is 200 km (124 mi) in diameter in the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico. A spray of debris, called an ejecta sheet, which was blown from the edge of the crater, has been found over vast regions of North America. Comet-enriched material from the impact's fiery explosion was distributed all over the world. With radiometric dating (see Dating Methods: Radiometric Dating), scientists have used the decay rates of certain atoms to date the crater, ejecta sheet, and fireball layer. Using similar techniques to date the dramatic changes in the record of microscopic fossils, they have found that the impact and the dinosaur extinction occurred nearly simultaneously. Although large amounts of ash suggest that most of North and South America was devastated by fire from the impact, the longer-term planetwide environmental effects of the impact were ultimately more lethal to life than the fire. Dust blocked sunlight from the earth's surface for many months. Scorched sulfur from the impact site, water vapor and chlorine from the oceans, and nitrogen from the air combined to produce a worldwide fallout of intensely acidic rain. Scientists postulate that darkness and acid rain caused plant growth to cease. As a result, both the herbivorous dinosaurs, which were dependent on plants for food, as well as the carnivorous dinosaurs, which fed on the herbivores, were exterminated. On the other hand, animals such as frogs, lizards, and small insect-eating turtles and mammals, which were dependent on organisms that fed on decaying plant material, were more likely to survive. Their survival indicates that, in most areas, the surface of the earth did not freeze.” – "Dinosaur," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dinosaur, Why dinosaurs died out – Scientists have developed many theories to explain dinosaur extinction. The two major theories involve (1) gradual climate changes and (2) the collision of an asteroid with the earth. The first theory argues that, toward the end of the Cretaceous Period, the shallow seas dried up and the climate became more varied everywhere around the globe. Winters became too cold and summers too hot for dinosaurs to survive. Dinosaurs were too large to hibernate in dens, and they had no fur or feathers for protection against the cold. They also probably had difficulty cooling off in hot weather. Thus, death and extinction came as a result of gradually colder winters and hotter summers. The other major extinction theory claims that a large asteroid hit the earth at the end of the Cretaceous. This asteroid impact would have thrown billions of tons of dust and debris into the atmosphere. Heat from the impact may have caused huge fires worldwide. Together the clouds of smoke and debris would have blocked sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth for many months. Although the seeds and roots of plants had a good chance of surviving this lightless period, the plants themselves stopped growing and died. If the catastrophe was severe and widespread enough, plant-eating dinosaurs would have starved to death. As the plant-eaters died, so did the meat-eating dinosaurs that fed on them. In addition, the darkened skies caused land temperatures to drop below freezing for 6 to 12 months in many parts of the world. Such low temperatures further damaged the dinosaur populations. According to the asteroid theory, small mammals and birds survived because they were protected from the cold by fur or feathers. Mammals and birds also could feed entirely on seeds, nuts, and rotting vegetation. Other survivors may have escaped extinction because they could live at the bottom of lakes or burrow underground. Most scientists, however, feel that no single theory completely explains why dinosaurs suffered extinction. They argue that a combination of causes contributed to the dinosaurs' disappearance.” – Worldbook, Contributor: David B. Weishampel, Ph.D., Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
“Meteorite – Meteorites generally have a pitted surface and fused charred crust. The larger ones strike the earth with tremendous impact, creating huge craters…The meteorites that formed craters as large as the ones in Vredefort, Sudbury, and the Yucatán must have had a devastating effect on the nearby environment, and they also probably affected global weather patterns. The force of collision would have spewed molten rock far around the impact site. Dust and poisonous gases that were produced by the crash when it vaporized minerals in the ground would have darkened the sky over a huge area for months or even years. Many scientists believe that the event that caused the crater in the Yucatán Peninsula may have created global climate changes that led to the extinction of the last of the dinosaurs…Dust and gas circulating in the atmosphere could cut off sunlight for months, killing crops and reducing the food supply for the entire world. Fortunately, astronomers calculate the average frequency of major collisions at only about one collision every 300,000 years. ” – "Meteorite," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
5. Conclusions on uniformitarianism and the role of catastrophes.
a. The uniformitarian view is not only an assumption, but it is a view that contradicts its main assumption.
b. Uniformitarianism is shown to be scientifically less valid than catastrophism for 2 reasons.
i. First, uniformitarianism cannot be observed whereas catastrophism has been observed, as we will see in our next section.
ii. Second, uniformitarianism contradicts itself and does so in a way that affirms the dramatic role of unique catastrophes that have no counterpart in present, slow, normative processes.
c. Furthermore, since uniformitarianism ends up actually asserting catastrophism, the only differences between the Biblical catastrophism model and evolutionary theory are…
i. When, or how long ago, the catastrophic period occurred and what types of activities it included?
ii. Was the catastrophe billions of years ago, or was the catastrophe only a few thousand years ago?
d. The potential interaction between both a cataclysmic event, such as an asteroid impact, and a climate change to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs makes the Biblical model all the more plausible (especially if the Flood was triggered in part, either directly or indirectly, by a meteor or asteroid collision).
e. Given evolution’s insistence upon uniformitarianism as the primary mechanism for geologic feature formation and the rejection of catastrophism is shown to be meaningless nonsense due to…
i. Acknowledgement of the contributions of violent catastrophic early stages in earth’s history
ii. Major departures from uniformitarianism in terms of volcanoes and meteors at particular instances since the earliest times,
iii. Acknowledgement of the minor role that catastrophes of this kind continue to play at their present rates and magnitudes
iv. The acknowledgement that catastrophes simply do play the role that catastrophism theory and creationism ascribes to them.
f. With all of these acknowledgements within uniformitarianism of catastrophic causes for the major formation of earth’s features in the past it seems that uniformitarianism is really just an biased, disguised, denial of a global flood as recorded in the Bible in order to avoid the teleological and theological implications of the Biblical account.
g. In our next segment we will cover how uniformitarianism is contradicted by the evidence for the particular catastrophe of a global Flood.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Evidence for a Global Flood
467 Review on Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism
468 In our previous segment, we established from secular and evolutionary sources that the catastrophism view of geologic history is undeniable and actually affirmed by the alternative uniformitarian view.
469 With catastrophism as acknowledged fact even within the uniformitarian view, the historical accounts of a catastrophic worldwide flood become extremely relevant.
470 Judeo-Christian tradition teaches there was a global flood was global (not regional or even almost global.)
471 However, in order to facilitate considering the question of a massive flood without first accepting the Biblical account wholesale, the term “nearly-global” flood is also used below.
472 Key questions about a global or near-global flood
473 Why isn’t a global or near-global flood accepted within uniformitarian geology?
474 Is a global Flood with a mass extinction incompatible and unacceptable within uniformitarian geologic principles?
475 Does accepting a global Flood require accepting or believing in God?
476 Is there simply no evidence or not enough evidence to support or suggest a global or near-global Flood?
477 A global flood – answering the key questions.
478 First, a global or near-global flood with a mass extinction is not incompatible or unacceptable within uniformitarian principles.
479 This fact is demonstrated by 3 cases of precedent for what is already accepted within uniformitarianism.
480 Number one, the role of major catastrophes such as volcanic activity, asteroids and meteorites, hurricanes, and floods in shaping geologic features is already accepted within uniformitarianism so, there is nothing within uniformitarianism that prevents the acceptance of a global or near-global flood.
481 Charles Lyell took an extreme position that made “no accommodation” for “past conditions or events, which do not have modern counterparts.”
482 Lyell’s “extreme” position acknowledged a role for catastrophic events, only if they did not exceed what we see today.
“Geochronology, Lyell's promulgation of uniformitarianism – Lyell, however, imposed some conditions on uniformitarianism that perhaps had not been intended by Hutton: he took a literal approach to interpreting the principle of uniformity in nature by assuming that all past events must have conformed to controls exerted by processes that behaved in the same manner as those processes behave today. No accommodation was made for past conditions that do not have modern counterparts. In short, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and other violent geologic events may indeed have occurred earlier in Earth history but no more frequently nor with greater intensity than today; accordingly, the surface features of the Earth are altered very gradually by a series of small changes rather than by occasional cataclysmic phenomena. Lyell's contribution enabled the doctrine of uniformitarianism to finally hold sway, even though it did impose for the time being a somewhat limiting condition on the uniformity principle.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Modern uniformitarianism and modern geology rejects Lyell’s “extreme” position that violent geologic events (such as massive volcanic activity, asteroids and meteorites, and floods) only happened at their current rates and significance.
“Continental landform, Historical survey, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Gradualism – Lyell's almost total rejection of any geologic process that was abrupt and suggestive of catastrophe, however, was in itself an extreme posture. Research has shown that both gradual and rapid changes occur.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Continental landform, Landform theories of the 18th and 19th centuries, Catastrophism – During the late 18th and early 19th century, the leading proponent of this view was the German mineralogist Abraham Gottlob Werner. According to Werner, all of the Earth's rocks were formed by rapid chemical precipitation from a “world ocean,” which he then summarily disposed of in catastrophic fashion. Though not directed toward the genesis of landforms in any coherent fashion, his catastrophic philosophy of changes of the Earth had two major consequences of geomorphic significance. First, it indirectly led to the formulation of an opposing, less extreme view by the Scottish scientist James Hutton in 1785. Second, it was in some measure correct: catastrophes do occur on the Earth and they do change its landforms. Asteroid impacts, Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions, hurricanes, floods, and tectonic erosion of mountain systems all occur, may be catastrophic, and can create and destroy landforms. Yet, not all change is catastrophic.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Notice that catastrophic floods are listed side by side with such massive events as Asteroid impacts and “Krakatoa-type volcanic explosions.”
1. To provide some idea of the scale indicated by the phrase “Krakatoa-type,” the quote below states that Krakatoa is regarded as “one of the most catastrophic in history.”
“Krakatoa – Bahasa Indonesia Krakatau volcano on Pulau (island) Rakata in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, Indonesia. Its eruption in 1883 was one of the most catastrophic in history.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. Since uniformitarianism accepts the role of catastrophic activities including floods, there is nothing within uniformitarianism that prevents the acceptance of a global or near-global flood.
“Geology, II GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY, C Uniformitarianism – Uniformitarianism contrasts with, for example, the idea that past events such as floods or earthquakes were caused by divine intervention or supernatural causes. Catastrophism, which calls on major catastrophes to explain earth's history, is also sometimes contrasted with uniformitarianism. However, uniformitarianism can include past catastrophes.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
h. Number two, the occurrence of major extinction events caused by huge catastrophes is already accepted within uniformitarianism.
i. There have been numerous major extinction events in the uniformitarian, evolutionary view.
ii. The dominant theories for these extinction events have asserted catastrophes such as major volcanic activity and a major asteroid impact as the causes.
“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Most boundaries in recent geologic time coincide with periodic extinctions and appearances of new species…II DIVISION OF TIME – An explosion of invertebrate life marks the end of the Proterozoic and the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic Eon started 570 million years before present and continues into the present…The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras. The Paleozoic Era is divided into six periods. From oldest to youngest they are the Cambrian (570 million to 500 million years before present), Ordovician (500 million to 435 million years before present), Silurian (435 million to 410 million years before present), Devonian (410 million to 380 million years before present), Carboniferous (380 million to 290 million years before present), and Permian (290 million to 240 million years before present). The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world. It ended with the extinction of over 90 percent of all living organisms at the end of the Permian Period. The cause of this event is currently unknown…The Mesozoic began with the appearance of many new kinds of animals, including the dinosaurs and the ammonites, or extinct relatives of modern squid. The Mesozoic ended with another major extinction in which about 80 percent of all living organisms died. This extinction may have been the result of a large asteroid that crashed into the earth on the present-day northern Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dinosaurs, The search for dinosaurs, The K–T boundary event – It was not only the dinosaurs that disappeared 65 million years ago at the Cretaceous–Tertiary, or K–T, boundary. Many other organisms became extinct or were greatly reduced in abundance and diversity, and the extinctions were quite different between, and even among, marine and terrestrial organisms…Whatever factors caused it, there was undeniably a major, worldwide biotic change near the end of the Cretaceous…The asteroid theory – The discovery of an abnormally high concentration of the rare metal iridium at, or very close to, the K–T boundary provides what has been recognized as one of those rare instantaneous geologic time markers that seem to be worldwide…The asteroid theory is widely accepted as the most probable explanation of the K–T iridium anomaly, but it does not appear to account for all the paleontological data…It is entirely possible that a culmination of ordinary biological changes and some catastrophic events, including increased volcanic activity, took place around the end of the Cretaceous.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth, History of Earth – Several times in Earth's history, there have been great extinctions, periods when many of Earth's living things die out. The greatest of these events, called the Permian extinction, happened about 250 million years ago. Almost 90 percent of the species on Earth during the Permian became extinct in a relatively short time. The cause of this event is a mystery, though many scientists suspect that huge volcanic eruptions in what is now Siberia may have disturbed the climate, causing many organisms to die out.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. There is nothing in principle that prevents uniformitarianism from accepting a global or near-global flood and an accompanying mass extinction event. This is because…
1. floods are listed as catastrophes acknowledged by uniformitarianism
2. and major catastrophes are also acknowledged as the cause of major extinction events within uniformitarianism.
i. Number three, uniformitarianism already accepts that the world was at times nearly and even completely covered by ice, which is simply frozen water.
i. Occasions when the entire earth was covered by ice are referred to as “the snowball earth.”
“Earth [planet], Earth's changing climate, The ice ages – Throughout the history of Earth, the climate has changed many times. Between 800 million and 600 million years ago, during a time called the Precambrian, Earth experienced several extreme climate changes called ice ages or glacial epochs. The climate grew so cold that some scientists believe Earth nearly or completely froze several times. The theory that the entire Earth froze is sometimes called the snowball Earth. Geologists estimate that Earth experienced up to four such periods of alternate freezing and thawing.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
ii. Repetition is thought to be more in line with uniformity than unique catastrophe is.
1. In conformity to the uniformitarian principle in which feature-forming processes are regular and normative, these ice ages are made cyclical or recurring, as indicated by both the quote above and the quotes below.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – The global climate has also changed over geological time, alternating between periods of warmth and ice ages.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Atmosphere, Development of the Earth's atmosphere, Sequence of events in the development of the atmosphere, Variation in abundance of carbon dioxide – The approximately hundredfold decline of atmospheric CO2 abundances from 3,500,000,000 years ago to the present has apparently not been monotonous. During that interval, numerous ice ages have come and gone.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. Geologists and evolutionists alike have accepted the occurrence of global and near-global ice ages even though the cause of the ice ages remains unknown.
1. Consequently, it would not be necessary for uniformitarians, geologists, or evolutionists to identify an exact cause for a global or near-global flood in order to accept it.
“Earth [planet], Earth's changing climate, Why ice ages occur – Scientists do not fully understand why Earth has ice ages.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and
6. In summary, uniformitarianism accepts and asserts the following concepts that are all compatible in principle with the catastrophe of a global flood.
a. Major catastrophes, including floods comparable to asteroid impacts and Krakatoa-type volcanic eruptions are accepted within uniformitarianism.
b. Major extinction events, which result from such catastrophes and in which 80 to 90 percent of the species on earth were wiped out is accepted within uniformitarianism.
c. Recurring ice ages, in which a great deal of the entire earth or even all of the earth to the equator is covered with ice, are accepted within uniformitarianism even though the cause of such ice ages is not fully understood.
i. By contrast, the creationist view holds that the global flood was a singular historical event rather than a cyclical or recurring phenomenon.
d. The idea that the world was entirely or nearly covered with water, resulting in a mass extinction, is not incompatible with uniformitarianism, particularly if such floods were viewed as cyclical or recurring.
i. Therefore, a global or nearly global Flood is compatible with the uniformitarian view of earth history.
ii. Thus, in terms of geologic principles, there are no grounds for uniformitarians, geologists, or evolutionists to have to reject a global or nearly-global flood out of hand.
7. So, if there is no geologic principle for rejecting a global or near-global flood, what reason is there to reject such a flood?
cxlvii. Second, accepting a global Flood does not require accepting or believing in God.
1. Restatements of this key question
a. Even if there are no geologic principles requiring a global flood to be rejected, should a global flood should be rejected on philosophical grounds because it requires presuming the existence of a God?
b. Could someone accept a global flood or near-global flood unless one first accepts the reality of divine beings?
2. Accepting a global flood simply does not require accepting the existence of divine beings.
a. As we covered earlier in this article series, in the evolutionist, naturalistic, and atheistic worldviews, religion is believed to have originated as a way of explaining “natural events, such as storms and earthquakes” by regarding such events as the will of deities.
“Mythology – Later in the 19th century the theory of evolution put forward by English naturalist Charles Darwin heavily influenced the study of mythology. Scholars excavated the history of mythology, much as they would excavate fossil-bearing geological formations, for relics from the distant past. This approach can be seen in the work of British anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor. In Primitive Culture (1871), Tylor organized the religious and philosophical development of humanity into separate and distinct evolutionary stages. Similarly, British anthropologist Sir James George Frazer proposed a three-stage evolutionary scheme in The Golden Bough (3rd edition, 1912-1915). According to Frazer's scheme, human beings first attributed natural phenomena to arbitrary supernatural forces (magic), later explaining them as the will of the gods (religion), and finally subjecting them to rational investigation (science).” – "Mythology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Religion, The origin of religion – The earliest recorded evidence of religious activity dates from only about 60,000 B.C. However, anthropologists and historians of religion believe that some form of religion has been practiced since people first appeared on the earth about 2 million years ago. Experts think prehistoric religions arose out of fear and wonder about natural events, such as the occurrence of storms and earthquakes and the birth of babies and animals. To explain why someone died, people credited supernatural powers greater than themselves or greater than the world around them…Leading theories were developed by Edward Burnett Tylor, Friedrich Max Muller, and Rudolf Otto.” – World Book 2005
b. There are numerous examples from historic cultures where the natural phenomena and natural catastrophes are attributed to deities.
i. Thunder was attributed to thunder gods.
“Germanic religion and mythology, Mythology, The gods, Thor – Thor is a god of very different stamp. Place-names, personal names, poetry, and prose show that he was worshiped widely, especially toward the end of the pagan period. Thor is described as Odin's son, but his name derives from the Germanic term for “thunder.” Like Indra and other Indo-European thunder-gods, he is essentially the champion of the gods, being constantly involved in struggles with the giants.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Indra – chief of the Vedic gods of India. A warlike, typically Aryan god, he conquered innumerable human and demon enemies, vanquished the sun, and killed the dragon Vṛtra, who had prevented the monsoon from breaking. His weapons are lightning and the thunderbolt, and he is strengthened for these feats by drinks of the elixir soma, the offering of the sacrifice.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Additional “thunder gods” are also listed in the following quotes where we see that storms were also attributed to storm gods.
“Hadad – Ha’dad, Haddad (Phoenician, Semite, Syrian), Also known as: Adad, Addu, Aleyn-Baal, Baal, Martu (Amorite), Rimmon. Storm God. Originally, Hadad was a Syrian deity but in cuneiform text he was called Addu, who as a chief deity. Later, he was known as Rimmon, a thunder god of air and storm…Hadad resembled Reseph in his thunder god guise. Some say he is identical with Balmarcodes. See also Adad (A); Aleyn-Baal; Baal; Shaushka. – Haddad (Babylon) see Adad; Hadad.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 200-201
“Tlaloc – (Aztec People, Mexico), Also known as: Atonatiuh, Chac (Mayan), Cocijo (Zapotec), Dzaui (Mixtec), Muye (Otomi), Nahualpilli, Tohil (Quiche of Guatemala). Tlaloc is the god of thunder, rain, moisture, and mountains…The rain gods known as the Tlalocs are his children.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 469
“Pillan – Pilan (Araucanian People, Chile, South America), Weather god. Thunder god. After death, tribal chiefs, assuming the form of volcanoes, were met by Pillan. Pillan’s activities cause lightning and earthquakes.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 384
“Hawaiian – The Hawaiians held a vague belief in a future existence. They had four principal gods—Kane, Kanaloa, Ku, and Lono—and innumerable lesser gods and tutelary deities.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Lono – (Polynesia, Hawaii), God of thunder, rain and darkness. God of fertility. God of agriculture. God of singing (in the Marquesas). One of the traid with Kane and Ku. He is associated with cloud signs and the phenomena of storms.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 294
“Syrian and Palestinian religion, Gods, mythology, and worldview, Other early gods – At 3rd-millennium Ebla the most important god was Dagan, “Lord of Gods” and “Lord of the Land.” Other gods of Ebla included El, Resheph, the storm god, Ishtar, Athtart, Chemosh, and the sun goddess…Little is known of the religion of the Hurrians beyond the names and general character of their chief gods: Teshub, a storm god, and his consort Hepat; their son, Sharruma, also a storm god; the goddess Shaushka, identified with the Mesopotamian Ishtar; and Kushukh and Shimegi, lunar and solar deities, respectively. Hurrian mythology is known only through Hittite versions. King Idrimi of Alalakh designates himself ‘servant of the storm god; of Hepat; and of Ishtar, the Lady of Alalakh, my lady.’…Developments in the 1st millennium BC – The storm god, Hadad, appears as the chief god of the Aramaeans in northern Syria in the 9th and 8th centuries. – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Indra – Among his allies are the Rudras (or Maruts), who ride the clouds and direct storms…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cizin – One aspect of the dualistic nature of the Mayan religion is symbolically portrayed in the existing codices, which show Cizin uprooting or destroying trees planted by Chac, the rain god.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Chac – Chaac (Maya People, Yucatan), Also known as: “B” (possibly) Xib Chac. Rain god. Patron of agriculture. Chac is analogous to the Aztec god Tlaloc. The Mayas sacrificed to Chac for rain.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 120
iii. Volcanic eruptions and volcanic activity were attributed to volcano gods.
“Volcano – People have always been both fascinated by the spectacle of volcanic eruptions and terrified of their power. Eruptions have caused some of the worst disasters in history, wiping out entire towns and killing thousands of people. In early times, volcanoes played a role in the religious life of some peoples. The word volcano, for example, comes from Vulcan, the name the ancient Romans gave to their god of fire. The Romans believed the god lived beneath a volcanic island off the Italian coast. They called the island Vulcano.” – Contributor: David I. Kertzer, Ph.D., Paul Dupee University Professor of Social Science and Professor of Anthropology and Italian Studies, Brown University.
“Vulcan – in Roman religion, god of fire, particularly in its destructive aspects as volcanoes or conflagrations. Poetically, he is given all the attributes of the Greek Hephaestus (q.v.). His worship was very ancient, and at Rome he had his own priest (flamen). His chief festival, the Volcanalia, was held on August 23 and was marked by a rite of unknown significance: the heads of Roman families threw small fish into the fire.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Vulcano Island – southernmost island of the Lipari Islands (Isole Eolie), in the Tyrrhenian Sea, off northern Sicily, in Italy. Vulcano Island contains several volcanoes, including Gran Cratere, or Fossa Vecchio, which is still active…According to classical mythology, the forges of Vulcan, the god of fire, were on one of these volcanoes.” – "Vulcano Island," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Vulcan – (Latin Volcanus), in Roman mythology, the god of fire. Originally an old Italian deity who seems to have been associated with volcanic fire, Vulcan was identified with the Greek god Hephaestus in classical times. At Rome his festival, the Volcanalia, was celebrated on August 23. He was particularly revered at Ostia, where his was the principal cult.” – "Vulcan," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Vulcan – Vulcan was originally a god of fire, especially fire as a destructive force. The English word volcano comes from the Italian form of Vulcan's name. Vulcan came to be identified with the Greek god Hephaestus and thus became associated with metalworking and craftwork.” – Contributor: Daniel P. Harmon, Ph.D., Professor and Chairman, Department of Classics, University of Washington.
“Hephaestus – As god of fire, Hephaestus became the divine smith and patron of craftsmen; the natural volcanic or gaseous fires already connected with him were often considered to be his workshops…His Roman counterpart was Vulcan.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hephaestus – in Greek mythology, god of fire and metalwork, the son of the god Zeus and the goddess Hera, or sometimes the son of Hera alone…His workshop was believed to lie under Mount Etna, a volcano in Sicily. Hephaestus is often identified with the Roman god of fire, Vulcan.” – "Hephaestus," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hephaestus – was the blacksmith of the gods in Greek mythology…The Greeks associated Hephaestus with volcanic areas, especially the island of Limnos (also spelled Lemnos).” – Worldbook, Contributor: F. Carter Philips, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Classics, Vanderbilt University.
“Pillan – Pilan (Araucanian People, Chile, South America), Weather god. Thunder god. After death, tribal chiefs, assuming the form of volcanoes, were met by Pillan. Pillan’s activities cause lightning and earthquakes.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 384
“Fuji, Mount – Japanese Fuji-san, also called Fujiyama, or Fuji No Yama, highest mountain in Japan, rising to 12,388 feet (3,776 m) near the Pacific coast in Yamanashi and Shizuoka ken (prefectures), central Honshu, about 60 miles (100 km) west of Tokyo. It is a volcano that has been dormant since its last eruption in 1707 but is still generally classified as active by geologists. The mountain's name, of Ainu origin, means “everlasting life.” Mount Fuji, with its graceful conical form, has become famous throughout the world and is considered the sacred symbol of Japan. Among Japanese there is a sense of personal identification with the mountain, and thousands of Japanese climb to the shrine on its peak every summer.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fuji – (Japan), Sun goddess. Mountain goddess. Fire goddess. Goddess of the hearth. In one legend Fuji is a female and Mt. Haku (a male) who stands higher…Fuji was probably a volcano goddess of Mount Fujiyamma.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 182
“Kilauea – During the 19th century, the main floor of Kilauea's caldera went through several periods of lava filling and collapse. By 1919 it assumed its present depth of 500 feet (150 m). The floor, paved with recent lava flows, contains the Halemaumau (“Fern House”) Pit, an inner crater that is Kilauea's most active vent. Halemaumau is the legendary home of Pele, the Hawaiian fire goddess.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Hawaii – Among the lava features associated with volcanic eruptions are Pele's hair and Pele's tears, which are named for the Hawaiian goddess of volcanoes. Pele's hair is formed when small particles of molten material are thrown into the air and spun out by the wind into long hair-like strands. Pele's tears are formed when the particles fuse into tearlike drops of volcanic glass.” – "Hawaii (state)," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. Notice that the eruptions of Pele, the goddess inhabiting the Kilauea volcano, is attributed in two different ways to a flood.
a. Even in this aspect, the correlation of massive volcanic activity and the Biblical global Flood are reflected.
“Pele – (Hawaiian, Polynesian), Mother goddess. Fire Goddess. Goddess of the Kilauea volcano. Goddess of Dance. Pele, the goddess of the Kilauea volcano on Hawaii, erupts when she is angry…There are several versions of her arrival in Hawaii; she was expelled from her distant homeland; she was driven to the island by a flood; she was driven out of Kahiki (Tahiti) by her sister; she went in search of her brother Kamo-hoali’i: or that she simply loved to travel. It is said that she caused the flood when sea water poured from her head while searching for the husband who deserted her.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 377
iv. Moving forward, we can also see that earthquakes were attributed to earthquake gods.
“Nature worship, Heaven and earth as sacred spaces, forces, or processes, Earth
Earthquakes – According to the beliefs of many peoples, earthquakes originate in mountains. In areas of Africa where the concept of mana is particularly strong, many believe that the dead in the underworld are the causes of earthquakes, though in the upper Nile basin of The Sudan and in East Africa an earth deity is sometimes blamed… Generators of earthquakes also may be the gods of the underworld, such as Tuil, the earthquake god of the inhabitants of the Kamchatka Peninsula, who rides on a sleigh under the earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Tuil – (Kamchatka Peninsula, Sibera), God of earthquakes. He rides his sleigh beneath the earth. Tuil can be convinced to go elsewhere with his sleigh by poking holes in the ground with a very sharp stick of the proper length.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 476
“Nereid – in Greek religion, any of the daughters (numbering 50 or 100) of the sea god Nereus (eldest son of Pontus, a personification of the sea) and of Doris, daughter of Oceanus (the god of the water encircling the flat Earth)…the best known of the Nereids were Amphitrite, consort of Poseidon (a sea and earthquake god)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“[CHART] GREEK NAME: Poseidon, ROMAN NAME: Neptune, ROLE IN MYTHOLOGY: God of the sea and earthquakes.” – "Ancient Roman and Greek Gods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Poseidon – was the Greek god of the sea, earthquakes, and horses.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Nancy Felson, Ph.D., Professor of Classics, University of Georgia.
“Cizin – also spelled Kisin (Mayan: “Stinking One”), Mayan earthquake god and god of death, ruler of the subterranean land of the dead.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Pillan – Pilan (Araucanian People, Chile, South America), Weather god. Thunder god. After death, tribal chiefs, assuming the form of volcanoes, were met by Pillan. Pillan’s activities cause lightning and earthquakes.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 384
“Poseidon – (Greek; possibly Indo-European origin), Poseidon is the Greek god of the sea. God of rivers (in Thessaly). Patron of horse racing. One of the twelve great Olympians. Poseidon is the son of Cronos and Rhea, brother of Zeus, Hades, Hera and Hestia…He is usually depicted seated in a chariot as he is drawn across the sea by horses, holding a trident in his hand (used for creating earthquakes).” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 387-388
v. And eclipses were attributed to gods as well.
“Nature worship, Celestial phenomena as objects of worship or veneration, Eclipses of the sun and moon – An eclipse of the sun or moon—usually interpreted as a battle between the two heavenly bodies or as the dying or the devouring of one of the two—in many religions is met with anxiety, shouting, drum beating, shooting, and other noises. Many Native Americans, the Khoisan in Africa, the Ainu in Japan, and the Minangkabau in Sumatra interpret the eclipse as the fainting, sickness, or death of the darkened heavenly body. In Arctic North America, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Tlingit believe that the sun and moon have moved from their places in order to see that things are going right on earth. The explanation that heavenly monsters and beasts pursue the stars and attempt to injure and to kill them, however, is a view found over a larger area. Noise and shooting are believed to deter the monsters from their pursuit or to force them to return the celestial bodies if they have already been captured. In parts of China and in Thailand the monster is the heavenly dragon; in other Chinese regions and among the Germanic tribes and northern American Indians the culprits are dogs and wolves (coyotes); in Africa and Indonesia they are snakes; in India they are the star monsters Rahu and Ketu; and in South America the beast is the jaguar. The belief in the darkening of one star by the other in a battle—e.g., between the sun god Lisa and the moon goddess Gleti in Benin—is about as widespread. An eclipse may also be interpreted (as in Tahiti) as the lovemaking of sun and moon, who thus beget the stars and obscure each other in the process.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Rahu – Bhangi (Cambodia; Hindu; India), Originally a Daitya, this monster demon, know as “The Grasper,” causes eclipses by eating the sun.” – Dictionary of Ancient Deities, Patricia Turner & Charles Russell Coulter, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, Copyright 2000, p. 397
3. Conclusions on whether we can only accept natural disasters and catastrophes if we believe in the existence of God.
a. In all of these cases, evolutionists, uniformitarians, atheists, and naturalists alike accept that ancient peoples did indeed experience such natural events, while rejecting the supernatural cause that these people ascribe to these events.
b. Accepting that such events occurred does not require belief in divine beings or require accepting ancient people’s explanation that the cause was divine.
c. Accepting major catastrophes, accepting major extinction events caused by catastrophes, and even accepting that the earth was covered with ice does not require belief in the existence of divine beings.
d. Accepting the occurrence of a global flood, on its own, require belief in the existence of divine beings.
e. Uniformitarians, evolutionists, atheists, and naturalists could very well accept the occurrence of the natural event itself while rejecting the attribution of that event to a deity as a mere “primitive” explanation, just as they do wholesale all the time.
f. The underlying, foundational philosophies of evolution simply do not prevent accepting a global or near-global flood.
g. As such, a global or nearly global Flood is compatible with atheistic and even evolutionary views about religion and there is no philosophical reason to reject a global or near-global flood out of hand.
4. So, if there is no geologic principle and no philosophical reason to reject a global or near-global flood, why is such a flood rejected?
cxlviii. Third, there is ample physical, observable evidence to support or suggest a global or near global Flood.
1. Instroduction to flood evidence issues
a. Restatement of the key question
i. Since the Flood cannot be rejected on the grounds that it is compatible with both evolutionary, atheistic, and uniformitarian views, should it be rejected because there is simply no evidence for it?
1. But this is simply not the case either.
b. There are 2 strong lines of evidence that here was a global or near-global flood, the historical record and geological evidence.
c. In light of the fact that evolutionist and uniformitarians do not reject other natural phenomena described in “primitive” cultures as the work of deities, other questions arises as to…
i. Wy, with so much testimony from cultures all around the world, a global-flood is rejected out of hand?
ii. With no geologic principles or philosophical grounds for rejecting a flood, why not simply accept the widespread testimony for such a flood?
iii. Why ignore the historic testimony of people who were there when there is no principle that prevents doing so?
2. Evidence for a global flood in the historical record
a. The event of a global or near-global flood is dramatically attested to by cultures from all around the world.
b. Tales of a global flood from other cultures are not derived from the Biblical texts but appear to be independent traditions that predate the writing of the book of Genesis.
c. The fact that the cultures reporting this massive flood are distributed all around the known world rules out the possibility of only a local flood limited to one particular region or portion of a continent.
d. Moreover, the Old Testament Jewish account, the Mesopotamian Atrahasis, the Sumerian Ziusudra, the Greek Deucalion, the Armenian legend, and the Hawaiian legend all specifically include that the survivors were warned in advance by the gods to build a boat to escape the flood.
i. This also indicates that the flood was not merely local or regional because, if that was the case, then gods could have warned the survivors to leave in advance and escape over land.
ii. These facts prove that the cultures telling the legends understood the flood to be global, not merely local or regional and they reported the stories as global floods.
iii. To reinterpret them in modern times to mere “regional tales” of “local floods” is not accurate to the legends themselves.
e. Historical flood legends from cultures around the world.
i. In Mesopotamia, we find more than one legend of a massive global flood. The first, and probably most famous, is the Epic of Gilgamesh.
“Noah – also spelled Noe, the hero of the biblical Flood story in the Old Testament book of Genesis, the originator of vineyard cultivation, and, as the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the representative head of a Semitic genealogical line…The story of the Flood has close affinities with Babylonian traditions of apocalyptic floods in which Utnapishtim plays the part corresponding to that of Noah. These mythologies are the source of such features of the biblical Flood story as the building and provisioning of the ark, its flotation, and the subsidence of the waters, as well as the part played by the human protagonist. Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh epic introduces Utnapishtim, who, like Noah, survived cosmic destruction by heeding divine instruction to build an ark…Despite the tangible similarities of the Mesopotamian and biblical myths of the flood, the biblical story has a unique Hebraic perspective.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Gilgamesh – The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 BC). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC…The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC and who was thus a contemporary of Agga, ruler of Kish; Gilgamesh of Uruk was also mentioned in the Sumerian list of kings as reigning after the Flood…Afterward, Gilgamesh made a dangerous journey (Tablets IX and X) in search of Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Babylonian Flood, in order to learn from him how to escape death. He finally reached Utnapishtim, who told him the story of the Flood and showed him where to find a plant that would renew youth (Tablet XI). But after Gilgamesh obtained the plant, it was seized by a serpent, and Gilgamesh unhappily returned to Uruk.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Middle Eastern religion, Middle Eastern worldviews and basic religious thought, Views of man and society – In the ancient Middle Eastern worldview, gods could become mortal, and men could become gods. Utnapishtim, the hero of the Babylonian Flood story…After the Flood the biblical Noah won God's goodwill, for “the Lord smelled the pleasing odor” (Genesis 8:21) of the tasty flesh and fowl offered up to him. Noah was following a long tradition, for Utnapishtim (Gilgamesh epic 11:155–161) had, after the Flood, offered sacrifices and libations to the gods who “crowded like flies” as they “smelled the sweet savor.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mesopotamian religion, The literary legacy: myth and epic, Akkadian literature
Epics – The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh seems to have been composed in Old Babylonian times but was reworked by a certain Sin-leqe-unnini later in the 1st millennium BC…After many adventures he reaches his ancestor Utnapishtim, to whom the gods have granted eternal life, but his case proves to be a unique one and so of no help to Gilgamesh. Utnapishtim was rewarded for having saved human and animal life at the time of the great Flood. Eventually, just as Gilgamesh is ready to return home, he is told about a plant that rejuvenates and transforms old people into children. Gilgamesh finds it and begins his return journey. But, as the day is warm, when he passes an inviting pool he leaves his clothes and the plant on the shore and goes in for a swim. A serpent smells the plant, comes out of its hole, and eats it.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Deluge – Stories about great floods occur in the religious tradition of many peoples. A famous account is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. Many scholars believe the Mesopotamian and Biblical accounts are related.” – Contributor: H. Darrell Lance, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Old Testament Interpretation, Colgate Rochester/Bexley/Crozer Theological Seminary.
“Gilgamesh Epic – an important Middle Eastern literary work, written in cuneiform on 12 clay tablets about 2000BC…After Enkidu's death, Gilgamesh seeks out the wise man Utnapishtim to learn the secret of immortality. The sage recounts to Gilgamesh a story of a great flood (the details of which are so remarkably similar to later biblical accounts of the flood that scholars have taken great interest in this story). After much hesitation, Utnapishtim reveals to Gilgamesh that a plant bestowing eternal youth is in the sea. Gilgamesh dives into the water and finds the plant but later loses it to a serpent and, disconsolate, returns to Uruk to end his days.” – "Gilgamesh Epic," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. The second Mesopotamian legend of a massive flood is the legend of Atrahasis.
“Judaism, The Judaic tradition, Jewish myth and legend, Sources and development, Myth and legend in the Old Testament, Myths – Old Testament myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible…The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East and can be paralleled in the extant literature of the peoples of the area…Again, the story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mesopotamian mythology – Other Mesopotamian myths include the story of Atrahasis, a wise man who was saved from the Flood after being warned by one of the gods to build a ship to save himself.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mesopotamian religion, The literary legacy: myth and epic, Akkadian literature, Myths – Also important is an Old Babylonian ‘Myth of Atrahasis,’ which, in motif, shows a relationship with the account of the creation of man to relieve the gods of toil in the ‘Enki and Ninmah’ myth, and with a Sumerian account of the Flood in the ‘Eridu Genesis’…With this, however, Enlil's patience was at an end and he thought of the Flood as a means to get rid of humanity once and for all. Enki, however, warned Atrahasis and had him build a boat in which he saved himself, his family, and all animals. After the Flood had abated and the ship was grounded, Atrahasis sacrificed, and the hungry gods, much chastened, gathered around the offering…The myth uses the motif of the protest of the gods against their hard toil and the creation of humans to relieve it, which was depicted earlier in the Sumerian myth of “Enki and Ninmah,” and also the motif of the Flood, which occurred in the ‘Eridu Genesis.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. The Sumerians also had a flood legend involving a hero named Ziusudra.
“Shuruppak – Shuruppak was celebrated in Sumerian legend as the scene of the Deluge, which destroyed all humanity except one survivor, Ziusudra. He had been commanded by a protecting god to build an ark, in which he rode out the disaster, afterward re-creating man and living things upon the earth, and was himself endowed with eternal life. Ziusudra corresponds with Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic and with the biblical Noah.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. Armenia also has a flood legend.
1. Notice from the last line of the quote that all of the “first race of humans” is reported to have been destroyed by this flood, which indicates the flood was global, not limited to merely one local group.
“Ararat, Mount – Ararat traditionally is associated with the mountain on which Noah's Ark came to rest at the end of the Flood…Ararat is sacred to the Armenians, who believe themselves to be the first race of humans to appear in the world after the Deluge.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
v. Phrygia in Asia Minor also has a flood legend.
1. Notice once again that the flood is reported to have “destroyed humanity,” which indicates that the flood was global and not limited to one population.
“Konya – Konya is one of the oldest urban centres in the world; excavations in Alâeddin Hill in the middle of the city indicate settlement dating from at least the 3rd millennium BC. According to a Phrygian legend of the great flood, Konya was the first city to rise after the deluge that destroyed humanity.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Phrygia – ancient district in west-central Anatolia, named after a people whom the Greeks called Phryges and who dominated Asia Minor between the Hittite collapse (12th century BC) and the Lydian ascendancy (7th century BC). The Phrygians, perhaps of Thracian origin, settled in northwestern Anatolia late in the 2nd millennium…This early civilization borrowed heavily from the Hittites, whom they had replaced, and established a system of roads later utilized by the Persians. About 730 the Assyrians detached the eastern part of the confederation, and the locus of power shifted to Phrygia proper under the rule of the legendary king Midas.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
vi. Greece also has a flood legend.
1. In the Greek version, “the human race” is destroyed, indicating that the phenomenon was not limited to just a local population.
“Lycaon – in Greek mythology, a legendary king of Arcadia. Traditionally, he was an impious and cruel king who tried to trick Zeus, the king of the gods, into eating human flesh. The god was not deceived and in wrath caused a deluge to devastate the earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Deucalion – in Greek mythology, son of the Titan Prometheus. Deucalion was king of Phthia in Thessaly (Thessalia) when the god Zeus, because of the wicked ways of the human race, destroyed them by flood. For nine days and nights Zeus sent torrents of rain. Only Deucalion and his wife, Pyrrha, survived drowning. They were saved because they were the only people who had led good lives and remained faithful to the laws of the gods. Having been warned by his father, Prometheus, of the approaching disaster, Deucalion built a boat, which carried him and Pyrrha safely to rest atop Mount Parnassus. The oracle at Delphia commanded them to cast the bones of their mother over their shoulders. Understanding this to mean the stones of the earth, they obeyed, and from the stones sprang a new race of people.” – "Deucalion," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Deucalion – was the "Noah" of Greek mythology. He was the son of Prometheus, who was a member of the earliest race of gods, called Titans. When Zeus decided to destroy all human beings by a flood because of their wickedness, Prometheus warned Deucalion and Deucalion's wife, Pyrrha. He told them to build a wooden ark. They floated in this ark for nine days until they landed on the top of Mount Parnassus. When the water went down, they were the only living creatures left on the earth…Deucalion and Pyrrha became the ancestors of the Greeks through their son Hellen, for whom the Hellenes (Greeks) were named.” – Contributor: William F. Hansen, Ph.D., Professor of Classical Studies and Folklore, Indiana University.
vii. Moving farther away, China also has a legend of a massive flood.
1. Notice that Chinese history begins with their civilization starting after a massive flood.
“Ta Yu – Pinyin Da Yu (Chinese: “Yü the Great”), in Chinese mythology, the Tamer of the Flood, one of China's saviour-heroes and reputed founder of China's oldest dynasty, the Hsia. One legend among many recounts Ta Yü's extraordinary birth: a man called Kun was given charge of controlling a great deluge.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“The Chinese have a story…it’s one of the oldest stories in the world. It says the father of their civilization is a guy named Fuhi. The story says that Fuhi, his wife, three sons and three daughters escaped a great flood. After the flood, they were the only people alive on earth and they repopulated the world.” – “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 15 minutes, 15 seconds
viii. Even farther away, we find flood legends in North, Central, and South America.
1. Notice from the Central and South American legends in particular that all of the world and all of the previous population of mankind are destroyed, further indicating that the flood was experienced by all of humanity, not just regional groups.
“Iroquois – An elaborate Iroquois cosmology was based on the myth of a woman who fell from the sky, and it featured deluge and earth-diver motifs. No other tribes showed such a preoccupation in their mythology with supernatural aggression and cruelty, sorcery, torture, and cannibalism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Pre-Columbian civilizations, Meso-American civilization, Pre-Classic and Classic periods, Late Classic Lowland Maya (600–900), Classic Maya religion, Creation – The Maya, like other Middle American Indians, believed that several worlds had been successively created and destroyed before the present universe had come into being. The Dresden Codex holds that the end of a world will come about by deluge: although the evidence derived from Landa's Relación and from the Quiché Popol Vuh is not clear, it is likely that four worlds preceded the present one. People were made successively of earth (who, being mindless, were destroyed), then of wood (who, lacking souls and intelligence and being ungrateful to the gods, were punished by being drowned in a flood or devoured by demons), and finally of a corn gruel (the ancestors of the Maya).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Pre-Columbian civilizations, Meso-American civilization, Aztec culture to the time of the Spanish conquest, Aztec religion, Cosmogony and eschatology – The Aztec believed that four worlds had existed before the present universe. Those worlds, or “suns,” had been destroyed by catastrophes. Humankind had been entirely wiped out at the end of each sun. The present world was the fifth sun, and the Aztec thought of themselves as ‘the People of the Sun.’…The fourth sun, Nahui-Atl, “Four-Water,” ended in a gigantic flood that lasted for 52 years. Only one man and one woman survived, sheltered in a huge cypress.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Arts, Native American, Literature, Oral literatures, North American cultures: Southwest, Eastern Woodlands, and Plains, Plains – The last of the Plains tribes, the Comanche, believe that the Great Spirit created some people, but that there were white people existing before them. A flood washed these white people away, and they turned into white birds and flew away. A secondary spirit was then sent to create the Comanche.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Arts, Native American, Literature, Oral literatures, Middle American cultures – The Aztecs of the Toltec period had four mythological eras: those of (1) the Water Sun, which was destroyed by flood…The Inca civilization of Peru has been added to the higher cultures of Meso-America because it resembles them more closely than it does its neighbours, the simpler tribes of South America. As far back as mythological history can be traced, the Incas have worshiped Viracocha, the creator. He was the omnipotent being who took part in every mythological incident…In all of these myths the flood is present, which requires the recreation of man after each incident.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“The Toltec Indians in Mexico have a legend that says ‘the first world lasted 1716 years and was destroyed by a flood that covered the highest mountains.’ Only one family named Coxcox survived.” – “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 15 minutes, 40 seconds
ix. Even as far away as Hawaii, there are flood legends.
“The Hawaiian’s had a legend that said, “Long after the death of Kuniuhonna, the first man, the world became a wicked terrible place to live. There was one good man left; his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. The waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people. Only Nu-u and his family were saved.” – “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 14 minutes, 40 seconds
f. Conclusions about the global flood evidence in the historical record
i. The destruction of the world by a massive if not global flood is attested to by a variety of independent ancient sources around the world.
1. Notice that the last quote below also includes the Japanese as having flood legends, which is a group that was not covered in the quotes above.
“Today there are 270 surviving flood legends…in many cultures that have never heard of the Bible.” – “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 14 minutes, 40 seconds
“Religious myths – The tale of man's creation and moral decline forms part of the myth of the Four Ages (see below Myths of the ages of the world). His subsequent destruction by flood and regeneration from stones is partly based on folktale.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Creation Stories – When the gods decide to destroy their human creations, they do so by sending a flood (see Ancient Middle Eastern Religions; Deluge).” – "Creation Stories," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Nature worship, Elements and forces of nature, Water, Water as primal matter – Myths of a great flood (the Deluge) are widespread over Eurasia and America. This flood, which destroys with a few exceptions a disobedient original population, is an expiation by the water, after which a new type of world is created.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Deluge – A number of ancient nations had folklore that predated the Bible and also made reference to the great flood. An example is the Gilgamesh Epic, an ancient Babylonian story dating from 2000BC and written on 12 cuneiform tablets. It concerns a ruler (Gilgamesh) who, after losing his dearest friend to a mysterious death, seeks out a wise man (Utnapishtim) who is a survivor of the great flood and knows the secret of immortality. Accounts such as this have intrigued biblical scholars because they lend further credence to the later biblical version. Although a number of these scholars have concluded that the biblical narrative is derived from the Babylonian story, it is possible that each was taken from a common earlier source, now lost. Events similar to those described in the biblical story occur also in Greek mythology (see Deucalion). Among other peoples whose folklore and legends contain accounts of a devastating deluge are those of southern Asia, the aborigines of North, Central, and South America, and the natives of Polynesia. The Chinese and Japanese have stories of floods, but these do not, as a rule, destroy the entire earth. Curiously, flood legends do not occur among the ancient inhabitants of the Nile Valley and are not common anywhere else in Africa or in Europe.” – "Deluge," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Legends of a massive flood with only a few survivors after which human civilization was regenerated virtually from scratch exist all around the world…
1. from Mesopotamia to China and Japan to Hawaii to North, Central, and South America and back again to Greece, Phrygia, and Armenia, and Sumeria.
2. (Even the well-known story of Atlantis includes the idea of a great civilation that was destroyed by water.)
iii. In terms of historical attestation, it’s hard to imagine what more we could possibly expect to find than this: the legend of such a massive, flood-based extinction event attested to independently by cultures spanning the globe from east to west.
iv. What we find is exactly what we would expect to find if such a flood did occur.
v. The fact that such a flood-based extinction event is reported in cultures on every continent rules out the suggestion that the flood was merely on a smaller “local” or “regional” level.
vi. And given that a global flood-based extinction event is not incompatible with uniformitarian principles (or even atheism and evolutionary views of religion), there is no grounds for rejecting worldwide historical testimony for such in favor of mere speculations and suppositions from eighteenth and nineteenth century persons, such as Hutton and Lyell, who lived almost 3,500 years after these events.
“Hutton, James – born June 3, 1726, Edinburgh, Scotland, died March 26, 1797, Edinburgh…His chief contribution to scientific knowledge, the uniformitarian principle…Hutton claimed that the totality of these geologic processes could fully explain the current landforms all over the world, and no biblical explanations were necessary in this regard.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Lyell, Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism…Uniformitarianism contradicted the theory of catastrophism, which was popular among scientists of Lyell's time. Catastrophism claimed that only major catastrophes could change the basic formation of the earth, and that the earth was only about 6000 years old. Most scientists believed that catastrophism was consistent with the Bible's account of the earth's creation.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. We can speculate all we want about events 3,500 years ago, but our remote speculation from such a great distance simply cannot overturn the weight of the worldwide record of history.
2. When it comes to the record of history, all that we have is the ample evidence of a global or near-global flood from the historic record spanning from Mesopotamia to Greece, to China, and to the Americas and Hawaii.
3. While we can derive any conclusion we want based upon speculation thousands of years after the fact, the only conclusion that can be derived from the evidence is that there was such a flood.
vii. Consequently, a global or near-global flood cannot be rejected due to geologic principles, philosophical preferences, or a lack of evidence in the historic record.
cxlix. The geologic evidence for a global flood
1. Introduction on geological evidence for a global flood
a. But, perhaps the idea of a global or near-global flood is rejected on the grounds that it contradicts actual geologic evidence.
i. However, this is not the case either.
b. The geologic evidence for a global flood is so massive that it almost dwarfs even the substantial evidence in the historic record.
c. Evidence from the geologic record can be placed into 4 categories:
i. the evidence of rock layers themselves,
ii. the evidence from the mere existence of fossils,
iii. the evidence from the location of fossils,
iv. the evidence for an extremely rapid climate change.
2. Evidence for a global flood provided by rock layers themselves
a. The most obvious and significant fact is that sedimentary rock layers are deposited or laid down by water.
i. This fact is agreed to by uniformitarian, evolutionary geology as indicated by the quotes below.
1. Notice from the first quote that the alternate causes of wind or glacial ice are said to be “less frequent” than water, which is the predominant mechanism for laying down sedimentary rock.
2. The second and third quotes below likewise attest that “Most sedimentary rock” is formed “when grains of clay, silt, or sand settle in river valleys or on the bottoms of lakes and oceans.”
“Sedimentary Rock – Sedimentary Rock, in geology, rock composed of geologically reworked materials, formed by the accumulation and consolidation of mineral and particulate matter deposited by the action of water or, less frequently, wind or glacial ice…Sedimentary rocks are classified according to their manner of origin into mechanical or chemical sedimentary rocks. Mechanical rocks, or fragmental rocks, are composed of mineral particles produced by the mechanical disintegration of other rocks and transported, without chemical deterioration, by flowing water. They are carried into larger bodies of water, where they are deposited in layers. Shale, sandstone, and conglomerate are common sedimentary rocks of mechanical origin. The materials making up chemical sedimentary rocks may consist of the remains of microscopic marine organisms precipitated on the ocean floor, as in the case of limestone. They may also have been dissolved in water circulating through the parent rock formation and then deposited in a sea or lake by precipitation from the solution.” – "Sedimentary Rock," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Sedimentary, rock – Sedimentary, rock pronounced sehd uh MEHN tuhr ee, is rock formed when mineral matter or remains of plants and animals settle out of water or, less commonly, out of air or ice. Sedimentary rock covers about three-fourths of Earth's land area and most of the ocean floor…Most sedimentary rock starts forming when grains of clay, silt, or sand settle in river valleys or on the bottoms of lakes and oceans. Year after year, these minerals collect and form broad, flat layers called beds or strata…Some sedimentary rock forms during the evaporation of water. For example, beds of rock salt were formed in bays cut off from the ocean or in saltwater lakes. As the trapped water evaporated, layers of salt crystals were left behind.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
“Sedimentary rock – rock formed at or near the Earth's surface by the accumulation and lithification of sediment (detrital rock) or by the precipitation from solution at normal surface temperatures (chemical rock)…These processes produce soil, unconsolidated rock detritus, and components dissolved in groundwater and runoff. Any unconsolidated deposit of solid weathered material constitutes sediment. It can form as the result of deposition of grains from moving bodies of water or wind, from the melting of glacial ice, and from the downslope slumping (sliding) of rock and soil masses in response to gravity, as well as by precipitation of the dissolved products of weathering under the conditions of low temperature and pressure that prevail at or near the surface of the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Consequently, water is the predominant mechanism for laying down sedimentary rock.
b. The uppermost portion of earth’s crust is almost entirely a covering of sedimentary rock.
“Igneous rock – The Earth is composed predominantly of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Most methods for determining relative geologic ages are well illustrated in sedimentary rocks. These rocks cover roughly 75 percent of the surface area of the continents, and unconsolidated sediments blanket most of the ocean floor. They provide evidence of former surface conditions and the life-forms that existed under those conditions." – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary rock – rock formed at or near the Earth's surface by the accumulation and lithification of sediment (detrital rock) or by the precipitation from solution at normal surface temperatures (chemical rock). Sedimentary rocks are the most common rocks exposed on the Earth's surface but are only a minor constituent of the entire crust, which is dominated by igneous and metamorphic rocks…Sediments and sedimentary rocks are confined to the Earth's crust, which is the thin, light outer solid skin of the Earth ranging in thickness from 40–100 kilometres (25 to 62 miles) in the continental blocks to 4–10 kilometres in the ocean basins. Igneous and metamorphic rocks constitute thebulk of the crust. The total volume of sediment and sedimentary rocks can be either directly measured using exposed rock sequences, drill-hole data, and seismic profiles or indirectly estimated by comparing the chemistry of major sedimentary rock types to the overall chemistry of the crust from which they are weathered. Both methods indicate that the Earth's sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only about 5 percent by volume of the terrestrial crust, which in turn accounts for less than 1 percent of the Earth's total volume. On the other hand, the area of outcrop and exposure of sediment and sedimentary rock comprises 75 percent of the land surface and well over 90 percent of the ocean basins and continental margins. In other words, 80–90 percent of the surface area of the Earth is mantled with sediment or sedimentary rocks rather than with igneous or metamorphic varieties. The sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only a thin superficial layer. The mean shell thickness in continental areas is 1.8 kilometres; the sediment shell in the ocean basins is roughly 0.3 kilometre. Rearranging this shell as a globally encircling layer (and depending on the raw estimates incorporated into the model), the shell thickness would be roughly 1–3 kilometres. Despite the relatively insignificant volume of the sedimentary rock shell, not only are most rocks exposed at the terrestrial surface of the sedimentary variety, but many of the significant events in Earth history are most accurately dated and documented by analyzing and interpreting the sedimentary rock record instead of the more voluminous igneous and metamorphic rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary, rock – Sedimentary, rock pronounced sehd uh MEHN tuhr ee, is rock formed when mineral matter or remains of plants and animals settle out of water or, less commonly, out of air or ice. Sedimentary rock covers about three-fourths of Earth's land area and most of the ocean floor.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
i. Therefore, it is simply a matter of fact that almost all of the earth’s crust is covered by a thin layer of rock that was laid down by water.
1. Rivers and lakes are smaller local phenomenon.
a. Their ability to disperse sedimentary rock, although perhaps powerful (as in the case of the Mississippi Delta) is limited to particular locations.
b. It is certainly possible that rivers and lakes contributed to isolated, local deposits.
c. Since nearly the entire surface of the earth is covered with sedimentary rock, there is no way for rivers and lakes to have been responsible for the majority of sedimentary rock layers.
2. The only way for most of the earth’s surface to be covered with sedimentary rock layers is if all areas of the earth were at one time covered by ocean water.
a. On this point, there are only 2 options.
i. Either all portions of the earth’s surface were covered by ocean water at different times
ii. All portions of the earth’s surface were covered by ocean waters at the same time.
c. Conclusions about evidence from the rock layers for a global flood.
i. The fact that almost the entire surface of the earth is covered by rock that is predominantly laid down by water is certainly consistent with and suggestive of a global flood.
ii. The fact that lakes or rivers could not have produced such a global “veneer” of sedimentary rock rules out the possibility that covering of sedimentary rock was formed through slow, gradual, uniform processes such as erosion in rivers or lakes, etc.
iii. The sedimentary rock layers that cover the earth are evidence that massive amounts of water covered all the various portions of the earth at some time.
iv. If all that we had was the worldwide independent testimonies of a global flood from the historic record and the coating of the earth with a form of rock that is predominantly laid down by water, we would be forced to conclude that the earth’s history contained at least one massive global or near-global flooding event.
v. The only thing preventing the very rational and observationally unavoidable conclusion of a global flood is some yet unidentified reason that is not part of geologic or general philosophical principles.
1. It is hard to reject such an observationally-driven and well-evidenced conclusion based on merely an unknown, shadowy aversion.
vi. Rejecting global flood on such vague grounds continues to be even harder given the fact that there is even more physical, geologic evidence for such a flood.
3. Evidence for a global or near-global flood provided by the existence of fossils, there are 3 obvious and significant facts.
a. First, almost all of earth’s fossils are found in sedimentary rock.
i. This means that almost all of earth’s fossils are found in the thin veneer of sedimentary rock at the top of earth’s crust that was deposited by vast amounts of water.
“Fossil, I INTRODUCTION – Fossil, remains or traces of prehistoric plants and animals, buried and preserved in sedimentary rock, or trapped in organic matter…Fossils are most commonly found in limestone, sandstone, and shale (sedimentary rock).” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. These fossils formed from plant or animal remains that were quickly buried in sediments-the mud or sand that collects at the bottom of rivers, lakes, swamps, and oceans. After thousands of years, the weight of upper layers of sediment pressing down on the lower layers turned them into rock (see SEDIMENTARY ROCK).” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary, rock – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The fossils formed when sediments covered dead plants and animals. As the sediments changed to rock, either the remains or the outlines of the plants and animals were preserved. Some limestone is made entirely of fossil shells. See FOSSIL.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
“Sedimentary rock – Despite the relatively insignificant volume of the sedimentary rock shell, not only are most rocks exposed at the terrestrial surface of the sedimentary variety, but many of the significant events in Earth history are most accurately dated and documented by analyzing and interpreting the sedimentary rock record instead of the more voluminous igneous and metamorphic rock record. When properly understood and interpreted, sedimentary rocks provide information on ancient geography, termed paleogeography…Sedimentary rocks contain the fossil record of ancient life-forms that enables the documentation of the evolutionary advancement from simple to complex organisms in the plant and animal kingdoms.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different species.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
"Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – In order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists use three simple principles…The third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils in sedimentary rock." – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Second, fossils are formed when organisms are buried when sedimentary rock layers are being laid down.
“Fossil, I INTRODUCTION – Fossil, remains or traces of prehistoric plants and animals, buried and preserved in sedimentary rock, or trapped in organic matter…Fossils are most commonly found in limestone, sandstone, and shale (sedimentary rock).” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. These fossils formed from plant or animal remains that were quickly buried in sediments-the mud or sand that collects at the bottom of rivers, lakes, swamps, and oceans. After thousands of years, the weight of upper layers of sediment pressing down on the lower layers turned them into rock (see SEDIMENTARY ROCK).” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Sedimentary, rock – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The fossils formed when sediments covered dead plants and animals. As the sediments changed to rock, either the remains or the outlines of the plants and animals were preserved. Some limestone is made entirely of fossil shells. See FOSSIL.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
c. Third, the vast, vast majority of organisms do not form fossils because in order to become a fossil, an organism must be buried quickly.
“Fossil, How fossils form – The great majority of plants and animals die and decay without leaving any trace in the fossil record. Bacteria and other microorganisms break down such soft tissues as leaves or flesh. As a result, these tissues rarely leave fossil records. Even most hard parts, such as bones, teeth, shells, or wood, are eventually worn away by moving water or dissolved by chemicals. But when plant or animal remains have been buried in sediment, they may become fossilized.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Fossil – In general, for an organism to be preserved two conditions must be met: rapid burial to retard decomposition and to prevent the ravaging of scavengers; and possession of hard parts capable of being fossilized.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rocks. These fossils formed from plant or animal remains that were quickly buried in sediments-the mud or sand that collects at the bottom of rivers, lakes, swamps, and oceans. After thousands of years, the weight of upper layers of sediment pressing down on the lower layers turned them into rock (see SEDIMENTARY ROCK).” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
i. The presence of fossils in sedimentary rock actually demonstrates that sedimentary rock layers were not laid down slowly over long periods of time by gradual, normative physical processes such as erosion.
ii. Such processes are too slow to bury organisms rapidly in order for them to be preserved as fossils.
iii. Thus, not only do fossils require rapid burial but, in direct contradiction of uniformitarianism, the sedimentary rocks that contain fossils also had to have been formed extremely rapidly.
d. Fourth, it is acknowledged scientific fact that most fossils are admittedly formed in a watery environment.
“Fossil – The great majority of fossils are preserved in a water environment because land remains are more easily destroyed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil, How fossils form – Fossils may be preserved in several ways. The main processes of fossilization are (1) the formation of impressions, molds, and casts; (2) carbonization; and (3) the action of minerals…Molds form after hard parts have been buried in mud, clay, or other material that turns to stone. Later, water dissolves the buried hard part, leaving a mold-a hollow space in the shape of the original hard part-inside the rock. A cast forms when water containing dissolved minerals and other fine particles later drains through a mold. The water deposits these substances, which eventually fill the mold, forming a copy of the original hard part. Many seashells are preserved as molds or casts…The action of minerals – Many plants and animals became fossilized after water that contained minerals soaked into the pores of the original hard parts. This action is called petrifaction. In many such fossils, some or all of the original material remains, but it has been strengthened and preserved by the minerals. This process is called permineralization. The huge tree trunks in the Petrified Forest of Arizona were preserved by permineralization. In other cases, the minerals in the water totally replaced the original plant or animal part. This process, called replacement, involves two events that happen at the same time: The water dissolves the compounds that make up the original material, while the minerals are deposited in their place.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
i. “The great majority of fossils are preserved in a water environment because land remains are more easily destroyed.”
ii. Yet, we do have an enormous amount of fossilized remains from land organisms.
iii. Remains do not fossilize unless under water and sedimentary rock layers, which are where fossils are found, only form in water.
iv. This indicates that both the fossilized land organisms and the land in which they are fossilized were covered with water at their time of death.
v. The rapid burial of land organisms in a watery environment and in rocks that are laid down by water is strong physical evidence for a global flood.
e. Conclusions about evidence for a global flood from fossils
i. If all that we had was the worldwide independent testimonies of a global flood from the historic record, the coating of the earth with a form of rock that is predominantly laid down by water, and the fact that we have numerous land organisms that must have died and been quickly buried in rock layers laid down by water, we would be forced to conclude that the earth’s history contained at least one massive global or near-global flooding event.
ii. Since neither uniformitarian geologic nor evolution or even atheistic philosophical principles prohibit the acceptance of a global flood, with all this evidence, the question remains as to what the elusive reason is for rejecting such a flood.
4. The evidence for a global flood provided by the location of the fossils.
a. Both the fossils and the rock layers that contain them must be formed quickly.
b. Fossils were formed and distributed in out-of-place locations around the world meaning that animals died and were quickly buried in rock layers in places that those types of organisms don’t belong.
i. First, geographic areas that are presently land-locked contain marine fossils.
1. This indicates that areas, which are inland today, were once under water.
“Geology, History – In the 400's B.C., the historian Herodotus observed how water shapes the land. He understood that land at the mouth of the Nile River had formed from sand and mud deposited by the river. He also believed that marine fossils found in Lower Egypt were evidence that the sea had once covered the land.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
a. For example, fossilized oysters have been found in Kansas.
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past, Recording changes in the earth – Paleontologists use fossils to determine how the earth's climate and landscape have changed over millions of years…Paleontologists have found fossil oysters in Kansas and other areas that are far inland today. Such fossils reveal that a shallow sea once spread over these areas.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
ii. Similarly, not only are marine fossils deposited inland, but sometimes marine rock formations exist over rock formations made by rivers, indicating that the area was once covered by ocean water.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – The principle of superposition states that, in an undeformed sequence of strata, younger strata lie on top of older strata…For example, where marine-deposited rock lies above river-deposited rock, geologists reason that the site evolved from a river environment to a marine environment during the period when the sediments were deposited. Either the land sank, or the sea rose.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. For example, there are 6,000 meters of exposed marine limestone in Nevada.
“Stratigraphy, IV HISTORIC IMPORTANCE OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy developed in England during the early 1800s with the work of a land surveyor named William Smith…For example, sedimentation rates of marine limestone not deposited on reefs typically range from about 2 to 20 cm (about 0.8 to 8 in) per thousand years. At these rates, about 6000 m (20,000 ft) of marine limestone exposed as tilted beds in southern Nevada required at least 30 to 300 million years of continuous deposition.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. In addition, marine fossils have been found on mountaintops.
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past – In the distant past, when most fossils formed, the world was different from today. Plants and animals that have long since vanished inhabited the waters and land. A region now covered with high mountains may have been the floor of an ancient sea.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – Fossils are found in all parts of the world, from Greenland to Antarctica. They can be found in cores drilled in and retrieved from the ocean floor, and on top of the highest mountains. Their wide geographical distribution is a result of the way the earth's surface has changed throughout its history.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. This indicates that those mountaintops were once under water and that the mountains have risen higher since then.
iv. Furthermore, polar regions have tropical fossils, indicating that the whole earth may have at one point had a tropical climate.
c. The out of place location of fossils strongly supports a global flood by indicating that organisms were quickly buried by water all over the earth including places that are not under water today.
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past – In the distant past, when most fossils formed, the world was different from today…Where a lush tropical forest thrived millions of years ago, there may now be a cool, dry plain.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – Fossils are found in all parts of the world, from Greenland to Antarctica…Their wide geographical distribution is a result of the way the earth's surface has changed throughout its history…Some land that is now in the polar regions was once closer to the equator, and many modern mountain ranges were once under water.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil, IV LEARNING FROM FOSSILS, A Evolution – Because of the movement of the earth's tectonic plates, most continents have drifted through various climatic zones over geological time. As a result, a particular region may have passed more than once through equatorial regions with rain forests, through tropical latitudes with deserts, and through temperate zones. The fossil record suggests that climatic variation is greater now than it was during the Jurassic Period. In Antarctica, Australia, and New Zealand, which were all close to the South Pole during the Jurassic Period, fossils of plants and animals that are normally associated with warm climates have been found.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past, Recording changes in the earth – Paleontologists use fossils to determine how the earth's climate and landscape have changed over millions of years. For instance, they have found fossils of tropical palm trees in Wyoming, an area that has a cool climate today. These fossils indicate that the climate in that area has cooled.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
5. The evidence indicates that this climate change was not slow and gradual as uniformitarianism asserts but instead was extremely rapid.
a. In Alaska and Siberia, mammoths froze quick enough to have their “soft” organic parts and their “last meals” preserved.
“Fossil, How fossils form – In Alaska and in Siberia, a region in northern Asia, woolly mammoths thousands of years old have been found frozen in the ground. Their hair, skin, flesh, and internal organs have been preserved as they were when the mammoths died.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Fossil, II PROCESSES OF FOSSILIZATION, E Soft-Tissue Preservation – The soft tissues of animals are preserved only under extremely unusual conditions, and the preserved tissue usually lasts for only a short period of geological time. In the Siberian permafrost (earth that remains frozen year-round), for example, entire mammoths have been preserved in ice for thousands of years. The remains of the mammoths' last meals have sometimes been preserved in the stomachs, allowing paleontologists to study the animals' diet.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. When we consider the evidence what might have caused the earth’s climate to change rapidly enough to preserve the soft tissue of mammoths, including their “last meals,” we find further evidence that the outer veneer of sedimentary rock was formed rapidly.
b. This evidence for a global flood from quick fossil formation from the role that carbon dioxide gas plays in climate and temperature.
i. The amount of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere determines how warm the global climate is overall
“Earth [planet], Earth's changing climate – Many scientists also believe that variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are responsible for long-term changes in the climate. Carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas," traps heat from the sun and warms Earth's atmosphere. Most of Earth's carbon dioxide is locked in carbonate rocks, such as limestone and dolomite. Earth's climate today would be much warmer if the carbon dioxide trapped in limestone were released into the atmosphere.” – Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Chemical compound, Inorganic compounds, Oxides, Nonmetal oxides, Oxides of carbon, Carbon dioxide – The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has significantly increased in the last several years largely because of the burning of fossil fuels…There is increasing concern that the resulting increased heat in the atmosphere could cause the Earth's average temperature to increase 2° to 3° C over a period of time. This change would have a serious impact on the environment, affecting climate, ocean levels, and agriculture.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Paleoclimatology – Changes in atmospheric chemistry affect climate in a number of ways. Oxygen, ozone, and carbon dioxide levels have varied throughout time, with corresponding effects on solar heat absorption and, therefore, on global temperature. High carbon dioxide levels trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere, leading to a greenhouse effect.” – "Paleoclimatology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Environment, VI Current Issues, B Global Warming – Like the glass panes in a greenhouse, certain gases in the earth's atmosphere permit the sun's radiation to heat the earth but retard the escape into space of the infrared energy radiated back out by the earth. This process is referred to as the greenhouse effect. These gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, insulate the earth's surface, helping to maintain warm temperatures. Without these gases, the earth would be a frozen planet with an average temperature of about -18° C (about 0° F) instead of a comfortable 15° C (59° F). If the concentration of these gases were higher, more heat would be trapped within the atmosphere, and worldwide temperatures would rise.” – "Environment," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. A very large amount of the earth’s carbon dioxide is buried in sedimentary rock, which as we have seen would have had to be laid down very rapidly in order to form fossils.
“Earth [planet], Earth's changing climate – Many scientists also believe that variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are responsible for long-term changes in the climate. Carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas," traps heat from the sun and warms Earth's atmosphere. Most of Earth's carbon dioxide is locked in carbonate rocks, such as limestone and dolomite. Earth's climate today would be much warmer if the carbon dioxide trapped in limestone were released into the atmosphere.” – Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
"Atmosphere, Composition of the present atmosphere, Major components of the lower atmosphere, Distribution of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen compounds, Carbon compounds – The bulk of the Earth's volatile carbon resides in sediments, either as organic carbon or as a component of carbonate minerals such as calcite, CaCO3.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. So, not only did the outer veneer of sedimentary rock have to form rapidly in order to preserve the fossils, but the outer veneer of sedimentary rock would have to form rapidly in order to quickly remove “most of earth’s carbon dioxide” and explain a cooling of climate so equally rapid as to preserve the soft tissue and undigested food of mammoths.
c. Conclusions about the evidence for a global flood from evidence of a rapid climate shift
i. Once again, if all that we had was the worldwide independent testimonies of a global flood from the historic record, the coating of the earth with a form of rock that is predominantly laid down by water, the fact that we have numerous land organisms that must have died and been quickly buried in rock layers laid down by water, the location of marine fossils on mountaintops and deep inland, and evidence for an extremely fast cooling of the climate as large amounts of carbon dioxide gas were quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers, we would be forced to conclude that the earth’s history contained at least one massive global or near-global flooding event.
ii. All of these facts are consistent with the idea of a global flood, such as the one described in the Bible, which even includes a climate shift.
1. In the Biblical account, the first mention of cold and winter come after the Flood, indicating that the global climate before the flood was much warmer all around.
Genesis 8:15 And God spake unto Noah, saying, 16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth…22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
iii. When we compare the Judeo-Christian scripture as a historical record, we find that it is accurate even concerning its description and prediction of a rapid climate shift, which is now indicated by the observable physical evidence.
6. Conclusions about the evidences for a global flood from history and geology
a. We can also consider this issue in terms of a theory’s ability to make predictions.
i. If a global or near-global flood did occur, what predictions would that lead to?
ii. Would we expect to see accounts of a global flood in cultures in every hemisphere? We do.
iii. Would we expect to see multitudes of organisms rapidly buried in rock formations also laid down by water very rapidly? We do.
iv. Would we expect to see fossil and mineral evidence that marine (ocean or sea) water covered regions far inland and the tops of the mountains? We do.
b. If we consider the record of a flood as a hypothesis, we find that it not only makes predictions but that those predictions are confirmed exactly by the observable evidence.
483 Conclusions about our key questions for why a global flood might be rejected.
cl. The first question was general – Why isn’t a global or near-global flood accepted within uniformitarian geology?
1. (The remaining 3 questions were more specific.)
cli. “Is a global Flood with a mass extinction incompatible and unacceptable within uniformitarian geologic principles?”
1. The answer was “no,” a global flood and an accompanying mass extinction are in no way incompatible with uniformitarian or geologic principles.
a. Floods, mass extinctions caused by unique catastrophic events, and even a world covered by ice are all accepted within the uniformitarian and evolutionary views.
b. There is no reason that global flooding could not be considered to be semi-regular just as ice ages are under uniformitarian principles.
clii. “Does accepting a global Flood require accepting or believing in God?”
1. The answer to this question was also “no.”
a. Cultures deemed “primitive” attribute all kinds of natural phenomena and natural disasters to deities.
b. Yet, all these natural events are accepted as real events by evolutionists, uniformitarians, and even atheists alike, even though they reject any divine causation for such events.
cliii. “Is there simply no evidence or not enough evidence to support or suggest a global or near global Flood?”
1. The answer to this question is “no.”
a. There is more than ample evidence from both the historic and geologic record to substantiate the occurrence of a massive global or near-global flood in earth’s recent geologic history.
b. this evidence includes:
i. independent, worldwide accounts of a global flood resulting in the destruction and subsequent restart of human civilization,
ii. the need for fossils to be buried rapidly,
iii. the subsequent need for sedimentary rock to be laid down rapidly enough to form fossils,
iv. the fact that fossils are formed primarily in watery environments,
v. the fact that marine fossils and marine rock formations were formed quickly in watery environments in places that are deep inland or on mountaintops,
vi. the fact that there was a rapid cooling of the climate requiring the rapid burial of large amounts of carbon dioxide in sedimentary rock layers.
cliv. Since neither uniformitarian geologic nor evolution or even atheistic philosophical principles prohibit the acceptance of a global flood, and with all this massive historic and geologic evidence, the nagging question still remains:
1. If a global flood is compatible with uniformitarianism, does not require belief in god, and is supported by vast amounts of historical and geological evidence, why is a global flood rejected?
clv. The significance of a global flood on evolutionary theory and supportive “proofs” – A global flood is rejected precisely because it explains too much of the evidence.
1. If sedimentary rock layers were laid down quickly rather than gradually, and the climate changed rapidly rather than slowly, and the fossils around the world resulted from these rapid events, then what evidence is left for an earth that is hundreds of millions or billions of years old? None.
2. The occurrence of a global or near-global flood would indicate that the rock strata or layers around the earth formed quickly, rather than slowly, and the fossils in them likewise formed within that short timeframe, the occurrence of a global flood would simply demolish relative dating schemes, which are based upon assigning distinct, long ages to different rock layers.
3. The occurrence of a global flood would also significantly incapacitate many of the central absolute dating methods.
a. For instance, the removal of larger amounts of carbon dioxide would dramatically affect the carbon-14 ratio necessary to calculate absolute ages.
b. And the volcanic activity that would trigger heating events in igneous and metamorphic rocks would drastically affect the isotope ratios for other absolute dating processes as well.
484 Summary regarding uniformitarianism and the rejection of a global flood catastrophe
clvi. Uniformitarianism, which is the direct basis for relative dating methods and the indirect basis for radiometric dating methods, is simply an un-provable assumption.
clvii. The alternative catastrophic view of creationism has been directly observed.
clviii. Far from being able to deny or reject catastrophism in principle, uniformitarianism actually acknowledges the role of major catastrophes and abandons its claim that only slow, gradual processes play a significant role in forming the geologic features of the earth and in causing major extinction events.
clix. Uniformitarianism, evolution, and atheism have no principle or reason to reject the massive, worldwide historical and geologic evidence for a global or near-global flood in the relatively recent past.
clx. The rejection of a catastrophic global flood reveals the drastic and stubborn unscientific bias behind evolutionary geology.
1. The Flood cannot be rejected on the grounds that it is compatible with uniformitarian geology.
2. The Flood cannot be rejected on the grounds that it requires belief in divine beings.
3. The Flood cannot be rejected on the grounds that there is no evidence for it.
a. There is vast geologic and historic evidence of a Flood.
4. The only reason that the Flood is rejected is because it removes sedimentary rock, fossils, and the main forms of absolute dating from being indicators of the earth’s age.
a. Since these 3 items (sedimentary rock, fossils, and absolute dating) are the only 3 avenues of evidence used to indicate a very long age of the earth, this would leave the evolutionary theory that the earth is millions or billions of years old entirely without any support.
5. So far, we have seen that
a. Evolutionary theory remains a theory that…
i. Is without supportive evidence,
ii. Is contradicted by the supportive evidence,
iii. Exists soley on the basis of philosophical preference in denial of the positive evidence for teleology.
iv. Is based upon an assumed, blind faith and preference.
b. Creation theory…
i. Is not philosophical preference but the rational deduction from what is actually observed.
ii. Is based upon an objective, scientific analysis of actual evidence.
485 Looking ahead
486 We will see that even relative dating methods and radiometric dating methods (such as carbon-14 or potassium-argon dating), provide no evidence that the earth is more than a several thousand years old and that its features were formed, not slowly, but rapidly as a result of this well-attested, catastrophic, global flood.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Relative Dating
487 Basic vocabulary and concepts of relative dating
488 Stratification
489 The rocky surface of the earth is distributed in layers or strata.
490 This stratification of rocks into layers is the “essence” of relative dating.
491 The term stratigraphy is commonly used as a synonym for relative dating.
“Archaeology, Interpretation, Classification and analysis, Dating – Stratigraphy is the essence of relative dating.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – The relative scale was devised mainly by application of the principles of stratigraphy. An example of these is the law of superposition, which simply states that in an undisturbed succession of strata, the youngest beds are on top and the oldest on bottom (or, the higher beds are younger than the lower).” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The stratification of rocks into layers is so crucial to relative dating that relative dating is sometimes refered to as “chronostratigraphic” dating.
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic, and the other is absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic scale has evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns the relative order of strata.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Rock stratification is also indirectly crucial to absolute dating methods due to the fact that absolute dating actually depends on relative dating.
6. Rock stratification simply refers to the primarily horizontal, but at least parallel, layers in which rocks are found.
“Geology, V Fields of Geology, B Historical Geology, B1 Stratigraphy – Stratigraphy is the study of the history of the earth's crust, particularly its stratified (layered) rocks. Stratigraphy is concerned with determining age relationships of rocks as well as their distribution in space and time. Rocks may be studied in an outcrop but commonly are studied from drilled cores (samples that have been collected by drilling into the earth). Most of the earth's surface is covered with sediment or layered rocks that record much of geologic history; this is what makes stratigraphy important.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history. The principle of original horizontality states that the sediments that form sedimentary rocks are usually deposited in approximately horizontal sheets.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, The rock dispute – Nicolaus Steno, a Danish physician, published a key observation in 1669. He discovered that strata (layers) of rock in oceans and lakes are always deposited horizontally. Thus, the oldest layers usually lie on the bottom, and the youngest layers sit on the top. This tendency, called the law of superposition, helps scientists determine the order in which geologic events occurred.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
"Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – The relative scale was devised mainly by application of the principles of stratigraphy. An example of these is the law of superposition, which simply states that in an undisturbed succession of strata, the youngest beds are on top and the oldest on bottom (or, the higher beds are younger than the lower).” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
clxi. “outcrop”
1. An outcrop is where bedrock becomes visible at the surface, such as at the side of a cliff.
2. At outcrops the stratification of rocks becomes visible.
“Outcrop – Function: intransitive verb 1: to project from the surrounding soil (ledges outcropping from the eroded slope) 2: to come to the surface: appear.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Outcrop – Function: noun 1: a coming out of bedrock or of an unconsolidated deposit to the surface of the ground 2: the part of a rock formation that appears at the surface of the ground.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
clxii. The law of superposition is…
1. the foundation of relative dating
2. that the oldest rock layers are lower in rock formations and the youngest rock layers are higher up.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of superposition states that, in an undeformed sequence of strata, younger strata lie on top of older strata. Strata are sheets of sedimentary rock that, as a group, are visibly distinct from those above or below (see Bed). This principle results from the simple observation that new sediment settles on top of previously deposited sediment. Consequently, strata are deposited sequentially, sheet after sheet. By using this principle, geologists can reconstruct geologic history as recorded in the sedimentary rocks.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these sequences. The scale they create is based on The Law of Superposition, which states that in a regular series of sedimentary rock strata, or layers, the oldest strata will be at the bottom, and the younger strata will be on top. Danish geologist Nicolaus Steno (also called Niels Stensen) used the idea of uniformity of physical processes. Steno noted that sediment was denser than liquid or air, so it settled until it reached another solid. The newer sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled upon. Since this is what happens in the world today, it should also determine how rock layers formed in the past.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – The sequence of a layered sedimentary series is easily defined because deposition always proceeds from the bottom to the top. This principle would seem self-evident, but its first enunciation more than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented an enormous advance in understanding. Known as the principle of superposition, it holds that in a series of sedimentary layers or superposed lava flows the oldest layer is at the bottom, and layers from there upward become progressively younger.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. The law of superposition indicates which layers formed first at individual sites, superposition cannot connect the layers at one geographic location to the layers at another.
a. To arrange rock layers on a large geographic scale, in effect linking the ages of layers at one site to the layers at another site, evolutionary scientists use the characteristics of the artifacts or fossils found at each site.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Relative dating relies on the principle of superposition. This principle states that deeper layers in a stratified sequence of naturally or humanly deposited earth are older than shallower layers. In other words, the uppermost layer is the most recent, and each deeper layer is somewhat older. Relative chronologies come from two sources: (1) careful stratigraphic excavation in the field, noting the precise location of every artifact and remain within layers of earth; and (2) close study of the characteristics of artifacts themselves.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
492 Several basic obstacles to relative dating – things relative dating cannot do
493 Relative dating cannot give an age for a rock
494 All that relative dating can produce is an indication of which fossils were buried first at a particular location.
495 (i.e., the order of burial)
496 It cannot in any way indicate how long ago they were buried or how long before or after other fossils they were buried.
497 Relative dating cannot provide a large-scale (or worldwide) order of rock layers and fossils
498 Superposition can only allow for ordering rocks and fossils at an individual site
499 However, there are insurmountable problems that prevent constructing any age sequence or order for fossils at different sites or on a global scale.
500 (We’ll explore this more later, but these obstacles involve an inherent need for circular reasoning in order to get any results.)
501 Reasons relative dating cannot indicate a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history because…
502 Relative dating is based on limited information
503 Relative dating is limited regarding how far back in time it can date rocks or fossils (even on a theoretical level.)
504 Relative dating can only be used to date 13 percent of earth’s history or 500-600 million years this is because…
505 Relative dating relies upon fossils for dating.
506 The earliest 87 percent of earth’s history did not produce a sufficient amount of fossils necessary for dating through relative dating methods.
507 Therefore, relative dating can only be used to date the most recent 13 percent of earth’s history.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application – Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding the Cambrian period—the Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. The earth is believed by evolutionists to be 4.6 billion years old.
“Earth, geologic history of, The pregeologic period – The history of the Earth spans approximately 4.6 billion years…It is widely accepted by both geologists and astronomers that the Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth [planet] – Age of Earth. Scientists think that Earth probably formed at about the same time as the rest of the solar system. They have determined that some chondrite meteorites, the unaltered remains from the formation of the solar system, are up to 4.6 billion years old. Scientists believe that Earth and other planets are probably that old.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Geology – Earth probably formed about 4 1/2 billion years ago, and it has been changing ever since.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
1. 87 percent of 4.6 billion years is about 4.002 billion years.
2. 13 percent of 4.6 billion years is 598 million years.
3. Fossils only become abundant enough for relative dating to work in about the last 500-600 million years.
“Geology, V FIELDS OF GEOLOGY, B Historical, B4 Paleontology and Paleobiology – The oldest fossils are older than 3 billion years, although fossils do not become abundant and diverse until about 500 million years ago.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy – In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils to determine geologic time. British surveyor William Smith and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned that in a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic time. This principle is called fossil succession. Smith and Cuvier also noted that unique fossils were characteristic of different layers. Biostratigraphy is most useful for determining geologic time during the Phanerozoic Eon (Greek phaneros, "evident"; zoic, "life"), the time of visible and abundant fossil life that has lasted for about the past 570 million years.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
4. Sufficient fossils for relative dating do not arrive until around 570 million years ago.
5. These dates of somewhere between 570 to 598 million years ago corresponds roughly to the start of the Cambrian Period
a. See the following chart of the geologic column.
[pic]
[PHOTO CAPTION: © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. "Geologic Time Scale," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
ii. The Pre-Cambrian Period is largely devoid of indicative fossils since sufficient fossils for relative dating do not arrive until roughly the start of the Cambrian Period
1. The term “Precambrian” refers roughly to…
a. the first 4 billion years of earth’s history,
b. a long period in which there is not enough fossils for relative dating
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application – Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding the Cambrian period—the Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. It is “virtually impossible” to date the earth using relative dating for even the 570 million years that we do have fossils for because…
a. the existing fossil record that we do have contains…
i. many “variations,”
ii. “different accumulation rates,”
iii. “discontinuities,”
iv. “unconformities,”
v. “breaks,”
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that, if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered, the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments or the fact that there are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods of erosion? Clearly sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique. Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. “Nevertheless” many attempts” “were made” to construct a time scheme from the fossil record despite the “virtual impossibility” of doing so
i. Many methods for dating the earth are still based upon this flawed approach.
c. In summary
i. the nature of the fossil record is such that…
1. it cannot be used to construct an estimate of the earth’s age
a. beyond 570 million years at all
b. even in the past 570 million years
2. it is impossible to use the fossil record to construct an age sequence for the stratification and fossils in rock layers
ii. this is because relative dating relies on the fossil record, which…
1. only goes back 570 million years at most
2. has many breaks and gaps
5. Relative dating cannot indicate how long ago fossils were buried, how long before other fossils they were buried, or a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history because…
a. Relative dating can only provide an order, not a rate, a duration of intervals, or an age.
b. The law of superposition simply asserts that lower rock layers are “older and higher rock layers are “younger.”
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of superposition states that, in an undeformed sequence of strata, younger strata lie on top of older strata. Strata are sheets of sedimentary rock that, as a group, are visibly distinct from those above or below (see Bed). This principle results from the simple observation that new sediment settles on top of previously deposited sediment. Consequently, strata are deposited sequentially, sheet after sheet. By using this principle, geologists can reconstruct geologic history as recorded in the sedimentary rocks.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these sequences. The scale they create is based on The Law of Superposition, which states that in a regular series of sedimentary rock strata, or layers, the oldest strata will be at the bottom, and the younger strata will be on top. Danish geologist Nicolaus Steno (also called Niels Stensen) used the idea of uniformity of physical processes. Steno noted that sediment was denser than liquid or air, so it settled until it reached another solid. The newer sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled upon. Since this is what happens in the world today, it should also determine how rock layers formed in the past.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – The sequence of a layered sedimentary series is easily defined because deposition always proceeds from the bottom to the top. This principle would seem self-evident, but its first enunciation more than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented an enormous advance in understanding. Known as the principle of superposition, it holds that in a series of sedimentary layers or superposed lava flows the oldest layer is at the bottom, and layers from there upward become progressively younger.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. All three of the quotes above explicitly use the terms “older” and “younger” regarding the law of superposition and the age of rock layers.
c. The use of the terms “younger” and “older” gives or may give rise to a misportrayal of the evidence of what superposition tells us.
i. What superposition can tell us…
1. The lower layers are typically laid down first and higher layers are laid down last.
a. (Unless perhaps, some natural process has flipped the rock formation over or sideways.)
2. Therefore, the adjective “older” simply denotes the layers that were laid down first while the adjective “younger” denotes the layers that were laid down later.
3. Thus, the rocks are only “dated” “relatively,” that is in relation to each other.
a. i.e., lower rocks are said to be older than higher rocks
ii. What superposition CANNOT tell us…
1. The observation that some rock layers are lower than others cannot tell us…
a. “how old” these layers are in terms of years
b. when they were laid down in terms of years
c. whether that was a long time ago or recently.
d. how much time past between the laying down of one layer and the laying down of the next.
2. No years or numbers for ages or dates of the rocks can be indicated by relative dating
iii. Misleading phrases
1. Examples from quotes:
a. “By using this principle, geologists can reconstruct geologic history,”
b. “how rock layers formed in the past”
c. “layers from there upward become progressively younger,”
2. In these types of phrases “older” can be take to…
a. no longer simply designate which layer was laid down first
b. mean “much older” and “very old,”
c. mean old enough to “reconstruct history”
d. mean old enough to be categorized as part of “the past,” even earth’s distant past.
iv. Tracing the misperception
1. The discussion starts off by establishing “older” and “younger” in terms of a very agreeable fact that lower layers were laid down before higher layers,
2. Somewhere in the midst of the discussion the meaning of the terms get switched
a. the simple fact that some layers are lower somehow indicates great age and a formation long ago.
v. Illustration of equivocations and relative dating.
1. When people here the term “twins,” they think of siblings that are born at the same time, but in reality, twins are not born at the same time – they are born minutes apart.
2. The first twin to be born is “older” in relation to the second.
3. Despite the fact that one twin is born first and is therefore “older,” we don’t think of the twins as having different ages, we think of them as being basically the same age.
4. Though it is a simple and agreed-upon fact that one twin is born first and consequently is “older,” this fact alone does not indicate…
a. “how much older” the first twin is,
b. exactly how many years old either twin is.
vi. The same is true with the superposition of rock layers.
1. The simple fact that one rock layer is lower does indicate that it was formed first and is therefore older.
2. But this simple fact does not indicate “how much older” one rock layer is than another or that the lower rock layer is “really old.”
3. And it doesn’t tell us the age of either rock layer.
d. Facts about what relative dating and the superposition of rocks can tell us
i. The evidence is that one layer is formed before another.
ii. It is an assumption and a speculation that any of the rock layers are very old.
iii. It is a clear case of equivocation…
1. to start out using the term “older” to simply indicate age relative to whether a layer was deposited before another layer
2. then to imply that the term “older” indicates a real age in years of how long before another layer a lower rock layer was deposited
iv. Order does not indicate rate.
v. Stratification…
1. only indicates which layers were laid down first.
2. does not and cannot indicate how much time elapsed between the laying down of individual rock layers.
vi. The fact that one layer was laid down before another does not provide any information or indication about the rate at which individual rock layers formed or the duration of time between the formaton of each layer.
vii. Whether or not the rocks formed extremely quickly or extremely slowly and whether or not there were extremely long or extremely short intervals between the formation of each layer is simply not indicated by the mere fact that some rock layers are lower than others.
6. Evolutionists admit that that relative dating only provides relative order, not time, not rate, not interval, not duration, not actual age
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – In order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists use three simple principles…By matching the fossil content of rock sequences, even across widespread geographic regions, paleontologists believe that certain sequences are probably about the same age. All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks. Geologists have several methods for determining the actual age of a rock layer. The most important is radiometric dating, which uses the steady decay of radioactive elements (seeRadioactivity) in the rock to provide a measure of age.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology based on king lists and records in Egypt and Mesopotamia goes back only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil, Studying fossils, Dating fossils – When a fossil species is first discovered, it is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists know the position of the other species in the history of life, they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Index Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – Using index fossils and the principle of faunal and floral succession, scientists can determine a relative chronology, or a sequence of events. Yet, absolute age, or the number of years that have passed since a rock layer formed, cannot be determined using fossils alone. Absolute age must be derived from dating methods such as radiometric dating.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating an archaeological site requires the application of two distinct methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain, or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy, I INTRODUCTION – Stratigraphy, in geology, the study of rock layers, or strata, particularly their ages, compositions, and relationships to other rock layers. Stratigraphy provides geologists with clues about the earth's past…II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…III RELATIVE VERSUS ABSOLUTE AGES – The above example gives only the sequence of geologic events for a particular place; it provides no information as to how long ago the events occurred. The example illustrates the use of relative ages by showing the occurrence of events with respect to each other. In contrast, absolute ages specify, in years, when a rock formed.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – Relative dating gives information about the age of an object in relation to other objects. Thus, relative dating methods produce only comparisons, not actual dates...Absolute dating determines the age of an object in years.” – Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
“Fossil, Dating fossils – Through many years of research, paleontologists have come to understand the order in which most kinds of fossils occur in the geological record. When a fossil species is first discovered, it is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists know the position of the other species in the history of life, they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals…Using dated rocks, geologists have been able to assign numbers to the geologic time scale.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic, and the other is absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic scale has evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns the relative order of strata…The chronometric scale is based on specific units of duration and on the numerical ages that are assigned to the aforementioned chronostratigraphic boundaries.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale – In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its age to be 2 billion years…Although faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B. Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead system, calculated the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative” techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to accommodate faunal change. Researchers in other fields, however, were still conservatively sticking with ages on the order of several hundred million, but were revising their assumed sedimentation rates downward in order to make room for expanded time concepts. In a brilliant contribution to resolving the controversy over the age of the Earth, Arthur Holmes, a student of Strutt, compared the relative (paleontologically determined) stratigraphic ages of certain specimens with their numerical ages as determined in the laboratory…As a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance, it now had absolute temporal significance as well.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
508 Summary about obstacles and limitations of relative dating
clxiii. Relative dating is faced with the following 2 obstacles.
1. First, relative dating cannot indicate a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history because…
a. the fossil record is only sufficient for dating the last 13 percent of earth’s history
b. the fossil record has so many gaps and breaks that even constructing a history from that portion is “virtually impossible.”
2. Second, relative dating…
a. cannot indicate how long ago fossils were buried,
b. cannot indicate how long before other fossils they were buried,
c. cannot indicate a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history
d. can only provide an order of burial, not a rate, not a duration of intervals, not an age of the rock layers or the fossils in them.
clxiv. Contradictions concerning the current status of determining the earth’s age and biological history using relative dating.
1. Review
a. The condition of the fossil record with all of its breaks, gaps, and discontinuities, makes “coming to an approximate estimate of the Earth’s age” “virtually impossible” using stratigraphy, which is another term for relative dating.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that, if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered, the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments or the fact that there are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods of erosion? Clearly sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique. Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Despite the “impossibility” of the task, “many attempts were made” to calculate the age of the earth based solely on relative dating methods.
2. Contradictions
a. It is now fully acknowledged that relative dating is inherently incapable of producing an age for the earth
i. However, may sources still cite relative dating and stratigraphy as proof that the earth is billions of years old rather than the 6,000 year age asserted in the Judeo-Christian scripture.
“Stratigraphy, IV HISTORIC IMPORTANCE OF STRATIGRAPHY – Prior to the advent of stratigraphy, the earth was generally considered to be significantly younger than a million years. In fact, the dominant estimate, by Irish Archbishop James Ussher in the 17th century, held that the earth was younger than 6000 years. Ussher's estimate was based on his chronology of the Old Testament. Stratigraphy developed in England during the early 1800s with the work of a land surveyor named William Smith. Using stratigraphic concepts, 19th-century geologists clearly demonstrated that the earth was far older than a million years.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – Correlation is, as mentioned earlier, the technique of piecing together the informational content of separated outcrops…To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy…Geologic column and its associated time scale – The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence. In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil forms or discontinuities in the rock record (i.e., unconformities, or large gaps in the sedimentary sequence); the basic subdivisions of rock are called systems, and the corresponding time intervals are termed periods…The geologic column and the relative geologic time scale are sufficiently defined to fulfill the use originally envisioned for them—providing a framework within which to tell the story of Earth history…In all these happenings the geologic column and its associated time scale spell the difference between an unordered series of isolated events and the unfolding story of a changing Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Quotes from evolutionists that relative dating (stratigraphy) proves that the earth is very old.
1. “Using stratigraphic concepts, 19th-century geologists clearly demonstrated that the earth was far older than a million years.”
2. “The geologic column and the relative geologic time scale are sufficiently defined to fulfill the use originally envisioned for them.”
3. The “originally envisioned use” for stratigraphy as “providing a framework within which to tell the story of Earth history…In all these happenings the geologic column and its associated time scale spell the difference between an unordered series of isolated events and the unfolding story of a changing Earth.”
b. Relative dating is believed to have disproved creation theory even though it is inherently incapable of doing so.
i. As we have seen, relative dating is utterly incapable of telling us the age of the earth in any real amount in terms either of numbers of years or even simple descriptors like “very old”
ii. Despite these failings, the impression is still widely reported that the age of the earth and the sequence of its biological history have been accomplished by relative dating
c. Important questions
i. How could relative dating and the geologic column prove that the earth is older than the estimated Biblical amount of 6,000 years if neither of these methods indicates actual amounts of time?
ii. How do we know that even the relative sequencing provided by relative dating and the geologic column doesn’t fit within the Biblically allotted 6,000 years?
d. An absolute dating method was sought expressly because relative dating has not and cannot provide any indications of the earth’s age or of an evolutionary sequence for life.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Focus on Critical Evidence: Circular Reasoning, Dating Methods, and Evolution
509 In this segment…
510 We will expose the circular reasoning inherent to evolutionary theory and evolutionary ages of the earth provided from relative and absolute dating of rocks and fossils.
511 Basic vocabulary
512 There are several synonyms for absolute dating.
513 Absolute dating is also known by the terms…
514 “isotopic dating,”
515 “radioactive dating,”
516 “radiometric dating,”
517 and “chronometric dating”
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic, and the other is absolute, or chronometric.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating – Absolute dating, sometimes called chronometric dating, refers to the assignment of calendar year dates to artifacts, fossils, and other remains.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – The need to correlate over the rest of geologic time, to correlate nonfossiliferous units, and to calibrate the fossil time scale has led to the development of a specialized field that makes use of natural radioactive isotopes in order to calculate absolute ages. The precise measure of geologic time has proven to be the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic processes (see below) that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present. Absolute dating by means of uranium and lead isotopes has been improved to the point that for rocks 3 billion years old geologically meaningful errors of [plus or minus] 1 or 2 million years can be obtained. The same margin of error applies for younger fossiliferous rocks, making absolute dating comparable in precision to that attained using fossils.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute Dating – Whereas studies using fossil dating began almost 300 years ago, radioactivity itself was not discovered until roughly a century ago, and it has only been from about 1950 that extensive efforts to date geologic materials have become common. Methods of isotopic measurement continue to be refined today, and absolute dating has become an essential component of virtually all field-oriented geologic investigations…Attention has been called wherever possible to those rocks that contain minerals suitable for precise isotopic dating.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method – Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
518 Having established these terms are synonyms, there will be no need for confusion when one term or another appears in the quotes throughout this segment.
519 Defining the concept of circular reasoning and why such reasoning is a problem.
520 A description of the basics of argumentation and reasoning from Britannica’s article “Applied Logic”
521 A valid argument is one in which the premises necessitate accepting a particular conclusion.
“Applied logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective argument forms – In logic an argument consists of a set of statements, the premises, whose truth supposedly supports the truth of a single statement called the conclusion of the argument. An argument is deductively valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; i.e., the conclusion must be true, because of the form of the argument, whenever the premises are true.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Invalid arguments are those arguments in which the “the premises give no rational grounds for accepting the conclusion.”
4. Such defective arguments are called “fallacies.”
“Applied logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective argument forms – Some arguments that fail to be deductively valid are acceptable on grounds other than formal logic, and their conclusions are supported with less than logical necessity. In other potentially persuasive arguments, the premises give no rational grounds for accepting the conclusion. These defective forms of argument are called fallacies. An argument may be fallacious in three ways: in its material content, through a misstatement of the facts; in its wording, through an incorrect use of terms; or in its structure (or form), through the use of an improper process of inference.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
clxv. Sme common fallacies, or defective arguments in which the premises offer no valid reason to accept the conclusion.
1. The fallacies in this particular list are defective because they involve too much “presumption,”
a. That is they tend to “covertly assume” or presume “the conclusion” itself.
2. The fourth fallacy listed is “the fallacy of circular argument.”
a. A circular argument is one “when the premises presume the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated.”
“Applied logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Kinds of fallacies, Material fallacies – The material fallacies are also known as fallacies of presumption, because the premises “presume” too much—they either covertly assume the conclusion or avoid the issue in view…4) The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (‘begging the question’), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” ‘But how do you know?’ ‘Because he always votes Libertarian.’).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
clxvi. How circular reasoning works
1. Circular reasoning “typically” is used in “complex arguments” that involve multiple steps or premises.
2. A generic example of circular reasoning
a. One premise (designated p 1) is used to prove a series of other premises (designated as p 2 through p n), thus, premise p 1 proves premise p n.
b. However, “then p n is subsequently used in a proof of p 1”
c. So, premise p 1 proves premise p n to be true and premise p n proves premise p 1 to be true.
“Applied logic, The critique of forms of reasoning, Kinds of fallacies, Material fallacies – A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p 1 is used to prove p 2; p 2 is used to prove p 3; and so on, until p n − 1 is used to prove p n ; then p n is subsequently used in a proof of p 1, and the whole series p 1, p 2, . . . , p n is taken as established (example: “McKinley College's baseball team is the best in the association [ p n = p 3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p 2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p 1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p 3 again].”). Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. As such, circular arguments “lack any power of conviction” and are qualified as “an ineptitude in argumentation.”
a. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “ineptitude” as “the quality or state of being inept” or “incompetent.”
4. Any argument in which “the premises prove the conclusion” and “the conclusion proves those same premises” has no ability to prove or convince at all.
clxvii. The relationship between relative dating methods, absolute dating methods, and evolution theory is clearly understood as circular reasoning.
1. An outline of 3 ways that evolution falls into the category of circular reasoning.
a. First, evolution theory uses a circular argument in relative dating when…
i. rock layers are used to assign hypothetical ages (with years) to fossils in them
ii. fossils are used to assign ages (with years) to the rock layers they are in.
b. Second, evolution theory uses a circular argument between relative dating in general and biological evolution.
i. In order to know which fossils species are “older” and which fossil species are “younger” and assign ages (with years) to the rock layers by those fossils, you have to first presume that species evolved from more primitive to more complex.
ii. Then, when the arrangement of fossils and rock layers is complete, it is asserted as proof of evolution.
c. Third, evolutionary theory uses a circular argument between relative dating and absolute dating.
i. Absolute dating is only performed on an item when a relative age (indicating years) is already provided for that item.
ii. Yet, relative dating methods provide no actual age (in years or amounts of time) but can only obtain an age after absolute dating is performed.
iii. So, although each method depends upon the other, both methods are said to confirm or prove the other to be valid.
clxviii. Using circular reasoning so that rocks are used to date the fossils in them and fossils are used to date the rocks they are found in
1. In relative dating, the ages of fossils are determined by the age of the rock layers they are found in and the ages of rocks are determined from fossils in them.
a. The problematic nature of this relationship is largely overlooked
b. But the circular nature of the relationship is widely acknowledged
c. Using this circular reasoning, geologists use both “rock sequences” and “the fossils contained within these sequences” to create a time scale for evolution.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these sequences.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. The rock layers are used to date the fossils that are found in them.
a. According to the principle known as the law of superposition, rock layers are assigned a relative age based upon how high or how low they are in an overall rock formation.
i. (Remember, a time scale based on relative age, cannot, by definition, provide age in terms of years or amounts of time – it can only show the order or sequence)
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units…The sequence of a layered sedimentary series is easily defined because deposition always proceeds from the bottom to the top. This principle would seem self-evident, but its first enunciation more than 300 years ago by Nicolaus Steno represented an enormous advance in understanding. Known as the principle of superposition, it holds that in a series of sedimentary layers or superposed lava flows the oldest layer is at the bottom, and layers from there upward become progressively younger.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Because the rock layer has a relative age based upon how high or how low it is in the overall rock formation, the objects in that rock layer have the same age as the layer itself, including both archeological artifacts like stonework and biological items such as a skull.
[PHOTO CAPTION: Stratigraphy – Archaeologists determine the age of artifacts and other remains in relation to each other and to the present through a technique called stratigraphy. This illustration depicts a cross-section into the ground in which many layers of soil, rock, and other materials can be seen. In most cases, objects buried in lower layers, such as the stonework, are older than those in higher layers, such as the skull. © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
c. Thus, the relative age of each individual fossil is determined by the level of the rock layer it is found in.
i. Fossils found in rock layers higher up are assigned a relatively younger age.
ii. Fossils found in rock layers lower down are assigned a relatively old age.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these sequences. The scale they create is based on The Law of Superposition, which states that in a regular series of sedimentary rock strata, or layers, the oldest strata will be at the bottom, and the younger strata will be on top. Danish geologist Nicolaus Steno (also called Niels Stensen) used the idea of uniformity of physical processes. Steno noted that sediment was denser than liquid or air, so it settled until it reached another solid. The newer sediment on the top layer is younger than the layer it settled upon…B Biostratigraphy – British surveyor William Smith and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned that in a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic time.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. (The fact that rock layers are used to date fossils is why stratigraphy, the practice of assigning relative ages to rock layers based upon their position, is commonly described as being applied to “fossil-bearing” rock layers.)
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – Suppose there exist a number of fossil-bearing outcrops each composed of sedimentary layers that can be arranged in relative order, primarily based on superposition.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. From the very beginning of relative dating, rock layer were used to assign relative ages to fossils.
i. Charles Lyell, “one of the founders of “stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface,” observed that rock beds closest to the surface were vastly more recent, and therefore, so were the fossils in those upper layers.
“Lyell, Sir Charles – Building on the pioneering work of the 18th-century Scottish geologist James Hutton, Lyell developed the theory of uniformitarianism…Lyell is also considered one of the founders of stratigraphy, the study of the layers of the earth's surface. He developed a method for classifying strata, or layers, by studying ancient marine beds in western Europe. Lyell observed that the marine beds closest to the surface, therefore the most recent, contained many species of shell-bearing mollusks that still live in today's seas. On the other hand, deeper, older strata contained fewer and fewer fossils of living species. Lyell divided the rocks of this period into three epochs, based on decreasing percentages of modern species. The names he proposed-Eocene, Miocene, and Pliocene-are still used today.” – "Lyell, Sir Charles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
e. Since Lyell, it has been the historic practice to date fossils according to the rock layer they are found in – it is sometimes called the “traditional” fossil-dating process.
“Prehistoric People, Placing prehistoric people in time – Scientists have traditionally dated fossils by studying the deposit in which the fossil was found. Based on knowledge of geological history, scientists can determine the age of the deposit. They then interpret this information to provide an approximate age for the fossil.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University.
f. (When radiometric dating is used, often it is rock surrounding the fossil that is radiometrically dated and then the fossil is assigned an age that is “relative” to that particular, dated rock.)
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – Potassium-argon dating is used mainly in Africa to determine the age of rocks associated with fossils of early human ancestors.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
“Fossil, VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Paleontologists use radiometric dating to determine more precisely the age of fossils (see Dating Methods: Radiometric Dating). In this process, they study the isotopes of minerals in the rock surrounding the fossil. Knowing the rates at which the isotopes decay, and having determined how much of the isotope has decayed in the rock sample, paleontologists can determine the age of the rock-and thus the age of the fossil preserved in the rock.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil, Dating fossils – Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil. Radioactive isotopes are forms of chemical elements that break down, or decay, to form other materials. Scientists know the rates of decay of various radioactive isotopes. By comparing the amount of a radioactive isotope in a rock to the amount of the material produced by its decay, scientists can calculate how long the decay has been taking place. This length of time represents the age of the rock and the fossils it contains.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
g. Consequently, it is very clear that fossils are assigned an age (in years) based upon the ages of the rock that surrounds them.
3. The fossils are used to date the rock layers that they are found in.
a. The rock layer around a fossil is assigned an age based upon the age of the fossil.
“Fossil – Fossils also provide the geologist a quick and easy way of assigning a relative age to the strata in which they occur.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, VI HISTORY OF GEOLOGY, D Geology in the 18th and 19th Centuries – Cuvier and his co-worker Alexandre Brongniart, along with English surveyor William Smith, established the principles of biostratigraphy, using fossils to establish the age of rocks and to correlate them from place to place. Later, with these established stratigraphies, geologists used fossils to reconstruct the history of life's evolution on earth.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application – As has been seen, the geologic time scale is based on stratified rock assemblages that contain a fossil record. For the most part, these fossils allow various forms of information from the rock succession to be viewed in terms of their relative position in the sequence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – In order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists use three simple principles. The first is the law of superposition, which states that younger beds of rock occur on top of older beds of rock in an undisturbed sequence of layers (see Stratigraphy). The second is the law of cross-cutting relationships, which states that any feature or structure that cuts through and disturbs a rock sequence must be younger than the disturbed beds. The third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils in sedimentary rock…All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – From an examination of such outcrops with special focus on the sequence of animal forms comes the empirical generalization that the faunas of the past have followed a specific order of succession, and so the relative age of a fossiliferous rock is indicated by the types of fossils it contains.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular interval. The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil…Almost without exception, the relative order of strata defined by fossils has been confirmed by radiometric ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Index Fossils are critical to using fossils to date rock layers.
i. An index fossil or guide fossils is a specific fossil organism that is used to identify the ages of rock layers.
“Index fossil – any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a widegeographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index Fossil, I INTRODUCTION – Index Fossil, remains or traces of prehistoric plants or animals that can provide information about the rock layer in which they are found. Index fossils can be used to determine the age of the sediments that make up the rock, or they can provide information about the environment in which the sediments were deposited. Index fossils are also used to compare, or correlate, rocks exposed in separate locations. Geologists and paleontologists use index fossils to learn about the history of life and the geologic history of the earth. Synonyms for the term index fossil include guide fossil, key fossil, type fossil, zonal fossil, characteristic fossil, and diagnostic fossil.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil. Ideally, an index fossil should be such as to guarantee that its presence in two separated rocks indicates their synchroneity. This requires that the lifespan of the fossil species be but a moment of time relative to the immensity of geologic history. In other words, the fossil species must have had a short temporal range. On the practical side, an index fossil should be distinctive in appearance so as to prevent misidentification, and it should be cosmopolitan both as to geography and as to rock type. In addition, its fossilized population should be sufficiently abundant for discovery to be highly probable. Such an array of attributes represents an ideal, and much stratigraphic geology is rendered difficult because of departure of the natural fossil assemblage from this ideal.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. The particular tools for relative dating, such as guide fossils, simply don’t work either.
1. In order to work for dating purposes, guide fossils must have certain traits, but “much stratigraphic geology” is “difficult” because the distribution of most fossils departs from these necessary traits.
c. “faunal succession” – an important principle in geologic dating
i. “the primary value” of fossils in “associating a given rock with a particular interval” of time is “the principle of faunal succession.”
Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Faunal succession is the idea that “each interval of geologic history has a unique fauna.”
1. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “fauna” as “animals” of a region or period.
“Fauna – Function: noun – animal life; especially: the animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment – faunal, adjective – faunal, adverb.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
iii. Faunal succession is “the principle” that…
1. different animals lived at different times throughout the long ages earth’s history
2. the time period of individual rock layers can be identified by what fossilized animals that layer contains
d. Faunal succession can even over turn the law of superposition when rock layers contain fossils in an order not consistent with evolution.
i. The law of superposition dictates that the lowest rock layers are older and the highest layers are younger.
ii. Sometimes the law of superposition exhibits evidence of rock and fossil ages in a way that contradicts faunal succession and evolution’s designation of which species evolved and lived at which times.
iii. When this happens the law of superposition is discarded entirely in order to accommodate evolutionary theory.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – On occasion, however, deformation may have caused the rocks of the crust to tilt, perhaps to the point of overturning them. Moreover, if erosion has blurred the record by removing substantial portions of the deformed sedimentary rock, it may not be at all clear which edge of a given layer is the original top and which is the original bottom. Identifying top and bottom is clearly important in sequence determination, so important in fact that a considerable literature has been devoted to this question alone. Many of the criteria of top–bottom determination are based on asymmetry in depositional features. Oscillation ripple marks, for example, are produced in sediments by water sloshing back and forth. When such marks are preserved in sedimentary rocks, they define the original top and bottom by their asymmetric pattern. Certain fossils also accumulate in a distinctive pattern or position that serves to define the top side.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. The rocks and fossils are dated to match the expected evolution of species by simply stating that the younger layers are instead below the older layers.
e. Faunal succession overturning superposition indicates a circular argument between relative dating and evolution itself.
4. The circular relationship between dating rocks and dating fossils is even admitted by evolutionists themselves.
a. In 1976, the American Journal of Science published an article describing and admitting this circular relationship in which rock layers are dated by fossils and fossils are dated by the rock layers.
“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results.” – “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 24 minutes, 45 seconds)
“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning…The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public…It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice…Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.” – “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 24 minutes, 55 seconds)
b. Britannica states that the role of fossils in dating rocks is “comparable in precision” to radiometric dating methods.
i. Actually, in Britannica’s comparison, radiometric dating is not the standard, instead fossil-dating is being used as the standard for precision and radiometric dating is being compared to fossil-dating.
ii. Considering that fossil-dating (relative dating) cannot provide ages in terms of years it is difficult to see how fossil-dating can be used as a standard of precision for radiometric dating, which is used to assign years of time.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – The need to correlate over the rest of geologic time, to correlate nonfossiliferous units, and to calibrate the fossil time scale has led to the development of a specialized field that makes use of natural radioactive isotopes in order to calculate absolute ages. The precise measure of geologic time has proven to be the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic processes (see below) that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present. Absolute dating by means of uranium and lead isotopes has been improved to the point that for rocks 3 billion years old geologically meaningful errors of [plus or minus] 1 or 2 million years can be obtained. The same margin of error applies for younger fossiliferous rocks, making absolute dating comparable in precision to that attained using fossils.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. This indicates how…
i. extremely important the role of fossils is in dating rocks and arranging geologic history.
ii. evolutionary geologists regard fossils as industry standard for dating methods
5. Summary regarding circular reasoning and using the rocks to assign ages to the fossils found in them and using the fossils to assign ages to the rocks they are found in.
a. The relative dating of rocks and the relative dating of fossils “presumes” or “covertly” assumes “the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated,” in this case the age of the fossils and the rocks.
b. The process of circular arguing
i. How do we know how old a rock layer is?
ii. We know how old a rock layer is because we know how old the fossils found in that rock layer are.
iii. And how do we know how old the fossils found in that rock layer are?
iv. Because we know how old the rock layer is that the fossil was found in.
c. The circular reasoning for the age of rocks and the age of fossils is “an ineptitude of argumentation,” “is not deductively valid,” and “lacks any power of conviction” to provide a time scale for the age of the earth in terms of amounts of time.
clxix. The second form of circular reasoning in evolutionary theory surrounds the interdependence between relative dating methods and the theory of biological evolution itself.
1. Relative dating cannot provide evidence for a sequence in which life forms emerged and evolved throughout earth’s history because in order to produce any ages at all, relative dating requires first presupposing evolution occurred.
a. If evolution is not presupposed beforehand the ages of rocks as dictated by the law of superposition will contradict evolutionary theory for the evolution of species.
i. However, the law of superposition is sometimes overturned so that the fossils in the rock layers will match (rather than contradict) the evolutionary order of species (also known as “faunal succession”).
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – On occasion, however, deformation may have caused the rocks of the crust to tilt, perhaps to the point of overturning them. Moreover, if erosion has blurred the record by removing substantial portions of the deformed sedimentary rock, it may not be at all clear which edge of a given layer is the original top and which is the original bottom. Identifying top and bottom is clearly important in sequence determination, so important in fact that a considerable literature has been devoted to this question alone. Many of the criteria of top–bottom determination are based on asymmetry in depositional features. Oscillation ripple marks, for example, are produced in sediments by water sloshing back and forth. When such marks are preserved in sedimentary rocks, they define the original top and bottom by their asymmetric pattern. Certain fossils also accumulate in a distinctive pattern or position that serves to define the top side.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. The principle of faunal succession demonstrates the circular reasoning between relative dating and evolution itself.
a. Faunal succession is the idea that different periods of geologic history are populated by distinct collections of animal species.
Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fauna – Function: noun – animal life; especially: the animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment – faunal, adjective – faunal, adverb.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
b. Faunal succession is identified as a principle of geology.
c. Faunal succession and the evolution of species are synonymous terms or concepts.
i. Faunal succession is defined as the idea that different organisms populate different periods of geologic history
ii. Evolution is the theory that throughout history as generations pass, new species arrive and old species disappear so that the collections of organisms is not uniform throughout geologic history and the organisms in later generations become distinct from those in previous generations.
1. This definition of evolution can be seen in under 4a and 4b of Merriam-Websters’s entry on evolution.
“Evolution – 1: one of a set of prescribed movements 2a: a process of change in a certain direction: unfolding b: the action or aninstance of forming and giving something off: emission c(1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state: growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved 3: the process of working out or developing 4a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species): phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations 5: the extraction of a mathematical root 6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
2. Merriam-Webster’s defines evolution in terms of the “historical development” of organisms, particularly a development throughout history in which new types of organisms emerge that are distinct from the organisms of past generations.
3. Britannica Encyclopedia’s article on evolution mirrors this definition.
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations…All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals are descended from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150,000,000 years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600,000,000 years ago; all plants and animals are derived from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3,000,000,000 years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Britannica defines evolution in terms of the arrival of distinct organisms in successive generations.
a. Britannica describes that particular types of organisms are only present during certain time periods, just as faunal succession specifically states.
5. Microsoft Encarta defines faunal succession as the result of the evolution of species.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different species. Knowing the age of a fossil helps to date the rock in which it is found…These four principles of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the geologic history of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. Faunal succession – circular reasoning using the evolution of species hypothesis to prove that species have evolved over large periods of time.
i. The principle of faunal succession, which is really just the presumption of evolution, is one of guiding factors used to “unravel geologic history.”
1. So, geologic history is asserted as evidence demonstrating evolution, evolution itself is one of the basic “four principles” used to determine what geologic history is.
2. Thus, evolution is a key premise in the argument used to prove that evolution is true.
a. This is another textbook example of circular reasoning.
ii. Constructing age sequences for non-biologic and biological artifacts by assuming that different characteristics indicate evolution has occurred.
1. Non-biological artifacts – the example of clay pots (potsherds).
a. “morphological types” in pottery artifacts are assumed to indicate that those types came about “sequentially”
i. “typology” is also known as “morphology” and “morphology” is the “most common” means of classification.
b. “variations in characteristics” are assumed to indicate “sequence” from “more primitive” to “more advanced.”
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – When studying potsherds or other artifacts, archaeologists record variations in characteristics such as material composition, form, style, and decoration. This information forms the basis for developing seriations (artifact sequences), which chronicle artifact evolution over hundreds or thousands of years. Pottery characteristics, like modern automobile designs and clothing fashions, changed over time, growing and then diminishing in popularity. By noting these changes, archaeologists can establish long sequences of artifact styles.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – Archaeologists follow three basic steps in interpreting the evidence they find: (1) classification, (2) dating, and (3) evaluation. Classification. Archaeologists can interpret their findings only if they can detect patterns of distribution of artifacts in space or through time. To find these patterns, archaeologists must first classify artifacts into groups of similar objects. Typology is the most common approach in classification. Artifacts are usually first sorted into groups based on their shape, known as morphological types. If the shape and manufacturing methods found among morphological types are distinctive during certain periods, they may represent temporal types. Archaeologists use temporal types to construct a sequence that reflects changes in the style or manufacture of artifacts over time. A sequence of different temporal types from a region reflects cultural change through the years. More detailed studies, such as the microscopic examination of a flint blade or the analysis of residues on a potsherd, can lead to the recognition of functional types.” – Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
2. Similarly, the characteristics of forms of individual species (fossils) are assumed to indicate the order or “succession” that all species evolved through.
a. The characteristics or forms of fossil species in the rock layers that is taken to indicate which rock layers are older and which are younger
b. More complex forms are assumed to evolve from simpler forms so species with simpler forms are assumed to be younger and to be found in younger rock layers.
iii. “Faunal succession,” a correllary of evolution theory, is one of the “four simple principles” that are “relied on” to “unveil geologic history”
1. It is listed right along side “the principle of superposition”
2. (Other terms)
a. “faunal succession” refers to this concept regarding animals
b. “floral succession” refers to this concept regarding plants
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history. The principle of original horizontality states that the sediments that form sedimentary rocks are usually deposited in approximately horizontal sheets…The principle of superposition states that, in an undeformed sequence of strata, younger strata lie on top of older strata…The principle of cross-cutting relations states that if a layer of rock is cut, for example, by a fault or an intruding rock, then the cut rock must be older than the event or intrusion that cut it…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different species. Knowing the age of a fossil helps to date the rock in which it is found. Index fossils, which form from species that only exist for a short time, are especially valuable in determining a rock's age. Two rocks from different locations containing the same index fossil must be approximately the same age. This principle is especially useful because it allows geologists to show that different rock layers from different areas were deposited at roughly the same time…These four principles of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the geologic history of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – From an examination of such outcrops with special focus on the sequence of animal forms comes the empirical generalization that the faunas of the past have followed a specific order of succession, and so the relative age of a fossiliferous rock is indicated by the types of fossils it contains…To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular interval.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – In order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists use three simple principles. The first is the law of superposition, which states that younger beds of rock occur on top of older beds of rock in an undisturbed sequence of layers (see Stratigraphy). The second is the law of cross-cutting relationships, which states that any feature or structure that cuts through and disturbs a rock sequence must be younger than the disturbed beds. The third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils in sedimentary rock…All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. The central role that is played by the “distinct characteristics” of individual species in the principle of faunal succession further highlights the fact that faunal succession is merely a synonym for evolution.
a. Britannica and Merriam-Webster’s definition of “evolution” explicitly included “the distinguishable differences” between organisms over generations.
“Evolution – 4a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species): phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Evolution – theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. Terminology indicates the circular reasoning employed by evolution and faunal succession to create long ages of time from the fossil record.
1. The term “fossil succession” is also a synonym for “faunal succession.”
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy – In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils to determine geologic time. British surveyor William Smith and French anatomist Georges Cuvier both reasoned that in a series of fossil-bearing rocks, the oldest fossils are at the bottom, with successively younger fossils above. They thus extended Steno's Law of Superposition and recognized that fossils could be used to determine geologic time. This principle is called fossil succession.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. The subheading for the Encarta quote above is “B Biostratigraphy”
a. “biostratigraphy” is simply the biological counterpart to the principle of stratigraphy.
i. Stratigraphy is used to assign an order to non-biological artifacts, such as clay pots, by their characteristics.
b. This name denotes that the principle deals with the idea that the once-living things indicate the age of the rock layers, or “strata,” they are found in.
i. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the prefix “bio” refers to “life” or “living organisms or tissue.”
c. Thus, biostratigraphy” is yet another synonym for the principle of faunal succession.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE – Geologists use several methods to determine geologic time. These methods include physical stratigraphy, or the placement of events in the order of their occurrence, and biostratigraphy, which uses fossils to determine geologic time. Another method geologists use is correlation, which allows geologists to determine whether rocks in different geographic locations are the same age…A Relative Time – Geologists create a relative time scale using rock sequences and the fossils contained within these sequences…B Biostratigraphy –
In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils to determine geologic time…Smith and Cuvier also noted that unique fossils were characteristic of different layers…C Correlation – Fossils are the most useful tools for correlation. Since the work of Smith and Cuvier, biostratigraphers have noted that ‘like fossils are of like age.’ This is the principle of fossil correlation.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, VI HISTORY OF GEOLOGY, D Geology in the 18th and 19th Centuries – Cuvier and his co-worker Alexandre Brongniart, along with English surveyor William Smith, established the principles of biostratigraphy, using fossils to establish the age of rocks and to correlate them from place to place. Later, with these established stratigraphies, geologists used fossils to reconstruct the history of life's evolution on earth.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. The exact same terms and processes are applied equally to determine the age and succession of non-biological artifacts and fossils.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – When studying potsherds or other artifacts, archaeologists record variations in characteristics such as material composition, form, style, and decoration. This information forms the basis for developing seriations (artifact sequences), which chronicle artifact evolution over hundreds or thousands of years. Pottery characteristics, like modern automobile designs and clothing fashions, changed over time, growing and then diminishing in popularity. By noting these changes, archaeologists can establish long sequences of artifact styles.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – Archaeologists follow three basic steps in interpreting the evidence they find: (1) classification, (2) dating, and (3) evaluation. Classification. Archaeologists can interpret their findings only if they can detect patterns of distribution of artifacts in space or through time. To find these patterns, archaeologists must first classify artifacts into groups of similar objects. Typology is the most common approach in classification. Artifacts are usually first sorted into groups based on their shape, known as morphological types. If the shape and manufacturing methods found among morphological types are distinctive during certain periods, they may represent temporal types. Archaeologists use temporal types to construct a sequence that reflects changes in the style or manufacture of artifacts over time. A sequence of different temporal types from a region reflects cultural change through the years. More detailed studies, such as the microscopic examination of a flint blade or the analysis of residues on a potsherd, can lead to the recognition of functional types.” – Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
“Fossil, VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Fossils are classified using several techniques. The three most popular techniques are evolutionary taxonomy, numerical taxonomy, and cladistics. Evolutionary taxonomy is the method that was most commonly used in the past. It is based on comparing the shape, structure, and relationships of organisms within a stratigraphic framework. Many paleontologists believed this method was too subjective and developed numerical taxonomy as an alternative. Numerical taxonomy uses a mathematical comparison of organisms in which measured features of the organisms are related. In an effort to achieve still greater objectivity, some paleontologists developed a third method, cladistics, based on classifying organisms according to certain features that are either primitive or derived. Primitive features are those that are common to all organisms within a group, whereas derived features are evolutionary novelties. Paleontologists have had problems with subjectivity in cladistics as well, and the method also does not easily take into account the time dimension of the geological record. A combination of the methods used in cladistics and the geological record may provide a clearer picture of the evolution of life on earth.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
v. Summary of faunal succession and circular reasoning
1. The principle of faunal succession uses the characteristics of each fossil to determine a sequence of evolution.
a. Fossil organisms with “more primitive” or simpler looking forms would be assigned a lower or “older” timeframe than more complex fossil organisms, which would have evolved later.
2. But how would a species’ characteristics indicate how much older or younger it was than other species unless we presuppose that species evolved from more “primitive forms” to “more complex forms,” thus assuming evolution itself?
3. Evolutionary scientists admit and recognize that merely arranging objects in a sequence based upon the observer’s perception of what is more primitive and what is more advanced is “too subjective” and not real, objective science, now matter how it is formulated.
“Fossil, VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Fossils are classified using several techniques. The three most popular techniques are evolutionary taxonomy, numerical taxonomy, and cladistics. Evolutionary taxonomy is the method that was most commonly used in the past. It is based on comparing the shape, structure, and relationships of organisms within a stratigraphic framework. Many paleontologists believed this method was too subjective and developed numerical taxonomy as an alternative. Numerical taxonomy uses a mathematical comparison of organisms in which measured features of the organisms are related. In an effort to achieve still greater objectivity, some paleontologists developed a third method, cladistics, based on classifying organisms according to certain features that are either primitive or derived. Primitive features are those that are common to all organisms within a group, whereas derived features are evolutionary novelties. Paleontologists have had problems with subjectivity in cladistics as well, and the method also does not easily take into account the time dimension of the geological record.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. “problems with subjectivity” remain even in “cladisticts,” which itself is the most advanced effort to remove subjectivity from classification of organisms.
b. So, evolutionists admit that this ordering of organisms is subjective and exists only in the mind of the interpreter and is not a matter of objective evidence or fact.
4. Summary regarding the circular reasoning employed by assuming that species evolved in order to provide a “geologic record” showing that species evolved.
a. Due to circular reasoning relative dating cannot be used as evidence for…
i. evolution,
ii. for evolution’s time scale,
iii. for sequencing species into an evolutionary order
b. The reason is because in order for relative dating to produce any ages at all, even relative ages, evolution has to be presupposed.
i. It first has to be presupposed that rock layers represent different periods of geological time and that the fossils in them evolved from one another over a long geologic history.
c. Under the terms “faunal succession,” “fossil succession,” or even “biostratigraphy,” evolution itself is inserted as a guiding influence for arranging geologic history, which is then asserted as proof for evolution.
d. In short…
i. Evolution is assumed as the guiding factor for assigning geologic age.
ii. Then the geologic ages of fossils are used to confirm that they have evolved as asserted by the theory of evolution.
iii. Therefore, in relative dating not only the fossils themselves but also the rock layers they are found in are assigned dates by presupposing evolution.
e. What relative dating cannot do…
i. Since the process presupposes evolution, it cannot prove evolution.
ii. Since determining the relative ages of the fossils and rock layers requires presupposing that evolution is true, the resulting ages themselves are not objective facts at all.
f. The circular reasoning between relative dating and evolution “presumes” or “covertly” assumes “the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated,” in this case the age of the fossils and the rocks.
g. Consequently, the circular reasoning for relative dating and evolution is “an ineptitude of argumentation,” “is not deductively valid,” and “lacks any power of conviction.”
clxx. The third form of circular reasoning in evolutionary theory surrounds the interdependence between relative dating methods and absolute dating methods.
1. Review – non-radiometric dating methods can’t and don’t work to get amounts of time for an age of the earth.
a. A perception exists that radiometric dating methods independently establish the evolution of life on earth and the age of the earth itself.
i. But this is not true.
ii. Absolute dating methods, particularly radiometric dating, are guided by and conformed to the relative dating timescale.
iii. This fact can be demonstrated in 2 ways.
1. The first is the history of relative dating and absolute dating and how they first came to interact historically.
2. The second is the modern practices for performing radiometric dating.
b. The historic circumstances in which radiometric dating was developed and used in relation to relative dating.
i. Relative dating can’t indicate the amounts of time for geologic (earth) history
1. Even in theory, relative dating techniques could only indicate age information for the most recent 13 percent of earth’s history.
a. This equates to about the last 598 million years.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application – Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding the Cambrian period—the Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, V FIELDS OF GEOLOGY, B Historical, B4 Paleontology and Paleobiology – The oldest fossils are older than 3 billion years, although fossils do not become abundant and diverse until about 500 million years ago.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy – In the field of biostratigraphy geologists study the placement of fossils to determine geologic time…Biostratigraphy is most useful for determining geologic time during the Phanerozoic Eon (Greek phaneros, "evident"; zoic, "life"), the time of visible and abundant fossil life that has lasted for about the past 570 million years.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. The fossil record is so discontinuous and irregular that it is “virtually impossible” to use relative dating techniques to construct any time scale or history for even the last 570 to 598 million years.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that, if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered, the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments or the fact that there are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods of erosion? Clearly sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique. Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Other methods for providing a great age for the earth were also explored before absolute dating but after the dawn of uniformitarianism – but all of them proved to be unsound.
a. (Including calculations based upon the salt content of the oceans or the cooling of the earth.)
b. These methods of dating the earth, using specific assumptions of their own, produced ages of only 20 to 90 million years old.
i. Even if these ages were correct, they were still too short to provide enough time for evolution to occur.
c. But also each of these methods was also negated by empirical evidence.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – From the time of Hutton's refinement of uniformitarianism, the principle found wide application in various attempts to calculate the age of the Earth…Many independent estimates of the age of the Earth have been proposed, each made using a different method of analysis. Some such estimates were based on assumptions concerning the rate at which dissolved salts or sediments are carried by rivers, supplied to the world's oceans, and allowed to accumulate over time…The notion that all of the salts dissolved in the oceans were the products of leaching from the land was first proposed by the English astronomer and mathematician Edmond Halley in 1691 and restated by the Irish geologist John Joly in 1899…Based on these calculations, Joly proposed that the Earth had consolidated and that the oceans had been created between 80 and 90 million years ago. The subsequent recognition that the ocean is not closed and that a continual loss of salts occurs due to sedimentation in certain environments severely limited this novel approach…William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin) applied his thermodynamic principles to the problems of heat flow, and this had implications for predicting the age of a cooling Sun and of a cooling Earth…Using the same criteria, he concluded in 1899 that the Earth was between 20 and 40 million years old…His estimate came into question after the discovery of naturally occurring radioactivity by the French physicist Henri Becquerel in 1896 and the subsequent recognition by his colleagues, Marie and Pierre Curie, that compounds of radium (which occur in uranium minerals) produce heat…Within a short time another leading British physicist, John William Strutt, concluded that the production of heat in the Earth's interior was a dynamic process, one in which heat was continuously provided by such materials as uranium. The Earth was, in effect, not cooling.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. Problems in dating the earth (in terms of amounts of time) persisted right up through 1896 and 1899 and into the turn of the twentieth century.
i. So, speculations abounded that the earth was millions or hundreds of millions of years or older instead of the 6 to 10 thousand years asserted by the Judeo-Christian record
ii. But, there was still no evidence indicating such a great age and no methods capable of producing such a great age.
e. So, another dating method was required, one capable of giving actual ages in years.
3. An independent dating method, capable of giving actual ages in years, was desperately needed – circular reasoning and presumption was all that was available to develop an the evolutionary timescale
a. The thought process that lead to the current estimate of the earth’s age can be constructed as follows.
i. Evidence from history and archeology only record 5,000-6,000 years of history on earth.
ii. Although catastrophes play a role in forming the earth’s features quickly and would allow for their formation over a short time, assume instead that only long, gradual processes are responsible for the formation of the earth’s features.
1. (This is known as uniformitarianism.)
iii. Assuming that only long, gradual processes are responsible for the formation of the earth’s features, conclude that the earth must be very much older than 6,000 years.
iv. Find some observable evidence to support the purely speculative assumption that the earth is much older than 6,000 years.
b. The need arose to seek evidence that would independently confirm these assumptions of a very, very old earth without itself depending upon these assumptions.
i. Early attempts to find such evidence were all found to be contradicted by other observations and discoveries.
ii. This is how the situation remained until the advent of radiometric dating in desperate need of independent confirmation rather than circular reasoning.
c. Believing the earth was older than 6 to 10 thousand years, but having no evidence for it, evolutionists continued “for a long time” to “search for an absolute” dating method that “could turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.”
“Archaeology, Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology based on king lists and records in Egypt and Mesopotamia goes back only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Radiometric dating is used to prove an old earth, but can’t do so unless evolutionary assumptions are first made.
a. Shortly after the turn of the century that radioactivity was discovered.
b. This lead to the first use of radioactive dating to estimate the age of the earth.
c. At the arrival of radioactive dating (absolute dating) Lord Kelvin’s 20-40 million year estimates were fully disproved.
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In 1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic time proposed by Lord Kelvin.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. Finally, with the onset of radioactive dating, for the first time evolutionists finally had enough time for evolution to occur.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale – In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its age to be 2 billion years…Although faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B. Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead system, calculated the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative” techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to accommodate faunal change…As a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance, it now had absolute temporal significance as well.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. First, we note that the quotes explicitly state that paleontologists were “relieved” that absolute dating finally provided them with enough time for evolution to occur.
1. They had believed it without any working proof or evidence.
2. But now, they finally had a potential much-needed means to support what they had believed without proof all along.
ii. Second, notice that the quotes explicitly state that “the relative geologic time scale, which had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically quantified.”
1. This means that the geologic column and the evolutionary time scale were not created starting from radiometric dating.
2. Instead, the evolutionary timescale came from relative dating, which was constructed only by presupposing evolution.
a. That evolutionary relative timescale had been thoroughly developed for over 200 years.
3. So, when radiometric dating was discovered, its dates were simply applied to the already-existing evolutionary timescale of history.
a. As the first quote above stated, “with these new methods geologists calibrate the relative scale of geologic time.”
b. Geologists merely used radioactive dating to provide years to the existing, evolutionary timescale.
e. Radiometric dates have never been and never are calculated independently without first identifying the expected evolutionary timescale so that the radiometric dates can be fitted into that evolutionary timescale.
i. The evolutionary timescale was developed first.
ii. For years, evolutionists searched for a way to assign actual years to their merely speculated timescale.
iii. When radiometric dating methods were discovered they were immediately plugged into the existing timescale, just as had been sought all along.
iv. No timescale was ever constructed from radiometric dating.
v. Radiometric dating has always, only been used in conformity to the existing, presupposed evolutionary timescale.
vi. Radiometric dates are derived using the relative dates assigned hypothetically by evolution theory.
vii. Since radiometric dates are calculated in accordance with evolution theory they do not function to independently confirm the pre-existing evolutionary timescale.
5. Does this historic circular relationship between relative and absolute dating continue or has it been overcome in present practice?
a. Concerning modern dating practice
i. Relative dating and absolute dating still cannot be done independently of one another.
ii. It simply is not possible to independently construct a relative dating timescale or to independently construct an absolute time scale.
iii. Constructing an evolutionary timescale requires using both relative and absolute dating in an interdependent, interwoven manner.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating an archaeological site requires the application of two distinct methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain, or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iv. Since relative and absolute dating must be used together in an interwoven manner in order to produce the evolutionary timescale, it is a simple matter of fact that relative dating and absolute dating do not and cannot independently confirm one another.
1. In order to independently confirm one another, they would have to work independently of one another.
6. Why relative dating and absolute dating must be used together and cannot be used independently.
a. First, not all rocks can be radiometric dated.
“Geology, Absolute dating – It is important to remember that precise ages cannot be obtained for just any rock unit but that any unit can be dated relative to a datable unit.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Second, radiometric dating can only be used on igneous and metamorphic rocks.
i. Radiometric dating is “of limited use in sedimentary rocks.”
ii. Other than carbon-14 (radiocarbon), radiometric dating cannot be used on sedimentary rocks.
iii. Carbon-14 dating can only be used on rocks 50,000 years or younger.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals. Radiometric dating works best on igneous rocks (rocks that crystallized from molten material). It can also be used to date minerals in metamorphic rocks (rocks that formed when parent rock was submitted to intense heat and pressure and metamorphosed into another type of rock). It is of limited use, however, in sedimentary rocks formed by the compaction of layers of sediment.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. Third, the vast majority of all fossils are formed and found in sedimentary rock, making them unavailable for radiometric dating.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. This is what Britannica means when it states that “just any rock” cannot be radiometrically dated but any rock can be dated “relative to a datable unit.”
“Geology, Absolute dating – It is important to remember that precise ages cannot be obtained for just any rock unit but that any unit can be dated relative to a datable unit.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. When sedimentary rock and fossils are radiometrically dated (without carbon-14) they simply are assigned absolute ages based upon their relative position above or below igneous and metamporphic rocks nearby.
7. Relative ages must be determined first before absolute dating can occur.
a. Britannica states below that “because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated…a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating.”
b. So, when rock samples are collected at a particular fossil site or outcrop, their precise location within the layers is recorded.
i. (This is their location relative to the rock layers around them.)
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Relative dating relies on the principle of superposition. This principle states that deeper layers in a stratified sequence of naturally or humanly deposited earth are older than shallower layers. In other words, the uppermost layer is the most recent, and each deeper layer is somewhat older. Relative chronologies come from two sources: (1) careful stratigraphic excavation in the field, noting the precise location of every artifact and remain within layers of earth; and (2) close study of the characteristics of artifacts themselves.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Relative geologic ages “constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program.”
iii. Relative dating “must” be determined “first” before absolute or radiometric dating.
iv. Thus, determining radiometric ages requires knowing the relative age of the sample first.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units. In fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore, a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. “geologists” must “first determine the relative age of rocks” and “construct a geologic time scale” from the relative ages before they can perform radiometric dating.
i. Radiometric dating is not in any way used to construct the timescale.
ii. Instead, the timescale is constructed already and radiometric dating is simply used to place “years” or “numbers” to the time scale.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE – The process of determining geologic time includes several steps. Geologists first determine the relative age of rocks-which rocks are older and which are younger. They then may correlate rocks to determine which rocks are the same age. Next, they construct a geologic time scale. Finally, they determine the specific numerical ages of rocks by various dating methods and assign numbers to the time scale.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. In 1976, The American Journal of Science published an article asserting this very fact that radiometric dating uses the relative timescale (or geologic column) in order to produce its ages.
i. The article affirms that rather than being an objective observation or independent dating method, radiometric dating is based upon the relative ages produced by relative dating.
“Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first…The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning.” – “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 24 minutes, 55 seconds)
e. This pre-existing relative timescale, upon which radiometric ages are based, was put together for a period of 200 years prior to the onset of radiometric dating.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, An absolute age framework for the stratigraphic time scale – In 1905 Strutt succeeded in analyzing the helium content of aradium-containing rock and determined its age to be 2 billion years…Although faced with problems of helium loss and therefore not quite accurate results, a major scientific breakthrough had been accomplished. Also in 1905 the American chemist Bertram B. Boltwood, working with the more stable uranium–lead system, calculated the numerical ages of 43 minerals. His results, with a range of 400 million to 2.2 billion years, were an order of magnitude greater than those of the other “quantitative” techniques of the day that made use of heat flow or sedimentation rates to estimate time. Acceptance of these new ages was slow in coming. Perhaps much to their relief, paleontologists now had sufficient time in which to accommodate faunal change. Researchers in other fields, however, were still conservatively sticking with ages on the order of several hundred million, but were revising their assumed sedimentation rates downward in order to make room for expanded time concepts. In a brilliant contribution to resolving the controversy over the age of the Earth, Arthur Holmes, a student of Strutt, compared the relative (paleontologically determined) stratigraphic ages of certain specimens with their numerical ages as determined in the laboratory…As a result of this work, the relative geologic time scale, which had taken nearly 200 years to evolve, could be numerically quantified. No longer did it have merely superpositional significance, it now had absolute temporal significance as well.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
f. In order to perform radiometric dating, geochronologies must “rely on geologists for relative ages.”
i. This clearly demonstrates that…
1. the expected relative age (with the assumed long periods of time) is already in view when radiometric testing is performed
2. the radiometric date simply works to conform to the existing relative age and pre-existing, long-standing relative timescale.
ii. This is important since the ages of relative dating are simply hypothetical assertions of evolution theory that are not based on observation or evidence.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
8. The process of getting amounts of geologic time from radiometric dates.
a. First, geologists take rock or fossil samples from sites in the field.
i. They record a sample’s exact position within the layer and precise relative age information (including the long periods of time) assumed and supplied by evolution theory that is created without radiometric dating.
ii. All of this information is needed for radiometric dating to be performed.
b. Taking all of that information about the sample’s exact position in the layer and place on the existing geologic scale, the radiometric dating lab renders an age in years that fits the age already identified for them using relative dating methods.
c. This was the case in terms of the historical origins of radiometric dating and continues to be the ongoing practice of relative and radiometric dating to this very day.
clxxi. Conclusions about radiometric (absolute) dating and the evolutionary timescale
1. The radiometric age is not an objective fact at all but merely a ploy for disguising the speculative and baseless relative age by means of a number in years.
2. Evolution’s timescale was not and is not constructed using radiometric dating.
a. Evolution constructs geologic history from relative dating in a process of circular reasoning guided by the presumption of evolutionary time in the form of the principle of faunal succession.
b. Radiometric procedures are only used afterward to derive dates that fit the existing timescale that had already been constructed over hundreds of years without using radiometric dating.
3. Some primary questions.
a. If radiometric dating works, if you can simply test the age of rocks and determine or confirm the geologic age of items using radiometric dating, then why can’t the evolutionary geologic timescale be constructed by using only radiometric dating on its own ?
b. Why is an essential step in the radiometric dating processes to first assign the specimen a relative age in accordance with the timescale of evolution theory?
4. Without first asserting the relative ages (and periods of time) assumed by evolution theory, radiometric dating cannot be used to substantiate the evolutionary timescale.
a. (We will see why this is the case later in our segment detailing the processes and problems of radiometric dating.)
5. Circular reasoning
a. Relative age dictates the radiometric age and then, the radiometric age is heralded as proof that the relative age is correct.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – Nevertheless, there is no greater testimony to the validity of fossil-based stratigraphic geology than the absolute dates made possible through radioactive measurements. Almost without exception, the relative order of strata defined by fossils has been confirmed by radiometric ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – One of the great triumphs of geochronology is that numbers acquired by radiometric dating matched predictions based on superposition and other means of geologic age determination, confirming the assumption of uniformitarianism.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Relative age information (in terms of long time periods) serves as the basis for determining radiometric ages and then radiometric ages are said to provide the amounts of time in years that fill out the relative dating timescale.
c. The geologists get the ages in years from the geochronologists who perform the radiometric dating, but the geochronologists who perform the radiometric dating first get the age range from the geologists who use only relative dating.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Exactly how the geochronologist, who determines radiometric dates, relies upon the geologist for relative ages will be explored in detail when we discuss radiometric dating processes.
ii. What we will see is that a hypothetical date based on the evolutionary timescale is the critical factor in the formula used to determining the absolute, radiometric age of a sample.
iii. Other factors are then adjusted so as to arrive at a date that fits with this pre-specified hypothetical date from the evolutionary timescale.
d. Radiometric dating cannot be performed without relative ages being supplied first, but it is also conversely the case that relative ages are empty and unsupported if radiometric ages are not supplied to them.
i. (Notice that many of the quotes below state specifically that radiometric dating is not used to construct evolutions’ timescale but merely to superficially assign dates to it.)
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks. Geologists have several methods for determining the actual age of a rock layer. The most important is radiometric dating, which uses the steady decay of radioactive elements (seeRadioactivity) in the rock to provide a measure of age.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology based on king lists and records in Egypt and Mesopotamia goes back only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil, Studying fossils, Dating fossils – When a fossil species is first discovered, it is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists know the position of the other species in the history of life, they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Fossil, Dating fossils – Through many years of research, paleontologists have come to understand the order in which most kinds of fossils occur in the geological record. When a fossil species is first discovered, it is usually found along with other species. If paleontologists know the position of the other species in the history of life, they can determine the position of the new species. This type of dating only indicates whether one fossil is older or younger than another fossil. It does not provide a fossil's age in years. Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – Using index fossils and the principle of faunal and floral succession, scientists can determine a relative chronology, or a sequence of events. Yet, absolute age, or the number of years that have passed since a rock layer formed, cannot be determined using fossils alone. Absolute age must be derived from dating methods such as radiometric dating.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS – Accurately dating an archaeological site requires the application of two distinct methods of dating: relative and absolute. Relative dating establishes the date of archaeological finds in relation to one another. Absolute dating is the often more difficult task of determining the year in which an artifact, remain, or geological layer was deposited.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Stratigraphy, III RELATIVE VERSUS ABSOLUTE AGES – The above example gives only the sequence of geologic events for a particular place; it provides no information as to how long ago the events occurred. The example illustrates the use of relative ages by showing the occurrence of events with respect to each other. In contrast, absolute ages specify, in years, when a rock formed.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – Relative dating gives information about the age of an object in relation to other objects. Thus, relative dating methods produce only comparisons, not actual dates...Absolute dating determines the age of an object in years.” – Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals…Using dated rocks, geologists have been able to assign numbers to the geologic time scale.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – There are, in fact, two geologic time scales. One is relative, or chronostratigraphic, and the other is absolute, or chronometric. The chronostratigraphic scale has evolved since the mid-1800s and concerns the relative order of strata…The chronometric scale is based on specific units of duration and on the numerical ages that are assigned to the aforementioned chronostratigraphic boundaries.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – In fact, even in younger rocks, absolute dating is the only way that the fossil record can be calibrated. Without absolute ages, investigators could only determine which fossil organisms lived at the same time and the relative order of their appearance in the correlated sedimentary rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
6. Radiometric dates are NOT objective, independent confirmation of the evolutionary timescale – they are the product of philosophic biases and circular reasoning
a. Radiometric dating is NOT an objectively reliable procedure but instead the processes is entirely subject to the the objectivity of the individual performing the dating.
i. “In all cases” radiometric dates are valid or invalid based entirely on whether or not the investigators sufficiently and open-mindedly attempt to prove their dates wrong.
ii. The validity of radiometric dates rests solely on whether or not the individual geochronologist is objectively trying to determine if his calculations are in error.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – In all cases, it is the obligation of the investigator making the determinations to include enough tests to indicate that the absolute age quoted is valid within the limits stated. In other words, it is the obligation of geochronologists to try to prove themselves wrong by including a series of cross-checks in their measurements before they publish a result. Such checks include dating a series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative ages and replicate analysis of different parts of the same rock body with samples collected at widely spaced localities. The importance of internal checks as well as interlaboratory comparisons becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that geochronology laboratories are limited in number. Because of the expensive equipment necessary and the combination of geologic, chemical, and laboratory skills required, geochronology is usually carried out by teams of experts. Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Therefore, radiometric dating is circular reasoning because it “presumes” or “covertly” assumes “the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated” – in this case, that long ages of geologic time have occurred on earth.
i. How can we rely on radiometrically produced ages when we know that the investigators are…
1. not “trying to prove themselves wrong”
2. simply “presuming” or “covertly” assuming “the very conclusion” that they are trying to prove
3. assuming that the samples fit the ages determined by the relative dating assumed by evolution
c. The geochronologists performing the radiometric dating actually get the ages from geologists and the relative dating scale.
d. Having seen the role of philosophical preference before and having seen the circular reasoning in the procedure, there is simply no reason to regard radiometric ages as objective observations or independent verifications of the evolutionary timescale.
7. The circular reasoning for relative dating and radiometric dating is “an ineptitude of argumentation,” “is not deductively valid,” and “lacks any power of conviction” for demonstrating the validity of the evolutionary timescale.
a. First, not a single dating method works or supports evolution without first presuming evolution in the first place as part of the premises – evolution is based upon circular reasoning in 3 areas, all of which are critical to geologic dating:
i. the relationship between dating fossils and dating rocks,
ii. the relationship between all forms of relative dating and evolutionary theory itself,
iii. and finally the relationship between radiometric dating and relative dating.
b. Second, radiometric dating is a superficial ploy that is not grounded in objective observation but is adjusted to fit the presumed and predetermined evolutionary timescale.
8. After out next segment, we will find out exactly why and how adjusting occurs in radiometric dating as we explore radiometric dating itself.
a. This adjusting of radiometric dates to fit with the relative dates assumed by evolution will further demonstrate that radiometric dating is not an independent confirmation of the evolutionary timescale.
b. Instead, radiometric dating is used to prove evolutionary timescale by first assuming the evolutionary timescale and then adjusting to “correct” any “discrepancies” with the evolutionary timescale.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Age and the Geologic Column
522 Review and Preview
523 In an earlier segment
524 We examined the evidence for the evolutionary origin of species
525 We established that the evolutionary timescale lacks transitional or intermediate forms.
526 In the last segment
527 We established that evolution’s timescale is based solely upon hypothetical ages asserted through relative dating methods
528 Such as stratigraphy and the principle of faunal succession, which is a synonym for evolution itself.
529 We also saw how relative dating methods are purely speculative due and by their very nature cannot indicate any actual age or actual length of time.
530 We also saw that radioactive dates are…
531 Constructed simply to give the otherwise baseless relative timescale a superficial appearance of finality
532 Adjusted ages in years that were tailor-made to fit the relative timescale.
533 The previous segment simply discussed the problems facing the evolutionary timescale due to its basis in circular reasoning.
clxxii. In this segment
1. We will explore what the evolutionary timescale is.
2. We will explore how the evolutionary timescale is constructed in more detail.
a. We will explore exactly where the geologic does and does not come from.
b. We will take a closer look at the severely-limited information that is used to construct the geologic column
i. This limited information indicates that constructing the geologic column requires some pretty “clever detective work.”
534 What is the evolutionary timescale?
535 The evolutionary timescale is known as the geologic column.
536 It usually looks something like the following example, provided by Microsoft Encarta.
[pic]
“[PHOTO CAPTION] © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Geologic Time Scale," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
537 About the geologic column (as shown in the chart above)
538 At the left all of geologic history is divided into 3 large durations of time.
539 Moving toward the right column by column each larger duration is further subdivided into smaller durations of time.
540 At the far right, each division of time is associated with the arrival of new and distinct organisms.
541 From this we can see that the geologic column is the conclusion that results from evolutionary timescale assumptions.
542 This conclusion is defined by its arrangement of distinct collections of organisms in different time periods.
543 This is also the very definition of “the principle of faunal succession”
544 Faunal succession states that “each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna” associated with it.
Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – To this day, fossils are useful as correlation tools to geologists specializing in stratigraphy. In dating the past, the primary value of fossils lies within the principle of faunal succession: each interval of geologic history had a unique fauna that associates a given fossiliferous rock with that particular interval. The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil…Almost without exception, the relative order of strata defined by fossils has been confirmed by radiometric ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. As we examine how the geologic column is formed, it will be important to keep in mind…
1. this definition of faunal succession
2. the fact that faunal succession is merely a synonym for evolution.
iii. Circular reasoning
1. the principle of faunal succession is one of the principles of geology that is used to construct the geologic column
2. therefore, the evolutionary idea that species have evolved into distinct forms in different time periods is actually assumed as part of the premises
3. the premise of the evolution of species is then used to prove the that species have evolved over time.
4. This conclusion is manifest as the geologic column, which divides geologic history into long periods of time according to the species of organisms that evolved and existed during them.
3. Just to the right of center, the geologic column chart above has years assigned to each division of time.
a. Notice that the years are large, round numbers.
b. When a sample (of rock or fossil) is collected from a particular site in the field…
i. This specific relative age (using these amounts of years) from the geologic column is noted and sent to the radiometric dating lab
ii. The dating lab then uses this amount of time in order to derie an absolute age that fits within these large, round numbers from the geologic column that have already been identified for them.
4. The geologic column and its divisions of time
a. The largest divisions of time are called “eons.”
i. There are 3 eons:
1. the Archean,
2. the Proterozoic,
3. the Phanerozoic.
“Geologic Time, II DIVISION OF TIME – The eons of the earth are the Archean, the Proterozoic, and the Phanerozoic. The Archean, the earliest eon, is defined as 4.6 billion to 2.5 billion years before present. Its beginning is marked by the formation of the earth, but no event or specific formation marks the division between the Archean and the Proterozoic Eons.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Each eon is further subdivided into eras, the second largest duration of time.
i. Of all the eras, we should take special note of the eras of the Phanerozoic Eon.
1. The earliest era of the Phanerozoic Eon is the Paleozoic Era.
“Geologic Time, II DIVISION OF TIME – The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The next largest division of time are known as “periods.”
i. The first period of the Paleozoic Era, and in fact the first period of the entire Phanerozoic Eon, is the Cambrian Period.
“Geologic Time, II DIVISION OF TIME – The Paleozoic Era is divided into six periods. From oldest to youngest they are the Cambrian (570 million to 500 million years before present), Ordovician (500 million to 435 million years before present), Silurian (435 million to 410 million years before present), Devonian (410 million to 380 million years before present), Carboniferous (380 million to 290 million years before present), and Permian (290 million to 240 million years before present). The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world. It ended with the extinction of over 90 percent of all living organisms at the end of the Permian Period. The cause of this event is currently unknown.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. The Cambrian Period, The Paleozoic Era, and the Phanerozoic Eon all begin approximately 570 million years ago.
2. The start of the Cambrian Period at 570 million years ago constitutes an important dividing line for geologic time.
a. (We will cover this more as we continue.)
clxxiii. The geologic column is not an actual physical object.
1. The geologic column…
a. Does NOT exist anywhere.
b. Is the end product of relative dating methods (that are hypothetically constructed from evolution theory.)
2. As Britannica states, the geologic column is…
a. a “mental abstraction,” not an actual find in a single location or any handful of locations.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Geologic column and its associated time scale – The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. is “the result of integrating all the world’s individual rock sequences into a single sequence.”
3. The sequence of rock layers and fossils created by the geologic column…
a. doesn’t exist anywhere in the real world
b. is a mere mental assembly of how those individual rock sequences might look if they were all arranged into a single picture.
545 How the geologic column is created.
clxxiv. The primary problem is the process for how the individual sequences of rocks and fossils from all over the world are integrated into a single sequence.
1. The physical features of the rocks themselves CANNOT be used to discover the order of rock layers beyond at each individual, local site.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – Correlation based on the physical features of the rock record also has been used with some success, but it is restricted to small areas that generally extend no more than several hundred kilometres.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Because the features of the rocks themselves cannot be used to integrate individual rock sites into a single sequence, what is used to accomplish this task?
i. The answer, as we have seen before, is “fossils.”
2. Fossils – the primary tool in process of integrating or correlating all of the world’s individual, local rock sequences into a single sequence.
a. Because of the inherent properties of sedimentary rock, “the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture” of the geologic column “can be assembled.”
b. Fossils were not available in enough quantity to do this until around 600 million years ago.
i. This is around the start of the Cambrian Period.
c. Lastly, integrating the world’s individual rock sequences into one sequence…
i. is no easy, straightforward, obvious, or simple procedure,
ii. involves “complex sequenes” that are only possible through “clever detective work” regarding fossils.
iii. (Later, we will see why “clever detective work” is required when we take a closer look at the severely limited information that is being used to construct the geologic column.)
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Local relationships on a single outcrop or archaeological site can often be interpreted to deduce the sequence in which the materials were assembled…Although with clever detective work many complex time sequences or relative ages can be deduced, the ability to show that objects at two separated sites were formed at the same time requires additional information…In addition, because sediment deposition is not continuous and much rock material has been removed by erosion, the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture of the evolution of life on Earth can be assembled. Using this established record, geologists have been able to piece together events over the past 600 million years, or about one-eighth of Earth history, during which time useful fossils have been abundant.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. The evolutionary assumption that organisms evolved (“faunal succession”) is the key principle involved in integrating individual, local rock sequences into a single, larger sequence.
a. This principle is biostratigraphy.
i. “biostratigraphy” is merely a synonym for faunal succession which itself is merely a synonym for evolution.
b. If we remove the use of synonyms, what clearly emerges is that evolution theory is the essential principle that is used to integrate all of the world’s individual rock sequences into the single sequence called the geologic column.
i. In other words, if we assume evolution has occurred and that it took long periods of time to do so, we can construct a chart showing that evolution has occurred over long periods of time.
1. This is circular reasoning.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, C Correlation – Using correlation to determine which rocks are of equal age is important for reconstructing snapshots in geologic history…Fossils are the most useful tools for correlation. Since the work of Smith and Cuvier, biostratigraphers have noted that "like fossils are of like age." This is the principle of fossil correlation.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, V Fields of Geology, B Historical Geology, B1 Stratigraphy – Stratigraphy may be subdivided into a number of fields. Biostratigraphy is the use of fossils for age determination and correlation of rock layers…” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The actual units of time in the geologic column, such as “periods,” are constructed according to “significant changes in fossil forms.”
i. The division of time into distinct periods based upon fossil forms is the very definition of faunal succession.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Geologic column and its associated time scale – The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence. In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil forms or discontinuities in the rock record (i.e., unconformities, or large gaps in the sedimentary sequence); the basic subdivisions of rock are called systems, and the corresponding time intervals are termed periods.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. (Note the use of the word “changes” indicating the evolutionary view that organism’s evolved over time.)
ii. In fact, all of the divisions of time in the geologic column were created by assuming the evolution of species.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – The relative scale was devised mainly by application of the principles of stratigraphy. An example of these is the law of superposition, which simply states that in an undisturbed succession of strata, the youngest beds are on top and the oldest on bottom (or, the higher beds are younger than the lower). Based on the fossils they contain, strata in one area were correlated with those in other areas. As more and more such correlations were made, geologists began to make broad groupings of strata, which became the basis for dividing geologic time into vast blocks. Thus, the history of the earth was divided into four broad eras-Pre-cambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic; the eras were in turn divided into a number of periods (see Geology).” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
clxxv. Summary of how the geologic column is created.
1. Faunal succession, a synonym for evolution itself, is a required principle for creating the geologic column.
a. By assuming that organisms evolved over time we can construct an abstract concept arranging time into different, long periods over which organisms evolved.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different species. Knowing the age of a fossil helps to date the rock in which it is found…These four principles of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the geologic history of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. The individual rock sequences of the world can only be integrated (or correlated) into a single rock sequence known as the geologic column by using evolution itself as a guiding principle for the integration.
546 Construct the geologic column requires “clever detective work” because only, severely-limited information is available.
547 Misleading statements about fossils as indicators of the geologic column.
“Fossil – It is often apparent that each layer in such a sequence contains fossils that are distinct from those of the layers that are above and below it. In such sequences of layers in different geographic locations, the same, or similar, fossil floras or faunas occur in the identical order. By comparing overlapping sequences, it is possible to build up a continuous record of faunas and floras that have progressively more in common with present-day life forms as the top of the sequence is approached.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – British geologist William Smith was the first person known to employ the concept of index fossils. He noted that rock layers could not be reliably identified from rock type alone. By using both rock type and the unique group of fossils present in each layer, he was successful in recognizing individual rock layers across broad geographic areas. Smith also noted that the sequence of fossils always appeared in the same order.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. All around the world fossils are found “in identical order” or “always in the same order.”
4. This “identical order” is said to be from “more primitive” to “more complex.”
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past – In undisturbed strata, fossils in the lower-and thus older-layers are more primitive than those in the younger strata found nearer the surface.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
clxxvi. False impressions arising from misleading statements
1. Stating that fossils are always found in the same order is directly linked to the role of the geologic column as an integration of fossil sites into a single sequence.
2. If fossil sequences all around the world are always in the same order, this creates the impression that…
a. there really is only one sequence of fossils to begin with
b. the work of constructing the geologic column is largely already finished because that single, recurring sequence of fossils is apparent everywhere.
3. A more detailed description of the actual fossil evidence creates an altogether different impression in which the fossil evidence is not so clear or helpful when it comes to constructing a single, overall sequence (the geologic column).
clxxvii. 2 problems with stating that fossils from all over the world are found in the same order from simple to more comlex.
1. The first is a problem in which the evidence and the interpretation are being confused.
2. The second is a problem of oversimplification.
clxxviii. Distinguishing between the actual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.
1. Even if every fossil site around the world always had the exact same fossils in the exact same order…
a. the only information this would provide is the order itself.
b. this would not indicate how the fossils came to be in that order
c. this would not indicate how long it took for the fossils to be deposited
2. That is the difference between the evidence, which is the order itself, and the interpretation, which is an explanation of how or why that order came about.
3. There are really 2 interpretations for the order of fossils in which simpler organisms appear farther down and more complex organisms appear higher up.
a. The first interpretation is the evolutionary notion of faunal succession.
i. In short, organisms evolved over time from simple to complex.
1. The simple organisms were around earlier and, therefore, simple organisms are found deeper, in the older layers of the fossil record
2. The more complex organisms that evolved more recently are found in the higher, younger layers of rock.
ii. Evolution is the mechanism causing the order to go from more simple to more complex.
b. The creationist theory asserts that the mechanism for the order is the global or near global flood.
i. Several factors or a combination of them are identified as causing simpler organisms to be buried lower than more complex organisms.
1. The first organisms likely to be buried by flood sediments are those organisms that are already located in the ground or at the surface of the ground, that are less intelligent, that are less able to avoid drowning, and less bouyant or more dense.
a. That is to say they are more easily, more readily, and more quickly buried,
2. These factors are likely to contribute to a general pattern in which…
a. simpler organisms which are less mobile and already located at ground level will be the first to be buried in the lowest sedimentary rock layers
b. more complex, more mobile animals that are able to swim or avoid drowning for longer amounts of time and will be buried in higher sedimentary layers.
4. In both theories the fossil order is explained as a preservation of the order of death and burial.
a. The main difference is the rate at which the death and burial occurred.
i. Was it over millions and millions and billions of years?
ii. Or was it relatively quick, within a period of months?
5. Summary about distinguishing between evidence and interpretation.
a. Even without taking issue with the oversimplification that fossils are always found in the identical order with simpler organisms lower and more complex organisms higher, this order in and of itself does not prove either evolution or creationism.
b. Both theories have an adequate explanation for why this order exists.
c. To confuse the order itself with the interpretation for why that order came about is simply an error in critical thinking.
d. To do so would be a classic case of confusing the evidence with the interpretation.
clxxix. The oversimplification itself that fossils are found an “identical order” at every site all around the world.
1. The impression that this oversimplification creates is that correlating or integrating all the fossil sites into a single sequence is already complete in the natural world itself.
a. After all, if fossils “always appear in the same order” even “across broad geographic areas” as stated in the quotes above, then the single sequence of fossils is not a mere “mental abstraction” as Britannica described it, but a reality in each of the physical, observable rock layers of the world.
2. A closer look at the actual content of the fossil record dissolves this oversimplification and the false impression it creates.
a. As it exists in the real world the fossil record faces several insurmountable problems that prevent it from…
i. providing any real indications of a single fossil sequence
ii. producing the entire geologic column of earth’s history.
3. The first problem that prevents the fossil record from revealing any single, overarching fossil or geologic history is the fact that the first nine-tenths of the record missing.
a. The vast majority, some 87 percent, of the biological history of the earth is not recorded in the fossil record.
b. Specifically, fossils do not become prevalent enough to reconstruct any type of history until 570 million years ago.
i. This marks the start of the Cambrian Period (the first timeframe of the Phanerozoic Eon).
ii. The rest of evolutionary geologic time is known collectively as “Precambrian time” and is in part defined by its lack of fossils.
c. This missing component makes the possibility for identifying a single sequence an “optimistic hope” that will not likely ever be achieved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, B Biostratigraphy –Biostratigraphy is most useful for determining geologic time during the Phanerozoic Eon (Greek phaneros, "evident"; zoic, "life"), the time of visible and abundant fossil life that has lasted for about the past 570 million years.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Most boundaries in recent geologic time coincide with periodic extinctions and appearances of new species…II DIVISION OF TIME – An explosion of invertebrate life marks the end of the Proterozoic and the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic Eon started 570 million years before present and continues into the present…The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras…The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – Correlation is, as mentioned earlier, the technique of piecing together the informational content of separated outcrops. When information derived from two outcrops is integrated, the time interval they represent is probably greater than that of each alone. Presumably if all the world's outcrops were integrated, sediments representing all of geologic time would be available for examination. This optimistic hope, however, must be tempered by the realization that much of the Precambrian record—older than 570 million years—is missing.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. The Precambrian “is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains” that are necessary for integrating the world’s rock sequences into a single sequence.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application – Approximately the first 87 percent of Earth history occurred before the evolutionary development of shell-bearing organisms. The result of this mineralogic control on the preservability of organic remains in the rock record is that the geologic time scale—essentially a measure of biologic changes through time—takes in only the last 13 percent of Earth history. Although the span of time preceding the Cambrian period—the Precambrian—is nearly devoid of characteristic fossil remains and coincides with some of the primary rocks of certain early workers, it must, nevertheless, be evaluated in its temporal context.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. The reason for the absence of fossils in the first 87 percent of earth history is attributed to absence of hard body parts, such as shells.
1. Prior to “about 650 million years ago” life-forms were comprised mostly of “soft parts, such as jellyfish and worms” which lacked the hard parts necessary for preservation in the fossil record.
“Earth, geologic history of, Development of the atmosphere and oceans, Formation of the secondary atmosphere – The first microscopic eukaryotes appeared about 1.4 billion years ago. Life-forms with soft parts, such as jellyfish and worms, developed in profusion, albeit locally, toward the end of the Precambrian about 650 million years ago, and it is estimated that this corresponds to an oxygen level of 0.1 PAL.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. The trilobite is a primary example of this trend.
a. The trilobite, one of the earliest organisms in the fossil record, had an “external skeleton.”
b. Trilobites were readily preserved in the fossil record because of their hard composition.
“Trilobite – any member of a group of extinct fossil arthropods easily recognized by their distinctive three-lobed, three-segmented form. Trilobites, exclusively marine animals, first appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian Period, about 540 million years ago, when they dominated the seas. Although they became less abundant in succeeding geologic periods, a few forms persisted into the Permian Period, which ended about 245 million years ago. Because trilobites appear fully developed in the Cambrian Period, it appears likely that the ancestral trilobites originated during the Precambrian (3.96 billion to 540 millionyears ago)…Trilobites are frequently used for stratigraphic correlations…Trilobites, like other arthropods, had an external skeleton, called exoskeleton, composed of chitinous material. For the animal to grow, the exoskeleton had to be shed, and shed trilobite exoskeletons, or portions of them, are fossils that are relatively common.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. How much history could even feasibly be dated using fossils
i. The sufficient quantity of fossils may be limited to only 500 million years ago, rather than the 570 million years asserted above, effectively reducing the time by one-sixth or 16 percent.
“Geology, V FIELDS OF GEOLOGY, B Historical, B4 Paleontology and Paleobiology – The oldest fossils are older than 3 billion years, although fossils do not become abundant and diverse until about 500 million years ago.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Arranging an integrated picture of life on earth prior to 600 million years ago is simply not possible from the fossil record.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – In addition, because sediment deposition is not continuous and much rock material has been removed by erosion, the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture of the evolution of life on Earth can be assembled. Using this established record, geologists have been able to piece together events over the past 600 million years, or about one-eighth of Earth history, during which time useful fossils have been abundant.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Life, The origin of life, The antiquity of life – The fossil record, in any complete sense, goes back only about 600,000,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. “Fossils became abundant” only about 544 to 505 million years ago, so that the first sixth of the 600 million year “datable” timeframe is based upon “only a few kinds of organisms.”
“Earth [planet], History of Earth – The known history of Earth is divided into four long stretches of time called eons. Starting with the earliest, the eons are Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic. The first three eons, which together lasted nearly 4 billion years, are grouped into a unit called the Precambrian. The Phanerozoic Eon, when life became abundant, is divided into three eras…The Paleozoic Era – Fossils become abundant in Cambrian rocks that are about 544 million to 505 million years old. This apparently sudden expansion in the number of life forms in the fossil record is called the Cambrian Explosion, and it marks the beginning of the Paleozoic Era. The Cambrian Explosion actually occurred over tens of millions of years, but it appears sudden in the fossil record. The earliest abundant fossils consist of only a few kinds of organisms. Over the course of hundreds of millions of years, the number of species increases gradually in the fossil record.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
f. So, the first obstacle to constructing a single, sequence of geologic history of life on earth from the fossil record is that the fossil record CANNOT date nearly the first 90 percent of earth’s history.
4. The second problem is that even the existing fossil record is plagued with significant gaps and discontinuities between one local site and another fossil resulting in missing chunks of biological history.
a. There are “significant changes or discontinuities” which are breaks, “unconformities, or large gaps in the sedimentary sequence” even in the strata of local sites.
b. (For an illustration of the following quotes see Gaps in the Fossil Record Figure 1.)
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Local relationships on a single outcrop or archaeological site can often be interpreted to deduce the sequence in which the materials were assembled…In addition, because sediment deposition is not continuous and much rock material has been removed by erosion, the fossil record from many localities has to be integrated before a complete picture of the evolution of life on Earth can be assembled. Using this established record, geologists have been able to piece together events over the past 600 million years, or about one-eighth of Earth history, during which time useful fossils have been abundant.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Geologic column and its associated time scale – The end product of correlation is a mental abstraction called the geologic column. It is the result of integrating all the world's individual rock sequences into a single sequence. In order to communicate the fine structure of this so-called column, it has been subdivided into smaller units. Lines are drawn on the basis of either significant changes in fossil forms or discontinuities in the rock record (i.e., unconformities, or large gaps in the sedimentary sequence); the basic subdivisions of rock are called systems, and the corresponding time intervals are termed periods.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The gaps in the existing fossil record are severe enough that it is “virtually impossible” to construct a measure of the earth’s history using the fossil record.
“Geochronology, Development of radioactive dating methods and their application, Early attempts at calculating the age of the Earth – Equally novel but similarly flawed was the assumption that, if a cumulative measure of all rock successions were compiled and known rates of sediment accumulation were considered, the amount of time elapsed could be calculated. While representing a reasonable approach to the problem, this procedure did not or could not take into account different accumulation rates associated with different environments or the fact that there are many breaks in the stratigraphic record. Even observations made on faunal succession proved that gaps in the record do occur. How long were these gaps? Do they represent periods of nondeposition or periods of deposition followed by periods of erosion? Clearly sufficient variability in a given stratigraphic record exists such that it may be virtually impossible to even come to an approximate estimate of the Earth's age based on this technique. Nevertheless, many attempts using this approach were made.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. A clarification regarding the word “sequence.”
i. The term “sequence…”
1. can merely denote an order, whether that order is a smooth, developmental progression or merely the rough stacking order of unrelated items.
2. is often perceived as indicating that the fossils themselves are “sequential” in nature.
a. In this case “sequence” conveys the idea of a smooth, developmental progression in the fossil forms themselves.
ii. There is certainly an order of fossils at any given site, but the fossils and the fossil record do not exhibit a smooth, “sequential,” developmental transition.
e. The fossils in the in the fossil record do not exhibit a smooth, “sequential,” developmental transition, instead…
i. they “exhibit little morphological” change for as long as they appear in the record
ii. “new species” appear suddenly with no transitional forms.
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – New species, characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes, typically appear at the boundaries between strata, whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Because understanding of the actual evolutionary events that took place over earth's long history depends largely on interpretations of an incomplete fossil record, much latitude remains for differences in such interpretations. One of the issues that is currently being debated among theorists derives from a notable fact observed in the fossil record. That is, when a new species appears in the record it usually does so abruptly and then apparently remains stable for as long as the record of that species lasts. The fossils do not seem to exhibit the slow and gradual changes that might be expected according to the modern synthesis. For this reason, in part, a number of evolutionists-most notably Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History-have proposed a variant concept of ‘punctuated equilibria’ for species evolution. According to this concept, species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced suddenly by newer and more successful forms. These sudden changes are the ‘punctuations’ in the state of equilibrium that give this concept its name.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Gould, Stephen Jay – He taught at Harvard University from 1967. Gould (with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History) originated the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, a theory based on the fact that very few transitional forms are found in the fossil record.” – "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Eldredge, Niles – In 1972 Eldredge collaborated with Gould to publish the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which attempts to reconcile the discontinuities between the fossil record and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In his theory of punctuated equilibrium, Eldredge postulates that species remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years, only to be abruptly replaced by newer and more successful forms-sporadic changes that appear as "punctuation" in the fossil record.” – "Eldredge, Niles," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. The geologic column’s division into time periods is based on the recognition of the sudden “explosion” of new species with no transitional fossils.
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – As was explained earlier, at specific stratigraphic boundaries certain types of fossils either appear or disappear or both in some cases. Such biostratigraphic boundaries separate larger or smaller units of time that are defined as eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Most boundaries in recent geologic time coincide with periodic extinctions and appearances of new species…II DIVISION OF TIME – An explosion of invertebrate life marks the end of the Proterozoic and the beginning of the Phanerozoic. The Phanerozoic Eon started 570 million years before present and continues into the present…The Phanerozoic Eon is divided into the Paleozoic (570 million to 245 million years before present), Mesozoic (245 million to 65 million years before present), and Cenozoic (65 million years before present to present) Eras. The Paleozoic Era is divided into six periods. From oldest to youngest they are the Cambrian (570 million to 500 million years before present), Ordovician (500 million to 435 million years before present), Silurian (435 million to 410 million years before present), Devonian (410 million to 380 million years before present), Carboniferous (380 million to 290 million years before present), and Permian (290 million to 240 million years before present). The Paleozoic began with the appearance of many different life-forms, which are preserved as abundant fossils in rock sequences all over the world. It ended with the extinction of over 90 percent of all living organisms at the end of the Permian Period. The cause of this event is currently unknown…The Mesozoic began with the appearance of many new kinds of animals, including the dinosaurs and the ammonites, or extinct relatives of modern squid. The Mesozoic ended with another major extinction in which about 80 percent of all living organisms died. This extinction may have been the result of a large asteroid that crashed into the earth on the present-day northern Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
f. The fact that the fossil record is a record of distinct, fully-formed, species that are not transitioning into one another is a huge obstacle to the geologic column.
i. One of the central principles used to construct the geologic column from the fossil record is faunal succession.
ii. Faunal succession is defined by the idea that existing species evolve or transition into new species so that the kinds of species existing are unique in each geologic timeperiod
1. This, in turn, allows for rock layers to be dated by the collection of fossil species they contain.
“Stratigraphy, II PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY – Stratigraphy relies on four simple principles to unveil geologic history…The principle of faunal and floral succession states that because animals and plants evolve into new species, sedimentary rocks of different ages will contain fossils of different species. Knowing the age of a fossil helps to date the rock in which it is found…These four principles of stratigraphy can be used to unravel the geologic history of a given area.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. But the rock layers as a whole contain no transitional species – this, in turn, undermines the fundamental premise that…
1. existing species transition into new species
2. the succession of one species to another can be used to date rocks to construct an overall geologic history.
g. Summary of the problem created by the fact that the existing fossil record has significant gaps and shows no transitional forms of organisms.
i. The discontinuity of the fossil record and the fact that new fossil species appear suddenly with no transitional forms demonstrates that faunal succession, which is necessary to produce the geologic column, is not a real or observed phenomenon.
ii. The fossil record is missing the first 87 percent of earth’s history
iii. The fossil record is missing huge sections in the remaining 13 percent even on local levels
iv. The sequence of fossils in the fossil record is not smooth, developmental, or “sequential,” but is a broken, discontinuous record of the sudden emergence of wholly new species with no transitional forms.
v. The fossil record is simply a bunch of different species preserved in different layers, with microscopic and heavy, shelled or exoskeleton-covered marine species at the bottom.
1. No matter how often this type of order is found all around the world, it is simply not a sequence of organisms that necessarily or even favorably points to an evolutionary development of life.
5. The third problem that prevents the fossil record from revealing any single, overarching fossil or geologic history is the fact that 80 to 85 percent of the earth’s land surface does not contain more than 2 geologic periods in the “correct” evolutionary order.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” – Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column” CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981, pp. 46-71 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 33 minutes, 45 seconds)
a. The creationist quote above is corroborated from the information in secular and evolutionary sources.
i. For instance, the same creationist source also cites a secular textbook, which states that “If the geologic column existed in one location it would be 100 miles thick.”
“If the geologic column existed in one location it would be 100 miles thick!”
Biology, p. 385, A Boka Books (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 20 minutes)
ii. Similarly, Britannica asserts that, if compiled, just the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column would be only 122,000 meters thick, which is about 76 miles.
“Geochronology, Nonradiometric dating, Geologic processes as absolute chronometers, Accumulational processes – The fossiliferous part of the geologic column includes perhaps 122,000 metres of sedimentary rock if maximum thicknesses are selected from throughout the world.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. The fact that the fossil-bearing geologic column would be 76 miles thick if it existed as a real, physical entity corroborates the fact that no more than 2 periods of the geologic column can be found in 80 to 85 percent of the world.
i. First, note that the earth’s crust, particularly the earth’s continental crust where fossil sites are found, is on average only about 10 miles thick.
“How thick is the earth’s crust?, A Continental Crust – The earth's solid surface is about 40 percent continental crust. Continental crust is much older, thicker and less dense than oceanic crust. Generally, the continental crust between plates that are moving apart is very thin, about 20 km (about 10 mi) thick. In other places, such as mountain ranges, the crust ranges from 30 to 70 km (from 20 to 40 mi) thick.” – "Plate Tectonics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
1. This means that the 76-mile-high fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column is somewhere between 7 to 8 times thicker than the continental crust itself.
ii. All fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is only 1.1 miles thick.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary, rock – Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock. The fossils formed when sediments covered dead plants and animals. As the sediments changed to rock, either the remains or the outlines of the plants and animals were preserved. Some limestone is made entirely of fossil shells.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
1. Since fossils are only found in sedimentary rock, the fossil-bearing geologic column has to come from sedimentary rock.
2. Sedimentary rock only occurs as a “thin veneer” covering the top portion at the top of the vast majority of earth’s 10-mile thick crust.
“Sedimentary, rock – Sedimentary rock covers about three-fourths of Earth's land area and most of the ocean floor.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
“Igneous rock – The Earth is composed predominantly of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Most methods for determining relative geologic ages are well illustrated in sedimentary rocks. These rocks cover roughly 75 percent of the surface area of the continents, and unconsolidated sediments blanket most of the ocean floor." – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary rock – rock formed at or near the Earth's surface by the accumulation and lithification of sediment (detrital rock) or by the precipitation from solution at normal surface temperatures (chemical rock). Sedimentary rocks are the most common rocks exposed on the Earth's surface but are only a minor constituent of the entire crust, which is dominated by igneous and metamorphic rocks…Sediments and sedimentary rocks are confined to the Earth's crust, which is the thin, light outer solid skin of the Earth ranging in thickness from 40–100 kilometres (25 to 62 miles) in the continental blocks to 4–10 kilometres in the ocean basins. Igneous and metamorphic rocks constitute the bulk of the crust. The total volume of sediment and sedimentary rocks can be either directly measured using exposed rock sequences, drill-hole data, and seismic profiles or indirectly estimated by comparing the chemistry of major sedimentary rock types to the overall chemistry of the crust from which they are weathered. Both methods indicate that the Earth's sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only about 5 percent by volume of the terrestrial crust, which in turn accounts for less than 1 percent of the Earth's total volume. On the other hand, the area of outcrop and exposure of sediment and sedimentary rock comprises 75 percent of the land surface and well over 90 percent of the ocean basins and continental margins. In other words, 80–90 percent of the surface area of the Earth is mantled with sediment or sedimentary rocks rather than with igneous or metamorphic varieties. The sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only a thin superficial layer. The mean shell thickness in continental areas is 1.8 kilometres; the sediment shell in the ocean basins is roughly 0.3 kilometre. Rearranging this shell as a globally encircling layer (and depending on the raw estimates incorporated into the model), the shell thickness would be roughly 1–3 kilometres. Despite the relatively insignificant volume of the sedimentary rock shell, not only are most rocks exposed at the terrestrial surface of the sedimentary variety, but many of the significant events in Earth history are most accurately dated and documented by analyzing and interpreting the sedimentary rock record instead of the more voluminous igneous and metamorphic rock record.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Sedimentary rock forms a “superficial” shell that is only 1.8 kilometers thick
a. This is only about 1.1 miles.
c. Since the entire fossil-bearing geologic column would be 76 miles thick and sedimentary rock is only 1.1 miles thick, exactly how much of the fossil-bearing geologic record, how many layers, could possibly be visible at any particular site?
i. The number of periods of geologic time found at any one site.
1. Britannica Encyclopedia provides a chart outlining the different eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages of the geologic column.
a. (See Britannica Geologic Column Figure 1.)
2. The chart identifies 80 different ages, which is the smallest division of time on the chart.
a. With 80 ages in a 76-mile-high geologic column, each age would be just under 1 mile thick.
b. That means each site of 1-mile sedimentary rock could only show about 1 or 2 periods of geologic time.
3. The chart identifies only 11 periods from the Cambrian Period forward, when fossils become abundant enough to use for integrating a single rock sequence.
a. With 11 periods in a 76-mile-high geologic column, each period would be almost 7 miles thick.
b. That means each site of 1-mile sedimentary rock could only show about 1 period of geologic time.
d. Given the thinness of sedimentary rock on the earth’s surface and the size of the periods of the geologic column, it’s easy to see why 80 to 85 percent of the earth’s surface does not contain even 3 periods of geologic time, particulary in the “correct” evolutionary order, just as we saw earlier in the following quote.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods.” – Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column” CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981, pp. 46-71 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 33 minutes, 45 seconds)
e. Summary of some basic facts about the geologic column
i. The fossil record is missing the first 87 percent of earth’s history
ii. The fossil record is missing huge sections in the remaining 13 percent even on local levels
iii. The fossil record is comprised of an order that is not a smooth, developmental “sequential” at all,
iv. Each individual fossil site around the world contains less than 3 geologic periods and a slice that is only about one-eightieth of the thickness of the whole geologic column.
6. Indications of problematic evolutionary assumptions due to the size of the 76-mile-high fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column.
a. First, to emphasize the dramatic height of a 76-mile geologic column, we should consider the fact that…
i. the ozone layer is only 30 miles above the surface of the earth
ii. satellites start orbiting at 100 miles up
“Earth [planet], The atmosphere – Air surrounds Earth and becomes progressively thinner farther from the surface. Most people find it difficult to breathe more than 2 miles (3 kilometers) above sea level. About 100 miles (160 kilometers) above the surface, the air is so thin that satellites can travel without much resistance…High above the troposphere, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) above Earth's surface, is a layer of still air called the stratosphere. The stratosphere contains a layer where ultraviolet light from the sun strikes oxygen molecules to create a gas called ozone.” – Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
iii. (For an illustration of the height of the geologic column please see Dating Proceedures Figure 5 and Dating Proceedures Figure 3.)
b. Second, although a height of 76 miles is required, the surface of the earth is covered, at a maximum, by only 1-mile-thick slivers of fossils.
i. With these contrasts in view, which theory’s explanation seems more plausible?
1. Creation theory:
a. The 1 mile of sediment and wholly-formed, non-transitioning, discontinuous fossil sites all around the world are the result of a massive, global flood.
b. The global flood quickly buried and preserved the simple, surface-living and marine life forms with hard parts such as exoskeletons at the bottom while more complex life forms survived longer and were buried later on in higher layers.
2. Evolution theory:
a. A quantity of sedimentary rock that represents 76 miles times the surface of the earth’s spherical surface has worn away and then resettled into only 1.1 miles of surviving sedimentary rock.
b. Evolution is exhibited in the fossil-record despite…
i. this unimaginably massive amount of erosion
ii. the fact that somehow all of the transitional forms where evolution occurs are not present in what remains after the erosion
ii. In this light, the precarious string of improbabilities inherent to the evolutionary view becomes apparent.
1. Isn’t a single layer of 1.1 mile thick sedimentary rock burying and preserving different varieties of organisms in different layers as a result of a global flood much more reasonable and plausible, particularly in light of the historical and geologic evidence for a global flood?
7. The fourth problem that prevents the fossil record from revealing any single, overarching fossil or geologic history is the fact that most fossil species are not found all over the world.
a. Fossils in general are found all around the world.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – Fossils are found in all parts of the world, from Greenland to Antarctica. They can be found in cores drilled in and retrieved from the ocean floor, and on top of the highest mountains. Their wide geographical distribution is a result of the way the earth's surface has changed throughout its history.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. However, specific fossil types are not widely distributed geographically.
c. Only floating or swimming marine creatures have wide geographic distribution.
i. Widely distributed fossils are limited to unicellular marine or land organisms, such as spores or foraminiferan, that “could move with the currents” of water or wind.
1. (Note that graptolites, another marine organism, are fossilized “on continents” which is an interesting piece of evidence that further corroborates that the world was once covered by a massive flood, creating marine fossils far inland.)
“Index Fossil, III CHARACTERISTICS OF INDEX FOSSILS – Index fossils that are widely distributed allow geologists to correlate the rocks at one location with those far away. The best index fossils for this purpose have a wide geographical distribution, have a speedy dispersal, and occur independent of rock type. Organisms with the widest geographic distribution are generally marine creatures that are pelagic (floating) or nectonic (swimming) for at least part of their life cycles. These organisms easily can be distributed across entire ocean basins and some achieve near worldwide distribution. Dispersal refers to the spreading of a group of organisms from one area to another.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – Some fossils are restricted to small areas and some are distributed globally. The most widespread fossils are the remains of organisms that lived in oceans and could move with the currents, such as foraminifera, and those that lived on land and were spread by wind, such as spores. Fossils of graptolites (marine invertebrates that lived in colonies) in rocks of marine origin and of ferns on land are now found on all continents. Certain species of shallow-water trilobites, and dinosaurs that were restricted to land, are found only at particular localities.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. Land animals, such as dinosaurs, are not widely distributed geographically but “are found only at particular localities.”
e. The fact that most types of organisms are found “only at particular localities” and are NOT widely distributed geographically presents a difficulty for “correlating the rocks at one location with those far away.”
i. This limited distribution of different fossil types requires special fossils called “index fossils” to be used in order to correlate the distinct collections of fossil types found at different locations.
ii. Index fossils themselves provide further indications of how individual fossil species are not widely distributed geographically.
f. (Resolving contradictory statements from reference sources.)
i. The last quote above stated that land animals, such as dinosaurs, are not widely distributed geographically but “are found only at particular localities.”
ii. The quote below states that “similar kinds of fossil dinosaurs” are found “on all of the modern continents.”
iii. The case is that dinosaur fossils are not widely distributed geographically, but similar dinosaur fossils are only found at a limited number of sites on each continent.
g. Mammal fossils have an even more limited distribution than dinosaurs.
“Fossil, How fossils reveal the past, Recording changes in the earth – Fossils also provide evidence supporting the theory of continental drift-the idea that the positions of the continents have changed over hundreds of millions of years. Paleontologists have found similar kinds of fossil dinosaurs on all of the modern continents. It is unlikely that similar species could have evolved on separate continents. As a result, most earth scientists believe that when the dinosaurs first appeared-about 230 million years ago-nearly all the earth's land mass was united as a single supercontinent. In contrast, fossils of mammals show complex differences from continent to continent. This indicates that after about 200 million years ago, when mammals were beginning to develop and spread, the supercontinent was breaking apart.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
i. While fossils of similar dinosaurs are found in only a few locations on each continent, mammal fossils are different from continent to continent.
h. Different sites contain different fossils rather than “fossils always appearing in the same order” even “across broad geographic areas.”
i. Old fossils from a long time ago are found on certain continents
ii. Young fossils from more recently are found on other continents.
“Fossil, III WHERE FOSSILS FORM – Different types of fossils are found in different geological formations, depending on the prehistoric environment represented and the age of the rock. Older rocks are found on low, eroded continents near the edges of large oceans. Younger rocks are found more commonly where there is active mountain building and volcanic activity. Old fossils are most commonly found where an old mountain range has eroded, such as in eastern North America and northern Europe, or where two old continents have collided, such as in Russia. Younger fossils are found at the ocean side of young mountains where an ocean plate is colliding with a continental plate, such as in western North and South America and in New Zealand.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. In fact, scientists know that, in general, different types of fossils are found in vastly different areas.
iv. That is why scientists look for certain types of fossils only in certain regions.
“Fossil, Studying fossils – Paleontologists search in specific areas for particular types of fossils. In North America, for example, most fossil mammals are found west of the Mississippi River. Paleontologists hunt for fossil ancestors of human beings in eastern and southern Africa. Canada and Australia have deposits of well-preserved ancient marine invertebrates.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
i. The geologic column itself provides further proof that fossil sites contain different combinations of fossils from different eras of time rather than the same fossils in the same order at every location.
i. (Geologic column chart is provided from Microsoft Encarta)
[pic]
“[PHOTO CAPTION] © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Geologic Time Scale," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. From the chart we notice that the terms “Cenozoic,” “Mesozoic” and “Paleozoic…”
1. designate different eras,
2. are the second largest division of evolutionary geologic time.
iii. We also know that…
1. Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock,
2. Sedimentary rock is only 1.1 miles thick on continental crust,
3. The entire fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column is 76 miles thick.
iv. 3 examples of how “distinctive combinations of fossils” are found in “rocks of certain ages” – Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic.
1. The examples demonstrate that rocks of these ages have “distinct combinations of fossils.”
a. Paleozoic rocks contain “trilobites and graptolites.”
b. Mesozoic rocks contain “dinosaurs” and “ammonites,” which are an extinct form of squid.
c. Cenozoic rocks contain “flowering plants” and “mammals.”
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – The third principle, that of fossil succession, deals with fossils in sedimentary rock. Careful mapping around the world has revealed that rock of certain ages contains distinctive combinations of fossils-Paleozoic rocks contain trilobite and graptolite fossils, Mesozoic rocks contain dinosaur remains and ammonite fossils, Cenozoic rocks contain remnants of flowering plants and abundant mammal remains. By matching the fossil content of rock sequences, even across widespread geographic regions, paleontologists believe that certain sequences are probably about the same age.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
v. Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic are the second largest divisions of evolutionary time.
1. Each one of these eras contains roughly a third of the 600-million-year-long fossil-bearing portion geologic column, which is 76 miles thick.
2. But, individual fossil sites can only contain 1.1 miles’ worth of fossils.
3. Consequently, no individual site could contain even one of these eras.
4. So, when Encarta denotes that rocks of certain eras “contain distinctive combinations of fossils,” it is really denoting that rock layers at different locations “contain distinctive combinations of fossils.”
j. Summary about different fossils being found in different places not the same order at every location.
i. Once again, we see that the same fossils are not found in the same order everywhere, but in reality, each site contains a different combination of fossils.
ii. The collection of fossils at each site is so diverse that “careful mapping” of which fossils are at which sites must be performed for the entire world.
iii. Clearly, different fossils are found at different sites, not the same fossils in the same order over and over again.
8. Index fossils provide further proof that fossils are not found in the same order all over the world – instead different fossils are found at different locations and then assembled into an order matching evolutionary theory.
a. Since most fossils are not found around the world, those fossils that are dispersed more widely geographically play a key role.
i. Such widely distributed fossils are called “index fossils.”
b. All of the quotes below assert that wide geographic distribution is one of the traits that makes an index fossil and index fossil.
“Index fossil – any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a widegeographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Fossil, VI DATING AND CLASSIFYING FOSSILS – Some organisms lived for only a short period of geological time, and paleontologists use the fossils of these organisms as indicators to establish the age of fossils found in association with them. If similar fossils have been found over a wide geographic range, the fossils may be used to correlate the dates of formations in different localities.” – "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, General considerations, Correlation, Principles and techniques – The basic conceptual tool for correlation by fossils is the index, or guide, fossil…On the practical side, an index fossil should be distinctive in appearance so as to prevent misidentification, and it should be cosmopolitan both as to geography and as to rock type. In addition, its fossilized population should be sufficiently abundant for discovery to be highly probable. Such an array of attributes represents an ideal, and much stratigraphic geology is rendered difficult because of departure of the natural fossil assemblage from this ideal.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index Fossil, I INTRODUCTION – Index fossils are also used to compare, or correlate, rocks exposed in separate locations…II INFORMATION GATHERED FROM INDEX FOSSILS – Index fossils are also used to show the relationship between rocks layers in distant locations. For example, layers of limestone exposed in different areas may appear identical. To determine whether they are part of the same rock layer or represent distinct and unrelated rock layers, geologists study the fossils in the limestone. Generally, each rock layer contains distinctive groups of fossils, called the index fossils for that layer. If both limestones contain the same index fossils, they are likely part of the same rock layer and thus from the same time period…III CHARACTERISTICS OF INDEX FOSSILS – The ideal index fossils are those that are abundant, easy to identify, short-lived, widely distributed, and occur in many types of rocks…Index fossils that are widely distributed allow geologists to correlate the rocks at one location with those far away. The best index fossils for this purpose have a wide geographical distribution, have a speedy dispersal, and occur independent of rock type…Most fossil groups only possess a few of these ideal attributes. Groups that were widespread and abundant generally were very successful and usually existed for long periods of geologic time.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. The very need to identify special fossils that are widely distributed enough to aid in integrating a single geologic sequence demonstrates conversely the extent to which most fossils “are found only at particular localities.”
d. It is assumed that an index fossil in one location has the same age as that same fossil found at another location.
i. (See midway through the last quote above.)
ii. Thus, since index fossils have the same age, they can be used to correlate the ages of rock layers at different locations.
iii. However, this is merely an assumption.
iv. There’s no way to know if…
1. The species was short-lived and therefore all fossil forms of it represent the same short timespan
2. Or if the species was long-lived and fossil forms of it come from vastly different times.
e. But even if we make the assumption that like fossils are of like age, that assumption alone does not in anyway prove that all the fossils in the layers above and below it have vastly different ages.
i. The conclusion that other fossils have different ages than the index fossils requires the additional assumption that the distance between one fossil layer and the next equates to millions of years.
ii. Such an assumption is completely unaffected one way or the other by using index fossils and the assumption that “like fossils are of like age.”
f. The creationist model also accepts the idea that like fossils are of like age because in creationism fits all fossils are roughly the same age since the majority of fossils are the result of a global flood.
i. Consequently, even if index fossils or other like fossils are assumed to have the same age, that alone would not in any way lead to the conclusion that rock layers and fossils formed over hundreds of millions of years.
g. So, while index fossils are a necessary tool for correlating the geologic column, even with certain assumptions about index fossils, there is no way to form the geologic column unless one first assumes evolution’s long ages of time and the evolution of species itself.
9. The fifth problem that prevents the fossil record from revealing any single, overarching fossil or geologic history is the fact that sometimes fossils are found entirely in the wrong order.
a. When this happens and the fossils are in the opposite order that evolution expects or predicts, the entire rock formation is deemed to be upside down so that the fossils can still be in the “correct” evolutionary order.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – On occasion, however, deformation may have caused the rocks of the crust to tilt, perhaps to the point of overturning them. Moreover, if erosion has blurred the record by removing substantial portions of the deformed sedimentary rock, it may not be at all clear which edge of a given layer is the original top and which is the original bottom. Identifying top and bottom is clearly important in sequence determination, so important in fact that a considerable literature has been devoted to this question alone. Many of the criteria of top–bottom determination are based on asymmetry in depositional features. Oscillation ripple marks, for example, are produced in sediments by water sloshing back and forth. When such marks are preserved in sedimentary rocks, they define the original top and bottom by their asymmetric pattern. Certain fossils also accumulate in a distinctive pattern or position that serves to define the top side.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. As we noted earlier, critics of the geologic column point out that 80-85 percent of the earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods in “correct” geologic order.
“Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order.” – Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column” CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981, pp. 46-71 (Cited in “Lies in the Textbooks,” Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, , Windows Media Video, 33 minutes, 45 seconds)
c. Because fossils are sometimes found out of the expected evolutionary order, requiring that the rock layers be viewed as “upside down” or “tilted,” Encarta gives the following qualification that lower layers are older “in most cases” but not always.
“[PHOTO CAPTION] Stratigraphy – Archaeologists determine the age of artifacts and other remains in relation to each other and to the present through a technique called stratigraphy. This illustration depicts a cross-section into the ground in which many layers of soil, rock, and other materials can be seen. In most cases, objects buried in lower layers, such as the stonework, are older than those in higher layers, such as the skull. © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Stratigraphy," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. If we don’t make the necessary evolutionary accommodation that an entire series of rock layers is flipped upside down, the fact that some fossils are found out of evolutionary order would indicate that these organisms did not evolve and live at different periods of time separated by long intervals.
d. The fact that fossils are found in orders that contradict evolution demonstrates once again that the same fossils are not found in the same order all around the world.
e. “Flipped” fossil sequences add a considerable difficulty for constructing a single, worldwide geologic column.
i. The problem is that unless we assume the evolutionary order of species we cannot determine which fossil sites are turned over and which are normal.
1. How do we know if the sites evolutionists think are “normal” have actually become “flipped” or vice versa?
2. How do we know if some sites where fossils are in the evolutionary order have not also been flipped over due to whatever geological processes can cause such a phenomenon?
ii. Put simply, what is being used to designate some sites as “flipped over” and other sites as “normal” is whether or not the fossils appear in an order consistent with evolution.
10. The sixth problem that prevents the fossil record from revealing any single, overarching fossil or geologic history is the fact that similar fossils (of the same species) are found at different layers within rock formations, layers that are thought to represent “widely different times,” which are “millions of years” apart.
“Index Fossil, III CHARACTERISTICS OF INDEX FOSSILS – The ideal index fossils are those that are abundant, easy to identify, short-lived, widely distributed, and occur in many types of rocks…Most fossil groups only possess a few of these ideal attributes…Those that were more local or regional tended to migrate over time and their presence in different areas may have occurred at widely different times. One occurrence may be from just after the group evolved and the other from millions of years later, just before the group became extinct.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. As we have seen, the standard rule is that “like fossils are of like age.”
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, C Correlation – Fossils are the most useful tools for correlation. Since the work of Smith and Cuvier, biostratigraphers have noted that ‘like fossils are of like age.’ This is the principle of fossil correlation.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Either this is a sound principle or it isn’t.
i. Either we are safe to assume that like fossils are the same age or we are not.
c. If this standard rule is sound then when similar fossils are found in rock layers at different stratigraphic levels, the “like fossils” should indicate that those rock layers are the same age.
i. However, evolutionists discard or ignore their fundamental principle that “like fossils are of like age” when similar looking fossils are found in rock layers that are thought to be separated by millions of years
1. In such cases, they instead assume that the “lower” fossil is NOT of the same age as the “higher” fossil even though they are alike.
2. Despite their alikeness the “lower” fossil is assumed to be an earlier evolutionary form of the slightly different “higher-layer” fossil.
a. The quote below uses separate species of “conodonts” as an example.
“Index Fossil, III CHARACTERISTICS OF INDEX FOSSILS – In general, for an index fossil to be most useful, it must be identified to the species level. For example, conodonts as a group occur in rocks from the Cambrian Period to the Triassic Period (570 million to 208 million years ago), but the conodont species Siphonodella sulcata is present only at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period (360 million to 355 million years ago) and is an index fossil for this narrow time period.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. If this standard rule is NOT sound then we CANNOT conclude that rock layers with similar fossils are ever the same age.
i. If the principle that “like fossils are of like age” is not applied consistently then what justification can their be for assuming that like fossils ever indicate like age?
ii. The inconsistency of applying this “rule” indicates its application or non-application is dictated by the need to support evolutionary assumptions and to construct a long geologic timescale showing an evolution of species.
e. The problem is that while the principle that “like fossils are of like age” is an essential tool for constructing the geologic column, there is simply no objective basis for suggesting that similar fossils are two different species.
i. For example, paleontologists try to distinguish between different species of saber-toothed cats.
1. The basis for classifying one fossil as a different species than another is the shape and size of the “hard parts, such as shells, teeth, and skeletons, because these are the features that are preserved.”
“Fossil, Studying fossils, Classifying fossils – Like living plants and animals, fossil species are classified according to how closely related they are to one another. In general, scientists determine how closely related various species are by comparing their many biological features (see CLASSIFICATION, SCIENTIFIC). For fossil groups, these features are primarily the shapes of hard parts, such as shells, teeth, and skeletons, because these are the features that are preserved. For example, paleontologists may look at skull shape and tooth size when determining the different species of saber-toothed cat.” – Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
ii. But, variations in size or shape of teeth and skeletons or even shells are not valid criteria for classifying fossils into separate species.
1. First, even in the modern human population, there is a great deal of variety in skull shape and skeletal size, including teeth.
2. Yet all of these variations exist within the same species.
3. They are just variations in one species based upon the particular genetic sample in each individual.
4. Such size or shape varieties are simply not sufficient objective evidence for classifying two fossils as different species from vastly different time periods and violating the evolutionary “like fossils are of like age” principle.
iii. Second, the inability to interbreed is the line of demarcation for distinguishing separate species.
1. However, as both of the quotes below indicate, “fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation.”
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution – Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Speciation involves, therefore, the development of reproductive isolation between populations previously able to interbreed. Paleontologists recognize species by their different morphologies as preserved in the fossil record, but fossils cannot provide evidence of the development of reproductive isolation because new species that are reproductively isolated from their ancestors are often morphologically indistinguishable from them.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Evolution, The process of evolution, Species and speciation, The concept of species – It is, then, clear that although species are usually identified by appearance, there is something basic, of great biological significance, behind similarity of appearance; individuals of a species are able to interbreed with one another but not with members of other species…Although the criterion for deciding whether individuals belong to the same species is clear, there may be ambiguity in practice for two reasons. One is lack of knowledge; it may not be known for certain whether individuals living in different sites belong to the same species, because it is not known whether they can naturally interbreed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. The problem is that even non-interbreeding groups often look too similar to one another morphologically.
a. Because even non-interbreeding groups often look similar, we cannot tell merely from their preserved hard parts whether or not two fossils could or could not interbreed.
3. “the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development” are not “of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species” because fossils “primarily show gross morphological changes.”
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – Fossils primarily show gross morphological changes, whereas changes taking place in genetic makeup could be extensive even though overall body structures do not reveal these shifts in populations of species.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Evolution, VIII CURRENT EVOLUTIONARY DEBATE – In addition, the small changes that would make up gradual evolutionary development according to the modern synthesis are themselves not necessarily of a nature that would be apparent in the fossil history of a species, however complete it might be over a given stretch of time.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
548 Conclusions about using like fossils to correlate the ages of rock layers.
iv. The fossil record simply does not provide the kind of information that would be required to identify two similar fossils as different species.
v. The geologic column is impossible to construct.
1. Therefore, with no evidentiary basis for qualifying two like-fossils as different species, there is simply no valid, objective reason for evolutionists to discard their fundamental relative dating principle that “like fossils are of like age.”
a. Consequently, layers that are thought to represent “widely different times,” which are “millions of years” apart should really be considered the same age if they contain similar fossils.
b. Thus, evolution’s own fundamental principle for constructing the geologic column demands that widely separated layers containing similar fossils should be consolidated into a single contemporary time.
c. This would result in the loss of the millions of years represented by each of the involved layers and all the layers in between them.
d. Furthermore, any “evolution” of other species that is occurring in those layers would now be negated as all the species in those layers are interpreted as contemporaries in light of the presence of like fossils in a layer below them and a layer above them.
e. But most importantly, the presence of like fossils in rock layers of different levels demonstrates that the fossil record around the world simply does not present an evolutionary sequence.
2. Alternatively, if evolutionists due not want to forfeit the ages created by assigning different ages to rock layers that have like fossils they must forfeit the principle that “like fossils are of like age.”
a. If this principle is forfeited then like fossils from rock layers at different locations around the world cannot be assigned the same age and used as index fossils to correlate the ages of fossils from different sites into a single, geologic chronology or evolutionary order.
549 Conclusions about how the geologic column is formed and why it cannot and does not provide evidence for long ages of geologic history.
clxxx. These six facts demonstrate that the fossil record does not reveal any single, overarching evolutionary sequence of fossils.
clxxxi. So, what are we to make of the oversimplified statements that…
1. “in different geographic locations, the same, or similar, fossils” are found “in identical order?”
2. “the sequence of fossils always appear in the same order” even “across broad geographic areas?”
“Fossil – It is often apparent that each layer in such a sequence contains fossils that are distinct from those of the layers that are above and below it. In such sequences of layers in different geographic locations, the same, or similar, fossil floras or faunas occur in the identical order. By comparing overlapping sequences, it is possible to build up a continuous record of faunas and floras that have progressively more in common with present-day life forms as the top of the sequence is approached.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Index Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – British geologist William Smith was the first person known to employ the concept of index fossils. He noted that rock layers could not be reliably identified from rock type alone. By using both rock type and the unique group of fossils present in each layer, he was successful in recognizing individual rock layers across broad geographic areas. Smith also noted that the sequence of fossils always appeared in the same order.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
clxxxii. By contrast to these oversimplifications, we find that…
1. The same fossils are NOT found in the same order all around the world.
2. Instead, we have found that…
a. the fossil record begins with the first 87 percent of earth’s history missing,
b. the remaining 13 percent of the fossil record is riddled with significant missing portions and no transitional forms but only static morphologies,
c. “eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods” particularly in the correct evolutionary order,
i. this is because each site can only be 1 mile thick, while the geologic column and its periods and eras is 76 miles thick.
ii. sometimes fossils are found in the opposite order of evolution,
d. individual fossils types are generally not found all over the world but “only at particular localities”
i. “index fossils,” which do have wide geographic distribution are required to create correlations between different sites,
e. rock layers designated as millions of years apart are really contemporary because they contain “like fossils” and “like fossils indicate like age.”
clxxxiii. Consequently, the only possible valid meaning for the oversimplified statements that “fossils are found in the same order all around the world” is that…
1. simpler organisms are generally at the bottom
2. more complex organisms are usually higher up in the fossil record all around the world.
clxxxiv. Yet, order alone does not particularly weigh in favor of either evolution or creation theory since…
1. creation theory also explains why the general order of primitive to complex exists.
2. both evolution theory and creation theory really have the same explanation for this order.
3. both theories assert that the order of fossils is really an order of burial, which organisms were buried first.
a. In evolutionary theory…
i. this burial happens very slowly over millions of years
ii. the slow process of evolution is what causes only some organisms to be present in the lower layers.
b. In creation theory…
i. this burial happens very quickly (in perhaps a matter of months)
ii. the global flood is mechanism responsible for sorting the organisms.
4. The evidence is agreed upon and accommodate by both theories and each theory explains the evidence in terms of its own mechanisms.
clxxxv. The question is which mechanism is better attested to, the mechanisms of new species evolving over time or the mechanism of a global flood?
1. The information provided in previous segments show that the mechanism of evolution has no evidence and simply does not work
2. On the other hand, the flood is greatly evidenced in both the history and geologic record.
clxxxvi. Also, after 200 years of evolution and adjustment, the geologic column continues to evolve and be adjusted to this very day.
1. The fact that the geologic column continues to be adjusted further demonstrates that the geologic column…
a. it is not an objective structure existing in reality
b. is simply a mental image that can be altered as necessary in order to keep evolution reconciled with the ever-challenging and complex discontinuity of the fossil record.
“Earth, geologic history of, Time scales – During recent years, various chronostratigraphic and chronometric time scales with relatively small differences have been proposed. The 1983 scale prepared for the Decade of North American Geology (DNAG) takes into account many of the variations of other scales. As can be seen from the Table, the DNAG geologic time scale gives the major chronostratigraphic boundaries and their assigned chronometric ages, as well as the time scale of magnetic polarity reversals.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geologic Time, I INTRODUCTION – Geologic Time, time scale that covers the earth's entire geologic history from its origin to the present. Before the growth of a geologic time scale in the 19th century natural historians recognized that the earth has a lengthy history, but the scale used today developed over the last 200 years and continues to evolve.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE – Geologists have created a geologic time scale to provide a common vocabulary for talking about past events. The practice of determining when past geologic events occurred is called geochronology. This practice began in the 1700s and has sometimes involved some personal and international disputes that led to differences in terminology. Today the geologic time scale is generally agreed upon and used by scientists around the world, dividing time into eons, eras, periods, and epochs. Every few years, the numerical time scale is refined based on new evidence, and geologists publish an update.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
clxxxvii. The geologic column simply cannot be perceived as evidence for evolution.
1. First, the geologic column is based upon circular reasoning in which evolution (in the form of the principle of faunal succession) is itself a premise in the construction of the geologic column.
a. Since evolution is a premise in the proof, the proof simply cannot lead to evolution as a conclusion.
2. Second, the geologic column is not an actual, physical object or observable reality.
3. It is a mental picture that results from correlating or integrating “all of the world’s individual rock sequences.”
a. This integration process requires “clever detective work” because…
i. the actual fossil evidence is characterized by obstacles that make constructing a single sequence very complicated and implausible.
4. Third, the fact that the fossil record is not an objective reality is demonstrated by the fact that after 200 years of evolution and adjustment, it continues to be adjusted and corrected to this day.
5. Conversely, the fossil record exhibits only stable, unchanging species and is lacking in transitional forms, which provides remarkable positive evidence that organisms do not evolve but exist in static lineages.
550 Review of information and status of the evolutionary timescale.
clxxxviii. First, we have demonstrated that relative dating itself does not provide any support for evolution’s long time spans.
clxxxix. Second, we have demonstrated that relative dating, evolution, and radiometric (absolute) dating are collectively based upon circular reasoning with each other and, therefore, provide not support for evolution’s long time spans.
cxc. Third, we have demonstrated that the geologic column does not provide any support for evolution’s long time spans because…
1. it is also based upon circular reasoning with the evolution and dating methods
2. it faces obstacles in the fossil record itself.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Age and Radiometric Dating
551 Preview – our focus on radiometric dating will be broken down into several segments.
552 In the first segment
553 We will discuss the fundamental terms, processes, categories, and types of radiometric dating.
554 This will include some of the basic criteria necessary for radiometric dating.
555 In the second segment
556 We will discuss the problems with those required criteria in greater detail.
557 We will discuss the problems of particular criteria surrounding isotope ratios and the obstacles those ratios pose to radiometric dating in general
558 We will discuss the problems of the first major category of radiometric the methods, the methods that are used for dating igneous and metamorphic rock.
559 In the third section
560 We will discuss ratio problems facing the potassium-argon method, the most widely used radiometric dating method
561 We will close with an examination of how the evidence for a worldwide flood also poses problems for dating igneous and metamorphic rocks.
562 In the fourth section
563 We will discuss the ratio problems facing carbon-14, the method used to date fossils and sedimentary rock.
564 In the fifth section
565 We will discuss the minor, remaining radiometric dating methods.
566 In the sixth section
567 We will discuss the problems with decay rate constants, an issue which affects radiometric dating in general.
568 With these six segments complete, we will present a conclusion to our focus on radiometric dating methods.
569 The fundamentals of radiometric dating
cxci. Recall from earlier that the terms “radiometric dating” and “absolute dating” are synonymous and are used interchangeably.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – In order to determine the relative age of rock layers, scientists use three simple principles…By matching the fossil content of rock sequences, even across widespread geographic regions, paleontologists believe that certain sequences are probably about the same age. All of these methods facilitate the relative dating of rock sequences, but do not provide absolute ages for the rocks. Geologists have several methods for determining the actual age of a rock layer. The most important is radiometric dating, which uses the steady decay of radioactive elements (seeRadioactivity) in the rock to provide a measure of age.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Index Fossil, IV USE OF INDEX FOSSILS – Using index fossils and the principle of faunal and floral succession, scientists can determine a relative chronology, or a sequence of events. Yet, absolute age, or the number of years that have passed since a rock layer formed, cannot be determined using fossils alone. Absolute age must be derived from dating methods such as radiometric dating.” – "Index Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, II DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIVE AND ABSOLUTE METHODS – With the methods then available, 19th-century geologists could only construct a relative time scale. Thus, the actual age of the earth and the duration, in millions of years, of the units of the time scale remained unknown until the dawn of the 20th century. After radioactivity was discovered, radiometric dating methods were quickly developed. With these new methods geologists could calibrate the relative scale of geologic time, thereby creating an absolute one.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
cxcii. Vocabulary and basic scientific processes.
1. The atom
a. Atoms are composed of 3 types of primary particles.
i. Protons reside in the atom’s nucleus and have a positive electric charge.
ii. Neutrons also reside in the atoms nucleus but are neutral, having no electric charge.
iii. Electrons, which have a negative electric charge, reside outside the nucleus, in “orbits” or “clouds” around it.
“Atom – smallest unit into which matter can be divided without the release of electrically charged particles. It also is the smallest unit of matter that has the characteristic properties of a chemical element. As such, the atom is the basic building block of chemistry. Most of the atom is empty space. The rest consists of a positively charged nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. The nucleus is small and dense compared to the electrons, which are the lightest charged particles in nature…Components and properties of atoms, Constituent particles and forces – The nucleus is the positively charged centre of an atom and contains most of its mass. It is composed of protons, which have a positive charge, and neutrons, which have no charge…Most properties of atoms–particularly those associated with chemical bonds, physical forces, and the properties of bulk matter–depend solely on the behaviour of the electrons surrounding the nucleus. The chemical properties of an atom depend on the arrangement of its electrons making up the cloud around the nucleus. The atoms of one element differ from those of other elements in the number of their electrons…Properties of atoms, Atomic number – The single most important characteristic of an atom is its atomic number, which is defined as the number of units of positive charge in the nucleus. A neutral atom has an equal number of protons and electrons, so that the positive and negative charges exactly balance. The atomic number determines the chemical properties of an atom, including the kinds of molecules that can be formed and their binding energies. Hence, the atomic number determines an atom's characteristics as an element…Electric charge – The normal atom is electrically neutral, meaning that it carries a net electric charge of zero.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Elements
a. Atoms come in the form of different elements such as oxygen, hydrogen, iron, calcium, or sodium, etc.
i. Atoms of each element have a specific quantity of protons, electrons, and neutrons.
ii. Atoms of other elements have different quantities of these particles.
b. The different quantity of these particles causes atoms of different elements to have different amounts of mass.
i. Elements with more protons, neutrons, and electrons have more mass.
ii. Elements that have less protons, neutrons, and electrons have less mass.
c. “the single most important characteristic of an atom is its atomic number.”
i. The atomic number denotes how many protons atoms of a particular element have.
1. Since atoms have an equal amount of protons and electrons, this number also represents the number of electrons in atoms of that element.
d. An element’s chemical properties depend on the number of protons and electrons, the particles with electric charges.
i. The chemical properties of an element do not depend on its quantity of neutrons, the particles with no electric charge.
3. Isotopes
a. Because neutrons do not affect the basic chemical properties of an element, individual atoms of a particular element can have different numbers of neutrons without becoming or being categorized as a different element.
i. Because they have the same number of protons and electrons as all other atoms of that element, they have the same defining chemical properties of the element.
ii. However, because they have a different number of protons, they are considered to be a different “isotope.”
b. The term isotope refers to any or all of the individual versions of each element, including the normal form of each element predominantly found in nature.
c. Each isotope of an element is defined by its specific number of neutrons.
d. Because each isotope of an element has a different number of neutrons, it also has a different amount of mass than other isotopes of the same element.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Most elements exist in different atomic forms that are identical in their chemical properties but differ in the number of neutral particles—i.e., neutrons—in the nucleus. For a single element, these atoms are called isotopes. Because isotopes differ in mass, their relative abundance can be determined if the masses are separated in a mass spectrometer (see below Use of mass spectrometers).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Isotopes are atoms of any elements that differ in mass from that element, but possess the same general chemical and optical properties.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
e. There are 2 basic kinds of isotopes
i. normal (non-radioactive) isotopes
ii. radioactive isotopes (also known as radioisotopes).
4. Radioisotopes
a. Radioisotopes are isotopes whose structure is so different from the norm that it is much more unstable.
i. This instability causes the isotope to give off large amounts of energy.
ii. The term “radioactive” refers to the enormous energy emission.
“Radioactive isotope – also called radioisotope any of several species of the same chemical element with different masses whose nuclei are unstable and dissipate excess energy by spontaneously emitting radiation in the form of alpha, beta, and gamma rays. Every chemical element has one or more radioactive isotopes. For example, hydrogen, the lightest element, has three isotopes with mass numbers 1, 2, and 3. Only hydrogen-3 (tritium), however, is a radioactive isotope, the other two being stable. More than 1,000 radioactive isotopes of the various elements are known. Approximately 50 of these are found in nature; the rest are produced artificially as the direct products of nuclear reactions or indirectly as the radioactive descendants of these products.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
"Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Radioactive elements such as uranium (U) and thorium (Th) decay naturally to form different elements or isotopes of the same element. (Isotopes are atoms of any elements that differ in mass from that element, but possess the same general chemical and optical properties.) This decay is accompanied by the emission of radiation or particles (alpha, beta, or gamma rays) from the nucleus, by nuclear capture, or by ejection of orbital electrons (see Atom and Atomic Theory). A number of isotopes decay to a stable product, a so-called daughter isotope, in a single step (for example, carbon-14), whereas other series involve many steps before a stable isotope is formed. Multistep radioactive decay series include, for example, the uranium-235, uranium-238, and thorium-232 families. If a daughter isotope is stable, it accumulates until the parent isotope has completely decayed. If a daughter isotope is also radioactive, however, equilibrium is reached when the daughter decays as fast as it is formed.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. Only 50 radioactive isotopes are “found in nature” while “the rest are produced artificially” as direct or indirect “products of nuclear reactions.”
i. (We will return to this point below when we cover the limitations on radiometric dating.)
c. Radioactive isotopes are the cornerstone of radiometric dating.
i. Dating methods are defined as efforts to identify how much time has elapsed since particular events occurred, such as the formation of rock layers.
5. Radioactive decay
a. The instability of radioactive isotopes causes them to emit excessive amounts of energy, which is also accompanied by a loss of mass.
b. Thus, the instability of radioactive isotopes causes them to change over time.
i. This process of change is called “radioactive decay” or simply “decay”
c. Depending upon how the particular manner in which they lose mass, radioactive isotopes will either…
i. change into another isotope of the same element.
ii. change into an atom of another element altogether.
d. This radioactive decay occurs at different rates that are unique to each isotope, depending upon its particular starting structure and level of instability.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – All absolute isotopic ages are based on radioactive decay, a process whereby a specific atom or isotope is converted into another specific atom or isotope at a constant and known rate…The particles given off during the decay process are part of a profound fundamental change in the nucleus. To compensate for the loss of mass (and energy), the radioactive atom undergoes internal transformation and in most cases simply becomes an atom of a different chemical element.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
e. As indicated by the quote below, the process of radioactive decay was first discovered in the early 1900’s.
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – In 1905, shortly after the discovery of radioactivity, the American chemist Bertram Boltwood suggested that lead is one of the disintegration products of uranium, in which case the older a uranium-bearing mineral the greater should be its proportional part of lead. Analyzing specimens whose relative geologic ages were known, Boltwood found that the ratio of lead to uranium did indeed increase with age. After estimating the rate of this radioactive change he calculated that the absolute ages of his specimens ranged from 410,000,000 to 2,200,000,000 years. Though his figures were too high by about 20 percent, their order of magnitude was enough to dispose of the short scale of geologic time proposed by Lord Kelvin. Versions of the modern mass spectrometer were invented in the early 1920s and 1930s, and during World War II the device was improved substantially to help in the development of the atomic bomb. Soon after the war, Harold C. Urey and G.J. Wasserburg applied the mass spectrometer to the study of geochronology. This device separates the different isotopes of the same element and can measure the variations in these isotopic abundances to within one part in 10,000. By determining the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay (each radioisotope has its own decay constant), the isotopic age of the sample can be calculated. For dating minerals and rocks, investigators commonly use the following couplets of parent and daughter isotopes: thorium-232–lead-208, uranium-235–lead-207, samarium-147–neodymium-143, rubidium-87–strontium-87, potassium-40–argon-40, and argon-40–argon-39. Such techniques have had an enormous impact on scientific knowledge of Earth history because precise dates can now be obtained on rocks in all orogenic (mountain) belts ranging in age from the early Archean (about 3,800,000,000 years old) to the late Tertiary (roughly 20,000,000 years old). The oldest sedimentary and igneous rocks in the world are found at Isua in western Greenland; they have an isotopic age of approximately 3,800,000,000 years—a fact first established in 1972 by Stephen Moorbath of the University of Oxford. Also by extrapolating backward in time to a situation when there was no lead that had been produced by radiogenic processes, a figure of about 4,600,000,000 years is obtained for the minimum age of the Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. Note that radiometric dating was producing dates that were inconsistent with the evolutionary timescale right from the beginning.
1. Initial radiometric dates produced an age that was “about 20 percent too high.”
ii. Second, note that the common forms of radiometric dating are listed as having been developed at this time, after World War II.
1. (This is from about three-quarters of the way through the quote above.)
iii. Third, note that the same Harold Urey of the famous 1953 Miller-Urey experiment is at the forefront of developing radiometric dating procedure.
“Britannica, Life, The origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – The first deliberate experimental simulation of these primitive conditions was carried out in 1953 by a U.S. graduate student, S.L. Miller, under the guidance of the eminent chemist H.C. Urey.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sagan, Carl Edward – Later in the 1960s Sagan built on the work of American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. In the 1950s Miller and Urey had combined methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, the probable components of the earth's early atmosphere, in a flask.” – "Sagan, Carl Edward," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
6. Half-life
a. Different radioactive isotopes decay at different rates depending upon their individual instability.
b. The faster the radioactive isotope decays (changes) to a non-radioactive form, the less time that it takes for half of the radioactive material to cease being radioactive.
c. Consequently, the amount of time that it takes for half of the number of radioactive atoms to change to a non-radioactive form is called that element’s “half-life.”
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – Radioactive elements decay to form elements or isotopes (atoms of an element that differ in mass but share the same general chemical properties) of an element. An element's half-life is the time required for half the number of its atoms to decay. Different elements can have dramatically different half-lives.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Half-life is defined as the time period that must elapse in order to halve the initial number of radioactive atoms. The half-life and the decay constant are inversely proportional because rapidly decaying radioisotopes have a high decay constant but a short half-life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Scientists describe the radioactivity of an element in terms of half-life, the time the element takes to lose 50 percent of its activity by decay. This covers an extraordinary range of time, from billions of years to a few microseconds. At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. Each radioactive isotope has a unique half life depending on its unique rate of decay, which deals with how unstable it was to begin with.
e. Therefore, half-life is inversely proportional to the decay rate.
i. Isotopes with faster decay or change rates have shorter half-lives.
ii. And isotopes with slower decay or change rates have longer half-lives.
f. The half-life is rendered as a measure of time
i. (Such as the 5,730 year half-life of carbon-14 listed in the quote above.)
ii. It is this measure of time that is used by scientists to calculate age.
g. Since the half-life is inversely proportional to the decay rate, the reliability of the half-life time measurement depends upon how constant the decay rate is and how reliably we have identified that rate.
i. (We will discuss this issue in more depth as we move forward thoughout our focus on radiometric dating.)
h. The process of radioactive decay forms the basis of radiometric dating calculations.
7. Parent and daughter isotopes
a. The term “parent” refers to the radioactive isotope before it decays or changes.
b. The term “daughter” refers to the isotope or element into which the radioactive isotope changes through the process of decay.
cxciii. Basics about the process of radioactive dating
1. The calculation of age based upon radioactive decay requires the following 3 basic pieces of information (as indicated by the quotes below.)
a. First, we need to know how many radioactive parent atoms and how many daughter atoms were present originally when an item, such as a rock, was formed.
b. Second, we need to know how long it takes for half of the radioactive atoms to change from parent to daughter atoms.
c. Third, we need to know how many of the radioactive parent atoms and the daughter atoms are currently present in the item.
2. The conceptual basis for determining age from radioactive elements
a. If we know all 3 of these factors, then the number of parent atoms that are “missing” and the number of daughter isotopes that have been added in comparison to the original amount of these atoms when the item was formed tells us…
i. how much decay has occurred,
ii. how long decay has been occurring,
iii. how many “half-lives” have passed,
iv. how much time has passed since the item’s formation.
“Fossil, Studying fossils, Dating fossils – Paleontologists determine how old a fossil is by measuring the radioactive isotopes in the rocks that contain the fossil. Radioactive isotopes are forms of chemical elements that break down, or decay, to form other materials. Scientists know the rates of decay of various radioactive isotopes. By comparing the amount of a radioactive isotope in a rock to the amount of the material produced by its decay, scientists can calculate how long the decay has been taking place. This length of time represents the age of the rock and the fossils it contains.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – In terms of the numbers of atoms present, it is as if apples changed spontaneously into oranges at a fixed and known rate. In this analogy, the apples would represent radioactive, or parent, atoms, while the oranges would represent the atoms formed, the so-called daughters. Pursuing this analogy further, one would expect that a new basket of apples would have no oranges but that an older one would have many. In fact, one would expect that the ratio of oranges to apples would change in a very specific way over the time elapsed, since the process continues until all the apples are converted. In geochronology the situation is identical. A particular rock or mineral that contains a radioactive isotope (or radio-isotope) is analyzed to determine the number of parent and daughter isotopes present, whereby the time since that mineral or rock formed is calculated…This pair of equations states rigorously what might be assumed from intuition, that minerals formed at successively longer times in the past would have progressively higher daughter-to-parent ratios. This follows because, as each parent atom loses its identity with time, it reappears as a daughter atom…In short, one need only measure the ratio of the number of radioactive parent and daughter atoms present, and the time elapsed since the mineral or rock formed can be calculated, provided of course that the decay rate is known.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
cxciv. Basic limitations on radiometric dating
1. As we cover some of the limitations on radiometric process it is important not to confuse limitations with problems.
a. These limitations are restrictions on how widely radiometric dating can be used.
b. These factors limit the number and kind of items to which radiometric dating can be applied.
c. They are NOT problems that prevent the process from working at all.
2. There are 3 such limitations.
a. First, in order to be radiometrically dated, an item must contain not only isotopes, but radioactive isotopes.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – The need to correlate over the rest of geologic time, to correlate nonfossiliferous units, and to calibrate the fossil time scale has led to the development of a specialized field that makes use of natural radioactive isotopes in order to calculate absolute ages. The precise measure of geologic time has proven to be the essential tool for correlating the global tectonic processes (see below) that have taken place in the past. Precise isotopic ages are called absolute ages, since they date the timing of events not relative to each other but as the time elapsed between a rock-forming event and the present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Second, there are only 50 radioactive isotopes “found in nature”
i. “the rest are produced artificially” as direct or indirect “products of nuclear reactions.”
“Radioactive isotope – More than 1,000 radioactive isotopes of the various elements are known. Approximately 50 of these are found in nature; the rest are produced artificially as the direct products of nuclear reactions or indirectly as the radioactive descendants of these products.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Since radiometric dating methods are applied to natural geologic phenomenon, such as rock formations, this means that radiometric dating methods can only use the 50 naturally-occuring radioactive isotopes.
iii. The rest of the 1,000 known radioactive isotopes are of no use in radiometric dating.
c. Third, the length of half-lives also limits the application of radioactive dating.
i. It is not sufficient for a rock or other item to contain just any one of isotope among the 50 naturally-occuring isotopes.
ii. In order to be dated, an item has to have one of the 50 radioactive isotopes whose half-life will fit within the timeframe of the rock’s age.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Of course, one must select geologic materials that contain elements with long half-lives—i.e., those for which some parent atoms would remain.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Origin of radioactive elements used – When the elements in the Earth were first created, many radioactive isotopes were present. Of these, only the radioisotopes with extremely long half-lives remain…Natural elements that are still radioactive today produce daughter products at a very slow rate; hence, it is easy to date very old minerals but difficult to obtain the age of those formed in the recent geologic past. This follows from the fact that the amount of daughter isotopes present is so small that it is difficult to measure…Geologic events of the not-too-distant past are more easily dated by using recently formed radioisotopes with short half-lives that produce more daughter products per unit time…This aspect of geology is becoming increasingly important as researchers try to read the global changes that took place during the Earth's recent past in an effort to understand or predict the future. The most widely used radioactive cosmogenic isotope is carbon of mass 14 (14C), which provides a method of dating events that have occurred over roughly the past 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. The important factor to remember here is that the ongoing occurrence of decay is the theoretical means of measuring time.
1. When all the radioactive material in an item has changed to non-radioactive material, then decay stops occurring because the process is complete.
iv. Once this the decay process has completed…
1. we have no way to measure how long ago the process of decay was complete
2. we have no way to know old the item is
3. we have no way to know whether the daughter atoms present were the result of decay in the first place or were instead already present in the item.
v. Age and decay rate dating limitations
1. If the item to be dated is old but the radioactive isotope it contains has a half-life that is too short, then the decay process will have been completed a long time ago and we will have no way to measure how much time has passed.
2. If the item to be dated is young but the radioactive isotope it contains has a half-life that is even shorter, then once again the process of decay will have been completed a long time ago and we will have no way to measure how much time has passed.
3. If the item to be dated is young but the radioactive isotope it contains has a half-life that is too long, then not enough time will have passed in order for measurable decay to have occurred and we will have no way to know how much time has passed.
4. In order to be dated, an item has to have one of the 50 naturally-occuring radioactive isotopes with the right length half-life.
vi. Due to these limitations, NOT “just any rock” can be radiometrically dated – in fact, “most rocks” cannot be radiometrically dated.
“Geology, Absolute dating – It is important to remember that precise ages cannot be obtained for just any rock unit but that any unit can be dated relative to a datable unit.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units. In fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore, a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
570 A brief identification and listing of the basic criteria necessary for making radiometric dating calculations.
3. (Later we will take a more detailed look at this issue.)
4. In order to perform radiometric dating and calculate an absolute age for the item, the following 4 pieces of information must be known.
a. First, we must know that the decay rate is constant, not fluctuating, and we must know what that constant decay rate is.
b. Second, we must know the ratio of parent and daughter elements that were already present in a rock when it originally formed.
i. We must be able to identify, distinguish between, and “correct” for those daughter-type atoms, which were originally present, and those which result from decay.
1. If we don’t know the amount of daughter isotopes that the rock began with, we cannot determine how much decay has occurred, or consequently, how old the rock is.
c. Third, we must know what the current amounts of both parent and daughter atoms are in the item to be dated.
d. Fourth, we must know how many parent or daughter isotopes migrated into or out of the rock.
i. Such migration also alters our perception of the original parent-to-daughter ratios and the current parent-to-daughter ratios.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Radiometric dating techniques are based on radio-decay series with constant rates of isotope decay. Once a quantity of a radioactive element becomes part of a growing mineral crystal, that quantity will begin to decay at a steady rate, with a definite percentage of daughter products in each time interval. These "clocks in rocks" are the geologists' timekeepers.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above. In uranium–lead dating, minerals virtually free of initial lead can be isolated and corrections made for the trivial amounts present. In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios. The results are then tested for the internal consistency that can validate the assumptions…Such checks include dating a series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative ages and replicate analysis of different parts of the same rock body with samples collected at widely spaced localities.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. The inability to identify the amounts of migration into or out of a sample will create the following obstacles to dating.
1. Parents might be missing through migration instead of decay, giving the mistaken impression that more decay has occurred, more half-lives have passed, and that the item is older.
2. Parents might be added by migration, giving the mistaken impression that less decay has occurred, less time has passed, and that the item is younger.
3. Daughters might be missing through migration, giving the impression that less decay has occurred, less time has passed, and that the item is younger.
4. Daughters might be added through migration, giving the impression that more decay has occurred, more half-lives have passed, and that the item is older.
5. These 4 pieces of information are “critical” “conditions that must be met to make the calculated age.”
a. They are:
i. the starting parent-to-daughter ratio,
ii. the current parent-to-daughter ratio,
iii. the decay rate,
iv. the amount of migration
b. If any of these pieces of information is not known, then determining how much decay has occurred and how much time has passed is utterly impossible.
6. These issues pose a significant obstacle to radiometric dating.
a. (Our next segment will return to these criteria and discuss the problems they pose in greater detail.)
cxcv. The basic equipment used in radiometric dating processes
1. The mass spectrometer is really the essential tool of radiometric dating.
a. Mass spectrometers are the devices used to identify the (current) amount of different isotopes in a sample.
“Mass spectrometry – Many investigations have been conducted with the help of mass spectrometry. These include the identification of the isotopes of the chemical elements and determination of their precise masses and relative abundances, the dating of geologic samples, the analysis of inorganic and organic chemicals especially for small amounts of impurities, structural formula determination of complex organic substances, the strengths of chemical bonds and energies necessary to produce particular ions, the identification of products of ion decomposition, and the analysis of unknown materials, such as lunar samples, for their chemical and isotopic constituents.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Mass spectrometers contain the same essential 4 or 5 parts, although alternate descriptions list these parts slightly differently.
i. 1) a part to produce a vacuum,
ii. 2) a part to introduce the sample,
iii. 3) a part to ionize the sample,
iv. 4) a part which separates and sorts the different types of ions according to their unique charges and masses,
v. 5) a part which detects and identifies the different ions according to their charges and masses.
“Mass spectrometry – Mass spectroscopes consist of five basic parts: [1] a high vacuum system; [2] a sample handling system, through which the sample to be investigated can be introduced; [3] an ion source, in which a beam of charged particles characteristic of the sample can be produced; [4] an analyzer, in which the beam can be separated into its components; and [5] a detector or receiver by means of which the separated ion beams can be observed or collected.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. In the alternate description of a mass spectrometer below, the term “analyte” refers to the substance that is being analyzed by the mass spectrometer.
“Analysis – The method usually relies on chemical reactions between the material being analyzed (the analyte) and a reagent that is added to the analyte.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. The 2 quotes below lists only 4 parts, but all the components are the same.
i. The “vacuum system” (which converts the sample to a gas) and the “sample handling system” (which introduces that sample to the ion source) have simply been combined into a single component.
“Analysis, Instrumental methods, Separatory methods, Mass spectrometry – Most mass spectrometers have four major components: [1] an inlet system, [2] an ion source, [3] a mass analyzer, and [4] a detector. The inlet system is used to introduce the analyte and to convert it to a gas at reduced pressure. The gaseous analyte flows from the inlet system into the ionic source of the instrument where the analyte is converted to ions or ionic fragments. That is often accomplished by bombarding the analyte with electrons or by allowing the analyte to undergo collisions with other ions. The ions that are formed in the ionic source are accelerated into the mass analyzer by a system of electrostatic slits. In the analyzer the ions are subjected to an electric or magnetic field that is used to alter their paths. In the most common mass analyzers the ions are separated in space according to their mass-to-charge ratios. In time-of-flight mass analyzers, however, no electric or magnetic field is employed, and the time required for ions of varying m/z that are accelerated to the same kinetic energy to pass through a flight tube is measured. The detector is placed at the end of the mass analyzer and measures the intensity of the ionic beam.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mass Spectrometer, I INTRODUCTION – All mass spectrometers have four features in common: (1) a system for introducing the substance to be analyzed into the instrument; (2) a system for ionizing the substance; (3) an accelerator that directs the ions into the measuring apparatus; and (4) a system for separating the constituent ions and recording the mass spectrum of the substance.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
e. The image below illustrates all of these essential parts of a mass spectrometer.
[pic]
“[PHOTO CAPTION] Mass Spectrometer – In a mass spectrometer, a sample of gas is ionized by an electron beam, and the ions are accelerated toward a magnet, which separates the ions according to their mass (upper right). Ions of a certain mass strike the detector; the detector is usually connected to a computer or other electronic device to process the data (bottom). © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. What each component of the mass spectrometer does.
a. The vacuum system is necessary to reduce pressure in order transform the sample into a gas so that it can flow throughout the rest of the mass spectrometer’s apparatus.
b. The ion source is necessary to convert the atoms and molecules of the gaseous sample into ions.
i. Depending upon the specific mass spectrometer, converting the sample into ions is accomplished in one of 2 ways…
1. Bombarding the gaseus sample with electrons
2. Causing the sample to collide with existing ions from another source
ii. Converting the sample to ions is necessary in order for the different atoms and molecules in the sample to be separated and sorted by the mass spectrometer into their individual kinds.
c. The analyzer is necessary to alter the path of the ions in the gaseous sample.
i. This is accomplished either by…
1. passing the gaseous sample through an electric field
2. passing the gaseous sample through a magnetic field.
ii. Because each different kind of atom and molecule has a different mass and a particular ionic electric charge depending upon its components, they each respond differently to the electric or magnetic field.
1. This is known as the “mass-to-charge” ratio.
iii. Consequently, passing the ionized, gaseous sample through an electric or magnetic field separates and sorts the different atoms and molecules by altering their trajectory (or path) through the apparatus according to their particular mass and nuclear structure.
“Analysis, Instrumental methods, Separatory methods, Mass spectrometry – In the analyzer the ions are subjected to an electric or magnetic field that is used to alter their paths. In the most common mass analyzers the ions are separated in space according to their mass-to-charge ratios.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Chemical compound, Organic compounds, General considerations, Spectroscopy of organic compounds, Carbon-13 magnetic resonance spectroscopy – The mass analyzer contains a strong magnetic field through which the molecular ions must pass. As the ions pass through the magnetic field, they are deflected into a curved path that is dependent on both their charge and mass. Ions of different mass travel along a different trajectory before reaching a detector, which records the intensities and masses of the ions that strike it. The mass spectrum that is recorded shows the mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) along the horizontal axis and ion abundance along the vertical axis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Instruments and procedures, Use of mass spectrometers – For isotopic dating with a mass spectrometer, a beam of charged atoms, or ions, of a single element from the sample is produced. This beam is passed through a strong magnetic field in a vacuum, where it is separated into a number of beams, each containing atoms of only the same mass.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mass Spectrometer, I INTRODUCTION – Although many different kinds of mass spectrometers are in use today, they are all related to a device developed by the British physicist Francis William Aston in 1919. In Aston's instrument, a thin beam of positively charged ions was first deflected by an electric field and then deflected in the opposite direction by a magnetic field. The amount of deflection of the particles as registered on a photographic plate depended on their mass and velocity: the greater the mass or velocity of the ion, the less it was deflected. Aston measured the molecular weights of the isotopes of many elements as well as the relative abundance of these isotopes in nature.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Mass Spectrometer, II THE MAGNETIC-DEFLECTION MASS SPECTROMETER – In a magnetic-deflection mass spectrometer, ions with a positive unit charge are created from the sample and accelerated by an electrostatic field. A magnetic field deflects the ions according to their mass. Ions with a certain mass strike the detector. Less massive ions are deflected too much and miss the detector, and more massive ions are not deflected enough and miss the detector. The strength of the magnetic field slowly varies so the detector can measure the relative proportions of all the constituents of the sample. The detector is often connected to a computer that processes the data.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Mass spectrometry – Mass spectrometers use electric fields and magnetic fields (areas of electric charge and magnetic force) to separate ions A magnetic sector mass spectrometer, the most basic kind, uses an electric field to accelerate the ions and a magnetic field to deflect them onto a detector. The amount that an ion is deflected depends on how heavy it is-that is, on the ratio of its mass to its charge. By varying the intensity of the magnetic field, the device causes different ions to hit the detector at different times. This results in a graph called a mass spectrum that shows the relative numbers of ions with different ratios of mass to charge. Most mass spectrometers send this information to a computer that can store, manipulate, and interpret the data.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Julie A. Leary, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley.
iv. Once the individual atoms and molecules have been sorted according to their mass and nuclear structure, the detector can identify and count the number of each different type of atom and molecule by its trajectory.
1. Hence, mass and nuclear structure are the basis of separating and identifying each type of atom or molecule
2. Effectively, the atoms and molecules are being identified by their atomic weight or mass-to-charge ratios.
d. (See Dating Procedures Figure 10.)
3. Results from a mass spectrometer
a. When a sample has been run through a mass spectrometer, the end result is a graph called a “mass spectrum.”
b. The graph represents where different ions struck the detector.
c. This data is usually complicated enough that it requires a computer to process and interpret it.
“Analysis, Instrumental methods, Separatory methods, Mass spectrometry – The detector is placed at the end of the mass analyzer and measures the intensity of the ionic beam. A mass spectrum is a plot of the ionic beam intensity as a function of the mass-to-charge ratio of the ionic fragment.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mass Spectrometer, II THE MAGNETIC-DEFLECTION MASS SPECTROMETER – The strength of the magnetic field slowly varies so the detector can measure the relative proportions of all the constituents of the sample. The detector is often connected to a computer that processes the data.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Mass spectrometry – By varying the intensity of the magnetic field, the device causes different ions to hit the detector at different times. This results in a graph called a mass spectrum that shows the relative numbers of ions with different ratios of mass to charge. Most mass spectrometers send this information to a computer that can store, manipulate, and interpret the data.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Julie A. Leary, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley.
d. Examples of mass spectrums.
i. Below are two mass spectrums, which although formatted slightly differently, in both cases the “peaks” on the graph represent the amount of each individual kind of ion.
1. The first was produced when isotopes of the element “osmium” were passed through a mass spectrometer.
[pic]
“[PHOTO CAPTION] Figure 7: The mass spectrum of osmium. This recorder trace was obtained with an electron multiplier detecting OsO3 −. The leftmost and rightmost peaks were recorded with the detector gain set at a value 100 times that used for the rest of the spectrum; this change is marked by the change in the baseline position. The small satellite peaks to the left are those of the low abundance oxygen isotopes 17O and 18O; the osmium isotopes are, from left to right, 184Os, 186Os, 188Os, 189Os, 190Os, and the satellite peaks of 192Os.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. The second example is a mass spectrum produced when a chemical called “butanone” was passed through a mass spectrometer.
[pic]
“Chemical compound – [PHOTO CAPTION] Figure 37: The mass spectrum of 2-butanone.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Organic compounds, General considerations, Spectroscopy of organic compounds, Carbon-13 magnetic resonance spectroscopy – The mass spectrum that is recorded shows the mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) along the horizontal axis and ion abundance along the vertical axis. For ions bearing a single positive charge, z equals 1, and the horizontal axis shows the masses of the fragments directly. The mass spectrum of the ketone 2-butanone is shown as an example in Figure 37. The strongest peak in the spectrum is known as the base peak, and its intensity is arbitrarily set at a value of 100. The peak at m/z = 72 is the molecular ion and as such gives the molecular mass of the molecule. In high-resolution mass spectrometry, the mass of the molecular ion can be measured to an accuracy of four ppm. In such an instrument, the molecular ion of 2-butanone would appear at m/z = 72.0575, which would unambiguously establish its molecular formula as C4H8O. High-resolution mass spectrometry is an excellent method for determining the molecular formulas of organic compounds.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
cxcvi. Summary of points worth restating concerning radiometric dating procedures and mass spectrometers.
1. First, there are several pieces of information that must be known in order for radiometric dating to be performed and an absolute age calculated – Those factors include:
a. the decay rate,
b. the original parent-to-daughter ratio when the item was formed,
c. the current parent-to-daughter ratio,
d. the amount of migration of parent or daughter isotopes into or out of the item since it was formed.
2. Of these 4 factors that must be known in order to even perform radiometric dating calculations
a. Mass spectrometers only test for and only provide one factor, the current ratio or amount of parent and daughter atoms.
i. Mass spectrometers cannot tell us…
1. how many parent or daughter atoms were in the item originally
2. how much migration has occurred since the item formed.
b. Decay rates, particularly slower decay rates, cannot be observed either because their half-lives become too long to verify.
3. These other required pieces of information that must be known to perform radiometric dating calculations remain unknown and must be assumed – They include:
a. how many parent or daughter atoms were in the item originally
b. how much migration has occurred since the item formed.
c. what the decay rate is
4. There is no such device that…
a. will tell us the original parent-to-daughter ratio
b. will tell us the amount of migration
c. can directly detect the decay rate.
i. (We will discuss more about decay rates in a later segment.)
5. The fact that these other pieces of information must be assumed is stated plainly by Britannica Encyclopedia when listing these required factors.
a. As Britannica explains, evolutionary scientists have had to “develop” “different schemes” to “deal with these critical assumptions.”
b. The quote then lists the “isochron method” as one such scheme for “correcting” for these assumptions.
i. It is noted as well that even the isochron method relies on “assuming” that rocks or minerals “have the same age and identical initial isotopic ratios.”
ii. (The isochron method will also be discussed in more detail below, including how it “corrects” for unknown factors that must be assumed to calculate an age.)
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above. In uranium–lead dating, minerals virtually free of initial lead can be isolated and corrections made for the trivial amounts present. In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
571 Types of radiometric dating methods.
cxcvii. Different types of radiometric dating deal with the different isotopes that are used.
1. Radiometric dating is concerned with the parent isotope and the daughter isotope that is produced from the parent through radioactive decay.
2. Thus, radiometric dating utilizes different pairs of parent and daughter isotopes.
cxcviii. The following isotope pairs constitute the most prominent types of radiometric dating.
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – For dating minerals and rocks, investigators commonly use the following couplets of parent and daughter isotopes: thorium-232–lead-208, uranium-235–lead-207, samarium-147–neodymium-143, rubidium-87–strontium-87, potassium-40–argon-40, and argon-40–argon-39.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. The most prominent radiometric dating methods are:
a. potassium-argon dating
i. potassium-argon dates items 100,000 years or older all the way back to 4 billion years, which is the age of the oldest datable rocks.
b. carbon-14 dating
i. Carbon-14 dates items (organic items) 50,000 years or less.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – The two radioactive decay sequences most useful to geologists are the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 and the decay of potassium-40 into argon-40. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating works for organic materials less than about 50,000 years old…Geologists can use potassium-argon dating to determine ages of rocks from about 100,000 years old to as old as the earth itself.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B4 Potassium-Argon Dating – Potassium-argon dating provides approximate dates for sites in early prehistory. Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – The radioactive decay scheme involving the breakdown of potassium of mass 40 (40K) to argon gas of mass 40 (40Ar) formed the basis of the first widely used isotopic dating method. Since radiogenic argon-40 was first detected in 1938 by the American geophysicist Lyman T. Aldrich and A.O.Nier, the method has evolved into one of the most versatile and widely employed methods available. Potassium is one of the 10 most abundant elements that together make up 99 percent of the Earth's crust and is therefore a major constituent of many rock-forming minerals.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Prehistoric People, Placing prehistoric people in time – By measuring the amount of each isotope in a fossil, scientists can determine how long the decay has been going on and therefore how old the fossil is. The most commonly used dating methods of this type are radiocarbon dating and potassium-argon dating.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University.
cxcix. There is a gap between potassium-argon and carbon-14 dating
1. There is a gap from about 40 to 50 thousand years up to 100 thousand years that cannot be checked by either of the 2 most-prominent dating methods.
a. Carbon-14 typically dates items that are 40 to 50 thousand years old and younger
b. Potassium-argon dates items that are 100 thousand years old or older.
2. Fission-track dating is the method that is ued to fill in this gap from about 40 thousand to 1 million years.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The method works best for micas, tektites, and meteorites. It has been used to help date the period from about 40,000 to 1 million years ago, an interval not covered by carbon-14 or potassium-argon methods.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
cc. Thedifferent types of radiometric dating pairs listed above can be classified into 2 categories according to whether or not they date young items or old items.
1. Younger items require an isotope with a short half-life
2. Older items require an isotope with a long half-life.
3. The dividing line between young and old is typically 50,000 years, the upper limit for carbon-14 dating.
cci. The term “cosmogenic” refers to carbon-14 dating, because as we will see, the carbon-14 isotope is produced from cosmic rays.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Origin of radioactive elements used – When the elements in the Earth were first created, many radioactive isotopes were present. Of these, only the radioisotopes with extremely long half-lives remain…Natural elements that are still radioactive today produce daughter products at a very slow rate; hence, it is easy to date very old minerals but difficult to obtain the age of those formed in the recent geologic past. This follows from the fact that the amount of daughter isotopes present is so small that it is difficult to measure…Geologic events of the not-too-distant past are more easily dated by using recently formed radioisotopes with short half-lives that produce more daughter products per unit time. Two sources of such isotopes exist. In one case, intermediate isotopes in the uranium or thorium decay chain can become isolated in certain minerals due to differences in chemical properties and, once fixed, can decay to new isotopes, providing a measure of the time elapsed since they were isolated…Another special type of dating employs recently formed radioisotopes produced by cosmic-ray bombardment of target atoms at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere. The amounts produced, although small, provide insight into many near-surface processes in the geologic past. This aspect of geology is becoming increasingly important as researchers try to read the global changes that took place during the Earth's recent past in an effort to understand or predict the future. The most widely used radioactive cosmogenic isotope is carbon of mass 14 (14C), which provides a method of dating events that have occurred over roughly the past 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Uranium-series disequilibrium dating – The isotopic dating methods discussed so far are all based on long-lived radioactive isotopes that have survived since the elements were created or on short-lived isotopes that were recently produced by cosmic-ray bombardment. The long-lived isotopes are difficult to use on young rocks because the extremely small amounts of daughter isotopes present are difficult to measure. A third source of radioactive isotopes is provided by the uranium- and thorium-decay chains. As noted in Table 3, these uranium–thorium series radioisotopes, like the cosmogenic isotopes, have short half-lives and are thus suitable for dating geologically young materials.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccii. Radiometric dating methods can also be categorized according to what types of rocks they date.
1. So, there are 2 categories of dating methods…
a. methods that use isotopes of long half-lives to date igneous and metamorphic rock
i. uranium-led,
ii. rubidium-strontium,
iii. samarium-neodymium,
iv. rhenium-osmium,
v. potassium-argon.
b. methods that use isotopes of short half-lives to date sedimentary rock
i. the uranium-thorium decay chain
ii. carbon-14
c. Fission-track dating is used for dating items in the gap between these other methods.
2. Isotope Dating Chart Figure 1 provides a summary of these categories.
a. In the column to the far right…
i. green designates methods used to date once-living items and sedimentary rocks,
ii. red designates methods used to date igneous or metamorphic rock.
b. In the second column from the right
i. the color turquoise designates methods used to date up to 50,000 years ago,
ii. blue designates methods used to date between 40,000 and 1 million years ago,
iii. purple designates methods used to date between 100,000 and 4 to 5 billion years ago.
c. Basic information about various radiometric dating methods –details of the Isotopic Dating Chart
i. carbon-14 dating and the parts of the uranium-thorium series
1. these are the methods used on sedimentary rocks and once-living items.
2. Carbon-14 is used to date organic (i.e. once-living) materials that are less than 50,000 years old.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating works for organic materials less than about 50,000 years old.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. The uranium-thorium decay-chain series can be used to date deep-sea sedimentary rocks and corals with ages up to 400,000 years.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS, E Radiometric Dating, E5 Methods Involving Thorium-230 – In the ionium-deficiency method, the age of fossil shell or coral from 10,000 to 250,000 years old is based on the growth of ionium toward equilibrium with uranium-238 and uranium-224, which entered the carbonate shortly after its formation or burial.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Ionium-thorium dating – method of establishing the time of origin of marine sediments according to the amount of ionium and thorium they contain…One of these thorium isotopes, thorium-230 (also known as ionium), has a half-life of about 80,000 years, which makes it suitable for dating sediments as old as 400,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. Fission-track dating…
1. is the method used to span the gap created between the two major groupings of dating methods.
2. is used to date micas and tektites, which are igneous and metamorphic rocks
a. (their age range is between 40,000 and 1 million years.)
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The method works best for micas, tektites, and meteorites. It has been used to help date the period from about 40,000 to 1 million years ago, an interval not covered by carbon-14 or potassium-argon methods.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Mica, Origin and occurrence – Micas may originate as the result of diverse processes under several different conditions. Their occurrences, listed below, include crystallization from consolidating magmas, deposition by fluids derived from or directly associated with magmatic activities, deposition by fluids circulating during both contact and regional metamorphism, and formation as the result of alteration processes—perhaps even those caused by weathering—that involve minerals such as feldspars…The common rock-forming micas are distributed widely. The more important occurrences follow: Biotite occurs in many igneous rocks (e.g., granites and granodiorites), is common in many pegmatite masses, and constitutes one of the chief components of many metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses, schists, and hornfelses). It alters rather easily during chemical weathering and thus is rare in sediments and sedimentary rocks.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Tektite – any of a class of small, natural glassy objects that are found only in certain areas of the Earth's surface. The term is derived fromthe Greek word tektos, meaning “melted,” or “molten.” Tektites have been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny throughout much of the 20th century owing to their unknown and possibly extraterrestrial origins, but they are now recognized as having formed from the melting and rapid cooling of terrestrial rocks that have been vaporized by the high-energy impacts of large meteorites, comets, or asteroids upon the surface of the Earth. The extremely high temperatures and enormous pressures generated by such impacts melted the rocks at the site, producing clouds of molten silicate droplets that quickly cooled to a glassy form before falling back to Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iv. Potassium-argon…
1. is the most widely-used method,
2. is used to date igneous and metamorphic rocks between 100,000 and 4 to 5 billion years.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – Geologists can use potassium-argon dating to determine ages of rocks from about 100,000 years old to as old as the earth itself.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B4 Potassium-Argon Dating – Potassium-argon dating provides approximate dates for sites in early prehistory. Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B4 Potassium-Argon Dating – Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old…Thus, geologic layers rich in volcanic deposits lend themselves to potassium-argon dating. Prehistoric archaeological sites such as the Koobi Fora area of East Turkana, Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, both of which formed during periods of intense volcanic activity, have been dated using the potassium-argon method..” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
v. Argon-argon dating…
1. is an alternate version of potassium-argon dating.
2. is used on igneous and metamorphic rocks with a timeframe between 100,000 and 4 to 5 billion years.
^“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – In conventional potassium–argon dating, a potassium-bearing sample is split into two fractions: one is analyzed for its potassium content, while the other is fused in a vacuum to release the argon gas…A method designed to avoid such complexities was introduced by the geochronologists Craig M. Merrihue and Grenville Turner in 1966. In this technique, known as the argon-40–argon-39 method, both parent and daughter can be determined in the mass spectrometer as some of the potassium atoms in the sample are first converted to argon-39 in a nuclear reactor.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. Rubidium-strontium dating…
i. is used to check dates generated by the potassium-argon method
ii. is a method used to date igneous and metamorphic rocks and covering the same timeframe of potassium-argon dating, from 100,000 to 4 or 5 billion years.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E4 Rubidium-Strontium Method – Used to date ancient igneous and metamorphic terrestrial rocks as well as lunar samples, this method is based on disintegration by beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87. The method is frequently used to check potassium-argon dates, because the strontium daughter element is not diffused by mild heating, as is argon.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
e. Samarium-neodymium dating…
i. is theoretically identical to rubidium-strontium
ii. is used for igneous and metamorphic rocks from the mantle
1. (rubidium-strontium is used for igneous and metamorphic rocks in the crust)
iii. covers the same timeframe as rubidium-strontium dating (100,000 to 4-5 billion years.)
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Samarium–neodymium method – In theory, the samarium–neodymium method is identical to the rubidium–strontium approach (see above). Both use the isochron method to display and evaluate data.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Samarium–neodymium method – Unlike rubidium, which is enriched over strontium in the crust, samarium is relatively enriched with respect to neodymium in the mantle.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
f. Uranium-lead dating…
i. is complicated by reheating events, which applies only to igneous and metamorphic rocks.
1. micas are an example
a. micas are igneous and metamorphic rock types.
b. titanite is an example of a mica, which is also an igneous rock type.
ii. is a method used for igneous and metamorphic rocks.
iii. covers the timeframe of the Precambrian age
1. between 540 million years ago and the formation of the earth (i.e. 4 to 5 billion years ago.)
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes for dating, Multiple ages for a single rock; the thermal effect – Fossils record the initial, or primary, age of a rock unit. Isotopic systems, on the other hand, can yield either the primary age or the time of a later event, because crystalline materials are very specific in the types of atoms they incorporate, in terms of both the atomic size and charge…All it takes for such an element to be purged from the mineral is sufficient heat to allow solid diffusion to occur…In this case, the host mineral could have an absolute age very much older than is recorded in the isotopic record…Taken in perspective, it is evident that many parts of the Earth's crust have experienced reheating temperatures above 300° C—i.e., reset mica ages are very common in rocks formed at deep crustal levels. Vast areas within the Precambrian shield, which have identical ages reflecting a common cooling history, have been identified. These are called geologic provinces. ” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Importance of zircon in uranium-lead dating – Given the two related uranium–lead parent–daughter systems, it is possible to determine both the time of the initial, or primary, rock-forming event and the time of a major reheating, or secondary, event. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Here, the uranium–lead isotopes in the mineral titanite (CaTiSiO5) from a series of rocks that have a common geologic history plot on a straight line. The minerals first formed 1,651 million years ago but were later heated and lost varying amounts of lead 986 million years ago.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sphene – Sphene, calcium titanosilicate, formerly called titanite, chemical formula CaOTiO2SiO2…Sphene occurs as a microscopic accessory mineral in different types of igneous rocks-especially granite-and in larger crystals in pegmatites.” – "Sphene," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E6 Methods Involving Lead – In the uranium-lead method, age in years is calculated for geologic material based on the known radioactive decay rate of uranium-238 to lead-206 and of uranium-235 to lead-207…The method is most applicable to materials Precambrian in age.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Precambrian time – period of time that extends from a little more than 3.9 billion years ago, which is the approximate age of the oldest known rocks, to the beginning of the Cambrian Period, roughly 540 million years ago. The Precambrian era thus represents more than 80 percent of the whole of geologic time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
g. Radon-lead dating…
i. does not fit into either of the 2 categories for radiometric dating methods,
ii. is a member of the uranium-decay scheme,
iii. is used to date glacial ice.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Uranium-series disequilibrium dating, Lead-210 dating – The presence of radon gas as a member of the uranium-decay scheme provides a unique method for creating disequilibrium. The gas radon-222 (222Rn) escapes from the ground and decays rapidly in the atmosphere to lead-210 (210Pb), which falls quickly to the surface where it is incorporated in glacial ice and sedimentary materials. By assuming that the present deposition rate also prevailed in the past, the age of a given sample at depth can be estimated by the residual amount of lead-210.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Focus on Critical Evidence: The General Problem of Critical Unknowns
572 Review – There are 4 pieces of information that must be known in order for radiometric dating calculations to be performed.
573 First, we must know that the decay rate is constant, not fluctuating, and we must know what that constant decay rate is.
574 Second, we must know the ratio of parent and daughter elements that were already present in a rock when it originally formed.
575 And we must be able to identify, distinguish between, and “correct” for those daughter-type atoms, which were originally present, and those which result from decay.
576 If we don’t know how many daughter-type atoms the rock began with, we cannot determine how much decay has occurred, or consequently, how old the rock is.
577 Third, we must know what the current amounts of both parent and daughter atoms are in the item to be dated.
578 Fourth, we must know how many parent or daughter isotopes migrated into or out of the rock.
579 Such migration would alter our perception of the original parent-to-daughter ratios and the current parent-to-daughter ratios.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Radiometric dating techniques are based on radio-decay series with constant rates of isotope decay. Once a quantity of a radioactive element becomes part of a growing mineral crystal, that quantity will begin to decay at a steady rate, with a definite percentage of daughter products in each time interval. These "clocks in rocks" are the geologists' timekeepers.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above. In uranium–lead dating, minerals virtually free of initial lead can be isolated and corrections made for the trivial amounts present. In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios. The results are then tested for the internal consistency that can validate the assumptions…Such checks include dating a series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative ages and replicate analysis of different parts of the same rock body with samples collected at widely spaced localities.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
h. Migrations can both significantly raise and significantly lower radiometric ages.
i. Migrations can generate ages that are “too old.”
j. This phenomenon of migration and the problem it causes is relevant “in all dating systems.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. It is common and easy for radiometric ages to be “lowered” due to both reheating and migration
a. “All it takes for such an element to be purged from the mineral is sufficient heat.”
i. Such phrasing clearly indicates that this is frequent and simple to achieve.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Multiple ages for a single rock; the thermal effect – Fossils record the initial, or primary, age of a rock unit. Isotopic systems, on the other hand, can yield either the primary age or the time of a later event, because crystalline materials are very specific in the types of atoms they incorporate, in terms of both the atomic size and charge. An element formed by radioactive decay is quite different from its parent atom and thus is out of place with respect to the host mineral. All it takes for such an element to be purged from the mineral is sufficient heat to allow solid diffusion to occur. Each mineral has a temperature at which rapid diffusion sets in, so that, as a region is slowly heated, first one mineral and then another loses its daughter isotopes. When this happens, the isotopic “clock” is reset to zero, where it remains until the mineral cools below the blocking temperature…Another problem arises if a region undergoes a second reheating event. Certain minerals may record the first event, whereas others may record the second, and any suggestion of progressive cooling between the two is invalid.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. Reheating and migration events cause parent and daughter isotopes to both leave and enter into rock formations, at which point the quantity of these isotopes in a rock no longer reflects decay, the duration of decay, or age.
5. The inability to identify the amounts of migration into or out of a sample will create the following obstacles to dating.
a. Parents might be missing through migration instead of decay, giving the mistaken impression that more decay has occurred, more half-lives have passed, and that the item is older.
b. Parents might be added by migration, giving the mistaken impression that less decay has occurred, less time has passed, and that the item is younger.
c. Daughters might be missing through migration, giving the impression that less decay has occurred, less time has passed, and that the item is younger.
d. Daughters might be added through migration, giving the impression that more decay has occurred, more half-lives have passed, and that the item is older.
6. In summary, reheating and migration can both raise and lower ages, effectively making the age unknowable.
cciii. Summary of critical factors needed to calculate radiometric ages
1. There are 4 pieces of information, which are all regarded as “critical” and as “conditions that must be met to make the calculated age.”
a. The starting parent-to-daughter ratio,
b. The current parent-to-daughter ratio,
c. The decay rate,
d. The amount of migration.
2. If any of these pieces of information is not known, then determining how much decay has occurred and how much time has passed is utterly impossible.
3. Additionally, the occurrence of reheating and migration pose a significant obstacle to radiometric dating.
580 Insight into how severe the problems for calculating radiometric age are due to the need to know these 4 critical factors
581 First, evolutionary scientists simply cannot develop any method for observationally detecting the true numeric values for these unknown factors.
582 Instead of observation or evidence, evolutionary scientists have to simply assume idealized numbers and then adjust them as needed when calculating absolute ages.
583 Second, migration due to heat is inherent to igneous and metamorphic rocks, the very items that are being radiometrically dated.
584 Igneous and metamorphic rocks are categorized by their formation from and association with geologic processes involving heat.
585 Third, all radioactive dating methods suffer from the obstacle of migration.
586 The problem of unknown and unknowable factors
587 2 pieces of information necessary for calculating absolute age are simply not available through evidence or observation.
588 The original parent-to-daughter ratio when the rock was formed
589 The amount of migration by parent or daughter atoms (either into or out of the rock) must be assumed and adjusted as needed when calculating ages.
590 This fact is illustrated by what is known as the isochron method.
591 The isochron method – evidence that original parent-to-daughter ratio and migration amounts cannot be known, but is instead assumed based upon conformity with the evolutionary timescale.
592 The isochron method…
593 is not actually a dating method, as its name might imply.
594 is one of the “different schemes have been developed to deal with” the fact that 3 of the 4 critical factors (or data) for radiometric age calculation (except the present parent and daughter quantities) must be “assumed.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above. In uranium–lead dating, minerals virtually free of initial lead can be isolated and corrections made for the trivial amounts present. In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios. The results are then tested for the internal consistency that can validate the assumptions.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. (The isochron method) is used to “display and evaluate data”
i. (The isochron method) is a presentation method for formatting the data in order to show evolutionary geologists what numeric values to assume for the unknown factors required to calculate radiometric ages.
ii. (The isochron method) is a way “to present the data” in a particular form
b. (The isochron method) is NOT a method for measuring isotopes or for collecting data in any way.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Samarium–neodymium method – In theory, the samarium–neodymium method is identical to the rubidium–strontium approach (see above). Both use the isochron method to display and evaluate data.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. (The isochron method) is used to compensate for the fact that the initial daughter abundance and the migration amounts need to be known but are not.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method – Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements. In this case, it is a big advantage to present the data in a form in which the abundance of both the parent and daughter isotopes are given with respect to the abundance of the initial background daughter…A second advantage of the method relates to the fact that under high-temperature conditions the daughter isotopes may escape from the host minerals.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
4. The isochron method is way to present and format the data in order to…
a. show evolutionary geologists what numeric values to assume for the unknown factors
b. how to adjust those values as needed when calculating absolute ages.
5. An example of an isochron diagram further demonstrates these facts.
a. The following isochron is provided by Britannica Encyclopedia.
[pic]
b. Important questions to ask when viewing the isochron above:
i. What actual data do the scientists have as a result of actual observable evidence?
ii. What data are they starting off with when they formulate the isochron?
c. Only the “closed” yellow circles on the diagram represent actual, observed data.
i. These circles represent “the values measured today” by a mass spectrometer in 3 different samples of the same rock.
1. “values measured today” = the current ratio of parent-type atoms to daughter-type atoms.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method, Figure 1: Isochron Diagram – With time, the line called an isochron rotates, and data plot at the positions shown by closed circles. These would be the values measured today, and the slope of the line would indicate the time elapsed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Measuring the current ratio of parent-type atoms to daughter-type atoms – how we get the “closed” yellow circles
1. Different samples are taken from the same rock formation,
2. Each sample is tested for its current quantity of parent and daughter atoms,
3. The quantities for each sample are compared to the others.
6. Indications of migration (thereby prohibiting identifying critical the factors and calculating an age)
a. Samples that are all taken from the same rock…
i. should be the same age
ii. should therefore have the same amount of radioactive decay
iii. should have the same current ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes
b. However, present isotope ratios are NOT the same for each sample.
i. (As is noted in the chart above.)
c. This indicates that…
i. migration has occurred
ii. perhaps some daughter-type atoms were already present at the time when the rock was formed.
d. The amount of these 2 phenomenon…
i. is not known
ii. cannot be determined by observation or testing the material,
e. This variation and inability to compensate using empirical observation should end the ability to radiometric date these rocks.
i. But, the isochron method is designed to help identify what values can be assumed for migration and initial isotope quantities so that a calculation can at least be performed.
7. How to assume values for unknown (and unknowable) factors for the purposes of performing a calculation
a. Assume the unknown factors
i. The open circles (R1, R2, R3) in the isochron above represent assumed migration amounts and initial isotope quantities, which are…
1. “chosen.”
2. NOT actually observed
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method – In practice, the isochron approach has many inherent advantages. When a single body of liquid rock crystallizes, parent and daughter elements may separate so that, once solid, the isotopic data would define a series of points, such as those shown as open circles designated R1, R2, R3 in Figure 1.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method, Figure 1: Isochron Diagram – In this case, the value of the initial parent-to-stable ratio in R2 has been chosen to be twice that in R1, and R3 is set at twice that of R2.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Get a common value for the unknown factors (depicted by the straight line, or isochron) by assuming the “right” values for these unknown factors, which…
1. indicates “a common value for the initial daughter isotope” already present when the rock was formed
2. helps evolutionary scientists to assume how many parent or daughter isotopes result from migration.
3. helps evolutionary scientists to assume a value that will actually “work” for the purposes of the calculation
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method, Figure 1: Isochron Diagram – With time, the line called an isochron rotates, and data plot at the positions shown by closed circles. These would be the values measured today, and the slope of the line would indicate the time elapsed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – When a single body of liquid rock crystallizes, parent and daughter elements may separate so that, once solid, the isotopic data would define a series of points, such as those shown as open circles designated R1, R2, R3 in Figure 1. They plot along a horizontal line reflecting a common value for the initial daughter isotope ratio (D/S)0. With time each would then develop additional daughter abundances in proportion to the amount of parent present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. (The isochron line) indicates how much time would have passed based upon those idealized, assumed values.
1. (The isochron line) does NOT indicate how much time has actually passed because the true values cannot be determined.
iv. Examine to see if the assumed factors are “correct”
1. Once the points are plotted, the “estimates” (assumed values) are “examined to assess how well they fit the required straight line.”
2. If the assumed values do not create a straight line…
a. then no common value for the unknown factors has been achieved
b. the “assumptions” for the common values of the samples are therefore deemed “incorrect”
i. (“Incorrect” assumptions can be indicated by points plotting below the assumed, straight line, or isochron.)
“Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – Once plotted as R1p (i.e., rock 1 present values), R2p, and R3p, the data are examined to assess how well they fit the required straight line. Using estimates of measurement precision, the crucial question of whether or not scatter outside of measurement error exists is addressed. Such scatter would constitute a geologic component, indicating that one or more of the underlying assumptions has been violated and that the age indicated is probably not valid.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
v. In many cases samples from the same rock do not initially yield even assumable values for unknown factors
1. In dating methods where the isochron format is “extensively employed,” such as rubidium-strontium, “many” rocks did not give “precisely defined linear isochrons.”
a. In other words, points were plotting above and below the line
2. This means that…
a. no common values for the critical factors from the samples have been formulated
b. the initial isotope ratio and migration ratios remain unknown factors
c. calculating an age based even upon assumed values remains unattainable and untenable.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Rubidium–strontium (Rb–Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Correct inconsistency in the initial assumed values
i. assume additional migration or additional initial daughter atoms in the various samples so that…
1. a common value is achieved for the initial isotope ratios and for isotopic migration amounts
2. the location of the points indicating isotope ratios is adjusted to create a straight line
3. a calculation can be performed
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating, The isochron method –Should a point plot below the line, it could indicate that a particular sample was open to migration of the dating elements or that the sample was contaminated and lay below the isochron when the rock solidified.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
8. Critical issues and questions regarding the isochron method for the assumption of values for unknown, critical factors for calculating age using radiometric dating
a. What determines the “correct” range of assumed and assigned values for the initial isotopic amounts and ratio and the amount of isotopic migration, when these factors are unknown?
i. The “correct” values are set based on a presupposition of the evolutionary timetable as indicated by the assigning of relative dates (using years)
ii. (See Dating Procedures Figures 6-9, 11-13)
9. Quotations substantiating the “corrective” component of the isochron method
a. Britannica…
i. describes this process of “correcting” the assumed values until they fit what is “required” for age calculations.
ii. lists the inability to know but only assume migration amounts and initial daughter quantities,
iii. describes “assuming” initial isotope ratios,
iv. describes the use of the isochron method as one of the “schemes” developed in order to “correct” for these factors and “test the assumptions for internal consistency.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above…In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios. The results are then tested for the internal consistency that can validate the assumptions.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
10. Heaping assumptions upon assumptions – additional problems for the reliability of the isochron method
a. Factors invalidating ages calculated using the isochron method
i. The ages generates using the isochron method for formulating assumed values are not reliable or valid if the different rock samples it uses…
1. were not in a closed system where migration does not extend to adjacent rock formations,
2. do not have the same initial ratio as one another,
3. are not in fact the same age.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – With time each would then develop additional daughter abundances in proportion to the amount of parent present. If a number of samples are analyzed and the results are shown to define a straight line within error, then a precise age is defined because this is only possible if each is a closed system and each has the same initial ratio and age.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Thus, in order to even use the isochron method so that values for critical, unknown factors can be assumed for the purposes of calculation all 3 of these additional factors, (which cannot be observed) must also be assumed:
i. The rock samples must be assumed to be from a closed system so that isotope migration did not extend beyond the rock formation.
ii. The isotope ratios must be assumed to be initially identical in all of the samples.
iii. All of the samples must be assumed to be formed at the same time.
c. Additionally, in order for the isochron format to give reliable or “valid” readings, the rocks they are applied to must be “well-preserved, unweathered rocks that crystallized rapidly and have not been subjected to major reheating events.”
i. The quote also stipulates explicitly that “Volcanic rocks are most susceptible” to these kinds of events, which render isochrons invalid.
“Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – For an isochron to be valid, each sample tested must (1) have had the same initial ratio, (2) have been a closed system over geologic time, and (3) have the same age. Well-preserved, unweathered rocks that crystallized rapidly and have not been subjected to major reheating events are most likely to give valid isochrons. Weathering is a disturbing influence, as is leaching or exchange by hot crustal fluids, since many secondary minerals contain rubidium. Volcanic rocks are most susceptible to such changes because their minerals are fine-grained and unstable glass may be present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Igneous rocks are formed from volcanic processes such as the cooling and solidification of molten rock.
“Igneous rock – any of various crystalline or glassy rocks formed by the cooling and solidification of molten earth material. Igneous rocks comprise one of the three principal classes of rocks, the others being metamorphic and sedimentary.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. But, the rubidium-strontium dating method…
1. is used on igneous rocks
2. uses rocks that are susceptible to migration due to fluid movement and chemical weathering.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium-strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – The rubidium–strontium pair is ideally suited for the isochron dating of igneous rocks.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Rubidium–strontium (Rb–Sr) dating was the first technique in which the whole rock isochron method was extensively employed. Certain rocks that cooled quickly at the surface were found to give precisely defined linear isochrons, but many others did not. Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
11. Summary of additional assumptions and problems for using the isochron method to provide assumed values for unknown factors necessary to calculate age.
a. First, in order for the isochron format to even theoretically work to adjust one set of assumptions, the rock samples the isochron method is applied to cannot be subject to weathering or migration through reheating events.
i. These factors primarily affect igneous rocks.
1. When these rocks form a large amount of heat is involved making isotopic migration possible and even likely.
2. When isotopic migration occurs it becomes impossible to…
a. determine the initial isotopic amounts and ratios
b. calculate the age of the rock.
b. Second, igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks are also formed through major heating events and are the exact same types of rocks that most radiometric dating methods are applied to.
i. Only 2 dating methods aren’t applied to igneous and metamorphic rocks.
1. the uranium-thorium method (which tests deep-sea sediments)
2. the carbon-14 method
c. The isochron method…
i. may not be used for all radiometric dating methods
ii. was created to solve problems that are present in ALL radiometric dating methods used to date igneous and metamorphic rocks
iii. fails to resolve the problems inherent to these dating methods
iv. illustrates that radiometric dating requires making calculations that are based upon assumed values.
1. The actual values, which are critical to dating, cannot be observed or experimentally detected.
v. is designed to adjust the assumptions made for one set of unknown factors
vi. must make additional assumptions for other unknown factors in order to make and adjust for the first set of assumptions for the first set of unknown factors.
595 How common are the problems of unknown migration amount and unknown initial isotopic ratios?
596 These problems are common in 3 ways.
597 First, distinguishing between daughter atoms that actually result from radioactive decay as opposed to daughter atoms that were already present is a significant and commonly occurring problem.
598 The amount of daughter elements produced by decay is the direct indicator of how long decay has been occurring
599 This is an absolutely critical factor that must be known with certainty, otherwise the age could be severely exaggerated.
600 The problem of having daughter isotopes that do not result from decay is clearly common to “many radioactive dating methods.”
601 “many radioactive dating methods” utilize rocks into which such “considerable amounts of daughter-type isotopes already exist.”
602 Second, isotopic migration resulting from very common processes, including high-temperature reheating of the rock, fluid movement through the rock, and chemical weathering is a significant and commonly occurring problem.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, The isochron method – Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements. In this case, it is a big advantage to present the data in a form in which the abundance of both the parent and daughter isotopes are given with respect to the abundance of the initial background daughter. The incremental additions of the daughter type can then be viewed in proportion to the abundance of parent atoms…A second advantage of the method relates to the fact that under high-temperature conditions the daughter isotopes may escape from the host minerals. In this case, a valid age can still be obtained, provided that they remain within the rock…Some studies have shown that rubidium is very mobile both in fluids that migrate through the rock as it cools and in fluids that are present as the rock undergoes chemical weathering. Similar studies have shown that the samarium–neodymium (Sm–Nd) parent–daughter pair is more resistant to secondary migration but that, in this instance, sufficient initial spread in the abundance of the parent isotope is difficult to achieve.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – Well-preserved, unweathered rocks that crystallized rapidly and have not been subjected to major reheating events are most likely to give valid isochrons. Weathering is a disturbing influence, as is leaching or exchange by hot crustal fluids, since many secondary minerals contain rubidium. Volcanic rocks are most susceptible to such changes because their minerals are fine-grained and unstable glass may be present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
12. Third, isotopic migration events, reheating events, and weathering commonly affect igneous and metamorphic rock – the predominant type of rocks that can be and are dated radiometrically.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals. Radiometric dating works best on igneous rocks (rocks that crystallized from molten material). It can also be used to date minerals in metamorphic rocks (rocks that formed when parent rock was submitted to intense heat and pressure and metamorphosed into another type of rock). It is of limited use, however, in sedimentary rocks formed by the compaction of layers of sediment.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. Metamorphic rock
i. The very definition of metamorphic rock is “rock that forms when parent rock is submitted to intense heat and pressure.”
ii. So, metamorphic rock (one of the main 2 types of rock that radiometric dating can be used on) is inherently defined by the experience of reheating events making it likely to…
1. experience isotopic migration,
2. produce “raised” or “lowered” ages due to factors that cannot be empirically detected, and thus preventing radiometric dating.
b. Igneous rock
i. Igneous rocks are likewise associated with intense hot environments and volcanic activity, including extremely hot molten rock.
1. (“volcanic rocks” are synonymous with igneous rocks formed at the earth’s surface as opposed to igneous rocks formed deeper within the earth.)
“Earth, The major geologic features of the Earth's exterior, The surface of the Earth as a mosaic of plates, Activity along plate boundaries, Formation of igneous rocks – Igneous rocks are formed by the crystallization of magma. Extrusive igneous rocks (volcanic rocks) are produced bythe crystallization of magmas at the surface. Intrusive igneous rocks include those crystallized at shallow depth (hypabyssal igneous rocks), typically as dikes and sills, and those crystallized at medium to great depths (plutonic igneous rocks).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Igneous rocks – any of various crystalline or glassy rocks formed by the cooling and solidification of molten earth material…Igneous rocks are formed from the solidification of magma, which is a hot (600° to 1,300° C, or 1,100° to 2,400° F) molten or partially molten rock material.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Due to their inherent relationship to heat, igneous rocks are regarded as even more susceptible to reheating and migration than metamorphic rocks.
“Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – Well-preserved, unweathered rocks that crystallized rapidly and have not been subjected to major reheating events are most likely to give valid isochrons. Weathering is a disturbing influence, as is leaching or exchange by hot crustal fluids, since many secondary minerals contain rubidium. Volcanic rocks are most susceptible to such changes because their minerals are fine-grained and unstable glass may be present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The problems posed by isotopic migration and reheating are severe due to their inherent likelihood in igneous and metamorphic rocks, which are the main types of rock that are radiometric dated.
603 How many radiometric dating methods are these issues acknowledged to affect?
cciv. Potassium-argon dating methods are affected directly by reheating and migration events.
1. As indicated by the third quote below, the isochron format, which itself doesn’t work, is used with the potassium-argon method.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E3 Potassium-Argon Method – The decay of radioactive potassium isotopes to argon is widely used for dating rocks. (The decay of potassium-40 to calcium-40 that also takes place is not useful.) Geologists are able to date entire rock samples in this way, because potassium-40 is abundant in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B4 Potassium-Argon Dating – Potassium-argon dating provides approximate dates for sites in early prehistory. Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium–strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccv. Rubidium-strontium dating, which is “frequently used to check potassium-argon” dating, is also affected substantially by reheating and migration events.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E4 Rubidium-Strontium Method – Used to date ancient igneous and metamorphic terrestrial rocks as well as lunar samples, this method is based on disintegration by beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87. The method is frequently used to check potassium-argon dates, because the strontium daughter element is not diffused by mild heating, as is argon.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating metamorphic rocks – Should a simple igneous body be subjected to an episode of heating or of deformation or of a combination of both, a well-documented special data pattern develops. With heat, daughter isotopes diffuse out of their host minerals but are incorporated into other minerals in the rock. Eventually the 87Sr/86Sr ratio in the minerals becomes identical. When the rock again cools, the minerals close and again accumulate daughter products to record the time since the second event…Although rubidium–strontium dating is not as precise as theuranium–lead method, it was the first to be exploited and has provided much of the prevailing knowledge of Earth history…The mobility of rubidium in deep-level crustal fluids and melts that can infiltrate other rocks during metamorphism as well as in fluids involved in weathering can complicate the results.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccvi. Uranium-lead is also subject to reheating and migration events.
1. For reference, the mineral titanite, also called sphene, is found in igneous rocks.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Importance of zircon in uranium-lead dating – Given the two related uranium–lead parent–daughter systems, it is possible to determine both the time of the initial, or primary, rock-forming event and the time of a major reheating, or secondary, event. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Here, the uranium–lead isotopes in the mineral titanite (CaTiSiO5) from a series of rocks that have a common geologic history plot on a straight line. The minerals first formed 1,651 million years ago but were later heated and lost varying amounts of lead 986 million years ago.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sphene – Sphene, calcium titanosilicate, formerly called titanite, chemical formula CaOTiO2SiO2…Sphene occurs as a microscopic accessory mineral in different types of igneous rocks-especially granite-and in larger crystals in pegmatites.” – "Sphene," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ccvii. Fission-track dating…
1. Is used to date items in the gap between potassium-argon and carbon-14
2. Is used on igneous and metamorphic rocks, such as micas and tektites, which are likely to be subject to reheating and migration events.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The method works best for micas, tektites, and meteorites. It has been used to help date the period from about 40,000 to 1 million years ago, an interval not covered by carbon-14 or potassium-argon methods.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Mica, Origin and occurrence – Micas may originate as the result of diverse processes under several different conditions. Their occurrences, listed below, include crystallization from consolidating magmas, deposition by fluids derived from or directly associated with magmatic activities, deposition by fluids circulating during both contact and regional metamorphism, and formation as the result of alteration processes—perhaps even those caused by weathering—that involve minerals such as feldspars…The common rock-forming micas are distributed widely. The more important occurrences follow: Biotite occurs in many igneous rocks (e.g., granites and granodiorites), is common in many pegmatite masses, and constitutes one of the chief components of many metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses, schists, and hornfelses). It alters rather easily during chemical weathering and thus is rare in sediments and sedimentary rocks.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Tektite – any of a class of small, natural glassy objects that are found only in certain areas of the Earth's surface. The term is derived fromthe Greek word tektos, meaning “melted,” or “molten.” Tektites have been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny throughout much of the 20th century owing to their unknown and possibly extraterrestrial origins, but they are now recognized as having formed from the melting and rapid cooling of terrestrial rocks that have been vaporized by the high-energy impacts of large meteorites, comets, or asteroids upon the surface of the Earth. The extremely high temperatures and enormous pressures generated by such impacts melted the rocks at the site, producing clouds of molten silicate droplets that quickly cooled to a glassy form before falling back to Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
604 Summary and Conclusions about the General Problem of Critical Unknown for Radiometrically Calculating Age
ccviii. Almost all radiometric dating methods are applied to…
1. Igneous and metamorphic rocks, which are the primary subject of radiometric dating, but almost all of
2. Are plagued by the calculation obstacles posed by reheating and isotopic migration (preventing the identification of the critical age determining factors of…
a. the initial isotopic amounts and ratios
b. the amount of decay from parent to daughter isotopes due to decay rather than isotopic migration
ccix. “all dating systems” are susceptible to false ages because of the addition of daughter atoms into the rock through migration with reheating being the common causes of such migrations.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccx. Radiometric dating in general does not work because
1. First, there are 4 pieces of information, which are all regarded by Britannica as “critical” and as “conditions that must be met to make the calculated age.”
a. Those pieces of information are:
i. the starting parent-to-daughter ratio,
ii. the current parent-to-daughter ratio,
iii. the decay rate,
iv. the amount of (isotopic) migration.
b. The starting ratio and the migration amounts are not observable, empirically determinable, or ultimately knowable.
i. In order to perform an age calculation using radiometric dating methods assumptions must be made about these unknown factors.
ii. The “correct” value range for these assumptions is purely determined through circular reasoning by first presupposing other evolutionary assumptions that…
1. organisms evolved from a single ancestor over a long period of time.
2. there was no global flood that would impact the factors involved in radiometric dating.
2. Second, the processes used to help make such assumptions…
a. are entirely subjective,
b. employ idealized data that is adjusted as needed to make age calculations,
c. require even more assumptions, which are not based on real, observable data including…
i. that rock samples have remained closed to migrations,
ii. that rock samples had the same initial isotope ratio,
iii. that rock samples have the same age,
iv. that rock samples have not been subjected to weathering or reheating events.
3. Third, isotopic migration and reheating happen frequently to the main 2 types of rocks that radiometric dating is applied to.
a. Consequently, as if using assumed data weren’t problematic enough, the assumption process itself is shown to be invalid and unreliable by known geological data.
4. Fourth, these problems are so widespread that all radiometric dating methods (except for carbon-14 and uranium-thorium, which dates deep-sea sediments) are affected by them, including:
a. potassium-argon,
b. rubidium-strontium,
c. uranium-lead,
d. fission-track dating
ccxi. Having established these facts from secular and evolutionist sources, we close this section with comments from creationist Dr. Keith Wanser.
1. Wanser affirms that migration is an obstacle to radiometric dating.
2. As Dr. Wanser states, “the ages can change several orders of magnitude just depending on how much the migration coefficients are.”
“You have a parent and it gives birth to a daughter when it decays radioactively. You measure how many of the daughter product you have at time t. You assume how many there are initially. And then you’d measure the amount of the parent species at time t. And from that you infer the time that the system has been going on for. That’s assuming there’s no open system behavior. Well now, those equations get modified to something…much more complicated when you include the effects of things migrating in, parents migrating in, parents migrating out, daughters migrating in, and daughters migrating out from adjacent layers…Migration out of one layer into the above layer, migration out into a layer below of the parent nucleus. Then you can have parents from the other adjacent layers migrate in from layers above and below. So, that affects the number of atoms in the parent species in a given layer. And then the same thing in the daughter…We have migration out to adjacent layers of the daughter species and we have migration in from both adjacent layers. So, there are a lot of extra terms there. And one has to try and figure out what are these rates of migration, what are these atomic diffusion coefficients…How will it affect your parent radioactive ages?...It can still act like a closed system for when you date the thing. But what happens is the ages can change several orders of magnitude just depending on how much the migration coefficients are, how strong they are. So, that’s kind of an interesting effect because one might expect to have a depth-dependent kind of migration coefficient…This is preliminary…and it’s somewhat significant.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 7 minutes
Focus on Critical Evidence: Potassium-Argon Dating
605 Reasons potassium-argon is significant as a dating method.
606 First, potassium-argon (along with carbon-14) is the most widely-used and prominent dating method (except for perhaps carbon-14).
“Prehistoric People, Placing prehistoric people in time – By measuring the amount of each isotope in a fossil, scientists can determine how long the decay has been going on and therefore how old the fossil is. The most commonly used dating methods of this type are radiocarbon dating and potassium-argon dating.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E3 Potassium-Argon Method – The decay of radioactive potassium isotopes to argon is widely used for dating rocks. (The decay of potassium-40 to calcium-40 that also takes place is not useful.) Geologists are able to date entire rock samples in this way, because potassium-40 is abundant in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
607 Potassium-argon is used to provide the backbone for the bulk of the earth’s age
608 The bulk of the geologic column, from 100,000 years ago all the way back to the 4 or 5 billion years ago, when evolution dates the formation of the earth is constructed using potassium-argon dating.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – The two radioactive decay sequences most useful to geologists are the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 and the decay of potassium-40 into argon-40. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating works for organic materials less than about 50,000 years old…Geologists can use potassium-argon dating to determine ages of rocks from about 100,000 years old to as old as the earth itself.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
609 This means that potassium-argon dating is the primary method for providing dates to to 99.99778 percent of evolutionary earth history.
610 The most recent 100,000 years represent only about 0.00222 percent of evolutionary earth history.
611 Potassium is one of “the 10 most abundant elements that together make up 99 percent of Earth’s crust.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – The radioactive decay scheme involving the breakdown of potassium of mass 40 (40K) to argon gas of mass 40 (40Ar) formed the basis of the first widely used isotopic dating method. Since radiogenic argon-40 was first detected in 1938 by the American geophysicist Lyman T. Aldrich and A.O.Nier, the method has evolved into one of the most versatile and widely employed methods available. Potassium is one of the 10 most abundant elements that together make up 99 percent of the Earth's crust and is therefore a major constituent of many rock-forming minerals.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
612 The large amount of potassium in the crust means that there is a better likelihood of rocks and minerals containing potassium than the other elements used in radiometric dating.
613 Implications and already identified problems with potassium-arong dating.
614 Due to its significance to the evolutionary timetable, if potassium-argon dating does not work, then the majority of radiometric dating and the evolutionary timetable is lost.
615 We already covered how potassium-argon dating doesn’t work because migrations are frequent in the rocks to which the potassium-argon method is applied.
616 (That is, igneous and metamorphic rocks formed by and associated with heating events and processes.)
617 Migrations, in turn, prevent the isotope ratios and decay amounts from being identified, which is a necessary step before age calculations can be performed.
618 Procedural problems with potassium-argon dating
619 Measuring the present parent-to-daughter isotopic quantities is one of the essential factors needed to calculate radiometric age.
620 The procedure for measuring the present potassium-argon quantities is problematic.
621 First, the daughter isotope, argon, is a gas at room temperature, which makes this dating method different from other radiometric dating methods.
622 The fact that argon is a gas complicates the measuring procedure, making it more difficult.
623 Measuring the present potassium-argon quantities in a sample requires unique procedures and different technology than other methods.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – Argon dating involves a different technology from all the other methods so far described because argon exists as a gas at room temperature.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. The conventional method for measuring present potassium-argon quantities in a sample is considered to have multiple “complexities” making it unreliable.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – In conventional potassium–argon dating, a potassium-bearing sample is split into two fractions: one is analyzed for its potassium content, while the other is fused in a vacuum to release the argon gas. After purification has been completed, a spike enriched in argon-38 is mixed in and the atomic abundance of the daughter product argon-40 is measured relative to the argon-38 added. The amount of the argon-36 present is then determined relative to argon-38 to provide an estimate of the background atmospheric correction. In this case, relatively large samples, which may include significant amounts of alteration, are analyzed. Since potassium is usually added by alteration, the daughter–parent ratio and the age might be too low. A method designed to avoid such complexities was introduced by the geochronologists Craig M. Merrihue and Grenville Turner in 1966.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. First, the sample is split in two.
i. One part is tested for potassium.
ii. One part is tested potassium’s daughter isotope argon-40.
b. A second argon isotope (argon-38) is mixed in.
i. Then the quantity of argon-40 (the daughter isotope) is measured against the quantity of argon-38 that was added in.
c. The quantity of another argon isotope, argon-36, is measured and compared to the amount of argon-38.
i. This comparison serves as a basis for determining how much argon is already present in the atmosphere and is not a result of potassium decay in the sample.
d. Using this “estimate,” the amount of argon-40 is “corrected.”
i. “relatively large” samples “may” include “significant amounts of alteration.”
ii. During “alteration” potassium (the parent isotope) is added.
e. As a result of this process, the age indicated by this procedure may be seen as “too low” as result of “extra” parent atoms that “may” have been added.
f. This complicated process necessitated an alternative method, which would avoid these types of complications.
4. The alternate procedure for measuring present potassium-argon quantities is as follows.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – A method designed to avoid such complexities was introduced by the geochronologists Craig M. Merrihue and Grenville Turner in 1966. In this technique, known as the argon-40–argon-39 method, both parent and daughter can be determined in the mass spectrometer as some of the potassium atoms in the sample are first converted to argon-39 in a nuclear reactor. In this way, the problem of measuring the potassium in inhomogeneous samples is eliminated and smaller amounts of material can be analyzed. An additional advantage then becomes possible. The sample can be heated in stages at different temperatures and the age calculated at each step. If alteration is evident, the invalid low-temperature age can be eliminated and a valid high-temperature age determined. In some cases, partly reset systems also may be detected.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. A nuclear ractor is used to actually trigger the decay or conversion of the parent isotope potassium into the daughter isotope argon-39.
i. During this conversion in the nuclear reactor, a mass spectrometer can measure the parent (potassium) to daughter (argon-40) ratio.
b. As noted early on, knowing the radioactive decay rate is required for age calculations.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Earth sciences, The 20th century: modern trends and developments, Geologic sciences, Radiometric dating – By determining the amount of the parent and daughter isotopes present in a sample and by knowing their rate of radioactive decay (each radioisotope has its own decay constant), the isotopic age of the sample can be calculated.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. In order to calculate radiometric ages the radioactive decay rate must be constant over time.
1. If the decay is not constant, then more or less decay will occur at different periods of a rock’s history and we won’t know how long it takes for a certain amount of parent atoms to decay into daughter atoms.
2. Essentially, we won’t know the half-life and so we won’t know the age of the rock because we won’t know how long decay has been occurring.
ii. According to Britannica decay processes are isolated from change guaranting that decay rates remain constant.
1. Decay processes take place “within the atomic nucleus.”
2. Decay rates are governed by processes that occur in a location that is isolated from the influence of “external forces.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant. The situation is analogous to the death rate among human populations insured by an insurance company. Even though it is impossible to predict when a given policyholder will die, the company can count on paying off a certain number of beneficiaries every month. The recognition that the rate of decay of any radioactive parent atom is proportional to the number of atoms (N) of the parent remaining at any time gives rise to the following expression.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. However, a nuclear reactor is clearly able to affect the decay processes occurring in the atomic nucleus.
i. In fact, the alternate procedure for measuring present potassium-argon quantities uses a nuclear reacter precisely to affect the atomic nucleus and trigger potassium atoms to decay into argon-39.
d. Consequently, the guaranteed constancy of the decay rate is removed by the measuring procedure, which actually affects the decay rate inducing potassium to change into argon atoms using a nuclear reactor.
i. The result of this alternative process is that another one of the factors required for making age calculations becomes unattainable and age calculation becomes impossible.
624 “inherited daughter products” (daughter atoms not resulting from decay) remain a problem that is not solved by either measuring procedure.
e. (Britannica Encyclopedia makes this conclusion immediately after describing the 2 forms of measuring present potassium-argon quantities.)
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium–strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
f. Britannica states that the “inherited daughter” problem infects “all dating systems,” including, but not limited to potassium-argon dating methods.
g. The inability of the potassium-argon dating method to identify the amount of inherited daughter isotopes is that the calculated ages are “too old”
i. (In some cases the ages are “older than” the earth itself.)
5. As a result of these unresolved difficulties potassium-argon dates remain unreliable and other dating methods must be depended on in an attempt to substantiate their results.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E4 Rubidium-Strontium Method – Used to date ancient igneous and metamorphic terrestrial rocks as well as lunar samples, this method is based on disintegration by beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87. The method is frequently used to check potassium-argon dates, because the strontium daughter element is not diffused by mild heating, as is argon.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ccxii. The rubidium-strontium method that is used to “substantiate” potassium-argon dates has its own insurmountable difficulties.
1. The rubidium-strontium dating method is extremely susceptible to inherited daughter products due to reheating and migration events.
a. The long quote below states in detail how rubidium-strontium ratios are complexly affected by migration.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating metamorphic rocks – Should a simple igneous body be subjected to an episode of heating or of deformation or of a combination of both, a well-documented special data pattern develops. With heat, daughter isotopes diffuse out of their host minerals but are incorporated into other minerals in the rock…Here, an essentially rubidium-free, strontium-rich phase like apatite retains its initial 87Sr/86Sr ratio over time, whereas the value in such rubidium-rich, strontium-poor minerals as biotite increases rapidly with time. The rock itself gives the integrated, more gradual increase. At the time of heating, identical 87Sr/86Sr ratios are again achieved as described above, only to be followed by a second episode of isotopic divergence. Approaches to this ideal case are commonly observed, but peculiar results are found in situations where the heating is minimal. If one assumes for a moment that only the mineral with the lowest blocking temperature loses its daughter isotope, it is easy to imagine that other low-temperature minerals formed at this time may acquire extremely high 87Sr/86Sr ratios. Epidote, a low-temperature alteration mineral with a very high concentration of radiogenic strontium, has been found in rocks wherein biotite has lost strontium by diffusion. The rock itself has a much lower ratio, so that it did not take part in this exchange. Although rubidium–strontium dating is not as precise as theuranium–lead method, it was the first to be exploited and has provided much of the prevailing knowledge of Earth history. The procedures of sample preparation, chemical separation, and mass spectrometry are relatively easy to carry out, and datable minerals occur in most rocks. Precise ages can be obtained on high-level rocks (i.e., those closer to the surface) and meteorites, and imprecise but nevertheless valuable ages can be determined for rocks that have been strongly heated. The mobility of rubidium in deep-level crustal fluids and melts that can infiltrate other rocks during metamorphism as well as in fluids involved in weathering can complicate the results.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Rubidium-strontium is referred to in the quote as “providing much of the prevailing knowledge of Earth history” despite…
i. the numerous complications and assumptions caused by reheating and migration outlined throughout the quote
ii. the fact that the quote itself concludes by stating that rubidium is very mobile and therefore open to migration due to heat, “complicating the results,”
2. Thus, the rubidium-strontium dating method is very similar to potassium-argon dating including having similar problems.
625 Conclusions about potassium-argon dating methods
ccxiii. Neither the conventional nor the alternative isotope measuring procedures for potassium-argon dating work.
1. Both are unable to identify the critical age calculating factor of the present amount of daughter isotopes.
ccxiv. As a result of these difficulties potassium-argon dates must be double-checked using the rubidium-strontium dating method, which suffers from the same problems and need for assumptions as the potassium-argon method does.
ccxv. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that these are just problems measuring the present quantities of potassium-argon isotopes.
1. Even if these problems were to be solved or ignored, the other factors that must be known in order to perform radiometric dating still remain unidentified, rendering age calculation simply impossible.
a. These other factors include identifying…
i. the original quantity of parent and daughter isotopes when the rock was formed,
ii. the amount of migration into or out of the rock, and the decay rate
ccxvi. Despite these insurmountable problems, potassium-argon dating is considered to “provide a great deal of information about the Earth’s recent and ancient past.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating – The potassium–argon method has provided a great deal of information about the Earth's recent and ancient past.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccxvii. It is quite clear that neither potassium-argon nor rubidium-strontium meet the requirements for calculating absolute age.
1. The initial starting quantities of the parent and daughter isotopes cannot be determined.
2. Migration is rampant in these methods, but the amount of migration cannot be determined.
3. There is difficulty exactly determining the present parent and daughter isotope ratio in potassium-argon dating.
4. The alternate measuring procedure for potassium-argon dating even directly induces radioactive decay.
5. Since these factors must be known in order to calculate absolute ages, calculating ages from potassium-argon dating (or rubidium-strontium dating) is…
a. Not possible,
b. Not reliable,
c. Not a matter of anything other than performing calculations using assumed, idealized values.
ccxviii. The ages produced from potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium dating are not objective or empirical observations or evidence.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Reheating, Migration, and the Flood
626 The prohibitive obstacles posed to radiometric dating by reheating events and the migration of isotopes are made even more substantial due to the evidence for a worldwide flood.
627 In a previous segment, we established 3 grounds why a global (or at least near-global) flood must be accepted.
628 First, there is significant evidence in the historical record in the form of independent legends of a global flood in cultures literally all around the world.
629 Second, there is significant geological evidence in the form of the earth’s physical features, including the fossil record itself and specifically the geographic distribution of fossils.
630 Third, there is simply no principle within evolution, uniformitarianism, or even atheism that remotely prevents accepting a global flood.
631 In short, a global-flood is not incompatible with evolution or uniformitarianism particularly because…
632 Belief in a global flood does not require believing in God
633 Evolution’s accepts that the world was covered or nearly covered by ice.
634 Consequently, evolution and uniformitarianism are left with no reason to reject a global (or near-global flood).
635 Instead, we are only left with with ample historical and geologic evidence for accepting such a flood.
636 The Biblical record describes the breaking up of the earth’s crust and deep ocean fountains or geysers as a part of the Flood.
637 The “fountains of the deep being opened,” which then spew forth the flood waters into the sky – this is descriptive of geyser activity.
638 The water from the fountains shot up into the atmosphere and eventually, as it cooled, it came back down in the form of rain.
Genesis 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. 6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains (04599) of the great deep broken up (01234), and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
1. The Hebrew word for “fountain” in the phrase “fountain of the deep” is “ma‘yan” (Strong’s No. 04599), which simply means, “spring.”
a. Out of its 23 occurrences in the Old Testament, it is translated as “fountain” 16 times, as “well” 5 times, and as “springs” 2 times.
2. The word “broken up” is the Hebrew word “baqa” (Strong’s No. 01234) which means, “to split, cleave, break open, divide.”
a. This could very easily convey the idea of the crust breaking up or splitting into separate plates, so that the fountains spewed forth along these newly formed fault cracks were the water was exposed to the molten material beneath.
b. (This will be significant as we move ahead to discuss geysers and mid-ocean ridges.)
3. About geysers.
a. Geysers are springs.
b. Geysers shoot forth jets of water.
c. Geyser activity is a manifestation of volcanic activity.
d. Geyser activity is associated with volcanic activity and water that comes close to magma or molten rock.
ccxix. The Biblical desciption of such geyser-like activity and the breaking up of the earth’s crust indicate the geologic phenomena of volcanoes, molten rock, and earthquakes, which are all closely associated with geysers.
1. Microsoft Encarta describes this relationship between volcanic activity and geysers.
[pic]
“[Photo Caption] Formation of Geysers – Geysers are caused when underground chambers of water are heated to the boiling point by volcanic rock. When heat causes the water to boil, pressure forces a superheated column of steam and water to the surface. The initial amount of water released at the surface lessens the column's weight, which also lowers its boiling point. When the boiling point drops, the entire column of water vaporizes at once, shooting out of the ground in a spectacular eruption. © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Formation of Geysers," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Volcano, Types of volcanic activity, Other manifestations of volcanic activity, Hydrothermal features – Hot springs and geysers also are manifestations of volcanic activity. They result from the interaction of groundwater with magma or with solidified but still hot igneous rocks at shallow depths. Yellowstone National Park is one of the most famous areas of hot springs and geysers in the world…Geysers are actually hot springs that intermittently spout a column of hot water and steam into the air. This action is caused by the water in deep conduits beneath a geyser approaching or reaching the boiling point.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Geyser – is a spring that throws up hot water with explosive force from time to time. Often, the water shoots up in great columns, cloudy with steam…How geysers form – Geysers form in areas where water drains through the earth deep below the surface. A deep channel reaches from the surface far into the earth. Cold water seeps down this channel until it reaches rocks that are hot. Then it fills the channel. The water at the bottom is heated by the rocks…This process, in turn, lifts the column still more, until suddenly all the water near the bottom of the channel expands into steam and forces out the rest in a steam explosion…Geysers have often been compared with volcanoes, for they act similarly. But volcanoes shoot forth melted rock, while geysers erupt water containing dissolved mineral matter.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Nicholas C. Crawford, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Center for Cave and Karst Studies, Western Kentucky University.
“Geyser – any of a class of hot springs that discharges jets of steam and water intermittently. The term is derived from the Icelandic word geysir, meaning “to rush forth.” Geysers are generally associated with recent volcanic activity and are produced by the heating of underground waters that have come into contact with, or very close to, magma (molten rock)…Geysers often make a most spectacular display as they discharge a roaring column of steam and boiling water high above the surface…Geysers are nearly everywhere associated with various other, less violent manifestations of the interaction of magmatic heat and groundwater—e.g., bubbling hot pools and fumaroles (steam vents). In many areas it has proved possible to tap and control the steam discharged from geysers and to use it in turbines for generating electricity (e.g., the geysers near San Francisco). The main drawback of such operations is that frequently the site on which a power station must be located to exploit this steam is vulnerable to damage either by volcanic activity or by earthquakes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Geysers are found at faults in the earth’s surface just as the Biblical account describes.
“Hot springs – Hot springs are springs that discharge water heated by natural processes within the earth. Most hot springs are steadily flowing streams or calm pools of water. But many are fumaroles, geysers, or bubbling pools of mud called mudpots or mud volcanoes (see FUMAROLE; GEYSER). Hot springs are also called thermal springs…Hot springs originate when surface water, which results from rain and snow, seeps into the ground. Many springs occur in volcanic regions where hot molten rock called magma lies near the surface of the earth. Surface water trickles down through layers of rock until it is heated by the magma. Then the water rises to the surface through channels in the rock…Hot springs also occur in regions that have faults (breaks) or folds (bends) in the layers of rock beneath the earth's surface. The temperature of the earth increases toward the interior. Faults and folds enable surface water to penetrate to depths where it is heated.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Roy M. Breckenridge, Ph.D., Associate Director, Research Geologist, Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho.
3. The force of a hot spring or geyser depends on the depth, the heat supply, and rate at which the water can flow into the fault, column, or vent.
“Geyser – Geyser, hot spring that erupts intermittently in a column of steam and hot water…A geyser erupts when the base of a column of water resting in the earth is vaporized by hot volcanic rock. The force with which the water column is expelled depends on its depth. The weight of the water column increases with its depth. The weight, in turn, increases the pressure exerted on the base of the column, thereby increasing the boiling point of the water there. When the water finally boils, it expands, driving some water out into the air…Eruption intervals depend on such variables as the supply of heat, the amount and rate of inflow of subsurface water, and the nature of the geyser tube and its underground connections.” – "Geyser," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
4. Although the current activity is quite mild by comparison to eruptions that would have been involved in the flood, similar elements of hot springs, fault lines, volcanic activity and magma are present on the ocean floors.
“Deep-Sea Exploration, IV SCIENTIFIC RESULTS – The first large exploration using occupied submersibles was the French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study (FAMOUS) project. In 1974 the Alvin (operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), the French bathyscaphe Archimède, and the French diving saucer Cyane, assisted by support ships and the Glomar Challenger, explored the great rift valley of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, southwest of the Azores. The rift valley is considered by geologists as the separation between the Eurasian plate and the North American plate of the earth's crust, and it constitutes one of the many sites in the ocean bottom where molten rock oozes forth to form new crust…In a series of dives in 1979 and 1980 into the Galápagos Rift, off the coast of Ecuador, French, Mexican, and U.S. scientists found chimneylike vents, nearly 9 m (nearly 30 ft) high and about 3.7 m (about 12 ft) across, discharging a mixture of hot water (up to 300° C/570° F) and dissolved metals in dark, smokelike plumes (see Hydrothermal Vent). These hot springs play an important role in the formation of deposits that are enriched in copper, nickel, cadmium, chromium, and uranium.” – "Deep-Sea Exploration," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Hydrothermal Vent – Hydrothermal Vent, spring of hot water on the deep ocean floor. Such springs were proposed to exist in 1965, as part of the developing theory of plate tectonics. Since then more than 80 such vents have been found in the Pacific Ocean at sites of rapid seafloor spreading. These vents emit sulfur-rich water at temperatures that can reach 350° C (660° F). A few vents have also been found in the Atlantic Ocean, at sites of slower spreading; the water from these vents tends to be cooler but still rich in sulfur. Hydrothermal vents have also been found at sites of seafloor spreading in the Red Sea. In 1995, scientists started looking for hydrothermal vents in the Indian Ocean and quickly discovered one that had previously been active. Scientists have also found hydrothermal vents at hot-spots where magma rises in the middle of crustal plates to form volcanic islands, such as Hawaii. The vents form when cold seawater sinks deep into cracks in the ocean floor until warmed by rock heated by magma (see Igneous Rock).” – "Hydrothermal Vent," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Microbiology, The study of microorganisms, Applied microbiology, Microbiology of water supplies, wastewater, and other aquatic environments – Large populations of archaea live in volcanic ridges 2,600 metres (8,500 feet) below the ocean surface in areas immediately surrounding hydrothermal vents (deep-sea hot springs). The vents spew superheated water (350 °C [662 °F]) that contains hydrogen sulfide (H2 S); the water surrounding the vents has a temperature range of 10–20 °C (50–68 °F).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Ocean, Ocean basins, Oceanic ridges, Spreading centre zones and associated phenomena – Spreading centres are divided into several geologic zones. The neovolcanic zone is at the very axis. It is 1 to 2 kilometres wide and is the site of recent and active volcanism and of the hydrothermal vents. It is marked by chains of small volcanoes or volcanic ridges. Adjacent to the neovolcanic zone is one marked by fissures in the seafloor. This may be 1 to 2 kilometres wide. Beyond this point occurs a zone of active faulting. Here, fissures develop into normal faults with vertical offsets…Warm springs emanating from the seafloor in the neovolcanic zone were first found on the Galápagos spreading centre. These waters were measured to have temperatures about 20° C above the ambient temperature. In 1979 hydrothermal vents with temperatures near 350° C were discovered on the East Pacific Rise off Mexico. Since then, similar vents have been found on the spreading centres off the Pacific Northwest coast of the United States, on the south end of the northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and at many locations on the East Pacific Rise. Hydrothermal vents are localized discharges of heated seawater. They result from cold seawater percolating down into the hot oceanic crust through the zone of fissures and returning to the seafloor in a pipelike flow at the axis of the neovolcanic zone.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
5. These deep ocean hydrothermal vents are present at the exact places where the earth’s crust is breaks into multiple plates.
“Volcano, VI VOLCANO DISTRIBUTION – The magma-forming regions of the earth and the volcanoes built above them are not randomly scattered but instead are confined to several zones and special places. While these volcanically active areas have long been known, the scientific reason for their distribution was not understood until the emergence of the theory of plate tectonics in the late 1960s. According to this theory, the earth's surface is broken into a dozen or so large solid slabs (called plates). These plates consist of both crustal and rigid upper mantle material. They are 50 to 150 km (30 to 95 mi) thick and ride upon hotter, more free-flowing mantle. The plates are moving relative to one another at average rates of several centimeters a year. The vast majority of the world's active volcanoes, above and below the sea, are found along or near the boundaries between these shifting plates. Volcanoes can also be found in the middle of tectonic plates, although midplate volcanoes are relatively rare. The Hawaiian Islands are the exposed part of a midplate volcanic chain…A Volcanoes at Plate Boundaries – Even though most of the earth's volcanism occurs along divergent boundaries, the eruptions often occur unobserved because divergent boundaries are covered by the oceans, except those in Iceland and East Africa.” – "Volcano," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Ocean and Oceanography, II OCEAN BASIN STRUCTURE – In the central parts of the oceans are the midocean ridges, which are extensive mountain chains with inner troughs that are heavily intersected by cracks, called fracture zones. The ridges are sections of a continuous system that winds for 60,000 km (40,000 mi) through all the oceans.” – "Ocean and Oceanography," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Volcanism – A second major site of active volcanism is along the axis of the mid-ocean ridge system, where the plates move apart on both sides of the ridge, and magma wells up from the mantle, creating new ocean floor along the trailing edges of both plates. Virtually all of this volcanic activity occurs under water.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
6. If the earth’s crust was first “broken up” into plates at the time of the Flood as the Biblical record describes, this would explain why so much water would shoot forth like “fountains” as the ocean came in contact with the molten material underneath.
ccxx. In summary, the Judeo-Christian record of the flood…
1. indicates massive, submarine volcanic activity similar to the manifestations of geysers, but on a much larger scale.
2. indicates that that the breaking up of the earth’s crust into plates also is described as occurring at the time of the Flood.
3. scientifically predicts the discovery that the earth’s crust is divided up into separate plates and that deep underwater fountains, geysers, or vents are near the faults where these plates come together.
639 The global flood described in the Bible would have a significant impact on reheating and isotopic migration events (hampering the ability to calculate age using radioactive decay from parent-to-daughter isotopes.)
640 As we have noted in previous sections, radiometric dating…
641 does not work on sedimentary rock layers,
642 uses igneous and metamorphic rocks.
“Geology, III THE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE, D Radiometric Dating – Another fundamental goal of geochronology is to determine numerical ages of rocks and to assign numbers to the geologic time scale. The primary tool for this task is radiometric dating, in which the decay of radioactive elements is used to date rocks and minerals. Radiometric dating works best on igneous rocks (rocks that crystallized from molten material). It can also be used to date minerals in metamorphic rocks (rocks that formed when parent rock was submitted to intense heat and pressure and metamorphosed into another type of rock). It is of limited use, however, in sedimentary rocks formed by the compaction of layers of sediment.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ccxxi. If a flood involved or occurred as a result of intense volcanic activity initiated by a literally earth-shaking event…
1. Such intense volcanic activity would by definition include massive reheating events in igneous and metamorphic rocks.
a. Volcanic activity is directly associated with continental plate activity, particularly on the ocean floor.
“Volcano, Volcanism and tectonic activity – Active volcanoes are not scattered over the Earth randomly; instead, most occur in belts, especially in the island arcs and mountain ranges bordering the Pacific Ocean (Figure 5). The concept of seafloor spreading and, more broadly, the theory of plate tectonics offer a logical explanation for the location of most volcanoes…Volcanoes related to plate boundaries – Topographic maps reveal the locations of large earthquakes and indicate the boundaries of the 12 major tectonic plates…Volcanoes occur along both subduction and rift zones but are generally absent along strike-slip plate margins. Of the 1,144 volcanoes listed in Table 2, 80 percent occur along subduction zones and 15 percent along rift zones. These percentages are somewhat misleading, however, because most of the Earth's rift zones are about two to three kilometres below sea level. At those inaccessible depths active submarine volcanoes have yet to be observed, though a few hydrothermal areas have been found along submarine rift zones with deep-diving submarines.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. Ages produced by radiometric dating methods that applied to rocks and minerals formed and “subjected to high temperatures” where continental plates “collide” would be directly impacted.
“Dating, General considerations, Distinctions between relative-age and absolute-age measurements – Unlike ages derived from fossils, which occur only in sedimentary rocks, absolute ages are obtained from minerals that grow as liquid rock bodies cool at or below the surface. When rocks are subjected to high temperatures and pressures in mountain roots formed where continents collide, certain datable minerals grow and even regrow to record the timing of such geologic events.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. This is because the heating events caused by volcanic and continental plate activity would trigger the migration of key isotopes around, into, and out of the various parts of those rocks.
b. This isotopic migration would result in dated ages that could be either higher or lower than the real age of the rocks.
i. In fact, some rocks have dates that are “too high” dating older than the earth itself.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Multiple ages for a single rock; the thermal effect – Fossils record the initial, or primary, age of a rock unit. Isotopic systems, on the other hand, can yield either the primary age or the time of a later event, because crystalline materials are very specific in the types of atoms they incorporate, in terms of both the atomic size and charge. An element formed by radioactive decay is quite different from its parent atom and thus is out of place with respect to the host mineral. All it takes for such an element to be purged from the mineral is sufficient heat to allow solid diffusion to occur. Each mineral has a temperature at which rapid diffusion sets in, so that, as a region is slowly heated, first one mineral and then another loses its daughter isotopes. When this happens, the isotopic “clock” is reset to zero, where it remains until the mineral cools below the blocking temperature…Another problem arises if a region undergoes a second reheating event. Certain minerals may record the first event, whereas others may record the second, and any suggestion of progressive cooling between the two is invalid.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Thus, the ages of such rocks could have been significantly raised by the volcanic and plate activity of the flood.
3. Radiometric dating would be simply impossible for all igneous and metamorphic rocks.
a. This is because no rock which has been subjected to the conditions describe above in the quotes and in the Biblical account would meet the criterion necessary for calculating radiometric ages.
“Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Rubidium–strontium method, Dating simple igneous rocks – Once plotted as R1p (i.e., rock 1 present values), R2p, and R3p, the data are examined to assess how well they fit the required straight line. Using estimates of measurement precision, the crucial question of whether or not scatter outside of measurement error exists is addressed. Such scatter would constitute a geologic component, indicating that one or more of the underlying assumptions has been violated and that the age indicated is probably not valid. For an isochron to be valid, each sample tested must (1) have had the same initial ratio, (2) have been a closed system over geologic time, and (3) have the same age. Well-preserved, unweathered rocks that crystallized rapidly and have not been subjected to major reheating events are most likely to give valid isochrons. Weathering is a disturbing influence, as is leaching or exchange by hot crustal fluids, since many secondary minerals contain rubidium. Volcanic rocks are most susceptible to such changes because their minerals are fine-grained and unstable glass may be present.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Likewise, the conditions that must be met to make the calculated age precise and meaningful are in themselves simple: 1. The rock or mineral must have remained closed to the addition or escape of parent and daughter atoms since the time that the rock or mineral (system) formed. 2. It must be possible to correct for other atoms identical to daughter atoms already present when the rock or mineral formed. 3. The decay constant must be known. 4. The measurement of the daughter-to-parent ratio must be accurate because uncertainty in this ratio contributes directly to uncertainty in the age. Different schemes have been developed to deal with the critical assumptions stated above. In uranium–lead dating, minerals virtually free of initial lead can be isolated and corrections made for the trivial amounts present. In whole rock isochron methods that make use of the rubidium–strontium or samarium–neodymium decay schemes (see below), a series of rocks or minerals are chosen that can be assumed to have the same age and identical abundances of their initial isotopic ratios. The results are then tested for the internal consistency that can validate the assumptions…Such checks include dating a series of ancient units with closely spaced but known relative ages and replicate analysis of different parts of the same rock body with samples collected at widely spaced localities.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
643 Conclusions about the impact of the global flood on the ability to calculate ages using radiometric dating.
644 Summary of problems with radiometric dating by itelf.
645 We can see that the stated conditions necessary for radiometric dating are not met…
646 the key factors are not known but must be assumed,
647 the very rocks that are used are igneous and metamorphic rocks, which are disqualified because they are subjected to isotropic migration through heating events removing the ability to decifer whether critical isotop amounts are due to decay or other phenomena.
648 The most widely-used prominent methods such as potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium don’t work on an individual basis either.
649 Reheating and migration events disqualify igneous and metamorphic rocks from being dated.
650 Thus key factors for age calculation are beyond reach, such as…
651 the original isotope quantities
652 the degree to which actual radioactive day itself has contributed to present isotope quantities.
653 The events surrounding the historic, global flood (which evolutionists, atheists, and uniformitarians have no basis for rejecting) would involve massive worldwide heating events causing isotopic migration and thus, further disabling any radiometric dating of igneous and metamorphic rocks.
ccxxii. Consequently, the age of the earth rendered from radiometric dating methods used on igneous and metamorphic rock are shown to be inherently unreliable and the product of mere assumption.
1. The ages produced from these methods are not observable or empirical scientific facts.
ccxxiii. As a result, the 6,000 to 10,000 year age of the earth is not disproved or even marred in any way by the radiometric dating methods used on igneous and metamorphic rocks.
Focus on Critical Evidence: Carbon-14 Dating
654 Review of our examination of radiometric dating
655 We have completed our study of the fundamentals of radiometric dating.
656 We have completed discussion of the obstacles facing igneous and metamorphic radiometric dating in general.
657 We have completed our examination of the problems facing the prominent potassium-argon method.
658 We have completed our exploration of the impact of a global flood on dating igneous and metamorphic rocks.
659 An examination of the radiometric dating method using carbon-14.
660 Basic vocabulary
661 carbon-14 dating is also called “radiocarbon dating”
“Prehistoric People, Placing prehistoric people in time – Radiocarbon dating is sometimes called C-14 dating.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University.
“Carbon-14 dating – also called radiocarbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccxxiv. Carbon-14 dating is important to a variety of significant fields of study, including:
1. archeology,
2. anthropology,
3. oceanography,
4. pedology,
5. climatology,
6. “recent” geology.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B3 Radiocarbon Dating – Radiocarbon dating was developed by American chemist Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949, and it quickly became one of the most widely used tools in archaeology.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Archaeology has been the chief beneficiary of radioactive-carbon dating, but late glacial and postglacial chronological studies in geology have also been aided greatly.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E2 Carbon-14 Method – Radiocarbon dating techniques, first developed by the American chemist Willard F. Libby and his associates at the University of Chicago in 1947, are frequently useful in deciphering time-related problems in archaeology, anthropology, oceanography, pedology, climatology, and recent geology.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ccxxv. The process of the carbon-14 dating method.
1. Carbon-14 is unique among dating processes for several reasons
a. In carbon-14 dating, age is not determined by counting the amount of daughter isotopes (nitrogen) as is the case with other absolute dating methods. The key isotopes of carbon-14 dating is nitrogen.
i. Carbon-14 involves the radioactive decay of the parent isotope carbon-14 into the stable daughter isotope nitrogen.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating B3 Radiocarbon Dating, [PHOTO CAPTION] Radiocarbon (C-14) Dating – Radiation counters are used to detect the electrons given off by decaying C-14 as it turns into nitrogen.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Carbon-14 dating – also called radiocarbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Nitrogen is a very common element that makes its way throughout the biological world by means of a normal process called the nitrogen cycle.
“Nitrogen cycle – circulation of nitrogen in various forms through nature. Nitrogen, a component of proteins and nucleic acids, is essential to life on Earth. Although 78 percent by volume of the atmosphere is nitrogen gas, this abundant reservoir exists in a form unusable by most organisms. Through a series of microbial transformations, however, nitrogen is made available to plants, which in turn ultimately sustain all animal life. The steps, which are not altogether sequential, fall into the following classifications: nitrogen fixation, nitrogen assimilation, ammonification, nitrification, and denitrification. Nitrogen fixation, in which nitrogen gas is converted into inorganic nitrogen compounds, is mostly (90 percent) accomplished by certain bacteria and blue-green algae (see nitrogen fixation)…Nitrates and ammonia resulting from nitrogen fixation are assimilated into the specific tissue compounds of algae and higher plants. Animals then ingest these algae and plants, converting them into their own body compounds. The remains of all living things—and their waste products—are decomposed by microorganisms in the process of ammonification, which yields ammonia…Ammonia can leave the soil or be converted into other nitrogen compounds, depending in part on soil conditions. Nitrification, a process carried out by nitrifying bacteria (q.v.), transforms soil ammonia into nitrates, which plants can incorporate into their own tissues. Nitrates also are metabolized by denitrifying bacteria (q.v.), which are especially active in water-logged, anaerobic soils. The action of these bacteria tends to deplete soil nitrates, forming free atmospheric nitrogen.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Since nitrogen gets into all living things through the nitrogen cycle, the amount of nitrogen in any item would not necessarily equate to or indicate the amount of radioactive decay from carbon-14.
2. Nitrogen is such a common element that…
a. its presence in any item is not a result of radioactive decay
b. its presence in any item is a result of other extremely widespread natural process and
3. Therefore, in this dating method the presence of the daughter element CANNOT indicate the amount of decay or age of an item.
b. In carbon-14 dating, the amount of the parent isotope, carbon-14 presently in an item is used as the indicator of its age.
i. In carbon-14 dating…
1. the original amount of carbon-14 is considered to be a “known” factor.
2. The amount of carbon-14 missing from the “known,” original quantity is taken to indicate how long decay has been occurring, and therefore the age.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Unlike most isotopic dating methods, the conventional carbon-14 dating technique is not based on counting daughter isotopes. It relies instead on the progressive decay or disappearance of the radioactive parent with time.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
2. What items carbon-14 can be used to date is related to where the isotope carbon-14 comes from.
a. Carbon-14 is formed when cosmic rays, full of free neutrons (neutrons not inside or apart of an atom), come in contact with nitrogen in the earth’s upper atmosphere.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – The discovery of natural carbon-14 by Willard Libby of the United States began with his recognition that a process that had produced radiocarbon in the laboratory was also going on in the Earth's upper atmosphere—namely, the bombardment of nitrogen by free neutrons.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Carbon-14 dating – also called radiocarbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14). Carbon-14 is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with nitrogen-14 in the Earth's atmosphere; the neutrons required for this reaction are produced by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmic ray – a high-speed particle—either an atomic nucleus or an electron—that travels throughout the Milky Way Galaxy, including the solar system.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Radiocarbon – In nature, radiocarbon forms when high-energy atomic particles called cosmic rays smash into Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays cause atoms in the atmosphere to break down into electrons, neutrons, protons, and other particles. Some neutrons strike the nuclei of nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. Each of these nuclei absorbs a neutron and then loses a proton. In this way, a nitrogen atom becomes a radiocarbon atom.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
b. After being formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, carbon-14 makes its way into lifeforms, fossils, and geologic items in the following manner.
i. First, like normal carbon, carbon-14 joins with oxygen in the atmosphere, thus becoming part of earth’s carbon dioxide supply.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Newly created carbon-14 atoms were presumed to react with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules. Radioactive carbon thus was visualized as gaining entrance wherever atmospheric carbon dioxide enters—into land plants by photosynthesis, into animals that feed on the plants, into marine waters and freshwaters as a dissolved component, and from there into aquatic plants and animals. In short, all parts of the carbon cycle were seen to be invaded by the isotope carbon-14.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ii. Second, as a component of some carbon dioxide atoms, carbon-14 then enters the carbon cycle.
1. (The carbon cycle is the process by which the carbon present in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere enters into all living organisms on the earth.)
“Radiocarbon – Plants absorb radiocarbon from the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings and other animals take in radiocarbon chiefly from the food provided by plants. Radiocarbon dating is a process used to determine the age of an ancient object by measuring its radiocarbon content…The radiocarbon in the tissues of a living organism decays extremely slowly, but it is continuously renewed as long as the organism lives. After the organism dies, it no longer takes in air or food, and so it no longer absorbs radiocarbon. The radiocarbon already in the tissues continues to decrease at a constant rate. This steady decay at a known rate-a half-life of approximately 5,730 years-enables scientists to determine an object's age.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
“Carbon, IV SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS – Carbon-14 is continuously produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and is incorporated into all living matter. As carbon-14 decays, with a half-life of 5760 years, the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in a given specimen is a measure of its approximate age.” – "Carbon," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Carbon cycle – in biology, circulation of carbon in various forms through nature. Carbon is a constituent of all organic compounds, many of which are essential to life on Earth. The source of the carbon found in living matter is carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air or dissolved in water. Algae and terrestrial green plants (producers) are the chief agents of carbon dioxide fixation through the process of photosynthesis, through which carbon dioxide and water are converted into simple carbohydrates. These compounds are used by the producers to carry on metabolism, the excess being stored as fats and polysaccharides. The stored products are then eaten by consumer animals, from protozoans to man, which convert them into other forms. All animals return CO2 directly to the atmosphere as a by-product of their respiration. The carbon present in animal wastes and in the bodies of all organisms is released as CO2 by decay, or decomposer, organisms (chiefly bacteria and fungi) in a series of microbial transformations. Part of the organic carbon—the remains of organisms—has accumulated in the Earth's crust as fossil fuels (e.g., coal, gas, and petroleum), limestone, and coral.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E2 Carbon-14 Method – Through metabolic activity, the level of carbon-14 in a living organism remains in constant balance with the level in the atmosphere or some other portion of the earth's dynamic reservoir, such as the ocean. Upon the organism's death, carbon-14 begins to disintegrate at a known rate, and no further replacement of carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide can take place.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B3 Radiocarbon Dating – All living organisms accumulate this isotope through their metabolism until it is in balance with levels in the atmosphere, but when they die they absorb no more. Because the nucleus of C-14 decays at a known rate, scientists can determine the age of organic substances such as bones, plant matter, shells, and charcoal by measuring the amount on C-14 that remains in them.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
c. Living organisms participate in the carbon cycle through metabolic activity for as long as they remain alive.
i. Consequently, living organisms are constantly taking in carbon from the carbon cycle, including carbon-14 in very small amounts.
d. When an organism dies, metabolic activity ceases.
i. From this point, the carbon-14 in the organism continues to decay at its normal rate without being replaced through metabolic processes.
ii. This means that through decay, the amount of carbon-14 in a dead organism will decrease in contrast to the amount in the rest of the world.
iii. The “missing” amount of carbon-14 then indicates how much decay has occurred, and, therefore, how long the organism has been dead.
e. Consequently, carbon-14 can be used to date any thing that was once living and, therefore, acquired carbon and carbon-14 through the carbon cycle.
3. But, the critical question is how much carbon-14 is present in the carbon cycle?
a. Currently, carbon-14 constitutes about 1 out of every trillion carbon atoms in the carbon cycle.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Invasion is probably not the proper word for a component that Libby calculated should be present only to the extent of about one atom in a trillion stable carbon atoms. So low is such a carbon-14 level that no one had detected natural carbon-14 until Libby, guided by his own predictions, set out specifically to measure it.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Radiocarbon – All living things contain radiocarbon. In the atmosphere, there is about one atom of radiocarbon for every trillion molecules of carbon dioxide gas.” – Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
4. Limitations and other important facts on carbon-14 dating.
a. Carbon-14 cannot be used to date any rock or item, but can only date items with material that was once living.
“Archaeology, How archaeologists interpret findings – The most widely used dating method is radiocarbon dating. This method requires organic material-that is, something that was once living, such as plant parts, charcoal from cooking pits, bone, or shells.” – Contributor: Thomas R. Hester, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
b. The oldest items that carbon-14 can date are about 50,000 years old and cannot be used to date anything older than 50,000 years.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Origin of radioactive elements used – Geologic events of the not-too-distant past are more easily dated by using recently formed radioisotopes with short half-lives that produce more daughter products per unit time…The most widely used radioactive cosmogenic isotope is carbon of mass 14 (14C), which provides a method of dating events that have occurred over roughly the past 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – The occurrence of natural radioactive carbon in the atmosphere provides a unique opportunity to date organic materials as old as 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B3 Radiocarbon Dating – Radiocarbon methods can date sites that are up to 40,000 or 50,000 years old.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E2 Carbon-14 Method – The rapid disintegration of carbon-14 generally limits the dating period to approximately 50,000 years, although the method is sometimes extended to 70,000 years. Uncertainty in measurement increases with the age of the sample.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
i. As indicated by the last quote above, that the older the sample is, the less reliable the carbon-14 date is.
ii. The reason that carbon-14 is limited to 50,000 years or less is because of the relatively short-half life of carbon-14.
1. For contrast, uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years
2. Carbon-14’s half-life is 5,730 years (or 5,760)
a. This means that it will take 5,730 years for half of carbon-14 to decay into nitrogen.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Radiocarbon – The radiocarbon already in the tissues continues to decrease at a constant rate. This steady decay at a known rate-a half-life of approximately 5,730 years-enables scientists to determine an object's age.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
c. Carbon-14 dating involves measuring for extremely minute quantities of the carbon-14 isotope dispersed throughout a sample.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – A major breakthrough in carbon-14 dating occurred with the introduction of the accelerator mass spectrometer. This instrument is highly sensitive and allows precise ages on as little as one milligram of carbon, where the older method might require as much as 25 grams for ancient material. The increased sensitivity results from the fact that all of the carbon atoms of mass 14 can be counted in a mass spectrometer. By contrast, if carbon-14 is to be measured by its radioactivity, only those few atoms decaying during the measurement period are recorded.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
i. (Keep in mind that…
1. the mass spectrometer doesn’t provide an age or date anything
2. the mass spectrometer only provides a count of the amount of isotopes, such as carbon-14 in a sample
3. this count is then used in an equation with other factors, some of which are assumed, in order to calcute the age of the object.)
ii. Formerly at least 25 grams of sample were required, but now, however, dates are determined using samples as little as “one milligram” (0.001 grams) of carbon.
1. A milligram is equal to about one twenty-five thousandths of an ounce.
iii. Consequently, carbon-14 dates are based upon looking for one in a trillion atoms in samples that are smaller than one half of one percent of an ounce.
662 2 problems with carbon-14 dating that are uncontested and acknowledged by evolutionary scientists and geologists.
ccxxvi. The first problem with carbon-14 that is acknowledged by evolutionary scientists is its susceptibility to contaminations.
1. Carbon-14 samples are subject to contamination to such an extent that numerous processes have been derived in order to detect and correct for components of the sample that may be “younger” than the sample itself.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – A final problem of importance in carbon-14 dating is the matter of sample contamination. If a sample of buried wood is impregnated with modern rootlets or a piece of porous bone has recent calcium carbonate precipitated in its pores, failure to remove the contamination will result in a carbon-14 age between that of the sample and that of its contaminant. Consequently, numerous techniques for contaminant removal have been developed. Among them are the removal of humic acids from charcoal and the isolation of cellulose from wood and collagen from bone. Today, contamination as a source of error in samples younger than 25,000 years is relatively rare. Beyond that age, however, the fraction of contaminant needed to have measurable effect is quite small, and, therefore, undetected or unremoved contamination may occasionally be of significance.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E2 Carbon-14 Method – Postdepositional contamination, which is the most serious problem, may be caused by percolating groundwater, incorporation of older or younger carbon, and contamination in the field or laboratory.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. Since carbon-14 utilizes minute ratios and sample sizes described previously, the amount of contamination needed to affect a sample is quite small.
3. Beyond 25,000 years even a small amount of contamination “may occasionally be of significance,” which means the error in age may be “significant.”
663 The second problem with carbon-14 dating surrounds the fact that carbon dating utilizes the current trillion to 1 ratio in the carbon cycle as the assumed starting quantity for once-living items.
ccxxvii. Therefore, the present ratio of carbon-14 in a sample is compared to a starting ratio of a trillion to 1 to determine how much carbon-14 decay has occurred and, therefore, how much time has passed since organism’s death.
ccxxviii. Carbon-14 dating assumes and requires that the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 has not changed but has remained 1 trillion to 1 for the last 50,000 years.
ccxxix. Any deviation in the starting ratio of carbon to carbon-14 will affect the carbon-14 age.
ccxxx. In other words, if the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 was different in the past ages based on the current ratio would not be accurate and carbon-14 dating is not viable.
ccxxxi. ^^^^^For example, what if the carbon to carbon-14 ratio in the carbon cycle in even the past thousand years or so was 2 trillion to 1 instead of the 1 trillion to 1 ratio we measure presently.
1. If we assumed that the ratio was constant and has always been 1 trillion to 1 throughout the past 50,000 and then we measured a 2 trillion to 1 present ratio in a dead organism…
a. It would appear that half of the carbon-14 had already decayed.
b. Therefore, we would conclude that 1 half-life of carbon-14 would have occurred and that the organism had been dead for 5,730 years, the duration of the half-life.
2. In reality, however, if the starting ratio was 2 trillion to 1 in the past instead of 1 trillion to 1, no decay would have occurred and the organism would have died recently instead of 5,730 years ago.
ccxxxii. Thus, if the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 in the carbon cycle changes over earth’s history, the age of carbon-14 dates will easily jump by thousands or tens of thousands of years depending upon how much the ratio differs at any given time.
664 2 essential questions concerning the need for the carbon-14 ratio to remain uniform throughout the carbon cycle over the last 50,000 years.
ccxxxiii. The questions
1. First, is carbon-14 distributed uniformly in plants and animals today?
2. Second, has the present level (ratio) of carbon to carbon-14 been uniform throughout the past?
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – So low is such a carbon-14 level that no one had detected natural carbon-14 until Libby, guided by his own predictions, set out specifically to measure it. His success initiated a series of measurements designed to answer two questions: Is the concentration of carbon-14 uniform throughout the plant and animal kingdoms? And, if so, has today's uniform level prevailed throughout the recent past? After showing the essential uniformity of carbon-14 in living material, Libby sought to answer the second question…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccxxxiv. The relevance of these questions is simple.
1. If the carbon to carbon-14 ratio is not uniform, then the initial starting amount is not known.
2. If the initial starting amount is not known, then it is impossible to know how much carbon-14 is missing and how much decay has occurred.
3. If you can’t know how much decay has occurred, then you can’t determine the age.
ccxxxv. Is the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 known to be uniform?
1. The last line of the excerpt above indicates that “the essential uniformity of carbon-14” had been shown.
2. However, the following quote from just 3 paragraphs later in the same article indicates that this is not ultimately correct.
ccxxxvi. The quantity of carbon-14 varies from place to place.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today's plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Environmental factors effect carbon-14’s distribution in things living in different places.
2. What is so striking about the quote above is its citation of carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes as “depressing the carbon-14 level” of nearby organisms and limestone rock with the subsequent effect of giving the material “the appearance of built-in age.”
a. This is because emission of normal carbon from the volcanoes dilutes the carbon-14 ratio to levels below the standard trillion to 1.
b. This is extraordinarily important given the role of volcanic activity in the Judeo-Christian account of a global flood.
c. With volcanic activity occurring on a worldwide scale as the crust of the earth is broken up into plates and with enormous geyser-like fountains spewing volcanic gases up into the atmosphere all around the earth, a vast inflow quantity of normal carbon would suddenly be thrust into the carbon cycle.
d. Potentially, organisms after the flood would have a drastically lower carbon-14 ratio, giving them the faulty appearance of “built-in age,” when in reality, the carbon-14 ratio was simply lower to begin with.
ccxxxvii. The ratio of carbon to carbon-14 is also known to vary over time.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – In addition to spatial variations of the carbon-14 level, the question of temporal variation has received much study. A 2 to 3 percent depression of the atmospheric radioactive-carbon level since 1900 was noted soon after Libby's pioneering work, almost certainly the result of the dumping of huge volumes of carbon-14-free carbon dioxide into the air through smokestacks. Of more recent date was the overcompensating effect of man-made carbon-14 injected into the atmosphere during nuclear-bomb testing. The result was a rise in the atmospheric carbon-14 level by more than 50 percent. Fortunately, neither effect has been significant in the case of older samples submitted for carbon-14 dating. The ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations with time is generally attributed to temporal fluctuations in the cosmic rays that bombard the upper atmosphere and create terrestrial carbon-14. Whenever the number of cosmic rays in the atmosphere is low, the rate of carbon-14 production is correspondingly low, resulting in a decrease of the radioisotope in the carbon-exchange reservoir described above. Studies have revealed that the atmospheric radiocarbon level prior to 1000 BC deviates measurably from the contemporary level. In the year 6200 BC it was about 8 percent above what it is today. In the context of carbon-14 dating, this departure from the present-day level means that samples with a true age of 8,200 years would be dated by radiocarbon as 7,500 years old. The problems stemming from temporal variations can be overcome to a large degree by the use of calibration curves in which the carbon-14 content of the sample being dated is plotted against that of objects of known age. In this way, the deviations can be compensated for and the carbon-14 age of the sample converted to a much more precise date. Calibration curves have been constructed using dendrochronological data (tree-ring measurements of bristlecone pines as old as 8,200 years); periglacial varve, or lake sediment, data (see above); and, in archaeological research, certain materials of historically established ages.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Different factors affect the amount of carbon-14 generated and present in the atmosphere and the carbon cycle at different periods of earth’s history over the last 50,000 years.
a. First, we have already seen that…
i. Volcanoes emit carbon, affecting the ratio of carbon to carbon-14.
ii. Volcanic activity is acknowledged to be higher at different times and places over earth’s history.
b. Second, “since 1900” smokestacks in industrial countries have resulted in a 2 to 3 percent decrease in the ratio of carbon-14 to normal carbon.
c. Third, nuclear-bomb testing in technological countries since the dawn of the atomic age has resulted in a “50 percent” increase in the carbon-14 ratio.
d. Fourth, “the ultimate cause of carbon-14 variations” over time is that cosmic rays vary in intensity at different times.
i. Cosmic rays affect carbon-14 levels and ratios constantly and to an extent more significant than industrial or nuclear technology (or volcanic activity).
ii. In fact, these fluctuations constitute “measurable deviation”
iii. In the example cited the “measurable deviation” is as much as 8 percent in the period between 1,000 and 6,200 BC.
iv. But, how do we know that the carbon-14 level was different at 1,000 or 6,200 BC?
1. Is it simply that that unless we assume a different level at that time evolutionary predictions about dates don’t match with carbon-14 dates?
2. The ratio of carbon to carbon-14 is very sensitive to environmental fluctuations, which in turn have a significant impact on the apparent age of dated items
665 Circular reasoning used to check acknowledged unreliability issues – another problem with carbon dating
666 “objects of known age” are being used to calibrate carbon-14 dating.
3. We have already seen that relative dating methods, the geologic column, and other radiometric dating methods do not to work, what other methods could be used to “calibrate” carbon-14 ages?
a. Tree-ring dating and varve or lake sedimentation are listed as a physical means of indicating and correcting for such deviations in the carbon-14 level.
i. In a later section examining non-radiometric forms of absolute dating, we will demonstrate that neither of these phenomena are reliable forms of dating either.
b. The use of comparison to tree-ring dating and lake sedimentation demonstrates that the only reason for adjusting the “starting level” of carbon-14 is the fact that age of carbon-14 does not correspond to the age expectations dictated by other dating methods.
4. So, carbon-14 dating is…
a. left without a means to identify and calibrate changes in the ratio of carbon-14,
b. employs circular reasoning in evolutionary dating
i. Effectively, one method that doesn’t work on its own is being used to prove another method that doesn’t work on its own either
ii. Yet somehow, both faulty methods are considered reliable support for one another.
667 The impact that fluctuations in the carbon-14 ratio have on calculating ages by carbon-14.
668 If the starting amount of carbon-14, the amount in the carbon cycle, is not constant but subject to changes in the past, there is no way to calculate ages by carbon-14 unless we know with certainty when and to what extent the carbon-14 ratio changed.
669 2 additional issues worth mentioning about changing carbon to carbon-14 ratios.
5. Number one, the potential for carbon-14 ratios to change over time makes carbon-14 dates “adjustable.”
a. If carbon-14 dating results in a date that does not fit with expected or existing timelines, the date can be “corrected” or “calibrated” by assuming a slight change in the carbon-14 ratio at some point in the past.
b. Under these conditions the actual date simply cannot be known.
6. Number two, once it is admitted that the starting level and even the amount of cosmic rays can fluctuate up and down, the application of uniformitarianism to this dating method is nullified.
a. It simply cannot be assumed that carbon-14 ratios remained uniform in time, just as they cannot be assumed in location either, as we have already seen above.
670 Summary of carbon-14 problems relating to the assumption that the current carbon to carbon-14 ratio has remained constant over the past 50,000 years.
ccxxxviii. While the present ratio of carbon-14 is the standard used to measure the duration of decay and the age of an item, it is a known reality that carbon-14 ratios differ from one location to another in the present and also differ throughout the past.
ccxxxix. This fluctuation in carbon ratios invalidates the underlying assumption of uniformitarianism in the case of carbon-14.
1. In the case of carbon-14, uniformitarion principle is the basis for assuming the present rate has been the rate in the past.
ccxl. Carbon-14 is an “adjustable” dating method that is based upon assumed ratios that are known to fluctuate.
1. This is similar to what we saw in the other dating methods, in which other assumptions were also adjusted in order to reconcile discrepancies and bring them back to the evolutionary ideal or expected date or age.
a. Consequently, carbon-14 ages are far from being simple, observed, empirical fact.
671 The evolutionary scientific community assesses carbon-14 dating as unreliable.
672 Britannica gives the following assessment of the reliability of carbon-14 dating in light of the problems described above for determining the actual starting ratio or level of carbon-14.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – It is clear that carbon-14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like to have. There may come a time when all radiocarbon ages rest on firmer knowledge of the sample's original carbon-14 level than is now available. Until then, the inherent error from this uncertainty must be recognized.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
ccxli. Evolutionary anthropologist Robert Lee also assesses carbon-14 dating as unreliable.
1. (Cited by creationist Thomas Kendall in his presentation titled, “Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth.”)
“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a ‘fix it as we go’ approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted…No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” – Evolutionary Anthropologist Robert Lee (Cited on “Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth,” Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, , 47 minutes, 55 seconds)
ccxlii. Judging from these acknowledged problems in carbon-14 dating, the method cannot be regarded as reliable and its ages cannot be regarded as “firm” empirical fact.
673 Other serious problems with carbon-14 dating that are less acknowledged.
674 Unlike the “uncontested problems” listed above, these “contested” problems are not agreed upon by both sides.
675 Regarding “contested” problems, it is the interpretation of the evidence, which is in dispute, not the evidence itself.
676 The central issue of this problem surrounds the concepts of full saturation and equilibrium.
677 Every year radioactive decay will convert a certain percentage of the total amount of carbon-14 into nitrogen.
678 This results in radioactive decay subtracting from the total amount of carbon-14.
679 Conversely, cosmic rays produce a certain quantity of carbon-14 every year.
680 As a result, cosmic rays add to the total amount of carbon-14.
681 But, unlike the amount of carbon-14 removed by decay, the amount of carbon-14 added by cosmic rays is NOT simply a percentage or ratio.
682 The amount of carbon-14 added by cosmic rays is a normal, fixed amount.
683 An illustration of how percentage decrease and a fixed amount increase eventually result in equilibrium
684 Suppose a man works for a company that, at the start of every year he works there, pays $10,000 into a retirement fund for him.
685 That $10,000 would be a fixed amount.
686 This payment is an adding mechanism.
687 t adds to the total amount in the man’s retirement fund.
688 In contrast, at the end of every year the government might require the man to pay 10% of the retirement fund in taxes.
689 This tax is a subtracting mechanism.
690 It subtracts from his total wealth.
691 But unlike the adding mechanism, which is a fixed amount, the subtracting mechanism is a percentage.
692 How these 2 mechanisms affect the amount of money in this man’s fund year after year.
693 After the first year
694 The man would have $10,000 in the fund as a result of the fixed adding mechanism.
695 But, that same year, he would pay 10% in taxes, which is only $1,000 dollars.
696 This would leave him with a total of $9,000 in the fund.
697 After the second year
698 Another fixed amount of $10,000 would be added to the fund, for a total of $19,000.
699 The amount added each year remains the same fixed amount ($10,000)
700 But the amount subtracted changes each year because it is a percentage or proportion of the total.
701 Consequently, the second year, the 10% paid in taxes would be $1,900 rather than the $1,000 paid in taxes the previous year.
702 This would leave $17,100 in the fund at the end of the second year.
703 Every year.
704 The total amount in the fund would increase so long as the percentage equaled less than the $10,000 deposited by the company.
705 However, after many years…
706 The total amount will reach an saturation point due to equilibrium existing between the adding and substrating mechanism
707 In our example this occurs when the fund reaches $100,000 total
708 At $100,000 total…
709 the 10% tax would be equal to the $10,000 deposited by the company.
710 Every year $10,000 would be added and $10,000 would also be subtracted.
711 In this state of equilibrium or saturation, year after year, the amount in the fund would remain at $100,000.
712 Saturation and equilbrium of carbon-14 in the carbon cycle work the same way as in our illustration.
713 One mechanism, cosmic rays, is adding to the total amount of carbon-14 in a fixed amount year after year.
“Cosmic rays…slam into atoms in the earth’s atmosphere and they start a process that makes carbon-14 out of nitrogen…At today’s cosmic ray rate…the production rate is 8 kilograms per year, or if you calibrated it in pounds, 18 pounds…Right now the total amount that we have…in the whole earth ecosystem is 62 tons.” – “Radiocarbon, Creation and the Genesis Flood,” Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D., Creation Science Foundation Ltd., 7 minutes, 15 seconds
a. Another mechanism, radioactive decay, is subtracting a percentage of the total of carbon-14 year after year.
“The half-life of carbon-14 is 5700 years…in about 6,000 years from now, we’ll have half that much…That means that about 0.01 percent, 1 hundredth of a percent, of carbon-14…decays every year.” – “Radiocarbon, Creation and the Genesis Flood,” Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D., Creation Science Foundation Ltd., 7 minutes, 15 seconds
b. When the total amount of carbon-14 reaches a level where the percentage removed annually by decay is equal to the fixed amount added annually by cosmic rays…
i. equilibrium between the mechanisms occurs.
ii. from this point in time forward, the total amount of carbon-14 will remain the same.
iii. this is the fullest saturation level that carbon-14 can achieve since no more can or will be added to the total.
“Right now the total amount that we have…in the whole earth ecosystem is 62 tons. 0.01 percent of that’s decaying every year and that works out to about 7 kilograms every year decaying. So, we have 8 kilograms or 18 pounds being produced and 7 kilograms or 15 pounds decaying…The production rate is a little bit greater than the decay rate so it’s still increasing…When it finally builds up to about 75 tons, then the decay rate and the production rate will be equal. In other words, it will be decaying at 8 kilograms per year, or 18 pounds per year, and being produced at 18 pounds per year. So, the amount of carbon-14 would level of at the maximum of 75 tons of carbon-14…75 tons of carbon-14, that’s the maximum amount we can have in the whole earth ecosystem.” – “Radiocarbon, Creation and the Genesis Flood,” Dr. Russell Humphreys Ph.D., Creation Science Foundation Ltd., 7 minutes, 15 seconds
ccxliii. The problem is that the earth has not yet reached saturation.
1. The maximum amount of carbon-14 in the carbon cycle is 75 tons.
2. Presently, the earth has only 62 tons of carbon-14 in the carbon cycle.
3. This reveals several facts about the earth’s age that are relevant to carbon dating and problematic for evolution theory and its timetable.
a. First, the fact that earth has not yet reached equilibrium requires a model of carbon-14 levels that includes the following.
i. Number one, there would have to be an explanation for how carbon-14 reached as high as the current amount.
ii. Number two, there would have to be an explanation for why the earth has not yet reached saturation.
1. After billions of years of the carbon cycle, the earth should have reached saturation a long time ago.
2. There are only 2 possibilities for why it has not.
a. Earth’s history is too short to reach saturation and equilibrium
b. There was a historic event that removed a very large portion of carbon-14 recently enough that earth is still building back up toward equilibrium, a build-up that is still occurring today.
i. This point also is indicative of a global flood, as we will describe in greater detail later on.
b. Second, the fact that the earth has not yet reached equilibrium demonstrates that there was less carbon-14 in the past.
i. Thus, the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 was lower in the past than the current trillion to 1 ratio.
ii. This problem becomes even more insurmountable if the assumption of uniformitarianism is maintained.
1. If we assume, as uniformitarianism does, that geologic processes have been the same historically, only the following options are possible.
a. As time moves forward, either the total amount of carbon-14 should be increasing (if equilibrium has not been reached)
b. The total amount of carbon-14 should remain the same (if equilibrium has been reached).
2. If you go backward in time…
a. Either the total amount of carbon-14 should be the same as it is today (if equilibrium had already been reached in the past)
b. Or the total amount of carbon-14 should be less than it is today (if equilibrium had not been reached in the past).
3. In short, the options are that the past should have either the same or less carbon-14 than today.
iii. Yet evolutionists assert that there were higher levels of carbon-14 in the past.
1. The quote below indicates…
a. that 3,000 years ago (1,000 BC) there was a “measurable difference” in the level of carbon-14.
b. that 8,200 years ago (6,200 BC) the level of carbon-14 was actually almost 10 percent higher than today.
2. These different levels of carbon-14 at times past are attributed to differences in the amount of cosmic rays bombarding the atmosphere at given points in time, which of course in turn produces carbon-14.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Studies have revealed that the atmospheric radiocarbon level prior to 1000 BC deviates measurably from the contemporary level. In the year 6200 BC it was about 8 percent above what it is today. In the context of carbon-14 dating, this departure from the present-day level means that samples with a true age of 8,200 years would be dated by radiocarbon as 7,500 years old.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Asserting a higher amount of carbon-14 in the past than is present today indicates 3 things.
a. Number one, since the amount of carbon-14 should be increasing not descreasing until it reaches equilibrium, the only way for there to have been more carbon-14 in the past is if there was some sort of a major global event that removed a large portion of the carbon-14 so that even to this day cosmic rays have not built it back up to that same level.
b. Number two, maybe the higher amount of carbon-14 is simply an artificial way to “adjust” an age that is “too young” to fit with an overall historical scheme and make it “older” so that will fit.
c. Number three, no matter what the evolutionary principle of uniformitarianism is being violated here.
c. Third, evolutionists believe there was a one-hundredfold increase in carbon dioxide in the past as well (in addition to the 8 percent increase between 1,000 to 6,000 BC).
i. Carbon-14 is measured in proportion to the quantity of normal carbon, particularly starting in carbon dioxide.
1. This is indicated in the following 3 quotes.
a. Notice in particular from the first and third quotes that the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 can also be stated as the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon-14.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Newly created carbon-14 atoms were presumed to react with atmospheric oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules. Radioactive carbon thus was visualized as gaining entrance wherever atmospheric carbon dioxide enters—into land plants by photosynthesis, into animals that feed on the plants, into marine waters and freshwaters as a dissolved component, and from there into aquatic plants and animals. In short, all parts of the carbon cycle were seen to be invaded by the isotope carbon-14.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – Invasion is probably not the proper word for a component that Libby calculated should be present only to the extent of about one atom in a trillion stable carbon atoms.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Radiocarbon – All living things contain radiocarbon. In the atmosphere, there is about one atom of radiocarbon for every trillion molecules of carbon dioxide gas.” – Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
ii. Consequently, as in cases of local volcanic activity, when natural phenomena increase the amount of carbon dioxide, the ratio of carbon dioxide to carbon-14 increases.
1. An increase of carbon dioxide means that the carbon-14 becomes an increasingly small proportion of carbon in the carbon cycle.
2. As the quote below also indicates, such an increase of carbon dioxide falsely gives the appearance of greater age.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – It is now clear that carbon-14 is not homogeneously distributed among today's plants and animals. The occasional exceptions all involve nonatmospheric contributions of carbon-14-depleted carbon dioxide to organic synthesis. Specifically, volcanic carbon dioxide is known to depress the carbon-14 level of nearby vegetation and dissolved limestone carbonate occasionally has a similar effect on freshwater mollusks, as does upwelling of deep ocean water on marine mollusks. In every case, the living material affected gives the appearance of built-in age.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. A hundredfold increase in carbon dioxide would constitute an emormous drop in the ratio of carbon-14 in the carbon cycle.
1. The current ratio of carbon to carbon-14 is 1 trillion to 1
2. A hundredfold increase in carbon dioxide would multiply that ratio by 100 times producing a ratio of 100 trillion normal carbon atoms for every 1 carbon-14 atom.
3. Consequently, organisms from such a timeperiod would…
a. appear to have undergone much more loss of carbon-14 from decay
b. therefore, would give off an enormously large false age.
iv. Evolutionists assert that this hundredfold increase of carbon dioxide existed 3.5 billion years ago.
"Atmosphere, Development of the Earth's atmosphere, Sequence of events in the development of the atmosphere, Variation in abundance of carbon dioxide – The approximately hundredfold decline of atmospheric CO2 abundances from 3,500,000,000 years ago to the present has apparently not been monotonous.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. But, without depending upon faulty radiometric dating methods in order to get ages like 3.5 billion years, how can we assign such a great age to this carbon dioxide increase?
v. Creationist models fit with and predict both an increase in carbon-14 ratio in the past as well as the current lack of saturation of carbon-14 – evolution models contradict these factors.
1. Events that are assigned timeframes of hundreds of millions or billions of years ago in the evolutionary model are greatly contracted in creation models.
a. The same events dated to millions or billions of years in evolution theory are understood to occur much more recently in creationism theory.
i. (Within the last 6 to 10 thousand years.)
2. The reason for the shorter time in the creation model is because the radiometric dating methods are not reliable for producing long ages.
a. The only radiometric dating methods capable of generating dates beyond 50,000 years simply don’t work because they use igneous and metamorphic rocks subject to isotopic migration rendering the critical age calculating factors unknowable.
b. So, there is little basis for asserting such an expansion of timeframes to hundreds of millions or billions of years in the first place (unless we first assume that evolution has occurred over such long ages.)
c. Consequently, creationists can accept the hundredfold increase in carbon dioxide on the basis of empirical evidence supporting that concept, but the evolutionary timeframe for that increase is shown to be baseless and a matter of mere assumption.
d. Fourth, the evolutionary model acknowledges that carbon dioxide levels “varied greatly” from 1.6 million to 10,000 years ago.
i. This timeframe is denoted in the quote below by the terms “Pleistocene” and “Holocene.”
“Climate, Climatic variations and change, Causes of climatic variation, Identified causes, Variations in atmospheric composition – The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is known to have varied greatly in geologic time and also in Pleistocene, Holocene, and Recent times, including the past century.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. The Pleistocene epoch spans from 1.6 million years ago to 10,000 years ago.
2. And the Holocene epoch spans from 10,000 years ago to the present.
“Geologic Time, II DIVISION OF TIME – The Quaternary Period is divided into the Pleistocene (1.6 million to 10,000 years before present) and Holocene (10,000 years to the present) Epochs.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. This timeperiod covers the exact timeframe that carbon-14 dating is used for.
1. Carbon dating can only be used on items that are at the most 50,000 years old.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – The occurrence of natural radioactive carbon in the atmosphere provides a unique opportunity to date organic materials as old as 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E2 Carbon-14 Method – The rapid disintegration of carbon-14 generally limits the dating period to approximately 50,000 years, although the method is sometimes extended to 70,000 years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B3 Radiocarbon Dating – Radiocarbon methods can date sites that are up to 40,000 or 50,000 years old.” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
iii. Consequently, carbon dioxide content has “varied greatly” at the very times when we need to know a standard starting ratio in the environment in order to compare and perform age calculations.
4. The problems for carbon-14 dating based upon the current lack of saturation of carbon-14 are only avoided by employing circular reasoning.
a. Consider the amount of circular reasoning that we’ve seen in all dating methods so far.
i. To obtain relative ages (in terms of amounts of time in years).
1. Assume rock strata took a long time to be laid down.
2. Assume “faunal succession,” that different types of animals arrived on earth in order according to macro-evolutionary processes.
3. Date the ages of the rock strata by the fossils.
4. Date the fossils by the rock strata they are found in.
ii. Relative dating then dictates radiometric ages by providing one of the factors in the age calculation equation – the target age.
1. Radiometric ages then provide ages that support relative dating.
b. It is this circular reasoning that…
i. Dates the hundredfold increase in carbon dioxide to 3.5 billion years ago
ii. Dates the other “great variations” in carbon dioxide to 1.6 billion years ago.
c. Consequently, based upon the circular reasoning, the increase in carbon dioxide is considered to be too far in the past to affect carbon-14 ratios and ages.
d. But without the circular reasoning involved in such dating methods, such variations and increase would be within the range of carbon-14 and, therefore, would significantly impact the starting ratio of carbon-14 and the ages carbon dating produces.
i. Effectively, we'd be looking at samples formed when the ratio of regular carbon to carbon-14 was up to 100 times greater than today.
ii. These rocks would start with a significantly less carbon-14 to carbon ratio than the assumed 1 to 1 trillion.
iii. With this assumption, such samples would seem to have lost more carbon-14 than they actually have and would seem much older than they actually are.
714 Summary of problems with carbon-14 dating.
ccxliv. There are acknowledged unreliability problems with carbon-14 dating admitted by evolutionary scientists.
1. These problems deal with the inability to know the critical initial ratio of carbon to carbon-14 in a rock (or organism) when it formed (or died).
ccxlv. The earth’s carbon-14 ratio in the past cannot be assumed based on today’s ratio or used as a basis for making age calculations because…
1. The evidence and admissions by evolutionary scientists indicates that carbon-14 ratios have differed dramatically in the past.
2. The supply of carbon-14 has not yet reached saturation.
3. Evolutionists acknowledge a hundredfold carbon dioxide increase in the past (which would mean a proportional decrease in the percentage of carbon-14).
ccxlvi. The percentage of carbon-14 in the earth’s atmosphere was less than it is today and therefore today’s percentage cannot be assumed to be the initial amount used in age calculations.
1. To assume today’s amount, when in the past the amount was much less, would result in false ages much higher than the actual age of the sample.
ccxlvii. Therefore, carbon-14 dating does not work, particularly for items, which date farther into the past and therefore farther away from the known, present ratio of carbon-14.
715 Problematic effects of a global flood for determining age using carbon-14 dating.
ccxlviii. There is substantial physical evidence that global flood was responsible for a removal of massive amounts of carbon dioxide.
1. This would, in turn, affect the ratio of carbon to carbon-14 as well as the saturation level of carbon-14 as described above.
ccxlix. The first indication that massive amounts of carbon dioxide were removed by the flood is the fact that sedimentary rocks (such as limestone) contain most of earth’s carbon dioxide.
“Earth [planet], Earth's changing climate – Many scientists also believe that variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are responsible for long-term changes in the climate. Carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas," traps heat from the sun and warms Earth's atmosphere. Most of Earth's carbon dioxide is locked in carbonate rocks, such as limestone and dolomite. Earth's climate today would be much warmer if the carbon dioxide trapped in limestone were released into the atmosphere.” – Contributor: Steven I. Dutch, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.
“Limestone – sedimentary rock composed mainly of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), usually in the form of calcite or aragonite. It may contain considerable amounts of magnesium carbonate (dolomite) as well.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. The earth’s entire surface is covered by a “thin veneer” of sedimentary rocks approximately 1.8 kilometers or 1.1 miles thick on the continents.
“Igneous rock – The Earth is composed predominantly of a large mass of igneous rock with a very thin veneer of weathered material—namely, sedimentary rock.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Sedimentary rock – On the other hand, the area of outcrop and exposure of sediment and sedimentary rock comprises 75 percent of the land surface and well over 90 percent of the ocean basins and continental margins. In other words, 80–90 percent of the surface area of the Earth is mantled with sediment or sedimentary rocks rather than with igneous or metamorphic varieties. The sediment-sedimentary rock shell forms only a thin superficial layer. The mean shell thickness in continental areas is 1.8 kilometres; the sediment shell in the ocean basins is roughly 0.3 kilometre.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Furthermore, sedimentary rocks are by definition predominantly laid down by water.
“Sedimentary Rock – Sedimentary Rock, in geology, rock composed of geologically reworked materials, formed by the accumulation and consolidation of mineral and particulate matter deposited by the action of water or, less frequently, wind or glacial ice…Sedimentary rocks are classified according to their manner of origin into mechanical or chemical sedimentary rocks. Mechanical rocks, or fragmental rocks, are composed of mineral particles produced by the mechanical disintegration of other rocks and transported, without chemical deterioration, by flowing water. They are carried into larger bodies of water, where they are deposited in layers…They may also have been dissolved in water circulating through the parent rock formation and then deposited in a sea or lake by precipitation from the solution.” – "Sedimentary Rock," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Sedimentary, rock – Sedimentary rock is rock formed when mineral matter or remains of plants and animals settle out of water or, less commonly, out of air or ice…Most sedimentary rock starts forming when grains of clay, silt, or sand settle in river valleys or on the bottoms of lakes and oceans.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Maria Luisa Crawford, Ph.D., Professor of Geology, Bryn Mawr College.
c. The fact that nearly all of the earth’s surface is covered by a thin exterior layer of rock that was predominantly “deposited by the action of water” and settled out “in layers” from “larger bodies of water” is remarkably indicative that the earth was given an outer coat of sedimentary rock by a global flood.
1. Since “most of Earth's carbon dioxide” is contained in its sedimentary rock, the evidence consistently indicates that the flood removed a large portion of the earth’s carbon dioxide, burying it in the sedimentary rock.
2. The removal of large amounts of carbon dioxide would also corroborate our previous assessment that the flood triggered a major climate shift.
a. (This was covered in our previous segment, “Focus on Critical Evidence: Evidence for a Global Flood”)
b. We concluded that after the flood the climate shifted from a more uniform “greenhouse” or perhaps tropical environment prior to the flood to a colder climate we have today which cycles between summer and winter and varies around the planet.
i. (Additionally, the flood would also explain the expansion of glaciers and arctic conditions, known as the Ice Age, due to the global climates adjusting to the sudden absence of vast amounts of “greenhouse” gases.)
ccl. The second indication that massive amounts of carbon dioxide were removed by the flood is the fact that the ocean itself is a huge “reservoir for carbon dioxide.”
“Ocean, Chemical and physical properties of seawater, Composition of seawater,
Dissolved inorganic substances – While the atmosphere is a vast repository of oxygen compared to the oceans, the total carbon dioxide content of the oceans is very large compared to that of the atmosphere.”
“Ocean, Chemical and physical properties of seawater, Composition of seawater, Effects of human activities – It is thought that the oceans, as a great reservoir of carbon dioxide, will ameliorate this consequence of human activities to some degree.”
1. Evolutionary history agrees that the evidence indicates “an accelerated rise in sea level” took place in the Holocene Epoch, which spans from 10,000 years ago to the present.
a. “an accelerated rise in sea level” taken place in the last 10,000 years, during the Holocene Epoch, but this same timeframe is also identified as a period of “great variation” in carbon dioxide levels in earth’s atmosphere.
i. (See Britannica quote below after the Encarta quote.)
“Geologic Time, II DIVISION OF TIME – The Quaternary Period is divided into the Pleistocene (1.6 million to 10,000 years before present) and Holocene (10,000 years to the present) Epochs. The Holocene is marked by the rapid retreat of the last continental ice sheets in Europe and North America, an accelerated rise in sea level, climatic moderation, and the expansion of human societies in every part of the world.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2. Not only have the ocean waters risen but they are also quite cold.
a. (In the quote above, this is reflected in the assertion that the rise in ocean level corresponded to the melting of continental ice sheets.)
b. Consequently, the water entering the oceans was formerly ice and, therefore, relatively quite cold.
“Climate, Climatic variations and change, Causes of climatic variation, Identified causes, Variations in atmospheric composition – The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is known to have varied greatly in geologic time and also in Pleistocene, Holocene, and Recent times, including the past century.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Consequently, earth’s oceans today are both higher and colder than they were in the past.
d. How cold are the oceans?
i. The freezing point of water is 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 0 degrees Celsius.
ii. The boiling point of water is 212 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 degrees Celsius
iii. The human body temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit and 37 degrees Celsius.
iv. In contrast, at its surface…
1. the ocean’s warmest temperatures are 79 degrees Fahrenheit (26 degrees Celsius)
2. the ocean’s coolest temperatures are 29.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius).
“Ocean and Oceanography, VI TEMPERATURE – The temperature of surface ocean water ranges from 26° C (79° F) in tropical waters to -1.4° C (29.5° F), the freezing point of seawater, in polar regions. Surface temperatures generally decrease with increasing latitude, with seasonal variations far less extreme than on land. In the upper 100 m (330 ft) of the sea, the water is almost as warm as at the surface. From 100 m to approximately 1000 m (3300 ft), the temperature drops rapidly to about 5° C (41° F), and below this it drops gradually about another 4° to barely above freezing. The region of rapid change is known as the thermocline.” – "Ocean and Oceanography," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
e. Below the surface, temperatures are much cooler.
i. From 100-1,000 meters the temperature is about 5 degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit).
ii. From below 1,000 meters, the temperature drops to just above freezing.
iii. The average depth of the ocean is 5,000 meters.
iv. Since ocean water is 5,000 meters deep at average and all the water below 1,000 meters is just above freezing, this means that four-fifths or 80 percent of the oceans is just above freezing.
“Ocean and Oceanography, II OCEAN BASIN STRUCTURE – The world ocean covers 71 percent of the earth's surface, or about 361 million sq km (140 million sq mi). Its average depth is 5000 m (16,000 ft), and its total volume is about 1,347,000,000 cu km (322,300,000 cu mi).” – "Ocean and Oceanography," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. The ocean’s cold temperature is relevant to its ability to dissolve a gas, in this case carbon dioxide.
a. Carbon dioxide is “recovered” or released from a solvent (liquid) in which it is dissolved by heating that liquid.
“Liquid, Solutions and solubilities – The ability of liquids to dissolve solids, other liquids, or gases has long been recognized as one of the fundamental phenomena of nature encountered in daily life…The ability of one substance to dissolve another depends always on the chemical nature of the substances, frequently on the temperature, and occasionally on the pressure…In this process, called absorption, the dissolved carbon dioxide is later recovered, and the solvent is made usable again by heating the carbon dioxide-rich solvent, since the solubility of a gas in a liquid usually (but not always) decreases with rising temperature.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. It is well understood that the cold temperatures of the oceans, particularly at greater depths, causes the retaining of a much larger amount of carbon dioxide in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
i. A small portion of that carbon dioxide is released as the waters warm at low latitudes (closer to the tropics and equator).
ii. However, the small portion that is released in the warmer, lower latitude waters is balanced out by the acquisition of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the colder waters.
“Atmosphere, Composition of the present atmosphere, Major components of the lower atmosphere, Distribution of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen compounds, Carbon compounds – Most of the carbon in the oceans is present in cold, relatively stagnant water at depth. It returns to the atmosphere in association with slow upwelling motion at low latitudes. As surface waters cool and sink at high latitude, they draw carbon from the atmosphere, roughly balancing the source at low latitude.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Consequently, the ocean’s cold temperature prevents carbon dioxide from escaping from the ocean into the atmosphere.
i. If the ocean’s temperature was warmer, more carbon dioxide would escape into the atmosphere.
ii. Thus, it is the present cold temperature of the ocean that causes so much carbon dioxide to remain dissolved there.
ccli. Conclusions about a global flood and its impact on carbon-14 dating.
1. The bulk of earth’s carbon dioxide is present in 2 locations that are directly associated with a global flood
a. First, in a 1.1 mile thick veneer of sedimentary rock that was laid down by water
b. Second, in the ocean waters itself, which have risen greatly sometime within the ten thousand years.
i. If there was a Flood that laid down a large amount of earth’s carbon dioxide in sedimentary rocks, that dramatic drop in carbon dioxide would cause the temperature of the earth to drop.
ii. The dropping temperature would cause the ocean water to retain more carbon dioxide.
2. This twofold drop in the carbon dioxide level would cause a huge difference in the carbon-14 ratios both before and after the flood.
a. In addition, some of the removed carbon dioxide would also include carbon-14, causing the carbon-14 level to drop below the saturation point.
b. For both of these reasons, the ratio of carbon-14 before and since the flood would be much lower than today’s relatively high trillion to 1 ratio.
c. Carbon dating would become progressively accurate only in more recent items as the carbon-14 progressively built up toward the present levels.
3. Since these factors are NOT taken into account during carbon-14 dating, the lower quantity of carbon-14 in samples closer to the time before and right after the flood is mistakenly regarded as a result of decay time and age when in reality the samples simply started with lower amounts of carbon-14.
4. Once again, the global flood (corroborated by both historic and geologic evidence) removes the larger ages that result from circular reasoning inherent to radiometric dating, in this case carbon-14 dating.
a. Only by assuming evolutionary timeframes and ignoring the evidence of a global flood, can any process provide the necessary billions of years of earth history in order to allow for evolution.
b. Once a global flood is acknowledged as a part of geologic history methods for producing the evolutionary timescale become completely non-viable.
5. We have established the following problematic facts concerning carbon-14 dating in general.
a. First, because of its short half-life, carbon-14 cannot date any items older than 50,000 years.
i. Thus, it cannot provide evidence for a 4.5 billion year history for the earth.
b. Second, carbon-14 dating suffers significantly from contamination.
c. Third, the ratio of carbon-14 can differ from one region to another today as a result of increased carbon dioxide from volcanic activity or industry.
d. Fourth, the ratio of carbon-14 has varied in the past.
i. These 2 factors prevent age calculations because age is determined by the amount of carbon-14 that has decayed in comparison to the starting ratio, which is defined as the same ratio that is in the environment.
ii. Since the amount of carbon-14 in the environment varies with time and location, such calculations simply cannot be made.
e. Fifth, carbon-14 requires “calibration” by other evolutionary dating methods that do not work and utilize circular reasoning.
f. Sixth, carbon-14 levels have not yet reached equilibrium or full saturation as they should have if the earth and the carbon cycle were around for billions or millions of years.
i. This fact demonstrates that…
1. Either the earth is either not billions or millions of years old
2. Or that a significant event, such as a global flood, removed large portions of carbon from the carbon cycle relatively recently.
g. Seventh, most of earth’s carbon dioxide is trapped within sedimentary rock and the oceans, both of which corroborate that a massive flood removed large portions of carbon from the carbon cycle.
i. This would cause carbon-14 dates for items before the flood and after the flood to have “built-in” or false, long ages due to the fact that they would have lower carbon-14 ratios to begin with rather than carbon-14 being removed by long periods of radioactive decay.
6. The prohibitive facts about carbon-14 are acknowledged by the evolutionary community.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Carbon-14 dating and other cosmogenic methods – It is clear that carbon-14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like to have. There may come a time when all radiocarbon ages rest on firmer knowledge of the sample's original carbon-14 level than is now available. Until then, the inherent error from this uncertainty must be recognized.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a ‘fix it as we go’ approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted…No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” – Evolutionary Anthropologist Robert Lee (Cited on “Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth,” Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, , 47 minutes, 55 seconds)
a. Yet the evolutionary timescale is admittedly based upon carbon-14, a dating method that is acknowledged to have “problems and ucertainties.”
“Archaeology, Interpretation, Dating – Absolute man-made chronology based on king lists and records in Egypt and Mesopotamia goes back only 5,000 years. For a long time archaeologists searched for an absolute chronology that went beyond this and could turn their relative chronologies into absolute dates…There have been problems and uncertainties about the application of the radioactive carbon method, but, although it is less than perfect, it has given archaeology a new and absolute chronology that goes back 40,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Clearly, as hinted in the quote above, carbon-14 dating is kept in use not because it works but because it is so useful to supporting evolutionary theory, no matter how unreliable and baseless that support is.
c. But, as we have seen the ages generated by carbon-14 dating are…
i. NOT objective or empirical evidence of age at all
ii. merely based upon assumptions, including ultimately the circular assumption of evolutionary theory itself.
iii. (As we have seen, the same is true for all other radiometric dating methods.)
Focus on Critical Evidence: The Remaining Minor Radiometric Methods
716 Fission-track dating
cclii. Fission-track dating is important because it covers the intervening gap that is not covered by either carbon-14 or potassium-argon, the 2 most prominent methods for constructing the evolutionary timescale.
“Prehistoric People, Placing prehistoric people in time – By measuring the amount of each isotope in a fossil, scientists can determine how long the decay has been going on and therefore how old the fossil is. The most commonly used dating methods of this type are radiocarbon dating and potassium-argon dating.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Alan E. Mann, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – The two radioactive decay sequences most useful to geologists are the decay of carbon-14 into nitrogen-14 and the decay of potassium-40 into argon-40. Carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating works for organic materials less than about 50,000 years old…Geologists can use potassium-argon dating to determine ages of rocks from about 100,000 years old to as old as the earth itself.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The method works best for micas, tektites, and meteorites. It has been used to help date the period from about 40,000 to 1 million years ago, an interval not covered by carbon-14 or potassium-argon methods.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ccliii. Basic facts about fission-track dating
1. Fission-track dating is primarily used to date micas and tektites, which are igneous and metamorphic rocks.
“Mica, Origin and occurrence – Micas may originate as the result of diverse processes under several different conditions. Their occurrences, listed below, include crystallization from consolidating magmas, deposition by fluids derived from or directly associated with magmatic activities, deposition by fluids circulating during both contact and regional metamorphism, and formation as the result of alteration processes—perhaps even those caused by weathering—that involve minerals such as feldspars…The common rock-forming micas are distributed widely. The more important occurrences follow: Biotite occurs in many igneous rocks (e.g., granites and granodiorites), is common in many pegmatite masses, and constitutes one of the chief components of many metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses, schists, and hornfelses). It alters rather easily during chemical weathering and thus is rare in sediments and sedimentary rocks.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Tektite – any of a class of small, natural glassy objects that are found only in certain areas of the Earth's surface. The term is derived fromthe Greek word tēktos, meaning “melted,” or “molten.” Tektites have been the subject of intense scientific scrutiny throughout much of the 20th century owing to their unknown and possibly extraterrestrial origins, but they are now recognized as having formed from the melting and rapid cooling of terrestrial rocks that have been vaporized by the high-energy impacts of large meteorites, comets, or asteroids upon the surface of the Earth. The extremely high temperatures and enormous pressures generated by such impacts melted the rocks at the site, producing clouds of molten silicate droplets that quickly cooled to a glassy form before falling back to Earth.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Metamorphic rock – any of a class of rocks that result from the alteration of preexisting rocks in response to changing environmental conditions, such as variations in temperature, pressure, and mechanical stress, and the addition or subtraction of chemical components. The preexisting rocks may be igneous, sedimentary, or othermetamorphic rocks.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
a. Because micas and tektites are igneous and metamorphic rocks, fission-track dating suffers from the same debilitating reheating and isotopic migration problems that inhibit all forms of igneous and metamorphic rock dating.
b. In fact, fission-track dating is “highly sensitive to temperatures.”
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating –
The preservation of crystal damage (i.e., the retention of fission tracks) is highly sensitive to temperature and varies from mineral to mineral. The technique can be used to determine mild thermal events as low as 100° C. Alternately, primary ages can be calculated if the rock was formed at the surface and cooled quickly.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. Since heating events are deemed to cause falsely “young” ages in fission-track dating, unexpected “young” dates can be “corrected” and adjusted to get an “older” date by removing problematic portions of the sample.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating –
A special feature of fission-track dating lies in its ability to map the uranium distribution within mineral grains. In a uranium map for single zircon grains, the outer zones that grew during a major melting event contained much more uranium than the grains originally present. The uranium–lead age was highly biased toward the younger event and the primary age could be determined only after the outer zones were removed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. Thus, fission-track dating is…
i. not based upon fixed, observable evidence
ii. based upon assumed and adjustable numeric values that can change dates that are too young into dates that fit the older, expected evolutionary ages.
2. Fission-track dating is also nullified if the rocks have been exposed to cosmic-ray bombardment.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – Rocks subjected to high temperatures or exposed to cosmic-ray bombardment at the earth's surface, however, may yield erroneous ages.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. The process of fission-track dating is itself problematic.
a. The process of fission-track dating.
i. Unlike other radiometric dating methods, fission-track dating does not utilize measurements or comparisons of parent-to-daughter ratios.
ii. Instead, fission-track dating focuses on “tracks” or “trails” left in crystals by the “spontaneous” breakdown of uranium 238 “into two fragments of similar mass.”
1. This breakdown cracks the crystal and after being enlarged by “an etching solution” or “strong acid,” these cracks can be seen by powerful microscopes.
iii. Most importantly, the uranium quantity is measured by bombarding the sample with neutrons in a nuclear reactor.
1. A nuclear reactor is used to “induce” the creation of new “fission-tracks.”
iv. Finally, the age is calculated by comparing the number of cracks produced artificially in the reactor by uranium-235 with the number of cracks produced naturally by uranium-238.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating – This is a special type of dating method that makes use of a microscope rather than a mass spectrometer, and capitalizes on damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during the spontaneous fission of uranium-238. In this unique type of radioactive decay, the nucleus of a single parent uranium atom splits into two fragments of similar mass with such force that a trail of crystal damage is left in the mineral. Immersing the sample in an etching solution of strong acid or base enlarges the fission tracks into tube-shaped holes large enough to be seen under a high-powered microscope. The number of tracks present can be used to calculate the age of the sample if the uranium content is known. Fortunately the uranium content of precisely the spot under scrutiny can be obtained by a similar process when working with a polished crystal surface. The sample is bombarded with slow (thermal) neutrons in a nuclear reactor, resulting in induced fission of uranium-235 (as opposed to spontaneous fission of uranium-238). The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded by a thin plastic film placed against the surface of the sample. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated so long as the neutron dose is known. The age of the sample is obtained using the equation, age = N × D s/D i × 6 × [10 to the power of 8], in which N is the total neutron dose expressed as neutrons per square centimetre and D s is the observed track density for spontaneous fission while D i is that for induced fission.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The fission-track method, also known as spontaneous fission-track dating, involves the paths, or tracks, of radiation damage made by nuclear particles in a mineral or glass by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. Age in years is calculated by determining the ratio of spontaneous fission-track density to that of induced fission tracks.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
b. The most significant problem with this process surrounds the subjection of the sample to a nuclear reactor in order to induce fission.
i. As mentioned earlier in our focus on potassium-argon dating the claim is that decay rates are…
1. known, reliable, and constant because decay processes take place “within the atomic nucleus”
2. governed by processes that occur in a location that is isolated from the influence of an “external forces.”
ii. It is because decay processes are said to be isolated from change that guarantees decay rates remain constant.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating, Potassium–argon methods – The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant. The situation is analogous to the death rate among human populations insured by an insurance company. Even though it is impossible to predict when a given policyholder will die, the company can count on paying off a certain number of beneficiaries every month. The recognition that the rate of decay of any radioactive parent atom is proportional to the number of atoms (N) of the parent remaining at any time gives rise to the following expression.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
iii. However, a nuclear reactor is clearly able to affect the processes occurring in the atomic nucleus.
1. In fission-track dating, the nuclear reacter is expressly being used to affect the atomic nucleus and induce fission.
2. And just as carbon-14 is created by the interaction of neutrons with normal carbon in earth’s atmosphere, in fission-track dating a nuclear reactor is used to “bombard” the sample “with slow (thermal) neutrons.”
iv. Clearly the measurement process used in fission-track dating actually involves elements that are capable of affecting and creating the very phenomena that the process is designed to detect.
c. Fission-track dating is also susceptible to errors resulting from:
i. uneven distributions of uranium (which affects the ability to count the uranium content),
ii. statistical errors in counting cracks,
iii. “inaccurate estimates” regarding the dose of neutron bombardment (which is also necessary to count the uranium content and to use the number of cracks for dating purposes).
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating –
It might also be noted that uncertainties in results may arise from an uneven distribution of uranium, statistical errors in counting, and inaccurate estimates of neutron flux (dose of neutrons).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
d. Effectively, every critical step of this method is prone to problems that result in erroneous ages.
4. Due to all of these problems, fission-track dating has largely been abandoned as a means of actually calculating the age of a rock.
a. Instead, fission-track dating is used only for dating heating and cooling events.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating – In practice, fission-track dates are regarded as cooling ages unless proved otherwise.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
b. Fission-track dating is nullified by…
i. reheating and isotopic migration events,
ii. cosmic-ray bombardment,
iii. assumed and adjustable numeric values that can change young ages into old ages,
iv. a measuring process that can actually create the very decay activity it is trying to measure,
5. So, the evolutionary timescale is invalidated regarding age projections…
a. from the present to 50,000 years ago
i. due to the failure of carbon-14 dating methods
b. from 100,000 years ago to the foundation of the earth
i. due to the failure of potassium-argon dating methods
c. from the intervening period of 40,000 to 1 million years
i. due to the failure of fission-track dating methods
6. The radiometric dating methods continue to crumble…
a. from circular reasoning,
b. from problems inherent to the individual methods themselves.
Focus on Critical Evidence: The Reliability of Decay Rates
717 Review of our first five segments on radiometric dating.
718 We have covered the basics of radiometric dating,
719 We have covered the general obstacles to igneous and metamorphic dating,
720 We have covered the particular obstacles facing the prominent potassium-argon method,
721 We have covered the obstacles facing the carbon-14 method
722 We have covered the problems a global flood imposes on all these dating methods,
723 We have covered the minor remaining radiometric dating methods.
724 A direct examination of the radioactive decay rates.
725 We have already demonstrated the incompetence of all the radiometric dating methods in detailed fashion throughout the preceding segments in relation to other problems.
726 The problems with the decay rates affect almost all radiometric dating methods, with the possible exception of carbon-14 since it has a much shorter half-life.
727 Basic information about radioactive decay rates.
728 The radioactive decay rate is one of the critical factors that must be known in order to calculate age radiometrically.
729 If this factor also cannot be known this is one more issue prohibiting radiometric dating.
730 Radioactive decay rates must be known in order to calculate radiometric ages.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – 3. The decay constant must be known.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – The age calculated is only as good as the existing knowledge of the decay rate and is valid only if this rate is constant over the time that elapsed.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
c. The decay rate must not only be accurate, but it must be a constant rate.
i. In other words, the decay rate cannot change or fluctuate over time.
d. If an incorrect rate is used in calculations or if the rate is non-constant but can change over time, then the age calculations will be incorrect and will either be too high or too low depending upon exactly how the actual decay rate differs from the rate used in the age calculation.
7. Half-lives and decay rates are directly related.
“Geologic Time, III DATING METHODS – Radioactive elements decay to form elements or isotopes (atoms of an element that differ in mass but share the same general chemical properties) of an element. An element's half-life is the time required for half the number of its atoms to decay. Different elements can have dramatically different half-lives.” – "Geologic Time," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Half-life is defined as the time period that must elapse in order to halve the initial number of radioactive atoms. The half-life and the decay constant are inversely proportional because rapidly decaying radioisotopes have a high decay constant but a short half-life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – Scientists describe the radioactivity of an element in terms of half-life, the time the element takes to lose 50 percent of its activity by decay. This covers an extraordinary range of time, from billions of years to a few microseconds. At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
a. Half-lives are measurements in years of how long it will take for half the quantity of a particular radioactive isotope to decay into its daughter isotope.
i. If a radioactive isotope decays quickly, it will take less time for half of that isotope to decay or change into another isotope.
ii. Radioactive isotopes with slower decay rates require more time in order for half of their quantity to decay into the daughter isotope.
b. All radiometric dating methods are sorted into 2 categories based upon whether they have short half-lives or long half-lives.
i. All other dating methods use isotopes with half-lives that are deemed to be long term.
ii. Only carbon-14 dating and uranium-thorium fall into the category of isotopes with short half-lives.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – Of course, one must select geologic materials that contain elements with long half-lives—i.e., those for which some parent atoms would remain.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Uranium-series disequilibrium dating – The isotopic dating methods discussed so far are all based on long-lived radioactive isotopes that have survived since the elements were created or on short-lived isotopes that were recently produced by cosmic-ray bombardment. The long-lived isotopes are difficult to use on young rocks because the extremely small amounts of daughter isotopes present are difficult to measure. A third source of radioactive isotopes is provided by the uranium- and thorium-decay chains. As noted in Table 3, these uranium–thorium series radioisotopes, like the cosmogenic isotopes, have short half-lives and are thus suitable for dating geologically young materials.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Origin of radioactive elements used – When the elements in the Earth were first created, many radioactive isotopes were present. Of these, only the radioisotopes with extremely long half-lives remain…Natural elements that are still radioactive today produce daughter products at a very slow rate; hence, it is easy to date very old minerals but difficult to obtain the age of those formed in the recent geologic past. This follows from the fact that the amount of daughter isotopes present is so small that it is difficult to measure…Geologic events of the not-too-distant past are more easily dated by using recently formed radioisotopes with short half-lives that produce more daughter products per unit time. Two sources of such isotopes exist. In one case, intermediate isotopes in the uranium or thorium decay chain can become isolated in certain minerals due to differences in chemical properties and, once fixed, can decay to new isotopes, providing a measure of the time elapsed since they were isolated…Another special type of dating employs recently formed radioisotopes produced by cosmic-ray bombardment of target atoms at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere. The amounts produced, although small, provide insight into many near-surface processes in the geologic past. This aspect of geology is becoming increasingly important as researchers try to read the global changes that took place during the Earth's recent past in an effort to understand or predict the future. The most widely used radioactive cosmogenic isotope is carbon of mass 14 (14C), which provides a method of dating events that have occurred over roughly the past 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Carbon-14 has a short half-life of 5,730 years
2. But the 2 different forms of the isotope thorium have half-lives of 10 billion and 80,000 years respectively.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E1 Basic Theory – At the end of the period constituting one half-life, half of the original quantity of radioactive element has decayed; after another half-life, half of what was left is halved again, leaving one-fourth of the original quantity, and so on. Every radioactive element has its own half-life; for example, that of carbon-14 is 5730 years and that of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Radiocarbon – The radiocarbon already in the tissues continues to decrease at a constant rate. This steady decay at a known rate-a half-life of approximately 5,730 years-enables scientists to determine an object's age.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
“Thorium – Natural thorium is a mixture of radioactive isotopes, predominantly the very long-lived thorium-232 (1.41 × [10 to the 10th power or 10 billion] year half-life), the parent of the thorium radioactive-decay series.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS, E Radiometric Dating, E5 Methods Involving Thorium-230 – Thorium-230, part of the uranium-238 decay series, has a half-life of 80,000 years.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
3. Since the lowest thorium half-life is 80,000 years, thorium still falls under the category of dating methods that suffer from the primary issue surrounding radioactive isotopes with long half-lives.
c. For isotopes with short half-lives, such as carbon-14, their decay occurs within a short enough timeframe that a sufficient portion of it can be observed.
i. As such, the decay rates of isotopes with short half-lives can be confirmed to decay exponentially and at constant rates.
d. For isotopes with long half-lives, their decay occurs over such a long time that no human has or can observe it.
i. Their decay takes so long, that the fraction we can observe is not sufficient to consider it representative of the whole process.
ii. As such, it cannot be confirmed whether or not isotopes that decay over long periods are exponential and constant or instead vary and fluctuate over time.
iii. Consequently, constant and exponential rates have to be assumed for long half-life isotopes.
iv. The sheer length of time decay requires in these isotopes is significant grounds for questioning whether or not the decay rate could or does remain constant over such exceedingly long spans.
e. The basis for assuming that radioactive decay rates remain constant and do not change even in isotopes with extremely long half-lives is expressed in the following quotes.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“…there is no reason to doubt that the decay constants of the naturally occurring long-lived radioactive isotopes used for dating are invariant and independent of the physical and chemical conditions to which they have been subjected…” – Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 41, 1986 (Cited in “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 4 minutes, 50 seconds)
ccliv. Problems and issues with assuming a constant rate of decay for isotopes with slow decay rates
1. It is the concept that decay processes are isolated from forces outside the nucleus, which serves as the basis for assuming that decay rates remain constant.
a. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, we can be confident that decay rates are known, reliable, and constant because decay processes take place “within the atomic nucleus.”
b. In short, decay rates are constant because they are governed by processes that occur in a location that is isolated from the influence of an “external forces.”
c. The entire reliability of decay rates and the subsequent accuracy of radiometric ages comes down to whether or not radioactive decay really is isolated from any factors that would alter its rate of occurrence.
2. There are 3 specific “external” factors that are known to altar decay rates, and in fact, decay rates in general are admitted to be alterable and non-constant.
a. The first external factor, which can alter decay rates, is cosmic ray bombardment.
i. Cosmic rays are electrons and neutrons that travel throughout the galaxy unattached to atoms.
“Cosmic ray – a high-speed particle—either an atomic nucleus or an electron—that travels throughout the Milky Way Galaxy, including the solar system.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
1. Below is an image depicting the affect that cosmic ray bombardment can have on an atom.
[pic]
“[PHOTO CAPTION] Cosmic Rays – Cosmic rays are extremely energetic subatomic particles that travel through outer space at nearly the speed of light…A cosmic-ray particle produced the track that starts at the top left corner of the photograph; this particle collided with a nucleus in the center of the photograph to create a spray of subatomic particles. Powell-Fowler-Perkins/Photo Researchers, Inc.” – "Cosmic Rays," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
ii. Cosmic rays are the phenomenon that causes the nuclear changes, which create the radioactive isotope carbon-14.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Evaluation and presentation schemes in dating, Origin of radioactive elements used – Another special type of dating employs recently formed radioisotopes produced by cosmic-ray bombardment of target atoms at the Earth's surface or in the atmosphere…The most widely used radioactive cosmogenic isotope is carbon of mass 14 (14C), which provides a method of dating events that have occurred over roughly the past 50,000 years.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Carbon-14 dating – also called radiocarbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon-14). Carbon-14 is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with nitrogen-14 in the Earth's atmosphere; the neutrons required for this reaction are produced by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Archeology, VIII DETERMINING THE AGE OF FINDS, B Absolute Dating, B3 Radiocarbon Dating – Radiation from space produces neutrons that enter the earth's atmosphere and react with nitrogen to produce the carbon isotope C-14 (carbon 14).” – "Archaeology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Radiocarbon – In nature, radiocarbon forms when high-energy atomic particles called cosmic rays smash into Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays cause atoms in the atmosphere to break down into electrons, neutrons, protons, and other particles. Some neutrons strike the nuclei of nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. Each of these nuclei absorbs a neutron and then loses a proton. In this way, a nitrogen atom becomes a radiocarbon atom.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Rainer Berger, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Geography, and Geophysics, University of California, Los Angeles.
iii. So, cosmic rays can certain penetrate into the nuclear structure of an atom and affect the changes that transform one isotope into another – we know this from…
1. The general interaction of cosmic rays with atomic nuclei.
2. The specific production of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 by cosmic rays affecting normal carbon atoms.
iv. The neutron bombardment in cosmic rays actually triggers, not just isotope building, but isotope breakdown or decay?
1. The fact that neutron bombardment can trigger decay is very well-known.
2. Inducing decay by neutron bombardment is actually a part of the fission-track absolute dating method.
a. (This is indicated by the following quotes from Britannica Encyclopedia and Microsoft Encarta.)
“Dating, Absolute dating, Major methods of isotopic dating, Fission-track dating – This is a special type of dating method that makes use of a microscope rather than a mass spectrometer, and capitalizes on damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during the spontaneous fission of uranium-238. In this unique type of radioactive decay, the nucleus of a single parent uranium atom splits into two fragments of similar mass with such force that a trail of crystal damage is left in the mineral…The sample is bombarded with slow (thermal) neutrons in a nuclear reactor, resulting in induced fission of uranium-235 (as opposed to spontaneous fission of uranium-238). The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded by a thin plastic film placed against the surface of the sample. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated so long as the neutron dose is known. The age of the sample is obtained using the equation, age = N × D s/D i × 6 × [10 to the power of 8], in which N is the total neutron dose expressed as neutrons per square centimetre and D s is the observed track density for spontaneous fission while D i is that for induced fission.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – The fission-track method, also known as spontaneous fission-track dating, involves the paths, or tracks, of radiation damage made by nuclear particles in a mineral or glass by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities. Age in years is calculated by determining the ratio of spontaneous fission-track density to that of induced fission tracks.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
v. Cosmic rays do NOT remain solely in the upper atmosphere where they create only carbon-14, but they penetrate to the surface of the earth and come into contact with the wide variety of radioactive isotopes used in radioactive dating.
“Cosmic ray – Cosmic-ray studies have been carried out from far below the Earth's surface to outer space.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmic rays – There are two kinds of cosmic rays: (1) primary cosmic rays, or primaries, which originate in outer space; and (2) secondary cosmic rays, or secondaries, which originate in the earth's atmosphere. Secondaries form when primaries collide with atoms at the top of the atmosphere. The collision changes the primary and the atom into a shower of secondaries. Many secondaries then collide with other atoms, making more secondaries. Some secondaries reach the surface and even penetrate deep into the ground. No measurable amount of primaries reaches the earth's surface…Secondary cosmic rays – Secondaries slow down in the atmosphere. Only a small fraction of them reach the earth. Every minute, about six secondaries strike each square inch of the earth. Because of the earth's magnetic field, the concentration is lower near the equator than near the poles…Since the 1960's, scientists have used balloons and spacecraft to study low- and medium-energy primaries. They have used large instruments on the ground to study secondaries.” – Worldbook, Contributor: R. B. McKibben, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago.
vi. The interaction of cosmic rays with radioisotopes is a fundamental problem that geochronologists have to deal with when performing absolute dating.
1. Please note that the quotes attesting to this fact come from Microsoft Encarta.
“Geology, V Fields of Geology, B Historical Geology, B3 Geochronology – The determination of the age of rocks is called geochronology. The fundamental tool of geochronology is radiometric dating (the use of radioactive decay processes as recorded in earth materials to determine the numerical age of rocks)…Geologists also have ways to determine the ages of surfaces that have been exposed to the sun and to cosmic rays.” – "Geology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Dating Methods, III ABSOLUTE DATING METHODS. E Radiometric Dating, E7 Fission-Track Dating – Rocks subjected to high temperatures or exposed to cosmic-ray bombardment at the earth's surface, however, may yield erroneous ages.” – "Dating Methods," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
vii. In conclusion regarding cosmic rays…
1. Cosmic rays are admittedly able to penetrate to the surface of the earth and affect the decay rates in sample materials
2. Therefore, it simply is not accurate to assert that…
a. decay rates are “immutable under all known conditions”
b. decay rates can be assumed to be “constant” over long periods of time.
3. Decay rates are quite alterable.
a. Scientists are aware that it is critical that they identify when decay rates have been altered due to external factors.
b. Some radioactive dating methods (particulalry fission-track dating) actually take advantage of the ability to affect decay rates by neutron bombardment.
b. The second external factor, which can alter decay rates, is the chemical environment surrounding the isotopes.
i. The potential impact of the chemical environment on decay rates is commonly denied in by secular and evolutionist sources.
“Dating, Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – The results show that there is no known process that can alter the rate of radioactive decay. By way of explanation it can be noted that since the cause of the process lies deep within the atomic nucleus, external forces such as extreme heat and pressure have no effect. The same is true regarding gravitational, magnetic, and electric fields, as well as the chemical state in which the atom resides. In short, the process of radioactive decay is immutable under all known conditions. Although it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will change, given a sufficient number of atoms, the rate of their decay is found to be constant.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“…there is no reason to doubt that the decay constants of the naturally occurring long-lived radioactive isotopes used for dating are invariant and independent of the physical and chemical conditions to which they have been subjected…” – Faure, G., Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 41, 1986 (Cited in “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 4 minutes, 50 seconds)
ii. But, mainstream science publications have probed the issue further and stated that experimental evidence confirms the opposite conclusion that the surrounding chemical environment does affect decay rates.
“A couple years back, there was this article published in Earth & Planetary Science Letters in 1999…indeed they found a fairly large dependence on radioactive decay rates for Beryllium 7 on the chemical species. In other words, the chemistry outside the nucleus is not supposed to have much of an effect on the nuclear decay rates. It’s supposed to be independent of the outside world, the nuclear decay rates. And here they found as much as a one and a half percent variation…That was a big deal at that time because before that time things were less than a tenth of a percent variation. So, we got one and a half percent variation with the chemical coordination that was around it. For instance, they had Beryllium, H20 with a four, so there are different hydroxides around it, different number of hydrogens and oxygens around the Beryllium nucleus, changes the electron density, how much electron clouds there are around the charged entity around the nucleus. And that affects the decay rates…But that’s not stunning. One and a half percent is not going to change things much.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 5 minutes, 15 seconds
1. The percentage of change is in the case of Beryllium was not a large number, but the occurrence of change does disprove the essential assumption that decay rates are not affected by chemical environment.
c. The third external factor, which can alter decay rates, can really be subdivided into 2 phenomena known as the Quantum Xeno Effect and the Quantum Anti-Xeno Effect.
i. The Quantum Xeno Effect is a documented phenomenon in which decay rates are actually slowed down by repeated observation.
“In the secular literature, lots of folks are getting interested in acceleration of quantum decay processes and studying in a more fundamental way quantum decay processes because all of the stuff that was done early on was very crude and a lot of approximations. And there’s something called the Xeno Effect…What happens when you lift the pot and its boiling? If you lift the lid too often what happens? Does it ever finish cooking? A watched kettle doesn’t boil, if you keep watching it, too frequent observations. And that’s what they find in quantum mechanics. It’s called the Xeno Effect. The thing will never decay if you keep watching it, if you measure it too often to see if has decayed or not. It’s called the Quantum Xeno Effect.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 9 minutes and 20 seconds
ii. Conversely, the Quantum Anti-Xeno Effect is also a documented phenomenon in which decay rates actually speed up by repeated observation.
“Well…there’s a Quantum Anti-Xeno Effect and that’s more interesting. Now, the Quantum Anti-Xeno Effect says if you start looking at something, you can actually perturb it and make it decay faster.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 10 minutes and 20 seconds
iii. Once again, the Quantum Xeno and Anti-Xeno Effects demonstrates that the decay rates are not unaffected by external factors but instead, decay rates are indeed alterable.
d. Lastly, it is known that decay rates are generally alterable and non-constant.
i. Creationist Dr. Keith Wanser sums up the current status in the following quote.
“In the secular literature, lots of folks are getting interested in acceleration of quantum decay processes and studying in a more fundamental way quantum decay processes because all of the stuff that was done early on was very crude and a lot of approximations.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 9 minutes, 20 seconds
ii. Once again, the idea that decay rates are alterable and non-constant is denied in by secular and evolutionist sources.
iii. However, mainstream science publications probe the issue further and state that experimental evidence confirms the opposite conclusion, that decay rates are alterable and non-constant.
1. Here Dr. Wanser cites an article in the journal Nature titled, ““Acceleration of quantum decay processes by frequent observations,” by A.G. Kofman & G. Kurtzki of the Department of Chemical Physics at The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovet 76100, Israel. (This bibliographic information was provided by Dr. Wanser during his presentation.)
“This is a fairly recent article in Nature, June 2000, where they are sorting this out…There’s people out there who are studying these things and they find out there’s non-exponential decay all over the place…They’re finding out there really is non-exponential decay in a lot of systems, in a variety of systems…Before people inferred, they assumed they had exponential decay over unobservable times. They would take short-lived isotopes and…they could measure these exponential decays very accurately. But in the longer-lived ones you can’t measure whether it’s an exponential or not. And the question remains, is it an exponential? They have to assume an exponential decay law to get these long ages.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 10 minutes, 35 seconds
2. Dr. Wanser also cites other secular, evolutionary scientists who affirm that decay is not exponential and constant.
“A very famous guy, J. J. Sakurai, he’s a particle theorist. And in his textbook he has a whole section on how you get non-exponential decays (J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics Revised Edition, 1994).” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 11 minutes, 55 seconds
“Here’s another very recent paper, just came out in 2002, simulating some of the simplest things because it turns out that calculations in this business are very hard. They require lots of computing power and that’s one of the reasons why there hasn’t been a lot of progress. But, now people are starting to get enough computing power to be able to examine these things in detail. So, here it is again, some people in a secular situation, just examining the decay rate as a function of time. What happens? And here’s what they find…highly non-exponential decay. And this is just out of a very simple system…Nobody’s carefully investigated this for long-lived isotopes…it’s a little bit tricky of a problem. There are some complications…When things are really long-lived, you have to let the system go back and forth for about 10 to the fiftieth oscillations and that’s pretty hard for computers to go that many steps…Here they’re showing the difference between what you would get if it was constant decay…and you see this decay constant isn’t so constant.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 16 minutes, 40 seconds
a. In the quote above, notice the reference to the complexity of the equations and the enormous computing power required to perform such calculations.
b. Britannica Encyclopedia affirms this also, specifically denoting the small number of laboratories capable of doing the computations for radiometric dating.
“Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence – Relative geologic ages can be deduced in rock sequences consisting of sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock units. In fact, they constitute an essential part in any precise isotopic, or absolute, dating program. Such is the case because most rocks simply cannot be isotopically dated. Therefore, a geologist must first determine relative ages and then locate the most favourable units for absolute dating. It is also important to note that relative ages are inherently more precise, since two or more units deposited minutes or years apart would have identical absolute ages but precisely defined relative ages. While absolute ages require expensive, complex analytical equipment, relative ages can be deduced from simple visual observations… The principles for relative age dating described above require no special equipment and can be applied by anyone on a local or regional scale. They are based on visual observations and simple logical deductions and rely on a correlation and integration of data that occurs in fragmentary form at many outcrop locations…Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating – The importance of internal checks as well as interlaboratory comparisons becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that geochronology laboratories are limited in number. Because of the expensive equipment necessary and the combination of geologic, chemical, and laboratory skills required, geochronology is usually carried out by teams of experts.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
3. Furthermore, in the following quote, the journal Nature is once again the source of the assertions about non-constant decay.
“Here’s another experimental evidence for non-exponential decay in quantum tunneling, another Nature paper, a mainstream journal. Nature is one of the most prestigious science journals there is…Here some people made an artificial quantum mechanical system…but they found out they had non-exponential decay at short times. They had faster decay at short times when they first set the system going.” – “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 16 minutes, 10 seconds
a. According to Nature, decay rates are non-exponential and much faster when the system is first started.
b. This is extremely relevant because it would relate to the conditions of the entire universe at creation.
c. Decay rates would be much faster right after the entire universe started while rates today would be much slower.
d. Consequently, assuming today’s rates yields erroneously large ages, when in reality, the present isotope ratios are completely compatible with a young earth in light of the realization that the decay rates were much faster when the universe first began.
4. The next quote discusses that high ionization has an impact in the magnitude of a billion-fold impact on decay rates.
“One of the things that really blew open the gates was when…John Woodmorappe…pointed out something in the physics literature that everybody seemed to have missed back in about 1996…This billion-fold acceleration of decay rates under certain specialized circumstances. Again, it can only happen in certain specialized circumstances…But, it shows us something very, very important…Here when they highly ionized some Rhenium atoms and they stripped off essentially all the electrons, like 80-some electrons or so, the decay rates would change by factors of 10 to the ninth. That’s a billion-fold change. What that meant is things that had a-billion-year half-lives went over into things that were half-lives of a day…Where are you going to have this process happen? Well, in a star environment, in a plasma environment, you strip off lots of electrons because it’s so hot. All the atoms are colliding with each other and they’re knocking off electrons. And people formerly were dating some kinds of stars with this Rhenium-Osmium chronometry and they found out their star dates were off by factors of 10 to the sixth, 10 to the seventh, and so on. And now, they’re taking this factor into account. But this is something that people didn’t really know about until 1996.”– “Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old Age Paradigm,” Dr. Keith Wanser, , Copyright 2003 Answers in Genesis, 18 minutes, 20 seconds
a. This level of ionization only happens in environments like stars.
b. But, it does show that high ionization impacts decay rates.
c. This is important because, mass spectrometers operate by highly ionizing the samples, which they are measuring for radioisotope decay.
“Mass spectrometry – Many investigations have been conducted with the help of mass spectrometry. These include the identification of the isotopes of the chemical elements and determination of their precise masses and relative abundances, the dating of geologic samples…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mass spectrometry – Mass spectroscopes consist of five basic parts: [1] a high vacuum system; [2] a sample handling system, through which the sample to be investigated can be introduced; [3] an ion source, in which a beam of charged particles characteristic of the sample can be produced; [4] an analyzer, in which the beam can be separated into its components; and [5] a detector or receiver by means of which the separated ion beams can be observed or collected.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Analysis, Instrumental methods, Separatory methods, Mass spectrometry – Most mass spectrometers have four major components: [1] an inlet system, [2] an ion source, [3] a mass analyzer, and [4] a detector. The inlet system is used to introduce the analyte and to convert it to a gas at reduced pressure. The gaseous analyte flows from the inlet system into the ionic source of the instrument where the analyte is converted to ions or ionic fragments.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Mass Spectrometer, I INTRODUCTION – All mass spectrometers have four features in common: (1) a system for introducing the substance to be analyzed into the instrument; (2) a system for ionizing the substance; (3) an accelerator that directs the ions into the measuring apparatus; and (4) a system for separating the constituent ions and recording the mass spectrum of the substance.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“[PHOTO CAPTION] Mass Spectrometer – In a mass spectrometer, a sample of gas is ionized by an electron beam, and the ions are accelerated toward a magnet, which separates the ions according to their mass (upper right). Ions of a certain mass strike the detector; the detector is usually connected to a computer or other electronic device to process the data (bottom). © Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.” – "Mass Spectrometer," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
d. While the ionization is magnitudes less than on stars, the influence of ionization on decay rates might still be present to a lower degree.
e. It might not reduce decay rates from billions of years down to a day, but it might alter the decay rate enough to render radiometric dating calculations significantly inaccurate.
731 Conclusions about radioactive decay rates, whether they can be assumed to be constant, and the impact on radiometric dating.
732 Nearly all of the essential requirements for performing absolute dating calculations are unknown.
733 The original parent-to-daughter isotopes remain unknown.
734 Isotopic migration due to reheating events causes the amount of parent-to-daughter isotopes produced by decay to be unknowable.
735 Decay rates for long half-life isotopes are not necessarily constant and exponential but may vary as a result of…
736 cosmic rays,
737 the surrounding chemical environment,
738 observation,
739 how far we are from the start of the decay system,
740 ionization,
741 or simply as a general phenomenon.
742 Consequently, the essentials needed in order to perform absolute dating (ratios and decay rates) are simply not available, which renders absolute (radiometric) dating unreliable and impossible.
743 (For an illustration of the missing factors that must be assumed in order to radiometrically calculate age see Dating Procedures Figure 8.)
744 Impact of non-constant decay rates on constructing the evolutionary timetable.
745 The discoveries in non-constant, non-exponential decay are fairly recent, ranging from 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002.
746 This means that all of the radiometric dating used to calibrate the relative evolutionary timescale throughout the twentieth century was performed without taking into account that decay rates might be non-constant and non-exponential for long-lived half lives.
747 Consequently, the support that absolute dating brought to the relative geologic timescale are shown to be premature and based upon inaccurate and unreliable assumptions.
cclv. Ultimately, the evolutionary timescale is without any empirical support.
1. From start to finish it is merely the product of speculation, assumption, and philosophical preference.
2. There remains no empirical evidence negating the creationist history of the earth 6 to 10 thousand years ago, a history that is demonstrated by physical geologic data and the historic record.
Overall Conclusions
748 At this point, we have completed both our expanded commentary on creation and evolution theories and our focus on the critical evidence.
749 Below is a summary of the facts that have been established throughout this study.
750 First, our definitions for both creation and evolution theories were accurate.
751 Specifically, evolutionary theory is, by definition, the denial of any need for foresight and teleology and the assertion to the contrary that automatic, routine process that occur without foresight are capable of producing the universe we observe today, life, and all species on earth.
752 The position and status of evolutionary theory on all of these defining issues was established from the words of evolutionists themselves.
753 From such quotes we even established that when key events require extremely improbable coincidences, the result is evidence for orchestration by foresight, or teleology.
754 Indeed we found such extremely improbable coincidences admitted by evolutionists at every defining point in their theory.
755 At every defining point where evolutionary theory asserted the sufficiency of automatic, routine processes and denied the need for foresight, both on experimental and observational level as well as on the merely theoretical level, evolutionary theory ran into coincidences so highly improbable that their mere coinciding occurrence necessitated foresight.
756 We saw these improbability obstacles admitted on the defining issues of…
757 the formation of the structure of the universe,
758 the environment in which life originated, and the origin of the cell.
759 We even saw evolutionists acknowledging that the earth’s history and historic environment were so incompatible for the origin of life that many evolutionists relocate life’s origin to the un-falsifiable and unscientific location of another planet.
760 On the defining issue of the origin of species, evolution also lacks a working theory.
761 Speciation, or variety, among an existing type of organism doesn’t prove evolution and is agreed to wholeheartedly by creationists, as is natural selection.
762 However, natural selection doesn’t contribute to the origin of new species, since it reduces diversity and genetic variety rather than increasing them.
763 Beneficial mutation is the only mechanism that is even theoretically capable of producing new structures, organs, traits, and ultimately new types of organisms.
764 Beneficial mutations themselves require such a highly improbable series of coincidences that even their occurrence would necessitate foresight.
765 In addition, evolution also lacks a working theory in the sense that it cannot resolve whether new types of organisms emerge gradually or in punctuated bursts.
766 Ultimately, this issue itself results from another insurmountable problem, which is also admitted openly by evolutionists: the fact that the fossil record only records non-evolving, static kinds of organisms.
767 Furthermore, by its very nature, the fossils record cannot provide any evidence of the inability to interbreed, which is the defining mark of speciation.
768 This too, we saw admitted openly by evolutionists along with the admission that speciation is a process that by its nature cannot ever be directly observed at all.
769 Consequently, evolution remains without evidence and without even a working theory for the origin of new types of organisms.
770 Second, concerning the age of the universe and the earth, we found that evolution also lacks any actual empirical evidence in its favor.
771 As we saw from mainstream scientific publications and even evolutionary scientists, starlight and redshift demonstrate that the Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of the universe (from which it expaned).
772 When the universe was less expanded, the gravity well located at the center of mass would have warped time slowing it down so that billions of years passed outside the gravity well while only days passed on earth.
773 As a result, starlight indeed has enough time to reach the earth while only six days would pass on earth rather than billions of years of history.
774 Consequently, starlight and redshift provided no evidence for the billions of years of time asserted and needed by evolutionary theory.
775 Third, as we examined the geologic data pertaining to the age of the earth, we also found that there was no empirical evidence supporting an age of millions or billions of years for the earth.
776 We saw that uniformitarianism was the key principle to evolutionary geologic dating methods.
777 And we saw that uniformitarianism was not only self-contradictory, but it was contradicted by the geologic evidence itself.
778 We even saw that catastrophes, the alternative to uniformitarianism, were acknowledged by secular and evolutionary sources.
779 We also saw that the evidence for the specific catastrophe of a global flood was irrefutable.
780 Ample evidence for such a flood exists in…
781 the historic record of numerous, independent cultures all around the world
782 in the geology of the earth.
783 The geologic evidence includes the fossil record itself.
784 Since fossils must be buried quickly, the rock layers they are buried in must also have been laid down quickly, not slowly or gradually over millions of years.
785 Moreover, all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water.
786 Together these 2 facts demonstrate that the fossil record is the result of a quick depositing of sediments all over the earth by water from a global flood.
787 In addition, the location of fossils also provides evidence for the global flood.
788 Marine fossils are located far inland and on mountain tops
789 Tropical fossils are located in arctic regions.
790 Furthermore, the preservation of soft tissue, such as the tissue and last meals of frozen mammoths, demonstrates that the creation of these out-of-place tropical fossils was accompanied by a rapid climate shift, rather than a slow, gradual change.
791 And ultimately, we saw how even if uniformitarianists, evolutionists, or even atheists reject the possibility of a Creator, none of these worldviews have any principles, grounds, or evidence on which to reject the evidence for a global flood.
792 Thus, the global flood stands as an irrefutable reality of earth history.
793 Fourth, we considered the various dating methods used by evolutionists to support an age of billions of years for the earth and found that all such methods to be bankrupt. None of them worked.
794 Relative dating, which is based upon the layering of rocks and the fossils in those layers, is admitted to be utterly incapable of providing actual ages or durations of time but can only indicate the order of burial.
795 Radiometric dating methods also did not work.
796 To calculate ages, radiometric dating requires certain factors to be known.
797 But, as we saw in detail, those required factors are not known.
798 Instead, idealized numeric values are assumed based on relative dating assumptions of evolutionary theory and adjusted as needed to produce ages.
799 In addition, we have also seen how the volcanic activity involved in a global flood further renders these critical factors beyond determination.
800 Concerning carbon-14 we found that…
801 the earth’s carbon-14 level is currently still below its saturation point, a point which it should have reached a long time ago if the carbon cycle had been occurring for billions of years.
802 Thus, carbon-14 itself indicates that the earth is young, so young that it has not yet reached the saturation point for carbon-14.
803 when the evidence for a global flood is taken into account, carbon-14 dating simply does not produce any ages that are not reconcilable with creationism’s age of the earth.
804 carbon-14 dating erroneously assumes that the carbon to carbon-14 ratio must always have been what it is today even though this ratio is known to significantly differ over time and location due to a number of factors.
805 Lastly concerning dating methods, we saw how none of the non-radiometric absolute dating methods worked either.
806 Each one was based upon assumptions, which were invalid and unreliable.
807 Most importantly, every single dating method, including relative dating and radiometric dating in general, were based entirely upon circular reasoning with one another and with circular reasoning in which evolutionary theory itself is assumed.
808 Not a single dating method worked without the others being assumed first and without evolution being assumed first, including radiometric dating.
809 Finally, as we saw in quote after quote, the problems in all of these areas still remain unresolved.
810 The nature of many of these problems is such that they are simply unsolvable.
811 After studying the definitions of creation and evolution theory and examining how the evidence relates to those definitions we must conclude that…
812 In the end there was no working explanation and no evidence supporting evolutionary theory for…
813 the formation of the universe,
814 the evolutionary origin of life,
815 the evolutionary origin of species,
816 the evolutionary age of the universe and the earth.
817 From start to finish, evolutionary theory and its age for the earth were shown to be nothing more than assumptions based upon philosophical preference.
818 And we even saw this fact itself admitted in quote after quote throughout this study.
819 There is simply no evidence that currently disproves the account of earth’s history preserved in the Judeo-Christian tradition, an account which records…
820 the need for a Creator
821 the interactions of that Creator
822 The available, observable evidence supports the predictions and conclusions offered in the scientific and Biblical theory of Creationism.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- words to describe a job well done
- thank you for a job well done
- a job well done letter
- a job well done poem
- recognition quotes for a job well done
- recognition for a job well done
- congratulations for a job well done
- take the road less traveled song
- the road less traveled summary
- road less traveled on youtube
- road less traveled song lyrics
- the road less traveled movie