General Question

robmandu's avatar

Hopw would you scientifically prove the age of a creationist's universe?

Asked by robmandu (21293points) September 25th, 2008

Creationists believe God created the universe. If they’re Judeo-Christian and cite the Bible, they estimate that it happened approximately 6,000 years ago.

If you follow my postulations (1, 2, 3), then it’s arguable that the universe might have been called into existence fully formed. Meaning, for example, light from a star 2,000,000 light years away is already laid down such that that star is visible in the Earth’s night sky. Or that carbon material in the Earth’s crust was placed as coal, oil, diamonds, etc.

How does one scientifically dis-/prove such thinking? What tests could be performed that are external to the system in order to get a non-biased result?

I’m curious because I see a lot of criticism of creationism based on scientific evidence of the age of things. But without allowance for what seems to me to be obvious limitations of science itself. I’m not all that smart, so I’m wondering if anyone else has figured it out yet.

For the record, I don’t think creationism should be taught in science class at schools. It’s not science.

Yes, I realize that by the creationists’ line of reasoning, what’s to say we weren’t cooked up just 5 minutes ago with fully scripted memories of the past?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

104 Answers

aidje's avatar

I don’t think creationism is falsifiable. One can always play “the God card”.

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

The idea of God is powerful simply because you cannot prove or disprove it. There is nothing that could provide the non-biased result you’re looking for in your question, especially from the side of a religious mind. Let’s face it, if they’re assuming that everything in your scenario is true, they’re just going to say that whatever test was used is flawed and that the results were tampered with by the devil (if the results provide evidence against their stand point, that is). He did hide all those pesky, lie filled dinosaur bones for us to find after all.

GAMBIT's avatar

I’m not sure if I have any authentic ideas meaning my brain has already been programmed to believe in the Adam and Eve theory of creation. God wanted to make something that was like himself and he wanted us to be happy. He gave us a place to live and he gave us a partner to share our lives. I have nothing original to add to the story.

Except this:

The world is much older than we think it is. Great civilizations have come and gone. There is nothing new under the sun. Man has already flown all around the universe. He used the earth as a magnetic field and was more advanced in astrology, physics, sacred geometry, agriculture then we are today. Natural disasters and floods caused these great civilizations to vanish and most of their writings have either been destroyed or only seen by a few. Can I prove any of this no but I can dream cant I?

cwilbur's avatar

You cannot use the scientific method to convince a person who has decided that the scientific method is untrustworthy. As soon as someone plays the “God made it that way to test our faith” card, you suddenly have an unfalsifiable and untestable hypothesis.

AstroChuck's avatar

I agree with above. Those that believe in creationism love to whip out “the Lord works in mysterious ways”

Judi's avatar

My gradeschool science teacher (back in the olden days) taught us about theories before she taught us about evolution. That helped those of us who believed in creation to accept evolution as a theory and keep our creation theory in tact.
Some of us Christians Believe the Bible but wonder what a heavenly “day” is. Is it the time it takes for the galaxy to spin around the universe? Maybe something even bigger?

GAMBIT's avatar

I was taught the same thing in theology class a day could be a million years.

shilolo's avatar

My response to this “a day could be a million years” gambit (no pun intended) is that, if we assume that God is all-knowing, and God passed down the story of the bible, then shouldn’t God know the difference between a day and a million years? Why doesn’t the bible then say, “In the first billion years, God created…”?

If you believe in the allegory that is the biblical creation story because “a day could be a million years”, then you, by definition, acknowledge and accept that the story is just that, a story.

Judi's avatar

He DOES know, it’s us who don’t know.

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

To quote wikipedia:

“In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, “theory” is not in any way an antonym of “fact”. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.”

“In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.”

There is a huge difference between a scientific theory and the common usage for the word theory. Creationism isn’t a theory in the scientific sense, which is something I think a lot of people don’t really understand or care to admit. There is no evidence to support creationism, and you can’t test or observe it. We may not be able to directly observe and test evolutionary theory directly (because of the thousands, millions and billions of years over which it takes place), but based on everything we know, everything we can and have observed and tested, it’s the most logical assumption we as humans can make.

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way Rob, but your scenario really does seem to be a giant “What if…!” which seems like a waste of time to contemplate. Sure, maybe an intelligent designer slapped everything together the way things are now, but why should we believe this if said intelligent designer left behind evidence (albeit false evidence, as the scenario implies) that states differently? Human beings are logical creatures; if we see carbon in all its different forms and notice a correlation between these different forms and the environments in which they are found, we’re going to assume that the environment played a role in turning that carbon in a diamond, or graphite, or coal, etc. Don’t get me wrong, you can easily call the bulk of science a giant “What if…!” too, but it seems a lot more plausible then a God creating an entire world just to screw around with the minds of the creatures he puts on it.

sundayBastard's avatar

Creationism is science fiction. Good story but BS.

This is like prooving Santa’s ability to deliver toys around the world in one night. Wait! No it is even dummmmmmmer.

robmandu's avatar

Let me try to refine the question at this point.

If something is scientifically unprovable (nor falsifiable), then must that mean that it’s wrong, silly, bullshit?

The Big Bang is a scientifically (and mathematically) acceptable theory. But what about prior to the Big Bang? Our math models break down. There’s no language to even describe what ever it was that must of been present then.

Why don’t we say that believing in the existence of something prior to the Big Bang is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the concept of creation?

sundayBastard's avatar

Big bang is BS too

I am not saying that nothing existed before the big bang

I am saying…. I do not know and guess what? Noone else does either.

They just have theories and a-lot of time just make shiza up.

religions are totally 100% BS

Lightlyseared's avatar

Seriously, if God told people exactly how he created the universe we’d be knee deep in alternative universes by now.

robmandu's avatar

@lightlyseared, ha ha ha ha ha, nice one!

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.——Douglas Adams

sundayBastard's avatar

Maybe there is a God maybe not noone knows.

People just blindly follow religions.

Mama said Jesus loves me….uh huh…

Come on?

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

Must it mean it’s wrong, silly bullshit? No. It just means it’s got a much greater chance of being wrong, silly bullshit. At least in my book.

As for your example, well, maybe one day our capabilities will catch up to the extreme past (the Big Bang or whatever it might be). Maybe they won’t. But at least we can comprehend, using mathematical and scientific methods, up to that point. Creationism and other religious beliefs don’t allow us to do even this.

And bonus points for quoting Douglas Adams.

sundayBastard's avatar

If you ask someone why they beleive in god.

They say “Ijust do! I know Jesus or Allah or God or the 3 legged purple unicorn Loves me!!”

Judi's avatar

you never asked me.

sundayBastard's avatar

Ok Judi why do you beleive God?

sundayBastard's avatar

Do not quote anything from the Bible please. It is science fiction

sundayBastard's avatar

woo hoo some people got the fire in their underpants on this one haha

Judi's avatar

I will tell you if we negotiate some ground rules. I won’t insult you for your disbelief. I won’t be disrespectful and I won’t try to convert you. I would expect teh same courtesty. Deal?

shilolo's avatar

@Sunday. On what basis are you qualified to state ”[The] Big bang is BS too?” I would love to hear your cosmologic alternative explanation…. If you don’t know, then don’t fill this space with hot air…

sundayBastard's avatar

@shilolo Hmm I am just as qualified as the next. My theory is we don’t exist at all, or your silly little hot air

sundayBastard's avatar

A theory is only equal to a theory. No more no less.

MrMeltedCrayon's avatar

Maybe so, but a theory has more weight if you can back it up a bit as opposed to just aggressively spewing words all over the place.

sundayBastard's avatar

people are so obsessed with how we got her and where we are going after here they miss the “Now-ness” of life.

sundayBastard's avatar

My word spewing has more of an effect on you than the big bang theory or a religion does

shilolo's avatar

Sorry, but on scientific topics, we (as in the proverbial we) aren’t entitled to an egalitarian view. Having a solid cosmologic (physics) understanding of the big bang requires a significant amount of knowledge, which, frankly, I doubt you have. Simply dismissing it because it is “your opinion” just won’t fly. You can dismiss it in your mind because you feel like it, but without an inkling of the scientific basis for the theory, your words are simply that, words. Ahhhh, the bliss of ignorance…

sundayBastard's avatar

whas is a BIG BANG? or a LITTLE BANG or was it a GNAB GIB?

sundayBastard's avatar

hey A big bang sounds good…..Ok whatever…...

I mean who really cares? Will you sleep better knowing that the Big bang theory is correct

sundayBastard's avatar

And no I am just a simple man. I really do not care why we are here or where we go after here.

We could get sucked into a blackhole tomorrow. Oh well

sundayBastard's avatar

@shilolo Creationist and people like you are totally the same. Totally!

Neither one of you can just admit to not knowing

Judi's avatar

i have to go but i’ll get my story to you later. sorry !!

sundayBastard's avatar

Ah who cares tho.. it was fun gonna quit following this on now tho

bye bye

shilolo's avatar

You are the one who should simply admit to not knowing. You cannot call a theory bullshit without at least knowing what the theory is, and then have at least a reason behind your assertion. Scientists (like me), make observations about the world based on quantifiable things. That is where the theory of the big bang came from. Someone didn’t just pull it from their ass. I’m not going to belabor this discussion with a scientific treatise on the big bang, because it would fall on deaf ears (or worse).

Maverick's avatar

Look, just read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. It’s a fantastic and exceedingly fair book (despite the title, which must have been chosen by the publisher). He tackles all of these questions and explains them thoroughly.

As for The Big Bang, most scientists concede that we have no possible comprehension for what occurred before that. Indeed “before” is a completely meaningless term at that point.

robmandu's avatar

@Maverick, yah, been meaning to get to that. Thanks for the reminder!

Although, calling it “exceedingly fair” seems a bit of a stretch. Dawkins’ site proclaims:

With rigor and wit, Richard Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, forments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong, but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster.

VoodooLogic's avatar

wow a thread devoted to measuring time without an observer. If somebody was around, time wouldn’t operate the same for them. Hypothesize away my friends, creationist’s relativity of time breaks down too without being God- the observer. I’m a Christian, I’m not expected to have insight to the universe’s creation. But if u believe science serves the purpose of understanding better, I might be inclined to agree. who do you hang out with that take the bible so literally?

if the universe started undulating, we probably wouldn’t be around to see it. but your beliefs would start to look equally as silly. Science lets you presume stuff through hypothesis. Why take that same illogical presumption away from someone who might learn something from a book of moral teachings? Don’t want it taught in school? ~I might be inclined to agree..

your postulates say everything that I just typed, but I’m not erasing it. you want practicality – don’t disprove creationism, kill everyone who follows that line of thinking.

La_chica_gomela's avatar

How can you?

I don’t get it! If there’s no scientific proof for creationism, how can there be proof for one aspect of it (such as age)?

Knotmyday's avatar

Any argument attempting to gauge the age of a created universe would have to rely on so many logical fallacies (circular reasoning, bare assertion, base rate, petitio principii, etc.) that any conclusion would be naturally invalid- except as an interesting work of fiction.

In that vein, and on the basis of the “Aged Earth” theory (that God created the earth with the appearance of immense age) one could imagine a sprightly theosophic discussion between the protagonist and God concerning his motives for doing so.

Bri_L's avatar

@ robmandu – GREAT Douglas Adams quote!

Maverick's avatar

@robmandu Well, again that sounds like it was written by his publisher, not him. Even though I don’t really see anything “unfair” about those words, I would agree that it sounds a little harsh. In my opinion, Dawkins goes way out of his way in the book to not be too harsh on religion. Of course some will be offended regardless, but those people aren’t looking for truth or meaningful insight anyway.

jvgr's avatar

The creationist’s theory of the universe requires that dinosaurs and humans co-existed; with all the fossils collected no such evidence has even suggested the co-existence.

watchman220's avatar

A few points about this fascinating subject of origins.

1. Agreed. No one can know exactly how and when the universe was created, based on scientific information or even faith. Because no one was there when it happened and no one can duplicate it.

2. There is such a thing as Creation Science. Creation is postulated as a theory by serious scientists.

2a. The same way that evolutionary scientists are trying to find better proof that the earth is billions of years old, creation scientists are trying to understand and postulate theories about how God connected the light to the the stars, and how the earth is only thousands of years old.

3. Example of Creation Science based Theory:

3a. Oil and coal were deposited in vast amounts by the destruction of the world flood of Noah. God did not have to put them there as he formed the world.

3b. The world became a very different place when the vegetation and animals and yes even people were flooded and drowned. The crust of the earth was not always jammed into high rugged mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches.

3c. The fountains of the deep were broken up, resulting in volcanic activity of unimagined proportions.

3d. The windows of heaven were opened to experience a large volume of rain, (rain which according to scripture, had never fallen on the earth until this time. Giving theoretical evidence that the world was very different pre-flood)

3e. This is historical information (the flood) for those who take the Bible seriously as a historical book. The flood answers many questions about how things look today.

4. Of particular interest along these lines of logic. Evolutionary Science that dates the earth as billions of years old, relies on one emphatic dogma, and that is “that all things have been proceeding and are continuing to proceed at the same rate” Therefore based on these figures they extrapolate the length of half life of elements and postulate billions of years based upon radioactive isotropic decay.

5. One interesting theory that a serious reader might entertain is the “Hydroplate Theory” This explains a litany of difficult scientific questions in a fair and scientific way. It postulates theories that match the evidence to much more a degree than Evolutionary Theories have been able to deliver.

Check out the website…the whole book is online

This catastrophic event is responsible for numerous phenomena as of yet unexplained by Evolutionary Theory such as:
The Grand Canyon
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches and Ring of Fire
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Metamorphic Rock
The Moho
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Asteroids and Meteoroids

Lots of good reading for the serious mind that wants answers.
Let me know what you think after you read the book.


shilolo's avatar

Removed by me.

Knotmyday's avatar

This catastrophic event is responsible for numerous phenomena as of yet unexplained by Evolutionary Theory…

With the exception of “frozen Mammoths,” the phenomena listed are geologic/cosmic, watchman. I fail to see how natural selection could possibly explain them.

The problem with “Creation Science” is that it is an attempt to prove a preconception; a catastrophically flawed and fundamentally un-scientific methodology.

shilolo's avatar

@Knotmyday. Agreed. “Creation science” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

Judi's avatar

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for , the evidence of things not seen
Hebrews 11:1

fireside's avatar

@ judi – i love that quote! it’s on my desktop image right now.

watchman220's avatar

Knotmyday and shilolo,

I fail to see any logical argument or intelligent reply from either of you. A few bits of vague rhetoric about geologic / cosmic causes from a failing scientific theory called evolutionis all I see.

I don’t try to invalidate your logic…since there isn’t any.

Is evolution a preconception as well? Isn’t it?

Perhaps you should read the book which I made available in the link.

The scientific theory is called “The Hydro Plate Theory” If you read it carefully it brings up many important points that invalidate so called “proofs” that support an evolutionary view, including the crucial points of Carbon-14 dating.

Here is the link that talks about this one subject of Carbon dating.

If you actually take the time to read the link…you might learn something that will surprise you…it will take about 10 minutes to read the article…which is actually a portion of the book.

shilolo's avatar

@Watchman. I am a scientist, and, to be frank with you, I don’t have the time or energy to “debate” creationism with you. Evolution is not a preconception. The entire field is based on observations of animals, bones, cells, genomes and genes. There are literally thousands upon thousands of scientific manuscripts describing evolutionary events, ranging from anthropology to molecular biology. We observe evolution in bacteria in the lab, and bacteria and viruses in the environment (think, HIV or bacterial resistance to antibiotics). In contrast, creationism makes the assumption that god created everything. There is NO WAY to test or prove that. None. Zero. That is not science, but faith.

La_chica_gomela's avatar

GA shilolo! and with that, i’m not following this thread anymore. I still don’t understand the point of trying to “prove” something I thought you guys were supposed to take on faith anyway…

watchman220's avatar

You would think a scientist would be open to scientific observations recorded by another scientist. Perhaps you are happy with your evolutionary faith. Many people are.

The truth is, it takes just as much faith if not more to believe that the Universe sprang out of nothingness. There is way more of an issue with cosmic evolution than there is with the obvious existence of intelligent design in this universe.

The preconception of evolution is that all these animals, bones, cells, genomes and genes, happened by some random chance, and they are still continuing in this way for millions and billions of years. If evolutionists add enough time, which is a cheap cover for saying “we don’t know”, than suddenly anything becomes possible!

I believe in Micro-evolution which is what you see in your lab. But this does not apply to macro-evolution, or cosmic evolution. And it certainly does not explain abiogenesis.

If you took time to read the second link I offered, you would see why as a scientific evidence the information has such a major impact on your preconception of evolution as regarding the age of your artifacts.

But, Hey, go ahead, keep your head in the sand. It feels better there I guess. maybe you will find another fossil in the sand.

watchman220's avatar

What a sardonicly charged web page this is. It is quite humourous. Those who would suggest that I am doing the same thing…sadly have no conception of what I am truly saying.

SHILOLO…shame on you. Naab.

It’s ok…though, I am used to it.
Rejection from the masses.
Let me know if you actually read the material I linked to.



Knotmyday's avatar

I read them, Greg.

Plowing through the “vague rhetoric” of the site, I came to the conclusion that if the author had been told that all windmills had been erected by birds, he would frantically attempt to prove that point as well (all evidence to the contrary).

I don’t even know how to categorize it, but it sure ain’t science…

I especially enjoyed the part about how he determined the cause of a mastodon’s death by the size and shape of its penis. In flagrante delicto, to be sure.

Knotmyday's avatar

Here’s the page link for all you unbelievers.

watchman220's avatar

Another fantastic reply from Knotmyday. You sure read the book awfully fast. You must be especially gifted in identifying “vague rhetoric” to have made such a distinct and clear call on this text….or not.

There is a whole section on the details concerning the discovery and uncovering of the mammoth. Particularly other parts of the mammoth were also flattened due to exceedingly great pressure.

I surely don’t appreciate you characterizing the entire text with a sarcastically, off-colored remark, resulting in a poisonous taste to all readers. It is exactly that closed, dead thought process that discourages the reasonable questioning of astute minds. Perhaps someone else might take a look and report a different unbiased point of view to this scientific text book.

A serious reader would continue to read past the colorful, summary, (which is more for kids…er…ahem…Knotmyday) and instead choose to explore the entire chapter dedicated to this subject, which starts on the next page and throughout the fair and scientific study of the subject offers up 10 different theories about how this animal got into this predicament, before settling on the most logical theory, which by the way…is nothing even close to what you have offered.

Here is the link.

Looks like you got 1 page into it before you castigated me with your snap judgement as an expert on the subjects of mastadon penises.

You have chosen to plow the “vague rhetoric” and that is precisely what you have sown again in this forum with your shallow reply.

Any serious takers of this subject please feel free to respond in kind.

fireside's avatar

I might read through some of this over the weekend, but at a glance, it looks a lot like this site

shilolo's avatar

This book is NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK as you said! It just isn’t! The “book” (and I have read a fair portion of it already, since I am a quick reader having read 1000s of scientific papers and hundreds of books) is simply a list of questions about what might be. There are hardly any experiments described, and those citations that are there are from self-serving creationist publications. The whole mammoth chapter relies on the idea that the mammoth suffocated (and was under pressure). Big deal. The mammoth might have easily just fallen into a lake or river, and then crushed sometime later. Of course, the alternative is that a giant flood wiped it out (Noah’s flood).

This is not serious science, and it is an affront to real scientists to even use the word science to describe the book.

watchman220's avatar

I won’t pretend to know who you are or what you believe. But it sounds to me like you have certain of your own preconceptions. And that you rely on certain “proven” assumptions about what “your science” of “evolution” has determined is true.

The mountain of assumptions that make up evolutionary science is what I am challenging. I don’t expect you to understand if you truly believe that your “science” has proven certain facts.

The same way the world’s scientists used to say the world was flat, until “science” proved otherwise, I believe that “false assumptions” are being disproved and will eventually be totally disregarded as “flat”.

I already mentioned information about the faulty assumptons of Carbon 14 dating. From this book, and you have not addressed that either.

The worst assumption is that all things have always continued as they are, trees and animals being slowly buried by earth turning into carbon based energy material.

(Which makes no sense at all anyway, because when something like an animal dies in the wilderness, it is eaten quickly by scavengers and the bones decay and decompose in the sun until they are dust. Not buried and compressed. They don’t sink into the soil and turn into oil either.)

And how did billions of barrels worth of oil get buried in massive underground deposits that have powered the last century of our petroleum needs. Wouldn’t that have to be alot of carbon based material buried altogether at the same time in the same place?

How can you possibly answer these questions with “evolutionary scientific assumptions” when we see the clearly observable events of life and death and decay every day that science has had a chance to observe contradicting common sense?

Where is the next big oil reservoir going to be found? Oh wait…we don’t know that right? Cause it will take millions of years for it to form I suppose?

But how is it that we are talking about finite resources on the planet, and we will consume all the oil eventually and there will not be any left for humanity to find? Why is there not some evidence of a large oil deposit forming right now? If there is one, would you please tell me where and how it is happening?

It is time to look past the “proven facts of evolution” and start using common sense…I know…it’s not “scientific”...
But honestly, if you can not see these simple observable truths and seriously address their conflict with “evolutionary facts” then I want no part of your “science” ever.

Evolutionary theory is also a list of questions about what might be. Despite the assertions of proof, which are miserable logic at best and downright deceptions at the worst.


shilolo's avatar

Believe what you want. Get an education. Then, come back and talk to me.

watchman220's avatar

oooh shilolo, bows down at his feet, I am not worthy of your magnanimous presence or omniscient knowledge oh great sir.
Please forgive my intrusion into your domain.

Judi's avatar

Be nice.

Maverick's avatar

@watchman220 Being a dick certainly doesn’t help your case. Reading through this thread I think we get it, you believe that creationism and science can (and do) co-exist. That’s great. I disagree, but only because creationism is based on faith and science is based on fact. You say that thousands of years of scientific fact is based on “assumptions”, just like religion, and therefore no one assumption should have priority over the other. However, your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed as the whole basis of the scientific method us to remove all assumptions. Once you’ve removed all assumptions, evaluated the evidence, tested your hypotisis, and undergone peer review, then you are left with facts that can be used in future analysis – not assumptions. The nature of the scientific method means that if even if one piece of new evidence was subjected to this testing and supported creationism, then our entire model would have to change (and scientists wouldn’t oppose it either as it would have been vetted by them). Science would not look at this as a bad thing – quite the contrary. It would be advancing human knowledge. So far, despite millions of examples from the fossil record, not one has validated creationism.

tinyfaery's avatar

Jack Adams was booted but not watchman? Almost every post is rude and insulting. Mods?

watchman220's avatar

Well I apologize then…I certainly don;t want the boot. But it seems that shilolo was a bit offensive as well.

It is so amazing to me…that you really do not see something as simple as flawed fundamental assumption of carbon 14 dating would not affect your viewpoint or draw into question the assumption that Carbon 14 is a valid dating mechanism.

Every thing I bring up you challenge without any intelligent reply…you jsut sit on your science laurels and expect me to believe that your peer review, vetted, evidence is enough to convince anyone.

So let me ask you plain and simple.
If the accepted equilibrium level of carbon 14 is found to actually not have reached equilibrium, but instead has been found to be still rising in it’s percentage in the atmosphere and living organisms now, (because they ingest it through the plant life) and scientists are using this suggested carbon 14 equalized figure, wouldn’t you expect someone to pay attention, and re-evaluate previous conclusions?

It is my opinion that evolution scientists do not want to acknowledge this reality because the only explanation of a massive drop of carbon 14 would be the burial of essentially all organic material by the chaos of a world wide flood.

If that happened than they might have to acknowledge that God was responsible. And then they would have to deal with that reality, which is altogether humbling and different than their own theories.

Here is the scenario.

carbon 14 has a half life of about 5730 years.
If you had 2 percent of carbon 14 material in an organic dead life form today.
You could expect that the percentage would be 1 percent in 5730 years from now because of the decay of the carbon 14 over the time of it’s half life.
If we are assuming a fixed percentage of 10 percent of carbon 14 exists in all organisms at their time of death, because the percentage has equalized over “billions of years”, then the measurement of 2.5 percent carbon 14 in the material would indicate that the organic structure has gone through 2 half life cycles of carbon 14 measuring 5730 years oach. Putting the age of the organism at 11460 years.
However if the level of carbon 14 has not equalized at 10 percent but is instead rising still. Than carbon 14 dating techniques utilizing an equilibrium figure of 10 percent would be wrong.

THis is what the text is saying…this is just one example which I am putting forth to suggest a closer look at what you assume is proven.

fireside's avatar

I’m no scientist, so I’ll leave the analysis of carbon 14 dating to others.

But I can say that with all the recent talk of the magnetic poles shifting and evidence of such shifts in the past, the occurrence of widespread flooding at some point in the earth’s history doesn’t seem to be a completely unscientific proposition.

“In a polar region there is a continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these asymmetrically deposited masses [of ice], and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.”
Albert Einstein From The Path of the Pole by Charles Hapgood

jvgr's avatar

That known geological, universal events occurred is fact.

To pin known events to a single book composed of written “records” by people often quite distant, timewise, from the events they “record”, and where similiar documents of a similar time were excluded simply because they didn’t “fit” makes the factual authority of the book dubious at best.

Every culture has an origin myth; myths that enable the adopters to try to understand the baffling world around them. The bible is fundamentally an origin myth. The industry that has been built on this myth is phenomenal. The “science of creation” is just another department in the industry.

Just how big was that ark Noah built?

fireside's avatar

I’m no biblical literalist and I am not trying to defend creation science. I believe the stories are reflecting real events that had been passed down through an oral tradition. Maybe Noah didn’t save all the animals on the planet in one ark, but that doesn’t mean that Noah never existed, or that there was no ark.

watchman220's avatar

Many things seem impossible until the reality is experienced. Some things are so heavily accepted in scientific circles as fact, that an entirely different system of events would appear as foolishness to the “wise” councils of the “educated”.

I don;t pretend to know the deep laws of physics, but when someone else with a PHd asks some hard questions about the status qou, I pay attention, especially when it favors my God. Yes I said it, especially when it favors my God.

I believe in micro-evolution aka adaptation as it is observable. Everything else in the evolutionary circle such as: cosmic origins, abiogenesis, macro-evolution from species to species, punctuated equalibrium. These things are not repeatable or observable events.

And contrary to a previous statement by shilolo. the millions of fossils do not prove evolution either…everyone just makes assumptions about what they find, based on the choice of beliefs that they make beforehand. They try to fill in the gaps with creative ideas about how their point of view must have been the reality of the day when the fossil died.

But I ask you, how is a fossil formed? When a fish dies, it floats to the top of the water, it gets eaten by scavengers, and there are few pieces remaining to fall to the bottom of the ocean and then be slowly buried by sediments on the ocean floor.

When a caribou dies in the African wilderness, it sits in the sun while scavengers fight over the flesh. When it is picked clean, the bones bio-degrade from the power of solar radiation, turning the bones into dust over a few years. They do not sink into the ground and become fossils.

How is it that so many fossils were grouped altogether in such vast quantities, if this as described above is the normal way of life? A fossil would be the exception, not the rule. A fossil record would be scanty at best.

But yet we have millions, probably billions of fossils throughout the earth, buried deeply in layers of sediment.
I would propose that these fossil layers do not equate to a timeline of millions and billions of years, but rather that they are layered in the sediments as they settled form a huge chaotic movement of soil and material in the catyclysmic throes of a global flood.

The world before this flood would be very different than what we see now.

The hydro-plate theory describes the movement of the earth’s crust as it is forced to move by the exploding mid-oceanic ridge. The crust was suspended on a massive layer of lubricating water. Hence the fountains of the deep were broken up and land masses were smashed together to create mountain ranges.

It’s all very interesting stuff in this text book of theories and practical evaluation.

Maverick's avatar

Ugh. I’m also done with this thread.

sndfreQ's avatar

@watchman220: respectfully, your points are taken, but no need to repeatedly drill us with the link; I think the previous four references should suffice.

watchman220's avatar

It’s strange to me that the only one who wrote a specific reply about the content of this subject and the numerous examples I cited, was Knotmyday. But even his response was lacking in content…except for sarcasm and poking fun at a very interesting subject with far reaching conclusions.

No one has taken the thread seriously…really.
sndfreQ…I appreciate at least the “respectfully, your points are taken.” I just wish there was more of a spcific response from those serious scientist types.

sndfreQ's avatar

@watchman220: okay…I’d be interested to hear if scientific minds from outside that sphere of thinking (your site referenced above), have engaged those theories.

I think that a general, commonly shared principle of science is that one’s logic can be challenged by another’s by way of the scientific method; it has been proven time and time again that science and knowledge are capable of evolving from that method of exchange of inquiry and discovery.

If there are supporting sites or other scientific inquiry that challenges or otherwise investigates those theories, then I think we’d have a more compelling conversation.
Basing a position as this one on one sole viewpoint seems to provide little for either side of the discussion.

jvgr's avatar

watchman220: Many of the cataclysmic events in the bible have been looked at with respect to known observable, measurable universal phenomena and, by back projection, created plausible suggestions about how these events may have occurred. It isn’t implausible that some of these events were coincidental with human events.

I bring up Noah for a variety of reasons:
The myth of a great flood is quite common among many cultures including the Native Americans, Hindu Puranas, the Greek God Deucalion, and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh (Babylonians). It is also shared by the Sumerians, Islams, Persians, the Chinese, Australians and many more. How do you know that the account of Noah is the right one?

The size of the ark is documented in the bible and based on one of the most ancient units of measurement, the cubit; first recorded in Egypt. The size of the ark describes a vessel that could not possibly contain 2 of every species of land animal.
So the creationists slice it up a bit and believe “kind” of animal is the correct one. So instead of pairs of lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, and all of the 40+ known species of cat existing today plus those that are extinct; we are left with a pair of what? lions, or tigers, or house cats…If so, how do we end up with such a variety of cats now? So when you account for all air breathing animals that exist now and are extinct, you either have an ark that couldn’t hold them all, or have selected the passengers that can’t explain the variety of the existing animals.

The concept of flooding the whole world is debatable from a biblical perspective. a people’s concept of the whole world was totally dependent on their physical experience.

Yes, there are petrified stumps of warm climate trees in Alberta. Simply because plate tectonics doesn’t account for 90 degree rotations of plates, doesn’t mean that your notion is correct. Evidence is overwhelming that the earth has experienced major climate changes.

Creationism is making an assumption that the picture of the world is a fact as described in a bible. You pick pieces to fit the picture. When you encounter a piece that doesn’t fit, you are left to invent a construct to rationalize it.

That isn’t scientific.

watchman220's avatar

I would disagree with your last statement. It is scientific to seek a construct that is not yet understood. In fact that is the basis of science. We do not invent constructs…we as well as evolutionary scientists are working within the realm of our own unique constructs to explain the fantastic and unknown.

I would be lying if I did not say “I already believe it.”
Evolutionary Science already believes it’s own story as well.
The only difference is their God is the “Big Bang” from which all life started. A random God, that defies the laws of their own scientific construction.
The second law of thermodynamics, “everything proceeds for a state of order to disorder.” And I do not want to hear arguments about oh that’s only in a closed system. Nonsense. How could an explosion of matter and energy that was all mysteriously compressed into a point smaller than the period on this page, turn into a universe full of ordered events, and randomly materialize all the perfect compenents for life to spring forth and stay in balance for even one day, much less billions of years?

Creationism is a belief that God did create the heavens and the earth. He also created all that live within it. He is the Lord of the Universe and all things consist by His power and by His command.

Creation Science is a system whereby we put as much of this evidence as possible to the test, challenging existing systems of thought that deny the plausibility of God and intelligent design. We do this by examining evidence the same way you do. With presuppositions about how things must have happened. Guessing like evolutionary scientists guess that one fact or another is true and building on a series of apparently true facts.

If you start with the root of one fact and grow the tree to look like that root…than you will continue to feed that tree until it fails it’s own tests and dies.

I fully expect you and any evolutionist to defend their belief about certain true facts, but I also challenge them to reevaluate what it would like if certain assumptions they base their conclusions on are not true, as has been reported abotu Carbon 14, by more than one person.

The book that I mentioned is the most brilliant work I have yet seen in the defense of creation science, as a legitimate and comparitive study of theories, challenging those which fall short and as well are unexplainable.

So there you have it…we both have unexplainable (apparently) issues with our theories of origins and other events that represent to very different world views.

For me the multitude of flood stories only confirms that the event happened worldwide and that the survivors share a common ancestry and tell the story from generation to generation. AS they physically moved to different locations and were geographically isolated in the world, by sinking masses of land, the culture developed and the stories continued.

If Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, with their respective wives, were the only ones remaining to repopoluate the earth, then perhaps a study of these generations would be merited to understand the commonalities of this story and the names and geography associated with it.

I am a truth seeker, not a story builder. I just want that much to be clear.

jvgr's avatar

I can see the futility of this discussion. (Actually I knew it before I started)

Your belief is your essential problem; trying to fit events in a manner that validates a document known to be inconsistent within itself, edited by exclusion, with words written by people far distant in time and space from the events recorded.

watchman220 “The only difference is their God is the “Big Bang” from which all life started. A random God, that defies the laws of their own scientific construction”

The heart of your problem is that all science regarding big bang, plate tectonics, evolution, etc doesn’t necessarily exclude your God; proving or disproving the concept of God isn’t the goal of science. All that science has found is, to me, pretty miraculous.

Your concern is only to rationalize the book called the bible in order to prove the existence of God.

watchman220's avatar

Well, in some repects I would agree with you. Futility? I don;t think so.
But I appreciate your candor at least in stating your belief of the goal of science.
That is the clearest answer yet I have attained.

So I would add this. For a believer in God, it is the goal of any scientific pursuit to understand how God fits into the equation, or if God fits at all.

My belief is the solution. Regardless of whether or not I understand the ultimate picture. It has shown more miraculous evidence to me than any science ever could.

I believe that science when it finally matures to it’s zenith will discover that the invisible stuff holding atoms together will be the force of God Himself. But I am sure they will call it something else. That is the way mankind works.

I have found that science and God are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you will come to that conclusion someday as well.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

Faith is what you have when reason runs out. There is no intellectual basis for creationism. It’s a faith-only based belief.

watchman220's avatar

Faith does not men “no brains”. I have thought harder about these things than you could apparently imagine.

For you…faith means the absence of reason. Don’t forget that this is your definition. Many others do not share your point of view.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

Nope, Watchman, I did not say “faith means the absence of reason.” I said “faith is what you have when reason runs out.” You can take reason and rationalization only so far, and then then you have to take it on faith.

To quote Alice in Wonderland on inverse relationships, “Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

Big difference.

watchman220's avatar

SO are you in favor of faith? or are you rather making this statement to demean those who have faith? Or perhaps you could care less? I see I must mean what I say when speaking to you…quite literally.

I should add that though the Bible talks about these events of creation and the flood, it is not merely their inclusion in this text that fuels the reasoning behind intelligent design. There is scientific reasoning as well that takes place in the studies of thsi topic.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

Oh, absolutely I believe in faith. But I also believe that in it’s time, the purpose of creating the Bible was for a very different purpose than what christians today purport it to be. Much of what’s in the Bible is supports other faith traditions. It is a collection of oral histories and traditions, assembled and written by men for the purpose of crafting a common body of knowledge. Do I believe the instructions of Jesus be followed? Absolutely. Do I think a lot of people lose the meaning of the instruction by hiding behind selected passages of the Bible.

The core teachings of Jesus can be distilled down to the Golden Rule, Lenders in the Temple Loaves and Fishes,Prodigal Son stories. Lazarus offers hope that we will live on after death. While it sounds simplifed, it’s really hard hard to do.

watchman220's avatar

SO the part where Jesus says,

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also.” ( John 14:6–7)

Should we jsut throw that part out for the sake of other religions?

And just to drive the point home. Acts 4:10–12 says:

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

CHristians are billed as intolerant because they refuse to move from this truth. But radical Islam is billed as tolerant for some strange reason, even though they suicide bomb people on a regular basis.

THe Bible says, Love Your Enemies and even die for them.

The quran says Kill your enemies, the infidels, the jews and the christians.

So even if you are not a radical islamic believer….the text of the Quran still specifically names to you (Jews and CHristians) those who should be killed because they do not believe as you.

Is there room in Islam for CHristians and Jews? No.

Is there room in Christianity or Judaism for Islamic believers? No.

THey are not tolerant of each other.
But intolerance of belief and intolerance of action are very different things.

What do you think about all that? In relation to the Bible.

I think it’s very clear that Jesus said there is no other way. So how does it support other faith traditions?

aidje's avatar

I thought this thread was about creationism….

watchman220's avatar

In a round about way it is. Yes we have veered way off topic. Sorry about that. I have posted several times about creation science and continue to get shot down by narrow minded evolutionists. Hey what do you do? What can I do? I am answering the questions as we move through different areas of this subject.

I think AlfredaPrufrock took us off course with the characterization of the bible as follows:

and I quote, “But I also believe that in it’s time, the purpose of creating the Bible was for a very different purpose than what christians today purport it to be. Much of what’s in the Bible is supports other faith traditions. It is a collection of oral histories and traditions, assembled and written by men for the purpose of crafting a common body of knowledge.”

Perhaps mankind has used the bible to fit their own ideas of what religion ought to be. If you notice, there is no answer from Alfreda yet, regarding the specific claims of Jesus in the bible.

I say all that to say this…Alfreda derailed the conversation about faith, which was in regard to what creation scientists believe. This is a common tactic and even normal reaction to this thread of conversation. When people do not have answers they immediately move towards discrediting the other person’t perceived source of information.

While it mightbe true that the bible is the source of our beliefs, it is not the sole evidence on which creation science is based. So let’s put that idea to rest. Creation Science has plenty to offer in the way of physical, logical, and empirical knowledge and proof. Some of that information seems counter-intuitive to what Evolution has proposed is already proven fact.

That is precisely the challenge I and others are making. Evolution is not the solid unmoveable bulwark of science that is they wish it was. It has become an idol to replace logic, and an excuse to ignore intelligent design and an intelligent creator.

The proof is everywhere. WHether or not you see the proof, depends on your predisposition towards evolution or creation. I would venture to say that evolutionists are the ones who are narrow minded and intolerant Dissallowing the conception of an intelligent designer closes the door on an otherwise brilliant mind.

Maverick's avatar

The only narrow mind on this thread appears to be you, watchman. Anyone favoring intelligent discourse has long since stopped following, which I also would have done if this damned iPhone interface allowed it. <sigh>

Lightlyseared's avatar

it always amuses me that research has found that in countries with higher rates of belief in creationism there are higher murder rates, more teen pregnacies and more STI’s from the Journal of Religion and Society (Paul S 2005)

robmandu's avatar

@Lightlyseared, that is interesting. Just wondering if those are predominately first-world countries.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Yep, in fact it’s predominately the US I’m afraid. European countries have low levels creationists according to these guys.

aidje's avatar

Brilliant. I don’t know why I didn’t think of that.


watchman220's avatar

so…this conversation has gonein the tank. Talk about keeping on topic. It is certainly not my fault this time. I would contest that theory and your findings by the way. It sounds like nonsense to me.

Lightlyseared's avatar

@watchman Not actually my findings I’m afraid, and if you want to contest the theory go to the library (I’ve given you reference) read the research and then come up with a counter argument to explain the facts however if you want that argument to be taken seriously then you are going to have to learn how to construct an argument. Just saying “I’d contest that theory” don’t really cut it just as saying ” Creation Science has plenty to offer in the way of physical, logical, and empirical knowledge and proof.” with out actually offering any proof does’t help much either. Also you say the bible isn’t the sole source of your beliefs but you don’t provide an example of any other sources of your beliefs, which might be taken to sugest that there are no other sources to creationists beliefs.

Saying that evolution is not the solid unmoveable bulwark of science that is they wish it was demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific principles. _Nothing in science is unmovable. Everything is being questioned everyday and if new evidence comes to light there can be massive shifts in basic scientific knowledge almost overnight. For example once it was thought that time was a constant and could not be changed however, experimental evedince showed that time was relative to speed and the belief that time was a constant changed. Just because scientific changes is no reason to say, as you do, all science is wrong.

You go on to say proof is everywhere. What proof? You can’t say proof is everywhere and expect people to accept that without trying to demonstrate what proof you are talking about.

watchman220's avatar

I have posted numerous times to this thread and discussed some of the basic ideas that I would illustrate as challenging to the status quo of evolutionary science. Please read above if you want to take the discussion seriously.
Or you could just read this serious book online…
It truly does justice to comparitive theories for a plethora of topics in the evolutionary science realm.
If you read it then we can talk about a serious challenge.
I have read the whole thing. It makes sense to me.

Lightlyseared's avatar

@watchman I’m sorry. Maybe you didn’t understand quite what I was getting at in my previous post. Firstly lets get some housework out of the way. I have read your previous posts. I have also looked at the link you have provided twice but I should like you to know that just because something has a website or has been published in a book does not mean that I will accept it unquestioningly. This attitude does not just extend to creationism but also evolution for example, the aquatic ape hypothesis has just as many holes as the work of Walt Brown.

The point I was trying to make is that you are stating things as facts with out providing any evidence to support them. That is not a discussion. Repeating your self over and over is not a discussion. Using scientific terms which you admit you do not understand does not make a discussion, and endlessly repeating material from the same single (and might I add highly questrionable soucre) does NOT make a discussion.

watchman220's avatar

It is precisely the case, that this highly questionable resource of information is what I seek to be questioned. For one issue to be answered by you as you seek an answer from me. If you are the expert then give me a definitive answer on a comparison of facts about Carbon 14 dating, answering the questions posed by this “questionable resource”.
This resource and this point of view challenge the view of evolution that carbon 14 dating methods are accurate. He proclaims them innacurate. I have included details of the argument even in this forum, as well as links to the specific resource information, but I have yet to receive an answer with any real information about this subject. I receive only answers that debate my style of posting.
Of course you will not accept something without question. That is the whole point! But perhaps you or some other brilliant adversary of this “questionable resource” would care to intelligently and coherently give reasons for the questionable nature of this resource.
No has done this yet. THey have only, as you have, stated that these ideas are bad, or questionable, without addressing even one detail.
THat just blows dude. All of you…get some guts. Or perhaps you just don’t care enough to craft a thoughtful response.

fireside's avatar

Watchman, I think the problem is that by only posting a link to the same website over and over, you appear to many as a spammer just trying to promote a website. That said, you do appear to be sincere in your beliefs and so I would suggest that the better approach would be to find other sources to back up your beliefs. Single sources are usually easier to dismiss.

For example:

Darwin’s Own Words When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed …nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. Letter to G. Bentham May 22, (1863)

Evolutionary Theology: Dowd, who professed sympathy for intelligent design supporters but criticized their reactionary, circle-the-wagons approach to modernity, doesn’t think evolution is mechanistic or pointless. He sees a universal evolutionary trajectory from disorder to order, simplicity to complexity and brutality to cooperation—and that, he believes, is the grand narrative that will sustain the science-friendly religions of the 21st century.

Peer-Reviewed Creation Science Journal: Indeed, for anyone looking to demonstrate “the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of ‘created kinds,’ and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins,” Answers will be veritable manna.

Peer Review of Creationism: Kulikovsky also points out that peer review, while a good practice and measure, is not infallible, does not guarantee quality or correctness, does not prevent fraud, and is rarely objective—which should be one of the greatest attributes of true science.

8 year study of Carbon 14 Dating: Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed in chapter 9. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

Top Ten Myths about Evolution

watchman220's avatar

Well I give you props for the best post I have seen yet on fluther. Your point is well taken, and I will look into your “resources” as posted.

I am actually amazed that you took the time.


Psychedelic_Zebra's avatar

To add fuel to an already burning fire, a wise man once said, “As soon as you add the supernatural to the scientific process, than all evidence might as well go out the window.”

Something I just can’t get across to most organized religious believers is that God can be anything you want it to be, all you have to do is believe. My god happens to be a 300 ft tall black woman with six breasts. That is not anymore fanciful than anything else I have ever read in ANY other religious tome. My religion happens to be new; with no historical significance, in other words it wasn’t created in the days of Bronze Age goat herders and desert nomads. Is it any less credible on the face of it? No, not really. It is sure one heck of a lot more fun, though.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther