As
a short preface to my arguments, I would like to set the ground work
by explaining how
I came to this. I was made aware of a recent exchange of ideas a
dear friend of mine had with a family member.
I will thus structure my arguments in direct correlation to the
concerns raised in their
discussions. Please
forgive me for this rather exhaustive response, however this is a
huge controversy(in
some circles)
which goes beyond simple rhetoric and is widely misunderstood.
First,
we should begin by defining
terms. In doing so, we will look at not just the dictionary
definitions of terms, but we shall look at the semantics of how the
words are used. The most important is the term theory. Meriam
webster provides the definition of theory as follows:
:an
idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
:an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but
that is not known or proven to be true :the general principles or
ideas that relate to a particular subject
From
the standard dictionary definition of the word theory, it appears as
a loose abstraction of the idea,a
guess or conjecture. However
in science, the word theory
has a slightly different
meaning. A scientific theory is defined further as you scroll down
the page in the
link provided for Meriam
webster you see it also
gives the definition of theory as
:
a body of theorems
presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
:
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
:
a plausible
or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles
offered to explain phenomena
:
a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on
experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is
accepted as a basis for experimentation
e.g. (the theory of
Gravity, The fundamental theory of algebra, the fundamental theory of
Calculus, Set theory, ..etc..)
Unfortunately, we
must belabor this explanation of what theory means and how it is used
in science. A scientific theory is described by
wikipedia
as:
...a
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world
that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested
and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most
(if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are
inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory
capability.
Wikipedia
is peer edited so to alleviate any concerns that this article has
been edited to fit the argument we shall look at a few sources:
We shall stop at
just these four because at the bottom of the wikipedia article there
is a significant list of sources to browse at your leisure. What can
be deduced from this is that a theory is the next step after a
hypothesis has stood up to systematic scrutiny. In science an
observation, and the hypothesis to explain that observation goes
through a an extensive series of tests. The tests are designed not to
prove the hypothesis, but in corollary to disprove the hypothesis.(
As a brief aside, a hypothesis that has no observable or disprovable
properties that can be tested experimentally will not be considered
further than a mere philosophical thought experiment.) Once
a hypothesis has been tested exhaustively to the satisfaction of the
proponents it is than submitted
for peer review and tested by
different scientists or teams of scientists in
the relevant field to see if they can disprove it.
To keep us on topic
another definition that needs to be clarified is exactly what
evolution is as a dictionary word and how it is used semantically in
the evolutionary theory. Again to source from
Meriam
Webster evolution is defined as
: the process by
which changes in plants and animals happen over time
: a process of slow change and development
Wikipedia
gives a slightly different definition:
The article on
wikipedia is fairly comprehensive and lists over 300 sources and has
many other book references that are too long to list again in this
letter. The vast number of sources to this should give us many
starting points to go from to discover the true meaning of evolution.
The
etymology of the word evolution
shows the base word evolve come from the Latin word evolvere
meaning, to unroll, roll
out, roll forth, unfold so in adopting the word into English it was
used in the figurative sense as, to develop or make clear. It
wasn't until later that it was adopted into biology to describe the
observable differences in species.
Evolution has also
been used as a general word to describe something changing or
improving over time.
Sources for this
section:
Now
that a few definitions are out of the way we will start working
through a few of the arguments brought up.
Radiocarbon
in Diamonds.
The
theory of Evolution is a biological framework and is not directly
applicable to this argument as this is a geological question.
However I must assume that in listing this, it is an attempt to
counter the time frame needed for some biological evolutionary
processes.
The
radiocarbon in diamonds
argument is interesting. The
origin of this argument comes from the RATE (Radioisotopes
and the Age of The Earth) team from The
ICR (Institute for
Creation Research). They spent 8 years studying radio carbon dating
and diamonds. A brief abstract is from the
answers
in genesis website that claims that natural diamonds can not have
“intrinsic carbon-14” if they are older than the age limit of
radiocarbon dating. The samples obtained by the rate group was said
to have dated these at a much lower age than from where they were
found. About 70k years when the sample should have been around 100
billion years.
A peer review of
this study can be found at
talk
origins. ( A side note to this, is that this is exactly how
science works, all experiments are peer reviewed and repeated to find
errors. Even the reviews that say they find errors are reviewed. In a
general it is an evolutionary process of constant critique).
In the critique we
have statements from the experts that tested the samples, who explain
that the samples where contaminated. It is important to note here
that even in the write up on the study form answers in genesis which
is an affiliate of the ICR says “Confirmation that there is
in
situ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported ..”. the
phrase
in situ means simply in its natural place. In the context given
it means that there was contamination of the samples at the site it
was collected and/or the samples were not properly handled or
prepped for the dating process. Now we can assume that the samples
were properly handled and prepped for dating, and still we could get
a contaminated sample.
For organic
materials the beta wave radiation of C-14 is often replaced by cosmic
ray radiation
Radiocarbon dating
is a very complex process and the samples can become contaminated
from a variety of sources after being collected, during transport and
during preparation. There are many factors involved which is why a
single study on a sample set is insufficient.
It is also important
to note that Radiocarbon dating of natural diamonds specifically is
not capable of getting any accurate measurements at all. In fact
radiocarbon dating of diamonds will only provide you with the age of
contaminants on or in the samples. Due to the nature of how diamonds
are formed
Uranium-lead
dating is the current best method to obtain an accurate date of
diamonds.
Other resources on
C-14 dating can be found at the following:
3.
UCSB
(university of California Santa Barbara)
Other sources for
Uranium-lead dating.
3.
GSU
(Georgia State University)
Recession
of the moon
This
argument is more for the mathematics and physics fields and is also
outside the realm of biological Evolution. However, it appears to be
another challenge to time frame in which biological evolution takes
place.
This
argument really does not have a direct scientific basis that I can
find but what I have found comes from Thomas Barnes from the
Institute for creation research (ICR) where he takes an excerpt from
a 1963 paper discussing the the problems with the current formulation
of the effects of the tidal force between the earth and the moon. I
was unable to find any current scientific references to show how this
has any merit as an argument against the age of the earth. However, I
did find that the study of the earth moon relationship has evolved
significantly since 1963 and even further since 1982 when Thomas
Barnes quoted this paper. I am not a physicist so I can not justify
this argument for either side of the proposition. However I invite
more independent research. Some sources can be found at :talk
origins there is a discussion about the mathematics behind it as
well as a list of independent sources to explain the issues.
Earth’s
Decaying Magnetic Field
This argument also goes to the age of
the earth and is another argument proposed originally by Barnes and
Humphreys at the Institute for creation research. The basic premise
of it is the the earth magnetic field is decreasing and this somehow
shows that the earth is not as old as it is. The argument proposes
that the earths magnetic filed is an accurate dating mechanic for the
age of the earth. The Humphreys/Barnes proposal relies on the
fluctuations of the dipole
which shows a downward trend and they propose that this means that
the dipole would be catastrophically high if the earth was older than
a few thousand years. There is no evidence showing this to be the
case. The only evidence provided is that the dipole is in fact
fluctuating as it does naturally. Following the evidence of how this
fluctuates it will eventually flip it's polarity as shown in some of
the sources below.
The discussion of this is found at the
ICR
. A few of the refutations, explanations, and empirical data on
this can be found at:
4. BBC
(British Broadcasting)
6. MIT
(PDF a basic overview of the earth's magnetic field and its
fluctuations. )
Dinosaur
Soft Tissue
This
may also tie in with the DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria. argument
This
one was actually fun to research, a Paleontologist Mary
Schweitzer from the University of North Carolina discovered soft
tissues preserved inside the bone of a t-rex, and in an article from
the
Smithsonian
she describes her discovery. Schweitzer is a Christian herself and
describes in the Article how her research and data had been
manipulated to fit the narrative of the “young earth creationists”.
The discovery of
soft tissue in a fossil can be interpreted a few different ways.
First, it could mean there is something we don't understand about
fossilization. Second, the bone could not actually be from a t-rex.
Third, it's a hoax. The third option has already been ruled out,
because peer review and supporting evidence of the actual
discovery(lab reports, etc..) Also from the peer review, radiometric
dating and consistency with the other evidence it is in fact a t-rex
bone. So this really only leaves the first option,there is something
we don't understand. Upon doing some research, and setting up
experiments
Berkly
national lab found that iron in the tissue can act as
preservation agent for soft tissues and blood vessels.
http://www-als.lbl.gov/index.php/holding/951-iron-is-the-key-to-preserving-dinosaur-soft-tissue.html
Human
Population Growth
Nation
center for science education has a great article on this claim,
but to summarize; Henry M Morris devised a formula to describe how
the population could be sustained starting from 4300BC by only two
individuals. This formula was devised from the human population
statistics from 1930 and leaves out all of the other factors
effecting human population growth. It also leaves out the recorded
events of world history such as the
bubonic plague, which wiped out nearly half the worlds population
in the 14
th century. Also if you would apply this formula
to other populations such as snowshoe rabbits, and other animals it
show that all the animals didn't appear until around 1880.
The most
important flaw in this formulation is we have no real data on earlier
human populations to get an accurate growth rate to use in a
calculation.
For human
population growth there is some evidence from the theory of
evolution. By looking at the fossil record and with the thousands of
transitional
fossils we now have to work with we can use evolution to describe
the types of features human and other species would need to survive
in the different climates and environments in the past. We can also
determine which strata certain fossils of early humans will be found.
Using ice
core samples from sources like
National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration we can determine the
features a species must have in order to survive in different points
in history and extrapolate a relative date for early humans which is
how we find fossils like “
Lucy”
('Australopithecus afarensis') in 1974 and “
Ardi”
('Ardipithecus ramidus')
Things
we can observe like the erosion of Niagara falls, etc, why
is it not bigger [?]
Niagara
Falls is not typical of most waterfalls. It was formed not by
erosion but from glacial ice breaking apart (src
1
,
2
)
around 12,000 years ago(src 3
, 4 ). The
features of Niagara
falls result in type of erosion called Cavitation
(PDF) which has significantly less erosive force. Currently
efforts in hydroelectric power generation and other flow diversions
have slowed the rate of erosion with estimates keeping it from being
a mere lake for another 50-100k years.
I'll
come back to the rest of the points when I have more time to work on
it, but they all center around the same idea that the earth is not
old enough for evolution to occur. The age of the earth was not
determined dogmatically nor by a single method or person. Various
forms of radiometric dating, ice core dating, tree-ring dating
Geological surveys,Lead Isochronal dating, and several other
empirical disciplines give the same approximations.
All
of the various repeatable and verifiable measurement techniques all
converge on the same answer,approximately 4.5 Billion years.
Here
is a list of sources to the age of the earth to look at for yourself.
7.
Harvard
Gazette .edu (new meteorite discoveries further refine the
Earth's age..still converging on 4.5 billion)
20. To add a little
bit of fun and controversy to this discussion the evidence for
evolution is so overwhelming that the not even the Pope denies it.
(Source:
Salon.com
)
