Just donate it to SciForums.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Old or Young Earth? (Revised)
- Thread starter NDS
- Start date
IAC's Global Flood Model assumes that 10 millions species "evolved" from 500 "kinds" of animals within a few hundred years. Here is why that is absurd (beyond obvious reasons):
Animals on the Ark
The young-earth model assumes Noah took pairs of the originally created "kinds" on the ark-virtually everything but insects and sea creatures.22 However, the Genesis flood account uses two different Hebrew words, nephesh and basar, to describe the animals taken aboard the ark. The word nephesh refers to "soulish" creatures that can relate to humans. The word basar refers to certain birds and mammals that interact with humans.23 Thus, the ark did not contain representatives of all the originally created "kinds." It only contained certain species of birds and mammals that lived within the reach of the Flood's devastation and were important to Noah's short-term survival.
The young-earth model also assumes the animals on the ark were unique-they possessed special genetic coding that allowed them to quickly adapt to the post-Flood environment and produce new species. However, nowhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim. If modern species descended from common ancestors on the ark, we would expect to find evidence of intermediate forms. We would also expect to see thousands of new species arising today. However, nothing we observe suggests today's species descended from common ancestors on the ark.24
In fact, rapid post-Flood extinctions seem to argue against the position the ark animals were endowed with special qualities. Young-earth creationists maintain God programmed the animals so they could survive and repopulate the earth. Yet, according to their model, a significant number of animals became extinct shortly after the Flood. For example, they contend Noah took dinosaurs on the ark but they were not able to survive the harsh post-Flood conditions and went extinct.25 If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?
Rapid Speciation (LOL)
The young-earth model assumes the animals on the ark were able to produce new species in a few hundred years. We know this is the maximum timeframe because historical records indicate some of the subtypes were in existence by then. However, animals, especially advanced animals, simply do not and cannot change at such rapid rates. If speciation really does operate this fast, why does any line exist at all that is stable enough and distinct enough to be called a species? Why is not the world filled with intermediate forms of every conceivable kind? Why have some species not changed from their ancestors in the fossil record?46 And why do we not witness thousands of animals species developing from others today?47
Young-earth creationists say no reputable creationist denies the fact of speciation.48 They also say examples of rapid adaptation-even to the extent of producing new species-abound.49 As evidence, they point to populations of mosquitoes, salmon and other creatures that no longer interbreed with their main populations.50,51 However, these are examples of reproductive isolation-as subpopulations get isolated they often won't interbreed with the main population due to behavioral reasons. For example, fish living in the same lake can acquire different food choices, which leads to different sizes and different mating preferences. For the young-earth model to be true, these processes need to able to produce macro changes and new organisms.
Ironically, many evolutionists now question whether descent through modification (natural selection working on random genetic variations or mutations) can produce the amount of change required to account for the diverse body plans and organs animals exhibit. Studies indicate few populations have the capacity to survive even normal environmental fluctuations.52 They also indicate small, isolated populations are not an advantage but a disadvantage because they give rise to serious genetic defects.53 Thus, the young-earth contention that genetic shuffling is capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact.54 Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental recessive mutations.
Horizontal Change
According to the young-earth model, the changes in species were horizontal and at the same level of complexity.55 However, this is not what we observe. An example is the so-called daughter species of the Bear "kind." Sloth Bears have a specialized head and dental structure that creates a vacuum device for consuming termites. Polar Bears have webbed feet and specialized fur, dentition and digestive tracts. The Panda Bear has a specialized thumb, head, reproductive system and esophagus.56 In claiming these changes were horizontal, young-earth creationists do the same thing evolutionists do: they extrapolate microevolutionary changes over long periods of time to produce new biological structures without considering the requisite organic and physiologic adaptations that are required.
Young-earth creationists claim the original "kinds" were designed with more allele variation (alleles are different versions of the same gene) than we observe in current species. According to their theory, the alleles segregated to produce today's species. This is problematic for several reasons. First, genetic differences between alleles are never very great. Second, alleles segregate randomly unless they are closely linked, in which case they tend to be inherited together. Independent alleles would have segregated to the fullest extent between the creation and the Flood-about 1,500 years by their calculations-producing all possible species well before the Flood. Third, linked alleles segregate much too slowly to support the young-earth speciation timetable.
Young-earth creationists also maintain the changes that produced new species were not evolutionary in nature. The reason, they say, is "information." Evolution involves the mutation of new genes and new genetic information. Thus, evolution is a process of progress where better and better species evolve. Speciation, on the other hand, is a degradative process. Through the reproduction of a limited number of individuals, genetic information is recombined and genes and/or gene function is lost. Thus, the daughter species have less "information" than the parent population. Therefore, since no new information is produced in their model, they say it cannot be called evolution.57,58
However, while young-earth creationists assert no new information is being produced, they do indirectly argue for new information. A gene sequence is basically a combination of letters. The information conveyed by the sequence is both syntactic and semantic-the genes occur in a certain order (syntactic information) and certain sequences have meaning attached to them (semantic information). Thus, when genes are shuffled and the sequence changes, the code changes and takes on a new meaning. Thus, the changes young-earth creationists attribute to genetic reshufflings are the result of new instructions-new functional semantic information-that is conveyed by the new, reshuffled genetic sequence.59
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speciation.php
This is a great article by the way.
Here is one of my main problems with the super genetic "kinds" idea. From the fossil record we know that there was incredible diversity displayed in ancient times. There were thousands of separate "species" and no signs whatsoever of a Super Genetic "kind" in the fossil record. The point being, NOAH HAD NO SUPER GENETIC "KINDS" AVAILABLE TO TAKE ON THE ARK AT THE TIME OF THE FLOOD SINCE FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD WE KNOW THAT ALL THE ORIGINAL KINDS HAD ALREADY EVOLVED INTO THEIR SEPARATE SPECIES, AND HAD GONE INTO NONEXISTENCE.
I predict that IAC will not respond to the clear problems with his GFM presented above. Instead, he will respond with a one-liner, useless comment which is his way of trying to appear "confident" due to his demeaning and seemingly "non-caring" tone but which instead only serves to indicate that he has no response, and thus no argument.
Animals on the Ark
The young-earth model assumes Noah took pairs of the originally created "kinds" on the ark-virtually everything but insects and sea creatures.22 However, the Genesis flood account uses two different Hebrew words, nephesh and basar, to describe the animals taken aboard the ark. The word nephesh refers to "soulish" creatures that can relate to humans. The word basar refers to certain birds and mammals that interact with humans.23 Thus, the ark did not contain representatives of all the originally created "kinds." It only contained certain species of birds and mammals that lived within the reach of the Flood's devastation and were important to Noah's short-term survival.
The young-earth model also assumes the animals on the ark were unique-they possessed special genetic coding that allowed them to quickly adapt to the post-Flood environment and produce new species. However, nowhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim. If modern species descended from common ancestors on the ark, we would expect to find evidence of intermediate forms. We would also expect to see thousands of new species arising today. However, nothing we observe suggests today's species descended from common ancestors on the ark.24
In fact, rapid post-Flood extinctions seem to argue against the position the ark animals were endowed with special qualities. Young-earth creationists maintain God programmed the animals so they could survive and repopulate the earth. Yet, according to their model, a significant number of animals became extinct shortly after the Flood. For example, they contend Noah took dinosaurs on the ark but they were not able to survive the harsh post-Flood conditions and went extinct.25 If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?
Rapid Speciation (LOL)
The young-earth model assumes the animals on the ark were able to produce new species in a few hundred years. We know this is the maximum timeframe because historical records indicate some of the subtypes were in existence by then. However, animals, especially advanced animals, simply do not and cannot change at such rapid rates. If speciation really does operate this fast, why does any line exist at all that is stable enough and distinct enough to be called a species? Why is not the world filled with intermediate forms of every conceivable kind? Why have some species not changed from their ancestors in the fossil record?46 And why do we not witness thousands of animals species developing from others today?47
Young-earth creationists say no reputable creationist denies the fact of speciation.48 They also say examples of rapid adaptation-even to the extent of producing new species-abound.49 As evidence, they point to populations of mosquitoes, salmon and other creatures that no longer interbreed with their main populations.50,51 However, these are examples of reproductive isolation-as subpopulations get isolated they often won't interbreed with the main population due to behavioral reasons. For example, fish living in the same lake can acquire different food choices, which leads to different sizes and different mating preferences. For the young-earth model to be true, these processes need to able to produce macro changes and new organisms.
Ironically, many evolutionists now question whether descent through modification (natural selection working on random genetic variations or mutations) can produce the amount of change required to account for the diverse body plans and organs animals exhibit. Studies indicate few populations have the capacity to survive even normal environmental fluctuations.52 They also indicate small, isolated populations are not an advantage but a disadvantage because they give rise to serious genetic defects.53 Thus, the young-earth contention that genetic shuffling is capable of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than fact.54 Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental recessive mutations.
Horizontal Change
According to the young-earth model, the changes in species were horizontal and at the same level of complexity.55 However, this is not what we observe. An example is the so-called daughter species of the Bear "kind." Sloth Bears have a specialized head and dental structure that creates a vacuum device for consuming termites. Polar Bears have webbed feet and specialized fur, dentition and digestive tracts. The Panda Bear has a specialized thumb, head, reproductive system and esophagus.56 In claiming these changes were horizontal, young-earth creationists do the same thing evolutionists do: they extrapolate microevolutionary changes over long periods of time to produce new biological structures without considering the requisite organic and physiologic adaptations that are required.
Young-earth creationists claim the original "kinds" were designed with more allele variation (alleles are different versions of the same gene) than we observe in current species. According to their theory, the alleles segregated to produce today's species. This is problematic for several reasons. First, genetic differences between alleles are never very great. Second, alleles segregate randomly unless they are closely linked, in which case they tend to be inherited together. Independent alleles would have segregated to the fullest extent between the creation and the Flood-about 1,500 years by their calculations-producing all possible species well before the Flood. Third, linked alleles segregate much too slowly to support the young-earth speciation timetable.
Young-earth creationists also maintain the changes that produced new species were not evolutionary in nature. The reason, they say, is "information." Evolution involves the mutation of new genes and new genetic information. Thus, evolution is a process of progress where better and better species evolve. Speciation, on the other hand, is a degradative process. Through the reproduction of a limited number of individuals, genetic information is recombined and genes and/or gene function is lost. Thus, the daughter species have less "information" than the parent population. Therefore, since no new information is produced in their model, they say it cannot be called evolution.57,58
However, while young-earth creationists assert no new information is being produced, they do indirectly argue for new information. A gene sequence is basically a combination of letters. The information conveyed by the sequence is both syntactic and semantic-the genes occur in a certain order (syntactic information) and certain sequences have meaning attached to them (semantic information). Thus, when genes are shuffled and the sequence changes, the code changes and takes on a new meaning. Thus, the changes young-earth creationists attribute to genetic reshufflings are the result of new instructions-new functional semantic information-that is conveyed by the new, reshuffled genetic sequence.59
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speciation.php
This is a great article by the way.
Here is one of my main problems with the super genetic "kinds" idea. From the fossil record we know that there was incredible diversity displayed in ancient times. There were thousands of separate "species" and no signs whatsoever of a Super Genetic "kind" in the fossil record. The point being, NOAH HAD NO SUPER GENETIC "KINDS" AVAILABLE TO TAKE ON THE ARK AT THE TIME OF THE FLOOD SINCE FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD WE KNOW THAT ALL THE ORIGINAL KINDS HAD ALREADY EVOLVED INTO THEIR SEPARATE SPECIES, AND HAD GONE INTO NONEXISTENCE.
I predict that IAC will not respond to the clear problems with his GFM presented above. Instead, he will respond with a one-liner, useless comment which is his way of trying to appear "confident" due to his demeaning and seemingly "non-caring" tone but which instead only serves to indicate that he has no response, and thus no argument.
IAC's Global Flood Model assumes that 10 millions species "evolved" from 500 "kinds" of animals within a few hundred years. Here is why that is absurd (beyond obvious reasons):
I predict that IAC will not respond to the clear problems with his GFM presented above. Instead, he will respond with a one-liner, useless comment which is his way of trying to appear "confident" due to his demeaning and seemingly "non-caring" tone but which instead only serves to indicate that he has no response, and thus no argument.
I would have put 'guarantee' rather than 'predict'. But you're right.
He's like one of those cheesy reality shows; Can be entertaining if not taken seriously.
What it comes down to is the fact that IAC has a very weak argument for his absurd hypothesis which relies primarily on magic and is basically one big assumption. I've posed various problems with his theory to him, and he has not responded to any of them, because he has none.
What it comes down to is the fact that IAC has a very weak argument for his absurd hypothesis which relies primarily on magic and is basically one big assumption. I've posed various problems with his theory to him, and he has not responded to any of them, because he has none.
Hey dude, you're 'preaching to the choir' (pun fully intended). I just take his one-liners with a grain of salt.
Now, for the topic at hand;
We, as humans, have pretty much proven and established that humans originated in Africa (not Mesopotamia (Middle East)) as the bible implies. Mesopotamia might be the cradle of civilization, but it's not the cradle of man.
We've also established that humans are waaaaay older than 6,000 years. Recorded history, IIRC, is about 6,000 years old though. Maybe that's why the theists think the earth is that old. Maybe earth in 'the earth is 6,000 years old' is a metaphor for how old civilization is. But that doesn't make the earth itself just 6,000 years old though.
You don't have to use any carbon or radiometric dating to see this. You can easily see it in the different layers of the earth.
Where are vast stacks of sedimentary layers being formed on the continents today?
Take, for example, the Green River formation in Wyoming. It contains more than 4,000,000 layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain freshwater lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river is able to carry coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and it can only carry less-coarse material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.
Studies of present-day lakes don't always show two layers per year. There might be a cycle of 2, 3 or 4 distinct sediments, and then the same cycle repeats. But in the Green River varves, the cycle has only two layers - a fine light sediment, and an even finer dark sediment.
And of course the occasional storm might add an extra layer. However, this hardly turns millions of layers into a 6,000 year project.
The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river is able to carry coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and it can only carry less-coarse material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.
Studies of present-day lakes don't always show two layers per year. There might be a cycle of 2, 3 or 4 distinct sediments, and then the same cycle repeats. But in the Green River varves, the cycle has only two layers - a fine light sediment, and an even finer dark sediment.
And of course the occasional storm might add an extra layer. However, this hardly turns millions of layers into a 6,000 year project.
NDS said:Take, for example, the Green River formation in Wyoming. It contains more than 4,000,000 layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain freshwater lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
The basic reason for varves is that rivers run faster in the spring. A flooding river is able to carry coarse material. During the rest of the year, the river is slower, and it can only carry less-coarse material. The result is that lake bottom deposits tend to alternate, coarse/fine/coarse/fine.
Studies of present-day lakes don't always show two layers per year. There might be a cycle of 2, 3 or 4 distinct sediments, and then the same cycle repeats. But in the Green River varves, the cycle has only two layers - a fine light sediment, and an even finer dark sediment.
And of course the occasional storm might add an extra layer. However, this hardly turns millions of layers into a 6,000 year project.
...do you ask these questions merely to see what we would say?Where are vast stacks of sedimentary layers being formed on the continents today?
You are familiar with the internet aren't you? There is a website called www.google.com. It's a search engine. You could type in, say, 'continental sedimentary layers' and it will magically turn up millions of websites and links on that issue. Some of which might even take you to websites that would provide you answers very similar to what NDS has so graciously provided for us above.
(I figured I'd give the same type of response that theists give us (like, 'go read the bible' or 'the bible has all the answers') when we ask them logical questions)
You're reduced to varves?
There are catfish and birds in those varves, and varves are acknowledged to not necessarily be seasonal, and in fact can be far from that, obviously, so your varve rap is ridiculous.
There are catfish and birds in those varves, and varves are acknowledged to not necessarily be seasonal, and in fact can be far from that, obviously, so your varve rap is ridiculous.
Last edited:
Hey dude, you're 'preaching to the choir' (pun fully intended). I just take his one-liners with a grain of salt.
Now, for the topic at hand; We, as humans, have pretty much proven and established that humans originated in Africa (not Mesopotamia (Middle East)) as the bible implies. Mesopotamia might be the cradle of civilization, but it's not the cradle of man.
We've also established that humans are waaaaay older than 6,000 years. Recorded history, IIRC, is about 6,000 years old though. Maybe that's why the theists think the earth is that old. Maybe earth in 'the earth is 6,000 years old' is a metaphor for how old civilization is. But that doesn't make the earth itself just 6,000 years old though.
You don't have to use any carbon or radiometric dating to see this. You can easily see it in the different layers of the earth.
*************
M*W: Good point! I don't understand why it is so hard for some people to comprehend this. Recorded history goes back some centuries (millenia ?) before with the carvings and artifacts of a matrilineal society... actually as far back as 35,000 years. In their own way, those artifacts carried some sort of communicative devices.
Nevertheless, it is not about recorded history AND the Earth being created (evolving) at the same time.
Oh, BTW, it's good to be back from my little sabbatical to read your posts!
Thanks,
~ M*W
I agree on somethings with Ice Age Civilization but this is not one I can join him on. Astronomy is the earth's time keeper. We can trace back orbits and paths and origins do to the large amount of space between star's and the time it takes light to travel that space.
It's not a matter of geology which is subject to the Earth's constant change and we can spin any matter of interpretation...In the end the speed is the only reliable constant in the universe...and sometimes we can't rely on that but at the moment. Light comes to us..traveling from the past to the present from over 15 billion lightyears away. That's 15 billions ...at least of universal existence.
It's not a matter of geology which is subject to the Earth's constant change and we can spin any matter of interpretation...In the end the speed is the only reliable constant in the universe...and sometimes we can't rely on that but at the moment. Light comes to us..traveling from the past to the present from over 15 billion lightyears away. That's 15 billions ...at least of universal existence.
I agree on somethings with Ice Age Civilization but this is not one I can join him on. Astronomy is the earth's time keeper. We can trace back orbits and paths and origins do to the large amount of space between star's and the time it takes light to travel that space.
It's not a matter of geology which is subject to the Earth's constant change and we can spin any matter of interpretation...In the end the speed is the only reliable constant in the universe...and sometimes we can't rely on that but at the moment. Light comes to us..traveling from the past to the present from over 15 billion lightyears away. That's 15 billions ...at least of universal existence.
So then you would agree that the earth/solar system/galaxy, etc. is millions/billions of years old then?
So from a Christian's perspective, how do you interpret the bible saying that the earth is between 6 and 10K years old? Do you think 'earth' in that sense was a metaphor for recorded civilization? To me, that would make sense.
You should read up on gravitional time dilation during the creation week Saquist, "White Hole" matter expanded out, gravitional time dilation during the rapid expansion, with a bounded Universe which the Big Bang does, and doesn't acknowledge, in order to not acknowledge the gravitational time dilation during the expansion, the ol' shell game.
The Bible doesn't say that it is 6K years old. Read below:
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
You should read up on gravitional time dilation during the creation week Saquist, "White Hole" matter expanded out, gravitional time dilation during the rapid expansion, with a bounded Universe which the Big Bang does, and doesn't acknowledge, in order to not acknowledge the gravitational time dilation during the expansion, the ol' shell game.
This rationalization brought to you by: A creationist!
The Bible doesn't say that it is 6K years old. Read below:
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
I sit(rather happily I might add) corrected.
So then, where did the whole 'The earth is 6,000 years old' argument originate from? I remember being told that since I was a little kid.
The stuff you believe is from Darwinites!
You were LIED TO mike, those evil Sunday School teachers, they LIED TO YOU.
You're reduced to varves?
There are catfish and birds in those varves, and varves are acknowledged to not necessarily be seasonal, and in fact can be far from that, obviously, so your varve rap is ridiculous.
The bottom line is the formation of "big" sedimentary layers such as what we see in the Grand Canyon takes millions of years. Humans have only been observing sedimentary rock layers for maybe 4,000 years. You're not going to see much change in 4,000 years.
Assuming the Coconino sandstone took 1 million years (It probably took way longer) to be formed, 4,000 years would represent 0.4% of the total time window. Not really enough time to see an entire layer of sed. rock be formed, obviously.
So where are vast sedimentary layers being formed on the continents today?