>I found myself in a discussion last night with some friends who were very adamant about the earth being only a few thousand years old and provided me with a host of "proofs" straight from the Creation Research Institute.
>
The Paleontological Society Special Papers series has a couple of numbers on creation related issues. Several ACG members were involved in the second one, and the first also includes a Christian perspective, though I do not recall specific ACG names. The Talk.Origins web page is also an extensive source of information. Of course, you must read with discernment; though not overtly hostile, the perspectives may not be theologically sound.
>These included:
>-2nd law of thermodynamics (still not sure what that had to do with their argument?)
The 2nd law of thermodynamics declares that net entropy (roughly, disorder) always increases. Young-earth advocates invoke it commonly in three contexts. First is the claim that the law was not in effect until after the Fall. This reflects an erroneous equation of the law with decay. In fact, the 2nd law provides for things such as diffusion, vital to cell function. Without the second law, one part of something could get hot while the rest got cold. Obviously creation would not been good if Adam's toes burst intoflame while his body froze solid. Likewise, all the oxygen molecules in the atmosphere moving to one place would have been a bad thing.
Second is the claim that the 2nd law contradicts evolution, with the production of order, especially in DNA sequences. Exactly how to define entropy with respect to biological information remains somewhat contested. However, even if the generation of new DNA sequences by mutation does represent an increase in order, regional entropy increases because the energy powering the work done by the cell to make the DNA is greater than the energy stored in DNA. Furthermore, the cell ultimately gets its energy as a miniscule part of the energy being lost by the Sun or the Earth, so the entropy of our part of the Galaxy is increasing.
Third is the claim that the 2nd law contradicts the formation of the universe. I do not know the physics well enough to assess this claim. Even if physicists believe that the 2nd law is contradicted by the creation of the universe, this tells us nothing about when it occurred.
>-unreliability of carbon dating
14C is produced by high-energy radiation affecting atmospheric 14N. Thus, its level in something depends on three factors: the rate of 14C decay, the rate of 14C production in the atmosphere, and the connection between the organism or object and atmospheric 14C. There is no evidence whatsoever for variation in the rate of 14C decay. Certain types of radioactive decay are affected by the electron density near the nucleus, but these are not used for dating. On the other hand, observations of supernovas show that the decay rates in them are the same as here. Because of the time required for light to travel, this reflects decay rates in the distant past.
Variations in the amount of high-energy radiation hitting the earth and in atmospheric conditions can produce variations in the 14C supply. The most obvious example of this comes from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, which greatly increased the ambient 14C levels. An uncorrected carbon date for you would be about 2200 AD. Examination of long-term records, such as tree rings or ice cores, gives a measure of this fluctuation. This is on the order of a few hundred years at maximum.
YEC examples of 14C errors generally demonstrate at best ignorance of these issues, if not culpable misrepresentation by ignoring the caveats in the original articles. One example my brother heard from a YEC speaker was a date of about 25000 years for a bit of dino bone stolen from a museum by YECs. 25000 years is approaching the limit of older or cheaper dating technology. A little contamination from touching the specimen would be enough to generate this date.
Another category comes from discrepancy between the shell and body of various organisms. Some live land snails have modern 14C bodies but ancient shells. As they live on limestone that is millions of years old and use it in making their shells, the 14C dates accurately reflect the carbon sources for the shell and body. Conversely, certain marine deep-water animals can have modern 14C in the shell and ancient bodies. They use dissolved carbonate, with modern carbon, to make their shells, but feed on chemosynthetic bacteria that use ancient hydrocarbons for food.
>-dinosaur / man tracks in Texas
Many young-earth advocates now admit that these are not legitimate (not Baugh though), though some try to cite other examples. At Paluxey, the locals were carving tracks and otherwise enhancing things for the tourists before young-earth advocates came. The purported human tracks include dinosaur footprints and carvings. The first Paleo Society volume has a good article on tracks, with a photo of what look like human footprints in the Precambrian of Canada. In addition to geologic features that show that they are sedimentary features, the following difficulties might be apparent to a non-geologist:
The prints are just a few inches apart, but point opposite directions
There is no trackway (or impression of someone falling down from trying to stand with his feet adjacent and pointing in opposite directions)
The prints look like tennis shoe impressions, unlikely to exist in antidiluvian times.
>-Grand Canyon formation "proven" to be recent
All “proofs” I have heard are unsubstantiated claims that ordinary processes could not have done it and that the Flood or unduly rapid events after the Flood could have.
>-ancient trees sticking up through multiple layers of rock
The fellow who originated this argument is now apostate, which speaks poorly of its convincing nature. This is not a common phenomenon, but does occur occasionally. Usually the false claim is that the rock layers are supposed to have formed over long periods of time, when in fact a single ordinary flood can produce this (e.g., recent flooding on the Mississippi). However, if a tree trunk is petrified in a more or less vertical position, surrounding sediment could be washed away and much younger layers deposited around them.
>I found it very interesting that these friends very unwilling to consider anything I had to say that might contradict their views. Almost as if it challenged their faith and maybe God!? It made me wonder what ideas or beliefs I hold to -that if shown to be in error- would weaken my faith. I'll have to think about that some more.<
Why, if their views are based on the Bible, do the merits of particular claims about creation have so much impact? If they wish to promote a young-earth view, should they not want to discard invalid arguments and seek better ones?
>On a somewhat related note, our college (College of the Ozarks in SW Missouri) will be hosting "Dr." Carl Baugh in November for lectures on intelligent design. Should be interesting. I will keep you posted on that one.
Many young-earth advocates recognize Baugh as devoid of credibility. The Talk.Origins site has a page of wild claims from him, compiled by Answers in Genesis. Baugh was also featured in the network TV special, Mysterious Origins of Man. This program is Hare Krishna propaganda, using the same bogus evidence to claim that humans are old (in keeping with the cyclic views of Hinduism) rather than that dinosaurs, etc. are young (the way young earth advocates use the purported evidence). The ICR recognized problems with Mysterious Origins, too.
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
"That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks"-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.davidson.alumlink.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 19 2001 - 13:01:10 EDT