Creation Science ...

[Jason Hyatt]

Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.

Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.

I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.

Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.

I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!

I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.

It's nice to find someone who has a similar level of "...*sigh* Really? We're not debating this in the geology/biology/physics/chemistry community at all. Why am I trying to show in a few sentences on a forum what has taken thousands of scholars many years to craft?" The scientific disciplines overlap and we all basically use the same process of inquiry. The problem we have is that we're being asked to show gradute-level work on a VERY broad topic to an audience wholly unfamiliar with the tools, methods, and procedures of the discipline.

To use jiu jitsu, I'd say I'm a high purple to brown belt in evolutionary theory. I'm no Eddie Bravo, but I'm at least a Kevin Greene or Chris Herzog. Eddie took three books and a dvd set to explain his system and that still doesn't cover it all. There is simply far too much information on the topic. It takes a lifetime of dedication to the discipline to have a robust understanding. You have to put it into practice and spend the time with the methods or you'll never understand where it all comes from. I'm a white belt in jiu jitsu. If I were to examine Eddie's system and find what I considered a fatal flaw I would have a few different options. I could stick with the system and see if I'm missing something (most likely); I could ask those who are much more knowledgeable than I on the topic for their opinion and trust that since they've put in that time they know what they're talking about; or I could say the system is crap because I discovered a fatal flaw (and some guy in a gi told me I was right). Which one makes the most sense?

[Michael Romano]

Because then things would be nice and simple!!! and everyone would be getting along and loving each other and all kinds of crazy shenanigans!!!

And I'm sorry that this is tedious for you Jason but if it helps you should know that you are like a super hero to people who don't have the patience or aptitude for math to be truly effective in these types of discussions. You too Tim.

[Yordan Rodriguez]

lol yup..

[Tim Elliott]

Nice analogy. I agree. Each one of the countless lines of evidence took someone years to establish, and would take them a long time to explain, yet your expected to fit all of it into a few sentences. And your audience is only listening for flaws, rather than trying to understand. Its painful.

The "Creation Science" that is the title of this thread does not exist. Its not science. Creation science does exist and its the realm of high level physicists. I was at least partially educated in science by christian brothers. Chemistry, Maths Physics and Biology. It took them very little effort to fit their knowledge into the context of their beliefs.

I think thats what it boils down to. Very little effort.

[Jason Mallory]

Cystic fibrosis.

"The normal CFTR protein product is a chloride channel protein found in membranes of cells that line passageways of the lungs, liver, pancreas, intestines, reproductive tract, and skin." Mutation of three base pairs changes the amino acid sequence in the protein the gene codes for.

"About 70% of mutations observed in CF patients result from deletion of three base pairs in CFTR's nucleotide sequence. This deletion causes loss of the amino acid phenylalanine located at position 508 in the protein" The end result is a transmembrane protein that is more permeable to chloride.

"People who are homozygous for delta F508 mutation tend to have the most severe symptoms of cystic fibrosis due to critical loss of chloride ion transport. This upsets the sodium and chloride ion balance needed to maintain the normal, thin mucus layer that is easily removed by cilia lining the lungs and other organs. The sodium and chloride ion imbalance creates a thick, sticky mucus layer that cannot be removed by cilia and traps bacteria, resulting in chronic infections."

Changing just three base pairs results in a different gene. The "normal" protein is no longer normal. That's now a different gene. Just like if you're not hugging the knee, you're not in New York. Change a small detail and you've changed the structure. The details matter. All ANY gene does is code for a protein. Change the bases, you change the gene and thus the protein. This may have a small effect or a very, very large effect depending on what the specific change is and where it occurs. There is a tremendous amount of data out there. Google isn't bad, but Google scholar, medline, Ovid, and the individual journal websites are a good place to start. To understand genes, gene flow, drift, and genetic variation I once again highly recommend the Berkely site. Google for "berkeley evolution 101 genes".

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresource...ome/cftr.shtml

That's loss of information in an existing gene, not the creation of a new gene through mutation. On top of that it is harmful, not an 'evolutionary' advance at all.

[Jason Hyatt]

Which brings me to another point.

Jason. As you require some evidence from me as to ages etc. I would like some evidence from you.

What evidence do you have for the existence of god and a creator?

I assume you mean the other Jason, but in the interest of open discussion I'll add my half-nickel.

For me, I don't have any. I was a bible-thumping baptist for a long time before realizing that I was spending all of my time trying to convince others of a belief I didn't really have. While buddhism fits like a warm sweater (or gi pants if you prefer...), I cannot reconcile the supernatural aspects with my experience and scientific background. As such, my "religion" is less a belief in the divine than a useful guide to thought and behavior. We could all do with a little more altruism in the world.

[Jason Hyatt]

That's loss of information in an existing gene, not the creation of a new gene through mutation. On top of that it is harmful the an evolutionary advance.

Let me be clear on what you're asking: Are you asking for evidence of the spontaneous creation of a whole gene from a pool of chemicals? That's not how it happens. Mutation by definition is the loss, replacement, or exchange of one or more base pairs. This occurs constantly. In fact, it occurs so often the process is used in the lab the way a carpenter uses a hammer. Geneticists DEPEND on mutation and selection to do their work. Once again, that the process occurs is not at all in question.

DNA sequences will spontaneously assemble from the proper pool of chemicals; RNA even moreso. Gene formation is a very long process, but when you look at how DNA, RNA, and their associated enzymes interact they do so very much on their own. That's just chemistry. You don't have to prompt hydrogen to bond to oxygen. Give it the right environment and you can't prevent it from doing so. Chemistry is chemistry whether it's a very large molecule or a very little one. A hydrogen bond is a hydrogen bond; it makes no distinction between whether it is binding two water molecules or adenine to thymine. Given a reasonable amount of time and the right materials you almost can't PREVENT a gene from forming. Just ask a virus.

[Jason Mallory]

Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.

Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.

I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.

Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.

I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!

I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.

I mentioned this in an earlier post with a link. Polonium radiohalos are proof that the earth is not millions of years old. Polonium halos are found in granite along with uranium halos. The problem is that Polonium forms very quickly, within 6-10 days while the half life of uranium is 100 million years if I remember correctly which means the granites that make up this planet had to have formed quickly. They could not have formed over millions of years or else there would be no Polonium halos in granite.

As far as Uranium-Lead dating is concerned it can only be accurate if certain assumptions always apply to each specimen that is tested.

1. Each system has to be closed. That means that there can be no contamination of any of the parent or daughter products while they are going through the process of decay.

2. Each system must have been completely void of the daughter products.

3. The process of decay rate must have been constant and can never change.

4. If any change occured in the atmosphere surrounding our planet this would greatly affect the reliability of radioactive minerals.

5. Long half life minerals have varied in their decay rates in the past.

6. Any change in the Van Allen radiation belts would greatly affect the rate of decay of radioactive minerals.

7. The basic assumption of all radiactive dating is that at the beginning there were no daughter products in existence, only the elements at the top of the chain were in existence.

Because none of these assumptions can be determined about the past none of the dating methods can be proven to be reliable. Not Carbon dating, Thorium-Lead, Helium, Rubidium-Strontium...

[Louis Ho]

Well put, Michael Romano. Even a meathead like you understands.

[Jason Hyatt]

I mentioned this in an earlier post with a link. Polonium radiohalos are proof that the earth is not millions of years old. Polonium halos are found in granite along with uranium halos. The problem is that Polonium forms very quickly, within 6-10 days while the half life of uranium is 100 million years if I remember correctly which means the granites that make up this planet had to have formed quickly. They could not have formed over millions of years or else there would be no Polonium halos in granite.

As far as Uranium-Lead dating is concerned it can only be accurate if certain assumptions always apply to each specimen that is tested.

1. Each system has to be closed. That means that there can be no contamination of any of the parent or daughter products while they are going through the process of decay.

2. Each system must have been completely void of the daughter products.

3. The process of decay rate must have been constant and can never change.

4. If any change occured in the atmosphere surrounding our planet this would greatly affect the reliability of radioactive minerals.

5. Long half life minerals have varied in their decay rates in the past.

6. Any change in the Van Allen radiation belts would greatly affect the rate of decay of radioactive minerals.

7. The basic assumption of all radiactive dating is that at the beginning there were no daughter products in existence, only the elements at the top of the chain were in existence.

Because none of these assumptions can be determined about the past none of the dating methods can be proven to be reliable. Not Carbon dating, Thorium-Lead, Helium, Rubidium-Strontium...

I'll let Tim have the meat on this one but I'll just say this: Virtually everything on this list flies in the face of all of chemistry. That list belies a fundamental misunderstanding of chemistry as a discipline; much less how it applies to geology. I'll say it again: chemistry is chemistry whether in a rock or a monkey.