Be Afraid

[Muadib]

INFLUX OF METEORITIC DUST
(Table 10, nos. 3, 36)

Other Links:
Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth
A detailed look at creationist fallacy.
Moon dust and the age of the solar system
The young-earth creationist organization, Answers in Genesis, says that meteorite dust arguments are flawed and should no longer used by creationists.
Morris and Parker (97) list two age calculations based on the influx of meteoritic dust to the Earth (“Too small to calculate”) and the Moon (200,000 years), referenced to Morris (92) and Slusher (116), respectively. Morris (92) argues that the age of the Earth cannot be great because if it were, there would be a thick layer of meteoritic dust on both the Earth and the Moon. Table 11 lists the data he uses. Morris’ values for the density of the dust and the area of the Earth are reasonable, and his slight exaggeration of the age of the Earth is unimportant to this discussion. The real problem is with his value for the influx of meteoritic dust from space, which Morris takes from Petterson (105).
Petterson (105) collected particulate matter from the top of Mauna Loa on the Island of Hawaii, using an air pump designed to sample smog. He analyzed the dust content in a known volume of air for the element nickel. Using a value of 2.5 percent for the nickel content of meteoritic material and assuming that all nickel in the atmospheric dust comes from space, he calculated that about 15 million tons of meteoritic dust falls on the Earth each year. Petterson (105) concluded that his calculation was an upper limit and, after evaluating all the available data, stated that a value of 5 million tons per year was more reasonable. Note that Morris (92) didn’t get Petterson’s upper limit of 15 million tons per year correct and that he completely ignored Petterson’s preferred value.
Although there is probably nothing fundamentally wrong with Petterson’s (105) measurements, his assumptions that nickel is a rare element in the Earth’s crust and in atmospheric dust, and that all the nickel can be attributed to dust from space, are incorrect. More significant is the fact that Petterson’s (105) measurements were made in 1957, the same year that the first satellite was launched. Since the late 1960s, much better and more direct measurements of the meteoritic influx to the Earth have been available from satellite penetration data. In a comprehensive review article, Dohnanyi (39) showed that the mass of meteoritic material impinging on the Earth is only about 22,000 tons per year, a value that would result in a layer only 8.1 centimeters thick in 4.55 billion years (Table 11). Other recent estimates of the mass of interplanetary matter reaching the Earth from space, based on satellite-borne detectors, range from about 11,000 to 18,000 tons per year (67); estimates based on the cosmic-dust content of deep-sea sediment are comparable (e.g., 11, 103). Thus, Morris (92) is off by a factor of more than 600. His conclusion about the thickness of dust on the Moon is likewise in error; he apparently neglects gravitational effects, which reduce the influx per unit area to the Moon by a factor of about 2.
Table 11: Comparison of Creationist and Scientific Versions of Meteoritic Dust on the Earth and the Moon. Following Morris (92), These Calculations are Based on the Highly Questionable Assumptions that the Influx of Dust has been Constant Throughout Geologic History and that No Erosion has Occurred
Creationist version (92)
Influx of dust to the Earth 14 × 106 tons/yr
Density of the dust 140 lb/ft3
Area of the Earth 5.5 × 1015 ft2
Age of the Earth 5 × 109 yr
RESULTS:
1) Layer on the Earth 182 ft (5048 cm) thick
2) Layer on the Moon at least as thick
Scientific version
Influx of dust to the Earth 4 × 10-9 g/cm2·yr (20,084 tons/yr)
Influx of dust to the Moon 2 × 10-9 g/cm2·yr (2,989 tons/yr)
Density of the dust 2.24 g/cm3 (140 lbs/ft3)
Area of the Earth 5.10 × 1018 cm2 (5.49 × 1015 ft2)
Area of the Moon‡ 1.52 × 1018 cm2 (1.63 × 1015 ft2)
Age of the Earth and the Moon 4.55 × 109 yr
RESULTS:
1) Layer on the Earth 8.1 cm thick
2) Layer on the Moon 4.1 cm thick

Slusher (116) likewise fails to avail himself of current knowledge on the subject and, instead, uses obsolete dust-influx estimates ranging from 3.6 million to 256 million tons per year. In addition, he advances the erroneous argument that the impact of meteoritic material and radiation from space should have created, by pulverization, a layer of regolith (“soil”) many miles thick if the Moon is 4.5 billion years old.

If a layer, say 0.0004 inch thick of pulverized matter, is formed per year, then, in 10,000 years a layer about four inches in depth would be produced; in 100,000 years a layer of 40 inches; in 1,000,000 years a layer of 3.3 feet; in 4,500,000,000 years a layer about 28 miles in depth would be formed. (116, p. 42)​

He apparently fails to realize, however, that once a layer of pulverized material is formed, repeated impacts primarily will stir the existing layer rather than increase its thickness. As Dutch (41) has pointed out, Slusher’s (116) argument is equivalent to arguing that if a farmer plows his field to a depth of 20 centimeters each spring, in 100 years he (and his successors) will have plowed to a total depth of 20 meters.
Considering that good satellite data on meteoritic influx were available before Morris (92) and Slusher (116) published their papers, they obviously have been highly selective in their choice of obsolete data. A more fundamental point, however, is that such calculations are based on faulty premises, including the erroneous assumptions that the meteoritic influx has remained constant for 4.5 billion years and that erosion is negligible, and thus are of no value in determining the age of the Earth or the Moon.
Finally, I have been unable to find the 200,000-year “age of the Earth” based on the accumulation of dust on the Moon (No. 36, Table 10) in Slusher’s (116) paper, nor can I find any data from which this result could have been obtained. Apparently, Morris and Parker (97) have credited Slusher (116) with a calculation that he did not do.
INFLUX OF MAGMA TO THE CRUST
(Table 10, no. 5)

Morris and Parker (97) list an age of 500 million years based on the “influx of magma from mantle to form crust.” This calculation, which appears in Morris (92), is based on the volume (0.2 km3/yr) of lava erupted by Paricutin Volcano in Mexico during the 1940s. Morris (92) notes that intrusive rocks are much more common than lava flows:

… so that it seems reasonable to assume that at least 10 cubic kilometers of new igneous rocks are formed each year by flows from the earth’s mantle.
The total volume of the earth’s crust is about 5 × 109 cubic kilometers. Thus, the entire crust could have been formed by volcanic activity at present rates in only 500 million years, which would only take us back into the Cambrian period. On the other hand, all geologists would surely agree that practically all the earth’s crust had been formed billions of years before that time. The uniformitarian model once again leads to a serious problem and contradiction. (92,p. 157)​

But the “uniformitarian model” of which Morris (92) is so critical is a product of Morris (92), not science. He has pulled the value of 10 km3/yr from thin air, assumed that this fictitious rate has been constant over time, and neglected erosion, sedimentation, crustal recycling, and the fact that the injection of magma into the crust is a highly nonuniform process about which little is known. Morris’ (92) calculation is worthless.
EFFLUX OF 4He INTO THE ATMOSPHERE
(Table 10, no. 8)

This age is referenced to a report by Cook (27), but the calculation was done by Morris (92), using data from Cook’s paper:

Consequently the maximum age of the atmosphere, assuming no original helium in the atmosphere, would be

As a matter of fact, Henry Faul (Faul, 1954) has cited evidence that the rate of efflux of helium into the atmosphere … is about 100 times greater than the value used by Cook. This in turn would reduce the age of the atmosphere down to several thousand years! (92, p. 151)​

The values in this calculation are the content of 4He in the present atmosphere (3.5 × 1015 g) and the estimated total efflux (1020 g) from the Earth’s crust and mantle throughout geologic time (5 × 109 years). Morris’ (92) calculation is based on the assumption that all the helium released into the atmosphere would be retained, an assumption known to be false.
The helium balance in the atmosphere has been a subject of much study (76). Calculations show that at the present rates of production13, the entire atmospheric content of 4He and 3He could be supplied in about 2.3 million and 0.7 million years, respectively. Various mechanisms are known, however, by which helium escapes from the atmosphere into outer space.
At normal temperatures, the velocity of the average helium atom is less than the velocity required for escape from the Earth’s gravitational field. The elevated temperature in the exosphere, however, increases the kinetic energy of the helium atoms, so that some do escape. Calculations show that this mechanism could account for the escape of about half the 3He produced. Because 4 He is about a third heavier than 3He, however, thermal escape is probably insufficient by a factor of about 40 to account for the loss of 4He. The apparent inadequacy of thermal escape is the basis for Cook’s (27) report and Morris’ (92) calculation, but these authors have overlooked other mechanisms.
The most probable mechanism for helium loss is photoionization of helium by the polar wind and its escape along open lines of the Earth’s magnetic field. Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of 2 to 4 × 106 ions/cm2·sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 ± 1.5) × 106 atoms/cm2·sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.
Calculations involving the helium balance in the atmosphere are complex because they are sensitive to solar activity, geomagnetic-field fluctuations, the rate of helium production from the Earth, and other factors. Although the helium-balance problem is not yet completely solved, it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production. The main problem is that the exact roles of the several known mechanisms are unknown. The helium balance of the atmosphere certainly is not a basis for calculating any reasonable estimate of the Earth’s age. Any attempt to do so (92) requires an unjustified oversimplification of a complex problem.

 

[Muadib]

ACCUMULATION OF SEDIMENT AND EROSION OF THE CONTINENTS
(Table 10, nos. 10 and 11)

These “ages” are based on some calculations by the creation “scientist” Nevins (99), who used the following basic data:

1) Present influx of sediment to the ocean = 27.5 × 109 tons/yr
2) Present mass of sediment in the ocean = 820 × 1015 tons
3) Present mass of the continents above sea level = 383 × 1015 tons​

Dividing (2) by (1), Nevins (99) calculates that all the sediment now in the world’s oceans could have accumulated in 30 million years; dividing (3) by (1), he finds that the present continents could be leveled in 14 million years. From these results, Nevins (99) concludes:

After careful analysis of the erosion of continents and associated sedimentation in the world ocean, we must ask two urgent questions. Where is all the sediment if, as the evolutionist assumes, the ocean is over 1 billion years old? Who has the better model for the ocean — the evolutionist or the creationist? We feel confident that the true answers concerning the origin of the ocean are presented in Scripture. “The sea is His and He made it” (Psalm 95:5). (99, p. iv)​

Both the basic assumptions and logic of Nevins’ (99) arguments are wrong. First, he has confused the length of time over which the ocean has existed on the Earth with the ages of the present ocean floors. The existence of abundant Precambrian marine sediment, some more than 3.5 billion years old, clearly demonstrates that the early Earth had an ocean. Some of this earliest sediment contains structures that indicate the presence of algae, and there are undisputed microfossils in sedimentary rocks more than 2 billion years old (26). The Earth, however, is a dynamic body, and the ocean basins are among its youngest features. The floors of the world’s ocean range in age from recent at the crests of midoceanic ridges, where new oceanic crust is forming, to as old as Jurassic (Figure 1) in the parts farthest from the ridges. The sediment in the ocean is practically nonexistent at the ridges and thickens, away from the ridges as the age of the sea floor increases. At the trenches, the sea floors, sediment and all, are being forced down into the mantle where they are consumed to be recycled. Thus, the ocean floors are neither so old nor so passive as Nevins’ (99) calculations presume, and the age of 1 billion years attributed by him to “evolutionists” is of his own invention.
Second, Nevins (99) has assumed constant rates for erosion and sedimentation, processes whose rates have, in fact, varied constantly throughout geologic time.
Finally, Nevins (99) has neglected the fact that the continents are also dynamic and have grown appreciably over time, both by accretion of material at the margins and by addition of material from the mantle below. Uplift, primarily by buoyant and compressional forces, is also a significant factor that tends to offset the leveling effect of erosion.
Thus, the deposition of sediment in the ocean basins and the erosion of continents are parts of a larger, dynamic, and cyclic process that is continually changing the face of the Earth. The mass of sediment in the ocean is not unexpectedly low, nor is the mass of the continents above sea level unexpectedly high. Nevins’ (99) calculations provide no useful information about the age of either the Earth or its ocean.
INFLUX OF URANIUM TO THE OCEAN
(Table 10, no. 19)

Morris and Parker (97) present two calculations based on data from a report by Bloch (17), a geologist with the Oklahoma Geological Survey. Using Bloch’s (17) values for the amount of dissolved uranium in the ocean (3.64 × 1015 g), and the present influx of uranium to the ocean (1.92 × 1010 g/yr), Morris and Parker (97) state:

Dividing the first number by the second gives about 189,000 years as the maximum age of the ocean, even with the, very unlikely assumptions that the ocean contained no uranium when it was formed and the river influx was no greater in the past than at present (actually, all the world’s rivers give abundant evidence of carrying much greater flows in the earlier years of their history). The true age would most likely be much smaller than this. (97, p. 249)​

Morris and Parker (97) also comment on the possibility that uranium was being removed from the ocean; again, citing Bloch:

However, the old-earth proponent would undoubtedly counter by insisting that much of the dissolved uranium would probably be precipitated out in estuarine or oceanic sediments. Bloch, in fact, has carefully determined the effect of all such possibilities.

A detailed mass-balance calculation for uranium has shown that only about 10% of the present-day river input of dissolved uranium can be removed by known sinks.​

That is not all, however.

Low and high-temperature alteration of basalts, organic-rich sediments and co-existing phosphorites on continental margins, metalliferous sediments, carbonate sediments, and sediments in anoxic basins deeper than 200 meters remove about three-fourths of the present-day riverine supply to the ocean.​

Since these would seem to exhaust the possibilities, at least 15% of the annual riverine influx of uranium is still available to build up the ocean’s uranium content. Making this allowance, the maximum possible age of the ocean, based on this type of uranium dating, becomes 189,000 + 0.15, or 1,260,000 years. (97, pp. 249-250)​

Morris and Parker’s (97) first calculation is made worthless by their assumptions of constant rates of influx and the absence of uranium removal. The second calculation suffers from a more serious flaw: The second quotation from Bloch (17) is incomplete. The next two sentences of Bloch’s (17) statement read as follows:

The remainder can most likely be accounted for by the combined uncertainties in the estimates of U sources and sinks. It appears that the steady state of the world ocean with respect to U can still be maintained in spite of the fact that anthropogenic contributions of this element may be significant. (17, p. 376)​

In other words, the uncertainties in the estimates of the rates of influx and removal do not permit Morris and Parker’s (97) conclusion that the uranium in the ocean is not in balance. So far as it known, the amount of uranium in the ocean is in a steady state.
Finally, I should point out that Morris and Parker’s (97) arithmetic is faulty. They apparently have added the 10 percent from the first quotation (which actually is the portion attributable to carbonate sediment and anoxic basins only) to the 75 percent in the second quote to obtain their 15 percent “imbalance.” In Bloch’s (17) report however, the 75 percent value includes all sinks, and so the “remainder” that falls within the uncertainties of the data is 25 percent, not 15 percent.
INFLUX OF OTHER ELEMENTS TO THE OCEAN
(Table 10, nos. 15-18 and 42-68)

In addition to uranium, discussed above, Morris and Parker (97) list 31 other “ages” of the Earth based on the influx of various elements and compounds to the ocean via rivers. These ages range from 100 years (aluminum) to 260 million years (sodium) and are cited as evidence for a young Earth:

Similar calculations can be made for all the other dissolved chemicals in the ocean. All will yield relatively small ages (at least in comparison to usual evolutionary estimates of the age of the ocean) but all will, of course, yield different ages. Again, however, even allowing for all realistically possible “sinks,” sedimentation, recycling, etc., none will yield an age anywhere close to the billion-year ages required for evolution.​

Attempts to “date” the Earth using the dissolved chemicals in the ocean were common in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Probably the best known example is the calculation by Joly (71) that the Earth’s age is 89 million years, based on the amount of sodium in the ocean. It has been known for many decades, however, that such calculations are wrong because the ocean is in approximate chemical balance, as clearly recognized by Cook:

The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. (28, p. 73)​

The primary documentation referenced for ages 42 through 68 (Table 10) is the book edited by Riley and Skirrow (108). Neither Morris (92, 95) nor Morris and Parker (97) discuss the calculations that led to these 27 ages, perhaps because there are no such calculations. The values given by these authors are copied directly from a chapter by Goldberg (55) that appears in Riley and Skirrow (108). Goldberg’s (55) Table I is a list of the abundances and residence times of the elements in sea water; it is these residence times that Morris (92, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) give as indicated ages of the Earth. The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed, not, as stated by Morris (92), the time “to accumulate in ocean from river inflow,” and has nothing to do with the ages of either the Earth or the ocean. Morris (92, 93, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) have totally misrepresented the data listed in Goldberg’s (55) table. Morris and Parker (97) also reference a paper by the creationist Camping (22), who also confuses residence times with “times to accumulate” and fails to realize that the chemicals in the ocean are basically in a state of dynamic balance.
The documentation cited by Morris and Parker (97) for carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, and calcium (Nos. 15 -18, Table 10) is a book by the creationist author Whitney (132), whose calculations also are meaningless because they suffer from the same inadequacies discussed above.
As I pointed out above, the influx of chemicals into the ocean cannot be used to calculate the age of the Earth because the ocean is in approximate, if not exact, chemical equilibrium. For example, virtually the entire world’s supply of chlorine (Table 10, no. 17) is in the ocean, and nearly all the chlorine carried by rivers is of cyclic origin (55). Chlorine simply evaporates from the ocean, and falls in rainwater either directly back into the ocean or runs into rivers, where it is returned to the sea. Aluminum enters the sea primarily as particulate matter from the weathering and erosion of rocks. It quickly either settles out as sediment or reacts with other elements to form new minerals, and thus has a residence time in ocean water of only about 100 years.
The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris (92, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater.
FORMATION OF RADIOGENIC Pb AND Sr BY NEUTRON CAPTURE
(Table 10, nos. 21 and 22)

These “ages” are referenced to the book by Cook (28). I have discussed the flaws in Cook’s (28) reasoning concerning the effects of neutron reactions on lead isotope ratios in a previous section above. I could not find any mention in his book of a similar effect on strontium isotopes, and so how and where Morris and Parker (97) obtained this “too small to measure” age is, at present, a mystery.
DECAY OF U WITH INITIAL Pb AND DECAY OF K WITH TRAPPED Ar
(Table 10, nos. 25 and 26)

The ages of the Earth resulting from these two “methods” are given as “too small to measure,” and the calculation is referenced to Slusher (117). I have read both the 1973 and 1981 editions of Slusher’s monograph several times and cannot find these age-of-the-Earth calculations nor any data from which such a calculation could conceivably be made. Apparently, Morris and Parker (97) have credited their colleague with calculations that he did not do.

 

[Muadib]

FORMATION OF RIVER DELTAS
(Table 10, no. 27)

The reference for this “age of the Earth” of 5,000 years is a paper by Allen (4) that was originally published in the Bulletin of Deluge Geology and Related Sciences (v. 2, no. 2, p. 37-62) in September of 1942, and reprinted in 1972 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Benjamin Allen was a lawyer who for years was the head of the Deluge Society of Los Angeles (4).
Allen (4) reviews the mid-19th century controversy between Charles Lyell, the noted British geologist and close friend of Charles Darwin, and General Andrews Humphreys of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning the age of the Mississippi River delta. Based on a total sediment thickness of 528 ft, Lyell calculated that the delta and, therefore, the Mississippi River, are 61,000 years old. Adopting the arguments of Humphreys, Allen (4) asserts that only the uppermost 40 ft are delta sediment, and that the underlying sediment is of marine origin. On this basis, he concludes that the Mississippi River and its delta, as well as the other major rivers of the world, originated at the close of the flood 4500 to 5000 years ago. Central to Allen’s (4) thesis is his rejection of the role of subsidence in the accumulation of delta sediment.
There is no disagreement that the present delta of the Mississippi River is relatively young. Recent studies (for example, 58) indicate that deposition began about 18,000 years ago during the last major glaciation when sea level was more than 400 ft lower than at present. Deposition has been rapid, and the sediment reaches a known thickness of 1000 ft. This thickness has been accommodated partly by the rise in sea level following the ice ages and partly by subsidence of the older formations on which the delta was deposited.
Allen’s (4) article is more than four decades out of date, and he draws much of his data and arguments from papers published in the 19th century. Since Allen’s article was first printed in 1942, there have been an enormous number of new data published on the geological history of the Mississippi delta, many of them collected by drilling, and seismic surveys using methods unavailable in the first half of the 20th century. Thus, Allen’s information about the composition, thickness, and age of the delta sediment is incorrect. Allen also ignores the fact that the present delta is but the latest depositational phase in a continuing episode of deltaic sedimentation that began in the Mississippian Period, i.e., more than 330 million years ago (107). Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that either the Mississippi River delta or the deltas of any of the world’s major rivers originated simultaneously during a worldwide catastrophic flood, as Allen (4) proposes.
Even more serious for Morris and Parker’s (97) “age of the Earth” is the simple and obvious fact that the age of the Mississippi River delta does not equal the age of the Earth. Even if Allen’s (4) age of 4500 to 5000 years for the delta were correct, it would still represent only the age of the delta and would not support Morris and Parker’s (97) contention that the Earth is very young. Thus, not only is their “age” of 5000 years for the Earth meaningless, but also their logic defies reason.
SUBMARINE OIL SEEPAGE
(Table 10, no. 28)

This age of the Earth is referenced by Morris and Parker (97) to a report by Wilson and others (133), who estimated the present rate of petroleum seepage into the marine environment at about 0.6 million metric tons per year. The value of 50 million years listed by Morris and Parker (97) as an indicated age of the Earth apparently comes from the following statement by Wilson and others (133):

… the amount of oil available for seepage reflected by these reserve estimates is about 2 × 1014 barrels or nearly 3 × 1013 metric tons. This volume of oil alone could have sustained a seepage rate of 0.6 × 106 years… (133, p. 864)​

Morris and Parker (97), however, have chosen to ignore the remainder of the discussion by Wilson and his colleagues:

However, the total oil available for seepage and the time span would be substantially greater since the reserve estimates … include less than half of the offshore area that is considered to be seepage-prone. Moreover, the above reserve figures do not include oil from tar sands and oil shales, which are also potential seepage sources. … (The) inclusion of all potential sources would sustain the seepage rate of 0.6 × 106 metric tons per year for a period of time equivalent to the Tertiary and much of the Mesozoic … when a large percentage of the off-shore oil was being generated. (133, p. 864)​

Wilson and others (133) also note that there is no basis for presuming that the seepage rate has been constant and that their calculation was done only to determine whether or not their estimate of the seepage rate is reasonable. Recall that the present ocean basins of the world are relatively young, ranging in age from Holocene to Jurassic. The shelves of the continents, where most off-shore oil is found, also are primarily Mesozoic and younger. Thus, the calculations and conclusions of Wilson and others (133) are consistent with what is known about the age of the rocks in which offshore oil is generated and found.
Morris and Parker (97) have blatantly misrepresented legitimate scientific data and conclusions. The present rate of offshore oil seepage cannot be used to calculate an age for the Earth.
DECAY OF NATURAL PLUTONIUM
(Table 10, no. 29)

The reference for this age of the Earth is a short news item in Chemical and Engineering News, which, in its entirety, reads as follows:

Plutonium occurs in nature. Dr. Darlean Hoffman and Francine Lawrence at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory have chemically isolated about 8 × 10-15 grams of plutonium-224 [sic] from 85 kg. of bastnasite ore from the Mountain Pass, California, mine of Molybdenum Corporation of America. Jack McWherter and Frank Rourke at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, New York, identified the isotope by mass spectrometry. Detection of this relatively short-lived isotope (80 million years) may indicate that synthesis of heavy elements was still occurring at the time of formation of the Solar System. (7, p. 29)​

The discovery of natural plutonium-244 was significant partly because it was the heaviest isotope ever found in nature but mostly because it gave scientists a valuable clue about the time of synthesis of the heavy elements. The reasoning is as follows. If the radioactive isotope plutonium-244 was synthesized at the time of formation of the Solar System, then, with a half-life of 80 million years, the 8 × 10-15 g represents the undecayed remainder of 1057 g14, or slightly more than 2 lb — a conceivable amount. On the other hand, if the plutonium-244 was synthesized at the time of formation of the Galaxy, about 12 ± 2 billion years ago, then the original amount would have to be 1.14 × 1031 g or 1.26 × 1025 tons! Thus, the discovery of plutonium-244 in nature suggests that it may have been synthesized as the Solar System formed rather than much earlier.
What Morris and Parker (97) have listed as an 80-million-year indicated age of the Earth is simply the half-life of plutonium-244. Clearly, they do not understand either the content or the significance of the discovery reported in the brief news article they cite as their source of documentation.

 

[Muadib]

COOLING OF THE EARTH
(Table 10, no. 40)

This age is attributed to Barnes (14). Barnes (14) summarizes and supports the arguments developed first in 1862 by Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), who calculated that the Earth could be no less than 20 million and no more than 400 million years old (127). Kelvin’s calculations were based on the presumption that the Earth was cooling from an initial white-hot molten state, and his calculations determined how long it would take for the observed geothermal gradient to reach its present configuration. Kelvin also calculated that the Sun is probably no more than 100 million years old and almost certainly no more than 500 million years old (126). These upper limits for the age of the Sun were based on his estimate of the available supply of gravitational energy, which, he concluded, would not last many millions of years longer. Nuclear reactions, which we now know are responsible for the Sun’s fires, were unknown in Kelvin’s time. The value of 24 million years, preferred by Barnes (14) and listed by Morris and Parker (97) as the age of the Earth, is attributed by Barnes to Kelvin but was, in fact, first published by King (73). Lord Kelvin (82), however, agreed with King’s value and adopted it as a likely upper limit for the age of the Earth.
Kelvin and several noted geologists, including Chamberlain (24), feuded over the age of the Earth for more than 35 years because the geologists, basing their estimates on the rates of observable processes, felt strongly that Kelvin’s estimates were much too low. The dispute was resolved in 1903, when Rutherford and Soddy (109) first determined the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay. Rutherford and Soddy readily appreciated the significance of their discovery for cosmologic hypotheses:

It (the energy from radioactive decay) must be taken into account in cosmical physics. The maintenance of solar energy, for example, no longer presents any fundamental difficulty if the internal energy of the component elements is considered to be available, i.e., if processes of subatomic change are going on. (109, p. 591)​

Subsequent measurements of the amount of radioactive uranium, thorium, and potassium in the Earth and in meteorites have shown that all the heat flowing from the interior of the Earth outward can easily be accounted for by radioactive decay, although gravitational energy and latent heat of crystallization probably are also important. Barnes (14), in championing Kelvin’s calculations15, states:

Some scientists claim that radioactivity in the earth would alter this limit upward, but none has given any clear analysis of how much it would alter Kelvin’s value. Kelvin was well aware of radioactivity, as is demonstrated by the fact that he wrote several papers on it. That did not appear to him to alter the problem at all. He was working from an actual measured thermal flux gradient and a knowledge of thermal conductivity of the crustal rocks and was still confident that he had shown that the earth’s age does not exceed 24 million years. (14, iii)​

The first statement is simply untrue. There is a large volume of literature on the subject of the thermal state and history of the Earth; most beginning geology textbooks treat the subject. The remainder of Barnes’ paragraph also is wrong. Kelvin’s last published remarks on the age-of-the-Earth from cooling calculations were in 1899, four years before Rutherford and Soddy published their findings of the energy available from radioactive decay. While it is true that Kelvin published several papers on radioactivity, these papers were unrelated to his age-of-the-earth calculations. Barnes implies that Kelvin considered the matter and concluded that it was unimportant. In fact, Kelvin privately admitted that his hypothesis regarding the age of the Earth had been disproved by the discovery of the enormous amount of energy available from within the atom (21), although he never recanted. Kelvin apparently realized that he had lost the argument and simply gave up, turning his energies to other matters until his death in 1907.
The pre-20th-century history of the various attempts by scientists and philosophers to estimate the age of the Earth is a fascinating subject that the reader may wish to explore in more detail (1, 48). Probably no estimate caused more controversy than Kelvin’s, and his role in this debate, which lasted for nearly half a century, is the subject of a recent monograph (21). Kelvin’s calculations are interesting from an historical point of view, but for nearly all of the 20th century they have been known to be wrong.
In a recent creationist monograph, Slusher and Gamwell (118) consider the contribution of radioactive heat to the problem of a cooling Earth and conclude that even with radioactivity as a source of heat, the calculations lead to the conclusion that the Earth is young:

The cooling times appear quite small (thousands of years) if the initial temperature of the earth was on the order of that for a habitable planet for any of the models. Even for initial temperatures as high as that for an initially molten earth, the cooling times are vastly less than evolutionist estimates. It would seem that the earth is vastly younger than the old earth demanded by the evolutionists. Thus, the evolutionary hypothesis would seem to be a false hypothesis for explaining things. (118, p. 75)​

Their treatment of this important and complex problem, however, is inexcusably naive. They have neglected important sources of heat within the Earth, selected inappropriate depth distributions of radioactive elements, and ignored completely the loss of heat by convection in the mantle. Before discussing the flaws in their conclusions further, I here explain briefly some of the factors that scientists must consider when analyzing the Earth’s thermal history, and review some current thinking on the subject.
The solution to the problem of the Earth’s thermal history consists of an evaluation of the relative importance of both the various sources of heat in the Earth and the several ways in which this heat is transferred from depth to the surface. The problem is complicated by several factors: (1) the early events in the formation of the Earth, many of which would generate large amounts of heat, are poorly understood; (2) the heat generated by radioactivity decreases exponentially over time; (3) the distribution of radioactive elements within the Earth is poorly known; (4) the temperature gradient in the Earth can be measured for only the outer few kilometers; (5) many of the relevant physical properties of the mantle, such as conductivity, specific heat, and viscosity, must be estimated; and (6) the pattern of mantle convection is poorly known.
There are several important sources of heat in the Earth. One is primordial heat, i.e., heat left over from the formation of the Earth. Although the Earth probably accreted cold, radioactivity, gravitational energy from compaction, and segregation of the iron-nickel core probably generated enough heat to raise the temperature of the Earth to near the melting point within 100 to 200 million years of its formation (83, 122). In addition, the heat from impacts of large meteorites during the period when the Earth was still sweeping up large amounts of material from its orbital path generated large amounts of heat and may have resulted in the melting of the outer 100 km or so. Much of this primordial heat has not yet escaped from the Earth.
A second source of heat is radioactivity. This heat is generated by the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium contained in the rocks of the Earth. Although the exact distribution of these radioactive elements within the Earth is not well known, there is no problem in constructing reasonable Earth models that attribute most or even all of the heat now flowing outward from the Earth to radioactive decay. For example, all the heat required could be generated by the uranium, thorium, and potassium contained in a granitic crust only 22 km thick (120). Likewise, if we assume that the Earth has a bulk composition similar to that of the primitive meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites, then the heat produced by radioactivity would about equal the present average heat flux from the mantle (119). These two examples, of course, are oversimplifications of a problem of vastly greater complexity, but they do illustrate that radioactivity is probably the single most important mechanism of heat generation in the Earth today. Because radioactive elements decay exponentially over time, radioactive decay would have generated even more heat in the past. For example, 4.5 billion years ago, the rate of heat generation from the decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in the Earth would have been nearly 6 times the present rate (120).
In addition to primordial heat and heat from radioactivity, contraction of the Earth due to cooling and gravitational-energy release as the core grows may also be important contributors to the Earth’s thermal budget.
Of equal importance as heat sources are the mechanisms by which the Earth loses heat. One is conduction, which involves the transfer of kinetic energy at the atomic and molecular level; this is the same means by which heat is transferred through the bottom of a cooking pan from the burner to the food. The conductivity of rocks, however, is rather poor, and conduction is not particularly efficient. For example, heat generated 4.5 billion years ago at a depth of a few hundred kilometers would just now be reaching the surface if conduction were the only mechanism of heat transfer within the Earth.
The most important mechanism of heat loss from the Earth is convection, which involves the transfer of heat by motion of the hot material itself. Convection is highly efficient and, to a large degree, self-regulating. When a liquid is heated in a pan, for example, the more heat is supplied, the more vigorously the liquid convects, and the faster heat is lost. Calculations show that the rocks of the mantle can be expected to show similar behavior; the more heat is supplied, the less viscous the mantle becomes, the faster it convects, and the more heat is transferred to the surface.
There is little doubt that the Earth’s mantle is convecting. The evidence from continental drift, sea-floor spreading, and the bathymetry of the sea floor is conclusive. Calculations also show that mantle convection is both physically possible and probable. Although at first it may seem impossible for solid rocks to flow, both theory and laboratory experiments show that they can and do, although the mechanism differs somewhat from that involved in the flow of liquid. Estimates of the present rate of mantle convection indicate that the motion is on the order of a millimeter or so per year.
Studies of the thermal budget of the Earth consist of balancing the various heat sources against heat loss through convection and conduction, taking into consideration what is known about the history and physical properties of the Earth. Current studies indicate that of the total geothermal heat flux of 38 × 1012 W, about 63 percent or 24 × 1012 W is lost from the mantle. Only 24 percent (9 × 1012 W) is lost from the continental lithosphere, and perhaps 5 × 1012 W may be lost from the core by plumes of hot material rising from near the core-mantle boundary (122).
The heat flow per unit area from the continents is about the same as from the oceans, although both local and regional variations occur. Because the continents cover only about a quarter of the Earth’s surface, about three-fourths of the total heat flow is through the ocean basins. Virtually all the heat lost from the ocean basins comes from the mantle and is brought close to the surface by convection. About 30 percent of the total global heat loss is at the midoceanic rises, where new crust is forming by the injection and eruption of magma (83, 113). Although conduction plays a role in transferring some heat through the oceanic crust, convection is the dominant mechanism bringing heat from depth. In contrast, heat loss from the continents is primarily by conduction. Of this heat, about two-thirds is generated by radioactivity within the continents themselves (121); the remainder is brought to the base of the continental lithosphere from the mantle by convection, where it is then conducted to the surface. Thus, both convection and conduction play roles in the Earth’s thermal budget; however, on a global scale, most of the heat lost from the Earth is through the ocean basins, primarily by convection in the mantle.
Although radioactivity is probably the dominant source of the heat flowing from the Earth’s surface, some of the heat may be primordial. Recent studies (for example, 113, 119, 122) indicate that the Earth may be cooling at a rate of 5 to 6°C per 100 million years and that primordial heat may constitute 30 to 40 percent of the heat now being lost from the Earth.
What, then, of the conclusion of Slusher and Gamwell (118) that consideration of the Earth’s heat budget indicates that the Earth is very young? They have reached this conclusion by ignoring most of what is known about the chemistry, physics, and history of the Earth. First, they begin with the erroneous assumption that the only heat-loss mechanism for the Earth is conduction; they completely ignore convection. This assumption would be excusable only had their paper been written before the mid-1960s, before there was sound evidence that the Earth’s mantle was convecting.
Second, Slusher and Gamwell (118) seemingly are unaware that the Earth’s surface includes both continents and ocean basins, each of which have different compositions, distinct physical characteristics, and participate in global plate tectonics in quite different ways. They take no account of the differences in either heat generation or loss between these vastly different regimes of the Earth.
Third, they use inappropriate depth distributions for the radioactive elements. Only by adopting the unrealistic assumption that most radioactive isotopes are concentrated in the outer 10 km or so of the crust do their analyses yield cooling times of “thousands of years” rather than millions of years. Although it is true that uranium, thorium, and potassium tend to be enriched in the Earth’s crust, there is every reason to think that the mantle also contains these elements; their concentrations may be small, but the mass of the mantle is so great that significant heat production results.
Finally, thermal analysis of the Earth cannot yield an estimate of its age. The age of the Earth, determined independently by radiometric dating, is one of the boundary conditions that must be satisfied in such an analysis; it is not a result. There are simply far too many things about the history and interior of the Earth that are poorly known and must be estimated. For example, even before convection was known to be an important factor in heat loss from the Earth, scientists were able to devise reasonable thermal models for the Earth that attributed all the heat generated to radioactive decay and all the heat lost to conduction. This was done simply by choosing reasonable distributions and concentrations of radioactive elements that yielded a balance between generation and loss and preserved the observed geothermal gradient. As new knowledge about mantle convection and the early history of the Earth accumulated, these models were changed to account for the new findings. There is as yet no definitive thermal model for the Earth, and it is absurd to expect that any such model can be used to determine the Earth’s age. Thus, the supposed determination of the Earth’s age from thermal calculations by Slusher and Gamwell (118) is totally without merit.

 

[Muadib]

ACCUMULATION OF OOZE ON THE SEA FLOOR
(Table 10, no. 41)

Morris and Parker (97) list an age of the Earth of 5 million years based on the accumulation of calcareous ooze on the sea floor. The reference for this age is a report by Ewing and others (45)16. The report by Ewing and his coworkers describes a study of the sediment distribution on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. They found that the sediment there is quite thin and concluded that at the present rate of sedimentation, the sediment could have accumulated in about 2 to 5 million years. This short time was puzzling to them because the ocean basins were then thought to be very old — their report was published before the theory of plate tectonics and sea-floor spreading was formulated, tested, and confirmed. We now know that the midoceanic ridges are very young and still active; in fact, their age is zero at the ridge crests. The 2 to 5 million years calculated by Ewing and his coworkers is about right for that part of the ridge surveyed by them. Note that Ewing and his coworkers did not calculate an age for the Earth, nor did they produce or describe any data with which such a calculation could be made.
FORMATION OF 14C ON METEORITES

Morris (93, 95) lists an “indicated age of Earth” of 100,000 years from “formation of carbon-14 on meteorites”; he references a report by Boeckl (18). Boeckl’s report, however, was about tektites, not meteorites. Tektites are small globules of glass whose origin has been the subject of much debate but is now thought to be from meteoritic impacts on the Earth. Boeckl (18) was attempting to establish a cosmic-ray-exposure-age for these objects to determine their residence time in space. To do so, he assumed a terrestrial age for the tektites of 10,000 years to make his calculations. Boeckl did not calculate an age for the Earth, nor did he produce any data that could be used to do so; Morris (93, 95) even has the number wrong. It is interesting to note that this “age” does not appear in the recent list of Morris and Parker (97) (Table 10), and so perhaps even they realize its absurdity.

 

[Muadib]

How Old is the Earth: Summary


Radiometric dating methods provide a reliable means of determining the ages of critical points in geologic and planetary history, including the age of the Earth, the Moon, and meteorites. That the age of the Earth is billions of years is virtually beyond question because it is supported by a wide variety of independently determined scientific evidence which indicates that the Earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old. Scientists are continually refining this age, but it is highly unlikely that it will change in the future by more than a few percent. In the past, the age of the Earth was the subject of much dispute, but the past few decades have seen the development of new techniques not previously available. There is virtually no dispute among knowledgeable scientists about the antiquity of the Earth and her sister planets.
Radiometric dating has independently confirmed and quantified the geologic time scale (Figure 1), which originally was constructed on the basis of stratigraphic and faunal succession, before the development of modern isotopic dating techniques. Although radiometric dating has allowed scientists to assign ages and to establish the length of the various eras, periods, and epochs, the relative order of these geologic time units has remained unchanged. This is powerful proof that both the dating techniques and the paleontologic and stratigraphic principles on which the time scale was originally based are sound.
There is also no doubt that the rocks now exposed on the surface of the Earth or accessible to scientists by drilling were deposited and emplaced over the geologic epochs, starting in the earliest Precambrian more than 3.8 billion years ago. There are more than 100,000 radiometric ages in the scientific literature that date rock formations and geologic events ranging in age from Holocene to earliest Precambrian. These data and all the accumulated knowledge from the science of geology show conclusively that the Earth we now see is the result of natural processes operating over vast periods and not the product of one or two worldwide catastrophic events.
The geologic corollaries of “scientific” creationism — namely, that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old and that the sedimentary rocks of the geologic column were deposited within about one year during a worldwide flood about 7000 years ago — are demonstrably wrong. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support these tenets and no scientific grounds for seriously considering “scientific” creationism, as described by Morris (92, 95), Kofahl and Segraves (77), Gish and others (54), and Morris and Parker (97) as a valid scientific theory. Indeed, most of the “research” presented in these publications consists of quoting each other’s mistakes.
Moreover, creationists’ criticisms of geologic principles in general and of radiometric dating in particular are invalid. Examined objectively, these criticisms invariably turn out to be based on obsolete or nonexistent data, misrepresentations of the scientific evidence, and incomplete, erroneous, or superficial understanding of the methods.
Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.
“Scientific” creationism does not provide any rational basis for meaningful scientific investigations of the Earth, the Solar System, or the universe. To accept or even take seriously the tenets of “scientific” creationism requires total abandonment of the results of two centuries of scientific investigations and of the principles of objectivity, rationality, and open-minded inquiry that are fundamental to science.

 

[Muadib]

That's over 68 different Young Earth Creationist arguments refuted and discarded. This is why it isn't taught in science classrooms, this is why it's referred to as pseudoscience, this is why I say the evidence does not point to creation. I'm sure you can find your particular argument refuted in there somewhere Starrise, it also does a good job of showing exactly how we arrive at the age of the Earth and how it isn't all based on carbon14 dating, which seems to be the only thing you can attack, and the reason for that is science recognizes the faults inherent in c14 dating. Science, as a whole, is honest, when we don't know something we say so, when something has limitations we recognize them and find other ways of doing things that don't suffer from those same limitations. You guys have been pitching the same bullshit arguments for 100 years. What' it like living in topsy turvy world? Come back to reality. I realize it's a lot of information to take in but you can peruse and it attempt to refute it at your leisure. If nothing else, you can always switch to old earth creationism, it's still wrong in my opinion, but it's not as easy to refute.

 

[boomerang]

I once had a short and almost one sided discussion with a staunch fundamentalist (holder of a Bachelor's degree no less) whose questions regarding how astronomers know stars to be millions and billions of light years away soon made me realize, to my astonishment, that he regarded accepted scientific estimates as questionable at best. I was soon over my head in trying to explain the concept of gauging distance to nearer stars by use of seasonal parallax, more distant ones by extrapolation of the main sequence as standard candles etc. I wound up in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain hierarchies of concepts I barely understood myself, in simple terms and in a couple of minutes to someone for whom a logical answer was not the point anyway. It also eventually dawned on me that this particular person had refined the technique of gauging my range and azimuth by way of a few strategic questions, firing a careful shot and then parting the conversation before giving me a chance to defend. This has long been the modus operandi of the true believer.

If there is a point here, it is that certain segments of society are not in search of universally rational truths, but only those truths that serve as internally consistent within their particular social tribe. And I do believe that we humans are still, after all these many centuries, tribal in nature. How this is expressed may range from which religion we choose to our favorite sports teams or political parties. Of course, more complexity is involved. And somewhere beneath it all is true mystery and the ever pressing need to grapple with our own mortality.

One of my favorite reads is Heinlein's "Job", in which a Christian fundamentalist falls deeply in love with a Norse "pagan" lady, constantly fearing for the fate of her soul. They both die and he finds himself in a very bureaucratic version of heaven while she has gone to eternally fight alongside Odin. It's delightfully absurd. But then so is this life.

 

[stonehart]

I once had a short and almost one sided discussion with a staunch fundamentalist (holder of a Bachelor's degree no less) whose questions regarding how astronomers know stars to be millions and billions of light years away soon made me realize, to my astonishment, that he regarded accepted scientific estimates as questionable at best. I was soon over my head in trying to explain the concept of gauging distance to nearer stars by use of seasonal parallax, more distant ones by extrapolation of the main sequence as standard candles etc. I wound up in the uncomfortable position of trying to explain hierarchies of concepts I barely understood myself, in simple terms and in a couple of minutes to someone for whom a logical answer was not the point anyway. It also eventually dawned on me that this particular person had refined the technique of gauging my range and azimuth by way of a few strategic questions, firing a careful shot and then parting the conversation before giving me a chance to defend. This has long been the modus operandi of the true believer.

If there is a point here, it is that certain segments of society are not in search of universally rational truths, but only those truths that serve as internally consistent within their particular social tribe. And I do believe that we humans are still, after all these many centuries, tribal in nature. How this is expressed may range from which religion we choose to our favorite sports teams or political parties. Of course, more complexity is involved. And somewhere beneath it all is true mystery and the ever pressing need to grapple with our own mortality.

One of my favorite reads is Heinlein's "Job", in which a Christian fundamentalist falls deeply in love with a Norse "pagan" lady, constantly fearing for the fate of her soul. They both die and he finds himself in a very bureaucratic version of heaven while she has gone to eternally fight alongside Odin. It's delightfully absurd. But then so is this life.

It is not about truth it is about defending a belief system that is slowly but surly being painted into a corner, on top of that there are some very wealthy Churches and fundamentalist movements that stand to lose (and are losing) money as people move away from religion.

When things stop making sense I always follow the money.. and boy I tell you that Jesus guy is loaded! well his representatives are... speaking of which when the Pope gave a speech a year ago about people giving more to help the poor, I could not but stand in awe of a man that can say this while wearing a diamond encrusted hat and holding a staff with a solid gold head piece...

Go figure.

 

[Muadib]

It is not about truth it is about defending a belief system that is slowly but surly being painted into a corner, on top of that there are some very wealthy Churches and fundamentalist movements that stand to lose (and are losing) money as people move away from religion.

When things stop making sense I always follow the money.. and boy I tell you that Jesus guy is loaded! well his representatives are... speaking of which when the Pope gave a speech a year ago about people giving more to help the poor, I could not but stand in awe of a man that can say this while wearing a diamond encrusted hat and holding a staff with a solid gold head piece...

Go figure.

Well put Stonehart. One only has to look at their arguments to realize that "creation science" itself is an oxymoron. Creationism is the very antithesis of what science is, the entire thing is one giant argument from ignorance that tries to poke holes in widely accepted and verified scientific findings that they then use to falsely impose the notion that since science can't explain it, that must mean god did it. It's total and utter nonsense, especially when you look at who has the greater amount of evidence. Starrise attempts to poke holes by proving that three experiments conducted by creationists show that c14 dates are inaccurate, but fails to recognize that there are over 100,000 examples of accurate radiometric dating on record, not to mention the earlier strata findings back up what we have learned from the various forms of radiometric dating.

He then brings up the political lobby but one only has to look at the various cases around the country where creationism has been challenged to see that creationists have their own extensive political lobby, not to mention a legion of religious warriors who threaten to blow up schools and people's homes when their beliefs are challenged. There's a reason why creationism has been struck down so many times when it's been proposed to be taught alongside evolution in science class and it has nothing to do with political lobbies. It has everything to do with the fact that creationism itself is not science, no matter how you look at it. Its precepts have been falsified at every turn and it has been recognized by scientists for exactly what it is, pseudoscience masquerading as science.

One only has to read the judge's opinion in this article to see the many problems with creationism and intelligent design as science, which is just creationism hiding behind a new name. One would have to alter the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations for creationism to become viable as a scientific theory. Period.

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design

• Sign In to E-Mail This
• Printer-Friendly
• Save Article

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: December 21, 2005
HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

Kalim A. Bhatti for The New York Times
Judge John E. Jones III.

Text: The Judge's Ruling

Text: The Orignal Statement by the Dover School Board

A Town in the Spotlight Wants Out of It (December 21, 2005)

Evolution Trial in Hands of Willing Judge (December 18, 2005)
In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum.
Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
Eleven parents in Dover, a growing suburb about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, sued their school board a year ago after it voted to have teachers read students a brief statement introducing intelligent design in ninth-grade biology class.
The statement said that there were "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they should examine.
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."
The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.
Judge Jones's decision is legally binding only for school districts in the middle district of Pennsylvania. It is unlikely to be appealed because the school board members who supported intelligent design were unseated in elections in November and replaced with a slate that opposes the intelligent design policy and said it would abide by the judge's decision.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the judge's decision should serve as a deterrent to other school boards and teachers considering teaching intelligent design.
"It's a carefully reasoned, highly detailed opinion," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "that goes through all of the issues that would be raised in any other school district."
Richard Thompson, the lead defense lawyer for the school board, derided the judge for issuing a sweeping judgment in a case that Mr. Thompson said merely involved a "one-minute statement" being read to students. He acknowledged that his side, too, had asked the judge to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design, but only because it had to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments.
"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."
The scientists who have put intelligent design forward as a valid avenue of scientific research said they were disappointed by Judge Jones's ruling but that they thought its long-term effects would be limited.
"That was a real drag," said Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University who was the star witness for the intelligent design side. "I think he really went way over what he as a judge is entitled to say."
Dr. Behe added: "He talks about the ground rules of science. What has a judge to do with the ground rules of science? I think he just chose sides and echoed the arguments and just made assertions about our arguments."
William A. Dembski, a mathematician who argues that mathematics can show the presence of design in the development of life, predicted that intelligent design would become much stronger within 5 to 10 years.
Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design.
"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."
Mainstream scientists who have maintained that no controversy exists in the scientific community over evolution were elated by Judge Jones's ruling.
"Jubilation," said Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University who has actively sparred with intelligent design proponents and testified in the Dover case. "I think the judge nailed it."
Dr. Miller said he was glad that the judge did not just rule narrowly.
Jason D. Rosenhouse, a professor of mathematics at James Madison University in Virginia and a fervent pro-evolution blogger said: "I was laughing as I read it because I don't think a scientist could explain it any better. His logic is flawless, and he hit all of the points that scientists have been making for years."
Before the start of a celebratory news conference in Harrisburg, Tammy Kitzmiller, a parent of two daughters in the Dover district and the named plaintiff in the case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, joked with other plaintiffs that she had an idea for a new bumper sticker: "Judge Jones for President."
Christy Rehm, another plaintiff, said to the others, "We've done something amazing here, not only with this decision, but with the election."
Last month, Dover, which usually votes majority Republican, ousted eight school board members who had backed intelligent design and elected the opposition that ran on a Democratic ticket.
Witold Walczak, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, who helped to argue the case, said, "We sincerely hope that other school districts who may have been thinking about intelligent design will pause, they will read Judge Jones's erudite opinion and they will look at what happened in the Dover community in this battle, pitting neighbor against neighbor."
The judge's ruling said that two of the most outspoken proponents of intelligent design on the Dover school board, William Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, lied in their depositions about how they raised money in a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," to put in the school library.
Both men, according to testimony, had repeatedly said at school board meetings that they objected to evolution for religious reasons and wanted to see creationism taught on equal footing.
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Mr. Bonsell did not respond to a telephone message on Tuesday. Mr. Buckingham, a retired police officer who has moved to Mount Airy, N.C., said, "If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar."
Mr. Buckingham said he "answered the questions the way they asked them." He called the decision "ludicrous" and said, "I think Judge Jones ought to be ashamed of himself."
The Constitution, he said, does not call for the separation of church and state.
In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.
"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."
Opponents of intelligent design said Judge Jones's ruling would not put an end to the movement, and predicted that intelligent design would take on various guises.
The Kansas Board of Education voted in November to adopt standards that call into question the theory of evolution, but never explicitly mention intelligent design.
Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said in an interview, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum like the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."
Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, Ms. Scott said, "for several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science."
Kenneth Chang contributed reporting from New York for this article.

 

[mike]

These guys have to HAVE TO, discard logic itself in order to reconcile whats in their book and what commonsense demonstrates.

At the time of the great flood there were less than 200 million humans on the planet, god demonstrates his ability to magically kill the first born of egypt later on, but despite this magic ability, has to kill off every single animal just to mop up a tiny population of humans gone bad ?

Notwithstanding the whole noahs ark fairy tale is logistical nonsense, These guys have the logic and mentality of a 3 year old child, who insists Santa is real.
Of course its nonsense, the evidence and logic are irrefutable, but to convince them of that you must first destroy their happy fantasy, which in their deeply rooted fear of oblivion, they will cling to like a literal drowning man would a straw.

 

[stonehart]

Just think about it.

 

[mike]

Exactly, you have to throw the logistics and logic out the window to accept the story as written in gods "perfect word" the bible.

The logic, logistics, evidence and science must be discarded before the story can be accepted as gods truth.

Its time we marginalised the delusional throwbacks in our midst, in all other facets of life we demand "best practise" manufacturing, health ,business. We strive to do it "better"

WE can do better than to let these delusional halfwits push their ignorance on the present and more importantly the future..............

Humankind is BETTER than this

 

[Randall]

So What Do We Do?

The thing about this debate ( and others like it ) that I don't understand, is that the information presented by both sides is now readily available that any reasonably intelligent and literate person can figure this stuff out without it having to be explained to them in such detail. So what is it about the psychology of these people that makes their minds act like filters that remove everything except what they want to believe? What form of denial or willful ignorance is this? There is some discussion on Willful ignorance here: Willful ignorance - RationalWiki

In the above article we see creationism cited as one example. Some people suggest that people who are willfully ignorant are in a state of psychological denial because they are not capable of rejecting their worldviews without affecting the way they live to such a degree that they cannot comprehend how they could possibly cope. IMO unless it means they'd be lined up and shot or stoned to death, I don't get this either. Granted, some people are so deep into religion that it can mean the loss of social contacts and intense emotional pain. Sometimes disconnecting can even result in a loss of employment. Yet there are people who have been brave enough to face all these consequences in the pursuit of the truth. So it can be done. I think the first step is in being able to admit to one's self that what you currently believe is not substantiated by the best evidence ... not just the evidence that supports your personal belief.

Unfortunately it seems that because of religious indoctrination ( particularly at an early age ), the psychological need to maintain a particular religious worldview can be so ingrained, that it is nearly impossible to dislodge the need to believe in faulty information. In some cases parents have sometimes resorted to mental deprogramming techniques, going so far as to abduct their own children away from religious cults in order to save them. In other cases people have used something called Exit Counseling, where the affected person voluntarily enters into a program designed to reveal the truth in a caring and non-threatening way. I find it absolutely amazing that in this day and age that there remains a need for such things, but I've encountered hard core religious people so many times that I can't deny that victims of religious programming and propaganda exist. So what do we do?

In this forum we're largely preaching to the choir. Outside this forum, one of the most important things we can do is support the removal of religious indoctrination from our schools and our communities. By indoctrination, I don't mean that religion as a subject shouldn't be allowed within a voluntary historical context, only that it should not be promoted as a worldview to be adopted as if it were all true. I also think it's important not to come across as being hostile to those like Starise who are willing to engage those who aren't religious. Even if the evidence presented in opposition to religious programming may be true, if it's delivered with hostility it's not likely to be well received and consequently more harm than good can result. I'm not suggesting that anyone here has been openly hostile, but there have been elements of ridicule and there has been a less that welcoming tone at times.

At the same time, it's not easy to navigate these issues because there is always the danger of either side coming across as somehow "superior" or "holier than thou". Victims of religious programming don't see themselves as "victims" and they can take great personal offense to that suggestion, or even disengage from discussion, because that is often what they have been taught to do. But that still shouldn't mean that we don't an ethical responsibility not to treat them as our enemy. They are often times good hearted people who have only been misled by faulty information, and unless they start taking up arms against us, it should not be our cause to force them to capitulate or to hurt them either physically or emotionally, neither should we be afraid. We need to be steadfast in our pursuit of the truth and as caring as is possible. Only then will we succeed in helping those programmed with false religious beliefs understand that what they believe is not substantiated by the evidence.

 

[Muadib]

A very thoughtful, well written post you've made there Ufology. Thanks for posting it. You're right, on this forum, I'm largely preaching to the choir when I go through this kind of debate with someone. Most of us have looked into these issues before and we've reached the conclusion that there is no scientific merit to creationism. To clarify why I bother, this person that I'm debating with in this thread has stated that scientific reasoning and evidence have led him to the conclusions he bears, even though we can see from the way he misinterprets the concept of evolution, and attempts to undermine known and accepted scientific practices and principles, that he's never really given any real thought or study to the facts that oppose his religious viewpoint.

It's painfully obvious to anyone who isn't carrying his religious baggage that the very idea of creationism lies outside of the framework of science as a whole, and that the real scientific evidence does not point to the bible being absolute truth. So I continue to debate and provide counterpoint for anyone who may be reading this now, or come across this later, who hasn't made up their mind on the subject. I may come across as harsh when I speak about creationism, but that hostility isn't directed at my opponent in this debate, it's directed at these ideas that attempt to subvert not only science, but knowledge itself in an attempt to shove a religious interpretation of the world down our throats. I don't hate the person I'm debating, but I do at times find myself exasperated by his willful ignorance. Just thought I'd clarify.

 

[Randall]

... I don't hate the person I'm debating, but I do at times find myself exasperated by his willful ignorance. Just thought I'd clarify.

Muadib, the frustration surrounding this issue is notorious for derailing people's composure, but in your most recent posts you've risen above it. That is not to imply that in the past you were way out of line, but I think you've kicked it up another notch, and I've never seen anyone else in an online forum present their case in such an objective and informative manner. Very well done !

 

[stonehart]

Muadib, the frustration surrounding this issue is notorious for derailing people's composure, but in your most recent posts you've risen above it. That is not to imply that in the past you were way out of line, but I think you've kicked it up another notch, and I've never seen anyone else in an online forum present their case in such an objective and informative manner. Very well done !

lol yeah don't get mad... just show the facts

All great truths begin as blasphemies as I love saying and if heaven were to exist I am well and truly damned lol

I am impressed at the composure and the quality of rebuttal you have been using Muadib .. well done man.

 

[Muadib]

Thank you for the support Ufology and Stonehart. It's very much appreciated.

 

[Randall]

Thank you for the support Ufology and Stonehart. It's very much appreciated.

In light of the recent discussion, I'd like to point out something and hope for some feedback. While we may see religious folks as misled and uninformed, and wonder how anyone could stay that way, there is a contingent ( mostly skeptics ) who think that those who believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real are no different from the religious folks. For example our resident skeptic Lance has colorfully referred to us ( or possibly me ) as a "Zealot", the origin of which dates back to Jewish rebels in ancient Rome. In other words he and others like him are putting me and the religious folks in the same camp ( so to speak ).

Without defending my position at this point, my perspective from the middle of this odd situation is that I see three sets of widely separated worldviews, each of which considers itself perfectly normal and in tune with the way things are. Or to put it another way, if getting a skeptic to believe UFOs ( alien craft ) are real would be like getting you or I to turn religious, then the gulf between non-religious Skeptics and non-religious UFO believers is as wide as the gulf between non-religious UFO believers and religious folks.

When contemplated as above, it becomes apparent that the rifts between these groups are all much larger than we might have first suspected. So my questions are. How do we reconcile this situation? Is it even possible? I've recently commented in another thread that a certain self proclaimed skeptic was coming across to me the same way as the religious people do, yet they simply couldn't see it. Logically this situation involves such radically different worldviews that one ( or all of them ) must be deluded. So how do we tell which one isn't and how do we support that position?

 

[mike]

Here is some of the logic..........

Six Thousand Years:
The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?
The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is much older than 6,000 years old.

The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why:
How do we get fossils?

The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:

When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.
Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)

God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.

Thats the logic ?, really ?, fossils show signs of violence and disease, and thats not good thus........

Lots more of this nonsense here
The Earth Is 6000 Years Old

If you find your local brick wall isnt hard enough to hurt.

And while the Santa pic is hilarious, it illustrates how the meme propagates, convince a young child while its still impressionable of a thing, even an impossible thing and it sticks for many.