ChristiansUnite Forums

NEW RATE DATA SUPPORT A YOUNG WORLD-
IMPACT No. 366 December 2003
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.*

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved

New experiments done this year for the RATE project strongly support a young earth. This article updates results announced in an ICR Impact article last year and documented at a technical conference last summer. Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated Helium escapes from tiny radio-active crystals in granite-like rock. The new data extend into a critical range of temperatures, and they resoundingly confirm a num-erical prediction we published several years before the experiments. The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian5 age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years. Thus these data are powerful evidence against the long ages of uniformitarianism and for a recent creation consistent with Scripture.

(http://www.icr.org/newsletters/images/impact1203-1.jpg)

 Here are some details...

 Radioactive crystals make and lose Helium

These radioactive crystals, called zircons, are common in granitic rock. As a zircon crystal grows in cooling magma, it incorporates Uranium and Thorium atoms from the magma into its crystal lattice. After a zircon is fully formed and the magma cools some more, a crystal of black mica called biotite forms around it. Other minerals, such as quartz and feldspar, form adjacent to the biotite.

The Uranium and Thorium atoms inside a zircon decay through a series of intermediate elements to eventually become atoms of Lead. Many of the inter-mediate nuclei emit alpha particles, which are nuclei of Helium atoms. For zircons of the sizes we are considering, most of the fast-moving alpha particles slow to a stop within the zircon. Then they gather two electrons apiece from the surrounding crystal and become Helium atoms. Thus a Uranium 238 atom produces eight Helium atoms as it becomes a Lead 206 atom. (See diagram above)

Helium atoms are lightweight, fast-moving, and do not form chemical bonds with other atoms. They move rapidly between the atoms of a material and spread themselves as far apart as possible. This process of diffusion, theoretically well-understood for over a century, makes Helium leak rapidly out of most materials.

Natural zircons still contain much Helium  

In 1974, in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico, geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory drilled a borehole several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They ground up samples from the rock cores, extracted the zircons, and measured the amount of Uranium, Thorium, and Lead in the crystals. From those data they calculated that 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay had taken place in the zircons, making the usual uniformitarian assumption that decay rates have always been constant.

Then they sent core samples from the same borehole to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis. At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry (a well-known creationist) and his colleagues extracted the zircons, selected crystals between 50 and 75 µm (0.002 to 0.003 inches) long, and measured the total amount of Helium in them. They used the Los Alamos Uranium-Lead data to calculate the total amount of Helium the decay had produced in the zircons. Comparing the two values gave the percentage of Helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.

Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the nuclear-decay-generated Helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less Helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of Helium!

To continue on next post...

Experiments verify RATE prediction

Many creationists believed it would be impossible for that much Helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years, but we had no measurements of diffusion rates to substantiate that belief. As of 2000 the only reported Helium diffusion data for zircons were ambiguous. So in that year, the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure Helium diffusion in zircon (as well as biotite) from the same borehole. The experimenter was one of the world's foremost experts in Helium diffusion measurements in minerals.

At the same time, we estimated the diffusion rates that would be necessary to get Gentry's observed Helium retentions for two different zircon ages: (a) 6000 years, and (b) 1.5 billion years. Then in the year 2000 we published the two sets of rates as "Creation" and "Evolution" models in our book outlining the RATE project goals.

The next year, 2001, we received a preprint of a paper reporting data on zircons from another site. In 2002 we received zircon data for our site from our experimenter. Both sets of data cover a temperature range of 300º to 500º C, which is somewhat higher than the temperature range of Gentry's data and our prediction, 100º to 277º C. Both sets agree with each other and, while not overlapping our "Creation" model, both lined up nicely with it. We reported these data in a technical paper that the editors of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism accepted for publication in their Proceedings.

In July 2003, just one month before the conference, we received a new set of zircon and biotite data from our experimenter. These data were much more useful to us, in three ways: (1) these zircons were 50 to 75 µm in length, (2) both zircons and biotite came from a 1490 meter depth, (3) the zircon diffusion rate data went down to 175º C. Items (1) and (2) mean that these zircons matched Gentry's exactly, being from the same borehole, rock unit, depth range, and size range. Item (3) means the diffusion rate data now extend well into the temperature range of our models.

These new data agree very well with our "Creation" model prediction, as the figure shows. Moreover, the diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow, thus emphatically repudiating it.

(http://www.icr.org/newsletters/images/impact1203-2.jpg)

New data closes loopholes

The experimenter also accurately measured the total amounts of Helium in both the zircons and in the surrounding flakes of biotite. This ties up some loose ends for our case: (1) The total amount of Helium in the zircons confirms Gentry's retention measurements very well. (2) Our measurements show that the Helium concentration was about 300 times higher in the zircons than in the surrounding biotite. This confirms that Helium was diffusing out of the zircons into the biotite, not the other way around. (3) The total amount of Helium in the biotite flakes (which are much larger than the zircons) is roughly equal to the amount the zircons lost.

Compare this situation to an hourglass whose sand represents the Helium atoms: We have data (from Uranium and Lead) for the original amount in the top (zircon), the present amount in the top, the present amount in the bottom (biotite), and the rate of trickling (diffusion) between them. That makes our case very strong that we are reading the Helium "hourglass" correctly.

The zircons are young  

The new data allow us to calculate more exactly how long diffusion has been taking place. The result is 6000 (± 2000) years—about 250,000 times smaller than the alleged 1.5 billion year Uranium-Lead age. This and other exciting new developments in RATE projects are confirming our basic hypothesis: that God drastically speeded up decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the Genesis Flood and other brief periods in the earth's short history. Such accelerated nuclear decay collapses the uniformitarian "ages" down to the Scriptural timescale of thousands of years.

 I will never believe that science is infallible. Science is not always correct in it's conclusions.
 God is always correct, so if science goes against what God says, then science is wrong.

 The evidence is not there for evolution. I challenge you, or anyone to find a series of graduated transitional fossils which show one species mutating into another.

 The fossil record does not corroborate evolution
and the DNA evidence does not support the ability of creatures to grow new appendages. This is essential if you are to believe a single celled organism slowly evolved into a human, among all other life forms.

 So far, you have not been able to answer two challenges ebia.

1) find archaeological evidence which puts into dispute a single biblical event, or personage.

2) find a series of G.T.F.'s which show even a single example of one species mutating into another.

 Your positions on the Bible not being a historically accurate record, and the reality of evolution must be based on something...right?

 You seem to be trying to serve two masters my friend.

Bronzesnake.

 The conclusion of that report is nothing of the kind.
 It simply states that the earth may be as young as 6,000 years old.

 I guess you missed my post on the reliability of carbon and radio dating....


 The science behind carbon and radiometric dating is seriously flawed...

The most commonly used radiometric dating methods are potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium. The concept of how these methods work is simple: one element decays into another at a rather predictable rate. Potassium decays and becomes argon. Uranium decays into lead. And rubidium decays into strontium. All three of these decay processes have half-lives measured in billions of years. Half-life is simply the time required for half of the atoms in a pound of uranium, for example, to disintegrate into lead. That time is approximately 4.5 billion years.

The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions. To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:


1) What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.

2)That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.

3)That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.

4)That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.


If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.


Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.


Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.

 I doubt you'll even attempt to answer the questions asked about how such old dates were given for known young lava rocks, as well as the following...
 
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?

carbon dating is as reliable as the graduated transitional fossil evidence. They are both based on presupposition and flawed assumptions.

 Bronzesnake.

ebia...

My quote...
 
 
Your response...
"But you can show this.  The problem is, that the creationist then says "what about the gaps"  This goes on forever, because (unless you had every individual in direct descent fossilised) there must always be gaps.    Fossilisation is a relatively rare event, so the gaps are expected to be quite large (given that evolution is punctuated equilibrium, not evenly continuous)."

 Ebia.
You claim to believe in an evolutionary creation, and yet you don't have a clue as to why you believe it. I never asked for "every individual in direct descent fossilized" I simply asked for a set of G.T.F.'s which show one species mutating into another.

 Doesn't it seem odd to you that with all the many thousands of fossils we have, there is not a single series amongst them which shows the graduated transitional process from a single species into another? This is what the entire theory is based on, and yet there isn't a single shred of evidence to prove it ever occurred.

 Punctuated equilibrium is another theory which evolutionist scientists came up with when they realized there wasn't a single example of G.T.F. to be found. Punctuated equilibrium can not be proven, due to the fact that the theory claims species mutated virtually over night! That isn't science ebia.

 Your quote...
 "Science doesn't work by saying "what evidence would I like", but "what should I see if this theory is true", and (more importantly) "what shouldn't I see if this theory is true".

 That's a good beginning. However, in the case of evolution, scientists haven't found a single shred of evidence to "see if this theory is true" That's why scientists are trying desperately to distance themselves from the classic Darwinian evolution, by proposing new theories which can not be proved at all!
That's why you can't point me to any solid proof that evolution actually happened.
 You believe it because someone told you it was true, you have obviously never checked it out for yourself...I have, and it's not there.


Bronzesnake

The real issue to these types of arguments is that the validity of the science in either side of these arguments is beyond the layman to choose between.  In fact it is beyond most of the scientist in the world unless they specialize in the area being discussed.

That is why any claims such as the ones by Dr. Humphreys has to be reviewed by peer review journals.  Since the article being quoted does not list a respected peer review journal as its source I would not be too quick to jump on the band wagon and run around quoting it.

I don't know about others, but in my case, it was a long thinking process and considering science, including the implications of the scientific method, that brought me to belief in the Bible, including the Creation event as described in Genesis 1.. Others don't need that.

As to who judges science, "sponteaneous-generaation-scientists" apply one criterion to Creationists, a different one to others. Charles Darwin, practically the patron-saint of Darwinists, neo-Darwinists, post-Darwinists, punctuated-equilibriumists, and whatever other name they have nowadays, had only one degree, and that in Theology.

Creationists have challenged x-Darwinists for a century to apply the scientific method to their work. So they're actually coming up with a new way to do science, where they don't have to bother with that. (Don't object; I've studied their best assertions on this subject).

Don't be fooled by obfuscations. There is a intrinsic difference between factual science and conclusions based on philosophical conjectures that do not require science degrees to discern.  Perceiving billions of years of history in the stars and in biological history on Earth requires a philosophical interpretation of the facts, it is not "in" the facts.

Stephen Hawkings said this himself in "A Brief History of Time', when he called it "an admixture of ideaology".

 Hi Michael.

 The problem with having a creation based scientific study reviewed by scientists, is that the great majority of respected scientific journals are evolutionist based, and frown (I'm being very kind) on any creationist science. as a matter of fact, the very term "creation science" is an oxymoron in the mainstream scientific community.

 I predict that this study will not be permitted in any of the respected scientific journals, not because the science is necessarily flawed, but rather, because of the fact that it supports a creationist conclusion.

Bronzesnake.

 
 And exactly what qualifications do you poses that I don't?


 I haven't manufactured any evidence my friend. The study I posted was done by Dr. Russell Humphries, Ph.D Physics

 I'll give you his credentials...

Russel Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics




Education:

B.S. Physics, Duke University - 1963
Ph.D. Physics, Louisiana State University - 1972
Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.


Professional Experience:

From 1973 to 1979 I worked at the General Electric Company High Voltage in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There I designed test and measurement equipment, invented instrumentation, and researched lightning and high-voltage phenomena. I received a U.S. patent and one of Industrial Research magazine's IR-100 awards.

In 1979 I began working as a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There I have worked in nuclear physics, geophysics, high voltage engineering, pulsed power research, and theoretical atomic and molecular physics. For the first four years, I helped to develop borehole logging probes which used neutron generators and various nuclear radiation detectors to locate uranium and other mineral deposits. I have a U.S. patent for part of that work. From 1983 to 1995 I worked with Sandia's Particle Beam Fusion project [Science 232 (16 May 1986) pp. 831-836 and cover photo]. I was one of the two inventors of the 6 megavolt laser-triggered gas spark gaps used in the project's 100 terawatt particle accelerator, PBFA-II. This class of spark gaps, called "Rimfire" switches, are now coming into general use at many pulsed power facilities nationwide, and earned me one of Sandia's Exceptional Contribution awards. In 1988 I switched jobs within the project to design inertial confinement fusion targets. That work involved theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help the project produce the world's first laboratory-scale thermonuclear fusion. In 1990, Sandia awarded me an award "for excellence in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory." From 1995 to the present I have been working in nuclear weapons research.


Physics Research and Development - Professional:

Currently on nuclear weapons projects. Designed and theoretically analyzed thermonuclear fusion targets using radiation hydrodynamic codes. Designed key high-voltage parts of Sandia's 100-Terawatt Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator II and conducted fusion power experiments on it. Research on low-temperature solids and studies on superconductors. Developed high repetition-rate neutron tube driver and gamma-ray spectrometer for borehole logging applications. Patents on wide-bandwidth electric field sensor and high-voltage neutron tube supply. Designed lightning current waveform recorder which won IR-100 Award. Studied electric fields and ion currents under ultrahigh voltage DC transmission lines. Theoretical studies of velocity dependence of nuclear forces. Ph.D. dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions.

Scientific Research - Creationist:

Paleomagnetism: Developed theory for rapid reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood; it shared prizes for best technical paper at the First and Second International Conferences on Creationism, 1986 and 1990, and it successfully predicted later measurements.

Geomagnetism: Developed theory for origin of planetary magnetic fields which successfully predicted later spaceprobe measurements, 1983 - present.

Geochemistry: Co-authored paper on sodium accumulation in the ocean; it shared a prize at the Second International Conference on Creationism in 1990 and has challenged evolutionists.

Cosmology: Began development of a relativistic creationist cosmology. The first article won an award at the Third International Conference on Creationism, 1994. Wrote a best-selling book about it, as well as several technical articles defending it and developing it further.

Awards/Honors:

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995.

Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence "in developing and executing new and innovative light ion target theory," 1990.

U.S. Patent No. 4,808,368 (Feb 28, 1989) "High voltage supply for neutron tubes in well-logging applications."

Sandia National Laboratories Exceptional Contribution Award, for Rimfire laser-triggered gas-insulated switch, 1988.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award to PBFA-II project, 1986.

Industrial Research Magazine IR-100 award for lightning waveform recorder (to D. R. Humphreys and two others), 1978.

U.S. Patent No. 4,054,835 (Oct. 18, 1977) "Rapid-response electric field sensor."

Winner, Eighteenth Annual Westinghouse National Science Talent Search (1959).


Publications: (partial list)

"Comparison of experimental results and calculated detector responses for PBFA II Selected thermal source experiments," Review of Scientific Instruments 63 (October 1992) No. 10.


"Inertial confinement fusion with light ion beams," 13th Internat. Conf. on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research, Washington, D.C. 1-6, October, 1990.

Reducing aspect ratios in inertial confinement fusion targets," JOWOG 37 Conference, Albuquerque, NM, January 1990. (Contents classified).

"Progress Toward a Superconducting Opening Switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, 1987, pp. 279-282.

"Scaling relations for the Rimfire multi-stage gas switch," Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, VA, June 29 - August 1, 1987.

"Rimfire: A Six Megavolt Laser-Triggered Gas-Filled Switch for PBFA-II," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985, pp. 262-269.

"PBFA II, a 100 TW pulsed power driver for the inertial confinement fusion program," Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE Pulsed Power Conference, Arlington, Virginia, June 10-12, 1985.

"Uranium Logging with Prompt Fission Neutrons," International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 34 (1983) 261-268.

"Uranium logging with prompt fission neutrons," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, NS-28 (1981) 1691-1695.

"Pulsed neutron gamma ray logging for minerals associated with uranium," 6th Conf. on Small Accelerators in Research and Industry, Denton, TX, November 3-5, 1980. Sandia National Laboratories document no. SAND80-1531.

Wide-range multi-channel analog switch," Nuclear Instruments and Methods 121 (1974) 505-508.

"The 1/g Velocity Dependence of Nucleon-Nucleus Optical Potentials," Nuclear Physics A182 (1972) 580.

"Studies of hadron interactions at energies around 10 TeV using an ionization spectrometer-emulsion chamber combination," Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Cosmic Rays, Budapest 1969, in Acta Physica Acad. Sci. Hungaricae 29 (1970) 497-503.

"Wide-Range multi-input pulse height recording system," Review of Scientific Instruments 38 (1967) 1123-1127.


 Will that do it for ya neo?

But now you claim to have two problems.

First creationists accuse the scientists of doing bad science (using bad scientific method) and now we have to add a conspiracy theory on top of ineptitude in order to justify why no one will accept our brilliant work.

I cannot accept that I do not believe scientists are inept (they understand scientifice method much better than the creationists I have spoke with) and I do not believe they are intrinsicly evil so as to prevent publication of competing theories if they have any merit at all.  If one read the scientific journals as I do you would be amazed at the junk that get to see the light of day just because it has one interesting idea imbedded somewhere in it.

No creationism isn't a science and does not get published in scientific peer review journals because they always miss the one point of why science exists.  It is not to find truth.  It exists to provide predictive power.  My suggestion to all creationists who want to be published is stop  trying to collect facts that fit into your version of history and write them up, and instead find these facts and show their significance through applying them to your version of history coming up with a prediction that can be tested.  If it succeeds that will impress the scientific community and they will be more willing to look at your version of the events of history.

If you look at Humphreys paper it did not predict this behaior of zircons it discovered them and then worked to prove they fit the 6000 year age of the earth.  if they had taken the 6000 year age of the earth and predicted that zircons would behave this way - that would have been spectacular.

In astrophysics there is a similar story to my suggestion in the measurement of the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe.  It was predicted from the big bang that it should be a certain amount and lo and behold it was.

Creationism has a problem making these type of predictions from their version of events because they have no mechanism they can describe underlying the events.  They don't know how God pulled it all off.  So they cannot apply mathematics to their model and thus cannot make predictions from it.

Scientist do not value models with no predictive capability as it gives us no control over our environment and that is the goal of science after all.  That is why evolution has held sway for so long even though it is admittedly a very inferior theory compared to others in the scientific arena.  But nothing else has come up to challenge it and explain or predict even half of what it has been able to do.  Until someone comes up with something to replace it in its predictive role it will continue to be used, regardless of what the truth is.

 Hi Michael.

 
Shouldn't science follow the evidence to wherever it leads?
Evolutionary scientists can never come to the conclusion of a created universe due to their own presuppositions. Therefore, the same criticism they use against creationists science can be used against them.

 What if God did create the universe? Can science come to that conclusion through a careful examination of the evidence?
Can they dismiss the evolutionary model as improbable, or even impossible? would they? I doubt it, although many are openly frustrated by the total lack of proof to support evolution, they cling desperately to their sinking ship, because God is unthinkable to them..

Evolutionary scientist also try to collect facts which fit their version of history.

 Is it science to state life spontaneously generated? What is the scientific proof for such an outlandish statement? "It must have because it's here" That's not science.

 Is punctuated equilibrium science? No, it's philosophy - it's a theory witch can not be tested.  

 Creation scientist do use scientific methods Michael. However, they draw different conclusions based on what is observed.

 Can science prove that a car was created strictly on the physical evidence shown by the car itself? Can they draw conclusions based on it's seemingly specific design and purposeful attributes? Of course they can. However, when scientists use the same criteria through scientific study to draw conclusions about creation, they are ostracized.

 As Christians, we can not serve two masters. We either take God at face value, or we put our faith in the scientific conclusions of man.

 Bronzesnake.

 

PART 1 of 2


That is how the Greeks did science, they looked at the shadows on the cave wall and tried to deduce what was out side to use a famous metaphor.  When science was in its infancy that is what it tried to do and back then it also was trying to find the truth.  But since the early 1800's maybe earlier, philosophy showed that science could never discover the truth with absolute certainty.  The reasoning is called the white crow argument if you want to look it up.

So science gave up searching for truth and in the process reversed the process.  We now know enough about the natural world that we can form pretty good stories about how it works (called theories).  These theories if properly formed have underlying mechanisms that drive everything alone.  These mechanisms can be quantified and objectified to the point of being described in terms of mathematics.  These mathematics can be used to predict other consequences of the theory.  If these predicted consequences turn out to be true (tested by experiment) then the theory is a success (for predicting and thus controlling our environment) and gains popularity.  So today the theory comes first then the experiment, where as in the days of the Greeks the experiment (observing the world - or shadows on the cave wall) came before the theory (the explanation).  

If someone were to come to a research foundation today asking for money to find out what happens when you mix two unknown things together they would be laughed out of the room.  Today you have to come in and say I think when I mix these two things together - this is what is going to happen for this reason.  then you might get funded if your math is sound the mechanism is reasonable and your theory doesn' fly int he face of everything we know.  If your theory does counter everything we know then it is your responsibility to show that this new theory can predict everything all the theories we are going to have to abandon already explain.  No one wants to abandon all of what we know just to explain one piece of new information.


Are you talking biological evolutionists?  If so it is not their job to prove where the universe came from.

If you are talking about cosmological evolutionists then they do have theories that discuss creation of the universe.

As far as suppositions go - don't be too quick to assume that they are an overriding force in the world of science.  Sure everyone has internal biases but they can be seen past by most people - otherwise our entire criminal justice system would never work.  Scientists are aware of their biases (they are after all mostly educated men and are not naive) and there are measures taken in development of theories and scientific method to account for them.

END OF PART 1

PART 2 of 2


One does not know - but it does not matter.  Science is not looking for truth.  If they can come up with a theory that explains all behavior perfectly (which I am sure they cannot), even if it did not have God at the beginning - that is all they are looking for.  As I have expressed before science uses the best prediction generating model and calls it good.  It is better for them to have good predictions from a clearly wrong theory than to know the truth and not be able to predict anything from it.


There is not a total lack of proof for evolution, it is the only theory (as bad as it is) that explains much of what we see in the development of the species and is the only one I know of to predict species that were unknown until later, when their skeletal remains were discovered.  Yes they cling to a sink ship, not because God is unthinkable to them, but because creationism and other competing theories do not offer any predictive power.


Not good ones.  Good scientists do not go out and just look for evidence that is not how science is done anymore.  They instead attempt to predict behavior or evidence that has not been obsevred and then develop a test or experiment to see if their prediction based on the mechanism behidn their theory is correct.  That is how the skeletal remains were found.  The scientists predicted a certain type of animal had to exist between two already known and then determined what time period that had to be - what type of environment it must have lived in and then sent palentologist out to look in a certain strata of rock in a certain part of the world and eureka they found them.  Success.  That is what creationism needs to do if it wants to be a science.

But creationism doesn't have to be a science to be respected.  There are many paradigms (or ways of knowing) that are respected.  Science is one, religion is another.  Why not leave creationism in the religious area and have it search for truth not predictive power.  That way it is not at odds with science.


Science is about predicting from a model - that means interpolating (projecting data between two known points) sometimes as they did with the skeletal remains I explained above.  Sometimes it means extrapolating (projecting data beyond the last known point).  So yes this is science.  If they extrapolate enough data they could even predict what form the life took etc and then plan an experiment to see if that was what happened and if it failed modify their theory and if it succeeded - Eureka.  Remember science is not in the truth business it is in the prediction business.


What is your proof that this cannot be tested?


I do not see it.  I see them do experiments and I see them try to fit existing data into their theories but that is not science.  Science is taking your theory making a prediction and testing to see if that prediction is accurate.  I do not know of a single prediction made by the creationists - let alone one that has been verified by experiment.  If you are aware of one let me know I would love to read it.
 

Only because they do not come up with a mechanism for how that creation took place - a mechanism that can be quantified and converted into formulas to predict as yet unseen behavior.


As a Christian I rely on science to predict if that tree is going to fall on my house.  I rely on God to guide my house.  I am not serving two masters.  I am serving God and science is serving me.

END OF PART 2

Better than sinking into the Flood...

The Royal Society of London (the first association of scientists of whom some 80 percent were Puritans), including Isaac Newton, was maybe two hundred years old already. Point is their double standard.


Yeah. Fools in this case like Steven Gould, Isaac Asimov, other such fools. They both had essays in the very best presentation of the naturalistic evolution case that could be made. The editor was beaten senseless academically in a debate with a Creationist, so he got the best authors he could to write something. They now tell "scientists" not to engage in any such debates.  


Science is not the collection of facts (though it depends on that) but the formation and testing of conclusions drawn from those facts.
Now there's a good point. Science has paradigms, working frameworks, in which they place their ideas. The x-Darwinist looks at the fossil record, and since he refuses to accept Genesis 1 with its other implications, he has to "conclude" something else. My point was about the difference between "factual science" and "philosophical interpretation". We have the same fossil record, for example, the same facts.

Now go test it. Neither the Creationist nor the x-Darwinist claims to be able to "test it". Both groups make claims about which philosohy, or framework of ideas, paradigm, makes the best fit for that evidence.

Steven Gould's term was "trade secret". I just expanded on his own terminlogy.



Okay, morphological. But how do you expect a more "exact" answer for a genralized question like that?


I never claimed it was a majority. Anyway, "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth unto destruction. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life." For the record, I never said it was going to be a majority either. However, it is definitely a significant minority. A much much bigger one for example, than is required, say, for the same club of the high priests of this persuasion to consider a variable speed of light. And it is growing.



Uh, this particular paragraph of our exchange was about the changes afoot among "scientists".

++++++


It says what it says. God is not a man that He should lie. "I am the Lord thy God. I change not". "His word is established in heaven forever and ever". "Not one jot or tittle shall pass away until all be fulfilled".

 
It's the same point. Just because you say you're Christian doesn't mean much. I could say I'm Ebia, doesn't make it so. So what criteria can we use? I'd say do you believe the Bible? By the way, most Europeans is cold cold cold to the Gospel.