Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Metalject]

Sorry if I misrepresented your view. You introduced the idea of being remembered and then discussed it at length, and said "Once you're dead and gone you're forgotten, your life held no meaning."

In the context of all the discussion about being remembered, I read that literally as once you are a) dead (and gone) you are b) forgotten, (therefore) your life held no meaning. Meaning that if you were still alive (possibly), or dead and remembered, your life might have some meaning. Now I think I understand that you were not trying to say that, but perhaps you were doing something else like anticipating objections or something??? I don't know. But I hope you can understand the ambiguity, and we can drop the being remembered thing since none of cares about it.

You're right, I was not trying to say that. The issue of "remembered" was just an example or something I used to try to share my point/view, it wasn't the foundation of my comments by any means.

BTW, my comments about nothing being something - I wasn't comparing the two arguments directly. Roman's comment reminded me of the nothing is something argument. Aristotle and GFW Hegel among many others have discussed the topic of nothing being something to death...it's an old yet interesting argument, IMO. My point was simply anything that is nothing has been given a placed value, therefore, in the case of this topic, constitutes a belief since the belief is a value. Now if you take a more agnostic approach, not knowing, then sure you have not placed a value on it but that doesn't mean a value doesn't exist, there's still a belief that goes one direction or another even if you've chosen not to recognize the belief in either direction.

[thisAngelBites]

Now if you take a more agnostic approach, not knowing, then sure you have not placed a value on it but that doesn't mean a value doesn't exist, there's still a belief that goes one direction or another even if you've chosen not to recognize the belief in either direction.

I think we've perseverated on agnostic/atheistic thing enough for me. And I am am obviously having a very difficult time understanding exactly what your claims are.

[Metalject]

I think we've perseverated on agnostic/atheistic thing enough for me. And I am am obviously having a very difficult time understanding exactly what your claims are.

I agree, the agnostic.atheist argument has been done to death in this thread, but I wasn't getting into that argument either. Maybe I'm having a difficult time expressing what I'm trying to say. Of course I understand what I'm saying perfectly since I'm the one saying it, lol! So I'll let it go at that.

BTW, anytime you Brits post on here, for whatever reason in my head when I read the post it has an accent...it's somewhat entertaining. Feel free to hear banjo music when you read my replies since I'm from the deep south

[Deal Me In]

I swear, people tend to read whatever they want when something doesn't quite fit whatever they think, and I'm sure I've been guilty of doing the same...I try not to but I'm sure I have. That said, I never said the purpose and meaning of life had anything to do with being remembered, I even went out of my way to explain how even being remembered was meaningless. My point with the being remembered comments was even if your life was so significant and you were remembered, even then that's not enough to really matter once you're dead and gone.

As for "leaving the world a better place" contributing to the advancement of society, etc. how or why this matters to the individual in a universe where there is no god doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To start, what you consider a better place, advancement, moral and societal improvements etc. is based on your own opinion and is not based on anything foundational. Sure, you can find those that agree with you but you can find just as many if not more that disagree...why is your "a better world" better than the other man's "a better world"? And fine, you've passed things down to your children, but you're still dead in the ground with no consciousness and it's as if you never lived...sure, your kids live through you, which is kind of a feel good fluffy thing to say IMO, because eventually they'll be dead in the ground with no conscious either.

Obviously as human beings we all want to have purpose or feel like our life holds meaning and importance, that it matters at some level to some degree. And so we create little feel good statements to give ourselves this feeling of purpose and importance, i.e. "to leave the world a better place than I found it", "To contribute to man's advancement" and things like that. But why does that matter when it's only based on your own opinion of what those things are, your own personal feelings and thoughts. Just because you hold personal feelings and thoughts, which are most certainly entitled to have, that does not make them true or meaningful.

I do think all the things mentioned, being a good person, family, trying to live a good life, etc. all of those are important things and I'm not trying to diminish them in a sense to say they don't matter. But, and this is all opinion based, (this entire thread is opinion based) those things are merely small pieces, they do not make up the whole. And of course that leads to what is the full purpose of life then? I see Mr. Roman has made a new thread so for now I'll leave it at that and make my comment there if something comes to mind, which I'm sure it will since I seem to enjoy talking about this.

Ok, let's try it another way. How would you describe meaningful? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. I read your comment the same way Angel did.

It seems to me that you believe life is only meaningful if you live your life according to a moral code you read in a book and our lives continue in some way after death. Now, being an atheist this all sounds silly to me but I'm trying to understand how you would define a "meaningful life."

The topics you touched on about how we define a "good, moral life" and how we "make society better" are very valid points. This are decided by individuals and society both and change over time. Slavery used to be acceptable but we have moved on from that in such a way to better our society. That belief started with a few people and then moved on to overtake society. Also see gay rights more recently.

If you would like to start a thread about how society decides what is good and bad I would be happy to participate. It's a thrilling topic. However, it has nothing to do with god or religion.

[bruary17]

Calling atheism a religion may not be factually accurate but it is a belief system.
Have you ever heard the old argument that nothing is impossible because nothing is something? Point being, you cannot have nothing if you can define it and by calling something nothing you have defined it, it is a value, a value of nothing but still a value. So in that same thinking, even if you don't believe in god, because you've placed a value on it, the value of non-belief, you therefore hold a belief.

Mind=blown.

[bruary17]

faulty logic mate. saying atheism is a religion is like saying the null value is a number.

sorry. try again.



I'm looking for a "Stairway to Heaven", mate!

I meant it is more of a belief system as metalject put it. And most atheists I know believe in their belief system with some serious conviction.....very much like devout Christians.

[Times Roman]

just like anything, there is a full spectrum of people that handle their atheistic beliefs differently.

There are the quiet ones that don't put much thought into it until the subject comes up

and there are others that are crusaders.

Just like King Jamers.

Some believe, yet practice little

and then there are those at the other end that are blowing up abortion clinics

..........you open yourself up to criticism by generalizing

[Metalject]

Ok, let's try it another way. How would you describe meaningful? I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. I read your comment the same way Angel did.

It seems to me that you believe life is only meaningful if you live your life according to a moral code you read in a book and our lives continue in some way after death. Now, being an atheist this all sounds silly to me but I'm trying to understand how you would define a "meaningful life."

The topics you touched on about how we define a "good, moral life" and how we "make society better" are very valid points. This are decided by individuals and society both and change over time. Slavery used to be acceptable but we have moved on from that in such a way to better our society. That belief started with a few people and then moved on to overtake society. Also see gay rights more recently.

If you would like to start a thread about how society decides what is good and bad I would be happy to participate. It's a thrilling topic. However, it has nothing to do with god or religion.

How would I describe a meaningful life? That's a hard question because I don't know if I have the full answer. I think it's one of those things that evolves over time for the individual, to an extent.

I once had this same discussion with an atheist friend of mine, more than once actually. We get along well and enjoy talking about these things together. My answer or partial answer (like I said, I don't yet have a full answer, maybe ask me in 40yrs) didn't sit well with him for a simple reason. Anyone who is Jewish or Christian is aware of King Solomon, anyone who is a history buff even if an atheist is aware of King Solomon. For those that are not, he was one of the wealthiest kings to ever exist, was king of Israel during the only period in history when they were fairly powerful. For some reason, some atheist I've talked to have issue when I use Solomon in my examples and arguments since he is a central figure in the bible, even though he's a central figure in secular history as well, even though his writings that appear in the bible have been saved, preserved and recognized by historians worldwide, for whatever reason because it's in the bible this bothers some people. But more to the point...

After a long life Solomon said “I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with...All that my eyes desired I did not refuse them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, for my heart was pleased because of all my labor and this was my reward for all my labor. Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted, and behold all was vanity and striving after the wind and there was no profit under the sun." He goes on to say that the only true joys in life surround fulfillment in our work, family and in more simple things such as the food we eat, that it's not the work that provides wealth that provides fulfillment but the process itself, it's not that raising a good family is what produces the fulfillment but simply enjoying and loving them in the here and now. However, while those are good things they are not enough to give the full existence of our life meaning for once we die all we were is now meaningless. He makes a pretty big point out of the wise man and the fool both dying the same, their fate is the same, their actions in the past now hold the same meaning. So then what's the answer? Solomon was tormented over this most of his life - I wouldn't say I'm tormented by it but it's something I think about a lot, trying to find meaning and purpose in life beyond the simple pleasers that while good while they exist, meaningless in the end. And this is where I'd lose any atheist and that's OK - it's impossible to agree on this point when the foundation of our beliefs are on opposite ends of the spectrum. A meaningful life, honor God in your actions, recognize you will fail, strive to enjoy the simplicity of life, love your family, but recognize that all you've done will one day pass, that the condition of your heart is what gives meaning to life.

Anyway, at this point that's the best way I know how to answer the question, at least my point of view.

[Hoggage_54]

[Metalject]

You can find violent nut jobs from every segment of belief, religious or not:
10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name - Listverse

[Times Roman]

I see someone's peeking?

[Kozmo]

My religion is Jeet kun do which I rather enjoy. It allows me to smoke weed be a badass, take steroids and still give back to the community. Also, it allows me to get all kinds of gains

[Kozmo]

Want to hear some knee slappers? Bring up dinosaurs to a Christian. What a hoot

[Hazard]

Want to hear some knee slappers? Bring up dinosaurs to a Christian. What a hoot

I have..... My coworker. He says "how do you know the bones aren't just made up? Are you a scientist? Do you know how to carbon date? Then you don't know if they're real. You're willing to believe a scientist but not god?"

[Kozmo]

God put those here to test your faith. Rofl

[Hoggage_54]

[Tomtay79]

Want to hear some knee slappers? Bring up dinosaurs to a Christian. What a hoot

Yeah we kept them as pets. Dumb assess.
Still its better than starting a whole belief cos some twat found a book that god quided him too.

[ppwc1985]

Want to hear some knee slappers? Bring up dinosaurs to a Christian. What a hoot

Maybe a Christian that doesn't know his bible, because dinosaurs are actually referenced in the bible in two verses that I know of.

[Hazard]

If the earth is 10,000 years old how did dinosaurs exist?

[Metalject]

If the earth is 10,000 years old how did dinosaurs exist?

If the earth were only 10,000 years old what would that have to do with dinosaurs existing? Carbon dating and things like that, is that what you're referring to? I've never fully understood how things like that are accepted as legitimate science when they've been proven inaccurate so many times.

As far as how old the earth is in relation to the bible, people often say 6-12k years but this is more or less referring to the time of the fall. There's no specific time frame given between creation and the fall...it could have been days, years or who knows. People often assume the story is days since it flows without any mention of the in-between time but that doesn't mean in-between time and events didn't exist.

Anyway, I'm not making an argument for the earth being a set number of years old, I have no idea how old it is. But ppwc is correct, dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible a few times.

[marcus300]

If the earth is 10,000 years old how did dinosaurs exist?

Exactly the ice cores we mention once on another thread discredited the age of the earth which many bible believers think it is 10,000yrs old. The origin of man is also another flaw the bible seems to have many believe. The list goes on but science has proven otherwise which makes me think if there are flaws so big like these in the bible then all of it could be just made up to control the masses throughout the years.

[Hazard]

If the earth were only 10,000 years old what would that have to do with dinosaurs existing? Carbon dating and things like that, is that what you're referring to? I've never fully understood how things like that are accepted as legitimate science when they've been proven inaccurate so many times.

As far as how old the earth is in relation to the bible, people often say 6-12k years but this is more or less referring to the time of the fall. There's no specific time frame given between creation and the fall...it could have been days, years or who knows. People often assume the story is days since it flows without any mention of the in-between time but that doesn't mean in-between time and events didn't exist.

Anyway, I'm not making an argument for the earth being a set number of years old, I have no idea how old it is. But ppwc is correct, dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible a few times.

Okay so carbon dating sucks..... It's inaccurate. Take your pick.....

- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Corals
- Dendrochronology
- Ice layers
- Fission Track dating
- Erosion

If testing showed the earth was even within the vicinity of 10,000 years - I'd be open for discussion but its not even close. So god formed the earth and then waited 1.4 billion years to create man.

We've now mapped the human genome. We're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes. We're watching our broken genes rebuild and repair. I'm sorry but the science outweighs religion..... I just can't get on board with it.

[JEVIII]

Ok.. pick these ones...

Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

Or

Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

[Hazard]

I'm not going to debate at all..... I don't believe in a god or higher power. My mind isn't going to change and I certainly don't want to change anyone else's mind. I just find it extremely funny that in today's day and age people still make excuses for the bible. To each their own

[marcus300]

The Age of the Earth

Overview
•How old is the Earth, and how do we know?
•Common creationist "dating methods"
•Common creationist criticisms of mainstream dating methods
•Suggested further reading
•References

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

T he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:




Pb-Pb isochron of terrestrial and meteorite samples.
After Murthy and Patterson (1962) and York and Farquhar (1972) .
Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission.

Pb/Pb Isochron

Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Type

Number
Dated

Method

Age (billions
of years)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 291); duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted.

As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.

Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meteorite

Dated

Method

Age (billions
of years)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allende whole rock Ar-Ar 4.52 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.53 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.48 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.55 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.03

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.02

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.56 +/- 0.05


Guarena whole rock Ar-Ar 4.44 +/- 0.06

13 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08


Shaw whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.40 +/- 0.06

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.29 +/- 0.06


Olivenza 18 samples Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.16

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.49 +/- 0.06


Saint Severin 4 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.33

10 samples Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.15

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.43 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.38 +/- 0.04

whole rock Ar-Ar 4.42 +/- 0.04


Indarch 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.08

12 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.04


Juvinas 5 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.08

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.07


Moama 3 samples Sm-Nd 4.46 +/- 0.03

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.05


Y-75011 9 samples Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.05

7 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.16

5 samples Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06

4 samples Sm-Nd 4.52 +/- 0.33


Angra dos Reis 7 samples Sm-Nd 4.55 +/- 0.04

3 samples Sm-Nd 4.56 +/- 0.04


Mundrabrilla silicates Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.06

silicates Ar-Ar 4.57 +/- 0.06

olivine Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.04

plagioclase Ar-Ar 4.50 +/- 0.04


Weekeroo Station 4 samples Rb-Sr 4.39 +/- 0.07

silicates Ar-Ar 4.54 +/- 0.03

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Dalrymple (1991, p. 286); meteorites dated by only a single means omitted.

Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.

Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods"

Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:
1.Accumulation of helium in the atmosphere
2.Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
3.Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
4.Accumulation of metals into the oceans

Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.

1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere

The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)

But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:


"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )

But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:


"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated 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." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )

Dalrymple's references:
•(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
•(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, pp. 25-26)
Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)
Jansma (1985, p. 61)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)
Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)


2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
1.While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.


2.There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).


3.Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4.Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.

For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .

This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)


3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon

The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.

Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:


"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1."
Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.

Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.

Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.

Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.

For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .

Addendum: "loose dust" vs. "meteoritic material"

Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.

However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.

In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.

Addendum: Creationists disown the "Moon dust" argument

There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:


"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."

Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.

Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:

Baker (1976, p. 25)
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 40-41)
Jansma (1985, pp. 62-63)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 379-380)
Wysong (1976, pp. 166-168)
See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for February and April 1997, for additional examples.

4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans

In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.

Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.

First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Al - 100 years Ni - 9,000 years Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years Co - 18,000 years Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years Hg - 42,000 years Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years Bi - 45,000 years Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years Cu - 50,000 years K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years Ba - 84,000 years Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years Sn - 100,000 years Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years Zn - 180,000 years Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years Rb - 270,000 years Na - 260,000,000 years

[Metalject]

Okay so carbon dating sucks..... It's inaccurate. Take your pick.....

- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Corals
- Dendrochronology
- Ice layers
- Fission Track dating
- Erosion

If testing showed the earth was even within the vicinity of 10,000 years - I'd be open for discussion but its not even close. So god formed the earth and then waited 1.4 billion years to create man.

We've now mapped the human genome. We're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes. We're watching our broken genes rebuild and repair. I'm sorry but the science outweighs religion..... I just can't get on board with it.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm not making an argument regarding the age of the earth. I was simply stating the other responder was correct in that dinosaurs are mentioned a few times in the bible, that's all I was saying.

When you say we're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes, what are you referring to? Just curious.

[JEVIII]

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm not making an argument regarding the age of the earth. I was simply stating the other responder was correct in that dinosaurs are mentioned a few times in the bible, that's all I was saying.

When you say we're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes, what are you referring to? Just curious.

Yep...

The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job’s attention with the words “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee” (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony.

The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.

[Hazard]

Yep...

The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job's attention with the words "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee" (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony.

The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as "still squishy" and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.

A world wide flood? Seriously? Okay..... And that evidence would show in the tree rings. Try date back 5000 years ago. There's no evidence of a giant flood.

I swear some people are fvckin looney

[Hazard]

A quote from religious tolerance -

The human genome project has mapped all of our genes. Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics has written:
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors...The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development...The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code...The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right."
Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution...must make new genes from old parts." Since evolution of the species must have taken billions of years to evolve from bacteria to humans, the earth must be very old.

[Hazard]

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm not making an argument regarding the age of the earth. I was simply stating the other responder was correct in that dinosaurs are mentioned a few times in the bible, that's all I was saying.

When you say we're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes, what are you referring to? Just curious.

Simply that we now know what to look for and we can see these mutations occurring

[JEVIII]

ad ho·mi·nem

1.(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

Twentieth-century geologists taught the familiar maxim: "The present is the key to the past."

But now that catastrophic processes are widely employed to describe the strata record, twenty-first century geologists are wondering whether "marine flood sedimentation is the key to the past."

Geological strata and their contained marine fossils provide critical evidence that the ocean once covered the continents, even the highest continental areas. Extremely widespread strata blankets argue for an intercontinental or global flood.

The Sauk Sequence extends throughout North America and appears to extend into Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence also covers much of North America and may well extend into Europe and Africa. There are also intercontinental redbed sequences, intercontinental tuff beds, and coal-bearing strata cycles.

Granular, water-charged sediment flows result in very rapid stratification. Dilute flows produce thick sequences of plane beds, graded beds, and crossbeds by sustained unidirectional flow. Such flows also produce thick sequences of hummocky beds by sustained bidirectional flow.

Concentrated sediment flows produce thick strata sequences by abrupt deposition from liquefied suspension or evenly bedded strata by flow transformation to a tractive current.

These and many other obvious processes are leading many geologists to construct a global flood model for earth history.

[JEVIII]

A quote from religious tolerance -

The human genome project has mapped all of our genes. Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics has written:
"The genome reveals, indisputably and beyond any serious doubt, that Darwin was right -- mankind evolved over a long period of time from primitive animal ancestors...The core recipe of humanity carries clumps of genes that show we are descended from bacteria. There is no other way to explain the jerry-rigged nature of the genes that control key aspects of our development...The theory of evolution is the only way to explain the arrangement of the 30,000 genes and three billion letters that constitute our genetic code...The message our genes send is that Charles Darwin was right."
Eric Lander of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., said that if you look at our genome it is clear that "evolution...must make new genes from old parts." Since evolution of the species must have taken billions of years to evolve from bacteria to humans, the earth must be very old.

Darwin was completely ignorant of the biological role of DNA when he penned his theory a century and a half ago. Now the evolution case from genetics is unravelling at multiple levels because it was never based on any direct evidence for common ancestry in the first place. Do the evolutionists have any lines of genetic evidence left? Evolution fails to predict either the absolute number or the function of genetic differences among species. This is remarkable since the supposed “engine” of evolution change is the genetic mistakes themselves. If evolutionists can’t even get their fundamental mechanisms to line up with their models, then why do they continue to present Darwin’s grand hypothesis as fact?

[Hazard]

If there was a global flood - find me a tree that ahold the evidence to support ur claim. If not - I will continue to assume you're one card short of a full deck.....

[JEVIII]

Seriously ... a tree will change your mind? I doubt it. Not to bothered about your opinion of me either "kiddo" . Bristlecones

[Metalject]

I would think a global flood would level any and all trees. Even if a tree were left standing, after 5000+ years it wouldn't stand anymore. Just out of curiosity, I googled "worlds oldest tree." Apparently it's in CA and is not quite 5000 years old.

[Hazard]

Seriously ... a tree will change your mind? I doubt it. Not to bothered about your opinion of me either "kiddo" . Bristlecones

Boy you really played me out there "kiddo"

Go read the bible.....

[Hazard]

I would think a global flood would level any and all trees. Even if a tree were left standing, after 5000+ years it wouldn't stand anymore. Just out of curiosity, I googled "worlds oldest tree." Apparently it's in CA and is not quite 5000 years old.

Either way its over 1000 years old lol - that was my point.

[JEVIII]

Since I am one short of a full deck, give me the benefit of the doubt and restate your point. Not sure how the tree is helping you here?

[Metalject]

Again, it's hard for someone that believes in creation and someone that doesn't to have this discussion when they're starting from two different ends of the field. For example, someone that doesn't believe God created the earth might say, look at this mountain, we can run test on its rock that shows it to be Xmillion years old. But if God created the earth, if he created the mountain and rock, it would already shows signs of measurable age from day one. It wouldn't start as a pebble and grow into a mountain. In the story of creation, even Adam is created as a full grown man. The point - if creating isn't real, we can't use the this rock or this item test to be Xyrs old as a means of invalidating the theory of creation.

[Hazard]

Since I am one short of a full deck, give me the benefit of the doubt and restate your point. Not sure how the tree is helping you here?

My point is in relation to your flood comment. If the earth was flooded 1000 years ago..... There wouldn't be trees standing that are older than 1000 years. However..... As metalject has found..... There are trees almost 5000 years old. Which completely discredits the global flood.....