Guest “geology lessons” by David Middleton
One of the things I love about writing for Watts Up With That, is the fact that reader comments often inspire me to research and write subsequent posts. In my recent post about the origins of the Moon, one commentator suggested that the rate of lunar recession (tidal acceleration) indicated that the Earth was much younger than 4.5 billion years old and/or somehow disproved the geological Principle of Uniformitarianism. I didn’t give much thought to my reply. I simply calculated the distance from the Earth to the Moon 1 billion and 4.5 billion years ago. The Moon is currently receding (moving away) from the Earth at a rate of about 3.8 cm/yr. This has been directly measured with lasers.
At 3.8 cm/yr, the Moon would have been 215,288 miles away from Earth a billion years ago. It is currently an average of 238,900 miles away. At 3.8 cm/yr, it still would have been 132,646 miles away 4.5 BY.
If the Moon did did originate from a collision with Earth, it would have been a lot closer to Earth 4.5 BY than 100,000 miles.
David Middleton
At first thought, 215,288 miles apart didn’t seem problematic. It is well outside the Earth-Moon Roche Radius, however, at a steady rate of 3.8 cm/yr, the Moon’s orbit would have been close enough to Earth, that 1.5 billion years ago, the tidal forces of the Earth-Moon system may yielded catastrophic results:
Tracing the history of Earth’s tidal deceleration and the evolution of the Moon’s orbit is a major challenge for geology. The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic: Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth’s mantle and of the Moon [Lambeck, 1980].
Williams, 2000
Apart from the classic bad science fiction movie, 2012, or the junk science of Hapgood and Velikovsky, there is no evidence whatsoever, of lunar disruption or the total melting of Earth’s mantle 1.5 billion years ago.
So… How do we solve this conundrum? We solve it by applying the principle of Uniformitarianism.
Most criticisms of Uniformitarianism start out with a fundamental misunderstanding of, or the intentional redefinition of, this basic geological principle.
UNIFORMITARIANISM VS CATASTROPHISM
Initial thinking on earth history was inspired by the bible. The recognition that major rock series are characterized by a distinct set of fossils lead to the belief that the fossils of each rock series were result of a creation and then were subsequently destroyed by some catastrophic event (e.g. the biblical flood). The main proponent of this theory was the French naturalist Georges Cuvier. In the 18th century there was even a case when some unfortunate geologist (Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, 1672-1733) found skeletons of giant salamanders and identified them as the victims of the biblical flood. The problem was that upon close inspection, these flood victims had long tails and sharp claws. Thus, it earned the proponent quite a bit of ridicule. Generally speaking, this way of looking at the geologic record, namely to assume that a series of immense, brief, and worldwide upheavals changed the earth greatly and produced mountains, valleys, and various other large scale features, came to be known as catastrophism.
The theory of catastrophism was challenged by James Hutton in the late 18th century, who in his theory of uniformitarianism proposed that uniform gradual processes (such as for example the slow erosion of the coast by the impact of waves) shaped the geologic record of the earth over an immensely long period of time. He assumed that the acting processes were the same than those that we see in action at present (rivers, volcanoes, waves, tides etc.). Darwin later on based his theory of the origin a species on Hutton’s theory.
The sedimentary structures that we saw earlier in this lecture serve as a good illustration how uniformitarianism works. Cross-bedding for example can be observed to form in modern river channels and also in experimental setups called flumes. We learn from these observations what kind of current velocities are needed to produce cross-bedding in a given grain size, and we realize that cross-bedding can be used as an indicator of current flow direction. We can apply what we learn from modern cross-beds to interpret the rock record in terms of flow velocities and flow direction. Likewise, finding ancient equivalents of modern mudcracks suggests to us that we look at sediments that dried out beneath the air, and were thus deposited on land.
In more modern times, some amendments have been made to the theory of uniformitarianism. One of these would be that it was recognized that catastrophic events are as much part of geologic history as the uniform action of the everyday processes. For example, sediment supply to the oceans is not a constant flux of matter. There is a considerable episodic component to sedimentation, e.g. storms are major agents of sediment redistribution in shelf seas, floods and exceptionally strong rains are responsible for most of the erosion and sediment redistribution on the continents. Undoubtedly, the physical and chemical principles (e.g. gravity, thermodynamics) that govern geologic processes of the present have also applied in the past. Yet as is visible in the present, frequent small deviations from equilibrium and unstable behavior (minor catastrophes, such as earthquakes, floods, storms) must have been an integral part of these processes. Similarly, the evolution of life was not a single succession of tiny evolutionary steps as originally envisioned by Darwin. We are now able to see that there were episodes of accelerated (punctuated) evolution, usually as a response to a change in environmental conditions, such as climate (ice ages, warming of the earth), the advent or immigration of new predators and the utilization of new food sources. Extremely rare (and catastrophic) events, such as the impact of large meteors, may have had a profound influence on our planet. Yet meteors fall onto the earth on a daily basis, just as it rains every day. In that sense, meteorite impacts are quite normal and part of the spectrum of everyday processes. Only very rarely does a “doomsday” meteorite that is 10 or more km in diameter hit the Earth and cause severe disruptions. To sum it up: The natural laws do not change with time and they have and will determine interior and external processes of the earth. Even the extremely rare event (e.g. meteor impacts) is part of the many geologic processes governed by these laws. Even though something, like for example the December 2004 tsunami, appears to us as a unique catastrophe, over the long run it is a normal and recurring event. It does not follow, however, that the rate of geologic processes is the same today as it was in the past. Some processes, such as mantle convection do probably stay stable over long time periods, but others, such as glaciation were at times very intense in the past (ice ages), but are presently less significant for continental erosion. So, a brief definition of Uniformitarianism would be: the natural laws that govern geologic processes have not changed over geologic time, but the rate at which certain geologic processes operate can vary. Uniformitarianism also has been paraphrased as “The Present is the Key to the Past“.
Indiana University
Uniformitarianism doesn’t preclude catastrophic events; nor does it stipulate that all processes must occur at a constant gradual rate. And it certainly doesn’t blind geologists to actual evidence of past catastrophic events, like impact features. Many of the world’s 190 confirmed impact craters (technically 189 because they count Upheaval Dome as confirmed) would be unknown if not for geologists employing uniformitarian methods to identify them. 34% of the confirmed impact craters are not exposed at the surface. 53% of the confirmed impact craters have been drilled, either intentionally or inadvertently while drilling for something else. The craters without surface expressions were identified by uniformitarian geologists/geophysicists interpreting geological and geophysical data.
Uniformitarianism says “The Present is the Key to the Past.” Understanding present day geological processes enables geologists to decipher the geologic past. It enables us to translate the language of the rocks.
So, what does this have to do with lunar recession?
Two words: Tidal Rhymites
The sedimentary record in Muir Inlet, a macrotidal fjord in Alaska, is dominated by cyclic silt–mud rhythmites. Couplet thicknesses vary systematically in a vertical sequence and reflect a semidiurnal tidal regime. Semimonthly, monthly, bimonthly, and annual cycles can be identified both visually in cores and by spectral frequency analysis. An average annual sedimentation of 22.5 cmyr-1 occurs over a four-month meltwater season and is confirmed by 210Pb dating. These modern deep-water tidal rhythmites can be used to verify interpretations made on ancient rhythmites in the stratigraphic record, and they also provide a dating tool to interpret high latitude successions for high-resolution climate change.
Cowan et al., 1998
Tidal rhymites are the result of very high frequency depositional cycles. The length of the day, the number of days in the month and months in the year can all be calculated from tidal rhythmites. Fortunately for geologists, Earth was kind enough to preserve at least a few very old tidal rhythmite deposits.
BIG COTTONWOOD CANYON
By Sandra Eldredge
This tour begins 1 billion years ago when the area was a tidal environment at an ocean shoreline. The tidal environment is preserved in the now-tilted layers of quartzite and shale that make up the canyon walls for the first 6 miles. In some areas, the shale is metamorphosed into argillite or slate.
[…]
Tidal Rhythmites
One-billion-year-old records of the rhythm of ancient ocean tidesOne of the best documented and oldest known records worldwide of tidal rhythmites is in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Discovered in the 1990s, this record is enthusiastically being researched, in large part to provide clues to ancient lunar cycles.
Yearly, monthly, and even daily and semi-daily tides are recorded in the black shale of the 850-million to 1-billion-year-old Big Cottonwood Formation.
Within the shale are thin, alternating layers of light-colored sand and dark-colored silt and clay. The sand was carried by peak (strong, dominant) flows and the silt and clay by slack (weaker, subordinate) waters at changing tides. Thus, these thin individual bands record daily tides and can be counted much like we count tree rings.
Because the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun cause tides, the length of an ancient day and lunar month can be determined from these tidal rhythmites. Long ago, the moon took less time to orbit the Earth, the Earth was spinning faster, and thus the days were shorter and there were more of them in a year. These records in stone indicate that one billion years ago, a day on Earth lasted only 18 hours, there were 13-plus months in a year, and about 481 days in a year!
(Information supplied by Marjorie A. Chan, University of Utah and Allen W. Archer, Kansas State University).
Utah Geological Survey
Tidal rhyhmites and other paleontological data tell us that the days have been getting longer, while the number of days per year have been decreasing over the past 500 million years.
Tidal rhymite formations enable geologists to reconstruct “the history of Earth’s rotation and lunar orbit” (Williams, 1990) over the past 2.5 billion years.
The recent recognition of cyclically laminated tidal rhythmites provides a new approach to tracing the dynamic history of the Earth-Moon system. Late Proterozoic (~650 Ma) elastic rhythmites in South Australia represent an unsurpassed palaeotidal record of ~560 years’ duration that provides numerous palaeorotational parameters. At~650 Ma there were 13.1 ±0.1 lunar months/year, 400 ±7 solar days/year, and 30.5 ±0.5 solar days/lunar month. The lunar apsides and lunar nodal cycles were then 9.7 ±0.1 years and 19.5 ±0.5 years, respectively. The indicated mean Earth-Moon distance of 58.28 ±0.30 Earth radii at ~650 Ma gives a mean rate of lunar retreat of 1.95 ±0.29 cm/year since that time, about half the present rate of lunar retreat of 3.7 ±0.2 cm/year obtained by lunar laser ranging. The rhythmite data imply a substantial obliquity of the ecliptic at ~650 Ma, and indicate virtually no overall change in the Earth’s moment of inertia, which militates against significant Earth expansion since ~650 Ma. Early Proterozoic ( ~2,500 Ma) cyclic banded iron-formation in Western Australia, that may record submarine fumarolic activity triggered by earth tides, suggests ~14.5 ±0.5 lunar months/year and a mean Earth-Moon distance of ~54.6 Earth radii at ~2,500 Ma. The combined rhythmite data suggest a mean rate of lunar retreat of ~1.27 cm/year during the Proterozoic (~2,500-650 Ma); the indicated increasing mean rate of lunar retreat since~2,500 Ma is consistent with increasing oceanic tidal dissipation as the Earth’s rotation slows. A close approach of the Moon during earlier time is uncertain. Continued study of tidal rhythmites promises to further illuminate the evolving dynamics of the Earth-Moon system.
Williams, 1990
The rate of lunar recession was highly variable during the Proterozoic Eon. The closest the closest approach of the Moon’s orbit to the Earth, as estimated from Precambrian tidal rhymites was ~51.9 Earth radii (~206,000 miles) approximately 2.45 billion years ago.
Green et al., 2017 indicate that the modern recession rate is anomalously high, about twice the average of the Proterozoic Eon. However, the rate appears the have even been higher than it currently is, during the Pleistocene Epoch’s Last Glacial Maximum.
It was recently shown through numerical tidal model simulations with higher resolution than in previous studies that the tidal dissipation during the early Eocene (50 Ma) was just under half of that at present (Green and Huber, 2013). This is in stark contrast to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, around 20 ka) when simulated tidal dissipation rates were significantly higher than at present due to changes in the resonant properties of the ocean (Green, 2010, Wilmes and Green, 2014, Schmittner et al., 2015). However, the surprisingly large tides during the LGM are due to a quite specific combination of continental scale bathymetry and low sea-level, in which the Atlantic is close to resonance when the continental shelf seas were exposed due to the formation of extensive continental ice sheets (Platzman et al., 1981, Egbert et al., 2004, Green, 2010). It is therefore reasonable to assume — and proxies support this — that the Earth has only experienced very large tides during the glacial cycles over the last 1–2 Ma and that the rates have been lower than at present during the Cenozoic (Palike and Shackleton, 2000, Lourens and Brumsack, 2001, Lourens et al., 2001). Such (generally) low tidal dissipation rates may have led to reduced levels of ocean mixing, with potential consequences for the large scale ocean circulation, including the Meridional Overturning Circulation (Munk, 1966, Wunsch and Ferrari, 2004).
Green et al., 2017
Conclusions
Science starts with observations (what we know) and then works to form hypotheses to explain the observations. The hypotheses are then tested to see if they can become scientific theories. Ideally, the hypotheses are tested empirically, in controlled experiments. Unfortunately, in geology, most hypothesis can only be tested by gathering more observations. This is why Chamberlin’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is taught by many geology departments. For every given set of Earth Science observations, there are, almost invariably, multiple working hypotheses (non-uniqueness). As more observations are collected, some hypotheses will survive, others will have to be modified or discarded.
In the case of lunar recession, we started out with two observations:
- The Moon has been receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm/yr.
- The Earth and the Moon are approximately 4.5 billion years old.
We know the current recession rate from decades of laser ranging. While the ages of the Earth and the Moon aren’t known with as much certainty as the lunar recession rate, radiometric dating precludes them from being significantly younger than 4.5 billion years old.
At first glance, the physical cause of the first observation would seem to contradict the second observation. This means that either: 1) the recession rate was much slower in the past or 2) the Earth and Moon are less than 1.5 billion years old. Since we can’t run a controlled experiment, the best we can do is to see if the rocks can tell us anything about past recession rates. The rocks tell us that modern recession rate is anomalously high, and that the Moon’s orbit has not been catastrophically close to Earth at any point in the past 2.45 billion years. Without the Principle of Uniformitarianism, geologists wouldn’t be able to “translate the language” of the rocks.
Hat tip to hiskorr for his (or her) comments.
I had never given this subject any thought before. I actually found it quite interesting when I started digging into it.
Day 9 of America Held Hostage by CHICOM-19
Yesterday, Dallas County Commissioner Clay Jenkins issued a “shelter in place” order for Dallas County. Judge Jenkins, a liberal Democrat, looks like Howdy Doody and talks like Forrest Gump. The latest numbers indicate that there are 169 CHICOM-19 cases in Dallas County, and there have been 5 deaths. Dallas County has a population of 2,637,772 2,637,767 people.
| Dallas County | CHICOM-190 | |
| Population | Cases | Deaths |
| 2,637,772 | 169 | 5 |
| % of population | 0.0064% | 0.00019% |
99.9936% of Dallas County does not have CHICOM-19 and 99.9998% of us haven’t died from it.
The shelter in place order means that I get to work from home for at least another two weeks. So, I set up my work station on the island in our kitchen and have the TV on. The other day I watched The Big Lebowsky while I was working in the shorts and tee-shirt that I had slept in, wearing slippers. I could get used to this. Meetings are much more fun this way. Instead of a conference room, we get to WebEx and see our co-workers at home in shorts and flip-flops.
The shelter in place order only allows essential businesses to remain open, which, oddly, includes liquor stores (Hoo-Ahh!). As nearly as I can tell, most white collar workers have been told to work from home, if possible, while the businesses that mainly hire illegal aliens appear to be unaffected.
References
Cowan, E., Cai, J., Powell, R. et al. Modern tidal rhythmites deposited in a deep-water estuary. Geo-Marine Letters 18, 40–48 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s003670050050
Green, Mattias & Huber, M. & Waltham, D. & Buzan, Jonathan & Wells, Martin. (2017). “Explicitly modelled deep-time tidal dissipation and its implication for Lunar history. ” Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 461. 46-53. 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.12.038.
Williams, G. E., “Tidal rhythmites: Key to the history of the Earth’s rotation and the lunar o”rbit”, J. Phys. Earth, 38, 475-491, 1990.
Williams, G.E. Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of Earth’s Rotation and the Moon’s Orbit, Reviews of Geophysics 38 (2000), 37-59.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
PS: Three of the signifiers are the same in both DNA and RNA (A, C and G), and each nucleic acid has a unique fourth nucleobase (T and U), which are methylated and unmethylated versions of each other.
In most cases, the first two of the three letters coding for an amino acid determine it, but not always.
There are anomalies in the geologic record. There are geologic formations which don’t conform to the idea of Uniformitarianism.
Sometimes called geologic unconformities, although often times geologists still try and fit a square peg in a round hole.
The Dolomite Problem is another type of situation where geologists “just don’t know”.
Geologists often omit discussion of these geologic formations for the reason they contradict their hypothesis, which is over 150 years old, they simple can’t explain them because their presence contradict their intellectual framework.
It isn’t just geology, there are other so-called “theories” which are hundreds of years old, have been falsified numerous times, yet, group-think, professional pride, and psychological inertia, keep them going.
Example: The Ptolemaic Model. with epicycles and all that/
Galileo found out the hard way when you go up against a well established group-think.
But finally there was a paradigm shift.
But sadly, many believers in the old paradigm never change their mind, they pass away and their ideas pass away with them.
By the way, definitions which are hard to understand so that most people miss state them or misuse them aren’t useful or good.
Read up on unconformities and avoid appearing ignorant.
https://geol105b.sitehost.iu.edu/images/gaia_chapter_6/unconformities.htm
I always appreciate the links,
From your link: “Unconformities are gaps in the geologic record…”
Also, from the link: “They are surfaces between two rock bodies that constitute a substantial break (hiatus) in the geologic record (sometimes people say inaccurately that “time” is missing).”
That “time” is missing is not necessarily inaccurate, but can be a valid criticism.
Of course, the link is from a perspective which wants to dismiss criticism without addressing the examples which aren’t so neatly explained, of which there are a number.
The “time” that is missing from the geologic has been explained by the idea of Catastrophism.
Mr. Middleton, you are not the only geologist, there are many geologists that do subscribe to the idea of Catastrophism.
It’s rather simple, while there seem to be numerous epochs that fit with the idea of “gradualism”, there is also evidence of violent upheaval in the geologic record, upheavals that are unlikely today because conditions have changed. Forces from without the planet and within the planet which are not present and acting today.
The “time” isn’t missing. A rock record of that time (section) is missing. Unconformities and disconformities are usually the result of uplift and erosion/non-deposition, followed by burial and a resumption of deposition or volcanic/plutonic activity.
Time isn’t missing. Section is missing.
In many cases, the missing section is present in areas away from the uplift.
The Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon is the result of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks having been deposited on a surface of a Precambrian rock sequence that had been uplifted, folded and partially eroded away. More section is missing (~1 billion years) over the uplift, than away from it (~200 million years). It transitions from an angular unconformity to a disconformity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity
The erosion and/or non-deposition occurred over a ~200 million year period of time.
Mr. Middleton: “Time isn’t missing. Section is missing.”
But it takes “time” and an action for the section to be missing.
How much time and how violent an action is the question.
Mr. Middleton: “In many cases, the missing section is present in areas away from the uplift.”
First, by your own statement there are cases were the section is “just gone” and geologists can’t account for it’s disappearance other than relying on an assumption that fits their idea of Uniformatarianism (for those geologists who reject the idea of Catotrophism).
Mr. Middleton: “The erosion and/or non-deposition occurred over a ~200 million year period of time.”
Your time frame is an assumption, you weren’t there and neither was I. But “something” happened over a time period, however long it was (it could have happened in a sorter time period under violent circumstances).
That”s part of the difficulty with Uniformatarianism, it assumes a time period for geologic formation based on conditions, today, when geologists have little or no actual knowledge of what conditions were, say, millions of years ago.
Again, you weren’t there and neither was I, and you know what assumptions can make us look like.
From Wikipedia: [Uniformatarianism] ” is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.”
Note, “is the assumption”
Wikipedia: ” From 1830 to 1833 Charles Lyell’s multi-volume Principles of Geology was published.” Lyell had limited observations, while it wasn’t unreasonable at the time, 1833, to claim that nothing had changed in conditions without the planet or within, it’s nothing short of a WAG. (in science that;s known as a “wild ass guess”)
Over a 150 years ago.
The time frame is based on observations: 1) radiometric dating and 2) stratigraphic correlation of the rock formations. The only assumption is that the laws of physics work.
Complete Phanerozoic and even earlier geologic columns exist in a surprisingly large number of places. But in most of the world, sections are missing, no surprise.
I wonder if these supposed “catastrophist”, biblical Flood geologists have been able to find petroleum and gas deposits.
Dolomite is forming today in a variety of environments. Please state what you imagine it is that geologists aren’t able to observe, ie “know”, about dolomite now. Thanks.
The Dolomite mountains in Italy. If you haven’t heard or read about The Dolomite Problem, look it up on google.
I’m familiar with the non-existent problem, already solved, to the extent that it ever was a problem.
Please point out to me recent research which states there’s a problem. The onus is on you, since you claim that such a problem remains.
Thanks.
But I’ll help you, since apparently you couldn’t be bothered to Google “dolomite formation” yourself. From last month:
An Ecological Perspective on Dolomite Formation in Great Salt Lake, Utah
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00024/full
This incipient dolomite formation in the GSL occurs in other places around the world. But it’s not the only geological process which enables magnesium to penetrate and react with limestone and other sedimentary carbonates.
No, it’s not because you haven’t explained the Dolomite Mountains in Italy.
They didn’t derive from prehistoric biotic slime films on shallow ocean lagoons.
The Dolomites, which I’ve climbed, are no mystery.
Rather than take the bait of creationist professional liars, how about actually Googling real science yourself. I’ll help you:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/history-of-geology/the-genesis-of-the-dolomites-from-the-sea-to-the-sky/
https://www.suedtirol.info/en/this-is-south-tyrol/landscape/alpine-south-tyrol/dolomites/formation-history-of-the-dolomites
The “problem” has long been solved.
I’d urge you, before presuming to comment on geology, actually to study the subject first, rather than fall for creationist cant.
As with all observations, I recommend not assuming that things have never changed, or that they won’t change in the future.
Please provide evidence that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes of important dating elements have changed over the past four billion years.
Thanks!
There isn’t any way the earth/ moon system formed by means of some accidental collision of two orbiting bodies. So that is the first faulty assumption.
Please provide your superior solucion.
Thanks!
Thanks, David — very interesting.
Velikovsky might have been right about Jupiter.
https://www.cnet.com/news/jupiter-may-have-been-smashed-by-head-on-collision-with-massive-young-planet/
I remember reading in one of his memories how he was planning a sequel to Worlds in Collision, where he would explain the mechanism for the ejection of Venus from Jupiter. It mentioned a collision by a planet 10 times the earths mass with Jupiter. It also said the mythological/historical records were less extensive.
Dear David (Middleton)
I have tried to read and analyze Dr Wiens Christian Perspective on Radiometric Dating in a imited time and can only come up with one argument at this time: Just because atoms decay at certain rates now does not mean they always have decayed at that rate. As I know this is not a suitable answer, I have searched and found the following website:
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf
This is a step by step refutation of Dr Wiens by Dr Tasman Walker. I would appreciate it if you would have a look at it as you are the resident expert and can figure this out faster than most of us. Dr Wiens presentation is too long for most of us to critique in the three weeks comments are allowed to be posted: thus I have presented an already prepared response.
This I feel is the key to the argument over whether radiometric dating can be reliable for dating the Earth, etc…
Thanks for looking. We all look forward to your response.
p.s. I will be studying both as mush as I am able that I may be prepared to follow your conclusions.
Then the laws of physics don’t exist.
Which laws of physics? Please be more specific. Also, let us now when you’ve had a chance to read Dr Tasman’s refute of Dr Wiens radiometry piece you linked in your original piece. I look forward to your refutation of Dr Tasman’s refutation.
I am impressed at the number of posts concerning this topic. It shows there is a lot of interest in origins, dating the age of our planet and the heavens, and a topic everyone ponders: where did I come from. I hope more posts as these will continue in the near to far future: it is invigorating.
Tasman refutes nothing. He has nothing but appeal to biblical authority, opposition to which is precisely what started the Scientific Revolution in 1543. Also opposition to authority of ancient pagans.
For starters, the Law of Radioactive Decay, upon which quantum mechanics and physics in general since 1900 is based.
Thank you, John. By starting with the Law of Radioactive decay you are pointing to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics without which there would be no law of radioactive decay. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that everything (absolutely everything) is heading towards decay, disorder, entropy (Issac Asimov, among many, many others).
This decay means the universe is becoming less complex. The older the universe, the less complex the universe. That should be a fact. How complex it must have been at the Big Bang considering how complex it is now!
Taken one step further:
1. evolution states life has been becoming more complex through time (this is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of radioactive decay)
2. the timing of evolution is based on the timing of geology
3. geology and physics declare the universe and Earth are extremely old because the past shows decay and such decay has been constant (according to radioactive decay)
4. how does something more complex evolve into something more complex?
5. you cannot increase energy in the universe (it is a closed system);
6. an input of energy from outside Earth (energy source which is decreasing every second) cannot create life or else a formerly living form of life could be spontaneously resurrected by extra energy (sunlight cannot revive a dead plant; we cannot do it in a lab, no matter what the conditions we set and how much or what type of energy we use)
7. Teleonomy is only in living things: only life can give life; a rock, elements mixing together, atoms fusing; none of these have telonomy;
I am not stating how old the Earth is. I am questioning how old some say the Earth is. What is wrong with showing holes in a theory: this is the scientific approach.
Are we to state that the age of the Earth and universe have been settled by science? Are we to agree that AGW and climate change are settled science? No. We are to question and keep looking for answers. I agree with Galileo, not the Catholic Church of his time which was the consensus: we should all agree here that consensus does not equate fact. (The Bible nowhere state the earth is flat nor the sun revolves around the earth
And, by the way, the ad hominem attacks on “creationists” or anyone who disagrees with the Earth being billions of years old are counter-productive to your cause and the reasons this website exists.
Lastly, the ancient Greeks, especially Epicurus and Celsus taught that the Earth and the universe were ancient and man came from the beasts, especially the apes. This is a 2000 plus years old argument, not from the 1800’s or the 1500’s.
And, I agree with Galileo, not the Catholic Church of his time which was the consensus: we should all agree here that consensus does not equate fact.
Regards to all.
Did you read all of Tasman Walker’s refutation? It is long and he has plenty of questions and comments concerning Wiens’ work.
Dr Tasman Walker first responds with biblical answers because that is how Dr Wiens begins his paper. Please read further and you will see Dr Walker goes to the “meat of the matter” and brings up valid questions and refutations in a logical and orderly manner.
Here is the link again, I hope you and David (Middleton) will take the time and show me his errors.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf
Nothing in biology contradicts the 2nd Law. This is another shameless lie by paid creationist blasphemers.
Life is not a closed system, as should be obvious to anyone not blinkered by antiscientific false religion.
The Earth most certianly is flat and immobile, with the Sun going around (or under) it in the Bible. Remarkably in both Testaments.
Why do you suppose that both the Catholic Church and Martin Luther ridiculed Copernicans, or worse? The Bible couldn’t be more clear that the Earth doesn’t move. In fact, it makes a big deal about its stability, pillars and foundation.
Likewise that it’s covered by a solid dome, from which hang the stars, a singing host. And that precipitation is stored up in treasure houses, with God walking on the dome, operating the levers to let snow, rain, etc. fall to Earth.
God also sits on the edge of the Earth, looking down upon people, who appear to Him as insects.
I wish that fundamentalists would actually read the Bible rather than buying into the lies creationist shills tell about it.
PS: Those stars are also in danger of falling to Earth. When they do, we know from the Book of Enoch, popular with Jesus’ sect the Essenes, but included only in the New Testament of Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, that such fallen stars become oxen, or men:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe089.htm
Book of Enoch was second most popular among the Dead Sea Scrolls, stashed away by Essenes.
AK,
Calling a creationist a creationist is descriptive, not an ad hominem. Young Earth creationists themselves use the term. There are institutes for creation “research” and a creation museum, for instance.
Celsus was an AD 2nd century anti-Christian Epicurean, writing some 445 years after Epicurus’ death (270 BC). Little of Epicurus’ massive writings have survived, unless charred scrolls, buried at Herculaneum, await discovery. Latin poet Lucretius’ (died c. 70 BC) “De Rerum Natura” provides the fullest extant account of Epicurus’ materialist philosophy.
Please provide citations showing that Epicurus and Celsus argued that humans descend from apes. My take on Epicurean atomic thought (derived from Democritus, but with important differences) is that species are stable. I could well be wrong, but Epicureans were vociferously opposed to such mythological compound creatures as centaurs.
Epicurus did believe that the universe is eternal. His atomic theory can at times sound eerily similar to modern physics.
“Then the laws of physics don’t exist.”
Not necessarily. But they’d certainly have to be different. Time-independence of the laws of fundamental physics is equivalent to the law of conservation of energy, if I remember my Noether’s Theorem correctly. So perhaps, if indeed radioactive decay constants aren’t actually constant, we might be able to build a perpetual motion machine!
The least that can be said is that the most precise experiments have found that decay rates don’t change under a wide range of temperatures, pressures and surrounding media, which results strongly suggest that they also haven’t changed over time. Certainly not by enough to make the difference between 6000 years and 14 billion.
Radioactive decay depends upon the weak force, which has been unified with the EM force, so broad swaths of physics would be nullified if creationists ruled reality, rather than contradicted it.
https://www.britannica.com/science/weak-force
Gelernter is not a biologist. Do you consult a computer scientist when you’re sick, or would you prefer seeking advice from someone who has studied medicine?
Nothing he says has any bearing whatsoever on the reality of observed evolution. It’s a scientific fact, like gravity, with a body of theory explaining it, always, as in science, subject to revision or refinement. But a fact just the same, ie an observation of nature.
Not that you have to have a PhD in biology to make worthwhile comments on or even contributions to the field. But you do need to know something about, which Gelernter doesn’t. Worse yet, all that he imagines he knows is dead wrong. He just repeats the same falsehoods as creationists.
Take down by a biologist:
https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david-gelernter-is-wrong-about-ditching-darwin/
By “ridiculous, false, mid 20th century statements”, you must have meant factual 2020 statements. Fixed it for you.
Gelernter is simply wrong, repeating mid-19th century falsehoods.
Had he ever studied any aspect of biology, but especially the molecular biology of nucelic acids and how replication and inheritancc occur, he would never have uttered such wildly preposterous untruths.
Please try to find a biologist or biochemist who actually works with DNA and RNA who denies the reality of evolution. Even Behe, a microbiologist who doesn’t work with the genetic code, admitted under oath in open court that evolution is a fact.
The speed with which pathogens evolve novel resistances to antibacterial drugs ought to give you a clue. How do you suppose genetic engineering is possible, if genomes don’t evolve?
And speaking of digital technology and genetics, how do you explain directed evolution machines, synthetic biology and the computational biologists now working on Wuhan virus’ evolving sequences?
PS: The world’s top computer scientist, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, is an atheist and Unitarian-Universalist (he and I were up at Queens College, Oxford at the same time).
Gelernter is a devout Orthodox Jew, which faith cannot help but affect his opinion on a subject about which he is so profoundly mistaken, although he denies such religious influence. I think you’ll find that most computer scientists recognize the reality of evolution, even those who are religious. Gelernter is in a distinct minority, to say the least, as his ill-informed opinions are so easily shown false by all the evidence in the world.
Hello John (Tillman)
The thread you were debating with me has ended, so we’ll have to start another.
Firstly, my apologies for stating that Celsus or Epicurus commented that we evolved from animals, esp. apes. However they did argue that atoms (whatever their interpretation of an atom was) coalesced and came together to form what we see and experience in the universe; and that the atoms cannot be destroyed, will never increase in number and will never decrease. So, regarding our “evolution” as per these ancient philosophers I have not been able to find that info or, more likely, was wrong in memory. They did, however argue against creation: which was original intent in telling that this argument is nothing new and more than 2000 years old.
Regarding stars falling to the Earth, earth’s foundation being immovable, etc… I would like you to point out these particular passages. But, first I will present some queries and comments:
1 . Do you ever say sunrise or sunset even though you know it does not actually rise and set?
2. When Christ said you must eat his flesh did he literally mean it (see John chapter 6)
3. The new testament is quite clear in that it speaks in parables so that those who have ears might hear: obviously, everyone he spoke to had ears, so this was not meant to be literal
4. My least favourite part of English was poetry interpretation; I understood the concept, but I disliked the process; though (except for the psalms: which we poetry/music), much of the Jewish and Christian bible(s) is meant to be interpreted as fact, much is also written in a manner as to stir up one’s imagination; some, many being fundamentalists, interpret everything as literal:
ONE EXAMPLE: throughout the Old Testament when God’s vengeance upon a totally rotten people was prophesied (vengeance upon Israel as well as other nations) the image was more often than not of God “coming riding on the clouds.” A literalist will interpret this as God actually riding on the clouds despite the fact that God is called a “spirit” and to see God’s face will destroy you immediately. This causes false interpretations continually. Coming on the clouds would just mean, in Near Eastern culture, that with clouds, typically comes storms and lightenings: a near desert climate and topography hints at this being disastrous and fearful with lightening strikes, heavy rains and destructive flooding.
STARS falling from the skies: again, this is prophetic; stars represent power and kings and kingdoms; stars falling from the skies means an end to an age or a kingdom (this can be fund with close searching as the Bible in places interprets what is going to be written later.
IMMOVABLE FOUNDATIONS of the Earth simply means the Earth, physically, will always be: despite that evangelicals (mainly fundamentalists) argue that this (and other passages from Peter) state the Earth is going to be destroyed and “all the elements will be on fire” (these “elements … on fire” literally means the elementary principles will be burned up. no more Israel representing God).
You see, Biblical interpretation is dependent on pre-conceived notions, often taught by those in seminaries taught by those who were trained in seminaries: their minds have been set to look only in one direction. True interpretation of the Bible (or anything wishing to analyze) should be based on hermeneutics: context, content, audience relevancy… Ignoring hermeneutics leads to false interpretations that cause disastrous results: panic, fear, hatred, war, judgmentalism, you name it: it is a plague on all humanity and mud and shame on the face of “God’s people.” A lot of readers of this will be upset with me, but so be it.
Briefly, I was raised an atheist, studied zoology in university (always was fascinated by archaeology and paleontology), met a beautiful English girl who was a travel agent, changed my career (to travel), but kept up on papers regarding my science field and then came across Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe. I always thought I was logical, but this book on biochemistry (which I had studied briefly) shook me to the core. I began a search, went to church for the first time ever (I was 34 years at the time), and we can guess the rest. Except, I left the church after 8 years: ever since growing because I left something that was stagnating, judgmental and not loving. I began to love Jesus Christ more and understand the Bible immensely more once I left over 12 years ago. Again, people reading this will be upset with me, but so be it.
But, enough of that. The reason I tell you and others this is to point out that there are many here who are religious, spiritual, agnostic, atheist, evolutionist (materialistic) and more. Many of you have come from a life of church and rejected it. Many of you have come from a background non-religious and then embraced it. The broadbrush of evolutionist or creationist does injustice to the greatest thing we possess: our minds. Let us communicate in these matters with kindness, facts, etc…
Neither you nor I can show beyond any shadow of a doubt to one another that the Earth and the universe were created or evolved, are 6000 years old or 14 billion years old. And, if we ever were to at least “prove” it to ourselves, we are each left with one unanswerable question: for me, someone can always ask, “Where did God come from;” for you, the question is, “what created the atoms and the Big Bang.” We both have the same answer: “they were always there.”
Sincerely
AK
p.s. I will answer your other point (about the Essenes and Christ who would have been thrown out by the Essenes) in another post. Unfortunately, we are on shutdown in Vermont and I have to make new business plans as I’ve just lost half my income.
p.p.s. I wish to discuss something in the near future, too, which I have come across concerning the rates of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 measured over the past 3500 years and how it might affect climate or show climate changes. I found it fascinating and though I cannot get a grip on it right now, I believe it could be used to firm up my belief that climate change has nothing to do with AGW.