Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Question for evolutionists: “If fossils are actually young, would you find ID more believable?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The question of the fossil ages is comparable to a central problem in forensic crime investigation, namely establishing the time of death. Did the creatures in the fossil record die tens of millions of years ago or did they die recently (say less than 50,000 years ago). It is mildly unfortunate that criticism of accepted mainstream fossil ages are conflated with YEC, because strictly speaking the age of the fossils is a formally distinct question from the question of Young Earth Creation (YEC) and the age of the Earth.

One reason that criticism of the geological record has been resisted (even within ID circles) is the affiliation of such criticism with YEC. But this does not have to be the case. For example, Richard Milton, who is not a creationist and is an agnostic, believes the accepted mainstream geological ages are false.

And it’s not even all geological ages, but the relatively “small” section of geological timescales known as the Phanerozoic (back 541 million years to the present).

[To see the graphic below more clearly, you might be able to zoom into it here:
Geological Timescales]

geological timescales

Now, a question for defenders of mainstream evolutionary theory, “suppose for the sake of argument the fossils are young (say 50,000 years max). Would you still believe in naturalistic evolution or would you accept ID or (gasp) even special creation?”

I’m asking because critics of ID have demanded more evidence. The irony is that some of the most unsavory and scandalous players in the ID big tent (the YECs) might be delivering a death blow to evolutionism in the minds of those willing to deal fairly with the facts at hand.

NOTES
1. HT Mike Gene for the idea of asking this question in 2005:
A nagging question about MN

According to the Decree, MN “is the foundation of the natural sciences.” But let’s do a thought experiment.

MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all “without reference to supernatural beings or events?”

2. Here are a few empirical considerations in favor of revising the ages of the fossils (revising the time of death estimates)

Cocktails! C14, DNA, Collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Cocktails! ICC 2013 C14 dates conflict with Carboniferous Era dates 300 million years ago

Cocktails! Falsifying Darwinism via falsifying the geological column

Cocktails! Astrophysics vs. Darwinist Paleontology

ICC 2013 Creationist Bob Enyart attempts to bribe Darwinist Jack Horner

Expelled Microscopist Mark Armitage responds to his critics

Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of Darwinists Inquisition

Related:
Cocktails! The relevance of YEC to ID

Distant starlight the thorn in the side of YEC — can there be a middle ground?

The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism

These links are pretty much all the pro-YEC stuff at UD out of the nearly 11,000 threads at UD. But given the possible payoff for ID if indeed the Phanerozoic is younger than thought, and in addition that the YEC community constitutes about 30% at least of the ID community, the discussion of these topics have to be explored, especially now that the Darwinist Inquisition is now possibly affecting YECs not just the general ID community.

3. My usage of “unsavory and scandlalous players” was a reference to Dembski’s essay referenced here:

Scoundrel Scoundrel, I like the sound of that

supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

Bill Dembski

4. photo credits
http://www.iupui.edu/~geol110/assets/02_geotime/EOG_11e_Figure_18_21.jpg

5. It might be interesting to explore the Ediacaran (635-541 million years back) where there were some life forms in evidence.

Comments
Mark: Your link in 215 doesn't work for me. I agree that Dembski (especially in his writings aimed at an evangelical audience) more often slips into Johnson-speak (natural versus supernatural or miraculous) than Behe does. It is lamentable when ID leaders mix up "designed" with "achieved by supernatural intervention." The former does not necessarily imply the latter (though it is compatible with it). And the methods of design detection available to us do not provide any means of distinguishing between "natural" and "supernatural" intelligences. They can say only that object or system X was a product of intelligence. I wish ID folks would purge all references to natural vs. supernatural causes from their ID writing. (What they write as theologians is of course their own business; I'm talking about what they write as ID theorists.)Timaeus
August 27, 2013
August
08
Aug
27
27
2013
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
#214 Timeaus I admit that IC is much less obviously circular than CSI - where Dembksi's formula includes a term for "not likely to be created by natural means". However, when pressed with counter-examples Behe will subtly change the definition from "cannot take a part away" to "cannot be built using Darwinian evolution". See here for example. (admittedly this is not quite the same as cannot be built via natural processes).Mark Frank
August 27, 2013
August
08
Aug
27
27
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, you wrote: "That sounds good until you discover that it is part of the definition of irreducible complexity that it is most unlikely to be created by natural means." I don't know where you got that idea. The *definition* of irreducible complexity does not in itself make reference to evolvability. "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." One can see from this definition that "irreducible complexity" does not in itself have anything to do with evolution or even biology in general; the definition would apply to a grandfather clock or an automobile engine as much as to anything in the organic world. It is an engineering concept, not an evolutionary one. Of course, Behe believes that the existence of irreducibly complex systems in living nature poses a serious problem for neo-Darwinian evolution: "An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to [neo-] Darwinian evolution." And he explains why, in the same passage (Darwin's Black Box, p. 39). He is drawing a conclusion here. One can contest the conclusion -- as ID critics generally do -- but even if Behe's conclusion is wrong, there is no need to change the definition of "irreducible complexity." It would simply be the case that irreducibly complex systems *can in fact be produced by neo-Darwinian means*. Mark, I add that it is wrong to say "natural means" rather than "neo-Darwinian means" since Behe's conception does not rule out all naturalistic forms of evolution. For example, it does not rule out Denton's form of evolution, as Behe has made clear many times. His critique has from the beginning been made against the classic neo-Darwinian conception of itty-bitty steps. (Here I think that ID people sometimes trip over each other's feet, with people like Johnson using "natural" but Behe using "neo-Darwinian," or Behe carefully specifying "Darwinian evolution" but Cornelius Hunter saying "evolution" without qualification. I wish that ID people would standardize their terminology along the lines of Behe and Denton; it would save much confusion for both pro- and anti-ID people.)Timaeus
August 27, 2013
August
08
Aug
27
27
2013
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
@ Sal Why on Earth would you attempt to date the Carboniferous with C14 which only works back to around 50,000 years ago?Alan Fox
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
@ lifespy 209 I wasn't alluding to any particular study. Not my field but I'd be amazed if data hasn't been cross-checked and flabbergasted if there were signicant anomolies. I'll read up on it. Flabbergast me if you can. :)Alan Fox
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Daniel King
But as Alan Fox just pointed out, it would be salutary for persons like yourself, who are skeptical of the science, to examine primary sources (i.e. the scientific papers themselves)
I'm not sure if you're actually reading the thread, or if you just enjoy baldly asserting that people you disagree with are ignorant, but I have investigated the literature and posted (with direct references to the literature #111,#201) my detailed objections to the vague and unreferenced claims made by old-earth proponents in the comments above concerning Varve/C14 dating, and have been waiting for days for any kind of substantive response.lifepsy
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
You people are, presumably,capable of reading up on a subject, taking a course, googling wikipedia even.
Certainly. My degree is in biomedical science, though since I've not finished post-grad work, perhaps my presence is considered superfluous. It is important to understand that our requests for participants to expound on their source is to judge their understanding of the sourced information as it relates to their argument as it may not be apparent, or how the sourced information directly relates to their argument. It is often that the "literature bluff" is pulled. But, I do agree that it is important for each person to do one's own homework. My response was more toward the apparent apprehension to address counter-arguments, not on rehashing the literature.TSErik
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Alan Fox,
Consilience and calibration. Tree ring samples, ice core samples, samples lake varves all serve to cross calibrate with each other and with carbon dating.
Which studies on lake varves are you referring to?lifepsy
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Mark, A follow up on the discussions here. Some of your reservations about ID I respect: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/in-defense-of-mark-frank-truth-believability-undecidability-and-e-prime/ Salscordova
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
lifepsy:
So basically you’re just dropping literature references with no intention of discussing them?
I beg your pardon for being abrupt. I thought that I had been helpful in correcting CalvinsBulldog's misapprehension about the science behind varve dating at Lake Baikal. I am not a geologist, so after I satisfied myself that there were detailed methods in the paper I mentioned, I posted the reference and forgot the details. But as Alan Fox just pointed out, it would be salutary for persons like yourself, who are skeptical of the science, to examine primary sources (i.e. the scientific papers themselves), instead of relying on informal discussion on a blog. I understand that it's not easy, but I expect that you'll find it worth the effort.Daniel King
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Consilience and calibration. Tree ring samples, ice core samples, samples lake varves all serve to cross calibrate with each other and with carbon dating.
Why don't we instead calibrate C-14 with the Carboniferous era of 300 million years ago or the dino tissue. There isn't consilience, there is conflict! The consilience is an artifact of cherry picked data. Evolutionary biology is rife with cherry picking in order to make illegitimate ideas look almost respectable: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-price-of-cherry-picking-for-addicted-gamblers-and-believers-in-darwinism/ You might say the YECs haven't proven their case. I'd agree, on the other hand I don't think the mainstream has proven their case that the fossils are old. When one is faced with conflicting data like this, the proper response is to say, "on scientific grounds, conclusions about the age of the fossils are premature, we need to look into the matter and gather more data." Instead there is a rush to judgment by both highly biased sides. As distasteful as saying "we don't know" is for the YEC, its even more distasteful to those defending Darwinian evolution because the Darwinists have more to lose in this issue than the YECs. The YECs rely heavily on their theology, but when the data start to challenge Darwinism, that's hitting Darwinism where it hurts... As much as I don't like admitting I don't know, I'm still willing to say, "I don't know". I don't think the claim of old fossils is a done deal, it could be false, and that's especially bad for Darwinism if doubts about their age come from the data itself, not from YEC theology.scordova
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
TSErik #202
I wouldn’t hold your breath. NDEs tend to make claims, regurgitate a few scientific sounding arguments they picked up somewhere else, then disappear when asked further about their claim.
I don't think we are any more inclined to drop out of a debate than ID proponents. After all any debate has to stop sometime and it is extremely rare for someone on either side to roll over and say "you were right all along". However, one reason I get fed up is the unceasing abuse from some (not all - thank you Sal, VJ, Gpuccio) of the IDists. The other is that so many of these arguments have been had so many times before.Mark Frank
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
It would be nice if Elizabeth Liddle could offer some more insight as she made the claim first.
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
You people are, presumably,capable of reading up on a subject, taking a course, googling wikipedia even. I have watched many well-intentioned academics over the years make strenuous efforts to inform and penetrate the ignorance that seems to pervade this site. All of them are soon discouraged and wearied by the effort. Lizzie has more stamina and forbearance than anyone else attempting to help the benighted here but I wouldn't count on it being limitless.Alan Fox
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
I remain unconvinced that Varve/C14 data is a reliable measurement of old-earth dates. Consilience and calibration. Tree ring samples, ice core samples, samples lake varves all serve to cross calibrate with each other and with carbon dating. You have the identification of strata of classial geology and radiometric dating with a range of isotopes Plus the fossil distribution. It all forms a pattern. See things as they are and don't try to bend obvious facts to fit a particular origin myth.Alan Fox
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
It would be nice if Elizabeth Liddle could offer some more insight as she made the claim first (20)
I wouldn't hold your breath. NDEs tend to make claims, regurgitate a few scientific sounding arguments they picked up somewhere else, then disappear when asked further about their claim. Just to clarify, I'm no YEC. I have no problem with an old Earth. Hell, I don't think that I'd even call myself a Creationist. Yet I am pressuring the anti-ID crowd, who often is guilty of what I stated above, to continue the discussion. To answer their counter-arguments rather than disappearing and moving on to a new topic to repeat the process.TSErik
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
I believe this is the original Lake Baikal c14 dating article, but I can't find the content online. Radiocarbon dating of Lake Baikal sediments A progress report 1993 Colman S M; Kuptsov V M; Jones G A; Carter S J Russian Geology and Geophysics Here is another study done in 2004 (full .pdf available) EXTRACTION AND AMS RADIOCARBON DATING OF POLLEN FROM LAKE BAIKAL SEDIMENTS Piotrowska et al. Here they date pollen samples found in the sediments. A few interesting statements:
Radiocarbon dating of Lake Baikal sediments is a difficult challenge, as previous studies have proved (Coleman 1996). The main problem is the scarcity of material suitable for dating because the sediments are very poor in organic matter and carbonates.
The results obtained for Continent Ridge and Vydrino Shoulder show a high linear correlation and were used for estimating the average sedimentation rates.
So the estimated sedimentation rate is based off of the C14 dates? I thought the varve layering and carbon dating were independently measured and "corroborated each other" like Elizabeth Liddle previously claimed?
The ages of Posolskoe Bank samples are more scattered, indicating the disturbances in the sedimentation process. Two periods of sedimentation were distinguished for which the average sedimentation rates were estimated (Figure 4c). The sedimentological studies, which are still in process, will enable the recognition of possible sedimentation disturbances.
You can see in Figure 4C of the paper, that C14-to-depth correlation for the Posolskoe region of Lake Baikal is significantly skewed. The researchers attribute this to "sedimentation disturbances" and a follow-up study by in 2009 Radiocarbon dating of Lake Baikal sediments: A comparison between pollen and TOC ages. Piotrowska http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009EGUGA..11.3796P
Recently we dated with the AMS method the total organic carbon (TOC) from the same sampling levels, which previously were dated based on pollen/spores concentrates. For a majority of samples from the Vidrino Shoulder and Continent Ridge sites the radiocarbon ages of TOC are older than the pollen ages. The maximum age offset may reach as much as 1750 yrsBP but mean differences are 775 years and 500 years for Vydrino Shoulder and Continent Ridge Sites, respectively. The results evidence unambiguously that at both sites a significant amount of older carbon is admixed to TOC. At maximum as much as ca. 25% of carbon of infinite age could be contributed to the sediments.
Now it seems we have an admission that the carbon samples are significantly contaminated? I remain unconvinced that Varve/C14 data is a reliable measurement of old-earth dates. It would be nice if Elizabeth Liddle could offer some more insight as she made the claim first (20)
Because the data do corroborate each other. It’s as simple as that. For instance take lake varves. We know that they are laid down annually because we see them being laid down annually. They can be carbon dated, and the carbon dates corroborate the counts.
lifepsy
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
PHV @197
Given the enormous volume of demanding questions thrown at Dr. Liddle, yours might not be the most parsimonious conclusion.
My apologies if it appeared I was directly attacking Dr. Liddle - I was actually referring to the fact that, for a fairly simple question, your's was the only response from anyone espousing an evolutionary outlook. Given the simplicity of the question, Occam's Razor suggests the most obvious reason for the lack of response is the true one.
As for “Fact 1,” you say that amber is not a good example of very old organic material because it has been polymerized. Are you certain that the recovered soft materials have not undergone some analogous change? And what about organic materials trapped inside amber? Are those also polymerized?
An excellent question, to which the response is "yes, I am sure". The tests performed on this organic material indicate that it is still in its original chemical form - "soft", as it were. Ref the following for a fairly good list of discoveries of soft organic material recovered. 2013 List of Dinosaur Soft Tissue Findsdrc466
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Very good, PHV, you are well on your way to reading and comprehending your first work of scientific literature. As for me, do you notice where I am repeatedly attempting to extract more information from those who had access to the full version of the article, so I don't have to rely only on the abstract?lifepsy
August 26, 2013
August
08
Aug
26
26
2013
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
Lifepsy, From the abstract I can glean that the paper is beginning with the assertion that the sediment layering represents 12 million years of time. Are you certain, based on the abstract, that this is an assumption underlying the paper? I'm hardly an expert, but I was just reading this: "The abstract is that dense first paragraph at the very beginning of a paper. In fact, that’s often the only part of a paper that many non-scientists read when they’re trying to build a scientific argument. (This is a terrible practice—don’t do it.). When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract. But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract last. I do this because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results." How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientistsPro Hac Vice
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT
Thanks for responding – I will take the lack of other response to indicate that regardless of what they believe, evolutionists have no easy answer to this simple logic problem. Perhaps all the data doesn’t “corroborate”, eh Dr. Liddle? Given the enormous volume of demanding questions thrown at Dr. Liddle, yours might not be the most parsimonious conclusion. As for "Fact 1," you say that amber is not a good example of very old organic material because it has been polymerized. Are you certain that the recovered soft materials have not undergone some analogous change? And what about organic materials trapped inside amber? Are those also polymerized?Pro Hac Vice
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
The geomagnetic field has been dying, and it looks like there were faster pole reversals than presumed.
From Wikipedia
The magnetic compass was first invented as a device for divination as early as the Chinese Han Dynasty (since about 206 BC). The compass was used in Song Dynasty China by the military for navigational orienteering by 1040-1044, and was used for maritime navigation by 1111 to 1117. The use of a compass is recorded in Western Europe between 1187 and 1202, and in Persia in 1232. The dry compass was invented in Europe around 1300. This was supplanted in the early 20th century by the liquid-filled magnetic compass
My guess is that if the magnetic fields were reversing very much these navigators would have noticed it and people would have written about it. From Wikipedia about the mid Atlantic ridge
The mid-ocean ridge systems form new oceanic crust. As crystallized basalt extruded at a ridge axis cools below Curie points of appropriate iron-titanium oxides, magnetic field directions parallel to the Earth's magnetic field are recorded in those oxides. The orientations of the field in the oceanic crust record preserve a record of directions of the Earth's magnetic field with time. Because the field has reversed directions at irregular intervals throughout its history, the pattern of reversals in the ocean crust can be used as an indicator of age. Likewise, the pattern of reversals together with age measurements of the crust is used to help establish the history of the Earth's magnetic field.
Did South America separate from Africa just a few thousand years ago? My guess it was about 100-110 million years ago based on plate movement today and sediment patterns on both sides of the ridge. My question is how did monkeys get to South America? The Atlantic is fairly wide between the two continents. Is there any theories and has it been confirmed genetically?jerry
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
PHV @149, Thanks for responding - I will take the lack of other response to indicate that regardless of what they believe, evolutionists have no easy answer to this simple logic problem. Perhaps all the data doesn't "corroborate", eh Dr. Liddle? Regarding amber - amber is not really a good answer, for a few reasons. Primarily because amber is a result of a molecular polymerization process on resin. Most resins are not resistant enough to decay to last long enough to undergo the process (which is kinda related to Fact 1). Amber has as little relevance to DNA, proteins, and amino acids as, say, diamonds do.drc466
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Scordova, Thanks for the link. This is the paper referenced in AiG Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal Coe, Robert S.; Prevot, Michel Large, systematic variations in direction of high-temperature remanence as a function of vertical position occur in a basalt flow from the Miocene volcanic sequence ... implies astonishingly high rates of change of the geomagnetic field: at least 3 deg and 300 gammas per day. (also, I can't wait for the ICC 2013 videos to be released! I'm upset it looks like I'll have to wait till November)lifepsy
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Daniel King, So basically you're just dropping literature references with no intention of discussing them? This was your response to CalvinsBullDog (163) who was inquiring about the original methodology for revealing Lake Baikal varve dates.
Orbit-related long-term climate cycles revealed in a 12-Myr continental record from Lake Baikal, Nature 410, 71-74 (2001) 12 million years!
Again, the abstract suggests the article mainly documents macro patterning (so-called Milankovitch periods) within laminae that, from the outset, are assumed to represent 12 million years. How do the researchers know the Lake Baikal varves represent 12 million years?lifepsy
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Lifespy, Regarding the geomagnetic field, see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic I saw Dr. Humphreys at ICC 2013. I'm told he used to be an atheist. Salscordova
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
Lifespy, In that paper the authors dated their core by referring to geomagnetic reversal (N and S pole flips). I’m not sure how YECs try an accommodate pole-reversals into their chronologies, but I’m sure they do…
The geomagnetic field has been dying, and it looks like there were faster pole reversals than presumed. Thanks however for taking time to explain the methodology in the paper.scordova
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
Lifespy, In that paper the authors dated their core by referring to geomagnetic reversal (N and S pole flips). I'm not sure how YECs try an accommodate pole-reversals into their chronologies, but I'm sure they do...wd400
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
lifepsy, Do you have access to the full article and can describe the methodology and results? I read the paper in the local university library, and I don't have a copy. If you care, you can answer your questions by exerting a bit of effort and visiting a library that subscribes to Nature. If you don't care, that's your problem.Daniel King
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Daniel King,
For a fairly recent study of the Lake Baikal varves that provides detailed methodology (and does not quote Douglas Williams), see: Orbit-related long-term climate cycles revealed in a 12-Myr continental record from Lake Baikal, Nature 410, 71-74 (2001)
Do you have access to the full article and can describe the methodology and results? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6824/abs/410071a0.html
Here we examine long sediment cores from Lake Baikal that cover the past 12 million years. Our record reveals a gradual cooling of the Asian continental interior, with some fluctuations. Spectral analyses reveal periods of about 400 kyr, 600 kyr and 1,000 kyr, which may correspond to Milankovitch periods (reflecting orbital cycles). Our results indicate that changes in insolation were closely related to long-term environmental variations in the deep continental interior, over the past 12 million years.
From the abstract I can glean that the paper is beginning with the assertion that the sediment layering represents 12 million years of time. From this it sounds like the authors go on to document macro patterning within the lamination and speculate on the causes, attributing them to long-term cycles. In the article, is there empirical cross-checked dating of the varves? This topic of Varves came up when Elizabeth Liddle asserted that it authoritatively confirmed old-earth ages. I refer again to this important empirical evidence for rapid lamination (varves) and graded bedding (thicker layers of sediment) due to water currents. Here it is experimentally proven that, within water flows, sediments will naturally segregate between fine and coarse particles and settle in their own distinct layers. This proves that the Varving effect can be generated within minutes, not necessarily millions of years. (in the case of Lake Baikal that is coarse Silt vs. fine Clay) Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixtures Julien, et al. 1994 Bulletin of the Geological Society, France http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~pierre/ce_old/resume/Paperspdf/Julien%20et%20al.%20France93.pdf There are references to a whole body of research that investigate rapid sedimentation, and document a "like seeks like" pattern, where particles will tend to be sorted with the same type of particles under air and water flows. Interesting that we see this dominant pattern (rock layers segregated by sediment-type) all over the world.lifepsy
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Mark Frank proves that he does NOT understand science:
But how on earth do I show that a specific event or series of events was not designed – given that the designer has undefined powers and motives and could easily have decided to make it look as though the events had natural causes?
Exactly as scientists have been doing it since Newton posited his four rules of scientific investigation.
That sounds good until you discover that it is part of the definition of irreducible complexity that it is most unlikely to be created by natural means.
IC doesn't say anything about how it was formed. And Behe addressed the arguments Mark is trying to dredge up again. Again all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, is up to the task and the design inference falls. However neither Mark, nor anyone else, can do so so they are forced to act like little whiny babies.Joe
August 25, 2013
August
08
Aug
25
25
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply