millions of years?

Barryven says:

quote:

---

...the phenomena of life that seems to defy the second law...

---

I thought I'd just add my two cents in to this interesting discussion. I am going to go with the assumption that you are refering to the second law of thermodynamics. It is a common misconception propogated by some creationists that life seems to defy the second law of thermodynamics. This has also been shown to be complete bunk, and stems from a misunderstanding of the second law. Life on this planet is NOT in a "self-contained" system. The sun which is providing this planet with an abundance of energy is undergoing nuclear fussion which is a more disordered state. Therefor there is no defiance of the second law of thermodynamics.'nuff said.

Hey mike - here's some stuff about an old Earth to ponder...Radiometric dating of the oldest rocks in the world consistantly produce the same date - around 4.5 billion years. This date appears again and again using different methods - the probability of all of them producing an incorrect date is so small as to be ridiculous.The geological column shows a great number of environmental changes - from marine to temperate to desert etc. - within very small areas. For example, the geology of the area around Ballyferriter, Co. Kerry (in Ireland, where I did a field study) shows a clear graduation from deep marine to arid or desert conditions. The study area was around 15km2 in size, and includes a very small part of the geological column. 6000 years is way too short for these changes to occur, but they fit in perfectly with the idea of an old Earth.In many geological formations in Ireland, ripples and other water-related features appear. From these we know that the rock was once unconsolidated and could be affected by water. It could not have become lithified in only 6000 years - but again, it fits in with the idea of an old Earth.There is no physical evidence for a young Earth. The figure of 6000 years is only required by the Bible, and is unsupported.The Rock Hound

Hi Brian,"It is very sad that in this day and age we have people who are so indoctrinated that they will not, or maybe cannot, accept things which are proven beyond all doubt just because it disagrees with what they want to be true."Yes! Why on earth is it not possible to make these people understand some basic logic when it comes to these matters? I mean, if you tell them it is not a good idea to jump off of high buildings, you needn't even explain. Then they get the picture very well. Or if you try to pull off a scheme where they lose money. In most cases, it won't work, they'll see right through you. Unless... you're TV-preacher, asking for huge sums of money, promising blessings in return. Then they're as gullible as any three-year-old.Come to think of it, why have they stopped believing in Santa?"It is also an insult to the many thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to furthering human knowledge of the world around them."Yes, and at the same time they don't give it a second thought when they even so much as flip a light switch, that science is one of the major factors in making their life as comfortable as it is. But noooo, science is evil, it goes against their mildewed holy book and corrupts the minds of their children.What a sorry lot they are, really."Finally, I would say, from personal experience, that the young earth psychosis is predominantly an American phenomenon, [...]"Well, you know what they say: anything is possible in America.Cheers.

I might be wrong but I thought that the only rocks with measured ages of about 4.5 billion years were meteorites (although the ages certainly are consistent).I thought that the oldest rocks actually found on the Earth were about 3.6 billion years old.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-31-2003]

The 4.5 Ga rocks are all meteorites - I think that they've recently broken 4 billion years for terrestrial rocks, but I don't remember where I read that. The Isua Group in Greenland has a bunch of members with ages around 3.8 Ga, by four or five different radioisotope methods. There are some other formations in Australia of about that age, too.
The Age of the Earth by G Brent Dalrymple is a very good treatment of old rock....

the Moon and the Earth are around the same age its easier to find rock of that age there

I think you would agree that there is a difference between scientific conclussion and scientific investigation. Scientific conclussions should certainly rely on verifiable and detectable forces and the regularity of physical law...but, not investigation.Today's scientific understanding of the universe has simply not arrived at the place that it can conclude the presence or non-presence of some directional or creative principle. Our knowledge about the universe is so incomplete..we know so little yet...and who can predict what scientific investigation will reveal in the future.A couple of hundred years ago many people though there was some invisible, living presence that brought sickness to human beings. But, that was all superstition because it could not be detected or verified. In the same context, the light produced by the sun, stars, etc. were thought to be simple lights on a dome over the flat earth..like in a dark room...and, that concept could be replicated by using knowledge of that time... candles in a dark room And, at that time, who could have predicted the invention of the lens that would reveal the heretofore invisible source of sickness and the totally unexpected nature of the lights in the sky.So, were those who believed that sickness was caused by some invisible living presence visiting itself on human beings completely wrong. Not totally wrong but certainly not complete in their understanding. there has always been a belief that the physical world had some kind of spiritual or invisible reality to it...Quantum physics seems to point to something like that but not likely to be the same as those who originally proposed the idea...but the idea was not completely wrong...My point is that scientific INVESTIGATION should always step outside of the constraints of known laws and verifiable facts...And that scientific CONCLUSSIONS should always be within those constraints.The belief that there is sufficient scientific knowledge about the universe to CONCLUdE that there is no designing, directional, creative principle or presence is premature and un-scientific.Don't you think that the scientists of 200 years in the future will look upon us in the same way we look upon those who argued whether or not there is some invisible, living presence that visits itself upon human beings causing sickness and death...who argued whether the lights in the sky were flames like candles (they flickered) or were they holes in the dome through which the light of God's heaven shown.Who can predict what open ended scientific investigation will reveal in the future? Who could have predicted what the lens would reveal?Again, I say that with our very, very limited understanding of the universe, arriving at the conclussion that design is present or not present is un-scientific. I think it is mostly a reaction to that part of the religious community that would force metaphysical beleifs on people in ways that inhibit good science... and, that reaction is not good science.In my previous post I presented an irrefutable argument that botched and failed attempts in creative activity does not prove the absence of a designing or creative intelligence. In fact, the only creative, designing intelligence that we can verify human beings - do exactly that. And, that intelligence and the instinct to do that is a product of evolution. How can you make the argument that because evolution seems to botch design, go down dead ends, make mistakes, creates the "less than perfect" proves that some kind of creative princple or designing presence is absent. How can you see that as proof of the non-existance of a designing or creative princple.What you did is revert back to the old argument that because it's not varifiable or detectable it cannot be considered. (Religionists also have a fall back position in response to arguments that challenge their positions).That's the argument that should have made those who said there can't be a living presence that brings sickness because it's unverifiable and undectable. Shouldn't they have stated that, because we can't see it and we can't find it, it must not be considered .... besides, it is the night air that's the problem. Or, it's too much blood clogging up the system. These are the conclussions we beleive in, we know are right, and will use as the basis of treatment and further research...and our conclussions are verified because many of the people we treat recover!!!Barry[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-31-2003]

True, but I never actually said that the rocks themselves were 4.5 billion years old. As far as I'm aware the date for the formation of the Earth is found by extrapolation from the oldest rocks - of course I will admit the possibility that I'm talking crap, and it's actually done with meteorites. I realised after I posted that people would probably take it the wrong way. Sorry about that.The Rock Hound

point well taken

But it should only step outside them in a very specific direction. Obviously you want to gain some knowledge you didn't previously have from your investigation, but at the same time your investigation has to be grounded in the current state of knowledge.It may be premature to conclude that there is no designer, but there is certainly a significant lack of evidence to suggest it. And while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is a pretty shaky foundation for any sort of scientific enterprise.If its not detectable and verifiable then it really shouldn't be considered scientifically, unless you are producing a specific hypothesis for testing, but producing such a hypothesis is part of the process of verification. Obviously when something finally is detected and verified then it should be accepted, but why do so beforehand? If early medic had happened to hit on exactly the right theory for bacterial and viral disease transmission just by guessing then it still wouldn't have been science, it isn't science until you can demonstrate it so that others will accept its validity.

quote:

---

Today's scientific understanding of the universe has simply not arrived at the place that it can conclude the presence or non-presence of some directional or creative principle. Our knowledge about the universe is so incomplete..we know so little yet...and who can predict what scientific investigation will reveal in the future.

---

Fine. Isn't this, then, as good a reason as any to work with mechanisms and principles that we can currently understand and verify? If our level of scientific understanding can't conclude one way or the other, perhaps the notion of teleology is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry and should be left in the philosophical realm.

quote:

---

A couple of hundred years ago many people though there was some invisible, living presence that brought sickness to human beings. But, that was all superstition because it could not be detected or verified.

---

Good point. It's interesting, though, that although at that point it was equally speculative to say that there was a material mechanism for the origin of disease as to say that there was a guiding intelligence behind sickness, when science progressed further it discovered the material mechanism. This makes me conclude that science may be incapable of discovering anything EXCEPT material mechanisms.

quote:

---

My point is that scientific INVESTIGATION should always step outside of the constraints of known laws and verifiable facts...And that scientific CONCLUSSIONS should always be within those constraints.

---

Again, I have no reason to think that scientific investigation would be of any use outside these constraints. Please give me an example of any fruitful scientific investigation that has operated without the constraints of methodological naturalism. What use is science in a purely philosophical realm?------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Barry,No good scientist considers the findings of science proof of the non-existence of a creative intelligence behind the design we see in living nature. All they are saying is that there is no reason to assume its existence because there is a perfectly reasonable explanation to be found, based on observation, experiments and logic, in the mechanistic theory that science has produced, without resorting to unsupported hypotheses about gods or whatever. It is testable in that the theory predicts certain phenomena that we can go out and look for in nature. And, lo and behold, sometimes we find them, and they provide support for the theory. Sometimes we don't find them. Then the part of the theory that predicts these phenomena remains in the realm of hypotheses. Sometimes we find things that contradict parts of the theory. This does not mean that the complete structure tumbles down, but that we need to think about certain things a little harder and try and formulate a more precise, or perhaps different, explanation for them. Which must then of course be tested again, by trying to make more accurate predictions of what we should find and then going out to look for the predicted phenomena.The idea that metaphysical things like gods and invisible intelligences in the sky do not belong in science stems from the experience that they do not add to our knowledge. Science does not preclude them, but also does not include them, for the simple reason that they can't be verified. Doing science is more than enough work as it is, without having to consider a host of unsupported mysterious claims that simply cannot be tested conclusively. If you see a horse and carriage moving through the street, do you assume some mystical force pushing the carriage from behind? Do you say that the horse in front of it, the pulling reins taut, is just a coincidence? Of course not. And if someone did, you could simply perform the test of unharnessing and reharnessing the horse to see what makes the carriage go. Repeating it a couple of times (better yet, letting someone else repeat it) would give you pretty solid evidence that the horse has something to do with the movement of the carriage. No need for that pushing force. How would you test it, anyway?Cheers.

The steps outside the known boundares are almost always done when there is some hint of the need to. This is the way relativity and quantum mechanics arose. To expend a lot of investigative effort on unfounded speculation is not a productive path to take. There are lots of unfounded speculations and no hint of which ones are better than otheres. There isn't any reason to conclude this. It is simply the best working hypothosis at this time. It will either become a suspect idea, if some hint of a reason for a designer comes up, or it will gradually fade further as a viable idea as we continue to learn things and see no need for the designer hypothosis. Something being undectable is, for most people and for most things, a very good reason to not consider it. If there is no verifiable hint that something even might be there then there is no reason I can think of to spend effort giving it consideration.If you think there is value in considering such things then there is an open-ended list of them with, as you've defined, no way at all to pick any one of them over any other.

I think that 3.8 bya dates are pretty common.From my preCambrian geology class notes, about a year ago:The ancient gneisses in the Minnesota area date about 3.5 to 3.7 bya.The oldest intact rock (not sedimentary grains) is a 3.96 bya gneiss in the Slave Province of Canada. (Bowring, Williams, and Compston, Geology, v. 17, p. 971-975, Nov. 1989)They got 3.96 bya zircons (sedimentary grains) from a quartzite in the Beartooth Mountains of Montana, USA. (Mueller, Wooden, and Nutman, Geology, v. 20, p.327-330, April 1992)Also Australian quartzites with 4.1 to 4.2 bya dates. (I have no direct journal reference, other than a e.g. Compston et al, 1985, mentioned in the previously cited. I do not have a more complete reference)Also the "newest old" find (as of 2002) was 4.404 bya zircon(s), also in quartzite. (I have no journal reference)Note that some of these references are 10+ years old. I don't know much about what's been found since then.Terry, at "Terry's Talk Origins", posted (with online reference) something about some very old volcanics recently discovered, I believe in the Labrador, Canada area. Unfortunately, I couldn't track down the messages or links. Terry did use it as an illustration of the unreliability of radiometric dating. I didn't bother trying to reason with him muchMoose

Moose,Terry is incredible, isn't he? Firstly, who's saying that old Precambrian rocks formed at the same time? No one, so how can this be evidence of radiometric dating unreliability? In point of fact, since all the oldest rocks are in the same bracket, it's a pretty good indicator that the earth is ~5 Bn years old. Does the word "corroborate" mean nothing to these people?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.