Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Evidence for a Young Earth


Someone recently asked me what I felt the strongest evidence for a young earth is. It occurred to me that I may have given this person the impression that I find the RATE studies to be the strongest evidence for a young earth. I want to back up in this post and explain the purpose of the RATE studies that I’ve been summarizing for you.

There is much in nature that suggests that the earth is only thousands of years old. An abbreviated list is as follows:

1. Living fossils- “Living fossils” are plants and animals thought to be extinct for at least several million years. Animal examples include the tuatara and coelacanth. Plant examples include the Ginkgo, and Metasequoia. These “living fossils” appear in so-called ancient rocks but not in more recent beds. The unchanged nature of their forms and their continued living presence on the earth testify that little time has transpired since a catastrophic flood entombed their relatives.

2. Tall mountains- The very existence of mountain ranges argues for a young earth. Current estimates of soil erosion say the earth is eroding down at the rate of about one foot every 5-10,000 years. This means that one mile of erosion would occur every 25-50 million years. Mountainous areas would erode at rates above average. At this rate most mountain ranges would have eroded to foothills by now. Some would argue that mountains have pushed up several times, canceling out erosion, but the lower sedimentary beds do not attest to this.

3. River deltas- It has been estimated that the Mississippi river delta has grown an average of 262 feet each year. Using this figure, the Mississippi river delta is around 4,500 years old. The growth of the Po river delta can be traced by historical and archeological records. Again, using the size of the delta to estimate its age, the Po river is only several thousand years old.

4. Shrinking sun- According to estimated measurements of the sun spanning hundreds of years, our sun is shrinking at a rate that would have required it to be so big 1,000,000,000 years ago that life could not have been sustained on earth.

5. Receding moon- It has been estimated that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 2 inches per year. If our solar system was 4.5 billion years old, we would no longer be able to see the moon because it would have drifted out of sight long ago.

6. High oil and gas pressures- The high oil and gas pressures within relatively permeable rock imply the oil and gas were encased there less than 10,000 years ago.

7. Elements and sediment entering the oceans- The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. This discrepancy suggests the oceans must be much younger than 1 million years. And more than 16 billion tons of sediment is deposited in the oceans each year. Given enough time, the oceans would fill up, but before that happened, the land areas would erode down to sea level. Based on the presents rate of sedimentation in the oceans and consequent rise in sea level, the continents would lower to sea level within 15 million years.

8. Poynting-Robertson effect- The sun sweeps up an estimated 100,000 tons of space dust and debris each day. If our solar system was billions of years old, it should have been swept clean long ago! The persistence of space dust and micrometeoroids argues that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

9. Spin rate of earth- Current measurements suggest the earth’s spin is slowing by about 1 second per year. If the earth is billions of years old, the initial spin rate of the earth would have been too fast to support life.

10. Atmospheric helium- The amount of atmospheric helium requires the earth be less than 40,000 years old.

11. Short-term comets- Astronomers believe that short-term comets have a life-span of 1,500-10,000 years. We observed the death of 10 of these short-term comets in the last century. If the universe is billions of years old, these short-term comets should have died out eons ago.

12. Radiation of Jupiter and Saturn- Jupiter and Saturn radiate more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. It appears that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

13. The decline of the earth’s magnetic field- The earth’s magnetic field has declined by 7% since 1835 when it was first measured. This suggests that the field loses half its strength every 1400 years. Working backwards, the earth must be younger than 10,000 years old because any older and the earth’s magnetic field would have been too strong to sustain life.

Perhaps I should devote a post to each of the above or perhaps the list itself is enough to make my point. Young earth creationists have much evidence that points to a young earth. But, for years evolutionary scientists have discounted the above by arguing that radioisotope dating trumps all other lines of evidence. Radioisotope dating has been held up as the irrefutable “clock” of the earth and purported to be inarguable evidence that the earth is billions of years old. What the RATE study has done is introduced doubt as to the proper reading of the clock of radioisotope dating. In other words, the burden is really not on the scientists in the RATE study to prove that there have been multiple episodes of accelerated decay in the past. All the scientists in the RATE study had to do is introduce evidence that suggests we’ve been reading the radioisotope clock incorrectly. And this, they’ve done. I’ve described their helium diffusion study, and their polonium radiohalo study. The RATE team also conducted 3 other studies over isochron dating, fission tracks, and C14 in diamonds that add weight to their theory of accelerated decay. But, let me reiterate this point. They do not have to prove that accelerated decay occurred or how it occurred. All they had to do is introduce doubt about the so-called infallible radioisotope dating method. And they have done this.

Let’s think about this for a moment as a courtroom drama. I'm the lawyer trying to defend the position of a young earth. The list I gave above is my list of witnesses that testify to a young earth. I call in my witnesses, one by one and they present a good case, albeit largely circumstantial. But then the lawyer for the other side, arguing in favor of an old earth, calls his star witness, radioisotope dating. It's just so impressive and persuasive and it enjoys serving as a professional witness. For years, those trying to defend the theory of a young earth have tried to discredit the main witness for the other side, radioisotope dating. But until now our attempts to discredit the witness of radioisotope dating have only been hearsay. What the RATE study has done is finally introduced scientific evidence to corrorborate the hearsay, which means it's no longer just hearsay. For the first time, doubt has been cast on the testimony of radioisotope dating. The RATE study has shown that it is quite possible that we've been reading the "clock" of radioisotope dating incorrectly.

Now, instead of discounting my witnesses above and just assuming they must all be wrong and radioisotope dating right, we can begin to take a more serious look at the evidence for a young earth. Which do I feel is the strongest evidence? This might be cheating, but I feel their strength is in their numbers. I didn't list all known evidences of a young earth, just a few of the most obvious. I feel the strongest argument in favor of a young earth, other than the Word of God which I believe is inerrant and infallible, is that there is so much evidence for a young earth.

At the end of the day, it does require a measure of faith to believe either view. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork." God has designed our world to give evidence of His greatness. I'm confident that in the years to come more and more evidence will come to light that corroborates the Biblical view of a young earth. And I count myself blessed to live in a time of such great scientific discovery that I can embrace both the Bible and science, without compromising either.

101 comments:

  1. 1. Living Fossils--There are None

    http://home.entouch.net/dmd/livfos.htm

    Frankly you misrepresent the very idea of 'living fossils'. The idea is that some animals have not changed from the fossil record not that they went missing. The simple fact is that there aren't any. For one example Coelacanth are an ORDER of fish not a SPECIES. The Species of Coelacanth we have now are not the same as are found in the fossil record.

    If the earth was only 6000 years old we would expect well, everything to be a 'living fossil'.

    2. Tall Mountains. Um what? Plate Techtonics is fairly well understood. Your maths is extremely poor here. "one foot every 5-10,000 years" means that 5 feet of erosion in 25-50,000.
    Besides your random numbers ignore the fact that we observe and measure Mountains growing.
    Geologists can tell the difference between young and old mountains.

    3. River Deltas. You picked one delta that you think helps you. A quick search it's meaningless really, if I find a delta 5 years old so what? There are certainly bigger and older deltas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 4. Shrinking sun! Next you'll be using receding moon and not enough mineral/salt etc in the sea... oh.

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html

    5. The Moon receding. /facepalm

    The rate isn't constant it's a function of gravity so it's proportional to distance.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

    "This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)"

    In short the length of day/year is recorded in the geological/fossil record.

    6. high gas pressure. How would this pressure have built up if the rock was as permeable as you are imply? Plus we know the plates are moving, creating pressure.

    7. Contents of the Oceans. Come on these are ridiculous. Minerals are removed from the ocean as well through subduction of the tectonic plates. These same forces build up the continents! These are observed! Speeds range from 1-10 cm a year.

    These seem to be coming straight out of the hovind playbook.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Running out time, will have to come back to some if no one else has them by the time I wake up tomorrow.

    9 Spin Rate of the earth. Sorry but here is where you just prove to all of us that you are blindly copy and pasting decades old Creationist myths without thinking. The earth is not slowing down at one second a year. In fact I would guess you are quite mixed up with the concept of a leap second (which is something different entirely).

    The Earths rotation is slowing at 0.005 seconds a year.

    http://novan.com/earth.htm

    "The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in 1820"

    http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/rotation.html#Bkqt5KSi4Lsb

    "This rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year would, if rolled back 4.55 billion years, yield a 14-hour day"

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

    "Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing"

    If you are having trouble following along, this is the data that confirms the changing rate of the moon receeding. They are tied together by Gravity.

    11. Short term comets!! Come on. New Comets are constantly coming from the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt those are pretty big sources.

    I have to go to bed. Hopefully others will pick up the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a scientist and educator I have a lot to say, but, quite frankly, some of your understandings of how nature and science itself works are skewed. For the time being, I'll ask you politely to "trust the experts." They know what we're talking about when they say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; and no, we don't say radiometric dating "trumps all."

    One thing you might find interesting since you brought up booth the rotation of the Earth and the receding Moon is that the spin of the Earth is transferred to the Moon's orbital momentum via tidal forces. That's why the Earth slows its spin while the moon increases its orbital velocity and recedes.

    And no, the length of a day does not decrease by one second a year. The day is longer by one second every 60,000 or so.

    Don't be surprised that creationist literature lied to you; that's just what they do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I will take up where BathTub left off.

    12. Radiation from Jupiter and Saturn.

    Jupiter is cooling at a rate that it is coming from its creation 4.5 billion years ago.

    Saturn is cooling too fast to be coming from 4.5 bya. What is happening, and has been observed, is Helium in the atmosphere is condensing and falling to the core, gas giant no land. the gravitational potential energy is converted to heat and what is radiating off is that heat energy.

    13. Earth's Magnetic Field. Interesting that starts at 1835, because it was around 1835 that the magnetic field began to decay. Before that it was relatively stable, to about 1590. The Magnetic field has fluctuated all through the history of the Earth and has even flipped polarity. One hypothesis is that this recent sudden decrease means that the polarity is changing, again. The magnetic field fluxes, it is not constantly losing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 8. Poynting-Robertson effect

    Which states that absorbing sunlight causes dust particles to lose angular momentum and spiral towards the sun. Its counter effect, reflected sunlight, causes dust to be pushed away from the sun. You see this with every comet, which way does the dust tail in a comet face, towards or away from the sun? If the Poynting-Robertson effect was the only effect on dust particles, then a comet's tail would be sucked into the sun. Instead what we witness is the tail facing away from the sun. So reflected sunlight pushes particles away.

    10. Atmospheric Helium - Why does it? Helium is a very light atom. It escapes the atmosphere in two ways. First when it is heated it can reach escape velocity. The second way is when it is ionized it follows the earth's magnetic field lines and escapes that way. When these two things are considered with the rate at which helium is produced by radioactive elements, it is balanced for the amount of helium that is currently present in the atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course your claim is the RATE experiments provided evidence for the rest of this. Dr. Humphreys, who leads the group, based a lot of his observation off of faulty premises (isotropic diffusion and constant temperatures over time are just two examples). There were several other problems, like diffusion in a vacuum as opposed to under pressure (like it would be found in nature). Then there is the Quality control and quality assurance issues with Humphreys' lab, which leads to useless and contaminated data. I believe BathTub has covered all of these in another post already.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now I'll pick up from where BeamStalk left off.

    Perhaps I should devote a post to each of the above or perhaps the list itself is enough to make my point. Young earth creationists have much evidence that points to a young earth.

    Everything you posted was either an outright lie such as each day being 1 second shorter each year, or it was a complete misunderstanding of well understood principals such as why Jupiter still emits radiation. Creationists have NO evidence except for the ones they either make up or misrepresent.

    But, for years evolutionary scientists have discounted the above by arguing that radioisotope dating trumps all other lines of evidence.

    Evolutionary scientists AKA evolutionary biologists study... duh... evolution and are not even specialized in radiometric dating. If you are implying that ALL scientists who accept evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth are "evolutionary scientists," there's another term for that... "scientist"! Scientists, by consensus, accept evolution as fact.

    And here you go with the strawman arguments. Who said that radiometric dating trumps all? There are hundreds, nay, thousands of lines of evidence that point to an old Earth. Just look at distant starlight or the number of successive layers of sandstone we find in geological columns. Take a look at the number of craters on the moon or air samples from arctic ice showing different atmospheric compositions throughout history.

    Speaking of which, how can you possibly explain the fact that air bubbles, depending on how far you drill into the ice of Antarctica, show gradual changes to the atmosphere over time? That ice wasn't laid recently. Even you must understand that it takes a long time for that much ice to accumulate. If the ice of Antarctica were laid down recently, it would show no oxygen in the atmosphere for nearly half of Earth's history. That's kind of a problem if humans are walking around from day 6.

    Take a look at a volcano. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how they are formed and the time necessary to pour enough lava out of the sea floor to create the Hawaiian Islands.

    Look at plate tectonics. How long does it take for the Himalayas to form from two colliding plates? It couldn't have happened recently if for no other reason than all the rocks are too weathered.

    Let's not forget how clearly the fossil record spells out Earth's biological history. You NEVER find rabbit fossils next to t-rex fossils, and you NEVER find trilobite or opabinia fossils near t-rex fossils. The fossil record is so neatly organized sorting basic phyla to modern species in perfect order.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please watch this documentary: Earth Story: The Age of the Earth. It details not only how old the Earth is, but how scientists slowly came to the conclusion that it's 4.5 billion years old.

    Earth Story: The Age of the Earth
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3
    Part 4
    Part 5
    Part 6

    You can also watch this video:
    The Age of the World Made Easy

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe the Island of Surtsey proves that islands can be created in a very short period of time.

    The official Icelandic geologist, S. Thorarinsson writes,

    'When (geologists) in the spring and summer of 1964 wandered about the island . . .they found it hard to believe that this was an island whose age was still measured in months, not years . . . What elsewhere may take thousands of years may be accomplished (in Iceland) in one century. . . (in) Surtsey. . .the same development may take a few
    weeks or even a few days.'

    'On Surtsey only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief . . . wide sandy beaches . . .precipitous crags . . .gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs grayish white from the brine.. . hollows... glens and screes... boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round on an abrasion platform cut into the cliffs.'


    Scientists were also amazed at the landforms created in merely months after the eruption of Mount St Helens in USA.

    Isn't the Wollemi Pine supposed to be a 'living fossil'? "Discovering the Wollemi Pine in 1994 was like finding a family of dinosaurs alive and well." (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1371627.htm)

    As far as I can see, evolution and the big bang are still only unproved theories. Some choose to believe 'the experts' and others The Creator. There is plenty of evidence to suggest a young age for the earth. Evolutionists will always interpret evidence in the light of their belief, while Creationists will examine evidence in the hope it points to their beliefs. The truth is that no scientist can say they are an expert on origins. Anything that has to do with the past can only be guessed, speculated about. I'm so glad there are scientists who choose to research the evidence for special creation rather than ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Once again, if you think the earth is only 6000 years old EVERYTHING should be a living fossil because everything 'modern' should be buried in the 'fossil record'.

    Again Wollemia isn't a SPECIES, it's a Genus.

    A quick look isn't helping me find the species of the fossils. Perhaps you have found 1, congrats. But it's not evidence against evolution.

    You guys have to fast an loose with words to make up examples.

    I have pointed out blatant lies in the 'facts' that IAB has trotted out (with no sources I might add) and these aren't even new, many trace back decades. And have been debunked just as long. But as long as it makes the faithful feel good and hand over more money for the latest copy of Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine well then it's ok isn't it?

    Most Creationist organizations specifically state that any evidence that contradicts their particular interpretation of the bible is automatically wrong. Essentially bible idolaters.

    Scientists examine the evidence, and follow where it leads. Which is why I keep mentioning the fact that scientist of ALL religions accept The Big Bang Theory, Atomic Theory, Heliocentric Theory, Evolutionary Theory, etc. Over the writings of men thousands of years old.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Bathtub - But what about Surtsey? And the geological changes after the Mount St Helens eruption?

    Please explain, "Again Wollemia isn't a SPECIES, it's a Genus.

    A quick look isn't helping me find the species of the fossils. Perhaps you have found 1, congrats.


    If something was thought to have become extinct 200million years ago, and then is found to be alive and well in the present day, doesn't that make it a living fossil? Haven't botanists found the Wollemi pine to be identical to it's fossil relatives?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Haven't botanists found the Wollemi pine to be identical to it's fossil relatives? "

    That's what I was asking. I didn't find the SPECIES of the fossils. Wollemi is a GENUS. The species of the current known tree is Wollemi Nobilis. I haven't seen a reference to what species the fossils are.

    And again the rarity of living fossils doesn't make sense if you think the planet is 6000 years old and everything on the planet is Living Fossil.

    And what about Surtsey and Mt St Helens? I don't get your point? I wasn't arguing that an island 130 meters above the sea floor couldn't be formed in few years.

    That's a world of difference between surtsey and the Hawaii Island Chain.
    http://tinyurl.com/ykplxdl Linking to Google satellite pick.
    Which is made by the techtonic plate slowly moving over a hot spot in the pacifc.
    I dont know if you don't believe in techtonic plate theory, but clearly the YEC that IAB cut and pasted from doesn't accept that Scientific Theory either.

    As for Mt St Helens? I'm not arguing that local catastrophies can't happen. Global ones can too. Take the KT extinction event for example.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh I see IAB has been silently editing the post. Pity it isn't to add sources.

    In particular I would love to see the "Current measurements suggest the earth’s spin is slowing by about 1 second per year" source. As in the 'current' source rather than decades old dusty creationist pamphlet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm sorry Mum-me: the canyons formed after the Mount Saint Helens eruption are demonstratably different from canyons around the world formed by much greater periods of time. They pass through unconsolidated volcanic ash rather than sedimetary layers, their walls slope at a very consistant 45 degrees rather than the much steeper cliff faces you see in other locations, they flow down a steeper slope, and of course they are much, much, smaller.

    And the the island of Surtsey had a surface area of 2.7 square km at it's maximum, which has since eroded to 1.4 square km. For comparison, the "Big Island" of Hawaii is 10,432 square km. And as Bathtub said, Hawaii is in a much deeper area of the ocean.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As far as I can see, evolution and the big bang are still only unproved theories.

    So is atomic theory. "Teach the controversy!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1) "Bathtub", you said in your first comment that there are no living fossils. I queried this statement because I remember when the Wollemi Pine was discovered here in Australia and how it was reported in all media that it was a living fossil - just like finding a family of dinosaurs alive and well - identical to the fossil record.

    I am finding myself wondering what's the point. Are you saying that only extinct flora and fauna are found in the fossil record? Are you implying that living fossils are rare? My son was recently taught at school that crocodiles are living fossils - leftovers from the dinosaur age. I own a eucalyptus leaf fossil, indistinguishable from a modern day leaf from my back yard.

    2) James, I have seen the Grand Canyon, the huge canyons in the NSW Blue Mountains and photographs of the canyons formed after the Mount St Helens eruption. To my untrained eye they look pretty much the same in shape and angle of slope. Yes, the canyons at Mount St Helens are smaller, but it was only a single volcano. It demonstrates on a small scale what is possible on a much larger scale. How can scientists prove that larger canyons were formed over millions of years when similar erosion on a smaller scale is formed in a matter of weeks and months?

    3) True also that Surtsey is a small island compared to the Hawaiian islands, and in part of the ocean which is not as deep. Yet again is demonstrates how quickly a land can form, given the right conditions. What if the volcano that produced Surtsey and it's smaller companions (which have since eroded back to below sea level) continued to erupt? Isn't there the chance it would be bigger now? I don't know much about tectonic movement, except that it accounts for a lot of the volcanic and earthquake activity on the face of the earth. Who can say that at some point in the past the plates did not collided with greater force and push up islands/mountains with greater speed than we currently observe? Bathtub has already said that global catastrophes can occur. The great flood detailed in the bible would produce enough 'catastrophe' to be instrumental in creating many of the amazing natural landforms we see today.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Surtsey will also be eroded and undersea again around 2100. It's also really really small.

    If you study a well-made Hawaiian island, you will find on the far side there are smaller islands and one large island. The chain is created through volcanoes opening up under the moving undersea floor. As James pointed out, the big island is close to 10,000 square kilometers while Surtsey is a whopping 2 square kilometers and rapidly eroding.

    We are talking about huge geological time spans to create these islands.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How can scientists prove that larger canyons were formed over millions of years when similar erosion on a smaller scale is formed in a matter of weeks and months?

    Because the canyon curves and meanders which is a characteristic of slow moving water.

    http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/wetland/c_plains/quiv06.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  20. Again, why? I believe there is/are active volcano(es) on the Hawaiian islands, aren't there? Obviously they have been around far longer than Surtsey but, as I already said, who can say how big Surtsey would have become if the volcano remained active over several hundred years or more? And again, who can say that there was not some huge catastrophic event in the last couple thousand years which facilitated the rapid rise of the Hawaiian Islands? Can one just point to a big rock or a big canyon and say it 'proves' millions of years.

    I'd be interested to hear your views on this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mum-me, and I am willing to accept that I am wrong if we can find that information.

    And once again Eucalyptus is a GENUS not a species.

    This is what I am talking about playing fast and loose with the terms.

    You could say 'oh I have a Eucalyptus in my back yard' and I could say 'Hey so do I' And they could be 2 different species.

    Crocadile is a FAMILY is almost the exact same as saying Coelacanth.

    The Crocodiles we have today are not the same as the crocodiles found in the fossil record.

    The Coelacanth we have today are not the same as the Coelacanth in the fossil record.

    The Dinosaurs we have today are not the same the Dinosaurs we have in the fossil record.

    But if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Then they should be.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Proof is for maths and alcohol.

    As mentioned the Active Volcanoes of Hawaii are from the hot spot it's sitting on. As the tectonic plate moves across the hot spot the old islands are moved off the hot spot and new islands are formed. the link I gave you shows this line of islands quite clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just for comparison, if the main island of Hawaii grew at the same constant rate as Surtsey grew, it would still take about several million years to complete the island.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Curving and meandering also suggests a less steep slope. Last weekend it rained, really rained hard, for the first time in over eight years here in Canberra. I live on a hill, but my backyard is flat. The water running down the hill did produce a straighter line (canyon), apart from areas where it converged and then merged again - for no reason I can see. The water flowing through my backyard created meandering lines (canyons) and although some of these are rather shallow other, 'meanders' are deeper - again for no reason that I can see.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So the Hawaiian Islands are constantly growing, in other words, whereas the Island of Surtsey has stopped growing?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes the Hawaiian chain is still 'a work in progress'

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have trouble with the idea that a 'family' should remain constant over 6000 years. Humans were shorter only 100 years ago, as attested to by the old buildings/artefacts here which have smaller doorframes and bedframes, and smaller clothing than we have today. Does that mean that my Australian ancestors are from a different 'family'? Or does it mean that over 100 years we have grown taller due to better nutrition (or whatever it was they were telling me at Old Sydney Town).

    If humans can change slightly over 100 years why can't crocodiles or pine trees or fish? If a scientist says a fossil is identical to a modern day human/fish/tree doesn't he mean identical? Or does he mean only slightly identical? I am getting confused with these scientific terms.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Once again D.Monkey, you are assuming that the Hawaiian Islands must have grown at a rate consistent (or slower) than did the Island of Surtsey. How can anyone say the Hawaiian Islands didn't form more quickly in the past?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think you are confusing the concept of Family.

    I am not referring to the concept of Mum, Dad and the kids.

    When I use FAMILY, ORDER, GENUS, SPECIES, I am referring to taxonomical terms.

    Here is our Taxonomical classification

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Primates
    Family: Hominidae
    Subfamily: Homininae
    Tribe: Hominini
    Genus: Homo
    Species: H. sapiens

    See when things change you don't stop being what you were. you branch off.

    Say New Zealanders became a new species. our Classification might look like this.

    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Primates
    Family: Hominidae
    Subfamily: Homininae
    Tribe: Hominini
    Genus: Homo
    Species: H. Newzealandaris

    We don't change Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, etc. You branch off. That's how cladistics works.

    This is actually the origin of the idea of 'the tree of life' each of those classifications is a new branch.

    So saying 'this base branch existed X years ago' and 'this base branch is still around' isn't a surprise to anyone. It's the tips that change.

    So like Coelacanth is like a Big beefy branch off the main trunk. Then off that trunk splits to various different clusters or Familys, then those branches break up into ever smaller branches called Genus, until finally the tips are the species.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ha ha! That made me laugh - New Zealanders are a new species, I think. (Forgive me - it's an Aussie joke, as you probably know.) Or maybe Tasmanians are the new species - they have two heads you know.

    But all jokes aside, it is clear you know much more about this than I do. (Although I didn't think you meant 'family' as mum/dad/kids. I thought you meant as in 'the human family'.)

    However, I must confess that even after your explanation I still don't understand completely the idea of an 'identical' fossil not actually being 'identical' to a current specimen.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Height is quite tied into nutrition by the way. There are plenty of articles about how the Japanese are getting a lot taller due to a more varied 'western' diet.

    And conversely North Koreans are getting shorter.

    And perhaps more surprisingly so are Americans who were once the tallest.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well because we aren't talking about the tips of the tree.

    Using Coelacanth again as an example.

    Coelacanth is a big thick branch with many branches (family, genus, etc) coming off it.

    So when you see people say Coelacanth are still around! The expectation is we are talking about the little buds at the tips of the branches, but we are actually talking about one of the big thick branches at the base. AND all the smaller branches are different. Which is a lot of change.

    Species is just the tips of the tree branch. But the tips are still attached through all the forks they have taken back to Coelacanth branch.

    The same would go for Crocodile, thats another big thick base branch. that branches off.

    BTW did you catch the recent announcement of new insane croc fossils discovered?

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091119-dinosaurs-crocodiles-missions.html

    So when you point close to the base of the tree and say 'see it's still here' that's nothing special, it's kind of rare that a major branch dies off. But a for something at the tip to still be around, that is more special.

    There could be some. I just don't know of any Species. There could be. As I said it's surprisingly hard to find the actual species of the Wollemi fossils compared to the Wollemi Nobilis we have to today.

    You see there is the Implication and the Reality. When people say Coelacanth hasn't changed. They are implying something very specific, when it's actually quite generic.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, I thought the tour guide said better nutrition was the reason we are getting taller. Just couldn't quite remember clearly.

    Well thanks for the discussion .... gotta go and feed my hungry family.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If I could perhaps put it one more way.

    Would you be impressed if someone said 'Fish are living Fossils'?

    There are Fish in the Fossil record and we still have fish today!

    You'd probably ask 'Are they the same fish?'

    Coelacanth is just a subset of fish. 'Lobe Finned Fish' to be more exact.

    Nice talking to you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Once again D.Monkey, you are assuming that the Hawaiian Islands must have grown at a rate consistent (or slower) than did the Island of Surtsey."

    Actually, for the sake of argument, I estimated that it grew faster without ever stopping.

    "How can anyone say the Hawaiian Islands didn't form more quickly in the past?"

    The succeeding rock layers of lava flows and their representative erosion / sedimentary rocks between layers show a gradual build up. Do you have any evidence it did form quickly in the past, or you are you just making this up on the spot?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Where to begin????? Since I have limited time, I'm going to "cherry pick" some of the easier, most obvious ones first....

    2. Tall mountains- Completely ignores the known fact that we know mountain ranges are growing today... and we have actual measurements to prove it. So, we have new mountains rising and old ones eroding all the time. I see no problem here.

    3. River deltas- As far as I know, no one (creationist or evolutionist) is proposing the Mississippi River is the age of the planet. Even my 9th graders know that one can not determine a maximum or actual age from a surface feature such as this. It's like saying that I have a 5 year old scar so I can't be more than 5 years old.

    4. Shrinking sun- The sun is in equilibrium. It is known that equilibrium systems often tend too vary a bit around the equilibrium point. That the sun is shrinking now is not evidence it has always been shrinking.

    6. High oil and gas pressures- The fact that the rocks are now able to contain the pressure is all that is needed. Once the pressure is contained, what would make it likely oil/gas could escape?

    7. Elements and sediment entering the oceans- This one has the same basic error as #3. It ignores the (likely) possibility that these salts are in equilibrium. When we look at a table of the ocean's content of various metals, we find current levels of their salts could accumulate in as little as 100 years.
    Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#ocean

    8. Poynting-Robertson effect- We know astroids collide with others all the time... and they have the impact craters to prove it. This provides a steady supply of new "space dust and micrometeoroids"

    9. Spin rate of earth - If the spin rate of the earth were slowing down by 1 second per year, then in my lifetime, the day would be one minute shorter than when I was born. It isn't. 'Nuf sed.

    10. Atmospheric helium- This argument suffers from the same basic flaw as #3 and #7. Helium is much lighter than air (4 grams per mol versus 29 grams per mol). Further, Helium is a noble (ie: inert) gas that does not react readily with other elements. As such, Archimedes principle dictates that helium will rise to the highest levels of the atmosphere where it can easily be blown away by the solar wind.

    11. Short-term comets- We know there are sources of comet material in the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt. How do we know the Oort cloud exists? Easy... we can track the orbital path of some long period comets and determine where they originated. It's a fairly easy calculation for astronomers.

    13. The decline of the earth’s magnetic field - This is one of my favorites. First, everyone (creationists and evolutionists) proposes the Earth's magnetic field has, in fact, switched directions a number of times. This means the current decline of the field strength is irrelevant. Not only that, but the strength of the field isn't important... after all, how "strong" a field would be too strong for life? The problem, if any, would happen as the field collapses and rebuilds... this is where the energy stored in the field comes into play. Finaly, routine medical tests (MRI) use magnetic fields many thousands of times stronger than Earth's without apparent harm.

    Having done so badly on "strong" evidences 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 13, I hope you'll understand my not taking 1,5, and 12 very seriously either.

    ReplyDelete
  37. wow, sounds like someones science class let out and some people had nothing to do, so they said "lets see who is posting creation theories on their personal blogs so we can argue" other friend says "yeah right on man! just what I love to do in between classes". WOW. This is what everyone means I guess by "censorship in science". Nothing allowed to be discussed but the religion of our society (humanist Darwinism), and all other discussion is hereby heresy! Crazy Celee. Sorry they invaded your blog. But most people are pretty used to that be these folks. Happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  38. By the way, people who jumped on the bandwagon, She may not have got any of her info from "crazy Hovind" or any other Christian, she may have got some info from ummmm, I dunno some of the leading biologist in our country? Maybe kind of like the Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University, or gee I dunno thousands of others. People, at some point you are going to have to admit it's not like some "small sect of lunatic Christians". A lot of these views and others that are even stronger are held by leading professors (those who have not lost their jobs yet)and scientists around the world. But you wont argue with those who hold higher degrees than you will you? Only on random blogs I guess. Makes me think your theory does not hold as much weight as you claim, other wise you wouldn't feel the need to attack in such a rude way people you do not know. hummm Maybe you can take these arguments to some of the scientists who formed these conclusions and see what they say. But then again, you will probably just scan cyber world for random blogs in which to make your defense for your dying theory.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Valerie, how old are you?

    I'm 32. So if What IAB copy and pasted was true a year is 32 seconds longer now than when I was born. Where is this 32 seconds? Is it just being hidden by a giant conspiracy?

    She's making stuff up. She's copy and pasting old (in some cases very old) creationist myths.

    She hasn't provided a link to anything!

    She's supposed to be a PhD. Then she should quite simply know better. If this was a research paper it would get an F for no sources.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Arguing on a blog is not censorship, it's the very opposite of censorship.

    This is 2010. Self Publishing is trivial. How is censorship supposed to work.

    You know the quickest way for scientists to get famous? Prove another scientist wrong. Overturn something that's been accepted. If someone had real science to show that the earth was younger than some of the plants living on it. They would be on the fast track to the Nobel prize.

    ReplyDelete
  41. silly, I wasnt saying you were censoring by arguing on her blog, I was stating that it does exist, and to deny that would make you either ignorant or deceitful. Listen, sure you have a "right" to jump on here and post 20 posts and get your friends to do the same, but is it really necessary? Is this a professional debate in which people present their theories or evidences, in which to argue with opposing ones? I think it was someones blog who was telling about some things in which she has heard, read, or maybe studied. She wanted to share. You wanted to dominate. Rude? I think so. Anyhow, my point stands, take your stuff up with the scientist who make claims against evolution, or the ones who find things pointing to a young earth. Until you can completely disprove them, people will continue to look into these things. Watch Privileged Planet, or the Young Sun, or Unlocking the Mysteries of Life. Then write down the names of the scientists who believe these things, call them up and have a chat. ya? sounds good to me.
    p.s. by watch these movies I don't mean, google them and find all the anti-movie remarks you can find to feed your fuel. I mean actually watch what others are teaching on this. This could help with your defense maybe, by at least knowing what all is being said. Maybe? just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I was bought up a Young Earth Creationist. I collected all the books, had a subscription to Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal.Attended Answers in Genesis Seminars.
    It wasn't until I got to University and started looking up the information for myself that I started seeing how dishonest so many of the YECs are.

    It's a great way to put people of Christianity entirely by tying it to such dishonesty.

    And it doesn't come much more dishonest than many of the dusty old lies repeated here.

    ReplyDelete
  43. ouch that smells strongly of bitterness. I'm sorry you feel that way, but just because some people can be wrong sometimes, does that make them liars? IF that were the case, all scientists would be liars. Remember when science told us to drain the blood to help people who were dying.....ummm not so much. Or how about when they believed it was ridiculous for a doctor too suggest washing hands before delivering a baby, because they thought the idea of germs was silly. yeah, scientist are always correct. But I am not bitter towards any group of scientist, I just tend to enjoy the many sides and theories to science, and until one is completely proven as an undisputable fact, people will continue to look at things in their own biases and form their own conclusions. So just let it go, and let it be. People will look at the same thing and disagree. Until one can be completely proven (not disputed in any way) then you are up a creek in your goal in making all people believe the same as you. You know?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ask IAB where the 'current research' is that shows the earths rotation is slowing down 1 second a year.

    ReplyDelete
  45. also I wanted to add....
    you said "You know the quickest way for scientists to get famous? Prove another scientist wrong. Overturn something that's been accepted. "
    That is completely untrue. How about the Haeckel drawings? completely disproved, even admittedly by the very person who did them. Was it overturned in the community? Ummmm I am pretty sure they and several other proven misrepresentations are still in our text books today.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is the what I am talking about. Completely disproved?

    Please Valerie, while we wait for IAB to show us the 'current research' that shows the earth is slowing down by 1 second a year, can you please share with us what you think Haeckels Embryos where about and what exactly was disproved, as this is another classic where people very often misrepresent the truth about the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Again BathTub, I am tired, and off to live life, as you should, but seriously I will say it one more time, YOU ask those who provided this theory. It's not her job to prove anything to you. If a Newspaper puts out false information, then would I be wise to go door to door to thousands who read the paper and try to tell them they are wrong for reading the paper, and try to convince them of the papers lies or should I go to the paper, and protest the editor to his face for putting out such lies. If you don't have the gall to go to the editor, then don't go to the people. Again this train goes round and round. Hop off my dear friend. It's done. She will continue to have her blog, she will continue to believe this way until proven otherwise. Go make yourself famous and disprove creationists soundly and without a doubt. Trust me word will get out when you do. You have all the news media, and hollywood on your side. Most hate Christians and creationists alike, so they will be more than happy to show what you have found. I am certain it will be so amazing it puts to shame the thousands of scientists who believe in a young earth. OK?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Again this is not Anti-Christian.

    I have used many Christian resources. Geno is a Christian. It's simply about people lying for their religion. It's the quintessential Lying for Jesus, and so many people seem to be perfectly happy with it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. you and I both know what he drew was NOTHING like the actual embryonic state in which they were supposed to look like. Simple. Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [in early embryos] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases --in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent-- simply copied the same figure over and over again. NO? OK seriously, I kind of like you BathTub,you remind me of my family. Your driven, your smart, you obviously have a zeal for science, we just disagree with you on some matters. No ones calling you a name, or out to beat you down, just disagreeing. Can you accept that, and go make a cup of tea or coffee or something? :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. I am never happy "lying for Jesus". And you are right NO ONE should ever be. Jesus does not really need our defense. So to try to do so would be silly. I really have not found these lies you are speaking of, but I would never say they don't exist. I know of many Christians that are liars. Why is that? because people are liars. There are bad, doctors, bad relief workers, bad policemen, bad scientists, bad firefighters, bad teachers, bad professors and bad people in every group in every place, in all the world. Nothing is exempt from that. So I would never claim to say that there is not lie within the creationist community. But nor can you say with all honesty that all are out to lie. you do not know that. And it is not true.

    CRAP! I just lied because I said I was going to bed and instead I answered you again! sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  51. She may not have got any of her info from "crazy Hovind" or any other Christian, she may have got some info from ummmm, I dunno some of the leading biologist in our country?

    ROFLOL!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. You should meet them sometime...maybe you can learn something outside your box. Could be cool, you could have a conversation with other people besides random bloggers that you hunt down. Seriously though, look them up, have cup of joe and show them how right you are. Maybe you could convince some of those crazy scientist to believe you. Never know.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 53 comments! My goodness guys. It's going to take me a few days just to read through all these, let alone respond! I'm guessing there are strong feelings on this subject! I'll try to get back here later tonight for some responses.

    ReplyDelete
  54. You should meet [leading biologists who are creationists] sometime... Seriously though, look them up, have cup of joe and show them how right you are.

    I'm looking for these leading biologists, but I can't find a single one associated with the National Academy of Sciences. What a surprise!

    In fact, here's the NAS's opinion of creationism: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

    ROFLOL!

    ReplyDelete
  55. Let me make this even clearer...

    THERE ARE NO LEADING / RESPECTED BIOLOGISTS WHO ARE CREATIONISTS!

    Creationists are the laughing stock of the biological sciences and the sciences in general!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ahhh Debunky Monkey, really your name is quite deceiving. Because you don't really "debunk" much. You mainly debate and argue. You have yet to "prove" anything. And to call creationists "laughing stocks" is kind of juvenile don't ya think? It's like saying "hey that guy can't be prom king, he's a laughing stock!" It very high school.
    Really it comes down to bias. You are bias. You claim atheism, but that does not really fit the atheism of the day. You have a God. His name is Richard Dawkins. Your religion is humanism, and your messiah to declare it all true is Darwin. You will argue, debate, name call and fight to the death to protect it. Simple. We have our bias. You have yours. Only we got the great experience of being taught ALL sides to the equation. Most of us were raised in the public school system where humanism and evolution is taught. We also discovered other science that was not being taught, and looked into that also. At the end of the day, we made decisions based on all sides. You may not agree, but at least you can't claim we were reared and brainwashed to believe one thing, unlike you and most of America. Its kind of pointless to continue arguing with you ( or trying to have an adult conversation with as you seem determined to name call and to ROFLOL yourself out of the conversation). You will defend your religion taught to you by your system, and propagated by your friends and your entertainment industry. And I will believe the way I believe until proven otherwise. I just can't get past your name though....Debunkey Monkey, all you do is argue my friend. You really don't Debunk. I think you should apologize for false advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The only people who think Darwin/Dawkins are Gods seem to be creationists. I'm not sure what their obsession is with them. Both of them are pretty irrelevant to this discussion. The only one making this about Atheism is you Valerie. This is not Christianity vs. Atheism.

    It's not about 'looking at both sides'.

    There isn't Atheist Science, Jewish Science, Muslim Science, Hindu Science.

    There's Science. And there is Creationism.

    YEC almost by definition start with 'my interpretation of the bible is right, anything that disagrees with me is wrong'.

    I am not making this up.

    Creation Ministries International Statement of Faith:
    "D6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

    Also AnswersinGenesis:
    "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record"

    CSE's Statement of Faith:
    "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture."

    That is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Interesting arguments going on here.

    So Creationists say "It's not true if it's not in the bible".

    And Evolutionists say "If it's in the bible it can't possibly be true."

    Both sides interpret evidence from their own point of view, their own bias, their own religion.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Wow MW what a load of BS.

    What did I just get through saying? Scientists (of all religions) "Where does the Evidence take us?"

    Creationists "This is what the bible says, Now what can I do to make the evidence support it"

    Anyone who makes it 'Christians vs Non-Christians' or anything else similar is deliberately poisoning the well.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I wrote a VERY lengthy response to you, Valerie, but the internets ated it. Damn it all! I'm so pissed. I must have spent 45 minutes to an hour on it. So this is the quickie version.

    There were two main points though that I wanted to make. One is that over 99% of scientists in the relevant fields of biology, anthropology, etc support evolutionary theory. There is no debate; there is no "both sides." This is a matter of good science (evolution) versus bad science (creationism).

    Evolution has not only has many practical applications in medicine, but it also has predicted the existence of then unknown species. Evolution also taught us about how genes work before the discovery of DNA.

    The other main point I wanted to raise is that you said, "And I will believe the way I believe until proven otherwise." Well, I'll bite. What proof are you looking for? The overwhelming fossil record and all its transitional forms? DNA analysis showing ancestral relationships between species? Lab and real world observations of speciation? What could you possibly be looking for?

    PS: Stop strawmanning me. I don't care about Darwin, I'm not a humanist, and I haven't even read any of Darwin's books. Atheism is as much of a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    It has been a pleasure debunking you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. *Quick edit*

    "I don't care about Darwin, I'm not a humanist, and I haven't even read any of Dawkin's books. "

    ReplyDelete
  62. You haven't Debunked anything 'Dubunkey Monkey', just shown how angry you are when someone dares to disagree with you.

    "Atheism is as much of a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby."
    The problem is that people who don't collect stamps usually couldn't care less about those who do, but atheists seem to constantly attacking those who do have faith in a god. And evolutionists seem to be constantly attacking people who believe in intelligent design.

    And to 'Bathtub' - you must be very naive to think that all scientists are as dispassionate and disinterested as to let their research lead them in every instance. ALL scientists are looking to discover evidence, and interpret said evidence, in light of their own bias or belief. I seriously doubt a creationist would admit any evidence they found could possibly support evolution, and likewise any evolutionist who found evidence of a young earth would very likely seek to interpret it and make it fit into their own perception of 'billions of years'. The very fact that creationists are looking for 'young earth' evidence and evolutionists are looking for 'billions of years' evidence makes them biased in the first place, before any evidence is even examined.

    ReplyDelete
  63. /facepalm

    Do you not actually read any of the comments?

    By definition YEC Organizations can't acknowledge the existence of anything that conflicts their particular interpretation of their particular interpretation of the bible. I already gave examples.

    Could you define Evolution for us? You see to be using it in the 'Science my religious views disagree with' sense.

    Mum-me, Valerie & MW, do you guys believe that the wholesale fabrication of facts is 'interpreting evidence according to their belief?'. Really?

    ReplyDelete
  64. I don't have any religious views, 'Bathtub'. You seem to think that because someone distrusts the scientific community to be completely honest about their findings that they must be a crazy religious nut. That's a bit judgmental, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  65. OK Debunkey Monkey, don't get so pissed, it's OK, your nice long post that cyber world trashed probably wasn't that great anyway. :)
    BathTub I brought atheism and Dawkins into it because a simple look into Debunkey Monekeys blog can show you his obsession with either one. I think out of like 15 blogs he follows something like 14 have the name "atheist" in it. He posts video excerpts of Dawkins. Now seriously are you truly saying, even if not for you, that most atheist do not gobble up every thing that guy says? It's like he is their long-lost prophet.
    Anyhow, at the end of the day, I debated and argued on here at the defense of "I am Blessed" in an all out raid on her blog. Not that she really needs my defense, but debating is something I kind of like to do sometimes, so it just happens.
      I don't worship science or spend my entire blog and time (unlike some....ehhemm..debunkey)determined to prove my all-powerful science right and perfect and the answer to allllllllll things. I could care less to argue science, with any of you, honestly I am sure you are more informed to win a debate on it (although that does not make you right, just better at debate). I am simply making observations. You debunkey and you bathtub, seem to be SOLD OUT to believing you are always right and others in whom do not share your beliefs are always wrong and always liars. They simply are not and you cannot prove that they are. You may from time to time prove, SOME of what they say is wrong, and SOME of those who claim to be I.T. have lied. But you cannot support your claim of all or even a majority. The claim in it of itself is hypocritical also, since you KNOW Evolutionists have done the same. Really, not one scientist wishing to propagate evolution has lied, and their discoveries proven to be false? Lets not get back on that wagon.
    I made the observation that debunkey is a hardcore evolutionary atheist who is out to attack anyone who is not. I base that one him, his blog, his words, and his actions. Please don't take my word for it, read his blog. My blog is about my life, my faith, my kids, my marriage, other people, helping people, and my mistakes. That's me, and that's "I am blessed" also. We do not force our beliefs on others, nor do we demand to do so unlike yourselves. Science is not my god. And boy am I glad it is not........I almost shiver at thinking how many times "science" and scientists and biologists have been wrong in the past. Funny how debunkey monkey's claim that all creationists were wrong because they were the laughing stocks of science (as he put it), but I recall a few other scientist who were laughing stocks in their time, who really were not wrong at all. Just think on it.
    We are arguing religion and its pointless to claim otherwise. Yours is the almighty science (or with some, YES, Richard Dawkins)in which you can see no wrong, which seems ok with you to explain away all other life, people and opinions. Mine is something else, and sadly it seems you will NEVER be able to accept that. Bummer too, I was kind of hoping to be friends. I am totally serious. I think the best debates happen when at the end the two shake hands, agree to disagree and go hang out together.
    To each their own.

    ReplyDelete
  66. MW it really comes across that you don't actually read the comments that are made. You're not replying to what I am writing and instead are just making stuff up.

    Well I guess that's why you won't condemn making stuff up.

    Debunkey Monkey is not a guy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. BathTub / Debunkey,

    You've a lot more patience than I do!

    Valerie,

    I think you need to calm down a bit (or at least use some paragraphs every now and then?) and actually respond to the things people are saying rather than just tossing out word salad in every comment and bashing strawmen.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  68. ExPatMatt, I am calming down, breathing, I swear. :)
    Anyhow, you got me. English was not my favorite subject. Darn.
    By the way, when you wrote this " (or at least use some paragraphs every now and then?)"
    was that a question? I am kind of confused.

    Seriously, did you just compliment BathTub and Debunkey with patience? have you not read their 50 posts on this blog?? did you miss this part by Debunkey "I wrote a very lengthy response to you Valerie, but the internets ated it. Damn it all! I'm so pissed!"

    Yup patience is the first virtue that comes to mind when I think of that sweet fella.

    I mean how can you help but think of, kindness, tolerance, and patience when guys attack a random personal blog and call that person and thousands of others liars and idiots. I feel all kinds of warm fuzzies for the wonderful amounts of patience and virtue both of them have shown here.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hey look at that! Several paragraphs in that one!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Valerie...

    I'm glad that you know more about me than I know myself. Thank you for your insight. However in your long reply, you never answered the question I posed to you, so I'll repeat it below.

    The other main point I wanted to raise is that you said, "And I will believe the way I believe until proven otherwise." Well, I'll bite. What proof are you looking for?

    Now then just one more thing. You wrote...

    Seriously, did you just compliment BathTub and Debunkey with patience? have you not read their 50 posts on this blog?? did you miss this part by Debunkey "I wrote a very lengthy response to you Valerie, but the internets ated it. Damn it all! I'm so pissed!"

    Being angry at technology because the computer deleted nearly an hour's worth of work means I don't have patience? Wow, once again your insight is amazing! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Valerie,

    My reference to 'patience' was because they are taking the time to attempt to correct basic misunderstandings and ignorance about science here at this blog and are not being answered in a civilized and sensible way with responses to their points.

    Instead of actually discussing the topic of conversation and engaging in the faults at the heart of what IAB is saying, you instead start making accusations about what people believe and why they believe it.

    Added to that, your mistaken impression that theories are theories until they are 'proven' as fact, demonstrates your lack of familiarity with scientific terminology and science in general. Why would you get into the discussion, knowing full-well that you are ill-prepared to carry it on?


    Debunkey Monkey is not a guy.

    PS. thanks for the paragraphs - they help.

    ReplyDelete
  72. ha ha ha ha. I liked your P.S.
    I like my paragraphs too

    ReplyDelete
  73. 'Bathtub' I was replying to your comments, in particular the one "Could you define Evolution for us? You see to be using it in the 'Science my religious views disagree with' sense." I answered by saying I don't have any religious views, but neither do I attack and condemn those who do.

    And I didn't say 'Debunkey Monkey' was a guy.

    Do you actually read any of the comments and questions asked of you? 'Mum-me' has made quite a good point which you have consistently evaded answering. Why would the scientific community get all excited about the discovery of the Wollemi pine, and say it was a living fossil, if it was just a large 'branch'? If it was as ordinary as discovering a fish in fossil records? (as I think was one of your examples.) If it has been 'extinct' for 200 million years and suddenly rediscovered, is it a living fossil or not? Answer the question. http://www.wollemipine.com/index.php

    'Mum-me' also made some interesting points regarding how quickly an island can be created. She was accused by 'Debunkey Moneky' of "making it up" where as far as I can see she was just making an observation. 'Debunkey Monkey' also contradicted herself by asserting that "Just for comparison, if the main island of Hawaii grew at the same constant rate as Surtsey grew, it would still take about several million years to complete the island."

    'Mum-me' responds with "Once again D.Monkey, you are assuming that the Hawaiian Islands must have grown at a rate consistent (or slower) than did the Island of Surtsey. How can anyone say the Hawaiian Islands didn't form more quickly in the past?"

    'Debunkey Monkey's' response was "Actually, for the sake of argument, I estimated that it grew faster without ever stopping."

    Who is making things up? Looks to me like the person who first says it grew 'at the same constant rate' and then says 'grew faster without stopping'. No wonder 'Mum-me' gave up the discussion - sensible woman! You can't discuss things with people who change their story.

    ReplyDelete
  74. MW are you playing the Christianity isn't a religion card?

    I was responding to this piece of rubbish.

    "And Evolutionists say "If it's in the bible it can't possibly be true."

    Since evolution isn't the topic of this thread.

    And Evolution isn't Geology, Physics, Taxonomy, Astronomy, etc, the obvious question is to try and work out what you actually think Evolution means.


    MW could you please quote me where I said anything along the lines of "because someone distrusts the scientific community to be completely honest about their findings that they must be a crazy religious nut"

    I didn't evade anything about the Wollemi pine! In fact I explicitly said I could be wrong! How is that an evasion of the issue?

    Your link fails to give the species of the fossil. Which was the whole matter up for debate.

    You however are evading by refusing to define what you think evolution is.

    Also when you speed up processes you need to ask where did the heat go. Accelerating the Pacific Plate orders of magnitude would require dispersing that heat. And you are right back to the RATE issue where you boil off the water.

    ReplyDelete
  75. You are making lots of assumptions, 'Bathtub'. When did I ever say I was a Christian? Just because I mention the bible makes me christian? Don't insult me by saying I don't think Christianity is a religion. I was making the observation, after having spent a bit of time over the past few years looking at the two opposing views regarding the age of the earth, that both creationists and other scientists approach the evidence from their own bias. You've said nothing except that "By definition YEC Organizations can't acknowledge the existence of anything that conflicts their particular interpretation of their particular interpretation of the bible. I already gave examples." I think, if you are completely honest, you will also agree that other scientists (perhaps those who are so vehemently opposed to the creationists point of view) would similarly try to bend any evidence they found to fit into their own belief of 'millions of years', even if it in fact supported the idea that the earth was much younger. Accusations have been made here that creation scientists are all liars, but I am sure there are more than a few other scientists who don't mind lying about evidence to support their theories too.

    And you still haven't answered the question - why would the scientific community get so excited about the Wollemi pine, and compare it to finding a family of dinosaurs alive and well, if it wasn't really all that exciting? Spout off all you like about species etc.... but you haven't addressed that question.

    To answer your question, I think that when the population in general (who are not scientists) think of the term 'evolution', they think it means that life as we know it today with all it's diversity of flora, fauna and landscape happened very, very, very gradually over 'billions of years' - initially beginning in a big band. The topic of this blog post is about the age of the earth - is it young or old? I can't see how any of the comments I have made are apart from the topic.

    But just to clarify, so you are in no doubt as to what I mean, when I say 'evolutionists' I am referring to those scientists (99% according to 'Debunkey Monkey') who do not accept creationists findings. If there is another term that should be used then I apologise for confusing you. I don't accept your assertion that creationists can't be scientists because they are trying to bend their findings into their own belief system. (I've already said you're naive to think that other scientists don't do the same.) I'm sure they didn't get their qualifications out of a cereal box.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Your incredibly ridiculous comment "And Evolutionists say "If it's in the bible it can't possibly be true." Suggested to me that you must be some sort of Christian. Hard to imagine why a non-Christian would say something so blatantly untrue.

    If you aren't a Christian then I sincerely apologize for thinking you were.

    So unable to quote where I said anything like "because someone distrusts the scientific community to be completely honest about their findings that they must be a crazy religious nut" then?

    Science is an open process, that's why material is published in journals. If you think Scientists are hiding evidence for a young earth feel free to share it. This is 2010, it's next to impossible to censor information anymore.

    Excited about the Pine? I hadn't heard of the Pine until it was mentioned here. It's a Relative term.

    Lets see.

    Pubmed gives me 3 research papers, in 10 years.

    That's how exciting it was to science.

    I didn't ask what the average person thought Evolution was, I asked what you thought. You started off well though. "diversity of flora, fauna" and lost it after that.

    Evolution is process behind the diversity of all life, Flora & Fauna, from the first life.

    Nothing to do with the formation of the planet.

    Nothing to do with the formation of the Universe through a Big Band (sic).

    And none of the discussion points in the OP really have anything to do with Evolution. Except arguably 1.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 'Bathtub' - "So unable to quote where I said anything like "because someone distrusts the scientific community to be completely honest about their findings that they must be a crazy religious nut" then?"

    I didn't bother with that because I did not say you said that - I said 'you seem to think'. And I said it because you were going on about how ONLY creationists distort their evidence. I think the recent 'climategate' emails can show us that not all science is "...an open process." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    As to the excitement surrounding the discovery of the Wollemi pine - well you've said you are 32, so you were still a teenager when it was found in 1994. I'm a bit older. I remember the hype it caused. The source I quoted said the oldest known fossil is 90 million years old.

    Now if you'll excuse me I have work to do. Maybe you should go think about something else for a while - you seem obsessed with this comment page.

    (Oh yes, and pointing out typos is something I'd expect of you. I was kind enough not to point out the many you made, although I did include them when I quoted your comments.)

    ReplyDelete
  78. /facepalm again

    Yay AGW. I'm so glad you defer to bloggers on the subject.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

    Wooo Wooo Wollemi Pine. Yay excitement. But again as mentioned many times before unless you are arguing for Super Evolution (like Answers in Genesis) then Everything should be a living fossil.

    As I use a browser with a spell check built in I would be quite interested to know what you think I got wrong. The thing is your definition of Evolution was so off track by that point I had no idea if you really meant Big Bang or Big Band. Believe me I have heard worse.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Wow... so much action and I've been missing it...

    First: I apologize if my comment about the "proofs" of a young offered were offensive. It's just that we've seen them before. Some aren't even proofs and most have been dealt with years ago.

    Second: We did not "invade" this blog. IAB invited interested participants of Ray Hovind's blog to take a look at this one. Frankly, this subject is of much more interest to me than the stuff going on there.

    Third: YEC "scientists" almost without exception have declared their adherence to the "articles of faith" that state (paraphrasing):
    If evidence conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis, it is invalid BY DEFINITION. That isn't science, it's Biblical apologetics. Scientists at least make an attempt to approach the evidence objectively.

    Fourth: It isn't about "if it's in the Bible, it can't possibly be true." The fact is that multiple Gallup polls show that around 80% of those who accept evolution also believe it to be a creative process used by God.


    Finally:

    In my own case, it wasn't evolution that convinced me YEC is both scientifically and theologically unsound.... it was physics. I know enough physics that I started asking some questions and doing some simple "back of the envelope" calculations. It didn't take long to realize that none of the creation "science" scenarios are workable.... and most are lethal to all life.

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  82. M.W., since you accusing me of making stuff up, Here, let me show you how I came up with these numbers:

    Surtsey gained a land mass of 2.7 km2 The island reached the surface in 1963 and the eruption ended in 1967, giving it roughly 4 years to grow that amount. Hawaii is 10,000 kn2. That means that Hawaii could hold 13,717,421 Surtseys. Now, we multiply that number by 4 to see how long it would take to make that many Sutreys. That gives you 54,869,684. Ah, but Hawaii is made up of multiple volcanoes . The big island is actually built from 5 separate volcanoes. So take that into account, you get 10,973,936 years to make Hawaii. So now we know roughly how long it takes to build Hawaii if it grew as fast as Sutrey. But, for the sake of argument, I put down "several million years" because Hawaii's volcanoes are bigger and would, in our theoretical, grow faster than Sutrey.

    So as you can see, if we assume the same constant rate as Sutrey, it would take almost 11 million years to grow that big, but since Hawaii is made from multiple volcanoes, it also grows 5x faster.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "I didn't bother with that because I did not say you said that - I said 'you seem to think'. And I said it because you were going on about how ONLY creationists distort their evidence."

    That would be creating a straw man. He never said any of those things. Instead he pointed out the mission statements of several YEC groups. Scientists are humans, they make mistakes, but the process of peer review was created to help eliminate those mistakes as much as possible. Science as a whole is self-correcting, not always very fast at self-correcting but it will correct.

    "I think the recent 'climategate' emails can show us that not all science is "...an open process." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"

    All those manipulations of evidence and hiding it to cover it up, well the scientists did a lousy job of that by including it all in the papers they put out. I am sure you know that now since you have watched the youtube vids BT linked.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Debunkey Monkey said...
    M.W., since you accusing me of making stuff up, Here, let me show you how I came up with these numbers:

    Surtsey gained a land mass of 2.7 km2 The island reached the surface in 1963 and the eruption ended in 1967, giving it roughly 4 years to grow that amount. Hawaii is 10,000 kn2. That means that Hawaii could hold 13,717,421 Surtseys. Now, we multiply that number by 4 to see how long it would take to make that many Sutreys. That gives you 54,869,684. Ah, but Hawaii is made up of multiple volcanoes . The big island is actually built from 5 separate volcanoes. So take that into account, you get 10,973,936 years to make Hawaii. So now we know roughly how long it takes to build Hawaii if it grew as fast as Sutrey. But, for the sake of argument, I put down "several million years" because Hawaii's volcanoes are bigger and would, in our theoretical, grow faster than Sutrey.


    Geno comments:
    Actually, I think your calculations are flawed. You are using the square of the surface area. What should be used is the volume of each island. In doing so, keep in mind that the island extends to the sea floor. In the case of Hawaii, that would be about 20,000 ft and in the case of Sutrey, the would (probably) be around 12,000 ft. The correct calculation would probably use the equation for the volume of a cone.

    Frankly, I think the size of a volcanic island is a pretty poor way to judge its age as volcanos are known to have brief periods of furious activity followed by long periods of dormancy. This would make it virtually impossible to determine an accurate age. That said, I'll try to refine DM's calculations to provide a better estimate of the actual ages of the two islands.

    ReplyDelete
  85. OK... I have a few minutes, so let's try this...

    According to information I've searched out, Sutrey grew to a height of 175 meters and a diameter of 650 meters from 11/14/63 to 6/5/67... a period of 1299 days. This is a volume of about 77 million cubic meters or about 59230 cubic meters per day.

    Considering the underwater part of the volcano to a depth of 12000 ft (3657 meters), the volume would be 7.5e11 cubic meters. Dividing that by 59230 cubic meters per day, it took the island 12.7 million days, or 34,667 years to reach the surface from the ocean floor. (Plus the 4 years it was growing above the surface.... not that it matters much.

    Hawaii, of course is much, much larger and would take far longer to "grow".

    Hope this helps....

    ReplyDelete
  86. Correction.... I had a bit of cerebral flatulance and used the diameter of the island rather than the radius.

    The correct numbers are a volume of 19.2 million cubic meters above the surface in 1299 days for a rate of 14780 meters per day.

    Below the surface, the volume would be 1.88e11 cubic meters divided by 14780 meters per day for total of avout 12.7 million days or 34740 years.

    (Guess the cerebran flatulance didn't matter much....)

    ReplyDelete
  87. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You're right. I brainfarted and screwed up the original calculations. Hawaii has a land mass of 10,000 square kilometers with its highest point at 2,400 meters above sea level. So if we make Hawaii into a cube, it's volume would be 10,000,000,000 * 2,400. But it's not a cube so let's assume 1/4 of that. That gives us 6,000,000,000,000 meters cubed of volume for the big island. If it grows at 14,780 meters cubed per day, it would take 1,111,441 years to build Hawaii from ocean level. Assuming all 5 volcanoes were active at the same time spewing the same amount of material, it would take 222,288 years to build Hawaii from ocean level. Of course, Hawaii is in the middle of the pacific ocean and most of its land mass is underwater. If we did take that into account, it would indeed take millions of years to grow that big.

    *Sorry for all the deleted posts. I keep finding spelling errors. >_<

    ReplyDelete
  91. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oops, the real high point of Hawaii is 4,200. Hooray dyslexia. But if you do the calculations again, the numbers are way too high... like 100 million years for all 5 volcanoes. Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Debunkey Monkey said...
    Oops, the real high point of Hawaii is 4,200. Hooray dyslexia. But if you do the calculations again, the numbers are way too high... like 100 million years for all 5 volcanoes. Any ideas?


    Geno comments:
    Yeah... YEC claims that it only takes a few months/years to form these islands are pretty much thoroughly refuted.

    Other than that, this is a pretty poor way to estimate the age of such islands. Recall, I pointed out in my initial comment(s) on this that volcanos normally have a few weeks or months of intense activity puncutated by years (or centuries) of dormancy.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Are you two still trying to argue the point using facts, reason and logic?

    Bwahahahah! Don't you know those carry no weight next a really strong feeling?

    Keep up the good work, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Wow! There's been a lot of discussion going on since I left off last week.

    I had some information for BathTub (if you're still interested) regarding that Wollemi Pine because what you wrote about species etc got me thinking. Apologies if it's not the right info, but here it is anyway.

    The Wollemi Pine belongs to the conifer family Araucariaceae. Its closest living relatives in this family include the Agathis spp. (Kauri) and Araucaria spp. (e.g. Norfolk Island Pine, Hoop Pine, Bunya Bunya Pine and Monkey Puzzle Pine). Morphology, wood anatomy, and DNA analysis indicate that Wollemia is a new genus, falling between Agathis and Araucaria (Botanic Gardens Trust 2004b). This species is a "living fossil" and the only extant member of its genus (Nash & Ravallion 1998). Fossil remains of Wollemia are known from Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica (Botanic Gardens Trust 2004b). A popular account of the discovery of the tree and its evolutionary significance is provided by Woodford (2000a).
    from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64545 under "Global Distrubution" heading.

    "Comparison with living and fossilised Araucariaceae proved that it was a member of that family, and it has been placed into a new genus with Agathis and Araucaria. Fossils resembling Wollemia and possibly related to it are widespread in Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, but Wollemia nobilis is the sole living member of its genus. The last known fossils of the genus date from approximately 2 million years ago.[4] It is thus described as a living fossil, or alternatively, a Lazarus taxon." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wollemia
    Now I know wikipedia isn't always right but the article there does have sources.

    And finally "The Greater Blue Mountains Area is famous for containing ancient, relict species of global significance. The Wollemi Pine is the most famous of these as it is considered a "living fossil" dating back to the age of the dinosaurs." from http://www.wollemipine.com/watch/issue_4.php#story5

    Hope you're all having a good week.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Yes thanks, I did read the wikipedia article on it.

    Frankly the 'living fossils' I am more interested in are the trees and plants that are older than some people think the entire universe is.

    ReplyDelete
  97. As the blog has gotten pretty quiet, I thought I'd enter some comments.....

    IAB posted:
    Let’s think about this for a moment as a courtroom drama.


    Geno comments:
    I'm not so sure you really want to do that. Every single court case involving creationism has resulted in a ruling that creationism is a religious belief and evolution is science. Not only that, but in a courtroom, the credibility of witnesses is open to challenge. In a number of those court cases creationists have been caught in outright, deliberate lies.



    IAB wrote:
    I'm the lawyer trying to defend the position of a young earth. The list I gave above is my list of witnesses that testify to a young earth. I call in my witnesses, one by one and they present a good case, albeit largely circumstantial.


    Geno notes:
    In a court case, your "witnesses" are subject to cross examination. It is worth note that, to date, the challenges to the "testimony" of your "witnesses" have gone unanswered.

    Oh yeah... do you really think some of your "witnesses" present a "good case"? (Such as river deltas, ocean salts, earth's spin rate, and earth's magnetic field.)



    IAB wrote:
    But then the lawyer for the other side, arguing in favor of an old earth, calls his star witness, radioisotope dating.


    Geno replies:
    Frankly, I think astronomy causes a lot more problems for YEC than radioisotope dating. That's because the astronomical data is much easier to understand, much easier to use, and less subject to process problems than radioisotopes. But we can certainly start with radioisotopes.



    IAB wrote:
    It's just so impressive and persuasive and it enjoys serving as a professional witness. For years, those trying to defend the theory of a young earth have tried to discredit the main witness for the other side, radioisotope dating.


    Geno comments:
    Of course, scientists have also been trying to "discredit" radioisotopes. For example, they've been trying (without success) to find any process that will significantly change decay rates for more than 100 years. You have to remember this dating method didn't gain acceptance until after it had been shown to be statistically reliable in blind tests.


    IAB wrote:
    But until now our attempts to discredit the witness of radioisotope dating have only been hearsay. What the RATE study has done is finally introduced scientific evidence to corrorborate the hearsay, which means it's no longer just hearsay. For the first time, doubt has been cast on the testimony of radioisotope dating. The RATE study has shown that it is quite possible that we've been reading the "clock" of radioisotope dating incorrectly.


    Geno points out:
    The RATE study is subject to it's own series of challenges when that "testimony" is presented. You've freely acknowledged at least two of them:
    1) Absence of a mechanism for accelerated decay.
    2) The heat that would result from such decay.

    In order to answer those challenges, you must rely on a series of unexplained and unobserved phenomena.

    Not only that, but the objectivity of your "witnesses" (the RATE group) is subject to challenge.

    When one seeks to overturn established science (or challenge another in court (as you seek to do here), it is your obligation to make your case with a "preponderance of the evidence". At this point, the RATE study hasn't even established a "reasonable doubt".

    ReplyDelete
  98. So Mum-me, let me get this right... Scientists use fossils and DNA evidence to more accurately describe inheritance of the wollemi pine over millions of years, and that proves evolution never happened?

    Is your point that the last fossil we have of this genus dates back 2 million years? That's not surprising given the rarity of fossilization.

    Is your point that scientists can trace a species back to 65 million years? Big whoop, crocodiles have been around for almost 200 million years. Not everything has to go extinct you know...

    I'm really confused.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I'm not surprised that you're confused D.Monkey, especially given the huge amount of brain farts/cerebral flatulance happening on this comment section in recent days.

    If you had actually read the comments you might realize that the information I was offering was in response to BathTub's remarks saying he couldn't find the species of the Wollemi Pine. I was following up by sharing some sources which I though might answer the question.

    You would also have realized (if you read the comments) that the reason I initially brought up the Wollemi Pine was because BathTub's very first sentence on the very first comment here was "Living fossils - There are None." Yet the sources I provided clearly say it is a living fossil.

    Hope that clears up your confusion in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Thank you.

    Yeah, BathTub is wrong. Living fossils do exist. There are dozens of them.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails
My photo
I'm an on-the-run mom to 6 kids who studied and taught exercise science in a previous life. I love all things running, nutrition, and health-related. I usually run at zero dark thirty in the morning and am often quite hungry before, during, and after my run, but I live a rich, full, blessed life with my children, family, and friends. My faith in God is my anchor, and looking to Him and His promises allows me to live fully even when life circumstances are difficult. While running gives me an appetite, my desire is to hunger and thirst for righteousness more than for physical food.