backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by MrHanson.. on Apr 28 at 3:32 PM


Gentry's polonium halos are a classic creationist argument. The claim that they somehow prove a young Earth was made by an untrained geologist and disproved 20 years ago, yet creationists still cite it as fact to this very day.  (Source: Talk Origins)
Desperate minds seek desperate arguments

In case you missed it, paleontologists, digging in South Africa have discovered the remains of a new species of hominid, Australopithecus sediba, buried in a cave.  This little discovery is of tremendous importance as anatomical evidence points to the species being a close evolutionary relative to man, perhaps even a direct ancestor.

I wrote a little story on the topic, analyzing the find, while briefly touching on the pertinent creationism vs. modern evolutionary theory debate that continues to rage to this day in America.  I expected the story to get a few comments.  I never expected, though that it would get over 575 comments, making it perhaps the most commented on story in 
DailyTech's history.

I think it's great that so many people are chiming in and sharing their thoughts, and I think its a real sign of our site's diversity and popularity.  However, amidst those comments I saw some that really bothered me as a person who has worked in the fields of engineering and biochemistry in addition to my time here at 
DailyTech.  

Take one reader, who writes:

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead.
A story about two friends from day one.

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm" rel="nofollow

This comment was rated up to a 3, so obviously some people agreed with it.  However, the site and "proof" it cites, from a scientific perspective, are utterly worthless.

The site is full of inaccurate and egregious jewels.  Among them is the claim that granite is called a "creation rock" by geologists and can not be created on Earth today.  This is patently false.  If such a term were ever used, it has no place in the field of modern geology.  Further, granite is to this very day being produced in small quantities by metamorphism in amphibolite and granulite terrains.  There's nothing magical about it.

The other "friend" that the site refers to is polonium, a radioactive heavy element.  Polonium makes halos in granite, which a researcher named Robert V. Gentry claimed, starting in the 1980s, were proof that the Earth was only 6,000 years old, as the literal reading of The Bible claims.  Gentry was by all reports a decent researcher who was blinded by his obsession in proving creationism, which led to him reaching far outside his field of expertise (physics) into foreign fields like geology.

In this case, as with most of his arguments for a "young Earth" his "evidence" was shown to be completely wrong.  There was indeed uranium in the exact deposits Gentry sampled from, he just failed to follow basic principles of geological sampling.  Of course this is understandable -- Gentry was no geologist.  So his "proof" was just another red herring.

Here is a very informative read on the topic: "The Geology of Gentry's 'Tiny Mystery'".

The site also implies that there's something "magical" about polonium making its way into granite.  Consider that silicon dioxide, the primary component of granite melts at 1925 K, while 527 K.  Thus polonium would be molten and could easily make its way into cracks and crevices in granite that had cooled to a solid.  Again, the claims are patently false and there's nothing magical or unknown here.

Basic science invalidates many of the supposed "proof" of creationism and a young Earth.  Yet, while it's easy to disprove a bad argument, its hard to kill one.  As I mentioned, here was an argument that was literally disproved over two decades ago, but there's a site out there still using it as evidence and one of our readers are referencing it as fact.  And worse yet, apparently some in our readership were misled enough that they rated up the comment.

I don't have the time or energy to rebuke every falsehood set forth by a handful of the commenters in that thread, so I hope this was an informative example.

It's fine to believe whatever you want when it comes to evolution.  An all powerful deity such as Xenu or the Christian God, could in theory create a reality with evidence to the contrary of the creation itself.  Every single atom could have been set into motion perfectly to deliver an elaborate, yet misleading picture.  Yet to scientists, we must interpret the picture that we see, and that picture clearly points that evolution created the species we see today and that the earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 years old.  Believe what you want, but try not to reference false "facts" to justify your beliefs -- that's called spreading misinformation, and it's disingenuous.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MouseBTFH on 4/23/2010 2:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
The reason the science vs. evolution debate hasn't been solved is because a little knowledge -- on BOTH sides -- is a dangerous thing.

Neither the "fundamentalist" literal creationists or the scientists really understand what Genesis 1-3 is saying. The problem is one of context. If you look at the other creation literature of the ancient near east, NONE of it was ever intended to be understood literally. The main stumbling block for Creationists is that they equate truth with being literal. Ain't necessarily so.

What Genesis 1-3 actually was meant to be was a polemic against the religious beliefs of Sumer. The account intended the animals to represent other peoples in existence at the time it was written. (Adam and Eve were NOT the first people!) Two prominent animals are mentioned here: the "great sea creatures" (Gen. 1:21; Heb. "tannin" and translated "whales" in the KJV), and the serpent (Gen. 3:1). The "tannin" or crocodiles represented Egypt and the serpent represented Sumer. The mythical "garden of Eden" was simply a settlement on a major trade route between Egypt and Sumer, hence the non-literal "rivers" -- representing people -- which flow from it; compare Isaiah 2:2.

In Sumer, it was believed that one can basically do whatever one wants. Read the literary cycles about the goddess Innana, for instance. In contrast, the Genesis account described eating from the tree which gives life. The "fruit" of this tree simply represented good choices or actions. Doing whatever one wants was represented by the tree of the knowledge of both good *and* evil. Moral confusion, in other words.

Just because Genesis 1-3 isn't literal doesn't mean that it can't be true. The problem has been that neither side has really understood it, and they've ended up getting polarized to one side or another. Just like the health care debate, or climate change, or whatever other major issue is out there. There ARE real solutions, but they're never in the extremes. They're somewhere in the middle.

I'm currently writing a book about our origins which takes a lot of the major issues of today, like terrorism, peace in the Middle East, climate change, etc., and looks at them from the perspective of 6,000 years ago. With this book, I intend to show that there are indeed real solutions, and the only way to achieve them is to understand humanity's real history. Otherwise we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki