Creationism

Sooo... I attended a lecture in Creationism.

Creationism by the way is the Christian belief that the Earth was created as it was in the Bible and also the science those people refer to (basically).

The lecture was given by Dr. Andrew Snelling (Geol.). Some of the evidence was compelling, but not directly related to the conclusions he was ultimately proposing (evidence of the biblical flood, God created the earth).

The most interesting parts was eloquent, evidentially supported argument against existing radio-isotopic dating systems, a hypothesis for accelerated radioactive decay in those systems, a hypothesis that archeological and geographic observations are based on significant destructive phenonomena, and a loose 'young-Earth' theory.

Basically:

• Uranium radiohalos in rock record radioactive decay.
• Polonium radiohalos are observed but can only be explained by a much faster than previously accepted rate of radioactive decay due to the extremely short physical life span of Polonium
• This indicates accelerated rate of radioactive decay at the time of creation of these halos.
• Rock samples from various single sites (lava flows etc) were tested independently by multiple laboratories and showed significant discrepancies.
• Consistently differing conclusions, but at inconsistent magnitudes. Some correlations suggesting reasons why but inconclusive
• This an ends in itself showing existing dating techniques to be inaccurate, and the assumption of consistent radioactive decay rates to be false.
• Theory that most fossils and coal deposits must have been created in cataclysmic events. This makes common sense.
• Geological obersvation of distinct levels of rock strata showing periods of little to no erosion followed by significant deposits of foreign material.
• Used together loosely as evidence of the biblical flood corresponding to the Paleo-Mesozoic era (?)
• All of the above underpin a theory of Biblical Genesis literalism, that God created the Earth in 6 days, and Man, several thousand years ago, and then flooded the world in the time of Noah. (?)

The (?)'s indicate conclusions that I felt were not sufficiently supported by the evidence which was primarily based on disputing dating techniques, which it did well. When I asked Dr. Snelling about his conclusions about a 'young Earth' and a possible age of the earth (the name of the project!) he did not answer me convincingly, referring merely to his philosophy of Biblical understanding of existence before science and not the other way around. Which I think is fine as a theory and shouldn't prevent the openness to research based on that thinking, but it wasn't what I asked!

None the less, the evening was interesting as it ultimately can conclude that there is serious inaccuracy in Radioisotopic dating mechanisms that we take for granted as largely accurate. Furthermore the evidence tends to point to wards, at the least, a much 'younger' Earth. Apart from the importance of such a hypothesis to Biblical literalism aside, it throws into doubt many aspects of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Time to go and actually read The Origin.

For more information see the ICR website and read the bits about RATE (Radioisotopes and Age of The Earth project)

In a side note, before I left I overheard another question asked of the Professor before I departed, or rather his answer which was, "Dinosaurs and Humans lived at the same times, and there were dinosaurs on the Arc. Little ones. That's why we have dragon legends". It is afterall once of many possible conjectures that follow from the theories proposed.

Other thoughts.
They didn't think highly of evolutionary theory, or indeed a list apparantly of historical figures who have led us astray apparantly, Darwin among them obviously.
In the other lecture before the RATE presentation, was a more generalist treatise on Intelligent Design (a Creator God), but it utilised a circular Christian argument that I have seen repeated. Constantly they use God as evidence number 1, and the Bible as evidence 2. And back again. Congratulations, you have a religious that isn't incongruous with itself. Well I should hope not in the first place. NOW, try and prove either or both with another source please! I don't mind if the ultimate answer is faith, but saying, oh but look at exhibit A, now look at exhibit B, now look at exhibit A is just stupid.

Now to go and find some of the criticisms:

• Helium in Zircon crystal diffusion rates