Early One Friday Morning

[SallyF]

In 1642, Dr. John Lightfoot wrote that man was created at 9:00 a.m., and in 1644, he wrote that the world was created on Sunday, September 12, 3928. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/ussher/white_ad.html

(The mythological, biblical) Jehovah god formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis Chapter 2)

Now, the length of a biblical "day" can be whatever one chooses it to be, and one can apply that to the rest of the biblical creation mythology, but not to the creation of the mud-man. If one is a biblical scholar, one is obliged to add up the biblical "begats" to arrive at somewhere near the 3,928 years before the Son of Jehovah arrived on this planet in some sort of mysterious transference of divine DNA to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

On the evidence-based, scientific side of things, however:

The skull, detailed in the first of two papers in Nature, is set to rewrite our understanding of where A. anamensis fits between primitive hominins that lived more than 4 million years ago, and Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by the Lucy skeleton. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/201 ... p/11444130

Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’
https://religionnews.com/2014/10/27/pop ... -creation/

Would His Holiness need to toss his Bible in the trash can to make that claim …?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 8 by Still small]
From the second link:

They mapped the data onto a phylogeny (genetic tree) to track how the appendix has evolved through mammalian evolution, and to try to determine why some species have an appendix while others don't.

From the ‘wisdom teeth’ link:

Several million years ago, our hominin ancestors had humongous back teeth. Australopith species (~2 to 4 million years ago), like the Lucy fossil, had molars with chewing surfaces about twice the area of ours today — despite the fact that these creatures were just three to four feet tall, with skulls less than one-third Homo sapiens’ cranial volume.

And:

Around 12,000 years ago, humans began to experiment with farming, and this lifestyle ultimately took hold in most societies.

I’m surprised to see you posting links that support an earth older than 6,000 years, but it’s great to see. Thanks for some interesting articles.

[Still small]

But can you buy that explanation as a YEC? It is basically an explanation that is perfectly consistent with evolution in that jaw size changed (reduced) in response to an diet change (softer foods so no need for larger, stronger jaws and larger surface area third molars).

Did you not read the first paragraph where it stated -“First let’s establish what’s probably not the story: ‘Conventional wisdom’ [read the evolutionary paradigm] about wisdom teeth assumes evolution was doing away with these unnecessary chompers until modern medicine halted the process.�
Until quite recently, our diet included mostly very coarse food, as well as impurities such as dirt and sand. This coarseness would abrade teeth so significantly that they would take up less space in the jaw. Permanent teeth were also frequently lost at an early age, which would create more space in the jaw. Because the diet was so coarse and hard to chew, the jaw itself would develop into a larger bone because of this constant workout. All of these factors would create more space for the wisdom teeth when they came in.
The heavily processed diet of today does not produce the tooth abrasion or jaw development that we used to see. Also, modern dentistry has pretty much eliminated significant loss of permanent teeth at an early age. This leaves us with too many teeth and not enough jaw. The wisdom teeth still develop as they always have, but they have nowhere to go.

(link)

This is exactly what you'd expect from an evolutionary process, and it took far longer, according to this article, than a YEC believes that modern humans have existed. So I don't see how you could support an explanation for wisdom teeth provided by the linked article, and be a YEC, at the same time. They are not suggesting that a god had some special plan for wisdom teeth ... they are suggesting that the human jaw is evolving in response to softer foods with the result that wisdom teeth no longer have the space they once did in the jaw.

As for the assumptions regarding the ‘long ages’ required, “[t]his is exactly what you’d expect� when the evidence is interpreted according to the evolutionary paradigm. If I had linked an article written from the creationist paradigm, you probably would have dismissed it totally, if you read it at all. No, I don’t accept the ‘long ages’ and as the article states further along -
“Thus, according to this view, overcrowding in our mouths is not an evolutionary issue, it’s a developmental one. Inherited genes don’t entirely dictate the fate of wisdom teeth. Rather, diets and chewing habits during childhood probably have the most impact.� (Emphasis added)

Also, in relation to developmental biology, as the body matures or ages, various changes occur. Though I don’t expect you to agree, I find it a product of good design that God had made allowances for dental replacements to accommodate for dental abrasions and loss as one gets older, wearing out and loosing teeth.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

[Replying to post 11 by Diagoras]

As I said in my reply to DrNoGods, as for the assumptions regarding the ‘long ages’ required, “[t]his is exactly what you’d expect� when the evidence is interpreted according to the evolutionary paradigm. If I had linked an article written from the creationist paradigm, you probably would have dismissed it totally, if you read it at all. No, I don’t accept the ‘long ages’ but as the articles clearly show, these supposed vestigial organs, etc, are still performing the role for which they were originally designed. The interpretation as to how these features arose is a separate issue to that which I was addressing. It does not change the fact that they are not vestigial, as presumed by the ‘evolutionary long ages interpretation’.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Diagoras]

No, I don’t accept the ‘long ages’ but as the articles clearly show

I’m wondering what’s driving your remarkable inconsistency in accepting evidence from these studies. If someone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old reads about Australopith, mammalian genetic lineages and farming history apparently twice as old as the earth itself, then the natural response would surely be to reject these studies as faulty? Not to find a single sentence that you like in amongst so much that’s ‘wrong’ and parade it as if it alone validates your own theories.

From an earlier post of yours:

it may be simply another instance that science has yet to find their true purpose as designed by God.

<bolding mine>

Can you acknowledge that this (bolded) claim is an a priori argument, presupposing that a god designed something (muscles, in this case)?

[Still small]

I’m wondering what’s driving your remarkable inconsistency in accepting evidence from these studies. If someone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old reads about Australopith, mammalian genetic lineages and farming history apparently twice as old as the earth itself, then the natural response would surely be to reject these studies as faulty? Not to find a single sentence that you like in amongst so much that’s ‘wrong’ and parade it as if it alone validates your own theories.

Simple. One is currently observable and subject to testing according to the scientific method. Whereas the other is not observable but merely assumption and extrapolation according to an a priori or paradigm.

From an earlier post of yours:

it may be simply another instance that science has yet to find their true purpose as designed by God.

<bolding mine>

Can you acknowledge that this (bolded) claim is an a priori argument, presupposing that a god designed something (muscles, in this case)?

Sure but no more so than when the naturalistic science community (and its band of disciples) make the same sort of claim in regards to various ‘naturalistic’ mysteries, e.g. origin of life from non-life, origin of matter and energy, etc.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 12 by Still small]

The heavily processed diet of today does not produce the tooth abrasion or jaw development that we used to see. Also, modern dentistry has pretty much eliminated significant loss of permanent teeth at an early age. This leaves us with too many teeth and not enough jaw. The wisdom teeth still develop as they always have, but they have nowhere to go.

Right, but how is this inconsistent with the "evolutionary paradigm" in any way? And, more importantly, how long did the transition take from anatomically modern humans (the only member of the genus Homo that the bible allows) who ate coarse diets with sand and tough-to-chew food, to the softer diets and improved dentistry that led to the wisdom teeth space issue? Wasn't the softer diet caused by the ability to cook food, domestication of animals and plants, and other food processing developments? When did those developments occur?

We know that the Neolithic Revolution began in the fertile crescent and other areas far longer than 6000 years ago (more like 10-12K), and the domestication of animals (eg. wolves) possibly even before that (15K). But if you are willing to buy into a wisdom teeth explanation that resulted from primarily a diet change, I don't see how you can claim that such a change only happened thousands of years after we learned to cook food and domesticate plants and animals (ie. the primary events that led to the softer foods diet). Good dentistry certainly came later, but a ~6000 year old Earth is so inconsistent with observations in every area of science that it cannot possibly be correct. That age for the Earth just cannot be supported anymore ... we know with 100% certainty that it is wrong by many orders of magnitude (about 6).

As for the assumptions regarding the ‘long ages’ required, “[t]his is exactly what you’d expect� when the evidence is interpreted according to the evolutionary paradigm.

There is no need to consider evolution at all to arrive at an age for the Earth that is in the billions of years rather than the thousands. The billions of years date (around 4.6 billion) is confirmed by far too many observations in many science areas without any need to consider life or ToE at all. ToE happens to be consistent with a long age for the Earth, which is just another supporting argument for it being correct.

Old earth creationists at least try to fit their views into what are now known scientific facts (although that word is technically equivalent to a formal theory with so much observational support it is accepted to be true). YECs long ago lost any legs to stand on ... an Earth (or universe) that young is just too inconsistent with everything we know and can observe to be correct.

Though I don’t expect you to agree, I find it a product of good design that God had made allowances for dental replacements to accommodate for dental abrasions and loss as one gets older, wearing out and loosing teeth.

How convenient! And only for humans? I don't see how this relates to the wisdom teeth issue though. Are you referring to "dental replacements" as implants and other modern dentistry tricks, and claiming that a god allowed for this development (since humans don't grow new teeth if they get worn, or a hockey player takes a puck to the choppers)? But I suppose that idea would fit in with an idea that everything humans accomplish was planned by this god in advance ... shame he didn't think of it earlier when his special humans were dying in their 30s, often due to complications with their rotting teeth, not that long ago.

[Still small]

Right, but how is this inconsistent with the "evolutionary paradigm" in any way? And, more importantly, how long did the transition take from anatomically modern humans (the only member of the genus Homo that the bible allows) who ate coarse diets with sand and tough-to-chew food, to the softer diets and improved dentistry that led to the wisdom teeth space issue? Wasn't the softer diet caused by the ability to cook food, domestication of animals and plants, and other food processing developments? When did those developments occur?

As the article stated (and I repeat) -“Thus, according to this view, overcrowding in our mouths is not an evolutionary issue, it’s a developmental one. Inherited genes don’t entirely dictate the fate of wisdom teeth. Rather, diets and chewing habits during childhood probably have the most impact.� (Emphasis added)
Developmental biological changes can happen within a lifetime or over two or three generations.

. . . anatomically modern humans (the only member of the genus Homo that the bible allows)

I think you need to get up with the times. There are a few members of the ‘genus Homo’ within the same holobaramin as that which you call ‘anatomically modern humans’.

But if you are willing to buy into a wisdom teeth explanation that resulted from primarily a diet change, I don't see how you can claim that such a change only happened thousands of years after we learned to cook food and domesticate plants and animals (ie. the primary events that led to the softer foods diet).

Developmental biology can affect changes even within the lifetime of an organism as they develop/mature, etc. link

Good dentistry certainly came later, but a ~6000 year old Earth is so inconsistent with observations in every area of science that it cannot possibly be correct. That age for the Earth just cannot be supported anymore ... we know with 100% certainty that it is wrong by many orders of magnitude (about 6). (Emphasis added)

That is “100% certainty� based, ultimately, only upon assumptions and extrapolation.

Old earth creationists at least try to fit their views into what are now known scientific facts (although that word is technically equivalent to a formal theory with so much observational support it is accepted to be true). YECs long ago lost any legs to stand on ... an Earth (or universe) that young is just too inconsistent with everything we know and can observe to be correct.

What actual observations were made regarding the Earth 4.5 billion years ago? Or the universe 14 billion years ago? Who made these observations? Are they actual observations (as per the scientific method) or is it merely interpretation of the ‘evidence’ based upon assumptions according to a particular paradigm?

Though I don’t expect you to agree, I find it a product of good design that God had made allowances for dental replacements to accommodate for dental abrasions and loss as one gets older, wearing out and loosing teeth.

How convenient! And only for humans? I don't see how this relates to the wisdom teeth issue though. Are you referring to "dental replacements" as implants and other modern dentistry tricks, and claiming that a god allowed for this development (since humans don't grow new teeth if they get worn, or a hockey player takes a puck to the choppers)? .

No, I am referring to the developmental biological changes such as infants being born without teeth to suckle. Then later, the first set of teeth (baby teeth) come through. These are then replaced at a later stage by larger, stronger second teeth. Then some years later, a third set of molars arrive as possible replacements for damaged and worn teeth due to our diet. Development biology does not take into account loss due to accidents such as “a puck to the choppers�.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 17 by Still small]

I think you need to get up with the times. There are a few members of the ‘genus Homo’ within the same holobaramin as that which you call ‘anatomically modern humans’.

The "times" I'm referring to are those described in the bible, not what we currently know of the evolution of genus Homo and how we classify the various members. Where, in the bible, is there any allowance for any member of the genus Homo that is not a completely modern Homo sapien sapien? I don't think there are any sections within the biblical text that describe any such creatures, which is not surprising as the writers had no knowledge that such creatures could exist.

That is “100% certainty� based, ultimately, only upon assumptions and extrapolation.

What actual observations were made regarding the Earth 4.5 billion years ago? Or the universe 14 billion years ago? Who made these observations? Are they actual observations (as per the scientific method) or is it merely interpretation of the ‘evidence’ based upon assumptions according to a particular paradigm?

This is a common response from creationists, so I can respond with a common analogy. Crime scene investigators don't have to have been present during commission of the crime to analyze the scene and associated evidence to arrive at an understanding of what happened. By your line of reasoning, anything that happened without a human present to witness it would be pure speculation. We could never understand anything that happened before humans came onto the scene to physically observe it a few hundred thousands of years ago (or a few million, depending on what you accept as the first "human").

A YEC must try to discredit radiometric dating (to pick just one example) as based on some paradigm or a priori assumption, because it proves that the Earth is many orders of magnitude older than biblical chronology suggests. But the principles behind radiometric dating have been proven to be correct without any reference to the age of the Earth or any interpretation of biblical myths and stories. If radioactive decay did not happen as physics currently describes it (and which has been verified in countless experiments for well over a century now), it would have all kinds of implications in other areas (eg. we could never have designed, theoretically, fission bombs and then actually built them based on this physics and demonstrated that they work). And there are, of course, many other implications. The geologic column is another example of something where the explanation of modern geology that requires very long time frames must be disputed by YECs, and instead described as being caused by a great flood in order to support that narrative from the bible. It is not necessary that a human was present to actually observe the formation of chalk layers to work out how the process happened.

It is the YEC who must twist the interpretations of observations so dramatically in order to try and maintain consistency with biblical stories. The level of "reinterpretation" needed is often beyond reason, and this gets more and more difficult for the YECs as science forges ahead with explanations of the natural world that are consistent with observations and the (correct) piecing together of the crime scene.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 18 by DrNoGods]

A YEC must try to discredit radiometric dating (to pick just one example) as based on some paradigm or a priori assumption, because it proves that the Earth is many orders of magnitude older than biblical chronology suggests. But the principles behind radiometric dating have been proven to be correct without any reference to the age of the Earth or any interpretation of biblical myths and stories. If radioactive decay did not happen as physics currently describes it (and which has been verified in countless experiments for well over a century now), it would have all kinds of implications in other areas (eg. we could never have designed, theoretically, fission bombs and then actually built them based on this physics and demonstrated that they work). And there are, of course, many other implications. The geologic column is another example of something where the explanation of modern geology that requires very long time frames must be disputed by YECs, and instead described as being caused by a great flood in order to support that narrative from the bible. It is not necessary that a human was present to actually observe the formation of chalk layers to work out how the process happened.

Creationist have disputed radioactive dating and the geologic column and both disputed have proven to be founded. (Just as always the Bible has been proven correct)

In 2009, 3 Italian researchers Cardone, F., R. Mignani R. and A. Petrucci published an article in "Physics Letters" entitled "Piezonuclear decay of thorium". In this article they describe how nuclear decay can be increased 10,000 times by the cavitation affect of liquid water.

We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 104 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... of_thorium

This process has been proposed as a means to produce energy.

Cavitation-induced fusion (also known as bubble fusion or sonofusion) has been a topic of
much debate and controversy and is generally (albeit incorrectly) perceived as unworkable. In this
paper we present the theoretical foundations of cavitation-induced fusion and summarize the
experimental results of the research conducted in the past 20 years. Based on the systematic study
of all available data we conclude that the cavitation-induced fusion is feasible, doable, and can be
used for commercial power generation. We present the results of our own research and disclose a
commercial reactor prototype.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.2407.pdf

This is very similar to what Walt Brown theorized was happening almost 20 years earlier. This process is outlined in the following paper.
https://staff.polito.it/alberto.carpint ... RI_MOD.pdf

"Those experimental results together with the evidence of so-called low-energy nuclear reactions strongly suggest that knowledge of nuclear structure is not a 'closed chapter" in physics. Moreover recent studies on piezonuclear fission reactions, occuring in the Earth's crust and triggered by earthquakes and brittle rocks failure, provide a good opportunity for old questions concerning nuclear structure to be addressed once again in the light of new phenomena suggestive of low-energy nuclear reactions. Even small deviations form conventional assumptions could have significant implications. Based on the experimental evidence concerning piezonuclear fission. It would suffice to assume that a nuclear structure failure occurs along along weak lattice planes within the nucleus, similar to the cleavage fractures known to occur in very hard and strong rocks.

So what is radioactive dating measuring? It looks to be nothing more than the amount of piezonuclear fission and fusion that occurs during the flood. Almost exactly like Walt Brown theorized.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 19 by EarthScienceguy]

�Experimental and theoretical work on cavitation-induced fusion reactions in bubbles is critically analyzed. It is shown that the existing data are internally inconsistent. The yield of hypothetical thermonuclear neutrons is found to be at least three orders of magnitude overestimated and therefore inconsistent with the tritium yield observed. A simple estimate shows that any power system using the principle discussed is unfeasible.�

The above is the abstract from a more recent (2013) paper in the Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences by Goverdovskii et al. It directly contradicts the claim you made.