Creation Science Class w/ Chris Kohlman

[Dardedar]

SAV, Christian and I attended a "Creation Science Class" at the Jones Center this evening. Standard stuff but he did have a flashy hand out. It is going on tomorrow night too (5-8pm).

His handout booklet had, among mountains of rubbish, a list of 33 evidences divided into Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth, Evidence from Biology, and Evidence from History.

So we have something to hand to the fellow tomorrow, SAV is going to work on some of the other stuff and I am going to put together a roast of these 33 arguments with rebuttals which are easily found on the web. Mostly from Dave Matson's excellent How good are those Young Earth Arguments?. This is also good. These "33 arguments" are pretty much straight from Hovind's material. Even in the same order. The responses below are very abbreviated.

***
1. The Shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to fewer than "billion of years."

"Response:
Directly false. The original proponents of this argument failed to appreciate the fact that the study cited by Dunham was never published. In fact, it was revoked by the authors prior to publication when they realized that their own data were flawed. Current detailed observations show that the sun is not shrinking in radius, but may pulsate slowly over a solar cycle period of about 11 years. Theory suggests that the sun is slowly expanding over time. A detailed response is available here.

2. The 1/2 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years.

Response: This argument is so bad, Answers in Genesis recommended creationists stop using it in 1993. See: Moon-dust argument no longer useful. The accumulation rate of meteorite dust is now known by way of direct observation. That measured rate is inconsistent with the young-earth argument.

3. "The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than billions of years old."

Response: "This is now known to be wrong, and it kills the entire argument at once. The long predicted Kuiper Belt has now been directly observed, and it serves quite well as a source for comets with anticipated lifetimes well in excess of the short lifetimes required to make the comet argument sing. The existence of the Kuiper Belt is by it self sufficient to put the short period comet argument out of the rest.

For much longer period comets, the putative source is the Oort cloud, which models place from 10,000 to 100,000 AU from the sun [1 AU = astronomical unit = the average earth-sun distance]. Although not directly seen, its presence is reasonably inferred from the known properties of comet orbits (see, for instance, Zheng et al., 1996 or Weissman, 1998). Furthermore, even if we can't see our own Oort cloud, we do see many similar features around other stars (Backman et al., 1997)" --http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp9.html

4. "Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years..."

Response: The earth is littered with impact features, some relatively young (such as Barringer Crater in Arizona, aka "meteor crater"), some ancient (like the enormous Chixulub impact feature in the Yucutan,...). Dave Matson lists 130 " fossilized meteor craters", found in sediments all over the earth." --http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp4.html

5. "The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents."

Response: "...based on the present rate of lunar recession, puts the Moon within the Roche limit around 1 or 2 billion years ago...."

The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon's gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth's rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth's rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.

The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth's rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.

"The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirtyeight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982)."

Thus our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush's figure. Thus, the "problem" disappears!" Link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ecede.html

6. "The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old."

Response: "Thorium-230 is an intermediate decay product of uranium-238 which has a half-life of about 4.468 billion years (Strahler, 1987, p.131). Thus, it will be continually generated as long as the supply of U-238 lasts... Th-230 and U-236 are currently being generated and their existence in nature proves nothing. Creationists will find the following table of the known radioactive nuclides with half-lives greater than 1 million years far more interesting. Here is elegant proof that the earth is old!" Dave Matson

7. "The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young."

Response: "[C]omets in the inner solar system, the major source of dust in the solar system is collisions between asteroids in the main asteroid belt, as well as those in the Kuiper Belt (See Jewitt & Luu, 1997; Dones, 1997; and many other papers in the same volume of ASP Proceedings). The result is that dust in the solar system is essentially in dynamic equilibrium - the production and destruction rates are about equal. This is not a problem for a 4,500,000,000 year old solar system." --http://www.tim-thompson.com/resp7.html

8. "At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years."

Response: "There is a repeating cycle of stars forming and collapsing. With the Hubble Space Telescope we can see stars forming." --http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/ ... iverse.htm

"Originally, when each star cluster formed it was populated by a variety of star types as might reasonably be expected. As it aged, the first stars to disappear were the shortest-lived stars, the massive giants which spent their fuel prodigiously, and they were followed by the short-lived stars until, in the very oldest star clusters, only the very old red stars remained."

"If all the star clusters had been created recently at the whim of God, any combination of stars would be just as reasonable as any other. Star clusters without the small, red end of the main sequence would be just as reasonable as clusters representing only the middle of the main sequence or clusters with only the white and blue portions of the main sequence. The possible combinations are practically endless, and the creationist must explain how it is that God decided on the improbable, peculiar pattern we actually observe, one which plainly suggests that the ages have been at work." Matson, Star Clusters

9. "Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old."

Response: "If Saturn's rings are less than millions of years old, then what of it? That doesn't prove that the planet is less than billions of years old. Recent study suggests that the rings are not older than 100 million years (Discover, April 1994, pp. 86-91)." Matson

10. "Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old."

Response: "Jupiter is not cooling off that rapidly! Based on the fact that Jupiter is radiating twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun, and given its mass and other data, we can calculate the heat loss. "A simple calculation indicates that the average temperature of the interior of Jupiter falls by only about a millionth of a kelvin per year." (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.269). (A drop of one kelvin is equal to a drop of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.) In short, Jupiter is big enough that it could still be radiating heat trapped during its formation 4.5 billion years ago. Thus, there's no problem there." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... _heat.html

11. "Jupiter’s moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old."[/u]"

Response: "Io was probably out in a farther orbit but is slowly being pulled closer taking billions of years."

12. "Jupiter's moon, Ganymede has a strong magnetic field."

Response: So?

13. "The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions."

Reponse: "There is a repeating cycle of decay and growing stronger. From the study of rocks [we know] there have been many reversals of the earth's magnetic field."

14. "The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth’s lava was deposited rapidly."

Response: "Enormous amounts of crust have been recycled in the subduction of oceanic plates. Enormous amounts of continental crust have been eroded away, only to be recycled." "[You can't assume a] fictitious rate has been constant over time, and neglect erosion, sedimentation, crustal recycling, and the fact that the injection of magma into the crust is a highly nonuniform process about which little is known." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /lava.html

15. "Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation."

Response: "In the case of aluminum we "get" only 100 years! In the case of sodium we "get" 260 million years." "The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed,..."

Note: "The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater. (Dalrymple, 1984, 116)"
--http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... neral.html

16. "The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years."

Response: "This assumes that the atmosphere is a closed system which it is not. Helium is escaping from the atmosphere. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113) --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... elium.html

17. "The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils."

Response: "[This] overlooks the fact that the continents are dynamic and have grown appreciably over time, both by accretion of material at the margins and by addition of material from the mantle below (Dalrymple, 1984, p.114). Volcanic activity, the emplacement of gigantic masses of rising, molten rock, and the stupendous compressional forces of the earth's colliding plates have been building mountains off and on for billions of years. Mountain building is going on even now in many parts of the world." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... inent.html

18. "Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation."

Response: "[There is] a dynamic and continuing cycle of topsoil formation and destruction, including periods of equilibrium, not a one-way accumulation of topsoil." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... psoil.html

19. "Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years."

Response: "Since when does the age of the Niagara Falls have anything to do with the age of the earth? Niagara Falls did not exist during the last glacial episode since ice covered the entire area to a considerable depth. Glacial activity likely made Niagara Falls possible. The last glacial episode, the Wisconsinan, ended around 11,000 to 12,000 years ago, thus giving us an upper limit to the age of the falls.

G. K. Gilbert estimated that it took 7000 years for the Niagara Falls to retreat to its present position (Dalrymple, 1991, p.67). Thus, we have at least 7000 years sitting between the end of the last glacial episode, sometime after which the Niagara Falls was formed, and the present." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... agara.html

20. "The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years."

Response: "The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates that the oil and gas have been effectively trapped. The initial, slow accumulation of oil and gas from the source area (primary migration) would hardly have had a chance to build up great pressure if the trapping rock were leaking like a sieve! Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have undergone a secondary migration from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might increase the leakage of an oil pool. Thus, the mere existence of a leaky oil pool is not, in itself, sufficient proof that the oil had to be recently created." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ssure.html

21. "The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

Response: "Since when does the age of the earth have anything to do with the Mississippi delta? If the Mississippi delta is, in fact, 30,000 years old, what of it?" --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... river.html

22. "The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution."

Response: "Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19)... Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year. If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... otate.html

23. "A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation.

Response: "...sediment varies in thickness. The thinnest sediment is near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where new sea floor is currently being generated. That is to say, sediment thickness there is zero. The thickest sediment hugs the continental margins, which certainly have more than a few thousand years of accumulation. Try around 150 million year's worth! Funny, that the measured rate of sea floor spreading, when extrapolated backwards in time, gives the same age for the Atlantic sea floor as does radiometric dating." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... iment.html

24. "The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years."

Response: Some stalactites can form fast. It is dependent on a number of conditions. "Since when is the age of the earth related to the age of a stalactite? If, in fact, a fat stalactite can form in 4400 years, so what?" --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tites.html

25. "The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook."

Response: The present Sahara Desert really is only a few thousand years old. About 7 or 8 thousand years ago the area underwent a pronounced wet phase and portions of it were habitable parkland where cattle could be grazed (The Times Atlas of World History, 1978). More than 10,000 years ago, during the last glaciation, lakes and streams were present in the Sahara, and elephants, giraffes, and other animals roamed the grasslands and forests which covered much of the region. Not long ago radar was used to discover a fossil river which once flowed across the Sahara; the river bed is now buried beneath the desert sands. By the way, what does any of this have to do with the age of the earth?" --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ahara.html

26. "The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now."

Response: "The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73] (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)

Thus, salt is being removed from the oceans as quickly as it is being added by the world's rivers. Consequently, no age can be calculated, save a minimum age based upon an assumption of initial salt content." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /salt.html

27. "Ice accumulation at the poles indicates less than 5000 years.

Response: "Ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica show annual layers of ice deposits for at least 160,000 years. These layers contain information about the earth’s atmospheric conditions for the year each layer was deposited. Some of these layers contain dust from known volcanic eruptions which can then be correlated with other ice core samples and with radiometric dates.

"The longest core drilled was at Vostok station (Antarctica). It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles." "The ice core drilled in Guliya ice cap in western China in the 1990s reaches back to 760,000 years before the present — farther back than any other core at the time,..." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cores

28. "The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years."

Response: "Yes, and by the same reasoning 8 germs could populate every cubic inch of available living space on Earth to the tune of 1 million strong in less than a week! That is, after 158 generations, assuming a generous die-off rate such that the fourth generation has about 40 germs instead of 128, and assuming that the population divides every hour, each and every cubic inch of living space on the earth, from 100 feet below ground to a mile above, would have 1 million germs by that time. I guess, by creationist reckoning, the earth must be a week old!

Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people
could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!

The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate!" --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... rowth.html

29. "The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old."

Response: What does the age of a coral reef have to do with the age of the earth? If, in fact, the oldest coral reef is 4200 years old, so what?
"H.S. Ladd has drilled bore holes through the coral cap that crowns the volcano underlying Eniwetok atoll, in order to measure the thickness of coral that has grown there since the lava cone began to sink beneath the sea. At one point, Ladd had to drill 1380 meters (almost ninetenths of a mile!) before reaching the lava lip of the volcano. It is inconceivable that that much reef could have formed in less than 130,000 years..." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... _reef.html

30. "The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old."

Response: What does the age of a tree have to do with the age of the earth? If, in fact, the oldest tree is 4300 years old, so what? [We have] trees going back at least 8000 years without being disturbed by Noah's flood! Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, November 1979, p.76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /tree.html

31. "The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old."

Response: "What does the age of the oldest known historical records have to do with the age of the earth? If, in fact, they go back 6000 years, what of it? Records couldn't be kept until writing was invented. Of course, we do have cave art which goes back 20,000-30,000 years, but I guess that doesn't count!" --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... story.html

32 "Many ancient cultures have stories of an original creation in the recent past and a worldwide Flood. Nearly 300 of these Flood legends are now known."

Response: "There are many flood stories, but they all do not refer to the same flood (there are also hundreds of creation stories). The Sumerian Flood and Akkadian Flood stories are all related to Noah's flood and indicate that the flood was local, not world wide." --http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/ ... iverse.htm

33. "Biblical dates add up to about 6000 years."

Response: "The biblical figure, unfortunately, is based on patriarchal life spans to which no right-thinking person could subscribe. You have to be pretty deep into biblical infallibility before you can make yourself believe that individuals once lived upwards of 900 years! Claims about the magical effects of vapor canopies and tropical living don't impress anyone who has the slightest understanding of the aging process. More to the point, the patriarchal ages are nothing more than a modified version of an old Babylonian myth." --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... dates.html

End.

The main source for the above responses: Dave Matson's How Good Are Those Young Earth Arguments?

The answer to his question is... not very.

[ChristianLoeschel]

15. "Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation."

Response: "In the case of aluminum we "get" only 100 years! In the case of sodium we "get" 260 million years." "The residence time of an element, however is the average time that any small amount of an element remains in seawater before it is removed,..."

Note: "The influx of chemicals to the ocean is an invalid and worthless method of determining the age of the Earth. Morris [1974, 1977] and Morris and Parker [1982] have misrepresented fundamental geochemical data and ignored virtually everything that is known about the geochemistry of seawater. (Dalrymple, 1984, 116)"
--http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... neral.html

Even though the case of aluminum shows the absurdity of the argument, you still need to provide an explanation. The obvious one is that there are equilibrium processes that remove minerals from sea water. In the case of sodium, for example, two of the major ways sodium is lost from sea water is basalt formation as well as formation of diatomaceous earth.

16. "The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years."

Response: "This assumes that the atmosphere is a closed system which it is not. Helium is escaping from the atmosphere. "...it is clear that helium can and does escape from the atmosphere in amounts sufficient to balance production." (1984, p.113) --http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... elium.html

Our creationist friends tend to leave out some good information about helium efflux. While it is true that the loss of helium ATOMS (2 protons 2 neutrons 2 electrons) by thermal processes would not be enough to account for the relative scarcity in the atmosphere, they are neglecting helium ions (2 protons 2 neutrons). Unfortunately, they are postulating that we should have more helium in the atmosphere because of radioactive alpha-decay, which in fact are helium ions. The key difference is that these helium ions are charged and as such susceptible to magnetic fields. Thus, earths gravity can easily be overcome by the polar wind (the permanent outflow of ionization from the polar regions of the magnetosphere), and in fact, it is estimated that the efflux of helium via the polar wind closely matches the production of helium ions by alpha decays. (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996)

[Savonarola]

Specific Refutations of Mr. Kohlman's Claims

Rotational Slowdown
-------------------
Leap seconds are real, and rotational slowdown is real, but they are unrelated. By attributing leap seconds to slowdown, Mr. Kohlman creates a relationship that is not real, producing numbers that are not representative of reality. Numbers based on measurements produce characteristics of an early Earth that are entirely plausible. Furthermore, analysis of fossil coral from 370 million years ago supports these numbers.


Big Bang Cosmology
------------------
In his discussion of conservation of angular momentum using a merry-go-round analogy, Mr. Kohlman illustrated the singularity as a spinning mass whose angular momentum increased until "an explosion" occurred. There are multiple inaccuracies in his description, any one of which counters his claim.
First, Mr. Kohlman says that the singularity was spinning, which is inconsistent with our knowledge of it. But even if the singularity were spinning, the law of conservation of angular momentum tells us only that the total amount of angular momentum is conserved, not that each "ejected" component will have a certain angular momentum or even a certain direction of rotation. In fact, production of opposite-spin particles from a single spinning particle is a commonly observed quantum phenomenon.


Second Law of Thermodynamics
----------------------------
Mr. Kohlman argues that energy input cannot produce a systemic entropy decrease without the energy processor chlorophyll. This is blatantly false, as exposed by his own mention of photovoltaic cells. In fact, Mr. Kohlman himself was born less than two feet long and has since gathered enough matter to be arranged into a larger human being, a clear increase in "organization," yet his body has no functional chlorophyll in it. Other examples include the Stirling engine and numerous aspects of photochemistry. Evolutionary theory is entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.


Fusion
------
Mr. Kohlman stated that fusion beyond iron is impossible. This conclusion is based upon the fact that iron-56 is the most stable isotope based on the ratio of binding energy per nucleon. Stated simply, Mr. Kohlman's conclusion does not follow from this fact. A valid conclusion is that fusion to produce a nucleus larger than that of iron-56 requires a net input of energy, not that such fusion is impossible. In fact, scientists have been fusing nuclei and particles into elements over four times as massive as iron-56 for decades. Additionally, natural radiochemical processes such as neutron capture and beta decay increase atomic mass and atomic number beyond iron-56.


The Geological Column
---------------------
Creationists often claim that the geological column does not exist intact and therefore cannot be accurate. This is false on both accounts. First, the existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts. Second, there are several places around the world where strata from all geological eras do exist at a single spot -- for example, the Bonaparte Basin of Australia and the Williston Basin of North Dakota.


Circular Dating of Fossils and Strata
-------------------------------------
Another claim that Kohlman puts forth is that fossils are used to date strata while strata are used to date fossils. This claim is ridiculous on its face and shows a profound lack of critical thinking: If such methodology were used, there would be no dates attributed to the fossils or the strata. While certain, "index" fossils can be used for identification of strata, actual measurement must be used to derive an age. In fact, the geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.


Hydrological Sorting
--------------------
Mr. Kohlman has argued that dead animals were sorted by density in the Great Flood. This claim is not supported by evidence. For example, ammonites are very buoyant but are found in deep strata, and turtles are very dense but found only in middle and upper strata.
Similarly, it is unfounded to argue that fossil order is influenced by the ability to escape. If this were true, nearly all rooted plants would be found lower than reasonably mobile animals. For humans to be found only at the top, they would have had to withstand continuous attack from ferocious predators such as velociraptor. Regardless, any flood scenario that posits hydrological sorting has to acknowledge that even late-comers like humans would be sorted just like everything else.


Polystrate Fossils
------------------
Mr. Kohlman believes that fossils spanning multiple strata are evidence of a young earth. Polystrate fossils not only are explainable with an old-earth timeline, their existence was explained in the early 1800s before Darwin published his book.


Vapor Canopy
------------
While the vapor canopy idea remains popular in creationist circles, there is no way to reconcile any version of it with the physical sciences. A frozen hollow sphere of ice above the atmosphere melting and falling to earth would release enough gravitational potential energy to poach all life on earth. If a canopy consisting of enough vapor to form the quantity of water described in the Bible existed, it would increase the atmospheric pressure well beyond tolerable levels, and the condensation of that amount of water would liberate more than enough heat to cook any Ark inhabitants.


The Scientific Method
---------------------
Science is a tool for learning about nature. On its very face, creationism is not science. Creationism, like Kohlman, starts with an answer. Kohlman's answer is his interpretation of the Bible, and he scans creationist websites for "evidence" to support his answer. Science starts with observation of evidence and formulates an answer.
In fact, Kohlman's understanding of science is so skewed that he cannot even describe the scientific method correctly. Hypotheses do not "graduate" to become theories and later laws. A scientific theory is a broad explanation of natural phenomena that is a conclusion of several well-tested, specific, component hypotheses.

Creationism:
The Bible is true --> arguments we can use

Science:
species adapt + DNA is mechanism of heredity + mutation + selection + fossil record + molecular evidence + observed speciation + [more] = common ancestry of life on earth, the theory of evolution

[Observant Citizen]

I was at the seminar and thought that it was very rude the way the free thinkers acted towards Mr.Kohlman. Afterall he did ask to hold all questions to either the breaks or the end and no one listened to his request to the point that he had to close out the session early and sit down with a group of you. I think you could have handled yourselves better. Afterall if your such free thinkers why is it wrong that he thinks differently than you? isnt that what your group is about?

[Doug]

I was at the seminar and thought that it was very rude the way the free thinkers acted towards Mr.Kohlman. Afterall he did ask to hold all questions to either the breaks or the end and no one listened to his request to the point that he had to close out the session early and sit down with a group of you. I think you could have handled yourselves better.

We did make comments while he was speaking, but we didn't do so to the point of being rude. On a couple of occasions he asked us questions, and we answered. We've been to seminars where the creationists take questions at the end, and there are so many lies and distortions that they've thrown out in the hour or two beforehand that there is no way to address all of them at once at the end. So in some cases we were compelled to speak out. Besides, we kept Kohlman a little more honest than he would have been otherwise. By this I mean that he was obviously self-censoring his slides based on the fact that he knew we could refute them fairly easily, so he tried to skip over the more absurd claims. Eventually he just gave up and stopped his presentation because he didn't have anything that he thought would stand up under scrutiny.

Afterall if your such free thinkers why is it wrong that he thinks differently than you? isnt that what your group is about?

NO. Our group is about freethinking and the pursuit of truth. Just because someone thinks differently from us does not mean that the person is a freethinker.

Kohlman's claims about Noah's ark and the young age of the Earth were so ridiculous, and his "evidence" so pathetic, that the only way he can get people to continue to believe these things is to hope that they never seriously try to investigate his claims (which he lifted pretty much in their entirety from the fraud Kent Hovind, who is now in prison for tax fraud).

We were there as the truth squad. If sometimes the truth hurts, that can't be helped.

[Savonarola]

I was at the seminar...

Observant Citizen,

On Thursday, Mr. Kohlman asked the audience to hold all questions until the end, yet he repeatedly specifically asked for (and tried to get) some "interaction" from the audience. Mr. Kohlman was allowed to proceed completely unheeded for three straight hours, during which he presented falsehood after falsehood. In fact, I started writing down the facts that he got incorrect, but I literally could not write quickly enough. I began writing only the particulary egregious statements, and I still ended up with dozens.

Let's take an overall look at the situation: Mr. Kohlman and the Christian Science Association of Northwest Arkansas hosted a seminar to present "Biblical and scientific evidence for creation" that was open to the public. But hardly any of the "scientific evidence" that Mr. Kohlman presented was accurate. Why should anybody sit idly by while somebody professing to tell the truth is not?
Does it make sense for people to sit quietly and be lied to because the speaker asks the audience not to question him during the presentation? Absolutely not. The responsibility of presenting information that is true and accurate belongs to Mr. Kohlman, and the audience should have the right to call him on significant mistakes. Nowhere in education is a presenter exempt from such questioning, be it a high school classroom, a college lecture hall, or a professional seminar. Even when running short on time when I'm teaching, I allow my students to ask a quick question and get a quick answer. That's a basic education best practice.

I find myself curious if you are as annoyed at Mr. Kohlman's inexcusably poor scholarship as you are at the Freethinkers' questioning. After all, Mr. Kohlman was the one who claimed to be presenting accurate information about what science says, about what scientists say, and about what textbooks say. You may be upset that Mr. Kohlman stopped his speaking, but you should take note that he voluntarily did so when it became clear that there were people in the audience with applicable knowledge as well as sources. In fact, you might recall that the last topic Mr. Kohlman talked about was the topic that he asked us about, namely the age of the modern human species. After being told that he was wrong, he lied about what the Holt textbook said, and we called him on it. Have you asked Mr. Kohlman how so many of his claims could be so terribly wrong without his knowing it?

You don't have to be a freethinker to believe that people are entitled to their beliefs. Freethinkers are those who form their religious beliefs independently of authority, tradition, fear, or dogma. As a rational person, I think that people's beliefs should be representative of reality. The point of the seminar was to promote a certain point of view; that in itself is not particuluarly damnable. But the seminar did that by spouting lies (whether Mr. Kohlman knew they were lies or not); how can anybody object to the truth? As an educator, presenting falsehoods cannot be excused, and letting such blatant falsehoods go uncorrected cannot be tolerated, either.

I feel some compassion for Mr. Kohlman's youth ministry students, of whom I suspect you might be one. They hopefully realize that his sloppy research and inexcusable representation of science render him a completely unreliable source of scientific information. In fact, I had hoped that we could have questioned Mr. Kohlman with microphones so that the students could understand that our position is not that of loudmouth goons but of people educated in religion and science.

If you have any questions about things that either Mr. Kohlman or the freethinkers said, please feel free to post them here.

[Doug]

The point of the seminar was to promote a certain point of view; that in itself is not particuluarly damnable. But the seminar did that by spouting lies (whether Mr. Kohlman knew they were lies or not); how can anybody object to the truth? As an educator, presenting falsehoods cannot be excused, and letting such blatant falsehoods go uncorrected cannot be tolerated, either.

Let's be clear about this. Kohlman was trying to support the position that the Earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. We contend that the Earth is billions of years old and that Kohlman had no good evidence.

This is not a difference of opinion. This is a difference in fact. We had the facts. He had NONE. His position is not intellectually respectable, it is not defensible, and it should not taken seriously by intelligent, informed people in the 21st century.

Kohlman was, in effect, giving lessons in stupidity. He was teaching young people to use poor reasoning AND to believe false views. In many of his arguments his conclusion would not follow even IF his premises were true.

In fact, he was not only misrepresenting what scientists say, he was even misrepresenting what the Bible says.

For example, he contends that the Bible contains no contradictions. In his presentation on Friday, he said that God called the animals to the ark in twos, so that Noah put two of each animal in the ark. "If you want them to reproduce later," he said, "you also want to make sure one is a male and one is a female."

Does the Bible tell us that two of every animal came onto the ark? Yes and no. It is contradictory in this respect. Take a look below. How many of each kind of bird was Noah supposed to bring into the ark?

Two of each animal:
Genesis 6:19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Two of the unclean--but 14 of each of the clean animals:
Genesis 7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Why did Kohlman misrepresent the Bible by saying that it is noncontradictory and also that only two of each animal was supposed to be preserved in the ark? Was he ignorant of what the Bible says, or was he lying? Either way, he has no business being in front of a group telling them what to believe if he isn't going to even tell the truth about the Bible, let alone about science.

Also, note that the Bible says in Genesis 6:20: "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. Kent Hovind, the creationist from whom Kohlman got this presentation, would always say that beetles did not go on the ark because they did not breathe through their nostrils. Kohlman said this too, as I recall. He had a slide that mentioned Genesis 7:22: "Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." So beetles don't breathe through their nostrils (they do so through their skin) and thus they just burrowed into the mud and rode out the flood, right? Wrong, according to the Bible. See the verse above, stating that "every kind of creature that moves along the ground" is supposed to get on board. Beetles move along the ground, so they can't be left out. And look at the very next verse: Genesis 7:23: "23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." If only those who were on the ark survived, you can't claim that the Bible allows that beetles could have been off the ark and still survive.

The guy didn't even get the Bible stuff right. Why would your church hold him up as an expert in anything?

[kwlyon]

I was at the seminar and thought that it was very rude the way the free thinkers acted towards Mr.Kohlman. Afterall he did ask to hold all questions to either the breaks or the end and no one listened to his request to the point that he had to close out the session early and sit down with a group of you. I think you could have handled yourselves better. Afterall if your such free thinkers why is it wrong that he thinks differently than you? isnt that what your group is about?

I actually agree that a couple guys got a little carried away during the "seminar". It was rude. However I would argue that it was justified. If Mr Kohlman did not want such a response he should have given his "seminar" at a church to a selected audience. He chose, instead, to make the talk public. You cannot expect to make such ludicrous statements in a public forum and not create such outburst. It was quite infuriating for me, sitting there quietly while young men and women were being lied to. I held my tongue...but it was difficult. I am not sure the community was best served by my silence.

[Savonarola]

I held my tongue...but it was difficult. I am not sure the community was best served by my silence.

This is exactly why I was quiet on Thursday but could not stay quiet on Friday. Frankly, it would have been better to expose the rubbish from Thursday, too.

[Dardedar]

I was at the seminar and thought that it was very rude the way the free thinkers acted towards Mr.Kohlman. Afterall he did ask to hold all questions to either the breaks or the end and no one listened to his request to the point that he had to close out the session early and sit down with a group of you. I think you could have handled yourselves better. Afterall if your such free thinkers why is it wrong that he thinks differently than you? isnt that what your group is about?

DAR
I don't completely disagree OC and can certainly see why you would see it this way. I asked an older, respected, freethinker friend (who also attends church and has been having interactions/discussions with local young earth creationists for decades) if he thought we were too rude. I gave him a scale from 1 to 10. One being quiet church mice who said nothing, ten being so disruptive we would be asked to leave, and five being the exact right amount of acceptable interaction, counterpoint, without being "unacceptably" rude. It's a very subjective question and this fellow is a person who is very polite, so I knew he would mark hard. He said he thought we were a six or a seven. From my perspective, I think it was a six, and it was probably my fault. I think I interacted the most. But, as with others there the night before, I was a "one" (on the scale) on Thursday night. Quiet as a church mouse, said nothing. So if you average my score for the two nights... then it's not so bad.

We knew this going in by the way. As was sent out in a notice to our members the night before:

"Standing up to this kind of nonsense in our community is on our freethinker list of "Things we do." Doug and Darrel plan to attend Friday night and several others will as well. We'll see if we can work around the "no questions" policy while still being polite and not being disruptive. It's a careful balance that we've managed to pull off before."

I think we got close enough to that goal. Observant Cit., we had a truth emergency. He was repeating much of the exact same material from the night before and it was completely false, not in the sense of "in my opinion false" but completely and utterly, objectively, false. And Chris even knows it to a degree, or he is certainly without excuse for not knowing it. For instance, when I presented Chris with the above list of 33 answers to his young earth arguments he looked at number #1. This is "The Sun is Expanding" argument. He said he doesn't use that one. He doesn't? I opened his booklet and pointed to number one, which is of course, "The Sun is Expanding" argument. It's a ridiculous argument and completely useless as is each and every single one of the rest.

As SAV mentioned. If you want to say these things in church (and you do), you are on home turf and will not have any questions from us (unless you specifically invite us or promote it as a public outreach event like this one). But when you campaign door to door, inviting people to come (you tapped on the door of one of our members but we already knew about it), and then proceed to parade, in a non-church public forum, an endless variety of breathtaking falsehoods, as if they are true, then as they say, "Houston, we have a problem."

Is it rude to go up to someone in public and point out that their trouser zipper is down? Perhaps. But it's the right thing to do. Mr. Kohlman's truth zipper was down and his whoppers were hanging out. And he had some spinach in his teeth, his collar was crooked and his hair wasn't straight. Maybe we shouldn't have mentioned the hair! That was rude. Oh well. We're not perfect.

Any way, he certainly didn't have to end it. He choose to keep interacting with us by asking a question which backfired on him and took him further off track. He seems like a very nice fellow, we had a very polite and interesting discussion afterward and definitely plan to get together and discuss these issues further, if he is up for it. He seemed very interested in this. It's as if he hasn't considered the material that responds to his. So he's curious. We're curious why he hasn't consider the material that responds to his. Our experience with evangelicals is that once they learn that our material is solid and it may present a challenge for their faith, they usually run. I hope Mr. Kohlman keeps his word and meets with us. I think he will. Doug is doubtful. We'll see.

Thanks for the input Observant Citizen! Next time we will try to do better.

Darrel.

[Observant Citizen]

Never thought I would generate such a response (thorough at that). Thank you for the feedback. I do respect you however I do not believe the same as you. Afterall if no one respects one another how can anything be accomplished or talked about. As a christian I do believe it is a folly of the church to remain silent on such matters even if people outside of the church believe it is wrong. Maybe is we had such dedicated people as those in the free thinkers we would be better off!

[Savonarola]

Afterall if no one respects one another how can anything be accomplished or talked about.

I respect your right to believe what you want, but I don't respect your belief in non-evolution. It is so ignorant of science and scholarship that it deserves no respect.

As a christian I do believe it is a folly of the church to remain silent on such matters even if people outside of the church believe it is wrong.

More than a folly of promoting false beliefs? I don't think so. As we've said, we'll take on any topic with the goal of believing what is true.

Maybe is we had such dedicated people as those in the free thinkers we would be better off!

While this might be true, I think it would be more accurate to say that you'd probably be better off if you were pushing for truth instead of pushing agenda. Religion has a history of stifling science and thereby holding back technological advances that benefit mankind. The church gagged Galileo, whose observations of astronomy (and more) opened the door to a better understanding of both classical and quantum physics. Religion has curtailed stem cell research, which has promise to cure or treat numerous diseases. Untold millions of students have incorrectly disbelieved evolutionary theory, which continues to produce new understanding of biology in a huge variety of ways and which has resulted in the development of many drugs and therapies that improve lives.
It's not folly that your group seems to lack dedication; it's folly that your group has its scientific beliefs stuck in the Stone Age.

[Observant Citizen]

You know. I believe that evolution is a load of bunk and that the earth is young. But I wont debate you to death about it. I have a belief and so do you all.

[Savonarola]

I believe that evolution is a load of bunk and that the earth is young. But I wont debate you to death about it.

Why don't you want to discuss it? I know why not: You don't have any evidence. You have your beliefs and we have ours, but only ours have evidential support.

If you're not willing to discuss, then simply read: How We Know the Earth Is Old

[Observant Citizen]

I won't debate because there is no point. Neither side will listen and I won't get anywhere just screaming things at you and neither will you at me. And you say I dont have evidentiary support but i disagree. But hey i'm willing to sit down and listen sometime. just not on a computer.

[kwlyon]

I won't debate because there is no point. Neither side will listen and I won't get anywhere just screaming things at you and neither will you at me. And you say I dont have evidentiary support but i disagree. But hey i'm willing to sit down and listen sometime. just not on a computer.

I would love to have a cup of coffee with you anytime. My email is kwlyon@uark.edu. Drop me a line sometime.

[Savonarola]

I won't debate because there is no point. Neither side will listen and I won't get anywhere just screaming things at you and neither will you at me. And you say I dont have evidentiary support but i disagree. But hey i'm willing to sit down and listen sometime. just not on a computer.

If you're affiliated with Mr. Kohlman, let him know that you're interested in participating with his discussion with the freethinkers. Alternatively, we could try to keep you up to date here.
And of course, you can always ask to meet with someone independently of Mr. Kohlman.

[kwlyon]

If you're affiliated with Mr. Kohlman, let him know that you're interested in participating with his discussion with the freethinkers. Alternatively, we could try to keep you up to date here.
And of course, you can always ask to meet with someone independently of Mr. Kohlman.

I am interested in participating if he takes you guys up on the offer. If you wouldn't mind sav, drop me an email and I will lend my services as a physicist. Or you could just post on this thread any updates regarding a meeting time/place and I would surely try to make myself available.

Kevin

[Doug]

I won't debate because there is no point. Neither side will listen and I won't get anywhere just screaming things at you and neither will you at me. And you say I dont have evidentiary support but i disagree. But hey i'm willing to sit down and listen sometime. just not on a computer.

DOUG
That is a standard evangelical cop-out. We are dedicated to the truth. If you have evidence that your claims are true, we will listen. Saying that "it's no use" or that we are "hard-hearted" as you have is just a way of avoiding a discussion of the issues.

It is because we search for the truth, and because we want to share the truth, that we knew more about Kohlman's arguments than he did. We've seen all the major arguments that evangelicals use for a young Earth. All of them. And we know why, one and all, they fail to show that the Earth is young. We have also seen all the major arguments against evolution that creationists use. Every one. And we know why they don't work.

We don't disagree with your views about evolution and the age of the Earth because we "want to." We don't disagree with you because we (allegedly) hate God, or hate you. None of that is correct. We disagree with you because you are wrong. We disagree with you because we know better. We disagree with you because we looked at the issue with an eye for the truth, regardless of any prior commitments or dogma.

We use evidence to show that things are true or false. Notice how Kohlman--and apparently you--have to spend time talking about motives. WHY do all major scientists say that the Earth is billions of years old? We explain it by showing the evidence. Kohlman has to talk about secret motives and unproven conspiracies. Why do you not find major scientists disagreeing with evolution? We explain it by pointing to the weight of the evidence. Kohlman has to construct elaborate conspiracy theories and speculate about what is in the hearts of others.

Evidence talks. If you have it, we will listen. But of course we will not just listen. We will also respond.

[kwlyon]

I won't debate because there is no point. Neither side will listen and I won't get anywhere just screaming things at you and neither will you at me. And you say I dont have evidentiary support but i disagree. But hey i'm willing to sit down and listen sometime. just not on a computer.

I would love to have a cup of coffee with you anytime. My email is kwlyon@uark.edu. Drop me a line sometime.

Why does no one ever take me up on this offer? Does my breath smell bad? I know I have British teeth, is that it? Is it the intimidation factor of discussing what you know is anti-scientific numb-skullery with a physicist?...If so please keep in mind that I am just a physicist in training...and a mediocre one at that. Also most of this creationist material involves biology more than physics and you can't get much farther away from my area of expertise. I just keep coming back to this suspicion that it has more to do with my bad breath and that hurts my feelings...look I promise not to breath in your face Observant Citizen....