"Ad Hoc" Explanations And Science

When a scientific theory requires a billion convoluted explanations and “just so stories” to explain or “prove” it is accurate, then the odds are good that the theory is seriously lacking, or possibly entirely false. This has been a fundamental truth within intelligent analysis of science and the natural world for a very long time, even in very ancient and early examples of scientific discovery and consideration. Ancient scientific theories that made little rational sense as data and evidence accumulated were dropped in favour of far better explanations and theories that more accurately fit and explained the known data. Often times, these new realizations and theories turned out to be much more simple (basic) than the theories that they had overthrown and replaced. You see, those “old” theories over time had evidence piling up against them, and in order to keep those favoured ideas from crumbling beneath the weight of such contradictory evidences, the theory itself had to morph, transform, and constantly modify itself in order to have any chance of survival. The theory had to somehow “explain away” the evidence that contradicted it, and so all kinds of additions and changes are made to the theory to try and keep it alive. Eventually, such a convoluted and top heavy theory invariably collapses because it becomes widely apparent that the theory itself must be severely flawed or completely wrong. The evidence against it is just too great, and the massive amount of replacement and complex changes and adjustments to the theory make it an absolute mess that ends up making very little logical and practical sense.

Why "Ad Hoc" Explanations Exist

Why does such a thing happen, even among professional scientists regarding scientific theories? It's important to briefly summarize why such things as “ad hoc” explanations are so often used to try and prop up a failed scientific expectation. The reason, is itself, very simple. Belief. We humans all hold beliefs, perspectives, ideologies, and ways of interpreting the world and universe we live within. Everything we believe and understand comes directly out of the knowledge we hold and the way in which we interpret that knowledge and the connected data. It all comes down to world-view, personal opinion and pre-conceived assumptions. There are many ways that scientific studies try to remove such potentially cloudy biases from interfering with the data collection process, but we are all human, and everything we do and understand is handled through interpretation. This is why “ad hoc” explanations happen. These extra explanations must be added on top of and in place of previously assumed systems to try and preserve that apparently failed system from crumbling.

For example, if I believed that the moon only appears at night after the sun has set, and live within a culture that never goes out or looks at the sky during the day, I am only left with two options if I step outside in the daytime and see, surprisingly, that the moon actually DOES appear in the sky during the day time. I must either throw away the theory that the moon only comes out at night, or I must explain away the reason for why this belief seems to have been so wrong. Essentially, option two requires a re-writing of history with a mental and intelligent warp. The prediction based on the theory was wrong, and so now unless you allow the theory to fall, you have to find some way (ANY way) to erase the apparent failure of the theory. Obviously a rational person not blinded by bias should probably go with the first option, dropping the wrong theory. But personal belief clouds this rationality and practically demands of the person's ego that the original theory CAN'T have been wrong. There must be another explanation! And that's where ad hoc explanations and reasoning comes from. Despite the probable reality, alternative and complex explanations end up added onto the original theory in an attempt to keep it from ultimately failing.

Now don't confuse this with actual scientific and rational attempts to better understand where a theory failed and why. Trying to better understand something and better explain it are good and noble causes. Just because a prediction has failed does not mean that the entire theory it was based upon is also wrong. There really are many possible reasons for a failed prediction (scientific or otherwise). So theories with many interconnected parts that better clarify a system of understanding are always greatly desired and needed. But eventually, if a theory is so heavily dependent upon questionable additions for explanation in order to prop up its regularly occurring failures, then in all likelihood something must be very wrong with the core theory itself.

To summarize, the more apparently contradictory and convoluted (messy and confounding) a theory is, especially with regards to the natural world, the more likely it is that the theory is flawed or wrong. The more things must be “explained away”, the more likely it is that the theory or belief is simply false.

Example:  Canyons And Uniformitareanism

A general scientific example of this issue in play can be taken from the adherence to the belief of Uniformitarianism (that the present average is the same as it has always been, the present is the key to the past). When a person who believes in Uniformitarianism sees a large canyon with a small river running through the bottom of it, he or she immediately surmises that the small river over many tens of thousands of years has slowly carved this canyon out of the ground. This is an automatic belief or assumption, just like a person who does not lean towards Uniformitarianism would be using his or her automatic assumptions if he/she believed that the Uniformitarianist explanation wasn't true or at work here. Both people are jumping to conclusions, though hopefully holding those beliefs and conclusions (explanations) very loosely, for now. Now if a wide range of evidence gathered in the area indicates that yes, the canyon was formed very slowly over a long period of time, then the Uniformitarean assumption will have been proven correct (or most probably correct), based on what we know. However, if there is widely contradictory evidence, some suggesting a long slow process and other evidence suggesting a very fast catastrophic process, then the truth of what happened is much harder to come by. If a great deal of evidence suggests a fast carving of the canyon, and the Uniformitareanist stubbornly refuses to accept what the evidence seems to be saying, and instead invents a pile of extra explanations and excuses for why Uniformitareanism should still be assumed and believed instead of a fast cataclysmic event, then the Uniformitareanist could very well be guilty of overriding the facts (evidences) with his/her faith (beliefs and assumptions). The same would be said for a person who stubbornly holds to a fast cataclysmic carving of the canyon when little or no evidence supports that belief, but the person continues to reject the evidence based on personal belief and bias. If there are multiple pieces of contradictory evidence supporting both possible explanations, then odds are good that one of the theories is wrong (or mostly wrong) in connection to this particular canyon, or more likely, BOTH explanations are true to some degree and BOTH scenarios have shaped the canyon in significant ways.

The Good And The Bad

Bias and assumptions can be ok, and even a good thing, because often times a person's convictions can be a strong motivator and end up producing excellent quantity and quality of work (scientific or otherwise). Beliefs and assumptions are not always a poison to scientific discovery or understanding. A person can't just toss out a scientific theory on a whim because not everything seems to line up with it as neatly as one would hope. If we did that, we'd never truly understand or learn much of anything. Trial and error are important factors in science and cannot be understated. But if a scientific theory becomes a behemoth (monstrous giant) of excuses in an attempt to keep it alive while it is clearly floundering, then that core theory or understanding needs to be seriously re-evaluated all across the board, because something somewhere has gone very wrong. It's like a liar who starts off by telling one or two lies and then must concoct an ever expanding fictional tale in order to try and keep those original lies from crumbling. Though with a liar the process is intentionally dishonest from the start, such a system of ever expanding excuses and replacements for a failing argument is still remarkably similar.

The point of this write up is to inform you, the reader, that science often relies on assumptions and beliefs. These beliefs and assumptions can be used at the beginning of a study as a stepping stone to better understanding, such as a hypothesis that you wish to test, or the assumptions and beliefs can be used on top of existing evidence and data to try and explain the gathered data. That second approach is more dangerous than the first, because it means interpreting the existing data based on personal belief, which might actually be wrong. This is where “ad hoc” explanations get thrown into the scientific mix to try and keep a belief system alive even when the evidence doesn't fit.

Even MORE risky is the creation of entirely speculative explanations. These theories and explanations exist with very little positive evidence to support them, but they must be created and believed in order to keep another larger theory alive and consistent. Evolutionism has been extremely guilty of this over the past century of its existence within mainstream science, the same as Uniformitareanism has. A quick example of this methodology in action can be seen in astronomy and the Oort Cloud that is believed to surround the outer edges of our solar system. Many scientists believe that our solar system is many billions of years old, but this means that short period comets (comets that regularly come into close orbit of our sun) cause a serious problem because they could only last thousands (tens of thousands) of years before melting away and vanishing entirely. In order to explain why we still have a number of short period comets traversing our solar system and orbiting our sun, scientists came up with the idea of a large sphere of ice and rock comets sitting way out at the farthest edges of our solar system that can constantly resupply us with fresh comets. There! Problem solved! We still have comets left over from the initial forming of our solar system because there are tons of them floating way out there just waiting to be knocked loose to make a run through our inner solar system for everyone to see. But besides this explanation itself, there is little solid evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud. It exists mostly as an “ad hoc” explanation, a way for scientists to explain the existence of regular comets when their main theory about solar system formation would expect no such comets to still exist after billions of years.

Scientists DO often admit when such explanations are purely theoretical or hypothetical, but often times they treat these beliefs and speculations as being factual to “average joes” because to admit the creative imagination used on such explanations to regular people would make them doubt or question other important scientific beliefs, such as the age of our solar system. They can't have that, so to everyone else, the Oort Cloud is taught as basically proven fact by scientists, even though between each other (other scientists) they'll always consider it theoretical (speculative, unproven).

There are many science based beliefs out there like the Oort Cloud with little or no evidence to support them, yet these kinds of theories exist in order to keep other grander theories from crumbling or being struck with potentially serious problems. Evolutionism is one of the biggest areas in which such “ad hoc” explanations of every kind exist all over the board. This is because the theory of Neo-Darwinism is so critically important to so many scientists who desire to toss God out of the creation process of life and the universe completely. So their presumed beliefs are regularly contradicted by gathered evidence, which forces them to invent alternative and complex explanations for why their theory keeps coming up wrong. The modern day reality is so unbelievably stacked against Neo-Darwin Evolutionism that the theory is literally drowning in “ad hoc” explanations everywhere you look. Some of these “corrections” have potential (they might be real, but not enough is known to prove or disprove them), but many of them are extremely speculative, merely creative imagination at work rather than hard factual science. One of the most notable problems of Evolutionism is the many critically important beliefs and theories that have existed in direct connection to Evolutionism that have been completely overthrown and replaced over the years, and yet the core theory is still widely believed as fact. Normally when a theory ends up so dramatically wrong so many times, it needs to be completely re-analyzed from top to bottom and seriously doubted. But Evolutionism is special, because it is the fundamental ideology of people who desperately want God excluded from the origin of life and the universe. Some prominent atheists and scientists have even stated this quite plainly, admitting that Evolutionism is a total mess full of massive holes and failed speculations over the years, but they hold to it, admittedly, because to NOT believe it is true is to open the door for God, and that, they simply cannot and will not do.

Many "ad hoc" and replacement speculative theories exist across almost all scientific branches of study (biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc.). They exist to explain away apparent major problems with existing theories, and are often labelled "paradoxes" or "anomalies" in a scientific theory. These are some of the favourite areas of attack that Creation Scientists like to key on because they are so void of solid scientific proof to back them up, despite their widespread use and belief.

(In the future I'd like to point more of these areas of problem out for you guys, my readers, because it is important to see just how void of solid proof many of these areas and explanations in science are despite being used constantly to try and prop up God-less understandings of the universe, our solar system, our planet, and life within it.)

Study Reveals Terrifying Climate Change Future

Haha! This reminds me of a horoscope I read once. "If you quit your job, it'll go no where."... You think!?

"if global temperatures reach levels at which coral reefs are damaged, then coral reefs will be damaged."

American Thinker: Reefer Madness (Climate Change Edition)

This (and "man-caused climate change" in general) is an excellent case of science and scientists that build an elaborate theory and science-based scenario on top of gigantic unknowns and "maybes".  

Our findings show that under current assumptions regarding thermal sensitivity, coral reefs might no longer be prominent coastal ecosystems if global mean temperatures actually exceed two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

This is one of the big reasons I was never convinced by Evolutionism and Material Naturalism as an explanation for life. You can't build a solid scientific theory on little more than conjecture! This is like the "just so" stories rampant throughout Evolutionism. "Such and such lifeform MAY have evolved such and such trait (since it exists, though we don't know how exactly that came about) because of changes in climate, food sources, competition, and any and all other possible environmental or evolutionary changes around it..." Wow! Really!? You think it maybe could have because of maybe this and that if these things happened? Astounding factual science there folks!

In the climate change study example of the article I've linked to, the study basically says that IF previous predictions about climate change pan out (come true), and IF it has the effects they think it might on corals, then all their predictions that they THINK might come true, WILL come true... So, "If we're right about this, that, and those other things, then this and that will probably (more than likely) be the result, just like we predicted and expected..."

And so the "science-based" monstrous fictional construct grows and grows, study upon study upon study connected, interconnected, attached and expanded upon until it's so huge that how could anyone possibly deny its reality!? And they completely forget that the entire theory at every single point along the extensive pathway was based on unproven speculation and guess work that has never actually been solidly and convincingly shown to be actually true. It ultimately becomes a grand fairy tale with scientific bits and pieces mixed in, though actually digging reveals the gaping holes and gigantic creative imaginative story telling that underlies the entire thing.

When you go digging for solid answers and are left with little more than these sorts of ephemeral "maybe if" explanations as the believed truth, then your "scientific theory" isn't actually science, it's just creative science fiction.

The Origin of Life Simulated

I decided to do a little experiment on my computer. I'm a hobby programmer. I like to program for fun. I created a program that would generate and store lots of different numbers at random, mixing, combining, removing and adding numbers over and over again, all with the hope of something akin to life eventually making an appearance somewhere in the mix. This might surprise you, but nowhere in the trillions upon trillions of numbers did anything remotely resembling the ordered complexity of life emerge. Not in the slightest, not even once, despite trillions and trillions of "generations". Why is that, do you think?


The Problem For Materialist Scientists

People that believe in a purely naturalistic material universe have to try and account for the origin of life somehow. They cannot simply say, "It's always existed," because we know without doubt that this is not the case. Everything that exists in the universe as we know it had a cause, a beginning. And so just like everything else, life had to have also had a beginning. But life is so incredibly complex and stuffed full of highly detailed instructional information and functionality that it just could not have happened by random chance. Simply throwing a bunch of molecules into a big box and shaking it up will not come anywhere close to making a living organism, even a "simple" life form, because there is no such thing as a "simple life form". It would be like throwing trillions of english letters and punctuation symbols into a box, shaking it a lot for a long time, and expecting them to come up with one of Shakespear's famous manuscripts with only the slightest bit of spelling errors throughout. It's not going to happen. Mere randomness is NOT going to ever be able to "come up" with something like life. Never!

And thus, my program, my computer simulation based entirely on randomized numbers over and over again, will NEVER come up with anything resembling life. Random = Random, chaos, no order, no structure, no functional information, just meaningless useless garbled data with absolutely no point, pattern or structure.


My Simulation vs Nature

My program fails for one very important reason. There's no influences working upon the meaningless numbers. There's no potential of any kind there. Random numbers are random numbers and nothing more. What is it that would transform my simulation into something more similar to the universe that exists all around us? What would make my simulation more like "real life"?

Controllers, influences, connections, natural laws of physics and chemistry and all things that underlie the entire fabric (invisible and otherwise) of the universe itself! The systems and structures described in science are the heroes, the reason why random becomes non-random, in the origins of life debate. But does it really solve anything?

Here's the problem... All these complex and simple mathematical and scientific laws that govern everything in our universe from all matter to all energy are in and of themselves, information. *GASP*! That's right folks! A single basic molecule is itself information, a set of particles that have come together in a specific way to form a specific unique molecule with its own unique properties. The laws of physics and chemistry that underlie this entire structure are ALSO information because without them existing in the first place, the molecule itself could not exist, ever! The molecule requires the laws of the universe and those laws enable the particles in matter and energy to take form and have meaning.

2 + 2 = 4

Now remove the "equation" part, the operators.

224

What does that mean? Does it mean the same thing as it did before? No, obviously not. Now it can be read as "two hundred and twenty four", a whole number with 3 digits. But what makes 224 mean anything at all? The information that we use to interpret and understand that number.

That's the whole point. Nothing has any meaning except by way of interpretation and result. Think of it all like a giant equation. Meaningless random garbage + natural laws of the universe to shape it all = the actual universe. If nothing has meaning, than nothing = nothing and everything could not exist in the first place. Everything that gives our universe structure and any sort of order comes out of the fundamental underlying mathematical and scientific systems (the "laws") that dominate all matter, energy and whatever else exists out there. Without that "meaning", there is empty nothing.

The entire universe is a gigantic system of mathematical and scientific structure. Atheists and their like will argue that "there is no meaning to any of it, it just exists", but it could not "just exist", ANY of it, unless the rules and laws we discover and analyze through science and math were running and in operational order in the first place.


Conclusion

My simple computer simulation could never randomly come up with anything remotely similar to life. All it does is randomly generate numbers and mix those numbers in all sorts of strange and purely random ways. But there are no real controllers or systems involved in any of it. It's just random numbers, always and forever. Something must effect those numbers, operate on those numbers, for anything to take shape or change.

Our universe is not random nothingness. Instead, there are mathematical and scientific laws that govern absolutely everything in our universe and allow it to exist and be understood in the first place. Without these laws and systems, there would literally be nothing at all. The systems, the structure, the laws, all give everything meaning and substance. In fact, all of these laws are so incredibly well fine-tuned, that if they were different by even a tiny fraction, our entire universe would completely fall apart. This is what's known as the "fine-tuned universe" conundrum.

So where did those consistent laws come from? Where did the math and science that holds our universe together come from? Not our understanding of it, because it doesn't require us to understand it for it to function. Where did it all originate? It cannot have been the result of anything other than guided purpose. Our universe is intelligently, intentionally, programmed, because absolutely nothing can create such ordered structure and purpose except for a rational intelligent mind.


Take my computer again as an example. Unless I implement some sort of informational system of structure, meaning, and methods to my simulation of randomly generated numbers, the numbers simply are, with no rhyme or reason. It's when I start making the numbers mean something, have some sort of structure and connection to each other, that they become more. Matter, energy, and the universe itself, is information with meaning, understandable, examinable, calculable, all because of the mathematical and scientific "laws" that underlie the whole thing.

THAT does NOT and CANNOT spring from nothing. No giant explosion can cause that. No millions upon millions of universe iterations can produce that. SOMETHING intelligent has to cause it. The very fabric of space time, energy and matter, are all based upon informational structure. So even if you want to imagine that these "laws of physics and chemistry" can actually somehow have generated life itself (which by the way, is 100% impossible), as the material naturalist you STILL have to account for the existence of the informational systems that underlie and run the entire universe.

And here we are, mankind, capable of actually measuring and trying to understand all of this. God's living handiwork, trying to understand God's handiwork all around us. Absolutely incredible!


Follow Up: The Fine-Tuned Universe

There are a few naturalistic theories out there that try to explain this very serious dilemma of the "fine-tuned universe", however none of them are all that good. Mostly, they revolve around the idea of infinite possibilities, that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes and our universe just happened to "get it right". Another common idea is that somehow at the "Big Bang" event, the very laws of the universe did not apply as they do now, but somehow "fell into place". Why? How? Any proof? No answers to those questions exist, and neither does any sort of proof to support the few "best" materialistic theories that exist.

It would be like trying to explain the origins of a book by denying that the book was ever written in the first place, and that the information system or language that the book was written in, does not exist. Good luck with that!

Evidence For The Fine Tuning of The Universe

Some Tough Questions For Evolution Now

Creation.com:  The Slow Painful Death of Junk DNA

Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma...

... Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.

With the destruction of the "Junk DNA" and "Proteins are everything" theories that have dominated biology science for so long, a number of VERY important questions about what all this means for past studies based on the "2% of our DNA is the important stuff" must now be asked.

1) Only 2% of human and Chimpanzee DNA was very selectively compared to come up with the "proof" that we evolved from monkeys. The common quote is that about 98% of our DNA matches Chimpanzees, but that study ONLY bothered to check 2% of the DNA, the Protein Coding portions, NOT all the "Junk DNA". So then it turns out that our DNA is only a 1.98% match to Chimpanzees, NOT 98%. The same goes for all other studies that analyze this very miniscule amount of DNA with the assumption that this tiny bit of the puzzle was actually the whole thing. Comparing us to whales, or lizards to fish, and on and on it goes. ALL of those studies and the "look how similar we all are thanks to evolution" preaching becomes null and void. It's like comparing 2 pieces of two different puzzles and announcing that the puzzles are "the same" because they're both puzzle pieces. You're forgetting all the other pieces that make each puzzle so unique!

2) Mutation, Genome Clocks, and the rate of Evolution through extrapolation: What happens to all of the studies done that calculate out mutation rates and backtrack through time and history how all life evolved from common ancestors? A ton of this stuff is based on genetic data and mutation rate extrapolation (guesses and calculations), but these largely ignored the 98% of the human genome that doesn't code for Proteins. What happens now to all the constructed charts and connections based on genetic mutation? What about the tree of life, genetic mutation clocks, and all the other connected studies that based their entire premise on the analysis of a tiny fraction of the genetic data? Are now all the projections of timelines and mutations blown completely out of the water? Will they be dropped until completely new timelines, calculations and studies containing ALL available genetic data are put together? My guess is "absolutely not!" Why? Because this stuff is a FACT, no matter what the NEW and improved data and facts say.

When the serious study of genetic data took off in the 1990s, the huge amounts of genetic data were often used to prop up Neo-Darwinism despite lots of data not matching up neatly with what was already believed. This was a problem for evolutionists, but they still made sure it worked. They just said, "Evolution isn't as neat and tidy as we previously thought." NO change in the bulk of the pre-conceived assumptions and beliefs. They simply warped it all to incorporate the changes they could and ignored the rest that they couldn't force fit.

Basically, there's a gigantic stack of genetic studies and beliefs out there that are heavily based upon this idea that most of our genome is "not functional" or "not that important", and thus ignorable. ALL of this stuff needs to be completely labotomized and done over because it all was missing vast amounts of genetic data to begin with. However this stuff is so strongly believed as certain truth that there's NO WAY that evolutionists and scientists will STOP basing much of their beliefs and presentations on the "old paradigms". It's just way too ingrained into their way of thinking, into their worldview. It would be like ripping the Holy Bible out of the Christian church or the Koran out of Islam. The belief systems are fundamental to their core and everything else that depends upon it. It can not be, and will not be, allowed to falter, no matter what the scientific evidence actually says.

"We Never Said It Was Junk DNA..."

HEAVILY UPDATED with quotes and references! (as of 12:30 pm Sept 6 2012)

Evolution News (September 5, 2012): Junk No More!

Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome"

An impressive 30 studies have been released and grouped together (mostly through the ENCODE genome sequencing project) in the peer reviewed science magazine "Nature" that has verified a longstanding Intelligent Design hypothesis, that the vast majority of the human genome is NOT "Junk DNA" or "evolutionary garbage" but is in fact functional.

While Intelligent Design scientists are obviously quite enjoying this hugely important vindication of their scientific predictions (a very important part in proving a scientific theory correct), the evolutionists are having to do some serious back pedaling.


A Summary Of "Junk DNA"

"Junk DNA" has been a long standing assumption by evolutionists that most of the genome (in humans as well as all other life) is mostly "left over evolutionary garbage", DNA that we no longer use or need because we've evolved out of needing it. It has been jokingly called "Junk DNA" for many years because of this. 2% of the human genome codes for Proteins, and until recently (and now especially), this tiny drop-in-the-bucket of our total DNA has been considered pretty much "the whole story". The reason this assumption has dominated so strongly and for so long is because evolutionists had convinced themselves (believed whole heartedly) that unless the DNA is being transcoded by RNA (like the 2% of Protein coding DNA), then it is useless or not functional. Because of this belief, 98% of our DNA has largely been ignored except by the occasional study here and there.

For more about "Junk DNA" and the debate over it, see my blog post from June 2012 about this exact issue (before this new comprehensive study came out proving it all true).

As Intelligent Design scientists have been studying and pointing out for well over 10 years now, it turns out that the vast majority of our DNA (ALL of our DNA, including the 98% that has mostly been ignored) is functional (actively used). The studies by the ENCODE project and connected studies released in the peer reviewed science magazine Nature state that at least 80% of our DNA is actually (and surprisingly, to them) functional, and that indications are good that the rest of our DNA is also functional (they just haven't figured out how it's being used yet, though signs indicate that it IS being used). That's a massive blow to a main tenet of Neo-Darwinism and a big boost to Intelligent Design.


Let The Excuses And Falsehoods Fly!

Excuses and falsehoods are already starting to pop up on atheist websites and pro-evolution websites to try and "cover their butts" on this issue. Not surprising considering the huge implications (and embarrassment) of it all, and how dedicated these people are to Neo-Darwinism on the whole.

Here is a list of the things that these folks are likely to say (and starting to say already) in an attempt to pretend that they didn't just get completely outdone by Intelligent Design theory and science.



1) We knew this all along. Nothing to see here folks. All you every day non-scientist types are just catching up to what we've known for a long time...

This is the claim that seems to be the most common so far among evolutionists, that they've actually known this for a long time already. Studies HAVE been coming out for the last 5 years, and even as far back as 10 years ago, that indicated functional properties of DNA that doesn't code directly for Proteins. But the point isn't that SOME studies have found SOME functionality and usage with all this "extra" DNA. The point is that the majority of scientists and especially atheists have been making the claim that "most of it is junk" despite this evidence! But because of their previous dedication to the idea of Junk DNA in the first place, they're STILL very hesitant to accept all this new scientific data.

For example:  At "The Mermaid's Tale" Pro-Evolution Science Blog...
More Advertising, Yet A Lesson To Learn

They confirm our idea that, at its base, DNA controls protein production and perpetuates itself, but through many subtle, complex functional roles.  Many are still to be discovered, but a much larger fraction of the genome is found to have some function, and the protein coding parts have been shown to comprise only a few percent of the whole of our DNA.  Whether ENCODE has actually determined the function of 80% of the genome, as they now claim, is debatable.

Basically, the claim is, "We knew this all along..." PLUS "I highly doubt this study is anything more than hype and promotion anyway and isn't actually saying what it seems to be saying..." That's a great double whamy! First, "We've known this all along." AND "It probably isn't true anyway." WOW! Talk about covering all your bases just in case!

And another pro-evolution blog post regarding the new set of studies...
A Slightly Different Response to Today's ENCODE Hype

The claim that “lots of the genome isn’t junk after all!” is not new — people have been using this straw man for nearly 20 years. What’s novel is that the ENCODE authors are claiming that there is now evidence that 80% of the genome shows signs function, or at least of “specific biological activity”. Many people are not convinced by this, me among them. I am especially unimpressed by this figure when I read the ENCODE project lead’s own words on the subject of “function” and the 80% figure.

Again, "Nothing to see here folks. We've known this all along." PLUS "It probably isn't true anyway. Just a load of hype and show."

Also, the previous linked to article states:

Even after 5 years, $185 million, and a massive study by hundreds of researchers, there still is only evidence of function for 80% of the human genome under the most extremely generous interpretation. That leaves 20% without any signs of function whatsoever.

Oh my! It cost LOTS of money and they didn't figure out what the other 20% of the genome does? That's just terrible!... Come on! You guys were arguing that MOST of the genome is non-functional garbage. Now you're arguing that the functioning of 20% is still unknown, so they're still proven right... Give me a break!

Then that same writer goes into a spout of obfuscation, re-defining terminology and pretending that what was meant by "functional" and "not functional" wasn't really what we think or thought it was.

To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed.

Basically, "It's only functional so long as you count ANY function." This is getting very disappointing. Now you're arguing that when you were before saying that "NO function" (as in ANY function AT ALL) existed, you actually meant "no MAJOR function"... *rolls eyes*

Some are undoubtedly functional, but it is quite a stretch to suggest that millions of these elements are needed to regulate our 20,000 genes (but not the 30,000 genes of a pufferfish). As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far we simply do not have it when it comes to claiming that the majority of the elements in the genome have a biological function.

"Because we're all just evolved animals and fish, so most of this "extra DNA" is obviously garbage or not that important anyway..." *heavy sigh* They're a dedicated bunch aren't they?


2) We never really MEANT that it was "Junk", just that we didn't yet know any function for it. That's good science, not assuming something until we have solid proof...

The proof has been piling up for many years now, and Intelligent Design scientists have been pointing this out constantly with articles online citing such scientific studies and even publishing entire books about the topic. The proof has been there for quite a while, and the evidence pointing to this reality has been piling up for even longer. "Good science" doesn't consider most of the human genome to be garbage or non-functional just because we don't know the function of it yet. THAT is the key problem here. They assumed that all this DNA was junk, evolutionary left overs, and they stated as much repeatedly over and over again, even using it for a long time as a major argument point against Intelligent Design. "98% of our DNA is non-functional and that's exactly what we'd expect if Evolution were true!"... If they had simply said, "We don't know the function of it yet" or something else similar to that, this whole thing wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. But that's NOT what they've been saying all this time. They've been mostly argueing that this stuff truely had NO function BECAUSE it was evolutionary junk.


3) We've got scientists who suspected function for some of this "Junk DNA" too!...
Smithsonian.com: Junk DNA Isn't Junk, And That Isn't Really News

Remember in high school or college, when you learned about all that DNA inside of you that was junk? The strings and strings of nonsense code that had no function? A recent blitz of papers from the ENCODE project have the world abuzz with news that would rip that idea apart.
But, like many things that stick around in text books long after science has moved on, the “junk DNA” idea that ENCODE disproved, didn’t really need disproving in the first place.

Yes, there were a few out there who admitted even many years ago that the concept of "Junk DNA" was probably wrong and probably even harmful to the progress of science. But these people were very few and far between and only in very recent years have more scientists finally started to admit that all this DNA does actually have function and is actually being used.

However this is a classic case of "We're always right, even when we're wrong." Basically they point out evolutionists that DID get this right even from early on, and claim that this is proof that evolutionism didn't get it wrong. Sorry, but you can't constantly argue the complete opposite and then turn around and say you were right all along because of a few open-minded scientists that didn't follow the mainstream belief. Just because a very small minority of evolutionists didn't get hoodwinked by this bad Neo-Darwinist assumption doesn't mean that the rest of you guys didn't get completely blown apart. You guys are all about "consensus" until the "consensus" gets found out to be completely wrong, and then you shout, "not following the consensus is good science!" This is classic stance jumping, basically, "We're always right, even when we're wrong." As long as ONE scientist SOMEWHERE suggested that there MIGHT be function to SOME of this other DNA, then they claim that the scientific community as a whole didn't grossly screw this up. Sorry, but those smart few people who weren't blinded by Neo-Darwinism are the clear exception to the rest of you.


4) The STUDY is Junk! The scientists are lying!

Michael Eisen, a science writer, on his Twitter feed says about the study:

"measurable biochemical activity" is a meaningless measure of functional significance.

Just like from "The Mermaid's Tale", this science writer who has dedicated himself to the evolutionism debates says that the comprehensive study by the best genome sequencing and analysis project on the planet consisting of hundreds of top scientists is wrong and blowing things way out of proportion. They're basically lying to make the news... Denial at it's finest. These guys constantly argue that science is above hype, promotion, half-truths and lies, and then when it doesn't agree with them that's exactly what they claim the science is. Oi!


Closing

Those are just a few claims that the evolutionists are already starting to make, and likely to continue making for weeks and months (even years) to come. This has all been done before repeatedly as evolutionism has gotten things very wrong and had to completely change its stance and pretend like it never actually did so. All in all it always comes down to, "We might have gotten that one thing wrong, but we're right about everything else, so trust us. Even if something is currently wrong, we'll eventually get it right anyway. Good science goes in the direction that the evidence points, even when the evidence contradicts long held scientific beliefs."

That's very true, but sooner or later it just becomes ridiculous the amount of effort that goes into "covering the trail" of complete missteps that the scientific community have taken based entirely on the assumption that Neo-Darwinist evolution is true. It gets to the point where it's obvious that no matter HOW wrong they are on even MAJOR issues, they simply re-warp the evolutionary system to accommodate it.

This is NOT science, it's desperate blind religion and faith. Science is falsifiable. If a bunch of theories are being overturned then the basis for those bad theories is probably wrong too, otherwise they wouldn't keep getting these big issues wrong in the first place. Intelligent Design didn't get this wrong. So why did evolutionism? But that doesn't matter to evolutionists who are drinking the evolution kool aid. They KNOW in their heart of hearts that evolution must be true so no matter what the evidence says, they believe Neo-Darwinism, even if they have to re-write their core theories every 5 or 10 years in order to still make it work.

Debate Fog Into Empty Victory (Intelligent Design vs Neo-Darwinism)

Here's a lesson in the political-style writing and speech that can often get in the way of good solid debate between Intelligent Design advocates and those who support Neo-Darwin Evolution.

The past couple of weeks I've been reading blog posts and write ups about a heated discussion/debate between supporters of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinist Evolution with regards to a newly published book "Science And Human Origins". The book is by Intelligent Design scientists and discusses all sorts of scientific studies, data and evidence that shows that the major questions about whether or not humans actually evolved from apes is still full of giant holes and doubts. However, when reading these blog posts, though the Intelligent Design supporters have made a number of good points, there's one particular point that they're making a big deal about that though valid, isn't nearly as big of a deal as they believe or say it is.

To see the latest post from ID supporters (and one of the authors of the book), and related articles, check out this link (at Evolution News).

Both sides of the debate are shouting their victory over the other, each claiming to have trounced their competition in the origins debate, but the reality is that neither side has done so as strongly as they believe (or want others to believe).


Chromosome 2: Apes and Humans

One of the key points of this particular piece of the debate is connected to chromosome 2 in humans. Chromosome 2 looks a lot like a pair of chromosomes found in apes that may have fused together in humans. Evolutionists surmise that if we really did evolve from apes, then a long time ago we too had two distinct chromosomes just like apes but that somewhere along the long timeline of very ancient pre-history these chromosomes joined together in humans but not apes.

There are many issues here, but one of the big points that both sides actually agree on is that in the grand scheme of things, this possible fusion event doesn't actually prove that humans came from apes, because humans could have originally had the two chromosomes separate just like apes, with the fusion happening relatively recently in the human genetic past. In other words, it's quite plausible that both humans (fully human) and apes (fully ape) had these highly similar chromosomes as two seperate chromosomes and that in recent human history, only in humans, they combined. That means there's no direct connection between the fusion event and supposed evolution from apes. The key point from the evolutionist is that the similarity in this particular chromosome to two chromosomes in apes indicates common ancestry. The Intelligent Design advocate says that this similarity simply means similar functional genetic code that works as intended, as designed by an Intelligent Creator, and that humans did not evolve from monkeys but that they were made as two unique kinds of living organism. So in the end, the fusion event doesn't really mean a whole lot, though it's interesting to study. Yet even while the evolutionist admits that the apparent fusion of chromosomes doesn't have to mean we came from apes, they still argue that it's good evidence for this belief.


"Victory" In Misdirection

Unfortunately both sides are arguing that they've defeated their opponents in the argument based on the idea of misdirection (clouding the real debate), while they themselves are actually throwing up misdirection themselves! It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They're BOTH misdirecting readers and BOTH accusing the other of doing it in order to try and win a point.

The Intelligent Design side of the argument has made a number of good points, some of which have tied directly to the fact that the evolutionists have focused on just the issue of chromosome 2. "Science And Human Origins" is a big book with multiple chapters, each addressing different areas of science and data that show just how weak the evidence for human-ape common ancestry is. Chromosome 2 is only a couple paragraphs in the big book, but it's where a couple evolutionists have focused. Remarkably, the evolutionists admitted that they had not read the book itself, had not even read the chapter in question, and would NOT be reading it because they knew (believe) it would be garbage anyway. Win for the Intelligent Design group here! The evolution scientist won't even READ the detailed debate points and all the scientific articles cited by the Intelligent Design writers!

But as great of a point as this revelation is in favor of the Intelligent Design group, they then take the ball and run with it well beyond the winning goal. They started crowing about how the evolutionists haven't read their points (which is valid), and that to make matters even worse, the evolutionist refuses to even enter the arena of the greater debate itself. The evolutionist has focused on a couple paragraphs in a book he hasn't even read, and that's all. Win for Intelligent Design!... Yes, true, but also no. Let me explain.

This is misdirection on the part of the Intelligent Design writers. It's a good point, but to make such a big deal out of it is to warp it into being more than it is. The evolutionist has decided to focus on the issue of Chromosome 2 and not bother with the rest. He's focusing on Chromosome 2 specifically. Not reading the book in question is a dumb move and it certainly hurts his case, but focusing only on Chromosome 2 instead of all the rest as well is NOT an explosive victory for Intelligent Design scientists like they claim it is. A person can adequately debate or dispute a particular point without having to address all connected or related points (which can be a huge enormous undertaking)


Not A Nail In The Coffin

So the Intelligent Design scientists are saying, "We win because you're not addressing all the other information in the book, only focusing on Chromosome 2." While the evolutionist basically sits there and says, "I never meant to address the whole book at large, only this specific point about Chromosome 2. But because you're trying to drag me into discussion of all the other stuff, you're clouding the issues I'm bringing up." These quotes are not actual quotes, they're just paraphrases of the general points being made.

The evolution scientists are ALSO guilty of misdirection in that they've argued that the points made against common ancestry from the direction of Chromosome 2 indicates that the whole rest of the book must be garbage (a book they haven't read). They disagree about some interpretations of the scientific data regarding Chromosome 2, and by connection, ALL the points made by the Intelligent Design group must be wrong as well. That's their cloud of fog hanging over the debate.

So BOTH sides are arguing largely from one standpoint (ID the greater whole and evolution the one specific point), and both claiming victory over the other because the opposing side is trying to drag the other side "over the line" they've drawn in the sand like an old fashioned tug of war. BOTH sides cloud the debate, and then both sides accuse the other of doing exactly that, and by connection claiming victory over the other. Oi!

It's like both teams are playing with different sets of rules and neither one will compromise or agree to work in the same realm and so neither side can ultimately hold any kind of solid victory over the other. It means that many of the GOOD points and jabs are lost in the air amidst the fog. Essentially it's a case of both sides claiming the exact same victory podium based on the concept of debate itself, rather than the points within that debate. That's an empty win.

Not Junk DNA

Roughly 2% of our human DNA codes for Proteins (think of Proteins like the microscopic parts that are bodies are made of) and the other 98% of our DNA has often casually been called “Junk DNA”, or “non-functional DNA”. Evolutionists for a long time have considered this 98% to be unimportant evolutionary left-overs, so called “Junk DNA”, that has accumulated across hundreds of millions of years of evolution, but is now, for the most part, garbage and unimportant. This belief, however, is being absolutely destroyed by modern genetics.

There’s a very common myth out there that the human genome (genetic code) is 98% similar to that of Chimpanzee monkeys, which according to evolutionists is a huge proof that humans evolved from monkeys. What usually gets left out of such statements is that the 98% similarity is only a miniscule section of the human and chimpanzee DNA. Basically, scientists have run the genetic sequences of about 2% of the human and chimpanzee genome, the part of the genome that codes for Proteins. That’s only 2%! Then scientists have taken the genetic sequences of that 2% and re-arranged the genes (chunks of DNA) because the chimp and human genomes are in a very different order. Without this purposeful re-arrangement by scientist, the genes simply would not match up side by side. Then the scientists chopped away the parts of this 2% that do not match, and compared only the parts that do closely match each other, and declared that human and chimpanzee DNA is 98% the same between us and them…

Darwinian Logic: The Latest on Chimp and Human DNA  (by Jonathan Wells, October 27 2011)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/the_latest_on_chimp_and_human052291.html

www.EvolutionNews.org

But why only compare the 2% (or so) of the genome that specifically codes for Proteins? What about the other 98%? That’s what is off-handedly called “Junk DNA”. It’s DNA that does not code specifically for Proteins, and thus, has been considered “junk” or genetic garbage. Remember folks, this is 98% of our DNA! Over the last 20 years (and especially the last 10 years), scientists are discovering that this “junk DNA” is actually vital to exactly how our genes are expressed, how our cells do what they do. “Junk DNA”, by and large, seems to actually tell the Protein coding genes how to function (what to do), when to do it, how long to do it for, how and when to change things up, and how best to use what has been built off the blue print of our DNA. Basically, as it’s turning out, the “junk DNA” is the bulk of our genetic code. More and more signs and studies are showing us that most of it has important, even critically important, functions and purpose. It is NOT junk or left-over evolutionary garbage, as some of the most enthusiastic atheistic apologists have claimed over the years.

“If Junk DNA Is Useful, Why Is It Not Shared More Equally?”

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2011)

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131133137.htm

“DNA was originally thought to have a single function: to help cells make the proteins they need. Any DNA that is not immediately required to produce proteins was written off as "junk" and deemed unworthy of study. Recently, however, it has become clear that junk DNA performs a wide range of important tasks.”

Evgeniy S. Balakirev, and Francisco J. Ayala, Pseudogenes, "Are They "Junk" or Functional DNA?," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 37:123--51 (2003)

“pseudogenes that have been suitably investigated often exhibit functional roles.”

THEY MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

One of my many hobbies is computer programming. DNA is very similar to a computer programming language, one that is highly complex and sophisticated unlike anything mankind has ever programmed before. It puts our most incredible complicated computer programs to shame. There is a very serious flaw in the assumption that the “Junk DNA” (98% of our DNA) is not really that important. To show exactly what I mean when I say that “They Missed The Most Important Part”, I want to describe this scenario by using a few metaphorical examples to help get the point across.

The Food Recipe

Imagine that the 2% of DNA that codes for Proteins in our bodies is a rather non-specific set of ingredients for making a particular meal for supper. You’ve got beef, a bunch of spices, a bunch of vegetables, and a few other ingredients. Now you’re told to cook a very specific kind of meal with these ingredients, but not given any instructions on how to do it. No specific portion sizes, no instructions on the order in which the ingredients should be added, the timing of adding each ingredient, how they are to be cooked, prepared or combined… Nothing! To make matters worse, the person who is cooking this meal has no cooking experience or knowledge at all. All of the instructions, experience and knowledge that goes into making the meal is equivalent to the 98% of our DNA that does not code for Proteins. That’s pretty important stuff, isn’t it?

The Math Equation

How about another example, this time one from math. Let’s say that X = 5 and Y = 4. Those are two set values and they won’t change no matter what we do with them. But here comes the important part. How are those variables (X and Y) arranged in a math equation? Does it make any different to the answer you get, the end result? Do the instructions (the equation) matter?

If we make the equation X + Y = Z, we know that it’ll turn out like this: 5 + 4 = 9. But if you change that “+” operator to a “-“, the equation becomes 5 – 4 = 1, a completely different answer. And what if you make it a big long equation but still only using the X and Y variables? How about, X(Y) + (X / Y) – (Y^X) = Z … Yikes, that’s getting kind of complicated isn’t it?

The point I’m trying to make is this. The instructions or operational actions (or controls) are what give you the answers. Different instructions (layouts and equations) will give you different results, different answers. So if X and Y, which represent 5 and 4, are the Protein coding part of our DNA, then the other 98% of the DNA is telling the cells of our body exactly how to use and handle X and Y. These instructions, these operators, are essential to everything working like it’s supposed to. The slightest change and the answer in the equation can be VERY different, despite using the exact same numbers (5 and 4).

The Computer Code

All computer programs are essentially made up of the exact same things, variables and computer code. Let’s imagine that the 2% of our DNA that codes for Proteins are variables. Now, knowing this, that all computer programs use variables and programming language instructions to make them work the way they’re supposed to, you brazenly announce to the world that, “All computer programs are 98% the same!”… Such an exclamation is of course ridiculous, right? Because you’re only comparing one very general aspects of what a program is and has within it. You’re completely ignoring exactly what those variables contain, how many variables there are, and ALL of the instructions or code that makes each program do what it does. You see, the instructions are the difference between a computer program used for reading your email or playing a fast paced 3D game where you blow away fictional bad guys with guns. Both use variables, probably even the same kinds of variables (numbers, strings of text) but HOW they are used makes ALL the difference.

CONCLUSION

The Protein Coding part of our DNA (2% of our DNA) is basically the tiny set of instructions for building the little bits and pieces that our body uses to do most of what it does. They are the “Lego blocks”, the “ingredients”, the materials, the tools. The other 98% is the instructions for how to use those parts and tools. That 98% controls how much of this stuff works, when it works, in what way it works, and has tons of important (even critical) information within it to make sure the whole complicated system works like it’s supposed to. That 98% of our DNA (the so called “Junk DNA”) runs and controls the whole show! These instructions are the key to what makes the vast majority of life forms on our planet so incredibly different and unique from each other, and yet so much of this DNA was until recently shrugged off as “not that important”.

To ignore this fact is like claiming that volleyball and ballet are essentially the exact same thing because both are a physical work out. No, they’re not anywhere close to being “the same thing”. You’re ignoring the huge amount of details that make them so different from each other!

The “human and chimp DNA almost identical comparison” is basically a massive case of extreme selective statistics filtering, especially when every day we’re discovering more and more about that other 98% of the genome that was ignored in that study. As more and more of the incredible importance of this “Junk DNA” is coming into the light of cutting edge modern science, scientists are finally discovering just how very different and unique we are. It’s blowing a lot of evolutionary thought and assumptions right out of the water. This, however, is no surprise at all to people who believe that God created, designed and wrote this genetic code into all living things, and that except for parts of it that have broken down over the many centuries since creation, it’s all functional and important.

The Changing Face of Pseudo Genes

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/277.html

Quick Extra Points:  Why "Junk DNA"?

Part of the reason for the myth of “Junk DNA” is that some of this “Junk” looks almost identical to actual Protein coding genes, yet scientists found that this DNA (often called Pseudo Genes) was not being coded into Proteins. Since the belief was that Protein Coding genes are the important part, the fact that these other genes were not being used that way made the scientists think they were broken duplicates of the working genes, evolutionary screw ups. Though some of these Pseudo Genes could very well be no longer fully functional broken genes, scientists are now finding that many of these “Pseudo Genes” are actually being used in connection with the Protein coding genes that look so similar to them. So what’s going on here? It’s becoming clear that these “Pseudo Genes” are like identifiers, a bit like a website’s URL address. They basically contain the instructions for how to use the target gene. In other words, the part of these genes that look so similar to the functional protein coding genes are actually saying, “Do this with this target DNA.”

Why the quickly shifting perspective on Pseudo Genes and “Junk DNA”? One reason is the many studies that are discovering important functions for this DNA that were never tested or recognized before. Our modern technology allows us to study all this stuff in far more detail. The second big reason is that it makes absolutely no sense at all for biological life forms to hold onto (store and continue to pass along through successive generations) all of this genetic data if it’s “evolutionary garbage”. The amount of energy and resources it takes to keep this genetic library going is huge, and there would be no reason for life to hold onto it all if it were simply completely broken, non-functional, or junk. The fact that life does go through so much effort to preserve this vast amount of DNA (98% in humans compared to the 2% that codes for Proteins), even under pressure to get rid of it, strongly indicates that this DNA is very important and functional after all.

Is Radiometric (Carbon) Dating Reliable?

      Radiometric dating (carbon dating and other similar methods) are considered by many to be the silver bullet in the issue of whether or not our planet is as old as most scientists believe it is. To them, radiometric dating is one of the biggest and best evidences for a very ancient planet. However, as you’re about to see, radiometric dating is not anywhere near as certain as scientists would like you to believe. Considering that this is “one of the best evidences for a billions of years old planet”, it better be a pretty solid irrefutable fact, right? Well, it isn’t anywhere close.

How Radiometric Dating Works

      Radiometric dating works by measuring the ratio between an unstable isotope of an atom against the version of the atom that the unstable isotope eventually turns into. Scientists do this by observing how long it takes for a particular unstable atom to “decay” into a different stable atom. Unstable atoms of a particular type decay at a measurable but slow rate and by comparing the ratio of stable verses unstable isotopes of a particular kind, scientists believe they can calculate how long it has been since that rock (or material) formed. The “parent” isotope is the unstable isotope of an atom and the “child” is what it turns into as it “decays” over time. By comparing the amount of these two atoms within the material being tested, scientists believe they can calculate its age.

      But there are some very serious problems with this reasoning because the entire processes is based upon major assumptions that if at all inaccurate, make the entire process useless as a means of dating something.

The Problem:  Based On Uncertain Assumptions

      For radiometric dating to be reliable, a number of major assumptions must be constantly true or else the whole process of using it as a method to date materials completely falls apart.

Assumption 1: Original Content of the Rock

      The people running the tests have to assume how much of the parent and child isotopes existed in the rock when it first became solid. If there were actually more or less parent isotopes in the rock than the scientists assume, or more or less child isotopes in the rock than the scientists assume, then their calculations to determine the age of the rock are going to end up wrong.

      Imagine you had a jar full of small coloured balls (some red, some blue) and every five minutes you removed one red ball and replaced it with a blue one. If you did this consistently until most of the red balls were replaced by blue ones, then calculated how much time it took for this to happen, you could come up with a pretty good estimate of how long the whole process took based on the number of red balls compared to blue ones. But if you tossed a random amount of red and blue balls into the jar at the beginning and didn’t bother to count them beforehand, your calculations would be completely inaccurate because you had no idea what the original ratio of blue to red balls was before you began the experiment.

      This is one of the problems scientists have when trying to date materials with radiometric dating. They can’t possibly know the exact contents and ratios of isotopes and atoms within a rock when it first formed unless they were there at its formation and measured it then and compared it to now. Measuring it hundreds of thousands (or as they believe, hundreds of millions, even billions, of years later), they can’t know the original condition or contents of that rock when it was formed, so their entire basis for calculating the age of the rock based on what they believe to have been the original contents is very flawed. They can’t be at all certain what the original ratio was when the rock first solidified.

Assumption 2: Constant Decay Rate

      It is believed that the rate of decay from a parent isotope to a child isotope is constant and does not change, however this is proving to be a false assumption. In recent years it has been discovered that the decay rate of unstable isotopes is NOT as constant as scientists used to think it was. Because of this, scientists have had to adjust their calculations and dates a number of times over the past few decades. The adjustments in the calculation have not been very large, but it can mean a different date of hundreds of millions of years when all is said and done. It has also been found that the activity of our sun has an impact on decay rates, making them slightly faster or slower depending on how calm or chaotic our star is behaving. Though again, the changes are very minor (mere fractions of a percent), it shows that the assumption that decay rates are constant and a reliable form of measurement is wrong.

      Scientists have been studying the decay rates of unstable isotopes for a little less than one hundred years. In that time they’ve had to make numerous adjustments to their calculations as they’ve found that the numbers they thought were accurate have turned out to be wrong or not as constant as they once thought. This is only about a hundred years worth of observation by modern science. With one hundred years of observation and despite having to change the values numerous times during that short time period, scientists assume that their calculations are accurate enough to calculate rocks across hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. That means that in all that time, the decay rates of unstable atoms cannot have ever been different than what scientists calculate the decay rate as today. Yet even in the last hundred years they’ve had to make many adjustments as they’ve realized that their calculations were flawed, sometimes resulting in hundreds of millions of years being taken off the age of previously dated materials. To then assume that the decay rate has matched what we observe today throughout billions of years of history is extremely problematic and very likely a bad and inaccurate assumption of the reality.

Assumption 3: No Contamination

      Scientists believe that once a rock has turned solid (usually lava that has cooled and solidified), that nothing can change the make up of that rock. This assumption states that the rock has not been contaminated by an outside source since it became solid. Yet laughably, when a rock is dated and comes up with a date very different than what scientists expect (based on the rock’s location in rock layers), scientists quickly fall onto the assumption that the rock must have been contaminated. Think about that for a moment. The assumption is that a rock is very unlikely to be contaminated across hundreds of millions of years of time by its surrounding environment, so that we can accurately calculate the ratio of parent and child isotopes, thus dating the rock. Yet when the date turns out different than expected, they assume (this is the second of two assumptions now) that the rock, as unlikely as they believe it is, must have been contaminated. Essentially this means, “Contamination is extremely rare and unlikely, but we blame bad dates on it anyway. We trust the dates we agree with, usually, and don’t trust the dates we disagree with.”

Big Problems With Bad Dates

      Many rock samples have been taken from lava flows that have been observed by mankind and when radiometric dated, have given very inaccurate dates. This automatically suggests that the assumptions that radiometric dating are based upon are severely flawed. When a lava flow has been observed by eye witnesses and dated as having happened in a particular year, and then radiometric dating says that the lava flow is actually hundreds of thousands (or even millions of years) older than it actually is, something is very wrong with this dating method. Lava that formed and was witnessed forming in 1986 at Mount Saint Helens was radiometric dated in 1996 and returned a date of 350,000 years, when in fact it was only 10 years old. Similar problems with lava flows that had eyewitnesses from New Zealand, Hawaii, and other places on the planet over the last few hundred years have also been radiometric dated and come up with very different dates from when they were observed to have actually formed. These are only a FEW examples of “bad radiometric dates”. There are also many instances of two samples from the same set being given completely different dates despite very clearly belonging to the exact same material (artefact).

      Coal and diamonds present another big problem for radiometric dating because the assumed age of these deposits in the earth do not work at all with radiometric dating. Scientists then assume that to radiometricly date these materials is a waste of time. Essentially this is an example of “the dates don’t match what we believe, so we’re going to ignore the radiometric data in favour of what we already believe and assume to be true”.

      The problem arises because Carbon 14, an unstable isotope of Carbon, has a decay rate that is quite fast compared to many other unstable isotopes. Because of this fast decay rate, no amount of Carbon 14 should be detectable in any sample older than 250 thousand years. Yet coal and diamonds HAVE detectable amounts of Carbon 14 within them. This should be impossible because most coal deposits are believed to be hundreds of millions of years old, and diamonds are believed to be some of the oldest substances on the planet, being billions of years old. They should have NO Carbon 14 in them at all because it should have all decayed away a very long time ago, but it hasn’t. So scientists assume that the radiometric dates are wrong for these materials, for one reason or another, since they don’t match what they expect/assume to be true.

      That these problematic examples of radiometric dating exist at all is a testament to the fact that the method and assumptions it is based around are wrong. We can definitely know the current decay rate of unstable isotopes through modern observations, but we cannot adequately know that our assumptions about the factors involved in this dating method have been true for all of history. Errors such as the few (of many) listed above show that we can’t possibly know enough about the variables and factors that contribute to the current conditions or contents of a sample sent for radiometric dating. There are far too many complete unknowns that can easily cloud or destroy the accuracy of using radiometric dating as a reliable way to date materials.

Conclusion

      If ANY of the multiple assumptions that radiometric dating is based upon are at all flawed (inaccurate), then the dates calculated will be wrong. Because of the number of assumptions this process must adhere to and “trust” based on a very limited amount of available information, using radiometric dating as a method to date material beyond a short amount of time is extremely unreliable. Scientists essentially have to trust that they know what the original contents of the rock were when it first solidified, they have to trust that the decay rate of unstable isotopes within that rock has not changed across hundreds of millions of years, and they also have to trust that the rock has not been contaminated by outside sources in all of that time. These are massive assumptions that simply cannot be adequately verified! In fact, these assumptions have been proven wrong and required adjustment so many times in only the last hundred years that to still trust them as even “mostly accurate” is unbelievably optimistic. If even ONE of the many assumptions is slightly off (wrong) with regards to a sample being tested, then the calculated date is also going to be wrong.

(In a write up I’m still working on, I’ll explore the origins of the very ancient age of the earth touted by modern science and show you that radiometric dating didn’t enter the picture until well after scientists had already decided that the planet was probably billions of years old. In other words, radiometric dating matched nicely with what they mostly already believed, so it became the “proof” that their assumptions must be true.)