REPLY #20a TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
This is the first of a three-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.
(R) Before I continue let me just say that you've given me enough insults. It's
(MB) Perhaps you could enlighten me by pointing out an example or two of where I
have insulted you. I have pointed out inadequacies in mathematics,
understanding of scientific data, and reasoning and have shown why they lead to
the incorrect conclusions that are the heart and soul of Creationist argument.
If you take this as some sort of directed personal insult, I'm sorry, but the
only way a debate about an issue can be resolved is to present the truth and to
debunk the nonsense.
(R) Now do you want to continue this debate or begin a name-calling contest?
(MB) In the opening statement of your first reply, you said:
"I am absolutely, positively, not going to start a debate on this, I just
want to hear you defend evolutionism after you read the following..."
Interestingly enough, this reply is now the fourth in what looks to be a
continuing series. I have no need for name-calling since there is overwhelming
evidence to support my case and none whatsoever to support Creationism.
(R) How can you say that if I believe In the world-wide flood there would be a
present population of 1740 people?
(MB) Because I can do the math properly and can perform the calculations using
proper historical data. This is opposed to the Creationist method which
performs an invalid extrapolation of a modern population growth rate backwards
through thousands of years where it does not apply.
(R) If you look back at my 1st letter it explains that the present population
would have been developed from a single family in just 4,000 years if the growth
rate were reduced to only 1/2 % per year or about an average of only 2 1/2
children per family.
(MB) If you'll look back at my response, you'll find the proper data with which
to perform the calculations. You'll also find a conclusive debunking which uses
your own figures to disprove the Creationist argument. In recap, if the
Creationist model is correct, then the world's population grew from an initial
core of eight people (Noah and his family) after the Flood to its present
total of 5.5 billion. If the Creationists want us to believe their growth rate
figures and time scale, then they must admit that the entire population of the
world at the time the Israelites entered Canaan was 2024! Since this is clearly
bunk, the Creationist model is conclusively refuted.
(R) That's one forth the present rate of growth. It would easily allow for long
periods of no growth due to famines and wars. Please tell me you're either
joking or you made a mistake.
(MB) Sorry, I have done neither. On the contrary, it is you that must admit
error in the face of the evidence.
(R) You still haven't answered my question on how many germs there would be
today if they've been living for billions of years.
(MB) There would be exactly as many as currently exist because they *have* been
living for billions of years.
(R) At the present rate of growth, for germs, were constant since their
beginning you said the germ population would be "through the roof" in just 6,000
years. If they've been living for much longer wouldn't there be a slight
(MB) Nope. This is because Creationists fail to understand that no form of life
can expand its population exponentially for any appreciable length of time. In
my previous reply, it was shown that the Creationist "germ population" argument
leads to the inevitable conclusion that an initial population of 8 germs would
grow to a population density of a million germs per cubic inch for a thickness
of over one mile entirely covering the entire surface of the Earth. Once again,
the dangers of invalid extrapolation of exponential growth rates is conclusively
demonstrated and another Creationist argument crumbles under its own weight.
(R) You said that you thought Joseph's brothers were simply "eponyms" or
representations for various tribes. In the case of Joseph and his family this
definitely isn't true because if you'd take the time to read the Bible it's
clear that Joseph's brothers were of his own kin. (Genesis chapter 37-50)
(MB) That is true in every Biblical case of eponymous stories. In fact, that's
what an "eponym" is -- it's a representation of a larger group by a single
example or founder. That example person may or may not be an actual historical
individual. In the case of eponymous stories concerning related tribes, there
should be little question that the individuals would be represented as being
kin. In the case of the story of Joseph, all it takes to realize that this is a
classic case of the usage of eponyms is actually reading the story and knowing a
bit about the history of the Israelites.
In secular history, there are two major groups (the Israelites and the
Edomites) who have a long-standing enmity between them. In the Bible, Isaac has
twin sons, Esau and Jacob, who have a lifelong feud over a birthright. Since
the story is told from the perspective of the Israelites, they "win" and become
the "chosen people". In Genesis, this is depicted by Jacob's outmaneuvering
Esau and gaining Isaac's final blessing. In GEN 25:30, Esau is given the
alternate name, "Edom". In GEN 32:28, Jacob is given the alternate name,
"Israel". Therefore, Esau/Edom is the eponym of the Edomites while Jacob/Israel
is the eponym of the Israelites and the story continues by chronicling the life
and times of Jacob.
Now, Jacob has twelve sons. These provide the eponymous ancestry of the
twelve tribes of Israel. Ten of Jacob's sons are direct eponyms of tribes,
while Joseph (as the most important) is the ancestor of two tribes whose eponyms
are depicted as being his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Jacob's twelfth son,
Levi, is the eponym for what would become the priests who were intermingled with
the other tribes.
The real clincher comes from the Book of Numbers. Here, the results of two
censuses of the twelve tribes are reported. Each tribe is identified (as is the
Old Testament custom) by its eponymous ancestor. Of course, those ancestors are
the aforementioned sons of Jacob. The first census is taken at the time of the
Exodus, which the Bible says took place 430 years after the entry of Jacob and
his sons into Egypt. The census reports 603,550 men of warrior age. If one
figures in the necessary women and children and the men who were either too
young or too old to be warriors, the total membership of the twelve tribes must
have been at least two million people.
What does this mean? It means that the Creationists are going to try to
tell us that the Israelite population grew from 12 to over 2,000,000 in only 430
years! If we use Dr. Morris' figure of a 0.33% yearly population growth rate,
an initial population of 12 could only grow to 49 in 430 years. If we assume a
present-day annual growth rate of 2%, those same initial 12 would only grow to
59,876 in 430 years. Therefore, if we accept the claim of the Creationists that
the Bible is inerrant, we must conclude that the Bible itself conclusively
refutes a major claim of those very same Creationists!
(R) Your explanation of how the Flood became so popular was due to the many
people who were nomadic during that time and when they traveled they spread a
different version. If this were true then how did ancient Japan get their
version? The American Indians have their own twisted account as well. I'm sure
you know that China was virtually unknown to the people of Europe and the Middle
East until the end of the Middle Ages. A European or Middle Eastern nomad
couldn't have traveled all the way to Japan let alone China.
(MB) They wouldn't have to do so. Floods are most certainly known anyplace
where there is a river. Floods vary in their magnitude according to such things
as rainfall and/or snowfall and drainage patterns. Particularly large or
catastrophic floods would be remembered in the oral and/or written histories of
the afflicted people and produce a background for stories of heroism and/or
devotion to the deity or deities worshipped by those people.
Therefore, it should hardly be surprising that flood stories are
commonplace. It should also be noted that the details of the various stories
are mutually-exclusive as they don't occur at the same time, have the same
effects, produce the same aftermaths, or involve the same sets of
circumstances as might reasonably be expected if they all referred to the same
(R) Noah's account was the true original version and was not derived from the
Gilgamesh epic. If anything the epic of Gilgamesh and the other distorted
versions were derived from Noah's account.
(MB) Untrue. Records of flood stories (such as the Gilgamesh epic) exist and
predate the Biblical tale of Noah. This makes it impossible for those stories
to have been derived after the Biblical version.
Consider also that if your claim is true, there would be no reason for the
vast differences we find in the details of the various stories.
(R) The different versions might not have been the same, but they all agree with
one important thing: that there was a great Flood.
1) that there is no
evidence for any such Flood, and
2) how many significant differences there are in the details of the
3) that both the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations survived the supposed
world-destroying Flood and have no records of it, and
4) how commonplace
floods are, and
5) how much evidence there is which disproves even the possibility of such a
we can only conclude that the only reason for the one common element among
otherwise contradictory stories is that a Flood is a popular plot device around
which to spin a good tale.
(R) How could you say that radiometric dating methods are reliable?
(MB) Because all evidence demonstrates this and none contradicts it. All
supposed problems with various dating methods involve conclusions drawn from the
employment of invalid procedures, incorrect data, poor mathematics, or invalid
(R) That is certainly not the case! Let me show you just how "solid and trusted"
these methods are:
When the Apollo 11 mission brought moon rock and soil samples back the
uranium lead tests on them produced 4 different dates:
4.6 billion yrs.
5.4 billion yrs.
4.8 billion yrs.
8.2 billion yrs.
How do we know which figure is correct? Are any of them correct?
(MB) You are overlooking one crucially important point that is central to the
Creationist argument -- none of these datings produce a result of 6000 years or
anything even remotely suggesting such an age. Since the Moon cannot possibly
be older than the Earth, if the Creationist model is correct, why do no samples
produce dates even remotely in accordance with that model?
Also, there are other facts not being considered by your argument and much
important data that is missing. Apollo 11 brought back many samples of moon
rocks. If testing produced only four different dates and they are all over 4.5
billion years old, we can safely conclude that the Moon is at least that old.
This destroys the Creationist model.
Also, the differences in the first three dates listed are not statistically
significant while the last is so out-of-line that it must be considered
anomalous. You've also failed to cite the source of these figures, how many
total tests were conducted and what other methods might have been used to verify
and crosscheck the dates produced by the uranium-lead method.
(R) According to Science magazine, potassium argon tests on lunar rocks revealed
an age of 2.3 billion years. (vol. 167,1/30/70)
(MB) Which lunar rocks? They're not all the same, you know. Samples have been
taken from many places and have been deliberately chosen from several types of
formations to produce the widest ranges of data. Samples taken from the lunar
maria would always date to be younger than samples taken from highlands or
mountainous areas since they would have been produced by geologic activity after
the Moon was formed.
Finally, we see once again that dating results produce ages in the billions
of years. Yet again, this is conclusive evidence against the Creationist model.
(R) The best way to test a clocks accuracy is to compare it to a "standard." In
other words check with a known reliable source.
Volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii were subjected to Potassium Argon testing(KAr).
160 million to 3 billion years ago is when these rocks supposedly
Upon further checking it was discovered that the particular lava flow from
which these rocks were taken, actually erupted in the year 1800 & 1801!
Do you suppose there just may be some flaws in the radiometric dating methods?
(MB) Nope. This is a classic example of Creationists using the wrong tool to do
the job. No reputable geologist would use dating methods like K-Ar to test
volcanic samples since their molten nature would destroy the markers used by
those dating methods and produce invalid results -- as your example shows. Yet
Creationists continue to trot out volcanic samples as "disproof" of standardized
radiometric dating techniques. If anything, this example proves that
Creationists don't know how to properly use the tools of science, yet they are
fully willing to promote the invalid results obtained to a scientifically
(R) In the uranium lead method it is assumed that the ratio of lead to uranium
in a rock shows its age. The more lead and less uranium in a rock, the older it
is. The problem with this method is that we do not know how much lead was in the
(MB) We don't have to know this. The isotopes of lead produced by this decay
process are not naturally-occurring. That is, they aren't produced
independently of the decay of the original uranium.
(R) Because 2 kinds of uranium decay into two kinds of lead, they give two dates
for each rock. Scientists can therefore check these dates to see if they are the
same. If they are, the date is confirmed; if they aren't, the date is doubtful.
Scientists have found that the dates from the uranium decays are rarely the
same. In one rock the two uranium decays as well as two other dating methods
gave four different results ranging from 100 million years to 10.5 billion
years. These results show how unreliable the uranium lead method is. Another
problem with the UPb method is that it sometimes gives results that are clearly
wrong. Rocks in Texas gave ages as high as 11 billion years, about twice as old
as you believe the earth is. The rocks cannot be older than the earth.
(MB) This is a common Creationist corruption of the fact that the two different
isotopes of uranium used in the UPb methods, (U-238 and U-235) have much
different half-lifes. U-238 decays to Pb-206 with a half-life of 4.5 billion
years while U-235 decays to Pb-207 with a half-life of 704 million years. When
Creationists mistakenly (or deliberately) take sample percentages of the two
different isotopes and incorrectly compute dates from them by using a common
yardstick, they will obviously get contradictory results which they can then
tout to their target audience which knows nothing of the actual process. When
this process is used properly, there are no such contradictory results.
(R) Potassium argon (KAr) method is the least reliable of all the radiometric
dating methods. This method is similar to the uranium lead method. Potassium-40
decay into argon-40, a gas. The method uses the ratio of argon to potassium to
find the age of a rock. Again, to use this method to date a rock scientists must
decide how much argon the rock had originally. They usually assume that it had
(MB) While it's true that the Potassium-Argon method is the least reliable
method used, it still produces results that conclusively refute the Creationist
model of an Earth which is only 6000 years old. Creationists also conveniently
forget that there are numerous different, very reliable and cross-checkable
methods used for radiometric dating and *all* of them produce dates for the
oldest samples in the 4.5 billion year range. The Rubidium-Strontium and
Argon-Argon methods are among the most reliable and widely-used while the most
direct method for calculating the Earth's age is the Pb-Pb isochron method. As
always, no method gives an age of 6000 years (or anything remotely close to it)
for the Earth.