Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[BobRyan]

Well as I expected - this thread started as a favor to our evolutionist bretheren has had MUCH more activity - than the one directed to reconciling evolution with the Bible.

ALSO as I expected - in ALL the posts on this thread so far - not a single ONE - addressed the opening challenge on Entropy which IS that Isaac Asimov (not a YECer) has ALREADY STATED the obvious.

#1. That we OBSERVE INCREASED entropy in LOCAL biological human systems - everyday.

#2. That Evolutionism NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in LOCAL entropy in biological human systems to get its molecule-to-human-brain "story" to work. (you know -- the "story" it tells in its junk science temples).

My point was that GOOD SCIENCE shows us EXACTLY what Isaac Asimov states - that INCREASED entropy is SEEN in local biological systems.

(And GOOD science also tells us that Asimov is right to observe that by contrast - evolutionism NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in entropy in those local biological systems.)

Now being the good atheist evolutionist that Asimov is - he clings to evolutionism "anyway" - but the readers here will not ALL be convinced by such a no-choice option.

Here we see Asimov telling us what Entropy is "ALL ABOUT" and showing us that it has everyhing to do with LOCAL increases in entropy seen every day in human biological systems.

(you know - the part evolutionists here "pretend" was said by a YECer).

Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."


[Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even", Smithsonian Institution Journal (June 1970), p. 6 (emphasis added).]

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now -- seeking an evolutionist to give an honest reply that shows an ounce of critical thinking and objective independent thought on this point.

Don't you find it "odd" that all the evolutionist posts addressing the point above are of the form

Please explain to me why Asimov is correct?

I don't understand how he can claim that entropy is ALL ABOUT the local INCREASE in entropy seen in all biological systems!!

How can Asimov be correct?

Please somebody explain it to me - otherwise it is a YEC trick to get me to accept good science just because good science agrees with scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

But the accusations that evolutionary science is all a farce and has all been debunked are in themselves quite untrue, whether we want them to be or not.

Wonderful! Then please begin by working through the problem that Isaac Asimov has created for evolutionists in the post above.

This should be enlightening.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
For the chiral compounds, I have given you reference after reference of various ways to make non-racemic mixtures from the base chemicals. Once there are not racemic mixtures, your problem goes away. The primary method I have given you has been through the use of catalysts. Now, these have not been anything exotic. They have been such things as clay, borax and calcite. I have documented these items very well. I have provided multiple references. I have put everything into my own words such that you do not have to wade through the complexities of a formal paper. Yet you ignore all the science and continue to make the same assertions over and over without even trying to deal with the things that I post in response.

The problem is that you need "mono-chiral results" not JUST a step or two "away" from 50/50 results for certain amino acids.

So again a case of - junk-science being used for evolutionism because in fact -- you still have nothing. Even you admit this in your own posts -- confessing that you "have" is "zip -nadda - nill" in the way of creating L-Proteins composed of pure mono-chiral chains.

(which is what you NEED for abiogenesis - by the way).

By ignoring actual science - and mixing half truths, guess work and a little blue-sky wishing - you come up with "come wet clay might do the trick some day" and "then" you have the junk-science notion that "this is ALL OF SCIENCE" in your favor!!

UTEOTW

I really hope that if you are going to try and show that all of modern science is "junk"

Classic revisionism.

My claim is that ALL OF science - good science is opposed to the junk science of evolutionism.

My claim is that evolutionism confines itself to the obscure corners of science where it mixes wild-guessing and blue-sky speculation in with a little experimenting to "Spin a story" rather than SHOWING actual salient points "proven" in the evolutionary tale.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW BTW, to show the contrast between real science and real "junk" science, it may require that I post a few things about YEC. I hope that is not too far off topic.

I thought about that - and of course you are welcome to try. But I doubt that your lack of critical thinking and objectivity will help your case very much in that area.

If you feel up to it - here is the reason why.

Evolutionism has as its BASIS the atheist notion that SCIENCE is "all there is" (even if it is junk science in direct contradiction to REAL science). This means that evolutionism is "supposed to say" --- I SAW this in science SO I started to believe it.

Bible Believing Christians do NOT say - "The day we discovered DNA I became a Bible believing Christian who accepts the Word as it reads in Genesis 1".

There is no such thing as "I refuse to be a Christian UNTIL my favorite science experiment goes in favor of God's Word - to my satisfaction".

What is the implication? It is that EVEN if you find one experiment that was supposed to SHOW the truth of God's Word in Genesis 1- but later had complications - the fact is - that experiment was not the BASIS for accepting God's Model of creationism to start with. So you simply place yourself in a position to attack "the next experiment" of good science - RATHER than disproving creationism.

Evolutionism stands ALONE on its claims to science. As soon as ONE fails - the house of fairytale cards comes crashing down.

And when you find evolutionists THEMSELVES serving to show evolutionism's points of failure (Asimov and Dawkings in this case) -- how much more devastating the result.

And that is the problem with tryin to get "an equal footing" between the two models.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

One of the most damaging arguments to evolution is the concept of information.

Sounds fishy to me. Shannon (the person who established information theory) was an evolutionist.

Let's take a look...

READ THIS CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISM BY WHICH MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO INFORMATION OR CODE SYSTEMS.

Nope. You've got that wrong. I suspect it's because you don't know how to define "information." What do you think it is, and how do you propose to measure it?

That is to say, there is no way for information to arise on it's own without an originator. A code cannot be recieved unless it was sent. Information comes from greater information.

You do understand that "code" and "information" are two different things, right?

Information theory is mathematical. Perhaps you'd be more clear if you showed us the numbers.

Nowhere in nature do we see physical evolution in process - DNA gaining information.

Sure you do. Happens all the time. All that's needed is a duplicate copy of a gene, and one mutates. Presto. Increase in information.

The mutated organism has measureably more information than the old one.

Would you like some examples?

ALL the so called 'examples' (such as anti-body resistant germs, pesticide resistent insects, etc) can be shown to be the result of a decrease of information.

Nope. In bacteria, for example, it almost always happens to a duplicate gene. Otherwise the bacterium would die. With duplicated genes, one can mutate to produce new information, and the old one can remain as it is, to preserve what's already there.

There's other ways, too. But first, you need to be able to define "information" in a mathematical way.

Otherwise, you have no idea how to measure it.

Tell us about it.

 

[The Galatian]

There are no evidences which prove the earth is millions or billions of years old that can be proven.

Easiest is radiometric testing. It can very accurately show that the earth is very ancient. One of the people who's done a great deal of work on the age of the Earth. He debunks some creationist myths, here:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm

For example, for a long time, many have supposed that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form.

We know it did for many reasons. One of the more understandable ones is that we find desert dunes in the middle of what are supposed to be "flood deposits". We know that they are desert dunes, because of the way they are cross-bedded, and the fact that the grains are polished.

Also, we find entrenched meanders in the Grand Canyon, something that cannot form in a sudden flood, or even a year-long one. Take a look here. Explain, if you can how this could be formed rapidly:
http://www.hasd.org/hhs/RRWebQuest/entrenched%20meander.jpg

[quoteHowever, science has recently observed canyons hundreds of feet deep forming in less than a week.[/quote]

I would like to see any evidence for a mile-deep canyon dug out of soft sediment like sand dunes in less than a million years.

Also, if you look at the top of the Canyon is is eroded by wind and elements. It is not level or smooth. Yet, underneth the surface we see layer after layer of uniform smooth layers with no evidence of erosion on each layer.

The Canyon, at least the parts I've seen, had prominent features made up of relatively smooth and even layers, pretty much like the walls of the canyon. Often exactly like the walls of the Canyon. Why should that be surprising?

Moreover, layering similar to that of the Canyons can be duplicated in underwater lab experiments.

They did entrenched meanders in underwater lab experiements? I'd like to see that one.

I've see a few of those "sudden canyons", and none of them look anything like the features found in the Grand Canyon. That's because they can't form in a brief time.

Tell me about the sudden canyons, and we'll see how they stack up.

 

[The Galatian]

One of the primary contributors to the fallicy of millions of years on earth is radiometric dating.

The method gives very good and accurate answers. However, there are certainly ways to mess it up, if one is careless.

Let's talk about how it works.

However, all radiometric dating is based on assumptions. There is no dating method that exists that does not use assumptions to arrive at a conclusion.

No, that's wrong. It uses evidence. We know, for example, precise half-lives for varous isotopes, and we can test for diffusion, existing daughter elements and so on, by using various methods. Do you understand why isochrons make assumptions about the original rock unnecessary?

The extent of the usefullness of radiometric dating is in determining similar types of rocks, but certainly there is no way to verify or trust the dates from these methods.

Turns out that there is. Recently a known flow was tested with a method able to guage such short time spans. It worked fine:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

For example, Dr. Steve Austin collected samples of rock known to have formed at Mt. St. Helens during an erruption of a few decades ago (1980). This rock was brought to one of the most credible and trusted radiometric dating centers.

Yep. Austin tried a fast on on the lab. He submitted a sample with xenocrysts in it. (xenocrysts are particles of unmelted rock scattered in the lava that eventually hardened. Because they were not melted, they are quite ancient and will give a misleading result. The lab, BTW, warned Austin about this, but he told them to run the test anyway.

Austin's report,Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome
at Mount St. Helens Volcano" makes it clear that he knew the contaminant was there. The lab made it clear to him that such contaminants would invalidate the test, and that the method he wanted to use would not be accurate for young samples. Nevertheless, he proceded, and then professed to be Shocked! to get such a great age for recent lava.

Rock that was formed in 1980 was given an age of almost 3 million years!! Um... it was a litte off.

As he was warned that it would be. Austin was being cute. The warnings, plus his admission of xencrysts in the dacite he had tested make it clear that he knew what he was doing.

Evoltionists are quick to jump in and say "but the ruler is too big". Yes - I agree. However, you can apply that statement to all radiometric dating methods.

That would leave the problem of explaining how Argon/Argon methods accurately dated the Pompeii deposits. It's always disturbing that people who claim to be Christian might lie to you. But that's what happened to you when you bought the Austin story.

 

[The Galatian]

Evolutionism has as its BASIS the atheist notion that SCIENCE is "all there is"

Nope. Someone's taken advantage of your trust on that one. Science cannot even comment on the supernatural, much less say whether or not it exists. Evolution is based on the same assumption on which all science is based: the same rules have operated in nature since the beginning. That's it. You've just been taken for a ride.

Bible Believing Christians do NOT say - "The day we discovered DNA I became a Bible believing Christian who accepts the Word as it reads in Genesis 1".

I would think not. Science is too weak a method to approach God.

Evolutionism stands ALONE on its claims to science.

It is supported by chemistry, physics, geology, biochemistry, and genetics, to mention a few. All of these disciplines must also be wrong if evolutionary theory is wrong.

I can understand your frustration at this point, but there's no way to avoid what you hope to avoid.

 

[The Galatian]

ALSO as I expected - in ALL the posts on this thread so far - not a single ONE - addressed the opening challenge on Entropy which IS that Isaac Asimov (not a YECer) has ALREADY STATED the obvious.

#1. That we OBSERVE INCREASED entropy in LOCAL biological human systems - everyday.

We also observe decreased entropy in local biological human systems, everyday. Babies form in the womb, mature, are born, and grow larger and more complex. You might argue that there must be energy from the outside on order for this to happen. Right. That's why it happens.

#2. That Evolutionism NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in LOCAL entropy in biological human systems to get its molecule-to-human-brain "story" to work.

You've been misled again. Evolutionary theory is not about molecules to human brains. One of the notable things about evolutionary theory is that people who know the least about it, are most likely to object to it.

My point was that GOOD SCIENCE shows us EXACTLY what Isaac Asimov states - that INCREASED entropy is SEEN in local biological systems.

Decreased entropy, too. Maybe you don't know what entropy is. What do you think it is?

Give us your definition, so we are all on the same page. Then we can apply it to some systems and see how it works. Will you do this?

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by Gina L:
UTE, have you happened to have read Impossible Theology?
http://www.parable.com/parable/item_0954392213.htm
Gina

No I have not, but I have seen some of his posts on this very board. I have been looking for a good YEC book to read but I am not sure where to start. Might get around to that one, or another, one day. Currently I am working the LOTR. The movies are actually starting to make sense.

 

[UTEOTW]

"READ THIS CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO KNOWN MECHANISM BY WHICH MATTER CAN GIVE RISE TO INFORMATION OR CODE SYSTEMS. That is to say, there is no way for information to arise on it's own without an originator. A code cannot be recieved unless it was sent. Information comes from greater information.

Nope. We see that new "information" is gained. One way is through the duplication and then mutation of an existing gene into something new. Maybe you missed my examples and references to abstracts on this above. I'll repeat.

Let's take a look at serine proteases. These proteins cut peptide bonds in other proteins. SOme are secreted by the digestive system to break up proteins to aid in digestion. Some are proteins involved in blood clotting (you might be famialar with thrombin). Some are involved in the complement cascade of the immune system. Now if you look at the sequence of amino acids in all of these various proteins, you will see that they are quite similar. You have very good circumstantial evidence that this whole family of genes is the result of repeated duplications of an original gene and the evolution of new functions from the varieties produced by mutation.

Another good family of related genes to look into in the hemoglobin / myoglobin family. These are oxygen carrying molecules.The evidence is that an original oxygen carrying gene duplicated early in evolution. One duplicate has since duplicated additional times, mutated, and become the myoglobins that carry oxygen withing muscle tissues. The other becamce hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is further split into two families, the alpha and beta. All of these involve a cluster or family of related genes. Many of these genes are related to development where specific genes are expressed at different points in the life cycle.

Development is controlled in part by a family of genes called homeobox genes. They first have the odd trait that they contain a section of exactly 180 nucleotides called, well, a homeobox. There is great simularity between these selector genes indicating that they were the result of gene duplication and mutation. Another case of evolution making new use of something that prexisted when developing a new trait. The similarity of some genes of this family across great ranges of species is also a good piece of evidence for the common descent of all life on earth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7242661&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=6456024&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8765308&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=92130261&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9098062&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=90212054&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=84172188&dopt=Citation

http://www.americanscientist.org/amsci/articles/99articles/Hardison.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8794877&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9060395&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=96275651&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1688138&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8056788&dopt=Citation

 

[UTEOTW]

"No where in nature do we see physical evolution in process - DNA gaining information. ALL the so called 'examples' (such as anti-body resistant germs, pesticide resistent insects, etc) can be shown to be the result of a decrease of information. "

I think I already gave examples of this, too, above. I don't mind repeating myself.

There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract

There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.

Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&dopt=Abstract

Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract

Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.

Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.

Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.

Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.

Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.

"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.

 

[UTEOTW]

"For example, for a long time, many have supposed that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. However, science has recently observed canyons hundreds of feet deep forming in less than a week. Also, if you look at the top of the Canyon is is eroded by wind and elements. It is not level or smooth. Yet, underneth the surface we see layer after layer of uniform smooth layers with no evidence of erosion on each layer. Moreover, layering similar to that of the Canyons can be duplicated in underwater lab experiments. "

Is this supposed to be the same thing you posted here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2710/5.html#000061 ?

My response then was:

Impressive. Let's quote from AIG. "The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock." So, wet sands and clays that were already saturated with water were eroded into a small canyon in a few days. Could you please tell me what the relevence is to the Grand Canyon?

First, you are talking a difference in the volume of about ninety million! So, at these great rates of erosion, it would have taken ... about 1.5 millions years to erode the Grand Canyon. Hmmm.

Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

Third, let me quote AIG again. "In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon." I think this is a deliberate mistatement. I would like to know who these scientists are and read their papers. Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?

There are other problems, some already pointed out by others. As rivers get older, they began to meander in wider and wider loops. The Grand Canyon in places preserves these same kinds of meanders, indicative of being carved slowly by a mature river, not a relatively straight catastrophic canyon.

Sheer walls as high as what is seen in the Grand Canyon cannot be formed out of soft deposits. The wall would collapse. To get the kinds of structures we see, the canyon was of necessity carved from hard rock.

There is also the issue that many of the layers of rock in the canyon leave evidence of being formed in specific ecological conditions. This is inconsistent with them all being layed down in a single short period of time.

 

[UTEOTW]

"For example, Dr. Steve Austin collected samples of rock known to have formed at Mt. St. Helens during an erruption of a few decades ago (1980). This rock was brought to one of the most credible and trusted radiometric dating centers. The dating center was told that the Rock was 'young rock'. The rock was given the ages of 350,000 to 2,800,000 years. Rock that was formed in 1980 was given an age of almost 3 million years!! Um... it was a litte off."

Oops, this is actually an example of YEC junk science.

Dr. Aistin seems to have made a few mistakes. One, is that it appears from his own report that the samples contained phenocrysts that would have formed long ago and would therefore be expected to show an age older than the known age of the bulk rock.

He also reported ages that were much below the minimum age of the laboratories detection limit. Like it or not, the half life of K-40 is very long and in just a few years, you cannot accumulate enough Ar to measure reliably. Any small background or contamination swamps the measurement. It works quite well in older rocks. This is just an example of the error bars in any measurement. For K-AR, those happen to be tens of thousands to maybe a million years. Fine if your age is 100 million years. Not fine if it is 10 years. But we know this from experience. Try measuring the width of a hair with a standard tape measure. Now use the tape measure to see how long the desk is that your computer is on. See the difference?

There are methods to measure younger rocks, and as Galatian pointed out, they can be quite accurate. I belive the Ar-Ar date for Pompeii that he keeps giving missed a roughly 2000 year old date by 7 years, much less than the error bars for the measurement.

 

[UTEOTW]

"ALSO as I expected - in ALL the posts on this thread so far - not a single ONE - addressed the opening challenge on Entropy which IS that Isaac Asimov (not a YECer) has ALREADY STATED the obvious."

Maybe you missed my response above. I would encourage you to go read it.

When you are done, answer me this question. What one step, any step, in the evolution of man from a single celled organism is prevented by entropy? And show your work.

If you cannot give us an actual problem then I do not think your posts have much merit.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The problem is that you need "mono-chiral results" not JUST a step or two "away" from 50/50 results for certain amino acids."

Go back and read everything I have given you. I think I showed you optically pure ribose sugars being made and then polymerized into RNA (after a few other reactions) all with the right orientation. Maybe you missed it.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's look at some more YEC "junk."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

AIG claims that actual ed blood cells were found of a dinosaur. And since a blood cell cannot survive long, this must mean a young earth. But not so fast, my friend.

Now what was actually found was this. A very well preserved dinosaur was found. So well preserved that the fossils of the individual cells could be observed. (There are other interpretations, even less kind to the YECers.) Within these cells were a few organic molecules. They removed these molecules and had them tested. On the basis of a number of tests, they found that the compounds contained heme (the oxygen carrying group in blood cells) and concluded that the molecules were from the dinosaur tissue. The abstract reference is given below. So, a scientist reports then they found a well preserved fossil that contained fragments of heme and AIG reports that actual blood cells were found. Junk science.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291

 

[UTEOTW]

The RATE group has proposed that C14 dating was inaccurate because they were able to obtain a young date from a diamond in a supposedly hundreds of millions of years old formation.

A little digging reveals that the age they got was about 57000 years. This is significant. Why? Because this is beyond the range of accurate ages possible for C14 dating. For a perfectly preserved sample, about 50000 years ids the limit. Beyond that, it becomes impossible to separate the C14 signal from the background radiation no matter how well shieled the lab. So a date older than 50000 years only means that it is older than 50000 years. No way to tell how much older.

The RATE people were clear to point out that the C14 found could not have been from contamination because it was locked inside a diamond. Whay they did not tell you was that background radiation will for small amounts of C14 even in a diamond.

So if you were to ask a geologists what date to expect if you were to carbon date a diamond (after he picked himself up off the floor from his laughing fit) I would expect him to predict that you would get the meaningless age of about 50000 years. When RATE gets this predicable answer, they turn around and claim that it means that dating does not work. Me thinks they are hiding something.

 

[UTEOTW]

Another bit of junk.

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 146-147.

Morris based this on a legitimate paper [Funkhouser, J. G. and J. J. Naughton, 1968. Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of Geophysical Research 73(14): 4601-4607. ] thatwas fdoing testing on some rocks from a recent lava flow in Hawaii.

Now, when rocks are heated to a sufficiently high temperature and are melted, the argon in the rocks escape. When the lava hardens into rock, the potassium-40 begins decaying into Ar-39. By measuring the ratios, a date can be determined. Now if the rocks are not heated sufficiently, the argon does not escape and the rocks will date older than they really are.

Funkhouser and Naughton were purposely removing xenoliths from the rocks that did not melt to see how much older they would date. Of course they dated as old because they had not been reset by melting. They also tested the bulk rocks and found that the ages were zero, as expected.

So Morris takes the data that measured too old, ignores the known reason that it dated too old, and then claims that radiometric dating does not work. If he actually read the paper, he should know better. It was easy to see and was even the purpose of the work. Just more YEC "junk."