BTW. with the tactic I am taking of exposing the "junk" science that passes for YEC, I am fully expecting Gup20 or Bob to jump in with Piltdown or some other chestnut here soon. Notice that I am being careful to point out that these are things still being used by YECers. I have provided citation for most of the things I have submitted. The others you should have no trouble finding on your own through Google. If you decide to go down the Piltdown road I will be asking for you to show me where scientists are still using it. I will point out that for genuine mistakes that it is science itself that has corrected the errors. I will contrast this with YEC were the problems I have been addressing still float around. But I expect it sooner or later, none the less. And I will use it to build my case if possible.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Evolutionism's appeal to junk science
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
"In other words" Galatian is still dodging the point.
So the point remains.
He frames an argument of the form "I can't understand Asimov - somebody please explain the Atheist Evolutionist view of Asimov. IF a YEC poster does not help me understand Asimov then I get to deny the Word of God".
The entire basis for your argument is absurd but it fits "perfectly" with the junk science appeals and the lack of critical thinking that continues to be the hallmark of the evolutionist posts so far.
Lets observe what you must "pretend" you don't understand from Asimove "again".
Asimov SHOWS us the entropy SEEN vs the entropy NEEDED in evolutionism, and the contrast COULD NOT BE greater.
FAcing that huge gap in support for evolutionism what is "your solution"???
That's right!! Pretend you don't understand the problem!!
What kind of "compelling argument" is that???
How can you expect to be taken seriously??.
With such a willingness to discredit your own ability to apply critical thinking rather than challenge the fables of evolutionism -- no wonder its junk-science approach is seldem questioned by evolutionists.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Did that -
You still did not address the point of Asimov's statements about what we OBSERVE in local systems (except to challenge him as THOUGH your claim is that we do NOT observe the increase that he predicts - the INCREASE that is demonstrated in DECAY and DISORDER).
You know "the details" that he "actually mentioned"!!
This has been a difficult concept for our evolutionist friends when it comes to problems that confront the myths and bad science of evolutionism - but it is there all the same.
#1. Is this the part where you "pretend" not to notice that Asimov himself admits that a "massive DECREASE" is needed at the local level - for that myth to survive??
Apparently so.
#2. Is this the part where you "pretend" not to notice that "DISORDER and DECAY" are the ways that entropy manifests itself in human biological systems according to Asimov's OWN statements???
Obviously it is.
#3. Is this the part where you expect me to DEFEND Asimov for you AS IF Asimov is a YeC Source??
Apparently so.
#4. Is this part where you "hope" that the reader can't SEE Asimov's quote and the obvious way you are choking on the details of that quote?
hmmm... left as an exercise for the reader.
The "actual problem" has been REPEATEDLY stated as the problem of evolutionism NEEDING a "massive DECREASE in entropy" in LOCAL systems (according to Asimov) to make its "Story" come true - but then the confession is added that good science SEES "local INCREASE" in entropy in those systems manifest as DISORDER and DECAY (According to Asimvo).
"Pretending" you don't see the problem - only makes your argument weaker.
Why is that so hard to understand? It would not take that much critical thinking and objectivity to admit to such an obvious challenge - and THEN who knows -- maybe you might solve it.
In Christ,
Bob
The Galatian
Active Member
Sorry. They don't show what you claim to be true. Put it up here for us, in your own work. If you don't understand it, what makes you think it's right?
Barbarian observes:
Wrong. If you have two copies of the same gene, you have only the information for one enzyme. If one mutates, then you have information for two.
It appears Gup is now telling us that an organism with information for one additional gene does not have more information than an otherwise identical organism. It's a bizarre theory that says more information is not more information.
Barbarian observes:
Two identical genes... one enzyme. One normal, and one mutated gene, two enzymes. Increase in information.
No it isn't. It's conversion from an enzyme with a certain activity to one that
The Galatian
Active Member
Barbarian challenges Bob to name even one process needed for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodymaics.
(Bob declines to do so)
Barbarian observes:
In other words, Bob can't think of a one?
And then tell me what process needed for evolution is ruled out by it. You do understand that Asimov did not believe that entropy ruled out evolution. Bolzmann, who worked out a way to calculate entropy did not think so.
And you clearly don't understand how to calculate entropy.
Why should anyone believe you?
First you need to show that there is a boogyman.
Which you have declined to do.
That being the case, you've pretty much come to the end of your rope.
Barbarian asks:
If you can't give us even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law, why should we believe that one exists?
But to make sure everyone else knows, I'm asking you several times to make sure that everyone sees you dodge for a while.
(Bob declines to do so)
Barbarian observes:
In other words, Bob can't think of a one?
The point is, Bob can't name any such process, because there is no such process.
Indeed. The 2nd law ploy just fell apart. Unless you can actually show that it rules out something required for evolution. But you can't can you?
Nope. Barbarian frames the argument, "There is no process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is why Bob refuses to show us one."
Tell me about the "entropy needed for evolution."
And then tell me what process needed for evolution is ruled out by it. You do understand that Asimov did not believe that entropy ruled out evolution. Bolzmann, who worked out a way to calculate entropy did not think so.
And you clearly don't understand how to calculate entropy.
Why should anyone believe you?
That's like asking me, facing the boogyman, what is my solution.
First you need to show that there is a boogyman.
Which you have declined to do.
That being the case, you've pretty much come to the end of your rope.
Barbarian asks:
If you can't give us even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law, why should we believe that one exists?
I understand the problem. I understand that you know little or nothing about entropy. And I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.
But to make sure everyone else knows, I'm asking you several times to make sure that everyone sees you dodge for a while.
The best way to discredit a false argument is to ask the person presenting it to demonstrate his claim. The fact that you cannot show that the 2nd law rules out evolution does that nicely.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
UTEOTW you are making this too easy for me. Is this as a favor to me or are you saving your actual arguments for some other topics?
Notice that in the ploy above - you AGAIN - avoid the details of your OWN post (as in the case of your OWN quote of Asimov previously) AND the details of the point that I just raised!!!
Do you falter in this simply because evolutionism denies you the option of objective critical thinking -- or are you saying that your case is so weak in this area of junk science that all you have left is "pretending" not to "get the point" of the discussion???
Well - no matter which case - I will "once again" remind you of the point raised.
To counter the creationist argument that EVEN atheist evolutionists ADMIT that they are lacking in smooth transitional sequences you have this quote --
Changes the meaning a bit, doesn't it? [/QB][/QUOTE]
I simply point out that using Archaeopteryx as your lead example of a transitional "BETWEEN reptiles and birds" - is totally bogus since EVEN atheist evolutionist sources ADMIT that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE bird.
You counter with (in effect) "YES but this TRUE bird is a UNIQUE bird in many ways" - as IF that solves the problem for your claim that it is a "TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and birds".
If your willing to reduce your own argument to claiming that transitions between A and C will simply be UNIQUE-C but still a true C -- then NO WONDER you claim to have so many "transitions".
What a riot!!
This is going to be fun each time you pretend not to get the point raised in opposition.
I would really much rather have you address the point than pretend not to know what it is.
In Christ,
Bob
[ July 25, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And Bob offers the oft repeated problem from evolutionism's OWN Isaac Asimov.
But then of course "evolutionist" must "pretend" not to "be able to get the point" ...
So in true revisionist history style befitting of junk-science methods they "pretend"
(Bob declines to do so)
And
Barbarian observes:
In other words, Bob can't think of a one?
And this of course merely exposes their problem in triplicate. Having to "Pretend" that you don't understand the argument - is far worse than not being able to come up with suitable response gentlemen.
Why is that bit of critical thinking and objective thought so difficult?
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. Is this the part where you "pretend" that the decay and disorder function is exactly what is "needed" to go from "molecule-to-human brain" EVEN though Asimov states that what is NEEDED in that case is a "massive DECREASE" at the local level???
#2. IS this where you pretend that a MASSIVE DECREASE at the local level over time is exactly what happens when you add up all the Local INCREASES that Asimov claims we SEE in good science at the LOCAL level??
Just how far out on a limb are you willing to climb in the name of junk science??
(I am just curious in that last question - I really don't know to what lengths you will go.)
Err - ummm --- "hello!!" How about the "Human brain" ??? You know - the example that Asimov gave! Are you still following this point?
Please try reading the quote and then come back. IT is silly to pretend that you don't understand what Asimov said.
It just isn't that hard.
MASSIVE DECREASE needed at the local level TO GET a human brain.
BUT LOCAL INCREASE SEEn at the local level INSTEAD of the NEEDED decrease.
Hello!! Please pay attention to the problem ALREADY given.
Your constant attempts at revisionist history are "not compelling" as a style of argument since the history is RIGHT here. Get it???
Hint: Try another approach.
In Christ,
Bob
The Galatian
Active Member
(Bob asserts "entropy" rules out evolution)
(Paul and Barbarian call him on it)
Barbarian observes:
The point is, Bob can't name any such process, because there is no such process.
But I see you're still dodging the question. Name even one process required for evolution ruled out by "entropy" or the 2nd law.
You can't, because there isn't one.
Barbarian observes:
Indeed. The 2nd law ploy just fell apart. Unless you can actually show that it rules out something required for evolution. But you can't can you?
If you think the evolution of the brain is impossible, what process necessary for evolution is ruled out by the 2nd law. Show your math.
Nope. Barbarian frames the argument, "There is no process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics
http://dookaloosy.dyndns.org/wail_-_thoughts_on_a_book_-_Asimov1.htm
He was a science fiction writer, remember.
But if you have problems with the Earth having a massive decrease in entropy, remember, it is because entropy is locally decreasing while total entropy in the solar system is increasing. This is perfectly consistent with thermodynamics.
Learn about it.
It was hard for me. If you think it's easy, do this:
The Boltzmann formula for entropy is:
Boltzmann, as you might know, was the first to aasociate entropy with order/disorder.
Take any process you like and show how the entropy changes, using Boltzmann's equation.
I don't really expect you can do that. In fact, given your past statements, I know you can't do it. You misunderstood what Asimov said (he knew entropy did not rule out evolution) and thought you had found the magic bullet.
Never advocate a physical process as an answer for your problems, if you don't understand how it works.
We see brains originate and develop reguarly. Granted, it requires a massive decrease in entropy.
But that happens constantly, too.
(Paul and Barbarian call him on it)
Barbarian observes:
The point is, Bob can't name any such process, because there is no such process.
Massive decreases in entropy on a local level are very common. Would you like some examples?
But I see you're still dodging the question. Name even one process required for evolution ruled out by "entropy" or the 2nd law.
You can't, because there isn't one.
Does entropy massively increase when a child is conceived, is born and grows to adulthood? Yep.
Barbarian observes:
Indeed. The 2nd law ploy just fell apart. Unless you can actually show that it rules out something required for evolution. But you can't can you?
You think that the development of the human brain is impossible? We can watch it frequently.
If you think the evolution of the brain is impossible, what process necessary for evolution is ruled out by the 2nd law. Show your math.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Barbarian frames the argument, "There is no process required for evolution that is ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Here is what Asimov wrote about entropy:
http://dookaloosy.dyndns.org/wail_-_thoughts_on_a_book_-_Asimov1.htm
He was a science fiction writer, remember.
But if you have problems with the Earth having a massive decrease in entropy, remember, it is because entropy is locally decreasing while total entropy in the solar system is increasing. This is perfectly consistent with thermodynamics.
Learn about it.
You think it's not hard, because you don't know anything about it.
It was hard for me. If you think it's easy, do this:
The Boltzmann formula for entropy is:
Boltzmann, as you might know, was the first to aasociate entropy with order/disorder.
Take any process you like and show how the entropy changes, using Boltzmann's equation.
I don't really expect you can do that. In fact, given your past statements, I know you can't do it. You misunderstood what Asimov said (he knew entropy did not rule out evolution) and thought you had found the magic bullet.
Never advocate a physical process as an answer for your problems, if you don't understand how it works.
We see brains originate and develop reguarly. Granted, it requires a massive decrease in entropy.
But that happens constantly, too.
"Is this the part where the content of each of these references was "summarized in UTEOTW's own words"???
If so... I missed it."
Oh, Bob.
Let's see, you did manage to correctly quote the paragraph on homeobox genes. You also managed to cut out the paragraphs about serine proteases and hemoglobin. In three paragraphs, I demonstrated that I knew enough about gene families to write paragraphs about them and explained in these three paragraphs the logic behind my point. I listed the 13 other abstracts as an example of what could quickly be found on the same topic with a little bit of searching. It was to show that I was not forced to scrape up one or two hopeful examples for my argument (as YECers are often forced to do) but was just giving the details of three examples of many that demonstrated my point and to show that I was prepared to go through a long list if needed. It is interesting that the only objection you can raise is that I did not type enough of them out for you. Maybe I'll do that when I get up tomorrow afternoon to make you happy.
And yes, I often do complain about such things. I want those who post to write a few paragraphs in their own words to show that they know what they are talking about. It also keeps the words to a minimum. I really do not like posts that simply cut and paste from somewhere else nor do I appreciate simple links to someone else's words. Give me the succinct version, in your words to show me you understand and to put it in sipler and shorter terms, and then give a link to your source if you feel there is more there or if you have been quoting.
I think you will see that I generally, though not perfectly, follow this pattern. Look above at my posts. You will see very little straight copying from elsewhere. You will very rarely see me only post links to other's work to try and make a point. But you will see a lot of links to where people can go read for themselves what I am claiming others say. You will see a lot of citations from literature.
In this specific case, I wrote out three paragraphs to illustrate my point and then gave additional links to make it overwhelming. Apparently it worked since all you could do was complain about the links.
If so... I missed it."
Oh, Bob.
Let's see, you did manage to correctly quote the paragraph on homeobox genes. You also managed to cut out the paragraphs about serine proteases and hemoglobin. In three paragraphs, I demonstrated that I knew enough about gene families to write paragraphs about them and explained in these three paragraphs the logic behind my point. I listed the 13 other abstracts as an example of what could quickly be found on the same topic with a little bit of searching. It was to show that I was not forced to scrape up one or two hopeful examples for my argument (as YECers are often forced to do) but was just giving the details of three examples of many that demonstrated my point and to show that I was prepared to go through a long list if needed. It is interesting that the only objection you can raise is that I did not type enough of them out for you. Maybe I'll do that when I get up tomorrow afternoon to make you happy.
And yes, I often do complain about such things. I want those who post to write a few paragraphs in their own words to show that they know what they are talking about. It also keeps the words to a minimum. I really do not like posts that simply cut and paste from somewhere else nor do I appreciate simple links to someone else's words. Give me the succinct version, in your words to show me you understand and to put it in sipler and shorter terms, and then give a link to your source if you feel there is more there or if you have been quoting.
I think you will see that I generally, though not perfectly, follow this pattern. Look above at my posts. You will see very little straight copying from elsewhere. You will very rarely see me only post links to other's work to try and make a point. But you will see a lot of links to where people can go read for themselves what I am claiming others say. You will see a lot of citations from literature.
In this specific case, I wrote out three paragraphs to illustrate my point and then gave additional links to make it overwhelming. Apparently it worked since all you could do was complain about the links.
"The "actual problem" has been REPEATEDLY stated as the problem of evolutionism NEEDING a "massive DECREASE in entropy" in LOCAL systems (according to Asimov) to make its "Story" come true - but then the confession is added that good science SEES "local INCREASE" in entropy in those systems manifest as DISORDER and DECAY (According to Asimvo).
"Pretending" you don't see the problem - only makes your argument weaker.
Why is that so hard to understand? It would not take that much critical thinking and objectivity to admit to such an obvious challenge - and THEN who knows -- maybe you might solve it."
You can lead a horse to water...
Bob, how many times has this been explained to you?
No one here is claiming that there is not a decrease in entropy to get from basic chemicals to a fully grown human. Which since that seems to be the point you are making, we are all in agreement.
I do not think that anyone here, yourself included if we could get a straight answer from you, denies that thermodynamics allows for local decreases in entropy. And, as has been shown to you repeatedly, thermodynamics allows these local decreases to be both favorable and spontaneous.
All that we ask is that you apply some critical thinking. You say that evolving a human requires a decreases in entropy. We agree. Asimov agrees. Asimov does not think that entropy poses a problem for evolution, something you seem to forgetting in your zeal to quote over and over.
You claim that evolution cannot happen because of this "MASSIVE" decrease in entropy. So tell us why. Tell us what does not happen. Tell us what step that is needed cannot happen because that kind of local decrease is impossible. Show us your thinking skills. Pretend like we are three year olds and explain it in small words if you feel you have to get down on that level.
No one here knows what you are driving at. You claim entropy poses a problem but you seem unable to articulate what that problem is. I have asked recently for the other YECers to jump in and explain it to us. No one did so I guess they do not understand your assertion either.
It is beginning to look as if you have an assertion without a consequence. You dance around claiming that we pretend to not see it but we really do not. No one denies the basis for your claim. They deny your conclusion however.
And you have done nothing to help by continuing to dance around and avoid the pointed question.
And the longer you avoid the question, the more apparent it becomes to all that you do not have an actual objection. It seems to me that you know that you do not have a real objection. Else you would have put it forth now. It seems obvious that you know that if you were to answer the question, your objection would be easy to dismiss and you would lose your ability to grandstand.
Well, by not giving any consequences of your supposed problem, you undermine yourself.
Hint: This is not working. You are showing the world your ignorance of thermodynamics. Try another tactic. One that has a chance of being convincing.
Because a problem without a consequence is not a problem at all.
"Pretending" you don't see the problem - only makes your argument weaker.
Why is that so hard to understand? It would not take that much critical thinking and objectivity to admit to such an obvious challenge - and THEN who knows -- maybe you might solve it."
You can lead a horse to water...
Bob, how many times has this been explained to you?
No one here is claiming that there is not a decrease in entropy to get from basic chemicals to a fully grown human. Which since that seems to be the point you are making, we are all in agreement.
I do not think that anyone here, yourself included if we could get a straight answer from you, denies that thermodynamics allows for local decreases in entropy. And, as has been shown to you repeatedly, thermodynamics allows these local decreases to be both favorable and spontaneous.
All that we ask is that you apply some critical thinking. You say that evolving a human requires a decreases in entropy. We agree. Asimov agrees. Asimov does not think that entropy poses a problem for evolution, something you seem to forgetting in your zeal to quote over and over.
You claim that evolution cannot happen because of this "MASSIVE" decrease in entropy. So tell us why. Tell us what does not happen. Tell us what step that is needed cannot happen because that kind of local decrease is impossible. Show us your thinking skills. Pretend like we are three year olds and explain it in small words if you feel you have to get down on that level.
No one here knows what you are driving at. You claim entropy poses a problem but you seem unable to articulate what that problem is. I have asked recently for the other YECers to jump in and explain it to us. No one did so I guess they do not understand your assertion either.
It is beginning to look as if you have an assertion without a consequence. You dance around claiming that we pretend to not see it but we really do not. No one denies the basis for your claim. They deny your conclusion however.
And you have done nothing to help by continuing to dance around and avoid the pointed question.
And the longer you avoid the question, the more apparent it becomes to all that you do not have an actual objection. It seems to me that you know that you do not have a real objection. Else you would have put it forth now. It seems obvious that you know that if you were to answer the question, your objection would be easy to dismiss and you would lose your ability to grandstand.
Well, by not giving any consequences of your supposed problem, you undermine yourself.
Hint: This is not working. You are showing the world your ignorance of thermodynamics. Try another tactic. One that has a chance of being convincing.
Because a problem without a consequence is not a problem at all.
"UTEOTW you are making this too easy for me. Is this as a favor to me or are you saving your actual arguments for some other topics?"
Typical of you not to notice all the flat out lies from your side that I have posted so far. I am surprised that you call "easy" the pages of claims I have made to which you have responded to next to none.
"At the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference held in Eichstatt, the consensus was that Archaeopteryx was a "bird," but not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds (Dodson 1985, Howgate 1985a)."
Bob, if I need I can tomorrow provide you with other extant birds possess but that it shares with the theropod dinosaurs.
It is a bit disengenuous for you to merely call Archaeopteryx a "unique bird" in light of its known features. This "bird" was initally though to be merely a reptile. Some bird. Did not even have beak. Poor thing.
But you claim that the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference came to the conclusion that it was bird. Without looking it up, I would bet that the question at hand was not is this a bird or a transistional. It was is this a bird or a reptile. And since the method of categorizing life we use says that it must be a bird or it must be a reptile, they went with bird.
Now, this is my challenge to you. Show me that most of the members of the conference did not believe that it was a transitional. You present the quote in a manner that indicated that you are asserting that this conference decided that it was merely a bird and does not represent any sort of transitional. I think that is not true.
So why don't you support your assertion. Give us the abstracts of papers presented at the conference that claim archy was not a transitional. Give us the executive summery of the findings and point out to us where they said that this was a mere, unique bird that bears no relation to the reptiles.
I do not believe that you will or that you can substantiate your claims. As such, it becomes another example of YEC "junk" science. You will claim that the conference supports your position, but I bet digging would show just the opposite. Just like several of the undefended examples I have given on this thread of YECers willing to twist the truth to make a point. "Junk!"
"This is going to be fun each time you pretend not to get the point raised in opposition.
I would really much rather have you address the point than pretend not to know what it is."
I have addressed the point. In the past I have shown you the many traits shared with dinosaurs. I have also shared with you the many transitionals of this line that are both more reptile-like and more bird-like. But it does not seem to register with you. You just pretend that the evidence does not exist and re-assert the same things. It is good evidence of what YECers must ignore to support the "junk" notions of sceince.
This is going to be fun as all the examples of YEC "junk" I have been giving pile up without any of you guys being able to defend it. Some may even be able to see why that kind of deliberate dishonesty drove me from YEC.
Typical of you not to notice all the flat out lies from your side that I have posted so far. I am surprised that you call "easy" the pages of claims I have made to which you have responded to next to none.
"At the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference held in Eichstatt, the consensus was that Archaeopteryx was a "bird," but not necessarily the ancestor of modern birds (Dodson 1985, Howgate 1985a)."
Bob, if I need I can tomorrow provide you with other extant birds possess but that it shares with the theropod dinosaurs.
It is a bit disengenuous for you to merely call Archaeopteryx a "unique bird" in light of its known features. This "bird" was initally though to be merely a reptile. Some bird. Did not even have beak. Poor thing.
But you claim that the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference came to the conclusion that it was bird. Without looking it up, I would bet that the question at hand was not is this a bird or a transistional. It was is this a bird or a reptile. And since the method of categorizing life we use says that it must be a bird or it must be a reptile, they went with bird.
Now, this is my challenge to you. Show me that most of the members of the conference did not believe that it was a transitional. You present the quote in a manner that indicated that you are asserting that this conference decided that it was merely a bird and does not represent any sort of transitional. I think that is not true.
So why don't you support your assertion. Give us the abstracts of papers presented at the conference that claim archy was not a transitional. Give us the executive summery of the findings and point out to us where they said that this was a mere, unique bird that bears no relation to the reptiles.
I do not believe that you will or that you can substantiate your claims. As such, it becomes another example of YEC "junk" science. You will claim that the conference supports your position, but I bet digging would show just the opposite. Just like several of the undefended examples I have given on this thread of YECers willing to twist the truth to make a point. "Junk!"
"This is going to be fun each time you pretend not to get the point raised in opposition.
I would really much rather have you address the point than pretend not to know what it is."
I have addressed the point. In the past I have shown you the many traits shared with dinosaurs. I have also shared with you the many transitionals of this line that are both more reptile-like and more bird-like. But it does not seem to register with you. You just pretend that the evidence does not exist and re-assert the same things. It is good evidence of what YECers must ignore to support the "junk" notions of sceince.
This is going to be fun as all the examples of YEC "junk" I have been giving pile up without any of you guys being able to defend it. Some may even be able to see why that kind of deliberate dishonesty drove me from YEC.
Somehow I managed to garble the second sentence of my last post. I was trying to ask if I needed to post a couple more references that I have. Since I messed the sentence up badly, I'll just go ahead and post the references here.
Norell, M. A. and J. A. Clarke, 2001. Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature 409: 181-184.
Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Between these two references you will find over 100 traits that Archaeopteryx did not share with extant birds. This was more than a mere bird. It was a transitional.
Norell, M. A. and J. A. Clarke, 2001. Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution. Nature 409: 181-184.
Chiappe, L. M. and L. M. Witmer (eds.), Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Between these two references you will find over 100 traits that Archaeopteryx did not share with extant birds. This was more than a mere bird. It was a transitional.
More stuff from Baumgardner and the RATE group.
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactoct03.html
"In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses...Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years."
Now, remember what we learned earlier when the RATE group tried to C14 date a diamond. Same thing applies here except that you have to add the coal is much more porous than the diamond and has the additional possibility of contamination. And a trace amount of contamination is sufficient to give ages on the order of the 50,000 years they report. Background radiation will also convert some of the carbon in the coal to C14 on a continuous basis. This may be even more likely for coal than for a diamond because the coal ash itself can contain trace amounts of radiactive oxides. Plus, 50,000 years old is right at the detectable limit for C14 in a sample.
In other words, once again these guys used C14 in an inappropriate manner, got an age that merely indicates that the sample is at least 50,000 years old (possibly much older, it is impossible to tell), and yet will report this as a problem for C14 dating.
"Junk" seems as good a word as any.
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactoct03.html
"In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses...Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years."
Now, remember what we learned earlier when the RATE group tried to C14 date a diamond. Same thing applies here except that you have to add the coal is much more porous than the diamond and has the additional possibility of contamination. And a trace amount of contamination is sufficient to give ages on the order of the 50,000 years they report. Background radiation will also convert some of the carbon in the coal to C14 on a continuous basis. This may be even more likely for coal than for a diamond because the coal ash itself can contain trace amounts of radiactive oxides. Plus, 50,000 years old is right at the detectable limit for C14 in a sample.
In other words, once again these guys used C14 in an inappropriate manner, got an age that merely indicates that the sample is at least 50,000 years old (possibly much older, it is impossible to tell), and yet will report this as a problem for C14 dating.
"Junk" seems as good a word as any.
A_Christian
New Member
There are problems with radioactive dating. If there are problems with the various dating methods the end result is that NONE of them maybe trusted.
This is what Creationists seem to be demonstrating.
One cannot just assume the oldest dates because they fit the theories of evolutionists and atheists alike.
I believe there are 2 catagories of diamonds. Those formed at the moment of creation and those formed during and after the Flood. The same maybe said of every mineral that we presently find. I'm not forcing anyone to believe this. I am saying that this answers many logical questions.
This is what Creationists seem to be demonstrating.
One cannot just assume the oldest dates because they fit the theories of evolutionists and atheists alike.
I believe there are 2 catagories of diamonds. Those formed at the moment of creation and those formed during and after the Flood. The same maybe said of every mineral that we presently find. I'm not forcing anyone to believe this. I am saying that this answers many logical questions.
The Galatian
Active Member
There are problems with every scientific system of measurement known to man. That doesn't mean that you can't avoid the problems. For example, when doing C-14 testing of organic material from a site, you need to becareful to avoid contamination by leaching from groundwater, which could add carbon from newer sources. You can't use mollusk shells, because much of the carbon in the shell is from geological sources, not the atmosphere, and so on.
That's why it takes someone with considerable training and knowledge to do it. You'd want a very knowledgeable pathologist and technician working on your biopsy, too. There are far more problems with those. But they too, can be dealt with.
See my link on the Argon/argon testing of the Pompeii deposits. It works. Whenever the methods have been applicable to events recent enough to check, they have worked.
Remember, most of the scientists who accept this method are theists.
The difficulty is evidence. There isn't any, for that idea.
But it does so at the cost of ignoring the evidence. Not possible for science, which depends on evidence.
I think you miss the point.
There are assumptions to be made in dating and there are things that can go wrong. And if you want to discuss some of these things, I would be very glad to examine these issues with you.
But if you look at the things I have been posting, they are not examples of YECers actually demonstrating potential problems with dating. They are examples of them doing things to deliberately get a wrong date so that they can claim problems, misrepresenting the legitimate work of real scientists, or flat out lying.
I really hope that this distinction is not being lost. These guys who are in a leadership position within the YEC camp are being completely dishonest. And these are not fringe groups or out of date material. If you notice, for the most part I am sticking to the big names and the two big organizations, AIG and ICR. And I am providing links for most everything so that you can see that this is what they are saying today.
Here is another good one...
I will be quoting Walt Brown from this page.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths8.html
You can also see Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino") repeat the claims here.
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
"This probably explains why different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth had widely varying radiocarbon ages—29,500 and 44,000 RCY. One part of Dima was 40,000 RCY, another was 26,000 RCY, and “wood found immediately around the carcass” was 9,000 –10,000 RCY. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.147 The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 +/- 670 and 16,150 +/- 230 years, respectively."
Obviously C14 dating cannot work because different parts of the same animals are dating to widely different ages. Not so fast, my friend. Let's check the references.
The source cited for the first claim is
Troy L. Pewe: “Quaternary Stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska” Geological survey professional paper #862 US GOV printing office 1975, pg. 30.
Now, no where in this can anyone seem to find any mammoths at all dated to 29500 or 44000 years old, so it is unclear where these dates came from.
If you will go to the reference material for the Dima mammoth claim
Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993. Vegetation Cover and Environment of the "Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. Hot Springs, SD: Mammoth Site of Hot Springs of South Dakota.
you will find that there really was not two different ages found for the mammoth with a third for the surrounding plant material. In fact, the dates for the mammoth and for the surrounding deposits are all consistent.
And if you look at the first source, you will soon discove the problem with the claims on the Fairbanks Creek mammoth. The 15380 years old date was from a mammoth found under about 80 ft of silt in 1940 by Osborn. The 21300 year old date was a baby mammoth found in 1948 by Geist in a beaver dam. These are not the same animal nor were they even close.
It is more YEC "junk" of the lowest caliber to claim that two different mammoths found 8 years apart in completely different circumstances were the same animal. And then to try and use this as evidence against the validity of C14 dating...
I will be quoting Walt Brown from this page.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths8.html
You can also see Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino") repeat the claims here.
http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp
"This probably explains why different parts of the first Vollosovitch mammoth had widely varying radiocarbon ages—29,500 and 44,000 RCY. One part of Dima was 40,000 RCY, another was 26,000 RCY, and “wood found immediately around the carcass” was 9,000 –10,000 RCY. The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.147 The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 +/- 670 and 16,150 +/- 230 years, respectively."
Obviously C14 dating cannot work because different parts of the same animals are dating to widely different ages. Not so fast, my friend. Let's check the references.
The source cited for the first claim is
Troy L. Pewe: “Quaternary Stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska” Geological survey professional paper #862 US GOV printing office 1975, pg. 30.
Now, no where in this can anyone seem to find any mammoths at all dated to 29500 or 44000 years old, so it is unclear where these dates came from.
If you will go to the reference material for the Dima mammoth claim
Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993. Vegetation Cover and Environment of the "Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. Hot Springs, SD: Mammoth Site of Hot Springs of South Dakota.
you will find that there really was not two different ages found for the mammoth with a third for the surrounding plant material. In fact, the dates for the mammoth and for the surrounding deposits are all consistent.
And if you look at the first source, you will soon discove the problem with the claims on the Fairbanks Creek mammoth. The 15380 years old date was from a mammoth found under about 80 ft of silt in 1940 by Osborn. The 21300 year old date was a baby mammoth found in 1948 by Geist in a beaver dam. These are not the same animal nor were they even close.
It is more YEC "junk" of the lowest caliber to claim that two different mammoths found 8 years apart in completely different circumstances were the same animal. And then to try and use this as evidence against the validity of C14 dating...
Gup20
Active Member
Hold on there cowboy... before you get too excited, I didn't say that mutations couldn't lead to new homoglobin... but rather that there was no new information involved. I agree with your statement... once the original was created, it was quite possible for mutation to take place and different, less informative, more selective varieties could result. However, in constrast to evolution istead of something coming from nothing, creationists says that the GREATEST something was at creation and offshoots which are less than the original have developed as mutation and copy mistakes build up in a loss of information. Evolution goes from NOTHING to SOMETHING and then to a GREATER SOMETHING. Creation goes from the GREATER SOMETHING to a LESSER SOMETHING to a NOTHING - following the directional laws of physics, information theory, and entropy.
Oh I see... well I'll give you a chance to show us the creatures you have formed from nothing and breathed life into. Lets see how much better yor optimizations are than God's.
Also keep in mind you are examining a fallen world... not the perfection that was before death and sin entered the world.
They are going to have to give me an honorary biology degree if I have to keep researching each and every one of these cases for you.
Yet again, this is a loss of information.
Here is what you said: 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.
I have found the following:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic976.htm
http://www.wadsworth.org/newborn/hemotrait/
http://knowledge.emedicine.com/cgi-bin/kni.pl?va=hemolytic%20anemia&book=Medical
http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/hemolytic-anemia.htm
Basically, hemoglobin C is a form of red blood cell anemia. If a child has a parent with hemoglobin A and one with hemoglobin C the good hemoglobin A can mask the hemoglobin C. However, if both parents have hemoglobin C, their child could have hemoglobin C disease (different from sickle cell anemia) which is basically mild hemolytic anemia - premature destruction of erythrocytes (erythrocytes refers to red blood cells).
So yet again... as in ALL the other cases... it is 3 steps back for one step forward. The resistance to malaria is conferred via a loss of information.
Concept of entropy is that if we are at 100 now, we will always decrease unless an outside force causes an increase. If left to it's own, it can only decrease.
so 100 turns to 99 etc etc etc until it gets to zero, or until something comes along and boosts it back up externally. This is the concept of open system, closed system.
In biological systems, we can see this happening. If a population becomes isolated, and the sum total of all information in that population is 65, then no individual in the population can exceed 65 unless an outside force (an animal from outside the population, for example) interjects it's DNA. Therefore, by the laws of entropy, the population will eventually run down to zero unless outside intervention happens. We see this all the time when animals go extinct. Their population information runs down to zero. Entropy.
Tell me... which happens at a greater rate on the earth - extinctions or new species? It is estimated that 50,000 species go extinct per year.
And I have shown you how these did not increase information, but they were a loss of information, such as the hemoglobin c.