Impossible evolutionary steps?

You can talk to them if you want. They are easy enough to find.

Teilhard de Chardin, the alleged culprit of the Piltdown fraud, died in 1955. Haeckel was convicted of fraud in 1874 and died in 1919. I haven't spoken to either of them.

Mike

 

Yes, you said you were shocked and horrified at the behaviour of creationists, and it became your primary reason for campaigning for evolution. So you have been offended by them.

Mike

 

This is a red herring. I strongly suspect that you may actually have found the actions a bit questionable since you seem to be working so hard to distract from what I have claimed.

The reality is that the verse does not apply in this situation. I am greatly offended by what they have done but they did not do it to me specifically. According to your tortured interpretation, we would not be able to speak out on the undesirable actions of public officials unless we have managed to have a personal communication with them on the manner first. I would not be able to criticze my president without first speaking with him AND then getting some others to go with me to speak to him.

These guys have carried out their actions in public. There are many objections to what they have to say publically available. If we as Christians can not speak out against harmful public actions of those who claim to be Christian leaders then what means to we have to deal with such highly visible individuals?

So I will return to asking if you find the actions justified by asking you questions of the first example.

You said you found my examples "unconvincing." So let's take the first one.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/23.html#000343

A couple of guys wanted to show that when selecting rocks for K-Ar dating that is is important to select rocks that have been completely melted to rid the rock of the argon. So they selected samples from a recent volcano. SOme samples they could tell had been completely melted. So they could tell had not. They had them dated. The ones that were completely melted came back with the expected age of zreo. The ones that had not came back with the expected non-zero age.

Morris cited their work. He only mentioned the samples that were not completely melted and pointed out that they dated as old. He did not mention the other samples nor did he mention that the samples were purposely selected because they would date incorrectly. He only used it as an example that dating does not work.

First question. Do you think that he made the right conclusion based on the evidence?

Second question. If he made the right conclusion, why should he have not told the full context of the experiment? If he made the wrong conclusion, does it seem that he should have known what the guys were doing since he cited their paper?

Third question. If he made the wrong conclusion, do you think there is at least reason to think he may have been misleading on purpose or do you think it was an honest mistake?

 

"Teilhard de Chardin, the alleged culprit of the Piltdown fraud, died in 1955. Haeckel was convicted of fraud in 1874 and died in 1919. I haven't spoken to either of them."

Nice of you to admit that there are not any living people that you can accuse of using these examples to support evolution. These have been regulated to the past unlike the examples of current YE fraud I listed for you.

 

I am not being unreasonable, asking you to talk to these guys. I don't know what sort of standards you have in America, but here in Britain we have to observe some protocols if we are going to go around calling people liars. This applies not just among Christians but also in secular life.

In the House of Commons, they have heated debates about all sorts of issues, and they often say unpleasant things to each other, but they are not allowed to call each other liars, because it's an attack on the person's integrity. If someone calls someone else a liar, the Speaker (an antiquated name that means "Chairman") will ask the person to withdraw his remarks and apologise, otherwise he will be sent out of the house. If someone believes that another member is lying, he has to follow a procedure. I think it means approaching the person privately, then complaining to the Speaker.

Now, I realise you are not here in Britain, and you might have different standards over there in America, but you should at least observe the Christian standard set out in Matt. 18:15-17. I don't think I am asking too much.

If I wanted to investigate this, I would start by approaching the people personally. There have been occasions when I have felt it was necessary to approach some of the big names in Creationism, and they have usually responded promptly when they realise it's something that affects their personal integrity.

Mike

 

If I wanted to sling mud, I could find plenty of it, but I've got better things to do with my time.

Mike

 

This again allows us to draw an interesting contrast.

YEers are generally more than willing to throw out what they see as fraud by people in science. They will toss out Piltdown and Nebraska man and Haeckel's drawings and whatever else they can find quite willingly. Never mind that these are not things which anyone today uses to support evolution. For that matter, not that many of their examples ever had wide support even before being exposed as frauds. Valuable time is spent showing that these things are not used today and that most were never widely used. But this does not prevent them from being returned to service once the refutation gets a little stale.

They are willing to even call legitimate finds as fraud. See Java man and Lucy for examples.

YEers are more than willing to libel those with whom they disagree and to make wild accusations without cause. Look through the recent threads for examples. They will say that those who do not deny evolution must be in need of counselling. They will say that the only people who would come to such a forum as this in opposition to YEism must be those who have a finacial stake. They will accuse scientists of only towing the party line because it is the only way to grants and jobs. They will make accusations that scientists are in a grand conspiracy that not even they actually believe to promote old earth sciences. They will deem a motive of a distinct desire to destroy Christianity of those who do not deny evolution. They will publically doubt the salvation of those who disagree with them on this matter of interpretation. Not that they can support any of this.

Yet if you document misrepresentations by prominent YE leaders that are in current use... If you link to their own words to make sure there is no misunderstanding and then show where they are wrong...If you point out where they have cited specific works that directly contradict their claims...

Well then you are slinging mud and need to discuss it privately.

Or, maybe, it really is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that it is not hard to demonstrate that those in leadership positions in YE circles wil often resort to dishonest tactics to advance their position. This is certainly not true of all, but the case for some is quite obvious.

 

Never mind about what you think somebody else is doing. You need to sort out what you are doing.

I'm not aware of anyone who has actually said that.

Mike

 

"I'm not aware of anyone who has actually said that."

Hmmm, I seem to remember you saying something very similar a few days ago...Let's see...It might nt be exact...

Let's see, you propose that couselling might be in order for those in a "state of denial." You make the accusation that some may not really believe what they say. We can even go to where you started a whole thread just to discuss whether those who accept evolution can really be saved. You did not seem to think so. (Of course to me, the OP seemed more like an attempt to hawk some books but I cannot truely determine motive in such a case.)

So in short you do seem to be willing to sling mud. But don't let someone point out the blatent mistakes of your icons. That is uncalled for! We don't need to confuse the issue with facts! It is much better to use innuendo to slander your opponents and then to cry foul when real faults are pointed out in your own camp.

 

In the time that you have spent making all these personal accusations, and then trying to wriggle out of Matt. 18:15-17, you could have written to all these people and asked them to explain themselves. You never know, they might have perfectly reasonable explanations for whatever they have claimed. But that's exactly what you don't want, and that's why you won't write to them.

Mike

 

There is nothing to wiggle out of. It does not apply to this situation.

In all the time you have spent trying to detract from what I posted, you could have examined in detail the first example as I haveasked you to do and commented on the follow up questions I asked of you regarding the situation.

Furthermore, plenty of people have already tried responding directly to the people involved. If you follow the link below, you will read about attempts to respond directly to the individuals regarding some the of the very issues I raised. This has not resulted in any false material being removed from any of the publications or websites involved. The only road left to take now is to expose the fraudulent activities in public.

Scroll to the bottom to see actual letters and responses.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati_radio_isotopes_watts.htm

 

I couldn't find anything in these letters that directly accuses them of telling lies. Just to be sure, I searched on "lie", "lying", "deceit" and other related words and couldn't find anything, but I found the word "duplicity" in the conclusions at the end, which are not part of the correspondence.

You still have to write your letters, because as far as I can see, nobody has written to them directly, accusing them of telling lies.

As for the argument itself, I'm not a geologist so I might not understand all of it, but there seems to be a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a measurement of time. If you take a sample to a lab, expecting to get a result, and you get the result you expect, it might appear to vindicate the method, but actually it doesn't because you are still measuring chemicals and not time. It's not the same as a clock where you measure time directly.

It can be argued that all sorts of physical processes can represent time, for example a candle burning down, but in this case you can see the entire process from beginning to end. But if you had a very long candle that measured millions of years, and you never observed the candle being lit, how could you be sure of what you were measuring?

Basically it's a philosophical argument, and I think that AiG have terminated the correspondence because they know it could go on for ever. But if you think they are lying you should write and tell them.

Mike

 

Read again. You exactly used charged words like that in direct correspondance and expect a reply. If you will read the whole thing, you will see that the author worte directly alledging the same mistakes that I alledge. They have not been removed.

I would also encourance to to read the whole thing in order to find out just how much experimentation has been done by scientists to establish the methods used in dating. I think the average YEers would be surprised to see how much care has been taken in testing the possibility of errors and how precise the procedures for testing are as a result of such testing.

The short answer is that others have previously tried the letter writing tactic. THis is but one example. The errors are not removed in response to such actions. So, when asked, I for one will expose such mistakes. Better to have them exposed publically like this and not have others innocently pass on false information. Which, BTW, is another of my motivations. I do not really expect to change many minds but if through my actions we can remove the most egregious of the YE claims, then the potential damage of such claims will be lessened.

I see that you have no interest in even knowing if the claims have merit or not. You claim to have found them unconvincing yet you have no interst in looking closer at any of them.

"As for the argument itself, I'm not a geologist so I might not understand all of it, but there seems to be a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a measurement of time. If you take a sample to a lab, expecting to get a result, and you get the result you expect, it might appear to vindicate the method, but actually it doesn't because you are still measuring chemicals and not time. It's not the same as a clock where you measure time directly."

Yawn.

"It can be argued that all sorts of physical processes can represent time, for example a candle burning down, but in this case you can see the entire process from beginning to end. But if you had a very long candle that measured millions of years, and you never observed the candle being lit, how could you be sure of what you were measuring?"

Not only is it a bad analogy but it is unwise to start asserting that you cannot deduce anything if you did not personally witness the entire event.

 

Try searching for "misrepresenting reality".

It is plain that for some all evidence, no matter how convincing, will be denied. This raises profound questions, because it is evident that evidence means nothing, and yet for some reason, presumably without evidence, they have come to the conclusion that they can trust their literal interpretive methods of the Bible to give them absolute truth.

I leave it to the readers to decide whether such an approach can possibly be considered reasonable.

 

Speaking of misrepresenting the evidence ... It isn't the "evidence" that is in dispute. It is the explanation of the evidence.

You cannot arbitrarily equate evolution to the "evidence".

 

I think that the candle example is a very good analogy of the radio carbon or isotope dating. We can look at a candle and measure the rate at which it burns. That can be turned around and you can guess how long it has been burning. You must however, make two assumptions. The first is that you know the original length of the candle. The second is that conditions have remained uniform during the burn time. Fluctuations in wind and the oxygen content of the room could result in a false estimate.

All of this is the same as isotope dating. It is reliable, if we know the conditions of the original sample, and if conditions remained consistent during the time frame measured. Of course I would argue that neither of those conditions can be proven and that is why your dating is inaccurate.

 

This is an attempt at misdirection. This phrase does not appear in any of the letters to AiG. Instead it's in a letter to a guy called "Rob" who was making some enquiries about them.

Mike

 

A e-letter I take had a link to this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/26/wspecies26.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/26/ixworld.html

Very interesting. It seems that one of the world's foremost experts on human fossils says that all hominim fossils belong to the same species.

Further, he confirms that only about 200 "specimens" are in existence... which would fit into that small box I mentioned awhile back.

Notably, he asserts that evolution is still observed within this single species. I find that interesting. Fossils from the same species found in different areas around the world that happen to be different sizes must indicate evolution.

I suppose if pygmies or east asians had ceased some time in the past they would have to be ancestors of modern man as well?

BTW, icr, AiG, and such groups have promoted the idea for some time now that all of the supposed transitional hominims were either humans, apes, or hoaxes. They were of course scoffed at... Now a leading evolution proponent is saying basically the same thing at least with regard to the human fossils.

 

A close read of the article reveals that this actually supports evolution. The professor says

"All hominims appear to be a single gradually evolving lineage containing only one species at each point in time."

from the article linked above

So, as you say he still accepts the origin as evolution. In addition the clarification afforded by this quote later in the article shows that in his opinion all of the fossils line up into a single lineage with only "one species [of human] at each point in time."

The most you could take from this is that human evolution may have leaned more towards orthogenetic processes than cladogenetic which would be surprising.

I am also curious about your definition of a small box. That would seem to me to be a fair sized box to hold at least 200 specimens.

 

"I think that the candle example is a very good analogy of the radio carbon or isotope dating. We can look at a candle and measure the rate at which it burns. That can be turned around and you can guess how long it has been burning. You must however, make two assumptions. The first is that you know the original length of the candle. The second is that conditions have remained uniform during the burn time. Fluctuations in wind and the oxygen content of the room could result in a false estimate.

All of this is the same as isotope dating. It is reliable, if we know the conditions of the original sample, and if conditions remained consistent during the time frame measured. Of course I would argue that neither of those conditions can be proven and that is why your dating is inaccurate. "

I disagree with the analogy.

First off, there is no reason to believe that the isotopes have ever decayed at a different rate than today. In fact, there is good reason to say that the rates have always been the same.

From theoretical considerations, I think that the decay of unstable isotopes is a well understood phenomenon that can be predicted from first principles. For the decay rate to have been different, physics would have been necessarily different in the past.

Second, we can check. I'll mention two ways. One will be the existance of a number of natural nuclear reactors that have been found. Analysis of the natural reactors shows that they behaved in the past just as a system today would behave. The second method is to look into deep space. Light has a finite speed so looking into space is looking back into time. And as far back as we look, decays take place at the same rate. Supernova are a very good way to demonstrate this.

No for the second accusation. It would be helpful if you could tell us just what kinds of things you think would affect the inside of a solid rock in such a way that the date would be changed. Without leaving a trace!

Another false assertion that is often thrown out is that you must know the initial conditions. Not true. A very popular method is the isochron method. It takes the ratios of several different things. When these various ratios are plotted, the slope of the line gives the age ad the intercept gives the initial concentration of the daughter elements. If any of the things that you speculate may have altered the rock during this time have happened, without the geologist noticing, then the plot will not give a straight line.

I doubt anyone who does not already agree can be bothered to read it, but there was a nice section in the middle of the above link that you should read. I'll reproduce the important part here for you.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati_radio_isotopes_watts.htm