Is all TRUTH scientifically knowable?

"The mechanisms are observed but the mechanisms resulting in macroevolution is not observed. While I know it evolutionists think the arbitrary blending of microevolution and other observed processes with macroevolution makes for good argument- it isn't."

Macroevolution is nothing more than a series of microevolutionary steps. Let's look at that mammal list I mentioned earlier.

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence. Nothing but a string of microevolutionary steps.

 

"You haven't presented a barrier that prevents these micro mechanisms from resulting in speciation under the framework I proposed.... and you objected vigorously to my proposing it without giving positive proof."

I showed how your proposal is incompatible with observations. In the case of a highly varied original population, you lose all of that variability at the flood. There would be no variablity for speciation after the flood. In addittion, todays animals would be limited to no more than four functional versions of a given allele. THis is notwhat we see.

In the case of genetically rich individuals, you would expect to see that the difference between species from one "kind" would be in which genes are activated since the variability would come from the original having many different genes for closely related functions. Instead we see that the differences are in the individual genes themselves and we do not see the large numbers of closely related genes present as pseudogenes.

"If we were actually discussing common descent then we wouldn't be disagreeing on principle. But you aren't actually proposing common "descent". You are proposing common "ascent".

I am the one arguing common "descent". The idea that all of our genetic traits were inherited. "

You are equivicating defintions. That is a fallacy.

Common descent says that a species has descendants that both come from the common ancestor but that are separate species. There is no concept of higher or lower.

"There are no "known" transitional series. As I stated elsewhere, much of the shape of these extinct animals often comes from the imagination of artists rather than real fossils."

There are many known transisitonal fossils. You are free to try and find factual grounds as to whether they are truely transitional. One constraint you may wish to observe is the paper I referenced you recently that shows that the order that fossils are found in the ground matches closely the proposed order from cladistic analysis. This eliminates the possible assertion that these are merely separately created kinds. They must be descendants. We can differ on mechanism, however.

"Further, they are positioned into the evolutionary model on the assumption that they should. The theory is the producer of the evidence... not the fossil record itself."

Evolution explains the evidence.

Repeatedly the tree from morphology agrees with the tree from stratography which agrees with the tree from genetics. Only evolution explains this agreement.

"Right back at you. My explanation can incorporate basically everything you argue as proof for macroevolution... but just poses a different conclusion about the starting point of life."

Fine, then explain to us why your proposal would expect to see all those things listed above.

Each one individually would be best.

"There is just as much evidence for a "rich genome" as there is for the notion that genetically complex animals evolved from genetically more simple animals."

I gave you a long list above of general types of evidence for my assertion. I can get specific if needed. I know you will object.

Can you give any specific evidence for your assertion? Something about what we observe about life that is best explained by you ideas?

"The explanations available under the Darwinian model are inadequate to explain the sudden explosion of such tremendous diversity."

Been reading Wells?

The "explosion" took place over tens of millions of years and was preceeded by an long period of diversity which is poorly preserved due to soft bodied animals that preserved poorly. We are increasingly finding more and more diverse life forms from before the explosion. It may not have been must of an explosion at all, but a transformation to more hard parts as chemistry of the earth and predation combined as selective forces.

"The fossil record suggests that this explosion tapered off does it not? The descendents became genetically fixed in ways the ancestors were not."

Not so much. All land plants developed after this point. All land animals developed after this point. I don't really see reptiles and amphibians and dinosaurs and mammals as too much of a tapering off. Many new body plans were developed during this time that have stood the test of time, however.

But I don'tthink the evolution of all life on land after the explosion suggests that they were genetically fixed.

BTW, does this mean you are willing to accept the Cambrian explosian as a real occurance?

 

"Take the simplest life form known. Create any environment you think is favorable to the creation of life. Pierce the outer wall and pour the contents into the environment. Would you ever expect the organism to reconstitute itself?

This scenario is actually much more favorable to evolution than what they propose- that non-organic chemicals spontaneously combined to create the first life. Here we have given fully developed DNA, RNA, and the necessary systems if you want to include them.

According evolution, wouldn't it make sense that simply putting DNA and RNA in the right creation environment should result in life? "

Are you saying that even the processes of life need constant supernatural attention? Are you saying that life does not simply operate on chemical principles?

 

Let me just give an illustration of what I can see will give us a glimpse of the actual odds of evolution assuming everything is "naturalistic" with no supernatural intervention.

Let me use an example that I have done (one that can be discussed openly because there ain't no secrets here).

This box is part of the brain of a simple Tomahawk Cruise missile. It takes inputs from its sensors, makes decisions and steers the missile to its programmed designation.

The box contains probably 3,000 components including screws, nuts, bolts, gaskets, stand-offs, circuit boards, resistors, Integrated Circuits, Microprocessors, field effect transistors, etc.

Every piece has to be soldered into its perfect place in order to make this box work.

Let us assume that we are just going to take one step of the process and that is take one circuit board containing about 300 components and place those components on the board in the right order. Let us assume the board is prepared with the solder paste and everything is ready except laying the parts on the board.

I take a box with the components and I dump it on the board where the parts fall randomly and stick to the solder paste. Is the board then ready to run through the solder oven?

How many times would I have to dump the parts on the board before they all fell in exactly the right location, order, direction and alignment?

Now, you will say, this isn't the same as organic compounds forming certain molecular structures to start life.

Why not?

A cell is completely FULL of advanced mechanisms. So full, in fact, that just one of my biology books called "The Cell" is huge. This book describes the function of each part of a single cell. Is it not possible to see the complexity that is in just one single cell and realize that the odds of the molecules coming together just right to bring forth life and then to start replicating is incredably high to say the least? That if nothing else, this part would require supernatural intervention just to get to the first level, a single cell?

Here is the problem with the thread itself and Scott you will see where I'm coming from immediately.

We agree that supernatural creation takes place, so therefore we admit that certain things cannot be detected or observed by science.

On the other hand, the naturalist believes that if it cannot be seen, it cannot be true.

 

I can say one thing for sure regarding your questions. Neither one of us can provide necessary proof to answer them either way.

I think it IS interesting that once an organism has died that there has not been a single incident where it was reverted from "totally dead" to living. This seems like it would even be EASIER than any of the above mentioned scenerios because all of the components and molecules are already right there. If our scientists truly know so much about cells today, why can they just not fix the component that failed and have life return?

 

The problem is that the modern cell was not the original life. Even the most simple bacterium has had somewhere around 4 billion years to evolve. It could have been exceedingly simple, perhaps no more than a self-replicating single chemical. We can make such things in the lab from simple components and common catalysts.

 

I am not a chemist, so you have the home-court advantage here. Can you provide some examples of these self-replicating chemicals that we can produce in a lab and possibly provide some links to some papers?

Not theoretical, this could have happened, but real self-replication in a lab environment.

 

This is precisely my point. You cannot extrapolate. Radiometric dating depends on an uniformitarian assumption that the uptake of radioactive material has been constant with time. We are NOT talking about decay rate, a physical principle, here. There is no way to account for uncontrolled variables such as leaching and amount of original radioactive material available.

Furthermore, does the last part of your statement rule out the miraculous or supernatural phenomena?

 

"Radiometric dating depends on an uniformitarian assumption that the uptake of radioactive material has been constant with time."

That is only true for carbon dating. And for carbon dating we can check. For example, go to this page.

http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/v40n3/editorial.html

Near the bottom you will see a chart where carbon dating has been compared to tree rings of known age back to nearly 14000 years ago. As you can see, the differences are very small. The same kind of check can be done with trees from other parts of the world. It can be done with ice cores from different areas. It can be done with varves laid down in lakes. It can be done with corals. It can be done by comparing the dates of things that can be dated both by carbon and by uranium decay. And there are more checks beyond these!

So it is a good assumption that has been verified by testing and no longer even has to be assumed.

"There is no way to account for uncontrolled variables such as leaching and amount of original radioactive material available."

Only certain methods require you know the amount of starting material. Many do not require such knowledge. Those that do have been checked out by other methods and found to agree.

Leaching is hard to do from the inside of solid, non-porous rock. It is even harded to do in such a way that a trained geologists could not spot it.

But, before you worry too much, there are ways to check even if you miss the leaching or other forms of contamination. One way is by isochron dating. Basically you measure the ratios of several different isotopes and plot them on a graph. The slope of the line tells you the age. If the has been leaching or contamination, then you will not get a line and therefore will not measure an age. The method has a built in check.

"Furthermore, does the last part of your statement rule out the miraculous or supernatural phenomena?"

Of course not.

 

"I am not a chemist, so you have the home-court advantage here. Can you provide some examples of these self-replicating chemicals that we can produce in a lab and possibly provide some links to some papers?

Not theoretical, this could have happened, but real self-replication in a lab environment. "

I'll try. It may be best to do this as a splotchy history.

Let's start with the ribozyme. For a long time, the only known enzymes were proteins. Then a curious discovery was made. Some organisms use RNA strands as enzymes. (Enzymes being molecules that act as catalyst.) These came to be known as ribozymes. In 1990, Tom Cech and Sidney Altman shared the Nobel Prize for this.

Now, let's go back in history. Spiegelman, back in the 1960s, performed a related experiment. He placed some viral RNA in a testtube with some replicase and free nucleotides. They started replicating away, but mutations cut the strands down in size. Eventually the string was reduced to a fairly short bit that could replicate itself, which it did at an astounding rate. But this is not quite what you asked for, so let's move on.

Then in the 1970s, Manfred Eigen showed that mixtures of nucleotides and replicase would form chains of RNA some of which would replicate themselves. In the process, there would be mutations that led to RNA strands that were even better at replicating themselves.

It has been shown that the chances of making an RNA strand that can self replicate is fairly high. ( Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE. (1996 May 2). Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces Nature, 381, 59-61. )

Now there are many research projects where self-replicating RNA strands (and molecules similar to RNA called polymerases) are being studied. Here is one research group.

http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/bartel.shtml

There are all sorts of interesting things in this area. Some RNA self replicates. Some catalyzes other reactions. Some can be made to do certain tasks. Some have been observed making complementary strands and starting to curl into a double helix. It is quite an exiting field.

 

Now, for a change of pace, let's start with some observations that have been made and ask for the young earth explanation. Bear with me, the first one is long. There is a theory called the "Snowball Earth" that I think leads to some serious problems for the young earther. Let's take a look, shall we.

For decades, it has been recognized that there was evidence of worldwide glaciation in the Neoproterozoic era (ending about 543 million years ago). Glacial deposits have been found nearly worldwide from this time. One difficulty in making the leap to global glaciation was that it needed to be ruled out that the deposits could have been formed when the landmass was far from its current location and that the glacial deposits could be local and due to the land being at high latitude at the time.

What was needed were deposits that had convincing data that they were formed at tropical latitudes. In the 1960's, Harland found glacial deposits that showed indication of being formed in the tropics due to the association of the deposits with certain sedimentary strata normally formed at low latitudes. This was a start.

"The Great Infra-Cambrian Glaciation," Harland and Rudwick, Scientific American, Vol. 211, No.2, pages 28-36, Feb. 1964.

Later, Kirschvink found deposits that were even more convincing. The first step was to test the rocks with a method called natural remnant magnetization (NRM). With NRM, you measure the remnant magnetic field through the deposits in question. If they formed near the poles, the magnetic field lines will tend to run up and down. The lines will become oriented more and more horizontally the closer you get to the equator. You must also make many many measurments of different rocks. What he found was that the sedimentary deposits from the glaciers were formed in the tropics. The other crucial step was to establish that they were formed at sea level. This is important since even today, some glaciers exists at high altitude at low latitude. The deposits were associated with deposits that were tidal in nature and therefore had formed near sea level.

"Late Proterozoic Low-Latitude Global Glaciation: The Snowball Earth," Kirschvink, The Proterozoic Biosphere, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pages 51-52, 1992.

To look at the other evidence for the Snowball Earth, we need to consider what the effects of a global covering in ice would be.

With most of the surface water of the earth covered in ice, gas exchange between the ocean and the atmosphere would cease. The ocean would largely become anoxic, that is very low in oxygen. This in turn would change the solubility or iron in the water. Oxidized iron is rather insoluble while reduced iron is more soluble in water. The anoxic water would allow for a buildup of iron in the oceans. When the ice was removed, the sudden influx of oxygen into the oceans would cause the iron to rapidly fall out of solution. And indeed we find that banded iron formations (BIF) from the Neoproterozoic era are associated with the glacial deposits.

With the continents covered in ice, the normal mechanisms for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would stop. Typically, small amounts of CO2 are dissolved in rainwater. This reacts with the rocks of the continents and geologically locks up the CO2. With the rocks covered in ice, the CO2 from geological sources would continue to pour into the atmosphere and build up.

During the Snowball Earth, this CO2 built up in the atmosphere until the global warming effect was great enough to melt the ice and send the earth into the hothouse. The level of CO2 calculated to be needed to end the global glaciation is about 12% of the atmosphere. Once this was achieved, rapid warming would melt the ice and cause a rapid warmup in the earth's temperature, much warmer than today even. Estimates of sea surface temperatures are about 120 F. All this atmospheric CO2 would also be rapidly removed from the atmosphere and rapidly deposited over much of the world.

And we see just this in the rocks. These worldwide glacial deposits are covered in thick cap dolostones as would be expected if large amounts of CO2 were nbeing removed. These dolostones also preserve another record of the expected warming. The warm waters would drive extreme weather. High levels of rainfall and glacial melt combines with the fractured and groung rocks from the glaciers would lead to rapid erosion of the land. The higher levels of the cap dolostones are mixed with clays. The dolostones also preserve features such as crystal fans and gas escape tubes that indicate formation by precipitation from water saturated with carbonates.

There is an even more curious feature of the layers. The CO2 outagssed from volcanoes contains about 1% C13 and the remainder C12. However, plants fix C12 at a higher rate than C13. By looking at the ratio of C12 to C13 in deposits, it is possible to tell how much of the carbon was removed through organic processes and how much through non-organic processes. The ratios just below the glacial deposits show ratios that indicate that about half of the carbon deposited was from organic sources. (Today that number is about 25%.) But in the glacial deposits and the cap dolostones, the ratio changes to essentially that of the volcanic gasses showing that the carbon being removed was almost all through non-organic processes. The ratios then return to normal. This is to be expected. With the earth covered in ice, biological activity would decrease tremendously. Once the ice started to melt, even though biology would be expected to take off in the warm waters, the rapid geological processes would have swamped any biological effects.

One of the strongest oppositions to the theory came from biology. Just how could life that required photosynthesis have survived the Snowball. Recently life has been found under thick layers of ice in the antarctic that gives clues about how life could have survived. Ice in such regions has also been shown to transmit enough light for photosynthesis to much deeper layers that previously thought. Combine this with local oases such as undersea vents, hot springs, and areas of open water and life manages to survive the snowball.

"A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth," Hoffman, Kaufman, Halverson, Schrag, Science, Vol. 281, pages 1342-1346, August 28, 1998.

The Snowball Earth theory seems to be the only one that can explain the tropical glacial deposits, the cap dolostones, the paradox having these two close by implies (extreme cold followed by extreme warmth), the associated BIF, and the excursions of the carbon isotopes through this period.

The obvious answer for YEers is to invoke the flood. But this has several problems. How does a flood result in glacial deposits? How does a flood result in such thich caps of carbonates? (Where did all the CO2 come from?) How do you make the ocean anoxic in order to dissolve all that iron with the oceans and atmosphere in continuous contact and exchange? If the oceans were anoxic, how did the fish survive? How are the carbon isotope anomolies explained?

Provided that reasonable solutions can be reached for all of those, there remain two more. First is that there are at least four such events recorded worldwide. How do you work all of these into one event? Second, life on the surface could not survive 12% of the atmosphere as CO2. Respiration would be impossible. Your lungs would be unable to discharge waste gas from your lungs. Just not enough driving force to get the gasses out of the blood by overcoming the partial pressure.

 

No, I don’t see this as conclusive. I haven’t had the time to read all the research and supporting papers but I doubt the results beyond about 4,000 years with real dendrochronological data. The rest is speculative and questionable even among evolutionists.

No, you overstate your case. You must assume it to prove it. Not conclusive.

Many times we are dealing with circular reasoning and the other methods are just as suspect.

You’re building a straw man. I didn’t specify from inside non-porous rock. You’re making an unwarranted assumption—not very scientific.

How do you know the ratio of the original material? Again, you are assuming a kind of uniformitarianism even though you say that you are not.

 

So, what does self-replication mean? Are you saying that we are close to creating life? Nonsense! Any competent biochemist knows better.

 

No problem. This is highly speculative theory that has not won the the allegiance of most evolutionists. And evolutionists will believe anything. I would relegate it to the trash heap with other such evolutionary theories as Haeckel's phylogenetic recapulation theory. Then there's Lovelock's Gia Hypothesis. Do you believe the Gia Hypothesis too?

 

"No, I don’t see this as conclusive. I haven’t had the time to read all the research and supporting papers but I doubt the results beyond about 4,000 years with real dendrochronological data. The rest is speculative and questionable even among evolutionists."

This is not biology so this has nothing to do with "evolutionists." Please keep you branches of science separate. (BTW, just what is an "evolutionist" anyhow? Is this just what you call biologists or do you lump all scienctists by this term?)

Next, please provide support that carbon dating calibration techniques are considered suspect in mainstream science as you so boldly assert. I believe this to be a false assertion.

Next, if you have not read the supporting data, then on what basis are you criticizing the methods?

Let's summarize for you how this is done. Let's say you have a tree that lived 5000 years ago until the present. You have another tree that lived 8000 years ago until 3000 years ago. Another that lived 10000 years ago until 5000 years ago. Another that lived 13000 years ago until 8000 years ago.

Now you start counting back the rings on the first tree. When you get to the next tree, all you know at first is that since you found it dead, it lived before the first. So you start matching up rings from that the two trees. Well you find that the oldest 2000 rings of your first tree match exactly with the youngest 2000 from the second tree. So that tells you where to start countin it. You continue this process, matching rings from different trees by their overlap. Then you date the layers. You find that the dating of the rings matches the raw carbon 14 dates to a high degree of accuracy.

Now you can count lake varves. Date the layers and you find the same result.

Not you date ice core samples. Date the layers and you get the same results. Ice cores are nice in that there will be layers in there that correspond to events elsewhere in the world that can add a thrid check on your date. An example would be dust from known volcanic events.

Now you date corals and get the same results.

Now you date with both carbon and uranium and get the same result.

Now, where is the problem?

"No, you overstate your case. You must assume it to prove it. Not conclusive."

Your assertion that calibration does not work. Make a case if you can. All I see is unsubstantiated speculation.

"Many times we are dealing with circular reasoning and the other methods are just as suspect."

Unsubstantiated assertion. Show specific assumptions that are circular and specific assumptions that are not good. And why.

"You’re building a straw man. I didn’t specify from inside non-porous rock. "

What do you think is dated by most methods? If you have an actual problem to assert, please do so.

"How do you know the ratio of the original material? Again, you are assuming a kind of uniformitarianism even though you say that you are not."

I think you missed the point. Most dating methods do not require an assumption of the original ratios. I was discussing isochron dating which is one such method. You did not even respond to what I presented. Namely that the method itself checks for problems of contamination.

You make it really hard to make a good response when your assertions are nebulous. Do you have any real objections with factual reasons why they are problems or are you content to make general and unsubstantiated assertions?

 

"So, what does self-replication mean? Are you saying that we are close to creating life? Nonsense! Any competent biochemist knows better."

Self replication means that the molecule can catalyze the making of copies of itself.

I said nothing about being close to producing life. The issue of self replicating RNA came up and so I gave some information.

"No problem. This is highly speculative theory that has not won the the allegiance of most evolutionists. And evolutionists will believe anything. I would relegate it to the trash heap with other such evolutionary theories as Haeckel's phylogenetic recapulation theory."

So, where is your evidence that most "evolutionists" (There's that term again. I would have really thought these guys were geologists.) doubt this one too? Yes, there are variations such as the Slushball Earth where the entire surface is not completely covered in ice.

But you are really avoiding the question. The question is not even about Snowball Earth. The question is about how would you explain the various lines of evidence that are used to support the Snowball Theory in a young earth paradigm? It is not simply enough to criticize the theory, you need your own which can account for all the observations. You have many general and unsubstantiated assertion but nothing concrete.

 

"BTW, what would happen to the lifespan of species with a very rich genome and pure, oxygen rich environment?"

Do you want speculation since we have no evidence of either?

I don't really know what would happen. It does not seem that much would change since it seems that a lot of aging is controlled genetically and i would assume that such hypothetical animals would still have the same genes.

I think a case could be made that lifespans might be shortened considerably, though, because of such high partial pressures or oxygen. I think you might see damage accumulate in tissues and in genes much more quickly with that much oxygen pressure driving destructive oxidation reactions.

I am not a biologists, but I also question whether plants would do well in suchan environment. During photosynthesis, they have to remove the oxygen produced. With much higher oxygen partial pressures, I have my doubts that they would be able to expel the needed oxygen. You mgiht have greatly decreased plant yields which would not be very good for the animals.

Of course with such high oxygen pressures thin plant cover would be desirable. Fires would be increbably easy to start. Once started they would burn with great heat and great ferocity. If plants were in causal contact, fire could sweep through areas in great firestorms.

Also with such high oxygen partial pressures, there would be little if any nitrogen available. Without nitrogen fixation in the soil, plants would have a very difficult time growing at all even if they could avoid the respiration and fire problems.