NEw Website
Michael Sturgeon
http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
Michael
- - - - -
C. Michael Sturgeon
Systems/ Multimedia Director
Lee University
Cleveland, TN
mic...@parousia.net
mstu...@leeuniversity.edu
mstu...@vei.net
Take your pick.
Charles Dye
wrote:
>Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
>http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
It looks like a collection of the most-frequently refuted
misconceptions about evolution. The opening page is kind
of pretty, though.
Please check out this site and post any comments, thought, etc.
Michael Sturgeon
links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
"misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
this is where I have ended up.
My first step in research on this matter that is so controversial was to
prove that creationism was incorrect. In doing so I had to read the books
scientific and non-scientific that supported creationism. Before you go on
with implying misconceptions on my part, ask yourself how deep have you
looked into the scientific support for creationism? You may find the your
conceptions are by hearsay only and not truth. I am not going to try to
convince you one way or another. I was seeking the truth as well as a way
to prove creationist as being wrong. In doing so I discovered the truth.
Not everyone wants the truth . . . sometimes it is discomforting for us to
give up our old ways and our old beliefs, so we would rather stay with what
we believe and fight a battle on those grounds rather than seek a well
balanced truth.
As you well know, Creation is a theory and Evolution is a theory. You were
not there ... and I was not there. The authors that I found answers from
are true scientist that are only out to find the truth and do not care about
holding onto what they were taught if it is not correct or does not make
sense to them. If you do want the truth I am willing to tell you what
convinced me . . .but if you are merely seeking an argument then I am not
the person you need to speak to.
One of the scientist I am mostly impressed with is Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith.
His books are The Creation Of Life; a cybernetic approach to evolution and
The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. These are only two of many
of his writings. A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford,
England. He received his first doctorate in physical organic chemistry at
Reading University, England. Later in life he became Countess of Lisburne
memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently he was appointed
Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. At Geneva he
earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a
senior university in Switzerland) in Zuerich.
Another is Dr. Charles Thaxton -- You may want to read this
http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html
Again...this is only two of many scientist that have convinced me of the
truth. Of course I am referring to the scientific support only.
Thank you...have a great day,
Michael
-----
C. Michael Sturgeon
Systems/Multimedia Dir.
CIS Instructor
Lee University
Cleveland, TN
Charles Dye <ras...@highfiber.com> wrote in message
news:3781023b...@ediacara.org...
Doug Weller
mstu...@vei.net said...
>
> Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
> http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
>
Liars for Jesus.
A quick look at your site, and what do I find?
" When some rock paintings were found in South Africa in 1991, Oxford
University's radiocarbon accelerator unit dated them as being around 1200
years old. This meant they were the oldest bushman paintings found in open
country.
But news of this find reached Capetown resident Mrs. Joan Ahrens. She
recognized the rock paintings as being the work of her art class. Thieves had
stolen them from her garden. If the truth had not come to light everyone would
have accepted the very wrong radiocarbon date of around 1200 years. Carbon
dating can give crazy results."
Sounds good until you realise it's a pack of lies.
Darby South posted the following some time ago:
1. The Oxford University people were very worried about the
sample even before they dated it because of indications that the
sample to be dated contained petroleum products. That the person
submiting the sample failed to provide any useful information
concerning from where the sample came frustrated any attempt
at pretreating the sample to remove contaminants.
2. This rock art was NOT DATED to 1,200 B.P. The dating report
is explicit in giving only a radiocarbon concentration equivalent to
1,200 B.P. The report is very carefully worded to warn that this
date did not necessarily indicate the age of the painting because of
contamination and other problems; and
3. There were a number of problems, e.g. the presence of petroleum
products as part of the pigment, with this sample. The pigment very
likely contained oil made from petroleum. In other cases, the pigment
itself can consist of carbon black made from natural gas. Because
it was actually part of the pigment to be dated and not a natural
contaminant, pretreatment could not be used to remove the oil. As
a result, the age of the pigment was not contemporary with the age
of the painting. This problem was realized and thus, in their report
on this dating, the Oxford people plainly stated that the the result
failed to be any sort of date, but rather a radiocarbon concentration.
...
The Oxford people realized before hand
that the material dated would fail to give a valid date. Indeed,
a warning to this effect was included in the dating report.
Although vital information concerning the origin of the
dated sample of painting was withheld from them, they
recognized the material as being unsuitable for dating the
true age of painting contrary to the above incorrect claims.
It should not take a rocket scientist to realize that if a pigment
composed of mixture of modern material containing radioactive
carbon and ancient petroleum derived carbon (either as mineral
oil or carbon black) is dated that the mixture will not give a valid
date. Also, if a pigment derived entirely from petroleum
products entirely is used to paint something, this painting
would give an apparent age much greater than 50,000 B.P.
even if painted yesterday. Any date derived from the pigment
of a painting is a function of the age of the components of the
pigments and the proportions of these components in the mix.
Thus, they can have nothing to do with the age of the painting.
This is a basic fact that only someone who is completely clueless
about radiometric dating would fail to grasp.
Sincerely Yours;
Darby South
Then theere's the usual junk about "Shells of mollusks that were living have
been dated as having died 2300 years ago."
Anyone who knows anything about C14 dating knows you will NOT get accurage
dates from mollusc shells. This proves nothing.
Note that none of the examples offer you any way to check them. You just have
to take the web site author's word. And he's a liar.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Richard Harter
>Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
>http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
I looked at it. One word: pathetic.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
My goals in life are to bring small wisdom to small minds
and to bring everyone a bit closer to the Twilight Zone
ro...@my-deja.com
"Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
> Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
> http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
>
>
Went there, looked around. Same old Creationism.
Nothing new, accusing scientist of an "athiestic conspiracy"
John Woodmorappe wrote some of the articles.
As mean spirited and full of sh*t as ever.
rod
#613
> - - - - -
> C. Michael Sturgeon
> Systems/ Multimedia Director
> Lee University
> Cleveland, TN
> mic...@parousia.net
> mstu...@leeuniversity.edu
> mstu...@vei.net
>
> Take your pick.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
maff91
wrote:
>Apparently you did not check out the full site. Your URL is within my
>links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
>
>Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
>"misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
>want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
>this is where I have ended up.
>
>My first step in research on this matter that is so controversial was to
>prove that creationism was incorrect. In doing so I had to read the books
>scientific and non-scientific that supported creationism. Before you go on
>with implying misconceptions on my part, ask yourself how deep have you
>looked into the scientific support for creationism? You may find the your
>conceptions are by hearsay only and not truth. I am not going to try to
>convince you one way or another. I was seeking the truth as well as a way
>to prove creationist as being wrong. In doing so I discovered the truth.
>Not everyone wants the truth . . . sometimes it is discomforting for us to
>give up our old ways and our old beliefs, so we would rather stay with what
>we believe and fight a battle on those grounds rather than seek a well
>balanced truth.
>
>As you well know, Creation is a theory and Evolution is a theory. You were
Do you understand what theory means in a scientific context?
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
>not there ... and I was not there. The authors that I found answers from
>are true scientist that are only out to find the truth and do not care about
>holding onto what they were taught if it is not correct or does not make
>sense to them. If you do want the truth I am willing to tell you what
>convinced me . . .but if you are merely seeking an argument then I am not
>the person you need to speak to.
>
>One of the scientist I am mostly impressed with is Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith.
>His books are The Creation Of Life; a cybernetic approach to evolution and
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877881448/
>The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution. These are only two of many
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9992485760/
He doesn't seem to have convinced anyone in the scientific community.
>of his writings. A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford,
>England. He received his first doctorate in physical organic chemistry at
>Reading University, England. Later in life he became Countess of Lisburne
>memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently he was appointed
>Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. At Geneva he
>earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a
>senior university in Switzerland) in Zuerich.
>
>Another is Dr. Charles Thaxton -- You may want to read this
>http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html
>
>Again...this is only two of many scientist that have convinced me of the
>truth. Of course I am referring to the scientific support only.
>
>Thank you...have a great day,
>
>Michael
>-----
>C. Michael Sturgeon
>Systems/Multimedia Dir.
>CIS Instructor
>Lee University
>Cleveland, TN
[snip]
--
L.P.#0000000001
Dick C.
>Apparently you did not check out the full site. Your URL is within my
>links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
>
>Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
>"misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
>want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
>this is where I have ended up.
Hell, that is easy; Under the Aged Earth page we start right out with:
Evolutionists have to believe that the earth is millions or billions of years
old. Why? Because if the earth is only about 6,000 years old, as the Bible
implies, then there hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place.
That is such an old tired arguement that it isn't even funny any more. Only
tiresome. The earth is old, it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of
evidence. There are many different dating methods that point to an ancient
earth. We do not need to believe in an old earth, we see the evidence of it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
These 3 faq's and their links explain how science determines how old the
earth is. Something you tried to dismiss in one or 2 sentences.
For the second problem we will stay on the same page:
But there are many more dating methods that indicate the earth is much younger
than evolutionists want to believe. In fact, a leading nuclear physicist, Dr
Russell Humphreys, from Sandia National Laboratories in America, says that at
least 90 percent of dating methods show the earth to be younger than
evolutionists believe, yet evolutionists concentrate only on the 10 per cent
that fit the evolution theory.
Don't you find it odd that a fundamentalist, who happens to be a
nuclear physicist, is commenting on geology? beyond that, did he
say that the radiometric dates are wrong? No? The reality of the matter
is that the dates give a minimum age of the earth. The arguement that
creationists make is that the earth cannot be any older than X because
we see some physical feature that can only be that old. The problem is
that the age of some object does not indicate the age of the earth, rather
it indicates the least amount of time the earth has been around. The pyramids
are very old, but they were built after the earth was formed, therefor the
earth is older than they are.
Go to the page below, and follow the links. You will quickly see what I
mean.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
>
>My first step in research on this matter that is so controversial was to
It is only controversial to a tiny minority of religiously inspired
individuals, who prefer not to look at the real evidence, rather base their
entire world view on one ancient book.
>prove that creationism was incorrect. In doing so I had to read the books
>scientific and non-scientific that supported creationism.
Obviously you didn't understand any of them. Or perhaps you didn't really
read any actual book on science, only creationist material.
Before you go on
>with implying misconceptions on my part, ask yourself how deep have you
Imply, hell, I am coming right out and saying it. You don't know what you are
talking about when it comes to science.
>looked into the scientific support for creationism?
I apply the same methodology to creationist materials as I do with
scientific materials I read. I compare them with reality. In the case of
science that is sometimes hard to do, in as much they refer to areas
that I am learning about, but I can in some way do that. But creationist
materials quote other authors, the bible and scientists to make their
point. So all I have to do is look at what the sources say. And some how
it seems that the scientists quoted never really say what the creationists
say they do.
You may find the your
>conceptions are by hearsay only and not truth. I am not going to try to
>convince you one way or another.
As I have said, and many others here will confirm, there is no misconception
on the part of the people interested in science. The misconceptions
are entirely on your side.
I was seeking the truth as well as a way
>to prove creationist as being wrong. In doing so I discovered the truth.
And this is one reason why I say the truth is what ever load of b.s. that
a religious person is putting out. Hint, you may have found some religious
truth, but you have not found any objective truth.
>Not everyone wants the truth . . . sometimes it is discomforting for us to
>give up our old ways and our old beliefs, so we would rather stay with what
>we believe and fight a battle on those grounds rather than seek a well
>balanced truth.
And that seems to be exactly what you are doing, hanging on to your
beliefs and refusing to face reality. I know about giving up the old
beliefs, I used to be a christian.
>
>As you well know, Creation is a theory and Evolution is a theory.
False, totally and absolutiely false. Creationism is religion. It is
based entirely on a literal interpretation of an ancient holy book.
Science is based on observation and repeatable tests of the natural
universe.
snip,
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 5 Jul 1999 12:29:04 -0400, "Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net>
wrote:
>Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
>http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
>
While attractively laid out, there is an enormous problem with the
content. To take just one area, astronomy. To start with the Origin of
Stars link is so full of outrageous holwers as to be terminally
embarrasing. Here is a typical example from
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star2.htm
<quote>
4 - We should see exploding stars today, since the theory requires
that billions and billions of exploding stars occurred.
Why would they have stopped exploding?—p. 13.
</quote>
Have these people never heard of supernova? Last month there was a
bright, naked eye supernova in Vela. As an amateur astronomer I get
AAVSO circulars listing current nova, and there have been 13 this year
alone.
The astronomy content of the 'Origin of Stars' is so unbelievably bad
it would take an entire book to point out all the errors. You would be
well advised to remove this link.
The astronomy section of the "The Revolution Against Evolution" link
is not as bad, but still fairly bad, and treats the long refuted
"decay of lightspeed" idea as if it were correct.
You should seriously consider removing or revising your links to these
sites.
Cheers, Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Christopher Sharp
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue wrote:
> G'Day All
> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
> On 5 Jul 1999 12:29:04 -0400, "Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
> >
> >http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
> >
>
> While attractively laid out, there is an enormous problem with the
> content. To take just one area, astronomy. To start with the Origin of
> Stars link is so full of outrageous holwers as to be terminally
> embarrasing. Here is a typical example from
>
> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star2.htm
> <quote>
> 4 - We should see exploding stars today, since the theory requires
> that billions and billions of exploding stars occurred.
> Why would they have stopped exploding?用. 13.
> </quote>
I certainly agree. I've seen this website before, the
astronomy section is so horrendously bad, it's not worth
my while spending any time showing the errors, as I can
shoot holes in most of the arguments, so could anybody
else who knows a bit about astronomy. It's hard to
believe that anybody can post such complete nonsense.
Christopher M. Sharp http://www.csharp.com/csharp
in...@csharp.com
Dept. of Astronomy, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Clark Dorman
"Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> writes:
> Apparently you did not check out the full site. Your URL is within my
> links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
>
> Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
> "misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
> want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
> this is where I have ended up.
1. On page:
http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/Myths/Aged_Earth/aged_earth.htm
the page states:
"Evolutionists have to believe that the earth is millions
or billions of years old. Why? Because if the earth is
only about 6,000 years old, as the Bible implies, then
there hasn't been enough time for evolution to take
place."
This is a blatent falsehood. The evidence from geology,
cosmology, and geochronology stands all by itself, completely
independently of evolutionary biology. Scientists have
determined that the planet is about 4.6 billion years old because
that is what the geological evidence indicates, and it has
absolutely nothing to do with evolution and the amount of time
that it takes for evolution to occur.
2. On page:
http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/Truths/Scientifically_Based/scientifically_based.htm
the page states:
"If humans and chimps had in fact turned out to be very
biochemically different, it would not have caused any
grief for evolutionists, at least not enough to drive
them to drinking binges. They simply would have gone on
their merry way, asserting that all this shows is the
fact that human biochemical evolution had been very rapid
since the time that humans had diverged from the most
recent human-chimp common ancestor.
To substantiate this fact of biochemical
vs. morphological divergence, we could cite some examples
where organisms, believed to be phylogenetically close on
the basis of comparative anatomy, turned out to be quite
divergent biochemically."
The first paragraph is simply false and speaks volumes about your
lack of knowledge about biochemical evolution. The second is
false and a bald-faced assertion that I am betting you cannot
sustain. The fact is that there is a (scientifically speaking)
beautiful correlation between the nested heirarchies developed
through biochemical and anatomical relationships.
Large differences in the DNA between chimpanzees and humans would
be a huge blow to evolutionary biology.
There are many more misconceptions, but lets work with these two
first.
> My first step in research on this matter that is so controversial was to
> prove that creationism was incorrect. In doing so I had to read the books
> scientific and non-scientific that supported creationism. Before you go on
> with implying misconceptions on my part, ask yourself how deep have you
> looked into the scientific support for creationism?
I have. I have read:
o The Creation hypothesis : scientific evidence for an
intelligent designer, edited by Moreland.
o The natural limits to biological change by Lane P. Lester
and Raymond G. Bohlin
o What is creation science? by Henry M. Morris and Gary E.
Parker.
o Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry M. Morris
o Of pandas and people : the central question of biological
origins, by Percival Davis, Dean H. Kenyon, edited by
Charles B. Thaxton.
o The mystery of life's origin : reassessing current theories,
by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen.
o The origin of species revisited : the theories of evolution
and of abrupt appearance by W.R. Bird.
All the above books are available at the Boston University
library. My conclusion is that there is absolutely no science in
scientific creationism. It is (misguided) Christian apologetics
and gainsaying of evolutionary biology.
> You may find the your
> conceptions are by hearsay only and not truth.
No, my initial conceptions of creationism were that it was
probably an interesting alternative view. My post-reading
conception is that creationism is not only not scientific, it is
hostile anti-science.
> I am not going to try to convince you one way or another. I
> was seeking the truth as well as a way to prove creationist as
> being wrong. In doing so I discovered the truth. Not everyone
> wants the truth . . . sometimes it is discomforting for us to
> give up our old ways and our old beliefs, so we would rather
> stay with what we believe and fight a battle on those grounds
> rather than seek a well balanced truth.
I do not believe you. I cannot believe that you could read those
books, and then compare what they have to say with the scientific
literature and honestly come up with any other conclusion than
that they are anti-science. Morris in particular misuses,
misquotes, and abuses scientific knowledge in a disgusting manner.
> As you well know, Creation is a theory and Evolution is a theory.
You are showing that you have no idea of what a theory is in
science. A theory is a coherent explanation of a body of facts.
Please tell me what the Creation theory is. People in talk
origins have been asking for a theory of creation for years, but
it is not forthcoming. Maybe you will break the streak, but I
doubt it.
> You were not there ... and I was not there. The authors that
> I found answers from are true scientist that are only out to
> find the truth and do not care about holding onto what they
> were taught if it is not correct or does not make sense to
> them. If you do want the truth I am willing to tell you what
> convinced me . . .but if you are merely seeking an argument
> then I am not the person you need to speak to.
Again , I do not believe you. Are you are or you not a Christian
trying to get people to believe in your religious beleifs? If
you were not a Christian, would creation still seem to be the
correct answer?
> One of the scientist I am mostly impressed with is
> Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. His books are The Creation Of Life; a
> cybernetic approach to evolution and The Natural Sciences Know
> Nothing of Evolution. These are only two of many of his
> writings. A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at
> Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in physical
> organic chemistry at Reading University, England. Later in
> life he became Countess of Lisburne memorial Fellow at the
> University of London. Subsequently he was appointed Director
> of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. At Geneva he
> earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from
> the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zuerich.
> Another is Dr. Charles Thaxton -- You may want to read this
> http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html
Where is the science? I am serious. Where is it? What is he
proposing as an explanation of the available evidence? A problem
that many of us have with creationism is that there is no theory
behind it, just a bald assertion that God did it, and the
creationists claim that since they have punctured evolution that
creation wins. Science does not work that way.
Here's a good question:
As creation is supposed to be a theory that explains a
body of facts, please use your creation theory to explain
the relationships between large-scale chromosome
structures in humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and
gorillas. Please explain, using creation theory, why
other genetic relationships in, say fibrinopeptide
sequences, also show the same relationships. See, for
example, Jorge J. Yunis and Om Prakash. "The Origin of
Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy", in Science,
Vol. 215, 19 Mar 1982, p.1525-1530.
> Again...this is only two of many scientist that have convinced
> me of the truth. Of course I am referring to the scientific
> support only.
Look at it this way: please name three non-Christians who think
that scientific creationism is a valid scientific theory. If you
cannot, why do you think that is? One possible answer is that
non-Christians are blinded by their anti-religious beliefs and so
cannot see the scientific evidence. Another possibility is that
certain fundamentalist Christians are blinded by their faith so
they are wrong on the scientific issues.
I find it very hard to believe that scientists all over the world
have somehow missed all the evidence that creationists are
pointing to. That creationists are mis-using science to do
Christian apologetics seems, to me, to be the more parsimonious
explanation. But feel free to prove me wrong by presenting a
theory of creation and discussing the evidence for it.
--
Clark Dorman
Charles Dye
wrote:
>Apparently you did not check out the full site. Your URL is within my
>links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
Not at all. If your site were composed entirely of common errors
concerning, say, the Gregorian calendar, I would have pointed you
to Claus Tondering's Calendar FAQ instead.
>Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
>"misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
>want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
>this is where I have ended up.
Well, the entire site appears pretty much uniformly bad to me. It's
hard to pick out any one section that's substantially worse than the
rest. Here are two paragraphs which struck me as being not only
wrong, but monstrously arrogant as well.
:4. INESCAPABLE ATHEISM OF EVOLUTION.
:Per the statements about Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, etc: As
:perceptively pointed out by the Creationists, evolutionists
:selectively dissociate themselves from these stellar evolutionists
:whenever it suits their purposes, as they did in this debate. And,
:isn't it funny that, if evolution indeed is not atheistic, that
:atheists (notably the Communists) had been using evolution as a
:weapon against religious belief in general, and a Creator God in
:particular, for such a long time? Again, evolutionists are trying
:to wheedle out of the atheistic implications of evolution. This is
:part of their strategy to mollify believers: a classic con job.
:This intellectual and spiritual fraud can be better exposed by
:challenging them to show ONE evolutionary journal where God plays
:a role in evolution. If there is at least one currently-accepted
:version of evolution which is compatible with the existence of God,
:then it should easily be possible to locate some mention of a God-
:directed evolutionary theory (in a biology text or a biology
:journal). Needless to say, there is none. This clearly shows that
:those who insist on a Creator God and organic evolution happily
:coexisting are simply rhetorically papering over the irreconcilable
:conflict between the two.
This is pretty silly on the face of it. If there is a currently-
accepted version of gravitation which is compatible with the
existence of God, then it should easily be possible to locate
some mention of a God-directed gravitational theory in a physics
text or a physics journal. If there is a currently-accepted version
of chemistry which is compatible, etc. etc. By this standard, *all*
of the sciences are "inescapably atheistic," which doesn't seem
to prevent physics, biology, chemistry, etc. from chugging right
along, making new discoveries and inventing new applications
at an ever-increasing rate.
Of course, the correct way to test the "inescapable atheism of
evolution" is to look for theists who accept evolutionary theory.
I know many myself. The claim is wrong. But it's worse than wrong;
it's arrogant. The implicit understanding is that the author of this
fetid little essay has the right to dictate what True Christians, True
Muslims, True Jews, True Buddhists, etc. may or may not believe.
It outpopes the Pope. Is it possible to make a more arrogant claim?
Yes, it is.
:19. COULD GOD USE EVOLUTION? COULD AN ANHYDROUS PROCESS USE WATER?
:This one could be answered no, for the simple reason that evolution
:denies a Creator--the evolutionists' snow job to the contrary
:notwithstanding. So, in even that sense alone, God could not "use"
:something from which He is, by definition, excluded. It is analagous
:to an anhydrous process. Since an anhydrous chemical reaction, by
:definition, does not use water, therefore an anhydrous process, by
:definition, cannot use water. Likewise, an atheistic process (organic
:evolution) does not use God. If God WERE to become involved in the
:process of organic evolution, it would, technically stop being an
:evolutionary process!
This maintains the previous high standard of silliness. Presumably,
the Almighty is also logically excluded from "using" gravity,
chemistry, and all the other "inescapably atheistic" processes.
However, dictating to the Almighty what He can and cannot do raises
the arrogance to a whole new level. It's a level which is sometimes
called Satanic arrogance.
> [snip: discovery of absolute Trvth]
>
>As you well know, Creation is a theory and Evolution is a theory.
Evolution is an observed fact. Natural selection, common descent,
Mendelian genetics, etc. are theories. Creationism is, to use the
scientific nomenclature, bunk.
Stephen Watson
Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote:
>In article <93120364...@news.remarQ.com>, "Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
>>Apparently you did not check out the full site. Your URL is within my
>>links. I gather you are knocking talkorigins.org down too?
>>
>>Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
>>"misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If anything I do
>>want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth and
>>this is where I have ended up.
>
>Hell, that is easy; Under the Aged Earth page we start right out with:
>Evolutionists have to believe that the earth is millions or billions of years
>old. Why? Because if the earth is only about 6,000 years old, as the Bible
>implies, then there hasn't been enough time for evolution to take place.
>
>That is such an old tired arguement that it isn't even funny any more. Only
Dick is too kind: even the most superfical acquaintance with the
history of science shows it to be an out-and-out ad hominem lie. The
antiquity of the earth was inferred on the basis of geological
evidence during the first three decades of the 19th century --
i.e. before Darwin took his little boat cruise.
This is about the umpteenth time I've seen the claim made, in just
about the same words. Ditto everything else I skimmed on the site --
it's the Same Old Crap.
(BTW Michael: you should provide references for your claims, not just
state it and expect people to take your word for it).
--
## Steve Watson: swa...@nortelnetworks.com # Nortel Networks, Ottawa Canada ##
## The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on ##
## this group for the past month. Not only is it not Nortel's opinion, it's ##
## not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! ##
Rich Daniel
> ...2. On page:
> http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/Truths/Scientifically_Based/scientifically_based.htm
> the page states:
> "If humans and chimps had in fact turned out to be very
> biochemically different, it would not have caused any
> grief for evolutionists, at least not enough to drive
> them to drinking binges. They simply would have gone on
> their merry way, asserting that all this shows is the
> fact that human biochemical evolution had been very rapid
> since the time that humans had diverged from the most
> recent human-chimp common ancestor.
> To substantiate this fact of biochemical
> vs. morphological divergence, we could cite some examples
> where organisms, believed to be phylogenetically close on
> the basis of comparative anatomy, turned out to be quite
> divergent biochemically."
> The first paragraph is simply false and speaks volumes about your
> lack of knowledge about biochemical evolution. The second is
> false and a bald-faced assertion that I am betting you cannot
> sustain...
First of all, it's not clear what "very biochemically different" means.
The great similarity of human and chimp DNA was a big surprise when the
first DNA hybridization experiments were done. Paleontologists were
expecting a divergence time of 20 million years ago or more, as I recall,
instead of the 5-10 million years indicated by the molecular evidence.
This, however, was based on very scanty fossil evidence (a few proconsul
fragments?) and probably some hubris (i.e., the idea that we are so
much better than apes that it must have taken a very long time to
evolve from them).
There are no fossils at all showing the split between chimps and humans,
so to get the timing we have to depend on the DNA data. The parousia
web page has it backwards: if the DNA difference had been larger, we
would have moved the date of the divergence rather than assuming a
faster evolution.
However, if the DNA difference had been *very* large, indicating a
divergence more than 100 million years ago, for example, then it would
have been difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the fossil
record, and evolutionary theory would be in serious trouble.
As for the second paragraph, Clark is wrong. If I remember correctly,
there are species of mice that look very similar, but have large DNA
differences. See _The Monkey Puzzle_, by John Gribbin and Jeremy
Cherfas; I think they discuss this.
--
Rich Daniel rwda...@dnaco.net http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/
Mark Isaak
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>"Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
>
>>Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>>
>>http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
>
You're too kind. Really.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Mark Isaak
"Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
> Please Check out this site and email any comments, thoughts etc.
>
> http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/
The authors of that site are obviously permeated by hate. They show by
example that teaching Creationism in schools would mean a complete
abandonment of Christian values, or any values for that matter.
Clark Dorman
> > the page states:
>
> > "If humans and chimps had in fact turned out to be very
> > biochemically different, it would not have caused any
> > grief for evolutionists, at least not enough to drive
> > them to drinking binges. They simply would have gone on
> > their merry way, asserting that all this shows is the
> > fact that human biochemical evolution had been very rapid
> > since the time that humans had diverged from the most
> > recent human-chimp common ancestor.
>
> > To substantiate this fact of biochemical
> > vs. morphological divergence, we could cite some examples
> > where organisms, believed to be phylogenetically close on
> > the basis of comparative anatomy, turned out to be quite
> > divergent biochemically."
>
> > The first paragraph is simply false and speaks volumes about your
> > lack of knowledge about biochemical evolution. The second is
> > false and a bald-faced assertion that I am betting you cannot
>
> First of all, it's not clear what "very biochemically
> different" means.
>
> The great similarity of human and chimp DNA was a big surprise
> when the first DNA hybridization experiments were done.
> Paleontologists were expecting a divergence time of 20 million
> years ago or more, as I recall, instead of the 5-10 million
> years indicated by the molecular evidence. This, however, was
> based on very scanty fossil evidence (a few proconsul
> fragments?) and probably some hubris (i.e., the idea that we
> are so much better than apes that it must have taken a very
> long time to evolve from them).
>
> There are no fossils at all showing the split between chimps
> and humans, so to get the timing we have to depend on the DNA
> data. The parousia web page has it backwards: if the DNA
> difference had been larger, we would have moved the date of the
> divergence rather than assuming a faster evolution.
>
> However, if the DNA difference had been *very* large,
> indicating a divergence more than 100 million years ago, for
> example, then it would have been difficult, if not impossible,
> to reconcile with the fossil record, and evolutionary theory
> would be in serious trouble.
Humans and chimpanzees are, by almost any measure, very
biochemically similar. Yes, we can measure differences, and they
are important. However, the differences are small compared to
the similarities. Consider the paper I referenced regarding
chromosomes by Yunis and Prakash. The similarities are obvious,
and the differences are important and enlightening.
Further, the several million versus 20 million year split for
chimpanzees and humans is interesting but I really don't think
that it is the sort of difference that is anywhere close to "very
biochemically different". If we had different codon to protein
rules, or if our histones were very different, then there would
be a huge problem for evolutionary history. As it turns out, the
split date is more recent than expected, but I don't think it is
relevant to the question: if chimpanzees and humans were shown to
be "very biochemically different", would it cause problems for
evolutionary biology? I think the answer is clearly yes.
> As for the second paragraph, Clark is wrong. If I remember
> correctly, there are species of mice that look very similar,
> but have large DNA differences. See _The Monkey Puzzle_, by
> John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas; I think they discuss this.
And, therefore, the mice were closer to reptiles than other mice?
:-)
This is more interesting, and I'd be intersted in more details.
How large is large compared to, say, differences between mice and
rats?
There was an article I once read about how swordtail fish posed
an interesting problem because morphological considerations
(based mainly on tail size) and sequencing data gave different
answers. Upon more digging, they determined that the production
of tails was a far smaller change than initially supposed and
that sword tails had arisen multiple times. So, yes, interesting
things happen when you look at sequences, and things are
sometimes related somewhat differently than expected. Is that
what the page is referring to? I don't. I believe that the scale
of the anomolies posed by mice and swordtail fish are not what
the page is referring to, do you? I would be very interested to
see what examples the page _is_ referring to. I figured it would
be something about the relationships between, say, people,
lampreys, and fish along the line of Denton.
Would you agree or disagree that there is, generally, a very good
correspondence between morphological and DNA relationships? Do
you think that there are anomolies that throw into question
evolutionary biology?
--
Clark
Dick C.
"Stephen Watson" <swa...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote:
> In article <F%bg3.8793$Jl1.6...@news.uswest.net>,
> Dick C. <foo.d...@uswest.net> wrote:
> >That is such an old tired arguement that it isn't even funny any
more. Only
> >tiresome. [rest of Dick's reply snipped]
>
> Dick is too kind:
What!!! How dare you!!! Hmmmph.
--
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
msyv...@my-deja.com
"Michael Sturgeon" <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Would I be asking too much for you to specifically state at least two
> "misconceptions" that you find on my site about evolution? If
anything I do
> want to be correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the truth
and
> this is where I have ended up.
>
[snip to]
>
> Another is Dr. Charles Thaxton -- You may want to read this
> http://www.origins.org/offices/thaxton/docs/thaxton_dna.html
>
I read this site. Do you have any idea how nonsensical the
discussion of information theory with respect to DNA and human
language is? Tell us how this discussion helped persuade you
to believe in creation science, in that way we can point out
to you where you were lead astray.
Mike Syvanen
Bas Kokke
Clark Dorman wrote in message ...
Actually it varies a lot: sometimes there is a good correspondence between
the DNA and morphological data (like humans and apes), sometimes
the differences are there. I remember an article in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA published in 1996 (Blair-Hedges et al., or 1997) about the bird Hoatzin
which belonged according to most morphologists to the 'chickens' and turned
out to be (convincingly) by DNA data to belong to the 'cuckoos'. Not very
significant perhaps, but it had been a real fight since a long time.
It must be noted that this bird has little claws on its wings when it is
young,
and is considered to exist for a long time (however this is out of memory).
There are reports of animals classified wrong because their DNA contents
look much alike. Interested people ask me privately so I can ask the
evolutionists on my department for references.
Coming back to the question: yes, there are large differences possible, but
they do not question evolutionary biology.
Note: It's nice to know that it's been shown that the elephant shrew and
elephant are actually relatives (Look at the size difference).
To answer a question about evidence that organisms get more intricate
by evolution, consider bacteria becoming more and more immune to
anti-biotics, which is a sort of becoming more intricate IMO.
Bas
to talk.origins
>One of the scientist I am mostly impressed with is Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith.
"Scientist"? Ha.
Wilder-Smith is a creationist who sounds respectable but cannot be taken
seriously. Wilder-Smith knows little of evolution or the sciences.
Just read a scientist's review of one of his books in _Reviews of
Creationist Books_ published by the National Center for Science
Education.
You can contact the National Center for Science Education at PO Box
9477, Bekeley, CA 94709. They have an email address, but I don't know
what it is. Their _Reviews_ book is well worth the $10 or $12 they
charge.
I've even seen some Christians criticize Wilder-Smith strongly. Looks
like you got taken in...
-Alex
Keith Littleton
Michael Sturgeon <mstu...@vei.net> wrote:
>Apparently you did not check out the full site. Y
>our URL is within my links. I gather you are knocking
>talkorigins.org down too?
>
>Would I be asking too much for you to specifically s
>state at least two "misconceptions" that you find on
>my site about evolution? If anything I do want to be
>correct. As I have shared with others, I seeked the
>truth and this is where I have ended up.
I went to
http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/ .
Before getting to the misconceptions, if you truly seek
the truth, I would like to see what documentation that
you have which shows that the teaching of evolution
produces bomb-throwing mass murders as the cartoon on your
web page shows. To me, it sounds like just the same old
evangelical propaganda against people and ideas with which
they disagree. I have seen some evangelical Christians make
similar cartoons about Islam and Judaism. The cartoons
remains the same, only the target of the slander changes
according to what ideas that are judged to be unacceptable
because they contradicts some personal religious belief.
Given the recent events at Littleton, CO and elsewhere,
your cartoon gives me the sense that you are exploiting
such tragedies to smear and defame people who disagree
with you about the subject of evolution..
Your page titled " Dating Systems" gives a very shallow
and one-sided discussion at:
http://www.parousia.net/genesisnetwork/Myths/Dating_Systems/dating_systems.htm
First, it talks about specific rock paintings from South
Africa that were dated in 1991 by Oxford University's
radiocarbon accelerator unit. Then it chides these people
for misdating a modern painting. However, the brief
summary on the web page omits key facts and, thus, presents
a very distorted and false account of what happened. The
below post explains what the truth of the situation.
+++++++++++ reposted text below this line +++++++++++++
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.test
From: sout...@tyrell.net (southdar)
Subject: The Oxford C14 Accelerator Unit thingy (was: Re: A challenge to
talk-origins) Followup-To: talk.origins
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tyrell.net
Message-ID: <DGKt...@tyrell.net>
Sender: ne...@tyrell.net (*)
Organization: Friends of Fossils
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 04:49:23 GMT
Lines: 107
WARNING, WARNING. This is also being posted
to alt.test in order to determine if it gets posted.
Therefore, in following up to this post, make sure that
you are not also posting to alt.test. Considered
yourself warned.
To continue Tero Sand's new thread from message
<45oe8b$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>, in article <1...@milton.win-uk.net>,
Richard Milton <ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
> In message <44hd3l$r...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>
>Andrew MacRae wrote:-
>> Since you have only a handful of anomalous dates
>>"for which there is independent evidence", and which has
>>contributed to your skepticism regarding the radiometric
>>techniques on long time-scales, why not list one?
>I listed one in my last post: the failure of Oxford's C14
>Accelerator Unit to correctly date the 'bush paintings'
>found in South Africa. Every time I provide the kind of
>concrete detail you demand, you deal with it by simply
>ignoring it or dismissing it because it does not fit
>your preconceptions.
>From another post in the Re: A challenge to talk-origins
>thread
>>Richard Milton <ric...@milton.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>> has granted some real outside verification. In a
>>>recent post I mentioned the case of rock paintings
>>>dated by Oxford University's C14 accelerator unit
>>>as being 1,200 years old which turned out to be recent
>>>paintings. (Obviously to be independently discovered
>>>as falsely dated, with complete certainty, a sample
>>>must really date from recorded human history -- hence
>>>the very small number of such cases).
While talking about using mass spectrometer to date rock
art with archaeologist friends in the Texas Archaeological
Society the radiocarbon dates quoted above by Mr. Milton
came up as an example of what not to date with radiocarbon
dating. They told me of several items concerning the
above radiocarbon dates that Mr. Milton very conveniently,
for his case, failed to mention.
Mr. Milton failed to mention that;
1. The Oxford University people were very worried
about the sample even before they dated it because of
indications that the sample to be dated contained
petroleum products. That the person submiting the
sample failed to provide any useful information
concerning from where the sample came frustrated any
attempt at pretreating the sample to remove contaminants.
2. This rock art was NOT DATED to 1,200 B.P. The dating
report is explicit in giving only a radiocarbon
concentration equivalent to 1,200 B.P. The report is
very carefully worded to warn that this date did not
necessarily indicate the age of the painting because of
contamination and other problems; and
3. There were a number of problems, e.g. the presence
of petroleum products as part of the pigment, with this
sample. The pigment very likely contained oil made from
petroleum. In other cases, the pigment itself can
consist of carbon black made from natural gas. Because
it was actually part of the pigment to be dated and not
a natural contaminant, pretreatment could not be used
to remove the oil. As a result, the age of the pigment
was not contemporary with the age of the painting. This
problem was realized and thus, in their report on this
dating, the Oxford people plainly stated that the the
result failed to be any sort of date, but rather a
radiocarbon concentration.
In conclusion, Mr. Milton's statement about the above
dates; < turned out to be recent paintings. (Obviously
to be independently discovered as falsely dated> is
completely and utterly false because the Oxford people
realized before hand that the material dated would fail
to give a valid date. Indeed, a warning to this effect
was included in the dating report. Although vital
information concerning the origin of the dated sample
of painting was withheld from them, they recognized the
material as being unsuitable for dating the true age of
painting contrary to the above incorrect claims.
It should not take a rocket scientist to realize that if
a pigment composed of mixture of modern material containing
radioactive carbon and ancient petroleum derived carbon
(either as mineral oil or carbon black) is dated that the
mixture will not give a valid date. Also, if a pigment
derived entirely from petroleum products entirely is used
to paint something, this painting would give an apparent
age much greater than 50,000 B.P. even if painted yesterday.
Any date derived from the pigment of a painting is a
function of the age of the components of the pigments and
the proportions of these components in the mix. Thus,
they can have nothing to do with the age of the painting.
This is a basic fact that only someone who is completely
clueless about radiometric dating would fail to grasp.
Sincerely Yours;
Darby South
sout...@tyrell.net
+++++++++++ reposted text above this line +++++++++++++
The additional details clearly show that there the
measurements of radiocarbon activity on the rock fail to
constitute a "crazy result." The only thing "crazy" about
the analysis made on the South African rock painting is
the inability of creationists to understand the simply
that it is bogus to claim it to be a "radiocarbon date,"
much less a date that has any chronological meaning.
Second, the above web page brief notes a sharpened tool
made from a caribou bone from the Old Crow River that
was dated in 1966 initially at 25,000 to 32,000 BP and
later dated to be only a few thousand years old. The
page calls this a "crazy result."
The specific citation for this "crazy result" is:
Nelson, D. E., R. E. Morlan, J. S. Vogel, J. r. Southon,
and C. r. Harington. (1986) New Dates on Northern Yukon
Artifacts: Holocene Not Upper Pleistocene. Scence,
vol. 232, no. 4751, pp. 749-751 (May 9, 1986).
Again, this web page ignores significant details. The
first date came from the inorganic components of the bone.
This part of the bone readily dissolves or recrystallizes.
In either case, diagenetic exchange of carbon occurs
between the bone and bicarbonate in the ground water
dissolved from ancient loesses and lake deposits. As a
result, there is nothing "crazy" about the bone being
heavily contaminated with older carbon and the apatite
fraction of the bone giving an old and false apparent
date as Nelson et al. (1986) explain. The second
radiocarbon date came from bone protein that was dated
using the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) technique.
This gives a more accurate date because the protein in
the bone does not exchange significant amounts of carbon
with the ground water. Given the different materials
dated, the difference in dates is only "crazy" to people
ignorant of the basics of radiocarbon dating. The
invention of AMS dating made the dating the very small
amounts of bone protein that remain in a bone possible.
More about the problems of dating bone can be found at:
"Dates on Bones"
http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/radiocarbon/card/bones.htm
More about dating of artifacts and bones from the Old Crow
River area can be found in:
Morlan, R.E., D. E. Nelson, T. A. Brown, J. S. Vogel, and
J. R. Southon. (1990) Accelerator mass spectrometry dates
on bones from Old Crow Basin, northern Yukon Territory.
Canadian Journal of Archaeology. vol. 14, pp. 75-92.
http://www.canadianarchaeology.com/caabiblio/abstract/vol14/14-5.htm#e
Other notes from your web page:
"* Shells of mollusks that were living have been
dated as having died 2300 years ago."
This sounds like a radiocarbon study that is much abused
by creationists. This study is:
Keith M. L. and G. L. Anderson (1963) Radiocarbon dating:
fictitious results with mollusk shells". Science. vol. 41,
pp. 634-635 (August, 1963).
The above citation is a radiocarbon-mollusk shell study
that creationists deceitfully misquote and misuse to
fabricate a case against radiocarbon dating. A detailed
discussion of the misuse of this study can be found on
pp. 156-157 of:
Strahler, A.N. (1987) Science and Earth History- The
Evolution Creation Controversy," Prometheus Books,
Buffalo,
Anyone familiar with radiocarbon dating knows that there
are problems with radiocarbon dating with mollusks because
of the well-known "reservoir effect" that occurs with
mollusks and other animals that live in the water. This
happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water by
the dissolution of carbonate or in the ocean with bottom
waters that take thousands of years to circulate.
For newbees, the "reservoir effect" happens when "old"
carbon is introduced into the water by the dissolution
of carbonate or in the ocean with bottom waters that take
thousands of years to circulate.
Also, in http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/corr.html ,
Dr. Thomas Higham states,
"Reservoir effects
Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a
different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon
may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish
alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment,
for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is
excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that
the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into
bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it
dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the
radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity
elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different
radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of
the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an
accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction
be made to account for it."
The radiocarbon effect can affected materials of almost
any age, historic to prehistoric. It all depends on
whether there was "old" carbon in the system from either
the dissolution of carbonate or old ocean bottom waters.
Where such bottom waters upwell the animals that live
in it and the birds, mammals, and fish feeding on them
will be greatly effected.
For a more detail explanation of the Reservoir effect, a
person can go to:
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/c14/webinfo/corr.html .
The web page also atates:
"* Seals that had only just been killed gave an
age of 1300 years."
and
"* Mummified seals that had been dead about
30 years yielded an age of 4600 years."
This sounds like Wakefield (1971). He states;
"Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from
mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded
ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica
sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity
than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore,
radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent
ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown
and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several
radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal
carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example,
the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal
known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was
determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly
killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."
In case of the seals, they feed off of animals that live in
an nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is
upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few
thousands years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in
came from the atmosphere before the water sank and traveled
for a couple of thousand years. Thus, the carbon in the
sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it
was in the atmosphere and its radiocarbon content reflects
this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as
they grow. Then animals incorporate this "old" carbon in
them when they eat the plants and the seals incorporate
this "old" carbon in themselves when they eat the animals.
As a result, "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed
up the food chain resulting in an old date. The problem is,
as in case of the shells, the carbon is coming from sources
other then the contemporaneous atmosphere. The
"reservoir effect" is well known by scientists and, unlike
many creationists, well aware of this short coming. Thers
is nothing crazy about this date. It is just a matter of
the carbon not coming directly from the atmosphere that
valid radiocarbon dating requires.
The original reference is:
Wakefield, Dort, Jr. (1971) Mummified seals of southern
Victoria Land. Antarctic Journal. vol. 6, pp. 211-232.
(September-October 1971).
Your web page, "Dating Methods" also states:
"* An English castle that had been built 785 years ago
gave an age of 7370 years when part of it was dated."
As in previous claims, this claim distorts the situation
by overlooking important facts. These facts are found in:
Baxter, M. S., and A. Walters (1970) Radiocarbon Dating
of Mortars. Nature. vol. 225, no. 5236, pp. 937-938.
(March 7, 1970)
What the "Dating Methods" web page fails to mentions is
that the paper demonstrates that the dating of mortar,
amorphous calcium carbonate, by radiocarbon fails to
work for mortars in Great Britain. It also falsely claims
that this date is "crazy, " because Baxter and Walters
(1970) explain that such bad dates are the expected
consequence of mortars made using incompletely kilned
limestone and / or calcareous sands. Of course, the
failure of these mortars to provide reliable dates has
no bearing on the reliability of radiocarbon dates on
wood, charcoal, and other organic materials as the
"Dating Methods" web page misleadingly implies.
>My first step in research on this matter that is so
>controversial was to prove that creationism was incorrect.
>In doing so I had to read the books scientific and non-
>scientific that supported creationism.
Well, you have done a very poor job of researching this
topic as your page about radiocarbon dating shows. You
seem to be completely unaware that geologists are well
aware of the above limitations and they do not apply to
all radiocarbon dates. If you are going to criticize
radiocarbon dating, you needs to learn something about
what you are talking about and present the fact fairly
instead of in the usual creationist comic-book style
of random text-bites. If all of the details are given,
the claims of radiocarbon dating giving "crazy results"
are nothing more than a failure to understand
the science behind each of the cases that the "Dating
Methods" web page presents.
A number of basic references can be found at:
http://c14.sci.waikato.ac.nz/webinfo/bib.html
Some of them are:
Aitken, M.J. (1990) Science-based Dating in Archaeology.
Longman, England.
Bowman, S.G.E. (1990) Radiocarbon Dating. "Interpreting the
Past" series. British Museum Publications, London.
Faure, G.(1986) Principles of Isotope Geology. (Second
Edition). Wiley, New York.
Taylor, R.E. (1987) Radiocarbon Dating. An archaeological
perspective. Academic Press, Orlando, USA.
>Before you go on with implying misconceptions on my part,
>ask yourself how deep have you looked into the
>scientific support for creationism? You may find the your
>conceptions are by hearsay only and not truth.
I found the arguments used by creationists to be lacking
in science to the point that many of them to be laughable.
real and thoughtful scientific creationists, i.e. Dr. Kurt
Wise, are few and far between.
>I am not going to try to convince you one way or another.
>I was seeking the truth as well as a way to prove
>creationist as being wrong. In doing so I discovered the
>truth. Not everyone wants the truth . . . sometimes it
>is discomforting for us to give up our old ways and our
>old beliefs, so we would rather stay with what we believe
>and fight a battle on those grounds rather than seek a well
>balanced truth.
I have found this to be all too true of many creationists.
To seek the "truth," a person need to correctly provide
all of the facts. This something that your "science"
web pages fail to adequately do.
.... references to creationist science fiction and comic books
and other stuff deleted ...
>Again...this is only two of many scientist that have
>convinced me of the truth. Of course I am referring
>to the scientific support only.
Unfortunately, material prepared by scientifically illiterate
creationists fails to qualify as "scientific support."
.... text deleted ...
Cheers to You,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the
legislature is in session."
- Will Rogers
Rich Daniel
Clark Dorman <cl...@s3i.com> wrote:
>
> Rich Daniel <rwda...@dnaco.net> writes:
[Snip chimp stuff, about which we agree.]
> > As for the second paragraph, Clark is wrong. If I remember
> > correctly, there are species of mice that look very similar,
> > but have large DNA differences. See _The Monkey Puzzle_, by
> > John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas; I think they discuss this.
>
> ...This is more interesting, and I'd be intersted in more details.
> How large is large compared to, say, differences between mice and
> rats?
Apparently I mis-remembered it. The surprise was that mice and rats
have a larger DNA difference than paleontologists expected (again
on the basis of scanty fossil evidence).
The book also said that the difference between human and chimp is
no more than that between two populations of a single species of
gophers on opposite sides of the Colorado River.
But for an extreme example of similar morphology with very different
DNA, I would look at something like flatworms, that have been around
for something like half a billion years with very little visible
change. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet that you could find two
flatworms that look very similar but have over 100,000,000 years
worth of DNA differences.
Naturally, since this is a prediction of evolutionary theory, it
hardly counts as evidence of creation.
[interesting swordtail fish example snipped]
> ...I believe that the scale
> of the anomolies posed by mice and swordtail fish are not what
> the page is referring to, do you? I would be very interested to
> see what examples the page _is_ referring to...
Me too. Perhaps the author will oblige us?
> Would you agree or disagree that there is, generally, a very good
> correspondence between morphological and DNA relationships?
Generally, yes.
> Do you think that there are anomolies that throw into question
> evolutionary biology?
Of course not.
--
Rich Daniel
http://www.dnaco.net/~rwdaniel/