A challenge or a question - you decide.
FreedThinker
Don't bite.
It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
overall impression of the whole):
*The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
fossilized remains.
*No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
than 15,000 years.
*The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
between four and seven thousand years ago.
As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
work. Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org". I've done
that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
happen by mistake.
The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David
Ron O
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
>
> The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David
So put up your first piece of evidence that you are right and science
is wrong. Should be simple, right? Why don't you start with isochron
radiometric dating methods and tell us what is wrong with them and
what you have that leads you to believe that you have a better
answer. If you don't know what I am talking about, how can you make
your assertions about the age of anything over 15,000 years?
Ron Okimoto
Friar Broccoli
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
How did light from the Andromeda Galaxy (which is 2 million light
years distant) get here in 15,000 years?
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
I will assume you are talking about a flood that filled the earth
up to the tops of the highest mountains? Such a flood would have
floated the Antarctic Ice sheet away, causing it to breakup and
melt. Why is it still there?
>
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
>
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work. Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go readwww.talkorigins.org". I've done
Cheezits
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
Why?
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
How do you come to that conclusion?
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
Evidence...?
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
"As accurate as can be reasonably determined" - what the heck does that
mean?
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
Wotta coincidence. :-D
[etc.]
> Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
[the rest is just the OP telling us what to do - ignored]
So, all those dumb old scientists are wrong and you're right, eh? Do you
think you have some amazing new evidence that no one else does?
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
Chris Thompson
news:1193092090.1...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
No. It seems that you need to educate the rest of the world- or at least
that portion that accepts mainstream science.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If that isn't
forthcoming, then your claim is simply baseless assertion.
You might start with letting us know the scientific sources you used to
refute the conclusions scientists have come to in the last 150 years or
so. You can start with the age of the planet (and the solar system, and
the universe) and move on from there.
Then you can tell us why an ancient book of fables and myths is somehow
more accurate than all of human scientific endeavor. Is it just your say-
so? I think we need a little more evidence than that.
You claim to have arrived at these conclusions by reason, but it sounds
suspicously like faith.
Chris
FreedThinker
Naturally, this debate is not about "pieces of evidence" any more than
a criminal trial hinges on which side has more exhibits. The question
is what a given "piece of evidence" most directly supports, not
whether you have "positive" or "negative" evidence. But I understand
what you mean.
Isochron dating methods are, of course, widely used to provide backing
for the accepted chronological position. As with any scientific
method of measurement or derivation, certain assumptions are made.
Isocron methods are only accurate insofar as they can detect and
account for contamination and experimental variance, and this can only
be done if the researcher knows how the igneous or other substrate
originally formed. The accuracy of the measurement hinges on the
value of D_i, which will not yield correct results if the parts of the
sample were formed at different speeds in nonuniform conditions.
Unless the sample (for example, lava) forms under a certain set of
conditions similar to what we see today, the values will yield a
straight isocron line without necessarily being accurate. The
influence of rapid changes in environmental temperature or isotope
concentration has significant effects on the accuracy of P/D_i and D/
D_i ratios.
Likewise, there are few isocronic dating equipment systems which can
yield results for samples under 50,000 years. There is no reason to
trust a date of 13.8 Mya for a given sample if there is no way of
knowing whether it is within the acceptable limits for that dating
system.
Radiometric dating usually yields a wide variety of specific results
for a particular sample. Those results that line up with the
scientist's expectations for the age of the fossil are selected and
lined up with similar results from different radiometric dating
methods. This is why radiometric dating is rarely if ever applied to
rocks for which an "acceptable" age range has not yet been determined.
Thank you.
FreedThinker
I did not recall mentioning the age of the universe (about which I may
or may not have an opinion). I spoke specifically about evidence
indicating the earth itself is over 15,000 years old.
As far as the Antarctic Ice sheet is concerned: you are presupposing
that it existed before this catastrophe that I am referring to. The
formation rate of ice sheets is far from constant, as is the rate at
which ice cores are laid down. Ice is more directly dependent upon
humidity levels than it is on lasting temperature changes. The rate at
which ice forms would be very high after a large flood, which would
allow the Antarctic Ice sheet to grow to its present size in less than
a few millenia.
Thank you.
FreedThinker
Of the three postulates I presented, two were negative ("there isn't
enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
The body of evidence suggesting a large aquatic catastrophe in the
recent past consists mostly of the observed ability of fast-moving
water or sediment to lay down large strata layers in short periods of
time, the existence of fossilized carcasses spread throughout these
layers that are more consistent with a rapid burial than a gradual
fossilization process, the existence of marine fossils at high
altitudes inconsistent with gradual continental uplift, and holes in
the ground like the Grand Canyon that could have easily been formed by
water runoff after the breakup of ice dams formed after such a flood.
Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
story.
Thank you.
FreedThinker
Usually, the majority attempts to educate the minority. It goes
quicker that way.
And again, I knew that my beliefs relating to faith would be
questioned, so I stated my reasoned position by way of reference. I
also pointed out that this was incidental to the discussion at hand.
Please address the three postulates which I referenced.
Thank you.
Rich Townsend
What about carbon-14 dating, which covers short timespans (up to c. 60,000 years)?
Moreover, why do dating methods using different isotopes (that have relatively
similar half-lives) agree with one another? If contamination is as much of a
problem as you seem to suggest, how do you explain this agreement?
Finally, you seem to be claiming that decay rates depend on external factors
such as temperature and density. This isn't true; with the exception of electron
capture decays (which are not used for radiometric dating), there is no evidence
that decay rates depend on environment.
Greg G.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
Have you considered how a process that involves positive feedback with
an attenuation of detrimental effects can drive diversity?
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
But all the evidence considered together demands the conclusion that
the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
That was the assumption over two hundred years ago but was disproven
then.
>
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
In other words, they are often wrong and were not corrected by Divine
Intervention.
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
Except where they disagree with the historical narrative.
>
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work. Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
Go read www.talkorigins.org
>
> Please do not request that I "go readwww.talkorigins.org".
Doh!
> I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
>
> The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David
The Goosenecks of the San Juan River are conclusive evidence of Utah
being more than a few thousand years old.
The rest of the post has been copied from a previous post that
no Young Earth Creationist has answered since February. The links I
checked are still good, but apologies in advance for any of the
others
that may have died.
I would like to see a young earth explanation for the geological
formations in this area.
This link shows a satellite photo/map hybrid of the area.
The link below shows Rt. 261 where it turns to the northeast at the
top. IIRC, the top is 1100 ft from the floor of the canyon.
http://www.so-utah.com/souteast/powerdrv/mokidgwy/dugway.jpg
Heading NW on Rt. 261, the Valley of the Gods would be on the right
http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/valleyof_gods05.asp
and the Goosenecks are on the left.
http://www.so-utah.com/souteast/powerdrv/goosenck/homepage.html
http://utahpictures.com/Goosenecks.html
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/viaggi/usautahgoosenecks.html
About nine miles east of Goosenecks and 3 miles NE of they town of
Mexican Hat is Mexican Hat Rock along the banks of the San Juan
River.
http://www.sanjuancounty.org/ps_mexican_hat_rock.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Hat,_Utah
To the north about 40 miles is Natural Bridges National Monument.
http://www.so-utah.com/souteast/natural/homepage.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Bridges_National_Monument
http://www.utah.com/nationalsites/natural_bridges.htm
The challenge for the YEC is to present a plausible scenario for the
removal of material from the valley floor between Mexican Hat Rock
and
the cliffs at the Moki Dugway and from north of the Valley of the
Gods
through Monument Valley in the south. The material is up to 1100 feet
from the top of Cedar Mesa to the floor of the canyon. This must be
done before the incised meandering of the San Juan could begin. The
removal of the material must be gentle enough so as to not topple
Mexican Hat Rock or the spires in the Valley of the Gods and Monument
Valley. The natural bridges to the north show that much of the
material is solid rock.
Only after the valley is formed can the San Juan begin its incision.
The river is 1000 feet below the floor of the canyon. The water
cannot
maintain much velocity with the changing directions, thus minimal
carrying capacity to remove a great deal of material in a short
period
of time. As can be seen in the satellite images, the meandering is
not
confined to the Goosenecks.
If the claim of soft material is maintained, then please explain the
slot canyons of the American southwest
http://www.americansouthwest.net/slot_canyons/index.html
and why the Ohio River and the Mississippi River do not have banks a
thousand feet high.
How does one maintain the pretense of a belief in a young earth when
this much evidence of long term erosion is so apparent?
--
Greg G.
The Gods gave us gentle cool breezes, and we knitted sweaters.
.
Robert Carnegie
I'm not an expert, but I think that biologists are reasonably content
with computing rates of evolutionary change in terms of mutation of
DNA in successive generations, although there is still much debate
about exact quantities. You may be aware that DNA mostly does not
last more than a few thousand years at best in a state that can be
studied, but modern DNA of related species can be compared - and if
DNA is enough to prove a relationship in a paternity suit, then it
should do for species, too. This includes DNA that does not actually
do what is clearly its job, such as the broken vitamin C gene in
primates.
I agree with Ron, you should go study dating science, including
radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, other radioactive dating
formulas, and... basically everything mentioned on this web page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/game.asp
I leave it to you to discriminate, reading that account, between
honest criticism, simple ignorance, and wilful obfuscation.
As for overwhelming evidence of a poorly dated "aquatic catastrophe" -
on the face of it, it doesn't really have much to do with our group
topic, the origins of natural things. But I think we know what story
you have in mind; the evidence, however, is thinner on the ground. By
all means explain why you think otherwise, apart from the bible, which
you declare to be not a necessary support to the views you've stated.
Incidentally, if "original autographs" means what I think it does in
this context, I don't think there are any. Many modern bible scholars
are even sceptical that bible documents presented as the work of a
single author, are so.
Vend
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
Why?
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
Wrong.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
Wrong.
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
So can you please explain me how is it possible in your reasoned
position that the two genealogies of Jesus (actually of Joseph, if you
belive that he wasn't Jesus' real father) found in the Gospels are
different.
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
"Incidental"
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work.
Almost all scientists are against creationism/ID, even those not
directly involved in biology, because to be accepted, it requires to
reject the scientific method, which is the foundation of all modern
science.
> Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go readwww.talkorigins.org". I've done
FreedThinker
I believe that carbon-14 dating is not the same as isochron dating. I
can address carbon dating specifically if you would like.
As I stated before, all dating methods use several samples and yield a
variety of specific results. Those results from one method that agree
with the expectation for the sample's age are paired with similar
results from another method - which is why isocron dating cannot be
used to date rocks of unknown age.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my "claim"; I didn't say that decay rates
vary depending upon temperature or density. Rather, the rate at which
the sample originally formed (and whether the various samples formed
under identical conditions) affects the P/D_i and D/D_i ratios, which
in turn can yield a "straight-line" isocron that is inaccurate.
Radiometric decay rates are quite constant unless one is in the middle
of a nuclear reaction.
Thank you.
Cheezits
> Of the three postulates I presented, two were negative ("there isn't
> enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
> evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
> you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
> demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
> biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
> why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
The short answer is, life diversified by way of mutation and natural
selection. You made a positive statement that it is *inadequate*. Are
you going to tell us why that is? People who makes their life's work
studying geology seem to think the earth is older than 15,000 years.
(I'll leave it to someone else to discuss details, if that's all right.)
You're saying they are all wrong. Why is that?
[flood talk left to the experts]
> Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
So, how long have you been a born-again Christian?
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have.
Then, what do you call all that talk about holes in the ground and
fossils? Science is about evidence.
> You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
"Court case"? "Client"? I thought we were talking about science.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Mark Isaak
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
Objectively false. Diversity accumulates at a rate which is more than
sufficient.
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that any
> terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater than
> 15,000 years.
Again objectively false. Look at varves for a simple counterexample.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
If by "large portions" you mean hundreds of acres, you are correct. If
you mean more than 10% of the surface of land, the overwhelming body of
evidence disagrees with you.
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled by
> societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
Out of curiosity, what do you consider the "original autographs" of the
New Testament?
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
Why do you label the sole justification for your belief "incidental"?
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in opposition
> to the above postulates.
> [...]
> Therefore ... educate me.
> Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org".
No, do not go read any website. Instead, spend at least three years in
college full-time studying biology, geology, and physics. Six years
would be better. There is a huge amount of information you should learn,
and you are not likely to learn very efficiently piecemeal over the
internet.
Note above all that your education is *your* responsibility, not ours.
If you choose not to invest in college, there are still plenty of
resources you can draw on, but they all -- even the internet -- have one
thing in common: they require you to invest time and effort. If you are
not willing to do that, then simply erase origins as topic of discourse
for you, and go on to other things.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
John Harshman
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
OK.
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
Hard to be sure what you mean here. Do you mean that mutation and
natural selection are inadequate to account for the extent of adaptive
evolution, or that descent with modification can't explain the number of
species? If the former, this is conceivably true, though I can't imagine
how one could come to that conclusion based on evidence; at most one
could decide that known mechanisms have not been shown to be adequate.
If the latter, there is abundant evidence that this claim is false.
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
This is clearly false. I presume by "artifact or object" you mean
anything manmade, right? In order to believe this you must absolutely
reject all forms of dating, whether radiometric or otherwise, since they
give ages for human artifacts in the hundreds of thousands of years, or
millions if you're generous with "human".
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
I can't imagine what evidence you are referring to here, and so am
unable to refute it. But the stratigraphic record shows no such
widespread event. Part of your range is within written history, and no
such event is recorded.
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
I'm glad that is your reasoned position, but since we are agreed that
it's a side note I will not take issue with this claim.
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
Now I have my doubts on this score. I think you are reporting this
backwards. I bet you came to the conclusion that the bible was all true
and then looked for a way for science to be reconciled to your prior
beliefs.
> I am entirely aware that the majority
If by "majority" you mean all but a negligible proportion, not exceeding
5%, then good.
> of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work.
Nevertheless, these "operational scientists" who work for "the
betterment of the human race", etc. also side with the majority, and
less than 5% of them would credit your notions. Just so we're clear on
how much in the minority you are.
> Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
I would say that you hold a non-scientific position. Nobody comes to
your beliefs by looking at the data. They always come to them for
religious reasons first. Are you an exception?
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org". I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
So far it's not defined quite well enough for me to address them. Please
clarify as requested above.
To reiterate:
1. Are you taking issue with evolution (common descent) or just with the
mechanism of mutation/natural selection?
2. When you deny the existence of artifacts or objects older than 15,000
years, just what are you referring to?
3. Do you entirely reject all commonly used methods for dating such
objects? If so, why?
4. Whatever is the evidence that convinced you of a wordwide flood a few
thousand years ago? It's certainly missing from the stratigraphic
record. Though perhaps you disagree with the dating of the record. If
so, how do you determine the ages of events?
Vend
> Hello, Ron.
>
> Naturally, this debate is not about "pieces of evidence" any more than
> a criminal trial hinges on which side has more exhibits. The question
> is what a given "piece of evidence" most directly supports, not
> whether you have "positive" or "negative" evidence. But I understand
> what you mean.
>
> Isochron dating methods are, of course, widely used to provide backing
> for the accepted chronological position. As with any scientific
> method of measurement or derivation, certain assumptions are made.
>
> Isocron methods are only accurate insofar as they can detect and
> account for contamination and experimental variance, and this can only
> be done if the researcher knows how the igneous or other substrate
> originally formed. The accuracy of the measurement hinges on the
> value of D_i, which will not yield correct results if the parts of the
> sample were formed at different speeds in nonuniform conditions.
> Unless the sample (for example, lava) forms under a certain set of
> conditions similar to what we see today, the values will yield a
> straight isocron line without necessarily being accurate. The
> influence of rapid changes in environmental temperature or isotope
> concentration has significant effects on the accuracy of P/D_i and D/
> D_i ratios.
Even if contamination can spoil some result, it could never cause a
sample to appear older than the oldest rock on the earth.
If you mix old rocks with young rocks you'll get a result that lies
somewhere in the middle, but it cannot lie outside the range.
> Likewise, there are few isocronic dating equipment systems which can
> yield results for samples under 50,000 years. There is no reason to
> trust a date of 13.8 Mya for a given sample if there is no way of
> knowing whether it is within the acceptable limits for that dating
> system.
The physical theories behind radioactivity are highly tested and
applied in hundreds of different technologies.
What reason would we have not to trust the equipment?
> Radiometric dating usually yields a wide variety of specific results
> for a particular sample. Those results that line up with the
> scientist's expectations for the age of the fossil are selected and
> lined up with similar results from different radiometric dating
> methods.
I'm not an expert, but this really smells of a pure fabrication.
Ron O
So who cares about ages less than 13.8 million years ago when we are
using isochron dating to date the oldest rocks on earth? That
argument is so bad that you must be obfuscating and bull shitting on
purpose. Concentrating on areas where we aren't talking about is not
an honest way to start. Aren't we talking about billions of years for
the age of the rocks we date with the method. Isn't the method much
more accurate out at these ages? So what good are your arguments?
Got any evidence that all the dates are wrong? Why would you even
consider that to be a possibility? What is your explanation for why a
lot of rocks date to over a billion years old? What about the rocks
that we can date with more than one method and get the same date?
What kind of statistical tests have you done to warrent chucking all
the data that demonstrates that you are full of baloney?
Remember this is only the first point, and you aren't doing very
well. Why would you worry about worthless data trying to date things
less than 15 million years old? Why not stick with the mixing and
formation argument? It is a long shot, but still honest. So what
statistical tests have you done to establish that all the data from
the samples tested are due to Di or formation problems. How can you
get consistent dates using multiple decay products from the same rock
if it is due to these problems?
Ron Okimoto
FreedThinker
Thanks for addressing the first postulate!
I assume that you are referring to the detrimental effects of
mutagenesis and positive feedback for "progressive" mutagenesis. The
process of natural selection can only operate on positive feedback
that is present in the first generation of genetic change. Otherwise,
it has nothing to bring it to the forefront and thus is no more likely
than any other variation to be carried on, built upon, and eventually
provide positive feedback. All genetic changes are naturally
attenuated unless they provide an immediate survival advantage (and I
am referring to gene survival, not organism survival). Are there
random genetic changes which provide an immediate survival advantage
that are progressive enough (able to be built upon for further
advances) to drive microbes-to-man diversity?
I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
the earth itself) is greater than 15,000 years. What evidence makes
all of this change?
On erosion:
Flood and sediment lays down a wide variety of layered earth that, if
it remains underwater in the right conditions, form into rock very
quickly. Underwater currents necessitate a wide range of pressures
which change the consistency and density of the rock underneath them.
Later on, the receding of the water (due to continental uplift or the
breaking of ice dams) slices through the less dense portions of rocks
and only partially (i.e. as though it took a long period of time)
erodes the surrounding rock. There is little or no trace left of the
softer rock and today's observer can easily succumb to the assumption
that the stream trickling through the bottom of the basin carved
everything out over a long period of time.
It's like a backhoe carved out a massive trench in the earth and rains
eroded the banks of the trench. The rain is only responsible for the
erosion that took place AFTER the trench was made.
Thank you.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broc,
>
> I did not recall mentioning the age of the universe (about which I may
> or may not have an opinion). I spoke specifically about evidence
> indicating the earth itself is over 15,000 years old.
Those pesky unanswerable questions. Guess you're right, best
just to ignore them.
If you didn't like that one, then here's another one for you
to ignore. Its a short web page about a coal mine on top of a
mountain.
http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/coalmt/
See: "Typical cross-section at Coal Mountain operations."
How do you figure it got there in 15,000 years?
> As far as the Antarctic Ice sheet is concerned: you are presupposing
> that it existed before this catastrophe that I am referring to. The
> formation rate of ice sheets is far from constant, as is the rate at
> which ice cores are laid down. Ice is more directly dependent upon
> humidity levels than it is on lasting temperature changes.
Pretty close:
As temperature drops, the capacity of air to hold water vapor
drops, dramatically limiting the possibility of precipitation.
The graph here illustrates this relationship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point
Note that the average temperature on the antarctic plateau is
about -50C (-60F), and rarely gets above -15C (5F). I live in
Quebec city and most snow falls here between 0C (32F) and -5C
(25F). At -20C (-5F) we get pretty close to no snow.
So could you take a moment to explain in a bit more detail just
how you get a 2 mile thick ice sheet formed over an area larger
than Europe in say 5,000 years?
> The rate at which ice forms would be very high after a large
> flood, which would allow the Antarctic Ice sheet to grow to
> its present size in less than a few millenia.
It isn't at all obvious to me why this would be the case.
Please explain.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
FreedThinker
I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that. Perhaps
you could point some out?
> So, how long have you been a born-again Christian? <
How is that relevant?
We are talking about science; I was just reasoning by analogy.
Evidence doesn't align itself on one side or another; all we have is a
body of evidence that we have to try and unify by theory. It is my
position that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence
(in the ways that I stated above).
Thank you.
Slimebot McGoo
<onefree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... educate me.
Pay me.
McGoo
John Harshman
> Sue,
>
> Of the three postulates I presented, two were negative ("there isn't
> enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
> evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
> you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
> demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
> biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
> why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
If that's what you meant, your statement was highly misleading. The
first two postulates were other than you say here. Neither is a
statement about insufficient evidence. The first claimed that evolution
can't account for diversity. The second claimed that none of the
evidence suggesting old objects is valid, which is quite different from
the evidence being insufficient. And your second postulate said nothing
about the age of the earth, only about "artifacts and objects". If you
meant to question the age of the earth, why not say so?
And another point of clarification: are you referring here only to the
earth, or to the entire solar system, or perhaps the entire universe?
Please state your claims clearly and in the broadest sense you can.
> The body of evidence suggesting a large aquatic catastrophe in the
> recent past consists mostly of the observed ability of fast-moving
> water or sediment to lay down large strata layers in short periods of
> time,
This does nothing to suggest a recent catastrophe, only (conceivably) to
suggest that one would be physically possible.
> the existence of fossilized carcasses spread throughout these
> layers that are more consistent with a rapid burial than a gradual
> fossilization process,
This is silly. Rapid burial and gradual fossilization are not mutually
exclusive.
> the existence of marine fossils at high
> altitudes inconsistent with gradual continental uplift,
Why is this inconsistent with gradual uplift? You are not making your
claims clear here.
> and holes in
> the ground like the Grand Canyon that could have easily been formed by
> water runoff after the breakup of ice dams formed after such a flood.
The Grand Canyon is inconsistent with the breakup of an ice dam. If you
want to know what that looks like, check out the Channeled Scablands.
The Grand Canyon was formed by a river (the Colorado) cutting through
uplifting sediments, plus subsequent mass wasting. That's why there are
incised meanders, a sure sign of such formation.
> Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
Nobody here believes that it's a coincidence. We all think you came to
your beliefs about earth history based on your biblical literalism, and
then looked around for scientific justification. Do you deny this?
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
Agreed. So far, none of your exhibits align at all.
Here's my first exhibit: the fossil record shows clear sorting by level.
Cambrian fossils are different from Ordovician fossils, and so on up to
Pleistocene fossils being different from extant species. Further, the
fossils of particular strata are more similar to those immediately above
and below them than to those in strata far above or below: Permian
fossils are most similar to Pennsylvanian and Triassic ones, and much
less similar to Cambrian or Pleistocene ones. Quite aside from questions
of absolute age, this pattern of relative age refutes the notion that
much of the record can have anything to do with a single event like a
wordwide flood. The sequential nature and gradual change in biota over
time also refute any sort of simultaneous creation event. It also argues
against sequential creation, since why would a creator be constrained to
producing species only slightly different from immediately previous ones?
josephus
you are saying the mathematics and the data are wrong? is that right?
I remember seeing someone tell me we cannot measure small distances
between objects in the sky. specifically that parralax does not exist.
when statistics says you have a varance, and a probablity does that mean
that the mathematics lies?
I really dont know anything technical about the science behind genetics
but if you talk about physics in general I kind of know what is going
on. but for that you can say that I take genetics on faith, I certainly
cannot talk about that, oh maybe mouth off about population changes, but
statistics are strange. If you really understand math you can talk
about dating methods, I know what I dont know, and I know pretty much
what I do know. I am exploring the mathematics of black holes and how
big a space the sphere of influence is.
Signus A is a strange object. they posted a value for a star speed >
5000 kilometer per second. and they give a minimum distance of 17 light
hours.
since I know some simple stuff V^2*R = G*M gm is G * that big mass
so put this in your calculator. 5188000^2 *(17*3600*299792485) and it
will equal 4.93828932E26, divide that by 6.67244E-11 and you will get
7.400949176E36 since a solar mass is in round numbers 1.991E30 we can
divide by 2E30 and you will get 3.70047E6 solar mass that is 3.7
million times our sun. just for the record it was publihed in the news
that the BH is 3.7 million suns, the velocity (more than 5000kps amd a
distance pf 17 hours. thre is a different star that is 8 hours
minimum distance and I will let the reader calculate how fast it is
traveling -- ( 1/40 of the speed of light)
look up surfing a Black Hole. google is your friend. I have been
studying celestial mechanics for many years. for the moment consider
that GM/r^2 = V^2 so we want V
pluto [( 1.3271244E20/(39.44*1.4959787066E11)^2]^(1/2) = 1.9525E-3
GBH [(4.93828932E26/(365.25*86400*299792485)^2]^(1/2) = 2.3448E-3
because the gravity at 1 light year near the BH is like the gravity
near pluto. it implies that all stars in this radius are in orbit
around the BH.
that is my math, now show me yours.
> Thank you.
>
josephus
--
I go sailing in the Summer and
look at STARS in the Winter.
"Everybody is igernant, jist on differt subjects"
Will Rogers Jr.
"it aint what you know that gets you in trouble
it is what you know that aint so"
Josh Billings.
FreedThinker
> Diversity accumulates at a rate which is more than sufficient. <
Examples?
> Look at varves for a simple [example of something being 15,000 yrs old+]. <
Varves are only accurate if you know that they are being laid down at
an annual rate (after all, that IS the definition) and that you can
accurately differentiate the distinct varves when they have been
sufficiently compressed after going a certain number of layers down.
Additionally, flood or sediment deposits can lay down what appear to
be a large number of varves in a short period of time.
> Out of curiosity, what do you consider the "original autographs" of the New Testament? <
The original autographs of the New Testament can be determined quite
easily by tracing the wide variety of extant copies with their
differences and similarities back to their most recent common
"ancestor". An overwhelming percentage of all extant copies of what
is commonly accepted as the New Testament agree with each other to
such a degree that they trace back to divergent points in the first
and second centuries C.E. These, being cohesively separate from the
rest of the supposed autographs and relatively close to the events
recorded, can be regarded as the most reliable. But that is a side
note. :-D
> Why do you label the sole justification for your belief "incidental"? <
Please watch the loaded questions. That is not the justification for
my position.
I am currently in college. My request that you "educate me" regards
my divergent position compared to the majority of the scientific
community that concerns itself with this question.
Thank you.
FreedThinker
> Hard to be sure what you mean here. Do you mean that mutation and natural selection are inadequate to account for the extent of adaptive evolution, or that descent with modification can't explain the number of species? If the former, this is conceivably true, though I can't imagine how one could come to that conclusion based on evidence; at most one could decide that known mechanisms have not been shown to be adequate. If the latter, there is abundant evidence that this claim is false. <
The former. And yes, I was stating the known mechanisms have not been
shown to be adequate.
Simply put, by "artifact or object" I meant any chunk of the earth.
> I can't imagine what evidence you are referring to here, and so am unable to refute it. But the stratigraphic record shows no such widespread [flood] event. Part of your range is within written history, and no such event is recorded. <
The evidence (which I have listed above) suggests that the
stratigraphic record is the result of said catastrophe. And yes, such
an event is recorded independently in part by nearly every primitive
people group on earth, but it depends greatly on your definition of
"written history."
> I bet you came to the conclusion that the bible was all true and then looked for a way for science to be reconciled to your prior beliefs. <
That's a bet I'd be willing to take.
"All but a negligible proportion, not exceeding 5%, of scientists and
scientific organizations that choose to involve themselves in various
aspects of the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions
in opposition to the above postulates." Why of course.
> Nevertheless, these "operational scientists" who work for "the betterment of the human race", etc. also side with the majority, and less than 5% of them would credit your notions. <
Silent indifference is hardly "siding with"; I was just making the
point that it is irrelevant to most areas of operational science. We
can cure cancer whether we believe that dinosaurs turned into birds or
the invisible pink unicorn dug out the grand canyon with his horn.
> Are you an exception? <
If exceptions didn't happen, we wouldn't have that word in the English
language. But no. I believe that there are quite a few people like
me.
> 3. Do you entirely reject all commonly used methods for dating [...]? If so, why? <
See the above discussion of radiometric dating.
Thank you.
Dana Tweedy
> Sue,
>
> Of the three postulates I presented, two were negative ("there isn't
> enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
> evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
> you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
> demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
> biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
> why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
Biological evolutionary change has been observed to produce variety, and
there is no other known mechanism which can produce such variety, and
has been observed.
Radiometric dating, for one, indicates that the Earth is much older
than 15,000 years, by a factor of about a half a million.
>
> The body of evidence suggesting a large aquatic catastrophe in the
> recent past consists mostly of the observed ability of fast-moving
> water or sediment to lay down large strata layers in short periods of
> time,
Actually, that has not been observed to produce the kind of strata that
is seen in the geological record. A single "large aquatic catastrophe"
cannot possibly have produced the varied geology that one sees in the
world, which includes evaporites, foot prints within layers, and such
things a raindrop impressions, etc.
> the existence of fossilized carcasses spread throughout these
> layers that are more consistent with a rapid burial than a gradual
> fossilization process,
Actually, the "gradual fossilization process" normally begins with rapid
burial, often by localized flooding. There is also many examples of
fossilization that occurred in quiet, anoxic lagoons, which is
impossible with a flood scenario.
The existence of those fossilized "carcasses" (along with plants,
and microbes) which show faunal succession contradicts the idea of a
single global flood. If the fossil record was laid down at once, we'd
expect to see fossils unsorted by chronological order. Instead we see
distinct periods that were classified long before Darwin published his
theory.
There is also a lack of evidence of a single "aquatic catastrophe"
that involved the entire Earth's surface. Moreover, the problem of
where did the extra water come from, and where did it go afterward is an
issue that has never been adequately answered by creationists.
> the existence of marine fossils at high
> altitudes inconsistent with gradual continental uplift,
How so? Existence of marine fossils at high altitude is much more
consistent with tectonic uplifting than a global flood, which would not
have left marine fossils inside rocks. A global flood might have left
a relatively thin layer of sediment on top of mountains, (but then
quickly washed away) but could not possibly have placed fossils inside
of the rocks themselves.
? and holes in
> the ground like the Grand Canyon that could have easily been formed by
> water runoff after the breakup of ice dams formed after such a flood.
First of all, where do you get the idea there would have been "ice dams"
caused by a global flood? The kinetic energy released by a flood of
that magnitude (and the rain) would have heated the surface of the
Earth, not cooled it. Second, the Grand Canyon is not merely a "hole in
the ground". The Grand Canyon is the result of tectonic forces
uplifting and erosion of the Ancestral Colorado River cutting down
through the rock layers. Runoff from ice dams fits more with
glaciation scenarios, than a single global flood. May I suggest you
read some geology? Maybe Glen Morton's example would be helpful. He
was a YEC until he became a professional geologist, and found that the
evidence he saw contradicted his religious beliefs. See
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
>
> Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
>
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
Then your case would most likely be thrown out of court.
DJT
FreedThinker
I am not blaming contamination entirely. But when contamination
happens, it does not infer that it is a pure chunk of "old rock"; in
isocron dating D_i, P, and D don't exactly stick together unless it is
a closed system.
We can trust the equipment for the range of accuracy for that
equipment. However, since isocron dating doesn't measure under a
particular age, we can't date something as being within that range
unless we already know it is in the range ... which is circular
reasoning.
Thank you.
Cheezits
> I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
> degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
> it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that.
What do you think is the degree of change necessary, and how do you
decide whether it is adequate?
>> So, how long have you been a born-again Christian? <
>
> How is that relevant?
Another non-answer? :-D You kept saying over and over how you came to
your unbiased scientifically reasoned position based on unbiased
scientific reasoning, and I thought you were maybe just protesting a
*little* too much. Every time anyone comes here pushing a creationist
position, there always turns out to be a religious reason behind it. My
guess is that you are no exception.
> We are talking about science; I was just reasoning by analogy.
A poor analogy for how science is done in my opinion.
> It is my
> position that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence
> (in the ways that I stated above).
Um, yes. But I haven't seen you give a good reason why that is, or why
creationism is better. Do you have one?
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
Rich Townsend
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
>
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
>
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org". I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
>
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
>
The geological similarity between West Africa and South America strongly
suggests they were once joined together. How do you explain the fact that the
Atlantic Ocean now separates them? Based on a 15,000 year age for the Earth, and
a present-day separation of ~1800 miles, the average spreading rate would have
had to been c. 50 cm per day.
Compare this to the spreading rate we actually observe in the Atlantic -- c. 2cm
per year, or 0.005 cm per day. How do you explain the 4 orders of magnitude
difference between the observed rate, and the inferred rate for a 15,000 year
old Earth?
Cj
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
Since evidence is irrelevant to your point of view and you will only
consider exhibits that align closely with your side of the story we cannot
hope to match the coincidence of Genesis with your views. You win. Case
closed.
Cj
Mark VandeWettering
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
Well, okay. But no.
This may be your positioned, but it isn't based upon a careful examination
of the evidence, nor its comprehension. Whether this is due to ignorance
on your part, or a bias that you may or may not be aware of, it's too early
to say. I suspect it's probably both.
I'd ask you elucidate your position further, but let's try to focus the
effort on a single of your claims. "No piece of evidence when taken
in context reasonably suggests that any terrestrial object has an age
significantly greater than 15,000 years."
On my desk, I have a fossil of an Elrathia Kingii: a type of trilobite.
In fact, here's a picture of the very fossil (actually, you can see two
of them):
http://brainwagon.org/images/trilobite.jpg
Scientists classify this trilobyte as belonging to the order Ptychopariida,
which are some of the most primitive trilobites known. They date these
little critters to the middle of the Cambrian, but members of this order
seem to have lasted till the Ordovician. In other words, this critter is
claimed by scientific consensus to be roughly half a billion years old.
I must admit, it's pretty cool when you think about it. It's the coolest
$5 object I think I own.
Now, here's your challenge: why do you think that the scientists who
date this little guy thusly are wrong?
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
>
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work. Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
Only you can educate you. Thusfar, it appears you may not have been
doing a very good job.
> Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org". I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
You've done nothing to justify your rather odd beliefs, so we really have
no basis for discussion (other than the easy ridicule anyway).
> The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
Mark
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Naturally, this debate is not about "pieces of evidence" any more than
> a criminal trial hinges on which side has more exhibits. The question
> is what a given "piece of evidence" most directly supports, not
> whether you have "positive" or "negative" evidence. But I understand
> what you mean.
>
> Isochron dating methods are, of course, widely used to provide backing
> for the accepted chronological position.
No. They are widely used because they establish chronological position.
Verifiably.
You didn't actually put forth any reasoned position to justify your
mistrust in isochron dating. Your entire argument boils down to "you think
you are so smart, you don't know everything". This is of course true, but
in the context in which we are speaking, equally irrelevent.
> Thank you.
Mark VandeWettering
>
> I did not recall mentioning the age of the universe (about which I may
> or may not have an opinion). I spoke specifically about evidence
> indicating the earth itself is over 15,000 years old.
>
> that it existed before this catastrophe that I am referring to.
There is absolutely no evidence that any such catastrophe ever occurred.
> The
> formation rate of ice sheets is far from constant, as is the rate at
> which ice cores are laid down. Ice is more directly dependent upon
> humidity levels than it is on lasting temperature changes.
From where did you pull this rather interesting claim?
> The rate at
> which ice forms would be very high after a large flood, which would
> allow the Antarctic Ice sheet to grow to its present size in less than
> a few millenia.
Or this one?
Mark
>
> Thank you.
Dana Tweedy
> Mark,
>
>> Diversity accumulates at a rate which is more than sufficient. <
>
> Examples?
http://web.pdx.edu/~heiss/biology/dbe.paper.html
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/library/biodiversity/Genes.htm
>
>> Look at varves for a simple [example of something being 15,000 yrs old+]. <
>
> Varves are only accurate if you know that they are being laid down at
> an annual rate (after all, that IS the definition) and that you can
> accurately differentiate the distinct varves when they have been
> sufficiently compressed after going a certain number of layers down.
Why would this be a problem?
> Additionally, flood or sediment deposits can lay down what appear to
> be a large number of varves in a short period of time.
Do you have any real life examples of this? Geologists can normally
differentiate between flood sediments, and annual varves, based on
chemical analysis, and other methods. See:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html
This bit, especially
"The famous Green River Formation of Wyoming contains numerous varves.
The formation and its varves probably developed in several large Eocene
lakes. The Green River Formation is frequently cited by YEC critics
because the numerous varves refute both "Flood geology" and a "young"
creationist Earth. Sarfati and other YECs argue that the rocks of the
Grand Canyon and the Green River Formation and its varves may have
formed rapidly, just like Austin's pyroclastic "flow" at Mount St.
Helens. However, clearly, it is gross mistake for Sarfati and his YEC
allies to assume that the rapid processes that formed a pyroclastic
deposit at Mount St. Helens can be scaled up to explain the geology of
the Grand Canyon or the delicate and extensive varves of the Green River
Formation. For example, as far as I know, the laminae of the Green River
Formation do not include cross-bedding, antidunes or other features that
are present in Bouma sequences and some pyroclastic deposits.
Now, there is no doubt that multiple laminae may form in a single season
or even from a single storm or sediment flow as Austin (1994, p. 37-39)
and other YECs claim. However, YECs are mistaken if they believe that
ALL laminae form rapidly. Glenn Morton in Young-Earth Arguments: A
Second Look, for example, cites Hsu and Lambert (1979) and illustrates
the great differences between regularly spaced annual varves from Lake
Zurich, Switzerland, and noticeably irregular storm laminae from Lake
Walensee, also in Switzerland. Austin (1994, p. 38) mentions the storm
laminae from Hsu and Lambert (1979), but fails to quote Hsu and
Lambert's (1979, p. 460) clear statement that annual varves do exist in
other Swiss lakes, such as Lake Zurich. By failing to quote Hsu and
Lambert's (1979, p. 460) comment, Austin gives the false impression that
there are no annual varves in any Swiss lakes."
snip the rest.
DJT
FreedThinker
"Evolution can't account for diversity" = "There is insufficient
evidence that evolution provides a mechanism for this diversity."
"The body of evidence does not infer an old age for the earth" =
"There is insufficient evidence that the earth is old." And I'm
referring to the earth.
Since water lays down strata layers, and we have strata layers, thus
it is quite likely that water did it.
Rapid burial and gradual fossilization are not exclusive (technically
all fossilization takes a while); I meant the entire fossilization
process which includes the method whereby the fossil is buried.
Explain why the Grand Canyon is inconsistent with effect of massive
runoff from an ice-enclosed lake in the northern part of the United
States as the sedimentary layers of the Canyon were raised up.
> We all think you came to your beliefs about earth history based on your biblical literalism, and then looked around for scientific justification. Do you deny this? <
Yep.
In response to your "first exhibit" ...
If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
buried before the larger, more mobile organisms. Sort of a bottom-
feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile
> mammal progression. Which is exactly what we see. This explains
the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
Thank you.
Pfusand
>
> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
I don't think you understand how large "a billion years" is.
"Million" is not ten times bigger than "thousand" and billion is not
ten times bigger than "million."
Come back when you understand the scale of time we're looking at here.
> *No piece of evidence when taken in context reasonably suggests that
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
How strange. My own, personal trilobite fossil says otherwise.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
No, it doesn't. Four thousand years ago was the middle of the Bronze
Age. Neother the writings of those times, nor even the Nilometers
indicate that. Seven thousand years ago was during the Mesolithic,
and none of the 'cities' of that time, such as Catal Huyuk and Hacilar
show any indications of that either. There isn't any sign of anything
but small, local floods at any point between those two times.
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament...
Please do not conflate those things.
> are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs.
Point me to an "original autograph" for any one of those items.
(After defining the term, of course.)
> It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
No. From your point of view, it is essential. From my point of view,
the writings don't agree with the facts all that oftern.
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go readwww.talkorigins.org". I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
Very well. Instead of that, consider the souterrains, and chambered
and stalled cairns of the Orkney Islands. These underground chambers
can all be dated to about five thousand years ago. None of them show
the silting that would be the result of massive flooding. Therefore,
a massive flood would have to predate them.
However, if such a flood did predate them by the one to two thousand
year you posit, then there is no way to explain how enough people to
build them found their way to the grim, remote Orkney Islands in that
narrow band of time remaining.
I recommend reading "Tomb of the Eagles" which is quite accessible to
laymen.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Of the three postulates I presented, two were negative ("there isn't
> enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
> evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
> you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
> demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
> biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
> why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
Your claim is only that you think that such a thing isn't possible.
Whether it is or it is not is of course completely another issue. It
might be (in fact, it's quite likely) that we won't be able to convince
you of anything. This has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
> The body of evidence suggesting a large aquatic catastrophe in the
> recent past consists mostly of the observed ability of fast-moving
> water or sediment to lay down large strata layers in short periods of
> time,
Where? Give an example.
> the existence of fossilized carcasses spread throughout these
> layers that are more consistent with a rapid burial than a gradual
> fossilization process,
Where? Give an example.
> the existence of marine fossils at high
> altitudes inconsistent with gradual continental uplift,
Where? Give an example.
> and holes in
> the ground like the Grand Canyon that could have easily been formed by
> water runoff after the breakup of ice dams formed after such a flood.
Well. No. The Grand Canyon was not formed quickly. It doesn't look
like it was. It doesn't date like it was. It simply wasn't.
You can read (and address the points of) the following if you'd like
to start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
> Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
>
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
So, you aren't actually interested in what actually happened, just
whether you can convince someone who was too stupid to get out jury duty.
Interesting.
Mark
>
> Thank you.
>
Mark VandeWettering
> Sue,
>
> I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
> degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
> it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that. Perhaps
> you could point some out?
>
>> So, how long have you been a born-again Christian? <
>
> How is that relevant?
Despite your rather interesting moniker, they aren't particularly
known for their free thinking and rational approach to the evidence.
> We are talking about science; I was just reasoning by analogy.
> Evidence doesn't align itself on one side or another; all we have is a
> body of evidence that we have to try and unify by theory. It is my
> position that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence
> (in the ways that I stated above).
Yes, but, well, you're wrong.
If you'd like to argue that you are right, perhaps you should try to
think of some way to convince someone of that.
> Thank you.
Mark
David Canzi -- non-mailable
FreedThinker <onefree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sup.
>
>Don't bite.
>
>It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
>comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
>the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
>of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
>overall impression of the whole):
Language like this doesn't make you sound authoritative. It makes
you sound like you're trying to sound authoritative.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Usually, the majority attempts to educate the minority. It goes
> quicker that way.
Well, yes. They attempt to. Luckily, the educated minority are often
too smart for such silly ploys.
> And again, I knew that my beliefs relating to faith would be
> questioned, so I stated my reasoned position by way of reference. I
> also pointed out that this was incidental to the discussion at hand.
> Please address the three postulates which I referenced.
You've given us no reason to believe that any of these are rational
positions. If you'd like to try, by all means do so.
Mark
>
> Thank you.
>
wf3h
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
well, if you think all of physics is wrong...including that which is
operating your computer now, then there's no arguing with you. you've
chosen ignorance over logic. better men than you have done so.
> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
OK convince me.
>
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
since it took 400 years for xtians even to agree on the canon AND we
have evidence that it has been changed a number of times to deal with
marcionites, ebionites, etc., such a statement is simply
wrong.
>
> The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David
instead of starting with science, start with the bible. check bart
ehrman's book 'lost christianities' to see how many 'new testaments'
there were for the 1st 400 years of xtianity. check also 'the closing
of the western mind' to see how constantine manipulated the church to
enforce an orthodoxy on christianity that was quite alien to its
founding.
the problems with the bible....not the answers of science...will
convince you the bible is wrong.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> My own, personal trilobite fossil says otherwise.
Whoa! Where did you get a talking trilobite fossil??
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
wf3h
> Hello, Ron.
>
> Naturally, this debate is not about "pieces of evidence" any more than
> a criminal trial hinges on which side has more exhibits. The question
> is what a given "piece of evidence" most directly supports, not
> whether you have "positive" or "negative" evidence. But I understand
> what you mean.
>
> Isochron dating methods are, of course, widely used to provide backing
> method of measurement or derivation, certain assumptions are made.
as are assumptions made about the bible....
> >
> Radiometric dating usually yields a wide variety of specific results
> for a particular sample.
well...no, they don't. the very computer you're arguing for
medievalist approaches to knowledge seems to prove you wrong. you
accept the computer, but not the physics underlying it
a contradiction.
Baron Bodissey
> Hello, Ron.
>
> Naturally, this debate is not about "pieces of evidence" any more than
> a criminal trial hinges on which side has more exhibits.
I think that is where you missed the ship because science is EXACTLY
about the evidence. In the case of evolutionary theory it's not one
piece of evidence or a dozen; it's ALL of the available evidence
supports the theory. In a civil trial, the preponderance of evidence
is supposed to carry the day; in a criminal trial it is "beyond a
reasonable doubt." The evidence for the scientific theory of evolution
goes way beyond "a reasonable doubt."
You may not like what results from applying the scientific method
because it conflicts with some cherished belief. That's fine, you
don't have to like them, but don't pretend that they're not
scientific.
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
wf3h
> Rich,
>
> I believe that carbon-14 dating is not the same as isochron dating. I
> can address carbon dating specifically if you would like.
>
> As I stated before, all dating methods use several samples and yield a
> variety of specific results.
you keep saying this.
proof?
and proof that the bible is accurate? hell, my 'new english bible'
completely eliminates the story of the women in john's gospel who was
accused of adultery. it's not found in the most ancient manuscripts.
the bible itself isn't accurate, and there are 30,000 xtian
denominations all saying they are right...
> Radiometric decay rates are quite constant unless one is in the middle
> of a nuclear reaction.
>
well at least he got THAT right. now if he only knew how screwed up
the bible is...
Augray
<onefree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1193099472.2...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
>Sue,
>
>I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
>degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
>it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that.
So, because you're unaware of whatever supporting evidence a
proposition might have, it can't be true? Using similar logic, one
could argue that heliocentrism isn't true because one hasn't seen any
evidence that supports it.
>Perhaps
>you could point some out?
[snip]
wf3h
> Sue,
>
> I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
> degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
> you could point some out?
>
>
> How is that relevant?
because it's religious ignorance...and ONLY religious ignorance...that
leads to your position.
>
> We are talking about science;
uh, no we're not. YOU'RE talking religion. WE are talking science.
wf3h
> Mark,
> >
> > Out of curiosity, what do you consider the "original autographs" of the New Testament? <
>
> The original autographs of the New Testament can be determined quite
> easily by tracing the wide variety of extant copies with their
> differences and similarities back to their most recent common
> "ancestor".
which is about 300 years after christ. not a good start. and these
versions differ in over 300,000 places. they have been changed over
the centuries and the version we have today has a number of changes
from earlier MS's.
An overwhelming percentage of all extant copies of what
> is commonly accepted as the New Testament agree with each other to
> such a degree that they trace back to divergent points in the first
> and second centuries C.E. These, being cohesively separate from the
> rest of the supposed autographs and relatively close to the events
> recorded, can be regarded as the most reliable. But that is a side
> note. :-D
well, no, they don't. first, we don't know what the texts WERE in the
1st centuries. 2nd, there was no agreement on what the canon WAS until
about 370 AD. and there is no agreement on what the original texts
said or why those interpretations were chosen. the emperor constantine
had a role in enforcing...killing...opponents of what is considered
today's 'orthodox' beliefs, that to say the NT is the product of
accurate history is ridiculous and a-historical.
>
Rich Townsend
In that 'above discussion', you walk away from my point about C-14 dating. Why
don't you trust C-14 dating?
Dana Tweedy
> Greg,
>
> Thanks for addressing the first postulate!
>
> I assume that you are referring to the detrimental effects of
> mutagenesis and positive feedback for "progressive" mutagenesis.
The vast majority of mutations are not detrimental. They are
predominantly neutral.
> The
> process of natural selection can only operate on positive feedback
> that is present in the first generation of genetic change.
And variation provides that.
> Otherwise,
> it has nothing to bring it to the forefront and thus is no more likely
> than any other variation to be carried on, built upon, and eventually
> provide positive feedback.
Reproductive success is what brings natural selection to the "forefront".
> All genetic changes are naturally
> attenuated unless they provide an immediate survival advantage (and I
> am referring to gene survival, not organism survival).
No, most genetic changes a neutral, and aren't subject to immediate
selection.
> Are there
> random genetic changes which provide an immediate survival advantage
> that are progressive enough (able to be built upon for further
> advances) to drive microbes-to-man diversity?
Yes, there are. However not every mutation is harmful, or beneficial.
Most are neutral. It's not so much a "immediate survival advantage"
that matters, as one that offers differential reproductive success.
>
> I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
> there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
> the earth itself) is greater than 15,000 years.
I suspect you have not been exposed to all the evidence, or are
selectively ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Have you
taken any geology classes? Have you read more than Creationist
literature on the matter?
> What evidence makes
> all of this change?
>
> On erosion:
>
> Flood and sediment lays down a wide variety of layered earth that, if
> it remains underwater in the right conditions, form into rock very
> quickly.
But normally, not within a few thousand years. Normal erosion and
deposition. over billions of years, also produces a wide variety of
layered Earth, and meets the evidence much better than a single flood.
One problem with all the sediment being laid down in one cataclysmic
flood is the problem of where did all the loose material come from? On
Earth today, there is only a particular amount of topsoil and loose
material available to become sediment. How did a single flood gather
up, and deposit deposit the nearly 6 miles thick of sediment that makes
up the Himalayas? Why is there little, or no sedimentary rock in
areas such as the Canadian Shield? Why such an non uniform
distribution of this sediment?
Biomass also becomes a problem for a single flood. The millions on
millions of tiny skeletons of organisms contained in the Chalk cliffs of
Dover, could not possibly have lived all at the same time, and the
thickness of the deposit is not possible in a few hundred, or even a few
thousand years.
Then there is the problem of angular unconformities, which would be
impossible to have formed by a single flood. Evaporites such as
Gypsum, and Salt deposits are a problem for a global flood. For more
such problems, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
> Underwater currents necessitate a wide range of pressures
> which change the consistency and density of the rock underneath them.
However many rocks cannot have formed underwater. Evaporites are one
such rock group.
> Later on, the receding of the water (due to continental uplift or the
> breaking of ice dams) slices through the less dense portions of rocks
> and only partially (i.e. as though it took a long period of time)
> erodes the surrounding rock.
Why would a global flood cause ice dams? Where did the water recede
to? Where did all the water come from? Why are the canyon walls
vertical, instead of slumping, if they were all soft when cut?
> There is little or no trace left of the
> softer rock and today's observer can easily succumb to the assumption
> that the stream trickling through the bottom of the basin carved
> everything out over a long period of time.
Actually, that's ignoring a great deal about how geologic processes
carve canyons. There is a "trace" of the softer rock which the canyon
was carved out of, as these softer rock layers are often covered with a
caprock of more resistant rock. That's how the structures in the
Monument Valley were formed.
>
> It's like a backhoe carved out a massive trench in the earth and rains
> eroded the banks of the trench. The rain is only responsible for the
> erosion that took place AFTER the trench was made.
That's not consistent with reality.
DJT
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
> I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
> there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
> all of this change?
<snip>
Since all of the SCIENTIFIC evidence is consistent with an age of more
than 4 billion years, please explain the source of your offsetting
evidence.
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> In response to your "first exhibit" ...
>
> If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
> times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
> then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
> buried before the larger, more mobile organisms.
That does not explain why grass is found higher than velociraptors in
the fossil record. Velociraptors are found in the Jurrasic, while
grasses don't appear until the late Cretaceous. Also, we don't find
modern flatfish in the same deposits as we find trilobites, even though
they would have lived in the same sea floor if they had lived together.
Dinosaur fossils are never found in association with large land mammals.
We never find Ichysaurs in the same deposits as Dolphins, even though
they were very similar in size, and habitat. Flowering plants are
never found in the same deposits as early gymnosperms.
The appeal to differential escape just doesn't work.
> Sort of a bottom-
> feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile
>> mammal progression.
You are forgetting that many amphibians, reptiles, and mammals live in
the same ecosystem. Evolution does not show a "progression" but a
history of change. Marine invertebrates live today, as well as modern
bottom feeding bony fish, which we never find with such invertebrates as
trilobites. Amphibians live today, but we never find ancient
amphibians such as Ichyostega along side modern frogs and toads.
> Which is exactly what we see. This explains
> the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
Actually, the Cambrian explosion is much better explained by
evolutionary radiation from already existing forms. The Cambrian is
not the first period where multicellular life is found.
DJT
Dick C
> On 2007-10-23, FreedThinker <onefree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sue,
>>
>> I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
>> degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
>> it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that. Perhaps
>> you could point some out?
>>
>>> So, how long have you been a born-again Christian? <
>>
>> How is that relevant?
>
> Despite your rather interesting moniker, they aren't particularly
> known for their free thinking and rational approach to the evidence.
Hey, he is giving us his thoughts for free. Of course, we are still being
overcharged.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Vend
> Vend,
>
> I am not blaming contamination entirely. But when contamination
> happens, it does not infer that it is a pure chunk of "old rock"; in
> isocron dating D_i, P, and D don't exactly stick together unless it is
> a closed system.
Please explain.
> We can trust the equipment for the range of accuracy for that
> equipment. However, since isocron dating doesn't measure under a
> particular age, we can't date something as being within that range
> unless we already know it is in the range ... which is circular
> reasoning.
Thus we can't date anything. Sorry but this is not very scientific.
> Thank you.
You're welcome
Dick C
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
Reading your post gives lie to your first statement. It is not a reasoned
position, rather your religious beliefs forced the postion and any
reasoning you have done is to simply try to justify them.
You make a lot of unsupported assertions backed by claims about evidence
that do not bear out. A reasoned position would have yu investigating
the evidence beyond reading some useless creationist tract. Such as
actually learning about and understanding the science in question.
chris thompson
> Chris,
>
> Usually, the majority attempts to educate the minority. It goes
> quicker that way.
>
> questioned, so I stated my reasoned position by way of reference. I
> also pointed out that this was incidental to the discussion at hand.
> Please address the three postulates which I referenced.
>
Please don't snip out replies. It makes responding almost impossible.
As I mentioned before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. You have presented none for your assertions. I am afraid
the burden of proof is on you to explain why you believe so much of
mainstream science is incorrect. If we know your evidence and line of
reasoning, we can discuss it.
As to educating you- you set pretty unreasonable limits on what you
would accept. And you specifically put the talk,origins archive almost
off-limits. The odd thing is, that's about the best source of
information for this particular topic you could want. Not accepting
that as a source does not sound like the hallmark of an open mind
willing to be educated, if you'll pardon my bluntness.
But since you did say particular pages were OK, let's start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
Why do you think the techniques mentioned there are unreliable?
Next, do you accept that any speciation events have occurred? If not,
why not?
Finally, one of the nicest tidbits of evidence for evolution is the
presence of vestigial organs. Do you believe these exist? If not, why
not?
Those are good for starters.
Chris
Chris
Vend
<snip>
> Silent indifference is hardly "siding with"; I was just making the
> point that it is irrelevant to most areas of operational science.
They are not hiding their position, if you ask them, they will tell
you that they support evolution and creationism/ID is a pseudoscience.
> We
> can cure cancer whether we believe that dinosaurs turned into birds or
> the invisible pink unicorn dug out the grand canyon with his horn.
Cancer is currently studied as an evolutionary process, thus a good
understanding of evolution will probably needed to find cures.
Understanding of evolution is also required to properly deal with
infectious diseases.
> > Are you an exception? <
>
> If exceptions didn't happen, we wouldn't have that word in the English
> language. But no. I believe that there are quite a few people like
> me.
>
> > 3. Do you entirely reject all commonly used methods for dating [...]? If so, why? <
>
> See the above discussion of radiometric dating.
>
> Thank you.
Greg G.
>
> Thanks for addressing the first postulate!
>
> I assume that you are referring to the detrimental effects of
> mutagenesis and positive feedback for "progressive" mutagenesis. The
> it has nothing to bring it to the forefront and thus is no more likely
> than any other variation to be carried on, built upon, and eventually
> attenuated unless they provide an immediate survival advantage (and I
> am referring to gene survival, not organism survival).
Most genetic changes are neutral and some are not attenuated out of
existance. AIUI, this accounts for variation and drift.
> Are there
> random genetic changes which provide an immediate survival advantage
> that are progressive enough (able to be built upon for further
> advances) to drive microbes-to-man diversity?
When sexual recombination is added, the progressive changes do not
have to be sequential. They can happen in parallel and be united
later.
>
> I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
> there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
> the earth itself) is greater than 15,000 years. What evidence makes
> all of this change?
>
> On erosion:
>
> Flood and sediment lays down a wide variety of layered earth that, if
> it remains underwater in the right conditions, form into rock very
> quickly. Underwater currents necessitate a wide range of pressures
> which change the consistency and density of the rock underneath them.
> Later on, the receding of the water (due to continental uplift or the
> breaking of ice dams) slices through the less dense portions of rocks
> and only partially (i.e. as though it took a long period of time)
> erodes the surrounding rock. There is little or no trace left of the
> softer rock and today's observer can easily succumb to the assumption
> that the stream trickling through the bottom of the basin carved
> everything out over a long period of time.
>
> It's like a backhoe carved out a massive trench in the earth and rains
> eroded the banks of the trench. The rain is only responsible for the
> erosion that took place AFTER the trench was made.
This model does not come close to explaining the incised meandering of
the San Juan River. It does not seem that you have even looked at the
evidence. The bottom of the Goosenecks gorge would have been under
nearly a half mile of lithifying sediments. Over half of that would
have been eroded away for a few miles in one direction and all the way
past the Painted Desert and Monument Valley in the perpendicular
direction as evidenced by the remaining nearby cliff and the rock
spires. Out of that flat bottomed valley, you wish us to think that
the magic flood could keep a narrow crevice with vertical walls softer
than the rest of the rock? It would have to be 1000 feet deep, a few
hundred feet wide, up to 400 miles long with the bottom at a gradual
declination for a slow moving river.
Reconsider the evidence. The standard creationist flood explanation
doesn't float. Applying it to this evidence harms your credibility.
>
> Thank you.
You're welcome. Thanks for your reply.
--
Greg G.
I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity
an obligation; every possession a duty.
--John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
.
Vend
<snip>
> In response to your "first exhibit" ...
>
> If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
> times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
> then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
> buried before the larger, more mobile organisms.
1) Why would acquatic organisms die in the flood?
2) The fossil record is not sorted by size or motility, thus your
explanation fails.
> Sort of a bottom-
> feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile> mammal progression. Which is exactly what we see. This explains
>
> the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
No.
> Thank you.
Pfusand
My husband got it for me. Isn't he wonderful?
Jeffrey Turner
> FreedThinker wrote in talk.origins
>
>
>>Sup.
>>
>>Don't bite.
>>
>>It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
>>comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
>>the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
>>of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
>>overall impression of the whole):
>
>
> Reading your post gives lie to your first statement. It is not a reasoned
> position, rather your religious beliefs forced the postion and any
> reasoning you have done is to simply try to justify them.
> You make a lot of unsupported assertions backed by claims about evidence
> that do not bear out. A reasoned position would have yu investigating
> the evidence beyond reading some useless creationist tract. Such as
> actually learning about and understanding the science in question.
I suppose he's a freethinker only insofar as no one will pay him.
--Jeff
--
"Power never concedes anything without a
demand. It never has and it never will."
--Frederick Douglass
rupert....@gmail.com
> enough evidence to suggest that....") and one was positive ("the
> evidence suggests that...."). Naturally, the burden of proof is on
> you if you wish to disagree with the first two and on me if I want to
> demonstrate the truth of the third. In other words, explain to me how
> biological evolutionary change can explain the diversity of life and
> why the evidence shows an earth greater than 15,000 years.
>
> recent past consists mostly of the observed ability of fast-moving
> water or sediment to lay down large strata layers in short periods of
> time,
Very fast indeed, if the layer has to be laid down, solidified, used
as a home by terrestrial animals for several years and then covered by
the next layer, all in a matter of days.
> the existence of fossilized carcasses spread throughout these
> layers that are more consistent with a rapid burial than a gradual
> fossilization process,
Yet the horseshoe crabs are always above the trilobites, and the
dolphins are always above the ichthyosaurs.
> the existence of marine fossils at high
> altitudes inconsistent with gradual continental uplift, and holes in
> the ground like the Grand Canyon that could have easily been formed by
> water runoff after the breakup of ice dams formed after such a flood.
>
> Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
>
> As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
> have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
> showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
> story.
Science is not law. If you don't like a law, it's possible to get it
changed. If you don't like the way the Universe operates, tough.
>
> Thank you.
John Wilkins
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
Given that the source material for questions of prehistory in the Torah
has to be Bereshit/Genesis, and various other locations in the prophets,
how the canon was decided is entirely irrelevant to the topic of
geological origins, etc.
These texts were accreted over time and edited, rewritten and so on for
several hundrend years before the NT period. So the claim implicit in
your comment that they might be historically accurate because they are
close to the times discussed makes little sense.
For example, in some texts of great age in the Torah, e.g., the Psalms,
have several deities in action (e.g., Ps 82). Later tradition
reinterprets these cases to mean "political powers", but clearly the
earliest texts are not much like the latest ones. Why then should we
take them to be a historical record, if the religious claims made by
them are so disparate?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Baron Bodissey
> And again, I knew that my beliefs relating to faith would be
> questioned, so I stated my reasoned position by way of reference.
Please give your definition of the word "reasoned." My personal
definition goes something like: "Arriving at a conclusion consistent
with the available evidence." Since your position is consistent with
none of the available evidence, I suspect that your definition and
mine differ considerably.
rupert....@gmail.com
> Greg,
>
> Thanks for addressing the first postulate!
>
> I assume that you are referring to the detrimental effects of
> mutagenesis and positive feedback for "progressive" mutagenesis. The
> process of natural selection can only operate on positive feedback
> that is present in the first generation of genetic change. Otherwise,
> it has nothing to bring it to the forefront and thus is no more likely
> than any other variation to be carried on, built upon, and eventually
> provide positive feedback. All genetic changes are naturally
> attenuated unless they provide an immediate survival advantage (and I
> am referring to gene survival, not organism survival).
Except when they're not. Read up on neutral drift.
> Are there
> random genetic changes which provide an immediate survival advantage
> that are progressive enough (able to be built upon for further
> advances) to drive microbes-to-man diversity?
>
> I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
> there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
> the earth itself) is greater than 15,000 years. What evidence makes
> all of this change?
Did you consider the 20,000 years of seasonal deposits at the bottom
of lake Van in Turkey?
>
> On erosion:
>
> Flood and sediment lays down a wide variety of layered earth that, if
> it remains underwater in the right conditions, form into rock very
> quickly. Underwater currents necessitate a wide range of pressures
> which change the consistency and density of the rock underneath them.
> Later on, the receding of the water (due to continental uplift or the
> breaking of ice dams) slices through the less dense portions of rocks
> and only partially (i.e. as though it took a long period of time)
> erodes the surrounding rock. There is little or no trace left of the
> softer rock and today's observer can easily succumb to the assumption
> that the stream trickling through the bottom of the basin carved
> everything out over a long period of time.
>
> It's like a backhoe carved out a massive trench in the earth and rains
> eroded the banks of the trench. The rain is only responsible for the
> erosion that took place AFTER the trench was made.
>
> Thank you.
rupert....@gmail.com
>
> Examples?
>
> > Look at varves for a simple [example of something being 15,000 yrs old+]. <
>
> Varves are only accurate if you know that they are being laid down at
> an annual rate (after all, that IS the definition) and that you can
> accurately differentiate the distinct varves when they have been
> sufficiently compressed after going a certain number of layers down.
> Additionally, flood or sediment deposits can lay down what appear to
> be a large number of varves in a short period of time.
Evidence?
>
> > Out of curiosity, what do you consider the "original autographs" of the New Testament? <
>
> The original autographs of the New Testament can be determined quite
> easily by tracing the wide variety of extant copies with their
> differences and similarities back to their most recent common
> "ancestor". An overwhelming percentage of all extant copies of what
> is commonly accepted as the New Testament agree with each other to
> such a degree that they trace back to divergent points in the first
> and second centuries C.E. These, being cohesively separate from the
> rest of the supposed autographs and relatively close to the events
> recorded, can be regarded as the most reliable. But that is a side
> note. :-D
>
> > Why do you label the sole justification for your belief "incidental"? <
>
> Please watch the loaded questions. That is not the justification for
> my position.
>
> I am currently in college. My request that you "educate me" regards
> my divergent position compared to the majority of the scientific
> community that concerns itself with this question.
That's because the majority of the scientific community does not
accept the hand-waving explanations of flood geologists. Why would a
global flood have had entirely different effects than other floods?
Why is there no evidence of it over 90% of the Earth's surface? Where
did the water come from? Where did it go?
And since you seem relatively sane, apart from the young earth thing,
why is the Earth's orbit almost entirely empty? Do you have a model of
orbital dynamics that explains how this process was sped up?
>
> Thank you.
John Harshman
> John,
>
>
>> Hard to be sure what you mean here. Do you mean that mutation and
>> natural selection are inadequate to account for the extent of adaptive
>> evolution, or that descent with modification can't explain the number of
>> species? If the former, this is conceivably true, though I can't imagine
>> how one could come to that conclusion based on evidence; at most one
>> could decide that known mechanisms have not been shown to be adequate.
>> If the latter, there is abundant evidence that this claim is false.
>
> The former. And yes, I was stating the known mechanisms have not been
> shown to be adequate.
So you're not taking issue with evolution. You're taking issue with the
adequacy of some of the methods of evolution. Right? And please try to
be clear. You are not saying that known mechanisms have not been shown
to be adequate; you are saying that (in your opinion) known mechanisms
have been shown to be inadequate, which is quite a different thing.
It's hard to show the adequacy of known mechanisms, but I will just
point out that whenever the evolutionary rate is measured using fossil
data, it's always orders of magnitude slower than rates that have been
measured in the present. So that should mean that our question is not
why evolution has been so fast, but why it has been so slow.
> Simply put, by "artifact or object" I meant any chunk of the earth.
Please try to be clear. What you're actually claiming is that the earth
is 15,000 years old or less, and that you know of no evidence to
contradict that claim. Is that correct?
But this is nonsense. You have to absolutely reject the validity of all
radiometric dates in order to even make a beginning at such an
assertion. You have to suppose that dates are off by a factor of
300,000. No source of error ever suggested can be of that magnitude.
>> I can't imagine what evidence you are referring to here, and so am
>> unable to refute it. But the stratigraphic record shows no such
>> widespread [flood] event. Part of your range is within written history,
>> and no such event is recorded.
>
> The evidence (which I have listed above) suggests that the
> stratigraphic record is the result of said catastrophe.
I don't see such a list of evidence above. Did you forget to include it?
> And yes, such
> an event is recorded independently in part by nearly every primitive
> people group on earth, but it depends greatly on your definition of
> "written history."
This is not true. There are legends of various sorts of disasters all
over the world. They vary in so many ways that there is no suggestion
that they all refer to any single event.
>
> That's a bet I'd be willing to take.
What bet? If you want to maintain context you have to leave it in the post.
> "All but a negligible proportion, not exceeding 5%, of scientists and
> scientific organizations that choose to involve themselves in various
> aspects of the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions
> in opposition to the above postulates." Why of course.
>
>> Nevertheless, these "operational scientists" who work for "the
>> betterment of the human race", etc. also side with the majority, and
>> less than 5% of them would credit your notions.
>
> Silent indifference is hardly "siding with"; I was just making the
> point that it is irrelevant to most areas of operational science. We
> can cure cancer whether we believe that dinosaurs turned into birds or
> the invisible pink unicorn dug out the grand canyon with his horn.
Then again, curing cancer has a lot to do with molecular evolution. By
the way, this term "operational science" is a creationist invention.
There is no such real distinction in science.
>>Are you an exception?
>
> If exceptions didn't happen, we wouldn't have that word in the English
> language. But no. I believe that there are quite a few people like
> me.
If you are answering the question I asked (and which you snipped), then
you have agreed that you hold your opinions for religious regions, not
scientific ones. Yes?
>>3. Do you entirely reject all commonly used methods for dating [...]? If so, why? <
>
> See the above discussion of radiometric dating.
I see nothing above.
FreedThinker
> I don't think you understand how large "a billion years" is. "Million" is not ten times bigger than "thousand" and billion is not ten times bigger than "million." Come back when you understand the scale of time we're looking at here. <
Amusing. I am fully aware of the significance of the scale of time to
which we are referring; a million years is a thousand thousand and a
billion years is a thousand million (or a thousand^3). Would you like
for me to explain the significance, use, and origin of Avagadro's
number as well? How about the application of epsilon = hv or the
difference and relationship of quantum theory and general relativity?
Lose the superiority complex.
Your personal trilobite fossil says nothing; it had no vocal chords
before or after fossilization. The dominant group of scientists
working in the field of geoanthropology believe that the fossil
predated all vertebrates and thus choose the set of radiometric dates
which most closely align with their expectation for the trilobite's
age. That's all that is being said.
The discussion of the NT and its original autographs is, as I said,
irrelevant to this discussion. I did not come to a particular belief
and seek scientific backing for it.
> Very well. Instead of that, consider the souterrains, and chambered and stalled cairns of the Orkney Islands. These underground chambers can all be dated to about five thousand years ago. <
Based on what dating methods? In case you hadn't noticed, there is an
ongoing dispute here regarding radiometric dating.
Thank you.
John Harshman
> John,
>
> "Evolution can't account for diversity" = "There is insufficient
> evidence that evolution provides a mechanism for this diversity."
If that's what is intended, it was poorly stated. But what do you mean
"evolution" here?
> "The body of evidence does not infer an old age for the earth" =
> "There is insufficient evidence that the earth is old." And I'm
> referring to the earth.
Thanks.
> Since water lays down strata layers, and we have strata layers, thus
> it is quite likely that water did it.
That doesn't follow, you know, unless nothing other than water lays down
strata. Now in fact most strata are water-deposited. A few are otherwise
-- windblown, dropped by melting ice, grown in situ in reefs. But it is
mostly water. Now whatever would induce you to translate that into a
single flood?
> Rapid burial and gradual fossilization are not exclusive (technically
> all fossilization takes a while); I meant the entire fossilization
> process which includes the method whereby the fossil is buried.
I have no clear idea what you mean, nor do you.
> Explain why the Grand Canyon is inconsistent with effect of massive
> runoff from an ice-enclosed lake in the northern part of the United
> States as the sedimentary layers of the Canyon were raised up.
Because massive runoff produces chaotic sorts of channels. Incised
meanders only happen if the meanders are already present in a fairly
slow-flowing river, and consolidated rocks rise around them.
Catastrophic flows do not produce incised meanders.
>> We all think you came to your beliefs about earth history based on
>> your biblical literalism, and then looked around for scientific
>> justification. Do you deny this?
>
> Yep.
Yet just a few paragraphs ago you affirmed it. Apparently.
> In response to your "first exhibit" ...
>
> If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
> times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
> then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
> buried before the larger, more mobile organisms. Sort of a bottom-
> feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile
> >mammal progression. Which is exactly what we see. This explains
> the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
It is difficult to discuss the fossil record with a person who knows
nothing of it. But you should understand that small aquatic organisms
are found in deposits from all periods, not just early ones. And around
here, we call your sorting notion the "magnolias run faster than
pterosaurs" theory. In short, it makes no sense given even a cursory
examination of the record. Nor does it explain the Cambrian explosion,
which you appear to know only as a buzzphrase.
FreedThinker
Mark,
My claim is that "such a thing" is unsupported by the mass of
scientific evidence, not that I "think such a thing isn't possible."
An example of a large number of strata layers being laid down in a
short period of time would be the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the
subsequent creation of the "Little Grand Canyon".
Any fossils showing a lack of decay or that were fossilized in the
process of completing an activity that does not take millions of years
(like eating, copulating, and the like) are naturally more consistent
with a rapid burial than a gradual burial and fossilization.
Any marine vertebrate fossils at relatively high altitudes or in the
center of large land masses are inconsistent with the accepted
geologic timescale. Unfortunately, current technology precludes me
teleporting you to the Rockies at present.
> The Grand Canyon was not formed quickly. It doesn't look like it was. It doesn't date like it was. It simply wasn't. <
Have you ever seen the Little Grand Canyon? It doesn't look like it
was formed quickly either.
My statements regarding evidence have nothing to do with actual court
procedure (although I am not exactly unfamiliar with that). Rather, I
am explaining by analogy that the question is not over "new and
exciting pieces of evidence" but instead regards all evidence as a
whole. It is as silly for someone to point to a single trilobite
fossil and scream "this proves Darwin was right" as it would be for me
to point to a cross-strata tree trunk and screech "see, everything is
wrong and the Big Bang didn't happen". Just because cross-strata tree
trunks are inconsistent with a usual understanding of strata formation
doesn't mean that they cannot be interpreted in the light of the rest
of the evidence.
Thank you.
FreedThinker
> Despite your rather interesting moniker, [Christians] aren't particularly known for their free thinking and rational approach to the evidence. <
Yeah, it's a shame, isn't it? They really ought to try to be more
worthy opponents.
> Yes, but, well, you're wrong [that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence]. <
Exactly what we are debating!
Thank you.
FreedThinker
> Language like this doesn't make you sound authoritative. It makes you sound like you're trying to sound authoritative. <
My apologies. I was trying to define my terms as carefully as
possible so that we would waste as little time as possible arguing
over the definition of "evolution" and "age" and possibly the word
"is".
FreedThinker
Who said anything about physics? I love physics. Without physics I
would have a heckofalot of trouble typing. Or breathing. Or
actually, even staying in one piece. Did I mention that I am a
physics major?
Your unsubstantiated, factually inaccurate, and rather amusing tirade
regarding the canon of the NT is really irrelevant to this discussion
since it is being used by neither side as evidence. So why are you
wasting bytes?
Thank you.
FreedThinker
Because I have not seen evidence that can consistently support a
position, I do not hold that position. That's how science works.
That's why scientists rejected Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
Thank you.
The Enigmatic One
onefree...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>Sup.
>
>Don't bite.
>
>It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
>comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
>the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
>of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
>overall impression of the whole):
[much crap snipped]
Wow.
You write quite well...very intelligently.
Thus, I cannot assume that you're a moron.
That means you're amazingly fucking dishonest.
-Tim
FreedThinker
> In that 'above discussion', you walk away from my point about C-14 dating. Why don't you trust C-14 dating? <
Sorry about that.
I do not trust carbon dating beyond the past few thousand years
because it is based on the global average atmospheric concentration of
C-14. This fluctuates greatly, but it can be approximated based on
records kept through ice cores, etc. However, since ice cores have
been shown to be laid down at a non-uniform rate, we can only derive a
graph of atmospheric C-14 levels that has no dates. This makes
carbon-12 isotope levels rather ambiguous.
Thank you.
Mike Dworetsky
news:1193115221.5...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Then, when some startling new evidence turned up about a decade ago,
scientists went back to thinking that Einstein actually had something after
all when he postulated a Cosmological Constant. The point is that science
is based on evidence, not on wishful thinking and daydreaming around a
desert campfire while the goats graze.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mark VandeWettering
> Mark,
>
> My claim is that "such a thing" is unsupported by the mass of
> scientific evidence, not that I "think such a thing isn't possible."
Well, you are of course mistaken. Nobody can make you believe that you
are mistaken, but nonetheless, you are.
> An example of a large number of strata layers being laid down in a
> short period of time would be the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the
> subsequent creation of the "Little Grand Canyon".
Do you think that perhaps there are strata that differ signficantly from
these rather extreme examples?
> Any fossils showing a lack of decay or that were fossilized in the
> process of completing an activity that does not take millions of years
> (like eating, copulating, and the like) are naturally more consistent
> with a rapid burial than a gradual burial and fossilization.
Well, duh.
From Wikipedia:
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because
most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose
relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism
to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by
sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to
this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or
comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are
several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
Of course it is a grand leap to go from this rather obvious claim to the
rather bold claim that all fossils were formed at virtually the same time.
The nature of the fossil record basically makes this claim a ludicrous one.
> Any marine vertebrate fossils at relatively high altitudes or in the
> center of large land masses are inconsistent with the accepted
> geologic timescale.
Can you give us an example, perhaps?
> Unfortunately, current technology precludes me
> teleporting you to the Rockies at present.
No teleportation is necessary: I'd just like you to name a specific fossil
and where it was found, so we might address it specifically.
>
>> The Grand Canyon was not formed quickly. It doesn't look like it was. It doesn't date like it was. It simply wasn't. <
>
> Have you ever seen the Little Grand Canyon? It doesn't look like it
> was formed quickly either.
Perhaps to a galloping ignoramus it doesn't.
> My statements regarding evidence have nothing to do with actual court
> procedure (although I am not exactly unfamiliar with that). Rather, I
> am explaining by analogy that the question is not over "new and
> exciting pieces of evidence" but instead regards all evidence as a
> whole. It is as silly for someone to point to a single trilobite
> fossil and scream "this proves Darwin was right" as it would be for me
> to point to a cross-strata tree trunk and screech "see, everything is
> wrong and the Big Bang didn't happen".
Since I didn't make any such argument, I'll ask the question again. Scientists
date my Elrathia Kingi to roughly half a billion years old. Why is your
opinion more accurate than theirs? You claim that you have a reasoned
opinion as to why scientists are completely off base. On what can you
make that claim?
> Just because cross-strata tree
> trunks are inconsistent with a usual understanding of strata formation
> doesn't mean that they cannot be interpreted in the light of the rest
> of the evidence.
>
> Thank you.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>
>> Despite your rather interesting moniker, [Christians] aren't particularly known for their free thinking and rational approach to the evidence. <
>
> Yeah, it's a shame, isn't it? They really ought to try to be more
> worthy opponents.
Unfortunately, fundamentalists are saddled with a particularly useless
view of life that precludes them from accepting what they observe.
>> Yes, but, well, you're wrong [that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence]. <
>
> Exactly what we are debating!
That's really not a subject from debate. You are wrong. Clearly. Obviously.
> Thank you.
Mark
Mike Dworetsky
> Friar Broc,
>
> I did not recall mentioning the age of the universe (about which I may
> or may not have an opinion).
Rather than keep it to yourself, how about enlightening us as to your
opinion about, for example, the age of the Universe, and the age of the Sun,
Moon and other planets? Do you regard the evidence as "inadequate"?
You may or may not be aware that your evasive answer is remarkably similar
to that of the creationists who "testified" at the Kansas Kangaroo Court a
couple of years ago. And you wonder why we think you are a creationist,
motivated by religious considerations?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html
> I spoke specifically about evidence
> indicating the earth itself is over 15,000 years old.
>
You happen to be completely wrong in your "understanding" of how isochron
dating works.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
> As far as the Antarctic Ice sheet is concerned: you are presupposing
> that it existed before this catastrophe that I am referring to. The
> formation rate of ice sheets is far from constant, as is the rate at
> which ice cores are laid down. Ice is more directly dependent upon
> humidity levels than it is on lasting temperature changes. The rate at
> which ice forms would be very high after a large flood, which would
> allow the Antarctic Ice sheet to grow to its present size in less than
> a few millenia.
>
With all that extra water supposedly around, it would be very hard for the
Earth to sustain temperatures cold enough for polar ice to form. Water
vapour is the most effective of all greenhouse gases. Did you know that?
Double the amount in the atmosphere and we would be several degrees hotter.
An amount consistent with a worldwide flood would be enough to cook the
surface.
> Thank you.
>
For what?
Mike Dworetsky
news:1193102209....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 6:28 pm, FreedThinker <onefreedthin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *The scientifically observed and catalogued process of biological
>> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
>> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
>> fossilized remains.
>
> I don't think you understand how large "a billion years" is.
> "Million" is not ten times bigger than "thousand" and billion is not
> ten times bigger than "million."
>
> Come back when you understand the scale of time we're looking at here.
>
>> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
>> than 15,000 years.
>
> How strange. My own, personal trilobite fossil says otherwise.
>
>> *The overwhelming body of evidence collected seems to indicate a large-
>> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
>> between four and seven thousand years ago.
>
> No, it doesn't. Four thousand years ago was the middle of the Bronze
> Age. Neother the writings of those times, nor even the Nilometers
> indicate that. Seven thousand years ago was during the Mesolithic,
> and none of the 'cities' of that time, such as Catal Huyuk and Hacilar
> show any indications of that either. There isn't any sign of anything
> but small, local floods at any point between those two times.
>
>> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
>> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
>> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
>
> Please do not conflate those things.
>
>> are as accurate as can be reasonably
>> determined in their original autographs.
>
> (After defining the term, of course.)
>
>> It is incidental to this
>> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
>> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
>
> the writings don't agree with the facts all that oftern.
>
>
>> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
>> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
>> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
>> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>>
>> Please do not request that I "go readwww.talkorigins.org". I've done
>> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
>> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
>> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> Very well. Instead of that, consider the souterrains, and chambered
> and stalled cairns of the Orkney Islands. These underground chambers
> the silting that would be the result of massive flooding. Therefore,
> a massive flood would have to predate them.
>
> However, if such a flood did predate them by the one to two thousand
> year you posit, then there is no way to explain how enough people to
> build them found their way to the grim, remote Orkney Islands in that
> narrow band of time remaining.
>
> I recommend reading "Tomb of the Eagles" which is quite accessible to
> laymen.
>
The Orkneys; we visited these islands about 4 years ago. The Tomb of the
Eagles comes complete with a guide who starts by showing us a chunk of
Orkney rock and asks "How old is it?" The answer is about 400 million
years.
It's a spectacular place and well worth a visit; Skara Brae is a neolithic
village in excellent condition that is provably older than the Egyptian
pyramids.
Mike Dworetsky
Nonsense. You were trying to sound pompous, as if you were the "World's
Greatest Expert, Professor Irwin Corey" but without the intentional humour:
How about listing all those authoritative scientific references you have
read that show the Earth is not proven to be billions of years old? Since
your "conclusions" are completely at odds with the consensus of the
scientific community, you ought to be able to muster some very remarkable
references indeed.
Guido
> Sup.
>
> Don't bite.
>
> It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
> comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
> the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
> of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
> overall impression of the whole):
>
> evolutionary change is inadequate to provide an explanation for the
> diversity of life that is observed today or can be inferred based on
> fossilized remains.
> any terrestrial artifact or object has an age significantly greater
> than 15,000 years.
> scale aquatic catastrophe that affected large portions of the earth
> between four and seven thousand years ago.
>
You claim to have 3 "postulates" here, but I see only 2. In my view the
first follows from the second. I think everyone would agree that if the
earth is only 15 thousand years old, then evolution cannot account for
the observed biological diversity. Therefore I don't see any need to
address your first claim at all.
Furthermore, you can arrive at your second claim only by inspecting
*every* bit of evidence for the age of the earth. I find it highly
unlikely that you did so, based on the quantity of evidence available.
If you meant that all the pieces of evidence you have come across are
inadequate, in your opinion, please say so, and state which pieces of
evidence they are, where you found them and what is wrong with them.
Maybe some experts in this group can then educate you on these specific
issues.
You state that you have read the talkorigins FAQ. If so, you must have
come across Dalrymple's book "The Age of the Earth". Did you read it? If
not, do so. If you did, why do you disagree?
About your third claim, history shows that you are wrong here. There
cannot have been a global flood less than 5000 years ago based on the
history of pharaonic Egypt alone. As Prehistoric remains have been found
in Egypt from the 10th millennium BC onwards, your claim must obviously
be false. Other archaeological finds also indicate a global flood did
not happen in the time frame you mentioned.
> As a side note, it is my reasoned position that the Hebrew Torah, the
> writings of the Hebrew prophets, and the body of literature compiled
> by societal consensus in the first and second centuries C.E. known
> collectively as the New Testament are as accurate as can be reasonably
> determined in their original autographs. It is incidental to this
> discussion that these writings tend to agree in historical narrative
> with the scientifically oriented postulates I have listed above.
>
> I am entirely aware that the majority of scientists and scientific
> organizations that choose to involve themselves in various aspects of
> the popular creation-evolution controversy hold positions in
> opposition to the above postulates. I am equally aware that the
> majority of operational scientists who do research for the betterment
> of the human race and the advancement of technology do not concern
> themselves with that controversy as it is inconsequential to their
> work. Neither fact is relevant to this discussion except for the
> derivative fact that I hold a scientific minority opinion.
>
> Because of my philosophical belief in the importance of being
> intellectually honest with oneself, I find it vaguely troubling that I
> hold a position that is a minority compared to the mass of scientific
> thought in that field. Therefore ... educate me.
>
> Please do not request that I "go read www.talkorigins.org". I've done
> that. A few times. If you must point me to a particular page on
> talk.origins, please specify the section or paragraph number so that I
> will know exactly what point you want to bring up.
>
> I find that in these types of discussions it is very easy for straw
> man attacks to take place. I have tried as hard as I can to define my
> scientific positions as precisely as possible so that this will not
> happen by mistake.
>
> The more specifically you address the above postulates, the more
> directly I will be able to inform you whether or not I have already
> heard the evidence you propose to interpret and whether I can
> reconcile it with the body of evidence I have already seen.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David
>
The Enigmatic One
onefree...@gmail.com says...
>Yeah, quite a coincidence. That's what "incidental" means. :D
>
>As I stated before, this isn't about what "evidence" I have or don't
>have. You don't win a court case by having more exhibits; you win by
>showing that the exhibits best align with your client's side of the
>story.
I may have spoken too soon.
You might just be really fucking dumb.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
onefree...@gmail.com says...
>If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
>times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
>then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
>buried before the larger, more mobile organisms. Sort of a bottom-
>feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile
>> mammal progression. Which is exactly what we see. This explains
>the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
Wow.
Such breathtaking stupidity!
-Tim
Cheezits
> On Oct 22, 8:16 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> My claim is that "such a thing" is unsupported by the mass of
> scientific evidence, not that I "think such a thing isn't possible."
>
> An example of a large number of strata layers being laid down in a
> short period of time would be the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the
> subsequent creation of the "Little Grand Canyon".
So, if something that happens to be called the "little Grand Canyon" was
formed in a short period of time, that means the Grand Canyon itself must
have been?
[etc.]
>> The Grand Canyon was not formed quickly. It doesn't look like it
>> was. It doesn't date like it was. It simply wasn't. <
>
> Have you ever seen the Little Grand Canyon?
[etc.]
Have *you*? I did a quick Google search for it, and so far every
reference I have found has been either a creationist site, or a
discussion of creationism like this one:
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n04/visit-to-the-icr-part-1.html .
In your extensive geological research, have you relied mainly on
creationist sources? If so, why?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Cheezits
> FreedThinker wrote:
[etc.]
>>> We all think you came to your beliefs about earth history based on
>>> your biblical literalism, and then looked around for scientific
>>> justification. Do you deny this?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Yet just a few paragraphs ago you affirmed it. Apparently.
I don't know about you, but I found that "yep" rather unconvincing.
The Enigmatic One
onefree...@gmail.com says...
>My claim is that "such a thing" is unsupported by the mass of
>scientific evidence, not that I "think such a thing isn't possible."
However, your own stupidity is the only support you offer for your claim.
>Any fossils showing a lack of decay or that were fossilized in the
>process of completing an activity that does not take millions of years
>(like eating, copulating, and the like) are naturally more consistent
>with a rapid burial than a gradual burial and fossilization.
Erm. Some things were buried quickly does not equal all things were buried
quickly. I know, tought to get your puny brain around.
>Any marine vertebrate fossils at relatively high altitudes or in the
>center of large land masses are inconsistent with the accepted
>geologic timescale. Unfortunately, current technology precludes me
>teleporting you to the Rockies at present.
Absolutely, incredibly wrong. And stupid.
>My statements regarding evidence have nothing to do with actual court
>procedure (although I am not exactly unfamiliar with that). Rather, I
>am explaining by analogy that the question is not over "new and
>exciting pieces of evidence" but instead regards all evidence as a
>whole.
Except you are really fucking stupid and have no ability to regard any
evidence, by piece or by the whole.
-Tim
The Enigmatic One
onefree...@gmail.com says...
>I have considered "all the evidence" together and have concluded that
>there is no reason to believe any part of the earth (and derivatively
>the earth itself) is greater than 15,000 years. What evidence makes
>all of this change?
>
So you openly admit that you're fucking stupid? Good to know.
-Tim
Augray
<onefree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1193115221.5...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:31:51 -0400, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in ><4gjqh313703jv3c7m...@4ax.com> :
>
>>On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:31:12 -0000, FreedThinker
>><onefree...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><1193099472.2...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>>Sue,
>>>
>>>I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
>>>degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
>>>it today because I haven't seen evidence that supports that.
>>
>>So, because you're unaware of whatever supporting evidence a
>>proposition might have, it can't be true? Using similar logic, one
>>could argue that heliocentrism isn't true because one hasn't seen any
>>evidence that supports it.
>
>Augray,
>
>Because I have not seen evidence that can consistently support a
>position, I do not hold that position.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that "mutations and natural
selection *cannot* provide the degree of change necessary for the
diversification of life as we see it today because *I* haven't seen
evidence that supports that" (my emphasis). You were making a global
statement based on what is possibly incomplete knowledge on your part.
>That's how science works.
Well, no. If a scientist were unaware of evidence that either
supported or contradicted a claim, they'd say "I don't know".
>That's why scientists rejected Einstein's Cosmological Constant.
No, they rejected it because it wasn't consistent with what was
observed. That's rather different than saying that something *cannot*
provide support for something that *is* observed, and in this case,
what is observed is the diversity of life.
>Thank you.
You're welcome.
[snip]
Augray
<redd...@bresnan.net> wrote in
<97KdnRJzYoZPxIDa...@bresnan.com> :
[snip]
>Velociraptors are found in the Jurrasic,
<cough> Cretaceous <cough>
[snip]
Grandbank
(snip)
>
> If, by way of example, the fossil record levels are based on burial
> times during an aquatic catastrophe rather than long periods of time,
> then it makes perfect sense that smaller aquatic organisms would be
> buried before the larger, more mobile organisms. Sort of a bottom-
> feeder > marine invertebrate > marine vertebrate > amphibian > reptile> mammal progression. Which is exactly what we see. This explains
>
> the Cambrian explosion beautifully.
>
So let me see if I've got this straight. After this modestly pompous
intro in your first post...
"It is my reasoned position based on my most careful examination and
comprehension of the mass of scientifically verifiable evidence that
the following postulates are supported by an unbiased interpretation
of said evidence (interpreting individual evidences based on the
overall impression of the whole)"
...you cough up a mouldy Creationist hair-ball like hydrodynamic
sorting? That's soooo 1956. The hissing sound you hear is the air
leaking out of your credibility vis a vis
"... my most careful examination and comprehension...".
Given that you are probably still a bit goggle eyed after freshman
orientation day, I suppose this naivete can be forgiven. But for
future reference, reading books from the local Christian book store
and then regurgitating them in front of your elders as if they
represented a "...mass of scientifically verifiable
evidence...supported by an unbiased interpretation of said evidence"
is something you will be able to look back on with fond embarrassment
in a few years.
There are certain markers in this discussion that reveal your sources
and render you predictable and transparent. Since you seem to like
Biblical history, consider the concept of copying errors and how they
frequently help reveal the history and source of a manuscript. As you
continue, bear in mind that to those who are more familiar with this
field than you (and who probably know your lines in the predictably
unfolding little drama better than you do) you have inadvertently
posted a large "kick me" sign on your ass.
KP
Greg G.
Mujin
news:I5CdnRoCvL6...@giganews.com:
To be fair, some of the fault is science education. Take a look at a JHS
or HS biology text some time and you'll notice that there are certain
iconic animals presented for certain eras of natural history. Line those
up, and you see an intuitive progression from small to large and from
invertebrate to mammal. It's not accurate, and it doesn't really reflect
what's in the text, but most people just remember the pictures.
Inez
> Vend,
>
> I am not blaming contamination entirely. But when contamination
> happens, it does not infer that it is a pure chunk of "old rock"; in
> isocron dating D_i, P, and D don't exactly stick together unless it is
> a closed system.
>
> We can trust the equipment for the range of accuracy for that
> equipment. However, since isocron dating doesn't measure under a
> particular age, we can't date something as being within that range
> unless we already know it is in the range ... which is circular
> reasoning.
>
> Thank you.
I am not an expert in this or any branch of science, but I always find
it interesting when people believe that they know better than all the
professionals who do this for a living. Do you really think that such
a glaring problem has gone unnoticed by scientists? Do you think that
they are all dishonest, or just stupid?
DJT
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:18:38 -0700, Dana Tweedy
> <97KdnRJzYoZPxIDanZ2dnUVZ_hCdn...@bresnan.com> :
>
> [snip]
>
> >Velociraptors are found in the Jurrasic,
>
> <cough> Cretaceous <cough>
Yeah, I knew I should have checked to be sure, but for some reason I
was thinking they were contemporaneous with the early birds.
Probably from them being in "Jurrasic Park", even though I was aware
that many of the dinosaurs in that book/movie were actually
Cretaceous.
The point still holds, they are found in lower (therefore older)
strata than grasses.
DJT
DJT
> wf3h,
>
> Who said anything about physics?
You did, when you suggested the Earth was not older than 15000 years.
For that to be true, there would have to be some major errors in
physics as we know it.
> I love physics. Without physics I
> would have a heckofalot of trouble typing.
Same thing is true about Evolution.
> Or breathing.
Likewise.
> Or
> actually, even staying in one piece. Did I mention that I am a
> physics major?
So, no study of biology, or geology?
snip
DJT
er...@swva.net
> Sue,
>
> I stated that mutations and natural selection cannot provide the
> degree of change necessary for the diversification of life as we see
> you could point some out?
>
> > So, how long have you been a born-again Christian? <
>
> How is that relevant?
Because nothing in the evidence suggests a young earth or a recent
global flood; those ideas come strictly from traditional folkloric
sources (of which religion is a good example).
>
> We are talking about science; I was just reasoning by analogy.
> Evidence doesn't align itself on one side or another;
Are you suggesting that evidence is not evidence _for_ some things
and _against_ others? That it is ultimately meaningless? You can't
get less scientific than that.
> all we have is a
> body of evidence that we have to try and unify by theory. It is my
> position that current theory inadequately unifies the body of evidence
> (in the ways that I stated above).
>
> Thank you.
Eric Root