RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (10) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread for Christopher Gieschen, Fossil Record Invalid?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:03   

Christopher Gieschen,

I saw you had made a comment on the Behe review page here where you say    
Quote
evolutionists will again contort their plastic theory and dating scheme and crow how science is not the search for absolute truth and is self correcting.

The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


As has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, the article you link to at uncommondescent a few posts into this page here was shown to be a simple misunderstanding of the facts.

Now, so far so average for IDC. A quick search on the name you used for your post brings us to this chap
 
Quote
Chris Gieschen is a science teacher at Concordia Lutheran High School in Fort Wayne, IN. According to him, “One of the perks of my ministry there has been directing plays, which I have adored doing for the past 20 years.”


What I want to ask you, if that is indeed you, is how can a science teacher be fooled by the misma they spew at uncommondescent?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:06   

Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:10   

Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


You call adjusting scientific conclusions based on new findings "moving the goal posts"? Wow.

Sorry, "Scientific findings vary" does not equal "the earth must be 6,000 years old".

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

that's somewhat depressing.

Is it going up or down over time?

This guy is just annoyingly smug
Quote
What I really cannot understand is the big fuss over how one thinks/believes we got here. If God created all things, as Genesis teaches, or if we evolved by random chance mutations working over millions of years…who cares? Both can study cells, DNA, virus actions, etc. and get the same results. This is operational science.

AFAIK IDC has no labs to study DNA etc.
Quote
How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all.

Do all the "real experiments" include the world outside the lab too :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:18   

Quote
How can past events generate predictions? I submit to you all the real experiments doen with bacteria and Drosophila have produced only mutant members of the same basic type of life form. No real EVOLUTION at all.


Well, here's the trouble:

Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats


He won't accept evolution til we produce a 'dat'.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:22   

on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:22)
on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!

Chimp + Champ = Chump.



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:29   

Living proof! I'm convinced, and coincidentally it's now time for the daily show :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,14:32   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 26 2007,14:22)
on the old newsgroups years ago the funniest thing I heard trolling around the creationist groups was "manpanzee" as in some loon would only believe in common descent if man and chimp produced "manpanzee"

Teh google now tells me they are also know as Chumans!




"I hate every ape I see,
from chim-pan-a, to chim-pan-zee..."


I'd be very sad if the IDCers ever quit using the 'why do we still have apes?" line.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

That's really sad for the USA.
What do you mean by "either do or would". Some of these 30% do teach antievolution? Do you have a link for this survey?

(funny, "antievolution" is in OSX spell checker, while speciation is not).

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,16:08   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 26 2007,14:10)
 
Quote
The problem is that with a plastic dating scheme, how is it falsifiable if we keep finding items out of order and then readjusting the dats to put them in order? Talk about moving the goal posts!


You call adjusting scientific conclusions based on new findings "moving the goal posts"? Wow.

He seems to imply that paleontologists adjust the dating ("dats"?) so that fossil organisms exist when they are supposed to according to the ToE. This sounds like the conspiracy theory. I'd like to see some evidence for that.

Indeed, rocks can be dated using the fossils they contain, if we already know, from absolute dating, when these organisms lived.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:24   

Dear Dr. Zavagon,

Here I am.  So I guess you can erase one doubt as I have joined.  I guess I am in need of clarification.  I am not sure what you want me to defend.  

I can tell you that I have already dealt with a professor at a state university who attacked me on a ersonal level and accused me of doing several things...which I did not do... at a science conference.

After reading my defense, he simply said that we have different philosophies of science and left it at that.  That is all I ever want from the evo. camp : admit that one can hold a different philosophy of science and still teach and do real science wtih out all the hysteria.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:32   

Ahhhhhhhh catch a whiff of the postmodernist fundie revolution!

It's our philosophies that differ!  Narcissus at his mirror could  aught but agree.  

Christopher I have not met you but I wonder what your philosophy of science is. Do tell.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,13:35   

*Braces for "unbound by naturalistic assumptions"*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:09   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,13:24)
I can tell you that I have already dealt with a professor at a state university who attacked me on a ersonal level and accused me of doing several things...which I did not do... at a science conference.

After reading my defense, he simply said that we have different philosophies of science and left it at that.  

Was that a legal defense?  What exactly were you accused of?  What exactly did you not do?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:15   

To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

First of all let me say for the record that I agree with your screen name all the way.  God is not old, He is timeless as He exists outside of this time/space universe.  Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.

I am not fooled by any misma.  But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...namely this : the universe did not put itself together, nor did the information-rich molecule DNA do so, nor are we the products of a mindless-uplanned process.

Science demands an observer and a log.  God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.  Evolution says that no one was there to observe and there is no log book (other than what we can see in nature).  Nature says that specified information does not put itself together.

I hope this explains where I am coming from.  Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:27   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
Science demands an observer and a log.  

So unobserved is not science?

I'm thinking;
  God
  Your brain
  My brain
  Gravity...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:37   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,14:06)
Because about 30% of science teachers in the USA either do or would teach antievolution if given the opportunity, according to a survey by the NSTA.

cheezopete

Wes, do you have a link to that survey?

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:43   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?

I'll leave the other canards in your post for others to handle. This one, however, is easy.

One doesn't have to believe in "our" version of origins; many other scientific versions are certainly potentially useful for operational science. But your version of origins, lacking a mechanism that operates with natural causes and effects, allows for no testable hypotheses. Any result can be explained, all results are equally probable.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:46   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

He's welcome to submit His findings for peer review whenever He feels like it.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:51   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:51   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 28 2007,14:46)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

He's welcome to submit His findings for peer review whenever He feels like it.

Zeus, Thor, Allah..?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:53   

Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,14:55   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,15:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

OK, sounds like you've got an idea of what that log is. I've got a shelf full of books that seem to fit the claim. My personal favorite is the Baghavad Gita but I assume you mean the old testament and the apostles.

On that, non-science point, please tell me something I really want to know:

What makes Jesus better than Krsna? Krsna makes a lot more sense to me. Maybe it's just my translations.

This is a serious question.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:00   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:51)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.


Except he didn't write it, he "inspired" it.

So the observer isn't the author.

Then it was edited (a lot)

http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm

Please note my Link has "UFO" in it!

And its so badly written people can't agree on the meaning or keep having to "translate it back from original Hebrew" to make it agree with reality!


ALL SCIENCE SO FAR.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:01   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 28 2007,14:53)
Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

Sort of all frank and no beans?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:03   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,12:15)
But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...

My emphasis.

So you did not determine "the truth" about the origin of life by looking at the evidence, but by some other means?

If that's the case, can your opinion of "the truth" be changed by new evidence?  If so, what sort of evidence would do it?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:07   

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 28 2007,15:01)
 
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 28 2007,14:53)
 
Quote
Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.


Good stuff.  An omnipotent being is masculine?  In what way?  Does he look like a man?  Or does he just like football and not the ballet?

Sort of all frank and no beans?

Bart: "You met the big guy? What's he like?"

Homer: "Good teeth, nice smell, class act all the way!"

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,15:45   

An omnipotent omnisexual omnipresent omniscient being.  It's just that his goober Soooooooooo Big you better call him Father or he will spear you with it.





--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,16:22   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 28 2007,14:51)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.

Absolutely.


Arden -

Does this mean... Blammo is God?!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,17:06   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 28 2007,14:15)
To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

First of all let me say for the record that I agree with your screen name all the way.  God is not old, He is timeless as He exists outside of this time/space universe.  Second He is not a man, but He is masculine evidenced by the fact that Jesus called Him Father.

I am not fooled by any misma.  But all the evidence I look at, which I interpret through my worldview lens, (All people do have a worldview lens of one sort or another.) is seen as confirming what I know to be true about origins...namely this : the universe did not put itself together, nor did the information-rich molecule DNA do so, nor are we the products of a mindless-uplanned process.

Science demands an observer and a log.  God was the observer and His log is readily available to anyone reading His word.  Evolution says that no one was there to observe and there is no log book (other than what we can see in nature).  Nature says that specified information does not put itself together.

I hope this explains where I am coming from.  Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?

thanks for coming.

You ask  
Quote
 Now please answer this.  Why does one have to believe in your version of origins in order to do operational science?


In partial answer I give you another quote of yours
 
Quote
We just ignore conclusions and interpretations not found in our worldview. And how can you say that our worldview is wrong?

Link
What method are you using to determine what conclusions and interpretations to reject? I'm not saying your worldview is wrong. 100% of the evidence and 99.999% of scientists are.

Do you have some sort of privileged access? Who controls what your worldview allows? It must have a gatekeeper. After all, it sprang from somewhere. It must have changed over the generations. This "worldview". Your meme.  

You also note

Quote
We have our own science conferences, heated debates, and blogging just as the evos do.


Will there be any practical results from it? Something useful? A creationist device harnessing the power of prayer to heal the sick maybe? It all seems to be centered on attacking "darwinism" is there any actual development going on somewhere? Some lab with *equipment*? The evos have science conferences, heated debates, and blogging and *labs*. It's not as though the money is not there, is it now?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,17:13   

Oh and Christopher,

Don't you have anything at all to say about the issues raised in the original post? Do you still maintain that article at uncommon descent represents a significant shift in your favor? That it is evidence that "darwinism" is worthless?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are saying the article is correct (and your spin on it is reality)then presumably you accept the papers implicit understanding of assuming an old earth full of life not mentioned in the bible. How does that help you in the larger story? Or is genesis not literal fact for you? Just wondering....

edit:typo

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,20:58   

The survey I'm finding shows that 31% of science teachers feel pressured to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution. Reading that, it looks like the percentage of teachers ready to teach antievolution is smaller than I recalled.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2007,22:08   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 28 2007,20:58)
The survey I'm finding shows that 31% of science teachers feel pressured to teach non-scientific alternatives to evolution. Reading that, it looks like the percentage of teachers ready to teach antievolution is smaller than I recalled.

Perhaps 30% of our country's teachers do teach creationism, and they're the ones who who'd be unlikely to join NSTA because of its strong support of mainstream science.

Wondering a bit how "pressure" was defined - anti-evo letters to the editor in the local paper, a parent suggesting that the teacher "teach the controversy," nasty emails from district patrons, a kid asking to distribute Chick tracts in the classroom, or being threatened with loss of job/privileges.  That's quite a spectrum of severity.

I haven't looked around for reliable data on the number of public school teachers who actually teach ID/TCT/creationism  as science.  

Off topic, sorry.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,19:21   

To oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

I hope to answer your questions and perhaps we ought to tackle just one at a time?  I trust this might be agreeable as there are several issues on the table at once, and it can get cluttered!

Okay, on the issue of evidence, as I said before, the issue is not evidence, but on the interpretation of the evidence.  Stephan J. Gould once said a very revealing quote, "Evidence is interpreted in the light of theory."

So according to him, one believes in evolution, interprets any evidence found in that light, and then proclaims to have found evidence supporting the theory.

In Geotimes Don Baars, a book reviewer, said in reference to the text Mass-Extinction Debates : How Science Works In  A Crisis, "A philosophical truth in the geological sciences seems to have been validated - we find what we look for."

My gatekeeper is the Bible as the only source of absolute truth.  It is true in all aspects of the big picture.  Science is merely supplying the details.  

Why do I trust the Bible?  Have you read Josh Mc Dowell's books or those of Lee Strobel?  These are two gentlemen who tried to disprove the Bible and were convinced by the mountains of evidence that it had to be what it claimed to be...the very Word of God.

Am I a literalist?  Certainly, when the text demands it, as in Genesis 1 - 10, which is written in the historical narrative format. (see articles on verb form in Hebrew).  the Psalms, which are obviously poetic, none the less contain truth which mirrors Genesis.

All this is a moot point.  To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work.  One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how they work.  Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right.  I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation.  You choose to believe that a cell put itself together.  I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today.

Does this help in any way?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,21:23   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Sep. 30 2007,19:21)
Why do I trust the Bible?  Have you read Josh Mc Dowell's books or those of Lee Strobel?  These are two gentlemen who tried to disprove the Bible and were convinced by the mountains of evidence that it had to be what it claimed to be...the very Word of God.

If you trust the Bible because of Lee Strobel, I have a bridge I think you might like to buy.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:19   

Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:35   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19)
Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

Christopher,

I don't know about Jim, but I've actually PRODUCED evidence that tests predictions made by modern evolutionary theory. At first, my evidence didn't clearly fit any nested hierarchy, but as others produced evidence from other organisms, everything fit beautifully.

Let me guess--when you "examine evidence," you're not anywhere close to examining the actual evidence. You just swallow what someone says about the evidence.

Am I right?

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,09:50   

Concordia Lutheran HS in Ft. Wayne, IN, is a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod school.  Concordia University in Ft. Wayne is a LCMS college and seminary.  The great majority of teachers in LCMS schools are "called" (in the same fashion that pastors are called by a congregation) and are synodically trained, so it is unsurprising that the gentleman would be anti-evolution, since YEC is a tenet of that Faith.

Over at http://www.geocentricity.com , Dr. Gerardus Bouwe points out the Scriptural basis for opposing the heliocentric hypothesis, explicitly citing Martin Luther.  Dr. Bouwe also points out that, up until the 1920s, LCMS seminaries taught the Scriptural truth of geocentricity.  The Pastor Emeritus of My Beloved and Darling Wife's congregation agreed that was the case,  when he and I celebrated the 30th anniversay of Tranquility Base, back in 1999.

Perhaps the gentleman could let us know just why the LCMS science curricula no longer teaches the truth of a fixed earth?

Or maybe he could travel down to Indianapolis and lead an inquisition at Lutheran HS, since they certainly don't.

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:17   

Hey all,

Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/28/feedback-ashamed

To JAM,

What was the evidence?  And most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told also, so what is your point?

To fusilier,

Here is the LCMS position on evolution

http://www.iclnet.org/pub....3.html.

I have no idea at this time why this was so.  And I am curious as to why you use James 2:24.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:38   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,11:17)
Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things.

I find it very telling that AiG chose such a particularly poor letter to respond to.  But then we see things like this frequently from creationists.  They tend to respond primarily to more abusive criticism, and tend to ignore the more well-thought-out and informed challenges.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:39   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17)
Hey all,

Here is an interesting skeptic's letter and the response which answers his critiques of the new museum opened in Kentucky.  Perhaps this will explain some things.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/09/28/feedback-ashamed

On that link is found the following text
Quote
Actually, we embrace the past 6,000 years worth of scientific evidence. Which would be all of it, since the entire earth and universe came into existence only that long ago. And then there was the worldwide flood in Noah’s day, about 4,350 years ago, that laid down most of the geologic layers and fossils we find today. We don’t need to ignore the evidence, because it is all evidence that confirms what the Bible has already told us.

And where do you get 1,000 years from? In fact, the belief in an old earth and evolution has only recently been widely embraced. Naturalism is the recent aberration, not the belief in a creator (even if many didn't acknowledge the true Creator). Many scientists over the last 1,000 years did indeed operate believing that the earth is young and that God exists. And many still do today. Besides, the “evidence” doesn't speak for itself—never has, never will.


Christopher, I'm willing to admit that sometimes, the biological world can have the appearance of "design".

Will you admit that the universe "has the appearance" of billions of years worth of age?

And Christopher, if there was a worldwide flood that "that laid down most of the geologic layers and fossils we find today" could you point out the geologic layer that is "post flood" and the layer that is "pre flood"? A simple request I hope you'll agree.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Venus Mousetrap



Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,10:46   

Great God, the weaselness burns on that site.

Quote
   Quite frankly I hope you are ashamed of yourselves, because I am in you.

Why is it that you are ashamed of us? On what basis do you feel ashamed? In an evolutionary worldview there is no basis for “shame”—there is no objective truth to know what is right and wrong. However, in the biblical worldview there is a basis for shame found in Genesis 3.


How fucking arrogant is that? To first impose a non-existent worldview on their critic, and then claim that he's betraying that worldview? And you really believe this clownery is a good argument?

My gosh, they also claim that the word 'unforgivable' is a Christian word and can't be used against them. Did you say you were a science teacher? How much of this crap do you actually support? They actually use the 'The Bible is true because the Bible is true' argument further down that page. Would you let your students get away with answers like that?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,11:38   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19)
Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

I have examined Stobel's "evidence" and found it trivially unconvincing.  By Strobel's own accounts, he came to jebus because his wife had swallowed the Kool-Aid, and he needed to convince himself that jebus was real before he would drink with her.  He then allegedly embarked on a two-year examination of the "evidence" and became convinced.  It's a recurring theme amongst born-agains. In his book "The Case for Christ," do you not find it interesting that in what is supposed to be an objective treatise he cites only Christian apologists, and only addresses carefully-constructed (and easily refuted) strawmen as arguments from the other side?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,11:41   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,09:19)
Dear Jim Wynne,

By the same token, if you believe in evolution because of Darwin, Miller, Gould, etc. I have the same bridge up for sale.  I take it you have not examined his evidence.

The Pee-Wee Herman argument--"I know you are, but what am I?"

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:01   

To oldmanintheskydid'ntdoit,

First I wish to thank you for the respect shown to me and not resorting to crude language in discussing this issue.  I appreciate your admiting that design appears to be true at times in nature.  I also agree that some things in the universe appear to be old looking.

Investigatge white hole cosmology, a relatively new idea in the creationist camp, which can explain the apparent time paradox.

As to which layers are pre-Flood and post-Flood, I would have you research http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....oic.pdf

This is a very long article which may help you.

Now a question for you.  As I asked before, why does when and where we came from have a bearing on understanding the present and how things work? (light bulb analogy)

Thanks for your time.

Chris

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:04   

Dear Jim,

I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence?

Thanks for responding.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:19   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:01)
To oldmanintheskydid'ntdoit,

First I wish to thank you for the respect shown to me and not resorting to crude language in discussing this issue.  I appreciate your admiting that design appears to be true at times in nature.  I also agree that some things in the universe appear to be old looking.

Investigatge white hole cosmology, a relatively new idea in the creationist camp, which can explain the apparent time paradox.

As to which layers are pre-Flood and post-Flood, I would have you research http://www.answersingenesis.org/home....oic.pdf

This is a very long article which may help you.

Now a question for you.  As I asked before, why does when and where we came from have a bearing on understanding the present and how things work? (light bulb analogy)

Thanks for your time.

Chris

Sorry about this but there is nothing useful to me in that article. Can you help me out by summarizing what part of it you thought was useful? This part here starts me off all confused. I don't know what he is referring to:

Quote
For modelling purposes, where necessary in the following discussions, the Flood is dated at about 4,500 years
ago. The basis for this is as follows:
(1) It is reasonable, if not appropriate, to take the genealogies of Genesis 5–11 as accurate and complete;
(2) The genealogies of Genesis place 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood; and
(3) a straightforward reading of genealogies in Scripture indicates the Creation of the world occurred around 6,000 years ago. This places the Flood at about 4,344 years ago; rounding to 4,500 years for simplicity. A few creationists have suggested that the Flood occurred from 7,000 (3) to over 12,000 (4) years ago. This places the date of Creation even further back in time. I do not accept these suggestions because they

(1) significantly harm the biblical chronology by introducing thousands of years into the genealogies of Genesis,
(2) are based on questionable dating methods or presumed geophysical process rates, and/or
(3) rely on the less accurate Septuagint.
Some have suggested that there was a significant time interval between the end of the Flood and the beginning of the Ice Age. This might lengthen the duration of the elevated post-Flood precipitation which includes the Ice Age. The potential for this interval, possible mechanisms, and its significance on the quantitative analysis from the various evidences will be discussed in the final section of this paper.


Can you help?

Thanks.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:21   

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 01 2007,13:19)
(1) It is reasonable, if not appropriate, to take the genealogies of Genesis 5–11 as accurate and complete;

You lost me at "1".

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:22   

To Venus Mousetrap,

I find it interesting that most of you on this site seem to read articles and then look for the one part you can argue about which then invalidates any of the other points made.

The issue of worldview is critical.  You can claim it is none-existant, but that does not mean it is.  How exactly do you see things?  Do you really believe that everything you see in nature put itself together?

So tell me how did cell division start?  I read a book (pro-evolution) which claimed that as cells were smashed against rocks that was how it all began.

And no I don't accept that from my students.  I expect them to seek out evidence and then interpret that evidence using the appropriate world-view, just like you were taught.

Sincerely,

Chris

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:25   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04)
Dear Jim,

I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence?

Thanks for responding.

No, not necessarily "all invalid," although most of it certainly is. If Strobel were interested at all in objectivity, he would have presented scholarly objections to the apologists' "evidence," and showed us how it was lacking. He didn't. He just used strawmen.  The evidence "my side" uses is generated by scientists who use an objective process to develop it.  If a scientist were to try to make the same type of lame evidentiary claims as Strobel, his work would be shredded in short order, and thrown in the dustbin.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:26   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,13:22)
So tell me how did cell division start?  I read a book (pro-evolution) which claimed that as cells were smashed against rocks that was how it all began.

Citation please?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:28   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,12:04)
Dear Jim,

I suppose that as the evidence presented by only the "pro"side, then it is all invalid?  So what does that say about all the evidence your side marshals?  Why doesn't that invlaidate your evidence?

Thanks for responding.

Please also note that when someone calls your contentions into question, it's best to answer them directly, and not fall back to the prepubescent strategy of saying, "My evidence is bad? Well so is yours."

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,12:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17)
To JAM,

What was the evidence?

Sequence evidence. For the record, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so please save your misrepresentations about conformism, etc.
Quote
 And most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told also, so what is your point?

My point is that you were bearing false witness when you claimed to be examining evidence. If "most teachers of evolution just swallow what they have been told," that doesn't justify your false claim of examining evidence.

Have you ever examined any sequence evidence--not someone else's interpretation of it--for yourself, or are you afraid that you can't make it fit your worldview?

Why do people on our side produce evidence, while people on your side run away from evidence, and project this pathological fear onto us?

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:33   

Jim,

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to :

1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.

2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.

And as for using prepubescent logic, mea culpa.  It is what you seemd to be using to trash someone's evidence.

If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:35   

Whoops!  I confused JAM with Jim!  Sorry people.  As my students say, "My bad!"

Chris

P.S. Gotta run to let my dog out.  Catch you tomorrow.  This is fun!

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:37   

A quick note to BWE,

He is simply answering why he holds the Flood to be that many years ago as opposed to some other date.

I hope that might help.  If not, then ask him.

Chris

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,14:58   

How exactly is the following point a piece of evidence that you can use to make any decision at all?

Quote
2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.


That may or may not be the case.  The point is "how can this be a deciding factor in decision making"?  If that was the case, then the point number 2 should include something like "chronological order of the fossils shown to be incorrect BECAUSE..."

I note nothing like that, what am I missing?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:02   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
Jim,

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to :

There are many more dating methods then that and they all have one thing in common that no creationist has ever reall y tried to address: Calibration Curves
     
Quote
1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.

Yet the Doctor himself says
     
Quote
You qualify me as a "young-Earth creationist". This is incorrect. I am not a creationist. I do not use the Bible to construct geological models to accord, in particular, with the Deluge.
Link
     
Quote

2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

This is the Douglas Erwin who is the curator of Paleozoic Mollusks at the National Museum of Natural History, who is an expert on evolutionary radiations, particularly the Cambrian explosion. Recently he said:
     
Quote
In the past few years every element of [The Darwinian Paradigm] has been attacked. Concerns about the sources of evolutionary innovation and discoveries about how DNA evolves have led some to propose that mutations, not selection, drive much of evolution, or at least the main episodes of innovation, like the origin of major animal groups, including vertebrates.


   
Quote
3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.

No, but a good start would be by you detailing what your problem is with "our" explanation for them.

Lets not go into detail about different dating methods. I'm no expert. But I do understand that totally different methods of dating come out to the same ages. That's some coincidence. That, or the earth really is alot older then 6000 years!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,15:57   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
And as for using prepubescent logic, mea culpa.  It is what you seemd to be using to trash someone's evidence.

Geez, you acknowledge your juvenile argumentation style and then repeat it in the next sentence.  Is this all moving too fast for you?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,16:48   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,15:33)
2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

Then why don't you include them and let us decide that for ourselves?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,16:57   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
Jim,

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.

I have--many of them.

 
Quote
I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.

No, I meant that I can show my evidence, as well as evidence from thousands of others, that is easier to interpret than fossils and geology. I bet that you're afraid to examine any evidence for which you can't regurgitate a creationist explanation, and I bet that you're afraid to make predictions about evidence that will be found in the future.
Quote
1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.

The laminations would be evidence, but what they suggest is interpretation. What predictions do you make?
Quote
2. Dougals Erwin's quote from Geotimes Feb. 1991, "Resolving many evolutionary...problems... assumes that the stratigraphic order of fossils bears some relationship to their choronological order."  The deleted words do nothing to influence the main point he is making.

Quotes aren't evidence.
Quote
3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.

Explanations aren't evidence. Only the evidence is evidence. Why do you so dishonestly conflate evidence with its interpretation, Chris?

I'll ask again:
Have you ever examined any sequence evidence--not someone else's interpretation of it--for yourself, or are you afraid that you can't make it fit your worldview?

Why do people on our side produce evidence, while people on your side run away from evidence, and project this pathological fear onto us?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,17:27   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,18:00   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

Chris, appeals to authority are always fallacious in science, but they are simply dishonest when such appeals come from someone who pretends to be interested in examining actual evidence. I suspect that you are incapable of resisting your impulse to appeal to authority.

If you disagree, try filling out this form with only evidence and predicted evidence, and without using a single name, quote, or opinion:

1) Evidence supporting an old Earth:
2) Evidence supporting a young Earth:
3) Predictions of an old Earth hypothesis:
4) Predictions of a young Earth hypothesis:

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2007,19:54   

Quote (JAM @ Oct. 01 2007,18:00)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

I understand, but The junk that Chris is referring to doesn't amount to anything approaching evidence at any level.  The primary literature for Chris is the King James version.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,01:01   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,19:54)
Quote (JAM @ Oct. 01 2007,18:00)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Jim, we also should note that real scientists describe the evidence instead of quoting the interpreter of the evidence.

I understand, but The junk that Chris is referring to doesn't amount to anything approaching evidence at any level.  The primary literature for Chris is the King James version.

Oh, I know that. What I find amazing is that no matter how many times we point out that opinions aren't evidence, Chris and his ilk will try to maliciously conflate the two, because in their hearts, they know that real evidence won't support their position.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:24   

Fellow members of this thread,

Let's try backing up to my ultimate bottom line as far as science goes.  Please answer this issue I have with the whole ball of wax and then we can tackle one item at a time.

To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work.  One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how today's light bulbs work.  Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right.  I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation.  You choose to believe that a cell put itself together.  I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today.

Again, don't pick apart the question, just the main point which is why is the past origin needed to understand the present?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,08:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:24)
Again, don't pick apart the question, just the main point which is why is the past origin needed to understand the present?

Quote
The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited - according to the evolutionary hypothesis - from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.


Reason for deactivation of GLO:

Evolution: It was a random accident.

OR

God Did it: God is an idiot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:03   

In order to build the car that you drive on a daily basis, did someone have to invent the internal combustion engine?

In order to drink the pilsner style beer in the fridge, did someone have to invent refrigeration?

In order to understand the car you drive, do you have to understand the workings of an internal combustion engine?

In order to understand the Urquel in your hand, do you have to understand the principal of refrigeration?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:16   

Christopher,

If ever we were bombed right to the brink of extinction, how would you propose that we rebuild the modern world?

Is it your belief that this could be done "without understanding where things come from"?

Just by looking at a computer (the hardware only) you could recreate one from scratch?

Just by looking a loaf of bread in its plastic bag, you could make one from scratch?

Just by once having drunk a bottle of wine you could make one from scratch?

Just because you've looked through a pane of tinted glass, you could recreate one right now?

Just because you own a lawn mower, you could build one from scratch just by looking at the exterior parts you are currently familiar with?

Just because you've used a wrench and held one in your hands, you can make one from scratch to help you in your reconquering of the world?

Or, do you think it might be helpful to know about where things come from: semi-conductors, the principle of electricity, how to use yeast, to smelt, to forge, etc.

I know ID supporters are always saying you don't need to know first principles in order to figure out everything about a thing.  But, really, come on, do YOU believe that?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:21   

blipey,

All the examples are intelligently designed machines.  Try again and relate it to mitosis.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:28   

To oldmanin...

Read the quote you supplied again.  Note the phrase used : "according to the evolutionary hypothesis" or this one : "According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations."

This is a prime example of why I say that worldview or paradigm shapes how we look at things like Stephan Gould said.

Try again and apply to mitosis.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:21)
blipey,

All the examples are intelligently designed machines.  Try again and relate it to mitosis.

Wow.  Could you have missed the point any worse than that?

Before we discuss the point, how exactly is yeast an intelligently designed machine?  Oh wait, I got it.

"According to Christopher's world view, yeast is an intelligently designed machine."

Got it.

Let's try it again, this time apply it to the actual point I was making.  This was nicely laid out in the direct question at the end of my comment:

Do YOU believe that it is necessary to understand first principles in order to know how a thing works?

All of the examples are of processes, not machines.

Yeast is an intelligently designed machine....marf!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:36   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:28)
To oldmanin...

Read the quote you supplied again.  Note the phrase used : "according to the evolutionary hypothesis" or this one : "According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations."

This is a prime example of why I say that worldview or paradigm shapes how we look at things like Stephan Gould said.

Try again and apply to mitosis.

I will certainly try again, but only once you have given us the explanation for the GLO issue from your "designed" point of view.

I'm aware of the evolutionary scenario.

I'm not aware of what your explanation is.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:37   

Quote
The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations.


Is that any better?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48   

OK so I will grant you legitimacy of your metaquestion, what does it matter if you don't beleeeeve in evolution, can you still do soil science or pest control management?  Sure.  Can you do biology?  Maybe but I doubt it.  I don't know any YEC biologists but I do know a fair number of theistic evolutionists.

YEC is a farily large obstacle to doing anything that even remotely refers to reality.  With the exception of engineering, of course, but I think that is my point.  Want to study geology?  YEC is a shot in the big toe with a .50 caliber slug.  Wish to study ecology?  Fixity of species is voluntary castration.  Taxonomy or systematics?  Last I had heard Kurt Wise was getting nowhere with baraminology and my guess is he won't be anytime soon (hint:   'remotely refers to reality').  Wanna be a paleontologist?  You'll never find the pre-flood sediments so that's a wash (hint:  see above).  

Casting your lot with a young earth and the rest of the hokum that goes along with it doesn't by default keep you from doing biology.  I suppose you could study the mechanical aspects of animal locomotion, but you'd never understand your system with respect to other systems without the overwhelming realization that things are related by common descent.  It will keep you from being able to deal with ideas that don't fit in your mythology, and tends to increase the likelihood of crankitude.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48   

Oh I will take back soil science.  I don't know a single YEC soil scientist.  Duh Flud doesn't make sense when you look at dirt.  Anywhere.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:48   

To oldman...

I hope it's okay to shorten your screen name.  I wish not to offend.  I apologize for not asking before.  The GLO question is not really a design question for me.  This is the flaw I find with the IDers.  The designer seems to be ineffiecient, cruel, etc. due to things like birth defects and other mutations.

The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.

So the issue of mutations does not explain the origin of mitosis.  I've checked on the internet and have found no articles dealing with this.  Any dources you have?

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:51   

blipey,

Since when is a lawn mower a process?  I do not need to understand nor accept evolution to understand mitosis.  I have not found internet articles that deal with the evo. explanation on the origin of mitosis.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:52   

Christopher:

Since you are a proponent of front-loading, how does your stance that you have to know nothing of origins to understand current things even make sense?  It would seem that front-loading would be the ultimate we-have-to-know-the-origins scenario.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:54   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:48)
To oldman...

I hope it's okay to shorten your screen name.  I wish not to offend.  I apologize for not asking before.  The GLO question is not really a design question for me.  This is the flaw I find with the IDers.  The designer seems to be ineffiecient, cruel, etc. due to things like birth defects and other mutations.

The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.

So the issue of mutations does not explain the origin of mitosis.  I've checked on the internet and have found no articles dealing with this.  Any dources you have?

LOL, no problem at all :) Shorten away.

So your contention is that the GLO gene was active before "the fall"?

On what are you basing that exactly? I doubt the Bible makes  mention of Vitamin C, so it's an inference right?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,09:54   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,09:51)
blipey,

Since when is a lawn mower a process?  I do not need to understand nor accept evolution to understand mitosis.  I have not found internet articles that deal with the evo. explanation on the origin of mitosis.

The question was not "What is a lawn-mower"?

The question was "Without knowing anything about the origins of a lawnmower, how exactly would you reconstruct one?"

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:09   

blipey,

I will plea ignorance.  What exactly is front-loading?  I have never run across that concept.  Thanks!

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:13   

To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:17   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

Likewise it's an assumption that before "the fall" Man had a "perfect" genome.

It's a further assumption that it's been degenerating since then.

You said

Quote
The whole issue of mutations is due to the fact that we live in a fallen world which the Creator created fully good and functional.


Which should have been written like so

The whole issue of mutations is (I assume) due to the fact that we live in a fallen world (I assume) which the Creator created fully good (I assume) and functional (I assume).

Don't accuse one side of making unwarranted assumptions when you have nothing but unwarranted assumptions to support your case.

Tell me where in the bible it talks about genetic degradation.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,10:36   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,11:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

I notice that your original quote included the word "problems".  I will "assume" that was an honest mistake, though I suspect others will be less charitable.  And in any case, it is still difficult to discern Erwin's intent without having the rest of the context.

But as for your notion that this particular assumption is impossible to test?  Ridiculous.  Do you need someone to provide a list of various dating methods?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

An assumption cannot be proven right or wrong?  Nonsense!  We all do this all the time.  This morning, I assumed there was milk in the fridge, I assumed my son's preschool would be open when I dropped him off, I assumed my bus would show up on time, I assumed John downstairs would know my coffee order without my having to say anything...

All assumptions, in the sense that I didn't carefully think through all the possibilities before making any decisions.  All informed by prior evidence.  All subject to revision in the light of new evidence.

Just like the fossil record.  The ages of fossils and/or their surrounding rocks can be dated radiometrically, and hence we have a pretty good idea of the age of any rocks that we find containing, say, Triassic fossils.  That means (our assumption) we don't have to date every single Triassic fossil we ever find.  Just like I don't have to check the date on the milk every single morning.

But our assumption can easily be tested.  We could date the rocks, but we could also falsify our assumption in other ways.  For example, if we found Triassic rocks with Oligocene strata below them and Cretaceous strata above them, or typical Oligocene, Cretaceous and Triassic fossils in the same rock (as the global-flood hypothesis would predict), we'd have a serious problem.

So how do you explain the stratigraphic order of fossils?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,11:47   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:09)
blipey,

I will plea ignorance.  What exactly is front-loading?  I have never run across that concept.  Thanks!

Okay, I'll assume that you are telling the truth; but I am tickled pink every time I read that.

Front-loading is the concept that God (or really smart aliens who are slightly off-beige) loaded all the information that could possibly be needed into the very first thing (being, human, amoeba, whatever).  All of the information ever needed was loaded into this thing on the front end.  It has been as ever spiraling degeneration since then.

Look here for the discussion at AtBC.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:05   

John W

Then why did he say assumes if we know what the dates are automatically?  What is meant by assumes?

To oldman

Is it unwarrented when the text explicitly states that it was good?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:32   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,12:05)
John W

Then why did he say assumes if we know what the dates are automatically?  What is meant by assumes?

To oldman

Is it unwarrented when the text explicitly states that it was good?

In other places the "text" explicitly states things that we know, provably, are untrue. If a single instance is provably wrong then at the very least we should take anything else with a pinch of salt.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:34   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:05)
John W

Then why did he say assumes if we know what the dates are automatically?  What is meant by assumes?

This seems to come up a lot in discussions with creationists - they use the "bible-study" mode of enquiry, where a quote (not the evidence itself) is removed from its context and closely examined, and the precise meaning of each word of the quote is considered.  It's not the way science works.

Regarding this specific example: I can't speak for Erwin.  If it's that important to you to pin down the precise reason why he used the word "assumes" in this passages, you'll have to ask him.  As far as I am concerned, and given that I haven't seen the passage in its original context, I have no problem with interpreting this as "given that we've established the age of the components of the stratigraphic sequence, we can assume, if we find Triassic fossils, that they were formed in the Triassic period, unless there are indications to the contrary."  Just like I "assumed" the 48 bus would be running this morning.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:51   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,10:13)
To improvius

Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow.  By YOUR definition of assume we will never prove whether my assumption is right or not.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,12:53   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,13:04   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
Jim,

I was under the impression when you said that you have produced evidence, that you did an experiment or something.  I think you meant that you can show your evidence for millions of years based upon stratagraphic layers.  Why I don't accept stratigraphic evidence for millions of years is due to :

1. Dr. Berthalt's work which shows laminations can result that appear to suggest individual layering of a horizontal event one at a time.


Did you read Barthalt's work?  What particle size distributions are obtained?  Are these particle size distributions seen in "layers" in nature?

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
3. Polystrate fossils which have been explained by your side, but that does not mean the explanation is correct.


The polystrate argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of geology - that geologists assume that since many strata take millions of years to form, then geologists assume that all thick strata took millions of years to form.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:10   

Tracy,

But then without a polystrate fossil, how do we know when a layer did or did not take millions of yers to form?

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:15   

To oldman,

Please state an example of something that is stated in the positive which we now know to be untrue.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:32   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:15)
To oldman,

Please state an example of something that is stated in the positive which we now know to be untrue.

 
Quote
The oracle concludes with the pronouncement that Tyre will "never again be built" and the formula, "For I Yahweh have spoken, says Adonai Yahweh"

From Ezekiel 26:1-14.


Tyre Harbour


So, I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, somehow it won't be as clear cut as I've made it out to be. Fine. Let's not go there, but instead I ask you, do you believe the bible to be 100% innerant and should it be understood 100% literally?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:41   

Okay gang, let's try this one.

The problem we appear to be having is now centered on the word assume.  My physics colleague and I have read the posts and agree that we have two different definitions of the word assumption.

John W is using the word to mean hypothesis.  His going to the fridge to "test" that there is milk in it makes it a hypothesis (or an hypothesis for you upper crust types).

By definition, an assumption is not testable in any sense.  It is the foundation for our reality.  It is where we start, like the assumption that the physical reality is all there is ala Sagan.

For blipey :

He and I could not figure out what you are trying to say.  The lawn mower is a functional machine that is designed to run a certain way.  If I know nothing about its orgin, I can still study it, run it, and see how it works now...using sound engineering principals (which are not the same as biological ones as stated by someone else earlier.)

To all : please tell me why I have to accept evolution to understand mitosis!  Better yet, find me sources which prove that mitosis evolved from scratch.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,14:51   

Christopher:

The situation is:  the world has suffered a terrible disaster.  Much of what we have now is no longer operational, or even in existence.

Based solely on your having once seen a lawnmower, or eaten a loaf of bread, or used a wrench, could you recreate these things?

Or, would you need to have some understanding of the principles which allowed these things to be created?

You have stated that you need not know how things came into being to understand the things themselves.  I want to know how far you take this concept?  You seem to have a contempt for history and prior knowledge.

I want to know if you truly believe that just having known about a thing, you can recreate it.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:08   

The "assumption" quibble would easily be resolved if we could see the full context of your Geotimes article.

Of course, this is a long way to go when we already know that the premise of your argument is demonstrably false.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:11   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,12:41)
Okay gang, let's try this one.

The problem we appear to be having is now centered on the word assume.  My physics colleague and I have read the posts and agree that we have two different definitions of the word assumption.

John W is using the word to mean hypothesis.  His going to the fridge to "test" that there is milk in it makes it a hypothesis (or an hypothesis for you upper crust types).

By definition, an assumption is not testable in any sense.  It is the foundation for our reality.  It is where we start, like the assumption that the physical reality is all there is ala Sagan.

I can't speak for the upper crust types on the board.  Perhaps Louis will chime in when he takes a break from oppressing the workers.

Please see my previous comments regarding the productiveness of quibbling over word-meanings in text.  Science does not progress through exegesis of sacred scriptures.

Bearing all that in mind, back to "assume".  You've defined it in a way which the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't accept.  (Hell's teeth!  Of course assumptions are testable!)  Here's the definition of "assume" from Merriam Webster.  The relevant part for this discussion:

5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE <I assume he'll be there>

Nothing there about assumptions being "not testable in any sense."  I think if Erwin had meant "untestable philosophical underpinning of what we do," he might have said "axiom", rather than "assumption".  In any case, as I said earlier, if your argument hinges on what "is" is, why not contact Erwin and ask him?

I assume the Rovers are going to hand out a stuffing to Walsall tonight.  Doesn't mean I'm not going to test this assumption by checking the football scores in an hour or so.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:18   

oldman,

I do want to point out that I have an answer to the "enTyre" issue. (I can't resist that one  :D )

Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc.  2. It is not on the exact same spot.  2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted?

Ooo!  making predictions...science anyone?

Okay, I'll let it go as you say.  I believe and trust with all my core being that the Bible is what it claims to be...the very Word of God (see I Thess. 2:13) - the Supreme Being who alone is God and there is no other.

I also trust, believe, etc. that it is 100% true in the big picture of things.  For example : when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments.  [prediction again..]

Now I am also aware that I will be an easy straw man to knock apart if I say that it is 100% literal.  I am beginning to trust you enough that you are not attempting to insult my intelligence nor trap me into saying something that I do not mean.  Obviously the Bible has various idioms and poetic language like we do.  Think about how many of you science types still say Sunrise!  instead of Earth Rotatated!

In order to separate the two one needs to understand the verb forms used in Hebrew, and there are more than a few antiChristian Hebrew scholars who confirm that the original meaning of Genesis days where meant to be understood as 24 hour days.  

Therefore, where the Scriptures declare things in historical narrative format, these things are 100% true, Like when Jesus said that "No one comes to the Father but through Me."  (John 14 :6b) He meant that there is no other way to be saved. not buddah, allah, space aliens, that there is no god(god) so it doesn't matter, etc.

oldman, does this help you see where I am and why I am the way I am and that I can still do an incredible amount of science teaching, without the need of evolution to explain anything?  I use genetics, biochem, and all the processes we can see today and test today.  No one was there in the distant past save God alone.  So you rest on your authority and I rest on mine.

I wish I could have condensed this, but my passion and desire to be properly understood won out.

Thanks for listening, oldman.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:39   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,15:18)
In order to separate the two one needs to understand the verb forms used in Hebrew, and there are more than a few antiChristian Hebrew scholars who confirm that the original meaning of Genesis days where meant to be understood as 24 hour days.

Ah, you see this is the extra layer of interpretation that is only required with religion.
Arguments can rage back and forth, but nobody can prove anything one way or the other.

Yet somehow all the different people working in a scientific field can usually agree on common ground and can progress and generate new knowledge.  
Arguments setteled by evidence? Not something religion allows. I mean, are you working under the assumption that if left unchecked science will disprove your god?
And your answer
Quote
Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc.  2. It is not on the exact same spot.  2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted?

Why do I get 3 options? And anyway

1: What is not all it once was? Tyre you say? Therefore Tyre exists.
2: Same as one - Tyre exists. It has not been destroyed.
3: It may do for you, but failed predictions can be found in yesterdays racing papers. And, as in 1 and 2 it did not come to pass!

And if the bible is not 100% literal there is then scope for arguments over interpretation on top of the arguments, as you noted, about translation.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,15:47   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,16:18)
oldman,

I do want to point out that I have an answer to the "enTyre" issue. (I can't resist that one  :D )

Here it is : Tyre is 1. not at all what it was once in terms of grandure, glory, etc.

Irelevant.  That's not what was predicted.

Quote
2. It is not on the exact same spot.

Sorry, it's on the exact same spot.  Hasn't moved an inch.  It's smaller that it was.

Quote
2. Doesn't it count for anything that it was predicted and came to pass just as predicted?

How many point twos do you have?

Since what was predicted did not come to pass, no, it doesn't count for anything.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:35   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,08:24)
To me it matters not where things come from in order to understand how they work.  One need not visit Edison's lab or study the first light bulb to see how today's light bulbs work.  Even if you can explain to me logically how the first living thing knew how to divide does not mean that you are right.  I can believe that God originated the information in every cell's DNA to have the "machines" running at the time of creation.  You choose to believe that a cell put itself together.  I find no value of either belief in understanding how a cell divides today.

Chris, you're missing out on a lot of good science. Regarding cell division, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere, especially the table at the end of the article.

Since God's creative intentions are inscrutable, there is no reason why anyone would expect telomere sequences in all those "lower" forms to bear any resemblance to those of "higher" forms, including humans.  Nor would there be much point to studying telomere biology in any organism except humans.

Nor does it help the theist's case to say at this point in time, "Of course God did it that way," since (as far as you know) your inscrutable God could have done it any way she wanted.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,16:48   

I never really understand Biblical literalists.  Let me ask you, you say:

Quote
I believe and trust with all my core being that the Bible is what it claims to be...the very Word of God (see I Thess. 2:13) - the Supreme Being who alone is God and there is no other.

I also trust, believe, etc. that it is 100% true in the big picture of things.


And more to the point:

Quote
Therefore, where the Scriptures declare things in historical narrative format, these things are 100% true, Like when Jesus said that "No one comes to the Father but through Me."  (John 14 :6b) He meant that there is no other way to be saved. not buddah, allah, space aliens, that there is no god(god) so it doesn't matter, etc.


Therefore, since Genesis 1 is written in historical narrative form, you believe that it is 100% true that the world was created in 7 days, right?

Then do you believe that the medical advice contained in Leviticus 13 is 100% true?  Or is this a not-literally true strawman?  If so, then how do you distinguish?

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,17:28   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:10)
Tracy,

But then without a polystrate fossil, how do we know when a layer did or did not take millions of yers to form?


Without making assumptions, but actually looking at the strata involved - what the deposition mechanism is.  For example, the Joggins "polystrate" fossil was figured out 150 years ago by J. W. Dawson.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,20:04   

Quote
when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments.

Including Helacyton?

Whenever people say in effect that they believe the Bible is true because it says it is (Christopher, I think, does not say exactly this but he comes pretty close) I wonder if they believe in 'The Water Babies' because, after all, at the start of the book it says it is all true.

George says
Quote
Or is this a not-literally true strawman?  If so, then how do you distinguish?

This has always puzzled me about these literally-true-except-when-it-isn't people. And they all seem so absolutely certain that they can reliably distinguish between what was meant to be taken literally and what wasn't.

BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date? How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,21:40   

Quote
when God said in Genesis 1 that living things shall reproduce after their kind, lo and behold this is exactly what we see in the lab and in all breeding (science) experiments.  [prediction again..]
 


Not really sure that counts as a prediction when any and all animals were reproducing at the time that genesis was written. Thats what living creatures do, they reproduce. Any observed reproduction at the time that Genesis was put to paper (bark, papyrus, skin, stone whatever) would appear to only be 1:1 creature to creature.

  
celdd



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2007,22:11   

Quote
Here is the full quote : "Resolving many evolutionary, biostratigraphic, and paleoecogic questions requires detailed stratigraphic sampling and assumes that the stratigraphic oder of fossils bears some relationship to their chronological order."

Note the critical word assumes.  By definition an assumption cannot be proven right or wrong, so how does one test it as we weren't there when they became fossils?


To me, all this is saying is noting the trivial fact that the stratigraphic sequence is built up from the bottom up.  For example, when you bake a cake and assemble it for presentation, the bottom layer has to go down first, then you put subsequent layers on top of the first layer.  

Thus, fossil assemblages in the bottom layer must be older than those in the higher layers.  Turns out, we observe a sequence of fossil types through time.  And correlating bits of these sequences throughout the world, we can get a pretty good idea of how life changed through time.  This isn't just a trivial amount of observations (evidence), it's hundreds of years of observations throughout the world.

Sometimes, tectonic forces my overturn a stratigraphic sequence.  In addition to the sequence of fossils observed, other evidence in the rocks such as texture or sedimentary structures can provide evidence on which way was up.

I don't agree that "assume" means  you don't know.  All it is doing is stating a basis for the observations.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,07:56   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04)
BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date?

Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or:

{quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04}

with the curly braces replaced by square brackets.

Quote
How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't

Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em:

Quote
Quote
Quote
Hi there!


{QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,08:56   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2007,15:56)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04)
BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date?

Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or:

{quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04}

with the curly braces replaced by square brackets.

 
Quote
How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't

Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em:

 
Quote
 
Quote
 
Quote
Hi there!


{QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}

FRicken smarty nested quotes man. DON'T YOU SEE WHATS GOING ON?

Tire was rebuilt while g** was not looking DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?

NO?

WELL THAT MEANS 95% OF AMORICANS DON'T BELIEVE IN E.

SO OIL-CABAL THAT!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:13   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 02 2007,12:53)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2007,17:27)
 
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,14:33)
If you don't accept Mr. Strobel's evidence, then what about Mr. Josh Mc Dowell?

I'm not familiar with McDowell's lies evidence. Is it substantially different from the garden variety ignorance and dishonesty apologetics?

Yes.  It is of lower quality than the usual apologetics.

I've now taken a little time to look over McDowell's website, and all I can find is things for sale.  It appears that McDowell is willing to help us in our walk with jebus, for a price. After looking at the site, I had a quick peek at the New Testament, just to make sure that there hadn't been any significant changes since the last time I looked.  I was relieved to find that  the relevant text remains intact.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:20   

To mitschlag,

I read the entire article and fail to see how this shows the evolution of mitosis, more specifically how did this process orginate after the first cell put itself together.

To oldman,

I still see nothing on how my religious beliefs affect my doing or teaching science.  Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work.  Everyone has been going over board about evidence.  Were I to produce any, you'd all point me to talk origins or some other site which has the "answer" which amounts to the correct spin on evidence so it will say what you want it to say. Remember Gould's quote I used?

For example I could talk about the fact that radiometric dating is based upon three assumptions (there's that word again) as found in a previous edition of a text put out by the American Geological Institute.  One of them is that the amount of parent material is assumed as there is no way to know what it was at the start.

Science can never disprove God, so that is not something I ever have to fear.  But I can find evidence of design as everything I see in nature says that specified complexity, like this sentence, always has an intelligence behind it.  I have always wondered, How does knowing or believing that you are created instead of evolved harm anything in science except the concept of evolution - defined as protozoans become people.

I found Dawkin's failure to answer a simple request for a mechanism or an example of a process  which increases the information of a genome very revealing.  His response was nowhere near answering the question.  And the origins of mitosis, likewise the origin of information still remain.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:25   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20)
I found Dawkin's failure to answer a simple request for a mechanism or an example of a process  which increases the information of a genome very revealing.  His response was nowhere near answering the question.  And the origins of mitosis, likewise the origin of information still remain.

I'll address some of your other points shortly, but for now I'll presume you are talking about this
Dawkins Answer to the information issue

Could you tell me what part of his answer you disagree with?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:26   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20)
I still see nothing on how my religious beliefs affect my doing or teaching science.  Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work.

If a pupil in your class asked you

"Why are there so many beetle species?"

What would you say?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,10:48   

Christopher,

Where is the proof/evidence/science that the appearance of design proves design?  Isn’t that nothing more than a leap of faith?

With regard to IC, examples presented for IC (blood clotting, the eye…blah, blah, blah...) have been shown to not meet the definition of IC.  So, at what point does IC just become another pseudo-science concept like Alchemy?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:21   

Steverino,

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:23   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)
Steverino,

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Oh good, more not stamp collecting.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:29   

oldman,

Good question and a science one to boot!  When I explain beetles, spiders, or any life form for that matter I discuss speciation and adaptations like the desert fox and his Arctic cousin  But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.  It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.  That belongs to philiosophy or religion in my book.

One item that I had trouble with, and I'll ignore his tirade about deceptive methods and how he wanted to throw the person out, etc., was the use of modern animals are the models and a present day amphibian would not change into a reptile.  At least this is how I read it.

Question : Weren't the trilobites, dinosaurs, jawless fishes, etc. already the model types of their times?  And if evolution is supposed to be going on even today, then how can the model types change into something else?

I hope you can understand my point.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:36   

Quote
It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.


Are you saying that the scientific community cannot, in any way, ever, even in theory, discover the origin of beetles?

Really?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:38   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,12:29)
But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.

Congratulations, you've been lying to your students.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,11:41   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:29)
When I explain beetles, spiders, or any life form for that matter I discuss speciation and adaptations like the desert fox and his Arctic cousin  But I also say that science has shown in the lab (Drosophilia, bacteria, etc.) that one can can only change within a range.



Linky

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,12:14   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:20)
For example I could talk about the fact that radiometric dating is based upon three assumptions (there's that word again) as found in a previous edition of a text put out by the American Geological Institute.  One of them is that the amount of parent material is assumed as there is no way to know what it was at the start.

Well, you and your source would be wrong. And I really doubt you found that in a AGI text of any date, unless it's from around 1910. I bet you found it on a creationist website where some other cretinist claimed to have taken it from an AGI book.  Guess what --- he's fibbing, just as you are.

First off, I don't like using the word "assumptions" because it has an (inaccurate in this case) connotation of "untested". I prefer "premises".

Second, radiometric dating rests on one and only one premise, which has been tested six ways from Sunday and continues to be tested; the constancy of radioactive decay rates. For just a peek at the masses of evidence for this see The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2.

Third, your "the amount of parent material is assumed as there is no way to know what it was at the start" is flat-out wrong in two ways.  Way A: the amount of parent material at the start is irrelevant to all radiometric methods; you meant the amount of daughter material. Way B: isochron methods and the Ar-Ar method produce the amount of daughter material at the start as a byproduct of applying the method, and U-Pb dating of zircons and the like doesn't have to worry about the amount of daughter material because the physics of their solidification guarantees insignificant Pb content at solidification (as is acknowledged by the creationist RATE group; see "RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred).  Put together these methods represent way over 50% of the analyses done in the last few decades, and their near-perfect agreement with the one method that is sensitive to the amount of initial daughter, K-Ar, shows conclusively that the assumption of zero initial Ar is nearly always good if rational sample selection is practiced (which rules out all the creationist "studies"). (K-Ar is low-cost and well-understood, so there's still a place for it, but it's not used much any more).

Finally, you didn't elucidate the other alleged "assumption", that no relevant material has been added to or removed from the samples; that is, closed system. This is another falsehood.  Isochron, Ar-Ar, and U-Pb concordia-discordia methods nearly always indicate when the system has been opened, and in many cases the latter two methods return a good and reliable date even when the system has been opened.

The only hope for significant error in radiometric dating is humongous coordinated changes in the rates of several independent radioactive decay mechanisms, and that has a few minor problems such as parboiling the planet.

In the unlikely event that you are actually interested in learning how radiometric dating works, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,12:21   

That was very nice, JonF.  I wonder if Christopher will address any of your very specific arguments?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,13:59   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 03 2007,13:21)
That was very nice, JonF.  I wonder if Christopher will address any of your very specific arguments?

Thank you.  Of course he won't.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:04   

John F

Sorry to disappoint you, you lose the bet.  Look up Investigating the Earth fourth edition published by Houghton Mifflin P. 307.

Constanacy now is a far cry from how it was in the past.  We have no way of knowing that it has been constant all through time.

Creationists have done the RATE project and found too much helium in the crystals.  Of course you are welcome to point to another interpretation of the data, but all we have are competing interpretations.

The creationists, who have PhD degrees in geology can better explain isochrons than I can.  So you have your experts and I have mine.  Mine are wrong as they are in the minority?  Well, Galileo stood against the Ptolemeics (the scientists of his time) and he is now known to be correct.  The scientists of his day got the Church to be their big bad stick.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:07   

blipey,

What I am saying is that science has limits.  As no one can ever go back into the distant past (like when beetles "evolved", then no one can ever say for certain how they came about.  So we agree to study beetles now as knowing when they came about does nothing for us now.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:10   

Jim Wynne,

Talk about canards!  Your cartoon is the very reason Phillip Johnson discussed the old bait and switch technique used by evos to prove a fallicious point.  Extrapolation is a dangerous path to take when there was no human was present in the past.  Please be more intelligent than that, oh wait, you guys don't believe in design.  The whole cartoon was an accident.

Let's hope someone can recognize sarcasm when it exists.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:16   

Jon F,

Pardon me for spelling your name incorrectly.  I neglected to give you the copyright date...1984.

And by the way, which evolution speed do you guys say is true punctuated equalib. or gradualism?

Who will cop out and say it is both?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:21   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,15:10)
Extrapolation is a dangerous path to take when there was no human was present in the past.

But I thought that was only about 5 days for you guys.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:26   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 02 2007,14:41)
please tell me why I have to accept evolution to understand mitosis!

Assuming that the goalposts haven't moved yet. I think there is an answer to your question.

You don't have to accept evolution to understand mitosis, if, by "understand", you mean "know the details in sufficient detail to teach to your students".  Let me know if that is what you meant.

If that is what you meant, surely you understand that science has been going on for millenia at that level. Even heathens like Aristotle were capable of making observations of a process and passing on those observations to students.

But if you meant "understand' at a deeper level, such as "why", you need a mechanistic theory. Evolution is such a mechanistic theory. So you can observe something and make a prediction based on the theory; if the theory is correct, then I should find X if I do experiment Y. So it gives you the opportunity to learn more, based on predictive hypotheses and experiments.

Creationism is not a mechanistic theory. So you can't make predictions; all outcomes are equally likely when dealing with supernatural processes. If you think that is NOT the case, please give me an example of a testable prediction re mitosis derived solely from Genesis.

So if you accept evolution as a framework for understanding, you can learn more by this experimental process as well as by making new observations. If you accept creationism, you can't learn except by new observations, which are just more facts to be memorized or forgotten. If learning is important to you, and if advancing our understanding of this cellular process is important to you, the choice is pretty clear. If you don't want to progress past the observational stage, the choice is pretty clear as well.

Here is a recent review from some folks who chose option A (let's try to learn more about mitosis). Take a peek at it and see how evolutionary theory allows you to make predictions and test them.

Centromeres were derived from telomeres during the evolution of the eukaryotic chromosome, Villasante A, Abad JP, & Mendez-Lago M; PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 104 (25): 10542-10547 JUN 19, 2007.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:07)
blipey,

What I am saying is that science has limits.  As no one can ever go back into the distant past (like when beetles "evolved", then no one can ever say for certain how they came about.  So we agree to study beetles now as knowing when they came about does nothing for us now.

So, you're saying that the origin of beetles can never, EVER, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, be determined by the scientific community?

Please don't avoid this.  This is a yes/no question.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:37   

Hey, no fair, you weren't there!!!

What a lame excuse for apology.

If that is all it boils down to, then you should understand what this forum is all about.  

Belly Laughs!

K.E. YOUR STILL A HOMO.  PENIS GOURDS ARE FOR EUNUCHS

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:38   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20)
Where things came from has nothing to do with how they work.

It does however have something to do with where one might look for more information about how a thing works.

Quote
What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.


On the contrary - the presumed source of an object tells us where to look for other similar objects that can then be used as study aids. Without knowing the source (or a possible source), that approach isn't available.

Quote
It is the origin of the beetle type which is not a science question.  That belongs to philiosophy or religion in my book.


WHAT?!?!?!? Looking for ancient beetle fossils is something you'd regard as philosophy? Huh?

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:42   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2007,12:14)
The only hope for significant error in radiometric dating is humongous coordinated changes in the rates of several independent radioactive decay mechanisms, and that has a few minor problems such as parboiling the planet.

:O

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:42   

Quote
John F

Sorry to disappoint you, you lose the bet.


Um.  Not really.  You managed to NOT DISCUSS any of the points he made.  Money's still coming out of your pocket, Christopher.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:43   

aaack!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:44   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:10)
Jim Wynne,

Talk about canards!  Your cartoon is the very reason Phillip Johnson discussed the old bait and switch technique used by evos to prove a fallicious point.  Extrapolation is a dangerous path to take when there was no human was present in the past.  Please be more intelligent than that, oh wait, you guys don't believe in design.  The whole cartoon was an accident.

Let's hope someone can recognize sarcasm when it exists.

The point is that if you allow for small changes in the genome over time but still deny that speciation occurs, it's your problem to explain what the limits are, and what prevents speciation (which has been observed) from happening.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:47   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:16)
And by the way, which evolution speed do you guys say is true punctuated equalib. or gradualism?

Who will cop out and say it is both?

Depends on what you mean by "gradualism" in that question. For at least one meaning of "gradualism", it is both.

Henry

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,14:48   

That's insane.  Asking the people who want change to provide the evidence that it is a useful change?  Crazy talk.

That's why I'm a proud member of Folks for the Implementation of Hydrochloric Acid Shake Breakfasts.

No need to test, just take my word for it--you'll feel better.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:16   

Quote
Hydrochloric Acid Shake Breakfasts.


If it was good enough for JBS Haldane, tis good enough for this bard.

I love it so!!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,15:48   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,14:04)
John F

Constanacy now is a far cry from how it was in the past.  We have no way of knowing that it has been constant all through time.


Speak for yourself.  

Quote

Creationists have done the RATE project and found too much helium in the crystals.


How ironic that you uncritically mention a project that uses a method KNOWN not to be constant to derive "dates"! :D

Quote

The creationists, who have PhD degrees in geology can better explain isochrons than I can.  


Perhaps they can also explain to you why methods based on radioactive constants is not as good as using diffusion.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:07   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,15:04)
Sorry to disappoint you, you lose the bet.  Look up Investigating the Earth fourth edition published by Houghton Mifflin P. 307.

I don't have access to that book.  How about an extensive quote?  What you posted is wrong. It just ain't so that "the amount of parent material is assumed as there is no way to know what it was at the start" unless you are talking about one specific method rather than radiometric dating overall. And, as I pointed out, the vast majority of studies use methods that are not susceptible to that problem.

   
Quote
Constanacy now is a far cry from how it was in the past.  We have no way of knowing that it has been constant all through time.

Actually, we have many ways of knowing radioactive decay has been essentially constant; that's the point of the links I provided. Past occurrences leave traces.  We've looked for the traces that changes in decay rates would leave ... they aren't there.  Therefore radioactive decay rates have not changed significantly.  QED.

   
Quote
Creationists have done the RATE project and found too much helium in the crystals.  Of course you are welcome to point to another interpretation of the data, but all we have are competing interpretations.

Well, we have on one hand an apparent anomaly, with some grandiose claims about the import, that are far from being supported by the data.  On the other hand we have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of concordant radiometric and non-radiometric dates by thousands of researchers from thousands of different locations.  That's not just differing interpretations; which one wins is clear.

The RATE group has a long way to go to establish their claims that the amount of helium they found was too much.  They tested samples with complex thermal histories from an area where helium is common. They need to test lots more samples from lots more locations and establish the validity of their method.  My bet is that they won't do it. They've already achieved their goal of producing some scientific-sounding rubbish that fools the sheeple ... and I also bet they know that if they investigated further they'd find that 99.99% of zircons contain the amount of helium predicted by mainstream science and their original tests ain't valid.

Where you putting your money?  Supposedly they're doing RATE II ... want to bet on how many zircons from other locations get tested in RATE II?

   
Quote
The creationists, who have PhD degrees in geology can better explain isochrons than I can.

No, actually, they can't. They haven't even tried.

   
Quote
 So you have your experts and I have mine.  Mine are wrong as they are in the minority?

No, they are wrong because they don't have an explanation that fits all or even most of the data, and the feeble explanations they have offered are directly contradicted by the data.  All they have, literally, is: well, it must have been a miracle. Whoops, make that lots of miracles. Good thing our God does whatever we want!  From Helium Diffusion Age of 6,000 Years Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay:

"Thus our new diffusion data support the main hypothesis of the RATE research initiative: that God drastically accelerated the decay rates of long half-life nuclei during the earth's recent past. For a feasibility study of this hypothesis including God's possible purposes for such acceleration, Biblical passages hinting at it, disposal of excess heat, preserving life on earth, and effects on stars, see Humphreys (2000, pp. 333-379). The last three problems are not yet fully solved, but we expect to see progress on them in future papers."

Yeah, right, the problems that accelerated decay would  destroy all life and the Earth, and the fact that stars (and lots of other evidence) clearly demonstrate that decay rates have been constant, and fact the idea of acclerated decay has been completely contradicted by hundreds of different tests ... they're just minor stumbling blocks that they hope to overcome.  Well, they won't.

As soon as you say "then a miracle occurs", you're not doing science.

   
Quote
Well, Galileo stood against the Ptolemeics (the scientists of his time) and he is now known to be correct.  The scientists of his day got the Church to be their big bad stick.

That's an extremely inaccurate characterization of what happened to Galileo.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." (Carl Sagan).

You can compare creation "scientists" to Galileo when they have come up with some evidence and theories that fit it.  So far creation "science" is a non-starter.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:10   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)
Steverino,

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Christopher,

Not quite.  Your position has no supporting evidence as you have just admitted, it's nothing more than an unsupported leap of faith.

TOE has plenty of evidence that supports the process of evolution.  There is no leap of faith.

You have just rendered your argument invalid.  Your position is based on not acknowledging accepted, tested scientific process and facts.

You have brought a knife to a gun fight and can't figure why you don't stand a chance.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:18   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,12:21)
It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Who here has claimed that there is no designer?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:29   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,10:20)
To mitschlag,

I read the entire article and fail to see how this shows the evolution of mitosis, more specifically how did this process orginate after the first cell put itself together.

Thanks for your due diligence.  I thought you were claiming that evolution was irrelevant to understanding anything about mitosis, and telomeres being relevant to mitosis, isn't it neat that we know so much about their evolution?

But now you are asking for scientific evidence pertaining to the origin of mitosis.

1. To paraphrase blipey, So, you're saying that the origin of mitosis can never, EVER, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, be determined by the scientific community?

2. And you are saying that science at this moment is absolutely clueless about how mitosis originated?

3. You are unaware of the existence of organisms that divide without a mitotic apparatus?

4. You are unaware of the differences in cell division mechanisms between dinoflagellates, hypermastigotes, yeasts, and higher plants and animals that entail increasing levels of complexity?

5. Why bother to learn anything when ignorance is so much easier?

(And a tip of the hat to Albatrossity2 for his reference.)

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,16:35   

Christopher,

Is there a dating technique that is good by your standards?

What would happen if they were to discover Noah's Ark, would you acknowledge the dating technique if it put the age of the Ark at around 2400BC?

My guess is you would because it would support you position.  Which is why you cannot and will never agree to dating methods because they do not support you position.

Which, when you come right down to it, it's a waste of time debating with you because you will never agree with any science that does not support your argument.  Not because of a flaw in the science but, because you refuse to be proven wrong...and that is why you and other Creationist try to misrepresent and ignore facts.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2007,21:28   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 03 2007,07:56)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04)
BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date?

Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or:

{quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04}

with the curly braces replaced by square brackets.

 
Quote
How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't

Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em:

 
Quote
 
Quote
 
Quote
Hi there!


{QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 02 2007,21:04)
BTW: How do you include a quote with the author's name and the date?

Clicking the "Quote" button at the top right of the post does it automatically.  Or:

{quote=Richard Simons,Oct. 02 2007,21:04}

with the curly braces replaced by square brackets.

 
Quote
How about nested quotes? I tried what I thought would work, but it didn't

Hm?  Nested quotes work by nesting 'em:

 
Quote
 
Quote
 
Quote
Hi there!


{QUOTE}{QUOTE}{QUOTE}Hi there!{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}{/QUOTE}
So it does.
I tried it in the past and it did not work - I must have done something else wrong. Can't imagine what. There isn't much to get wrong.

Thanks.
BTW: Wes also sent me a message about it.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:35   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,11:21)
Steverino,

It is the same leap of faith that says there is no designer and we see what we want to see. (see previous quote cited by Don Baars.)  What we see as the source of an object does not affect our ability to study it.  Or is that how you operate?

Christopher,

Again, you obfuscate.  Who said there was no designer?  

You want us all to believe that because you think you see "purposeful design" that it should be given serious thought in the scientific community.  It would, if there was some supporting evidence that appearance proved design.

You want A+?=C. (hint: no parts of this is equation are verifiable)  Doesn't work that way...It's not science.

You cannot not just make up concepts and expect the scientific community to accept them just because you want it to be so, which is exactly what ID is, a made up concept (not theory).

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:44   

oldman,

Here is better article about the Tyre question.

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/where-is-tyre

Any other questions about the Dawkins material?

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:51   

To Jon F

Here is the quote from the AIG text.  Will you accept this or do I have to quote the whole chapter so you can't claim I took it out of context?

"After a mineral containing uranium atoms is formed, the products of uranium decay begin to collect in the mineral.  The age of the mineral is found by determining the ratio of the parent material (238U) to the end product (206Pb).  Special equipment must be used for determining uranium-to-lead ratios.  In using this method, it is assumed that none of the lead escapes from the mineral, that no outside lead is added, and that no lead from a non-radioactive source was present to begin with.  If any of these conditions have affected the sample being tested, the results will not be accurate."

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,06:57   

Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data.  For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot.  Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:18   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:44)
oldman,

Here is better article about the Tyre question.

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/where-is-tyre

Any other questions about the Dawkins material?

The article says:
 
Quote
Although there is a city in Lebanon called Tyre today

So the article you linked to says there is a Tyre. Case closed.
If I make a prediction that London would be destroyed, never to be rebuilt and then somebody destroyed it and rebuilt it a little to the left, even I would admit that "London" exists still, irregardless of exactly where it was.  

The fact is there is a city called Tyre that, one way or another, is the city mentioned in the bible.

The article you linked to also says
 
Quote
Alexander removed every trace of the original city's ruins, it's exact location is still a matter of debate.

So for all you know the "new" Type could be exactly where the "old" Type was.
And other information contradicts what you are saying

 
Quote
Even though Alexander did, indeed, destroy the city of Tyre, it was immediately rebuilt and became an important Greek, and later Roman, seaport. It still exists today as a resort city of Lebanon. This clearly violates Ezekiel’s judgment that it would never be rebuilt and become a bare rock upon which to dry fishnets.

 
Quote
there is even more compelling evidence from within Scripture itself, indeed, from Ezekiel himself, that this view is deficient. In 571 BC, two years or so after Nebuchadnezzar abandoned the siege of Tyre and it had become obvious to everyone that he would not be able to destroy the city, Ezekiel gives  another prophecy concerning Tyre.

29:17 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: 29:18 "Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon made his army labor hard against Tyre; every head was made bald and every shoulder was rubbed bare; yet neither he nor his army got anything from Tyre to pay for the labor that he had performed against it. 29:19 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off its wealth and despoil it and plunder it; and it shall be the wages for his army. 29:20 I have given him the land of Egypt as his recompense for which he labored, because they worked for me, says the Lord GOD.

Here, Ezekiel rather frankly acknowledges Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to take Tyre even though he labored hard trying to do so (13 years!). So Ezekiel, seemingly without any embarrassment at the failure of his original prophecy, simply changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded.

Link

So it's not really a prophecy if it's made after the fact now is it?

As to the Dawkins issue. I originally asked you "Could you tell me what part of his answer you disagree with? "

As far as I can tell you have not said anything about Dawkin's awnswer to the information issue, so my original question stands. Where do you disagree with Dawkins?

Dawkins On Information

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:33   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)
Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data.  For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot.  Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

1: It's not a case of hundreds of studies, or the amount of grant money. The problem is that if you start from the conclusion you want to prove then you'll have to twist the facts to make them fit.

For example. I'm sure you know of Mr Walt Brown. Do you agree with his work?
Here is part of his explanation of how the asteroids came to be
Quote
Asteroids are composed of rocks expelled from Earth. The size distribution of asteroids does show that at least part of a planet fragmented. Although an energy source is not available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet, the “fountains of the great deep” with its supercritical water (explained on page 112), could have launched one 2,300th of the Earth—the mass of all asteroids combined. Astronomers have tried to describe the exploded planet, not realizing they were standing on the remaining 99.95% of it—too close to see it.7

Link
Yet it is very easy to knock this down, as the quote from a poster at IIDB shows
Quote
Originally Posted by Jet Black  View Post
(1) walts model cannot explain the distribution of the asteroids in the belt
(2) walts model cannot explain how the asteroids formed
(3) walts model does not explain why the constituents of the asteroids are more like the sun than the earth.
(4) walts model does not explain why 75% of the material in the asteroid belt is chondritic
(5) walts model does not explain why these objects appear to have formed in low temperature environments and look like they have never been heated up
(6) walts model does not explain the extraterrestrial amino acids and other chemicals not seen on earth.
(7) walts model does not explain how the hell these objects got into those orbits

Link
So I think you'd agree that it's not the "number of grants" that is the issue, it's the fact that Walt's proposals can easily be disconfirmed. Observed facts about asteroids disprove Walt's contentions. Its not like "further research" will change that fact. It's immutable. Why would we therefore bother with Walt's "model" when

a) it's been disproved already
b) Walt is not bothered about it being disproved and repeats the same canards over and over.  

2: As we originally "met" on a thread that was defending Behe's claims that certain biological events involved in the evolution of HIV could not have happened without a designer, what other conclusion is there? Either HIV evolves on it's own, or a unnammed designer is tinkering with it to make it more vile.

And here is an answer to your "what difference does the original of a thing make to further study of it" question.

If HIV is gods punishment for misbehaving then why would religious scientists who subscribed to that view bother to research a cure? After all, those religious scientists would be working directly against god.

So there's your answer. If HIV is god's will then good Christian scientists will not attempt to cure it. If it's not gods will then good Christan scientists can attempt to cure it in good conscience.

That's the difference that "where a thing comes from" makes.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:34   

Great sig BTW OM



--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:35   

Quote (k.e @ Oct. 04 2007,07:34)
Great sig BTW OM


Cheers. Damm, that's once attractive birdy :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:41   

Yeah I'm going back to PNG next week. This time I'm taking my binoculars. I've seen a couple of pairs of red birds of paradise in the canopy about 30m up so maybe I can get a better look this time. The locals try to knock them off with a slingshot but you really need a shotgun :)

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:55   

It works for humans too.

Imagine having to do this every morning before going to work.


You know if there wasn't a slug of scrap steel in a lipstick dispenser no woman would paint her lips.

Those things weigh as much as a decent sized frank.

Personally though, I'm glad they do. It gives them something else to think about besides how to nibble my balls off about something minor.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:55   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)
Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data.  For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot.  Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

Re claim #1 - Baloney.  Your side has had hundreds of years to prove the case, and just haven't figured out that it was discredited over 200 years ago.

Re claim #2 - Strawman. There is no a priori requirement for a designer, deified or not. Natural processes are capable enough.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:27   

Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so.  I have good company.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:30   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,06:57)
For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

You may have it both ways, but there is a telling difference:

Baraminology is an effort to shoe-horn classification into a supernatural history derived from Genesis.

The scientific "species problem" is being debated on naturalistic grounds.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:43   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,08:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so.  I have good company.

Why do you use AIG as your source? Don't you trust the mainstream science sites?

They have provably dishonest wrong material on their site that when brought to their attention is not corrected.

For example
Quote
In this mutant, the entire backbone of the dog is shortened, but the legs and skull are normal. Such mutations kill most dogs, with an interesting exception being the female Baboon dog. The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it.

Link

Christopher, how can this "baboon dog" species exist if the male dies before reaching maturity? How does it breed?

AIG has been proven to be unreliable and yet not care. And you use them as a source? Maybe you should double check your facts.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:58   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,16:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

And here is one discussing Grand Canyon dating problems, including the isochron issue.

Finally I urge you to read "In Six Days", which is a collection of essays of 50 true scientists who are brave enough to admit that they are Biblical creationists and they have reasons as to why they are so.  I have good company.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

U R F8CKING NUTS!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:08   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp

Well, if AiG says their man Carl won the debate, then I will certainly believe them!  Consider me convinced, Chris.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:21   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 01 2007,10:17)
{snip}

To fusilier,

Here is the LCMS position on evolution

http://www.iclnet.org/pub....3.html.

I have no idea at this time why this was so.  And I am curious as to why you use James 2:24.

Sorry, I'm having a BlackBoard meltdown to deal with - 30 lab sections for anatomy and physiology - I didn't get a chance to reply, earlier.

I got 404'd when I attempted to read your link; could you please summarize?

It is a fact that the Pastors at Calvary Lutheran Church and School in Indianapolis, have told me that evolutionary biology and an old earth are not permitted by LCMS doctrine.

It is a fact that the pastor emeritus of that congregation told me that in the 1920's he was taught geocentric astronomy as factual, at Concordia Seminary in Chicago.  I should point out that my Dad was studying at the University of Kentucky for his engineering degree at the same time, so I know that notion was not taught at most universities in the US.

><><><><
Now, just why do you think I would use a quotation from the Letter of St. James in my sig line?

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:25   

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 04 2007,09:21)
I got 404'd when I attempted to read your link; could you please summarize?

take off the full stop at the end of the url :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:25   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:57)
Okay,

Today's two issues :

1. You gentlepeople have about 60+ years of hundreds of studies with massive amounts of grants on your side.
My side has only recently begun to tackle the problem, hence the meger amount of data.  For example on the barmin problem of Dr. Wise.  He could use a little help, wheres the species debate still rages in biological circles between the lumpers and the splitters.  I guess if I can have it both ways, so can you.

2. I am not saying that you don't claim a designer, but reading the anti design bloggers on the design sites, plus the "cruel designer" notion seems to me that you shoot yourselves in the foot.  Unless you claim nature...oops...I mean Nature (so you can deify the process) is the designer, which is a nonstarter for you.

1) Your side has had over a thousand years.  The fact that you're not getting grant money is because you don't produce any results.  And when people do give you money (and they do), you spend it all on PR instead of actual research.

Your "lumpers/splitters" argument is a false analogy.  Arguments about species classification are complex because speciation itself is not a simple, cut-and-dried concept.  Baraminology, however, is drop-dead simple.  There were original kinds, completely separate and unable to mix.  Therefore, the lines of separation should be clear and obvious.  If there were real evidence of baraminology, it should jump out at us - especially when looking at the genetic evidence.  The fact that you haven't found anything in all these years is a damn good indication that it doesn't exist.

BTW, it would be FANTASTIC if you wanted to continue the discussion on baraminology with us.  It's a fun topic, but for some reason all of the creationists seem to clam up whenever it gets discussed.


2. I don't understand your paragraph here.  Evolution most certainly does NOT claim a designer.  But it doesn't deny one, either, which you erroneously seemed to think earlier.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:36   

oldman,

I refer you Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and he makes a very important point.  The original population who lived in Tyre were besieged by Nebbuchadnezzar.  The mainland port was destroy by him, but not the island part of Tyre, also called Tyre.  This was distroyed by Alexander, who built a causeway by using the rubble of the mainland port of Tyre, thus casting it into the sea.  He then totally destroyed the island city of Tyre, which later sunk beneath the waves and is only a series of reefs, obviously never to be rebuilt.  So the prophecy remains true.

On the issue of the mutant dog.  I fail to see how this is erroneous information or how this helps your case.  You confuse breed of dog with the species of dog (canis familiaris).  This in no way helps your case.  Point out a better example of an error they don't admit to.

On the HIV issue, I do not believe that it was "designed" by God.  God allowed it to mutate.  We are commanded by Him to help others.  Attempting to alleviate others' suffering is what we try to do.  This means we are not directly going against God's work.  Obviously, those who put themselves at risk with behavior contrary to God's commands are still able to receive our help.

It is very interesting to me to note that everything considered "bad" by most people, evos. included, such as weeds and diseases and pests of all sorts like rats, flies, and cockroaches resist even our best efforts to erradicate them.  We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three.  I refer you to the bird.  I agree very beautiful indeed.  But could we wipe it out? Sure!  How about endangered species?  Sure!  but the cockroach?  Nope.  And smallpox is only one of a huge list of viruses yet to be wiped out.

To those who wave Walt Brown in my face, AIG does not buy into his work thank you very much.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:44   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:36)
oldman,

I refer you Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and he makes a very important point.  The original population who lived in Tyre were besieged by Nebbuchadnezzar.  The mainland port was destroy by him, but not the island part of Tyre, also called Tyre.  This was distroyed by Alexander, who built a causeway by using the rubble of the mainland port of Tyre, thus casting it into the sea.  He then totally destroyed the island city of Tyre, which later sunk beneath the waves and is only a series of reefs, obviously never to be rebuilt.  So the prophecy remains true.

Could you point out for me where the prediction references "the Island city of Tyre" rather then "Tyre"?

I'm glad to hear you have no truck with Walt Brown.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:46   

"Why do you use AIG as your source? Don't you trust the mainstream science sites?"

Because they say what he wants to hear.  He has chosen to cherry pick information that he believes makes his case.

Christopher,

Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old.  3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:49   

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 04 2007,10:46)
Dendrochonology of the bristlecone dates to about 9000 years old.  3000 years well past translated age of the earth from the Bible.

Is that bogus dating also?

And there are 29,000 years of varve layers in Lake Suigetsu.  We could go on and on with these independent dating examples.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,09:58   

Hey Christopher:

My question remains unanswered and I think it is an important one.

Quote
You don't believe that the origin of beetles can ever, even in principle, be understood by the scientific community?


Really?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:07   

Yeah, not sure about that one myself.  I'm restoring a 66 Beetle.  It's a bitch to......oh wait....never mind!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:12   

blipey,

On the beetle issue, I said that a hunch or idea may surface, but we will never know for sure.  Just like the apatosaurus had the wrong head for 50 years until something newer came along...therefore if the origin were ever determined, then someday something new would overturn that.  So I guess my answer is no.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:19   

oldman,

I'll ask my colleague for his take on that.  In the meantime, I never responded to your Dawkins question, though I thought I had.  Sorry!

I read his reply and he discusses the "model" type whatever that means, but he never really stated what process will add information to the genome.  And for you bacterial resistance types as evo evidence, how does the deletion or inactivation of a gene add features to a future line of living things?  Another problem I have with mutations adding structures that had not existed before is my spider quandry.

Suppose we do get a spider to evolve from some insect perhaps? archearachnid? whatever.  Then how does it know how to use the spinnerets?  You must mutate the brain to instinctively know what to do with the new thing.  Otherwise we get spinnerets and the poor guy is trapped in his own web at worst or just drags it behind at best.  Go back to the design site and reread TV engineer's response.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:22   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,11:19)
Suppose we do get a spider to evolve from some insect perhaps? archearachnid? whatever.  Then how does it know how to use the spinnerets?  You must mutate the brain to instinctively know what to do with the new thing.  Otherwise we get spinnerets and the poor guy is trapped in his own web at worst or just drags it behind at best.  Go back to the design site and reread TV engineer's response.

I pity your students.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,10:50   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:36)
We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three.

Source, please.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:01   

Jon F

I have tried to get the paper you refer to the origin of centromeres, etc.  But I can't get to it.  Would you do me the kindness by providing me with a link?  Thanks much.

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:03   

improvis,

I really like your response showing the science that explains how it naturally happened.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:11   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,09:03)
improvis,

I really like your response showing the science that explains how it naturally happened.

Oh for crying out loud.

Spiders which produce silk but don't make webs

Spiders which make messy webs

Spiders which make pretty webs

This took me about five minutes.  Would you like me to find you a ticket for the clue bus now?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:16   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,12:03)
improvis,

I really like your response showing the science that explains how it naturally happened.

I'm just stunned by how much ignorance you, a biology teacher, can pack into such a short amount of space - starting with the notion that spiders evolved (or could evolve) from insects.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:32   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,10:12)
blipey,

On the beetle issue, I said that a hunch or idea may surface, but we will never know for sure.  Just like the apatosaurus had the wrong head for 50 years until something newer came along...therefore if the origin were ever determined, then someday something new would overturn that.  So I guess my answer is no.

So, since you have now come out strong in your stance that the scientific community will never, ever, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, discover the origin of the beetle, I have a follow-up question.

Why?  No, wait let me more specific since will just wheedle out it otherwise.

Quote
What specific impediment(s) do you cite that will thwart the scientific community's search for the origin of the beetle?


Please be very specific in your claims of obstacles that are EVEN IN PRINCIPLE impossible to overcome.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,11:35   

Quote (blipey @ Oct. 04 2007,11:32)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,10:12)
blipey,

On the beetle issue, I said that a hunch or idea may surface, but we will never know for sure.  Just like the apatosaurus had the wrong head for 50 years until something newer came along...therefore if the origin were ever determined, then someday something new would overturn that.  So I guess my answer is no.

So, since you have now come out strong in your stance that the scientific community will never, ever, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, discover the origin of the beetle, I have a follow-up question.

Why?  No, wait let me more specific since will just wheedle out it otherwise.

 
Quote
What specific impediment(s) do you cite that will thwart the scientific community's search for the origin of the beetle?


Please be very specific in your claims of obstacles that are EVEN IN PRINCIPLE impossible to overcome.

I think (but can't really believe it) that he's saying that yes, an  answer could be found to the question, but as there is always the possibility of the answer being proved wrong (e.g we might suddenly find out there is in fact no sun after all) it's not worth even bothering with.

That can't be right can it Christopher?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,12:23   

Hmmm. As I'm fairly up on the subject at the moment, I'd like to know which objection you hold to dendrochronology. Do you claim it is circular as Don Batten C.E. does? Do ligers and wholphins fit into your schematic of dendrochronology?

Just curious. It isn't circular you know, and Don Batten is making knowingly false claims. AiG seems to be willing to go along with him. I wonder why? In fact, dendrochronology provides an absolute chronology back more than 10k years and in so doing provides a fabulous calibration source for 14C thus in fact verifying unrelated dating techniques to boot.

Wow. Amazing isn't it. In fact, I haven't found a single AiG article on dendro which doesn't contain  intentional or else blisteringly stupid falsehoods. Can you?

Sorry I'm coming in late here but I didn't realize at first that you were the real deal.

Young Earth? I just got a shiver.

Please, Dendrochronology. What is your objection? How about wiggle matching? If you are planning to quote from a source which uses Dr. David Yamaguchi as a source of an objection regarding auto-correlation, you might want to read the paper first  Link here and then look up the relative sensitivity/complacency of bristlecone pines.

I'm thinking your god motor is running at a higher rpm than your thinking motor but I will certainly apologize for thinking that if I am in error.

Thank you in advance.

BWE

Edit:
Yamaguchi's paper starts on page 46 of the pdf. However, you should also read: Climatic response of densometric properties in semiarid site tree rings by Malcolm Cleaveland on pg 14 of the pdf. You will get a lot of terminology from that one.

Sincerely,
BWE

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:35   

John W

I just e-mailed the NIH and they said a response will come in 7 to 10 days.  Our tax dollars at work!  Please be patient on the STD question.  Thanks!

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:41   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,13:35)
John W

I just e-mailed the NIH and they said a response will come in 7 to 10 days.  Our tax dollars at work!  Please be patient on the STD question.  Thanks!

I have no idea how this relates to my question (the source of your statement about the number of STDs).  Do you mean "The NIH was the source of my information, and I asked them to confirm," or "I pulled the statement out of nowhere and I then asked NIH if it was true," or something else entirely?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:48   

Here is a tree ring article which does not list Yamaguchi's work or site him.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

And to JohnW,

I asked them to provide the current number and to provide a chronological history of STDs in general.  Gee Whiz in engaging in research, okay?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:53   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,15:48)
Here is a tree ring article which does not list Yamaguchi's work or site him.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

That article contains the phrase
Quote
Flood dates in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 years before present have been suggested

Does that fit with your notion of the age of the earth? Just how old is acceptable to you?

Are you a Ussherite?

EDIT: Ussherarian?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:56   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,13:48)
And to JohnW,

I asked them to provide the current number and to provide a chronological history of STDs in general.  Gee Whiz in engaging in research, okay?

I see.  So when you said

Quote
We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three.


you had no idea whether it was true.

A hint for next time you engage in research - try doing the work before presenting your results.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,15:58   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,15:48)
Here is a tree ring article which does not list Yamaguchi's work or site him.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

And to JohnW,

I asked them to provide the current number and to provide a chronological history of STDs in general.  Gee Whiz in engaging in research, okay?

Christopher,

I find it very telling that the only sources you quote/link to are Christian apologetic site.  I know it's because they will tell you what you want to hear.

If Dendrochonolgy where such a subjective science don't you think the experts in the field would reflect the same skepticism of your Christian site?

Again, you are incapable of intellectual honesty.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:07   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,15:35)
John W

I just e-mailed the NIH and they said a response will come in 7 to 10 days.  Our tax dollars at work!  Please be patient on the STD question.  Thanks!

Amazing.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:08   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,08:27)
Hey there again,

Go here and read this debate analysis.  Carl Wieland of my side (to be kind to you) "seems" to successfully rebut the arguments by his opponent, see especially polystrate fossils.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/wielandreport.asp


Wieland: "Responding to the Joggins ‘forest’ claims, Wieland started by expressing surprise that Willis did not use the better-known example at Yellowstone National Park. However, neither case involved forests fossilized in situ; all the trees have their roots broken off, and there is no trace of the fossil soil in which the ‘forests’ must have grown—the trees had clearly been transported there [see The Yellowstone petrified forests]."

Quote

Dawson: "In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."



Fossil soils and in situ roots that Weiland said are not there.  If you call getting the facts wrong a successful rebuttal, then I think we have very different sets of ethics.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,16:20   

Well, Christopher,

I'm guessing you have never looked into Dendrochronology, but that you suspect it's wrong. The article you linked to lists this article as one of it's sources. (It's abstracted, sorry I refuse to give money to evil causes)

The Biblical Chronologist. Hmmm. But anyway, read the abstract.

You are a science teacher, right? Hey, my wife is a science teacher! See, we have something in common.

Anyway, the abstract, possibly lacking in detail due to its being a summary kind of thing, basically says, "Well, Dendro turns out to be valid."

Here is a bit of it. See if I am misunderstanding:
Quote
An Independent Check

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

These measurements demonstrated the basic validity of the science of dendrochronology. If the method had a large component of random error due to inaccurate pattern matching, how could such detailed agreement between the radiocarbon in the rings of two independent dendrochronologies be possible? The internal agreement of these American dendrochronologies confirmed that dendrochronologists are able to accurately match ring patterns.

But another independent check came along which was even better than the Douglas fir chronology.
European Tree-ring Chronology

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. The more recent part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs used in various historic buildings. The more ancient part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs preserved in peat beds, for example.

The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.
Multiple Rings Per Year?

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

First, the agreement of independent chronologies from separate continents discussed above must be taken into account. If Noah's Flood, or some other phenomenon caused trees to grow multiple rings per year, it must have affected different species in widely separated locations in exactly the same way. This does not seem likely.

Second, radiocarbon dates on objects of known age have confirmed the reliability of radiocarbon dating, and hence dendrochronology, when applied to the last 2,000 years, at least. The radiocarbon dates on the Dead Sea Scrolls are a good example. Thus we know that trees growing in the last 2,000 years or more haven't been growing multiple rings per year.

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.
Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method

Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocarbon over time. (See How does the radiocarbon dating method work?) Dendrochronology thus provides an essential service to radiocarbon dating, the major method used to date archaeological remains, guaranteeing its accuracy throughout the period of interest to biblical chronology.
Photo Credit: The photograph of tree-rings above is from Henri D. Grissino-Mayer's Ultimate Tree-Ring Web Pages, a site with much interesting information about tree-rings and dendrochronology.
The foregoing article was abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. Full details and references can be found there.


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,17:32   

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 04 2007,16:20)
Well, Christopher,

I'm guessing you have never looked into Dendrochronology, but that you suspect it's wrong. The article you linked to lists this article as one of it's sources. (It's abstracted, sorry I refuse to give money to evil causes)

The Biblical Chronologist. Hmmm. But anyway, read the abstract.

You are a science teacher, right? Hey, my wife is a science teacher! See, we have something in common.

Anyway, the abstract, possibly lacking in detail due to its being a summary kind of thing, basically says, "Well, Dendro turns out to be valid."

Here is a bit of it. See if I am misunderstanding:  
Quote
An Independent Check

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

These measurements demonstrated the basic validity of the science of dendrochronology. If the method had a large component of random error due to inaccurate pattern matching, how could such detailed agreement between the radiocarbon in the rings of two independent dendrochronologies be possible? The internal agreement of these American dendrochronologies confirmed that dendrochronologists are able to accurately match ring patterns.

But another independent check came along which was even better than the Douglas fir chronology.
European Tree-ring Chronology

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. The more recent part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs used in various historic buildings. The more ancient part of the chronology was constructed from oak logs preserved in peat beds, for example.

The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.
Multiple Rings Per Year?

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

First, the agreement of independent chronologies from separate continents discussed above must be taken into account. If Noah's Flood, or some other phenomenon caused trees to grow multiple rings per year, it must have affected different species in widely separated locations in exactly the same way. This does not seem likely.

Second, radiocarbon dates on objects of known age have confirmed the reliability of radiocarbon dating, and hence dendrochronology, when applied to the last 2,000 years, at least. The radiocarbon dates on the Dead Sea Scrolls are a good example. Thus we know that trees growing in the last 2,000 years or more haven't been growing multiple rings per year.

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.
Tree-ring Calibration: An Important Part of the Radiocarbon Dating Method

Because the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere varies over time, raw radiocarbon "dates" are calibrated to obtain actual calendar dates using dendrochronology. This process of calibration is an essential part of the radiocarbon dating method, and eliminates assumptions about historical atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations and the constancy of the decay rate of radiocarbon over time. (See How does the radiocarbon dating method work?) Dendrochronology thus provides an essential service to radiocarbon dating, the major method used to date archaeological remains, guaranteeing its accuracy throughout the period of interest to biblical chronology.
Photo Credit: The photograph of tree-rings above is from Henri D. Grissino-Mayer's Ultimate Tree-Ring Web Pages, a site with much interesting information about tree-rings and dendrochronology.
The foregoing article was abstracted from The Biblical Chronologist Volume 5, Number 1. Full details and references can be found there.

\
Of Christopher:
"Germans...???...Pearl Harbor...??  Forget it, he's on a roll........."

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,17:51   

Maybe dendrochronology's bark is worse than it's bite?
Oh okay, I'll leaf now.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,18:02   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:51)
To Jon F

Here is the quote from the AIG text.  Will you accept this or do I have to quote the whole chapter so you can't claim I took it out of context?

"After a mineral containing uranium atoms is formed, the products of uranium decay begin to collect in the mineral.  The age of the mineral is found by determining the ratio of the parent material (238U) to the end product (206Pb).  Special equipment must be used for determining uranium-to-lead ratios.  In using this method, it is assumed that none of the lead escapes from the mineral, that no outside lead is added, and that no lead from a non-radioactive source was present to begin with.  If any of these conditions have affected the sample being tested, the results will not be accurate."

Well, something's crazy, because that's just plain wrong. I still think you're leaving something significant out ... what you posted is wrong.

In the U-Pb dating that's been done since the mid 1950s and currently is used in over 50% of dating studies, both the ratio of 238U/206Pb and the ratio of 235U/207Pb are measured. And this is almost always done on zircons, which are guaranteed by the physics of their solidification to have negligible lead at formation (as is acknowledged by the RATE group in a link I posted earlier). From THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING:

"Zircon (ZrSiO4) is a mineral with a number of properties that make it extremely useful for geochronologists (Figure 1). First of all, it is very hard (hardness 7-1/2), which means it extremely resistant to mechanical weathering. Second, it is extremely resistant to chemical weathering and metamorphism. For geochronological purposes, these properties mean it is likely to remain a closed system. Third, it concentrates U (and Th to a lesser extent) and excludes Pb, resulting in typically very high 238U/204Pb ratios. It is quite possibly nature's best clock. Finally, it is reasonably common as an accessory phase in a variety of igneous and metamorphic rocks."

Measuring those two ratios is, in essence, dating the sample by two different methods.  If no lead or uranium has been added or removed, when the results are plotted on a graph of 206Pb/238U versus 207Pb/235U then the point representing the sample will fall on a curve called "concordia":



If the results plot on the concordia curve, as many do, then it is virtually certain that the system has remained closed. The other possibility is that both addition and removal have happened and have happened in just the correct ratio to keep the plotted point on the concordia curve. It might happen once in a great while, but it doesn't happen every time.

If the points representing the samples do not fall on the concordia curve, all is not lost.  It turns out that in several common cases we can still get a good date.  The most common case is one relatively brief episode of lead loss (lead is volatile relative to uranium, is unstable even in an udamaged lattice, and is only found in portions of the crystal lattice that have been damaged by radiation from the decay of uranim and its daughter products).  In this case and several others, the points representing several co-genetic samples will fall on a line, and the upper intersection of that line with concordia is the age of the samples:



(In some cases the lower intercept is the time since the lead-loss episode, but in other cases it's not, so interpreting the lower intercept is dicier).

Of course concordant dates are preferable to discordant dates, so geochronologists have made great strides in sample selection, treatment, and measurement to obtain concordance. Here's some analyses of Greenland rocks from the 70s and 80s, including what were then the oldest known terrestrial rocks:



(from "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991).

Here's what are currently the oldest known terrestrial rocks from Great Slave lake in Canada, much more concordant (plotted on the Tera-Wasserberg variation of the concordia diagram):



(from Bowring, Samuel A.; Williams, Ian S., "Priscoan (4.00-4.03Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada", Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp. 3-16 (1999)).

Obviously there's lots more that could be said on the subject; books have been written. I don't know of any really good but not overly technical Web resources. The first two figures in this message came from Radiometric Dating. One of the canonical texts on the subject is on-line at Radiogenic Isotope Geology, and all of chapter 5 is extremely technical coverage of this subject. THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING is also very good and very technical.

In summary, U-Pb concordia-disocrdia dating does not require any assumptions about the initial amount of lead, it indicates when the system has been opened, and it often yields a reliable date even when the systme has been opened.

And I didn't even get to isochrons and the Ar-Ar method ...

No matter what your book says, no matter who wrote it, the one and only one premise of radiometric dating is the constancy of radioactive decay.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,18:05   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,12:01)
Jon F

I have tried to get the paper you refer to the origin of centromeres, etc.  But I can't get to it.  Would you do me the kindness by providing me with a link?  Thanks much.

That wasn't me.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,18:13   

Quote (BWE @ Oct. 04 2007,17:20)
The Biblical Chronologist. Hmmm.

That's Dr. Gerald Aardsma, formerly of the ICR. No longer of the ICR for reasons which are not public but many suspect to be that he's far too honest for them. he certainly published many articles under their auspices which tore apart YEC claims, e.g. Has the Speed of Light Decayed? and Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating.

He definitely has an agenda, and may be wrong in many cases. But he's not intentionaly deceitful,he's pretty knowledgable and he's often right.  His stuff is worth a look andis fairly trustworthy.

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,18:23   

Thanks, OMITSDDI (did I miss any initials??)  I shoulda seen that.

Mr. Geischen:  all you did was confirm exactly what I said - YEC is a tenet of your Faith.  I note you failed to say anything about geocentricity.  Dr. Bouwe, at his website, provides citations from Scripture and Martin Luther his very self.

Why have you abandoned this approach?  I don't expect pastors to be up-to-date on scientific explanations, I would think they'd look to you.

fusilier
James 2:24

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,18:58   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 04 2007,18:13)
Quote (BWE @ Oct. 04 2007,17:20)
The Biblical Chronologist. Hmmm.

That's Dr. Gerald Aardsma, formerly of the ICR. No longer of the ICR for reasons which are not public but many suspect to be that he's far too honest for them. he certainly published many articles under their auspices which tore apart YEC claims, e.g. Has the Speed of Light Decayed? and Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating.

He definitely has an agenda, and may be wrong in many cases. But he's not intentionaly deceitful,he's pretty knowledgable and he's often right.  His stuff is worth a look andis fairly trustworthy.

I guess that was my point in posting that bit. It was used as a source for Chris' article but it seems to point out that Dendro is accurate rather than inaccurate. Seems kind of odd considering the viewpoint of the original article.

He actually does a fairly concise job of demolishing YECism.

Seemed out of place for some reason.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,08:59   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 03 2007,15:04)
Sorry to disappoint you, you lose the bet.  Look up Investigating the Earth fourth edition published by Houghton Mifflin P. 307.

My local library network has it, so I can get it in a few days.  I see that it is a secondary school textbook -- not the most impressive reference.  My hypothesis right now is that the information is oversimplified for the junior high or perhaps high school level. You would do well to know a lot more about what you are criticizing than you will get from that book.

The references I have given are from college undergraduate or graduate level, or from the primary literature, or from standard reference works.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,09:12   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 04 2007,18:02)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:51)
To Jon F

Here is the quote from the AIG text.  Will you accept this or do I have to quote the whole chapter so you can't claim I took it out of context?

"After a mineral containing uranium atoms is formed, the products of uranium decay begin to collect in the mineral.  The age of the mineral is found by determining the ratio of the parent material (238U) to the end product (206Pb).  Special equipment must be used for determining uranium-to-lead ratios.  In using this method, it is assumed that none of the lead escapes from the mineral, that no outside lead is added, and that no lead from a non-radioactive source was present to begin with.  If any of these conditions have affected the sample being tested, the results will not be accurate."

Well, something's crazy, because that's just plain wrong. I still think you're leaving something significant out ... what you posted is wrong.

In the U-Pb dating that's been done since the mid 1950s and currently is used in over 50% of dating studies, both the ratio of 238U/206Pb and the ratio of 235U/207Pb are measured. And this is almost always done on zircons, which are guaranteed by the physics of their solidification to have negligible lead at formation (as is acknowledged by the RATE group in a link I posted earlier). From THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING:

"Zircon (ZrSiO4) is a mineral with a number of properties that make it extremely useful for geochronologists (Figure 1). First of all, it is very hard (hardness 7-1/2), which means it extremely resistant to mechanical weathering. Second, it is extremely resistant to chemical weathering and metamorphism. For geochronological purposes, these properties mean it is likely to remain a closed system. Third, it concentrates U (and Th to a lesser extent) and excludes Pb, resulting in typically very high 238U/204Pb ratios. It is quite possibly nature's best clock. Finally, it is reasonably common as an accessory phase in a variety of igneous and metamorphic rocks."

Measuring those two ratios is, in essence, dating the sample by two different methods.  If no lead or uranium has been added or removed, when the results are plotted on a graph of 206Pb/238U versus 207Pb/235U then the point representing the sample will fall on a curve called "concordia":



If the results plot on the concordia curve, as many do, then it is virtually certain that the system has remained closed. The other possibility is that both addition and removal have happened and have happened in just the correct ratio to keep the plotted point on the concordia curve. It might happen once in a great while, but it doesn't happen every time.

If the points representing the samples do not fall on the concordia curve, all is not lost.  It turns out that in several common cases we can still get a good date.  The most common case is one relatively brief episode of lead loss (lead is volatile relative to uranium, is unstable even in an udamaged lattice, and is only found in portions of the crystal lattice that have been damaged by radiation from the decay of uranim and its daughter products).  In this case and several others, the points representing several co-genetic samples will fall on a line, and the upper intersection of that line with concordia is the age of the samples:



(In some cases the lower intercept is the time since the lead-loss episode, but in other cases it's not, so interpreting the lower intercept is dicier).

Of course concordant dates are preferable to discordant dates, so geochronologists have made great strides in sample selection, treatment, and measurement to obtain concordance. Here's some analyses of Greenland rocks from the 70s and 80s, including what were then the oldest known terrestrial rocks:



(from "The Age of the Earth", G. Brent Dalrymple, Stanford University Press, 1991).

Here's what are currently the oldest known terrestrial rocks from Great Slave lake in Canada, much more concordant (plotted on the Tera-Wasserberg variation of the concordia diagram):



(from Bowring, Samuel A.; Williams, Ian S., "Priscoan (4.00-4.03Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada", Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp. 3-16 (1999)).

Obviously there's lots more that could be said on the subject; books have been written. I don't know of any really good but not overly technical Web resources. The first two figures in this message came from Radiometric Dating. One of the canonical texts on the subject is on-line at Radiogenic Isotope Geology, and all of chapter 5 is extremely technical coverage of this subject. THE U-TH-PB SYSTEM: ZIRCON DATING is also very good and very technical.

In summary, U-Pb concordia-disocrdia dating does not require any assumptions about the initial amount of lead, it indicates when the system has been opened, and it often yields a reliable date even when the systme has been opened.

And I didn't even get to isochrons and the Ar-Ar method ...

No matter what your book says, no matter who wrote it, the one and only one premise of radiometric dating is the constancy of radioactive decay.

Chris will undoubtedly trample this under his feet, and turn again and rend you.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,15:10   

I kinda wonder if Chris took his ball and went home.

Ahh well. I would like to know about dendro though. Old Davey kinda got lost spelunking during our discussion on the topic at RDF.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,16:32   

Funny how the Science shows up and the host leaves.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1191
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2007,11:44   

Quote (Steverino @ Oct. 05 2007,16:32)
Funny how the Science shows up and the host leaves.

I think Chris is just probably very busy, perhaps planning a party.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,14:28   

To all participants on this thread...

I was out for a while, and not to plan a party, but it was the end of our quarter and I do have a primary responsibilty to get grades done, prepare for parent/teacher conferences, etc.  I also had to wait for the source of the STDs.

Here it is.  And it is WORSE than I suspected!

This is in response to your inquiry dated October 4, 2007, to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health (NIH), regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs).



Over thirty infections are now classified as predominantly sexually transmitted or as frequently sexually transmissible.  (Ref.: Holmes KK. “Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Overview and Clinical Approach,” in AS Fauci, et al., Harrison ’s Online.  Date accessed: October 8, 2007; http://www.accessmedicine.com.*)  Please note that a password is required to access the above-listed Web site, however, this textbook (Ref.: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 16th edition, edited by Kasper et al., McGraw-Hill Professional, 2004) and others should be available from the reference section of your public library or through interlibrary loan.



A discussion of STIs as emerging diseases is found on pages 39-40 of the following report by the Institute of Medicine : http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5284&page=30.*

You can access the pages 39 and 40 for free!  So I did not do the research prior to making my statement, but it just shows how right I was when I said 20+.

To blipie,

Your spider examples do nothing to show where the first spider came from, and no I don't believe spiders evolved from insects nor do I believe that you do.  My interpretation of the various spider abilities with webs is that some have lost the ability to spin due to mutation.   I know of no experimental evidence that shows how macrostructures AND the brain ability to use them properly can result from mutations.

I will refer some fo the articles and critiques given to me to others on my side and see what they say.  So patience please.

To oldman,

I am not an Ussherite (sp?).  I hold to 6 to 10 thousand years for the age of the earth.  Dr. Gentry's old challenge for someone to make granite have not been met.  Different crystal densities would have granite form in layers of crystals, and not in the hodge-podge we see today.  I also admit that my faith comes first and my evidence is interpreted through that lens, just like many of you do.  I am only doing what was good enough for Stephen J. Gould.

I can't wait to see how you guys cut this to shreds!

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,14:44   

Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 16 2007,15:28)
I also admit that my faith comes first and my evidence is interpreted through that lens, just like many of you do.

This is your flaw, not ours.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,14:47   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 04 2007,08:50)
Quote (C Gieschen @ Oct. 04 2007,07:36)
We now are at about 20+ STDs and we used to have only two or three.

Source, please.

I've helped you out here by emphasizing the part I didn't (and still don't) believe.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
C Gieschen



Posts: 48
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2007,15:26