Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 31 of 128 (78035)
01-12-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-12-2004 1:14 PM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
quote:
This view of creation, when dealt with scientifically, I call evolition, to contrast with evolution. Giving the two theories these similar names seems to defuse in my mind the idea that the theories are of different natures and cannot be studied using strong inference. In strong inference, one takes two competing explanations, and deduces opposing predictions from the two. Then, the predictions are tested, and the theory whose predictions are confirmed gains in plausibility compared to the theory whose predictions are not.
For the sake of argument, I'll go along with this, but note that you have to support the predictions you make using two theories. Beware strawmen, as they will completely ruin the comparisons later made.
quote:
In this case, we might (!) predict from the theory of creation, from evolition, that those who "forget God" as is done with most evolutionary thinking will be artificially selected against by the artificially selecting Creator, still busy at work shaping His creation. That is, evolutionists ought to have a lower fitness, less reproducing offspring, than those believing in a Creator.
You realize there are many, many factors which affect the rate of reproduction, and that "fitness" cannot be said to imply anything apart from maximizing the production of viable, reproducing offspring. For example, the more educated and affluent members of society are often found to reproduce less than others. Why? Because they have things like birth control and competing priorities, and because they have the education to broaden their perspective, and to give them the concept that there is more to life than spawning offspring to support us in our old age.
quote:
From the theory of evolution, we (might, again) get the opposite prediction. That is, if a Creator can be safely forgotten, not being relevant to fitness, etc, then those who waste time on the idea, or are deluded or deceived (i.e. creation believers), being less aware of the truth about forces that determine fitness, would have fewer reproducing offspring. This assumes of course that intelligence "evolved" through natural selection, being a trait that produced clearer, more accurate perceptions and expectations of "selection pressures."
Don't assume that consciousness of selection pressure is implied by fitness. Viruses aren't exactly aware of the selection pressure created by our immune systems, but they sure as hell evolve end-runs around them.
quote:
In this simple test, the human group with the largest known fitness, Mennonites and Amish, being creation believers, confirm the truth of the evolition theory. Except for Robert Trivers, a unique evolutionary biologist who explicitly took his theory to heart and went out to have a large biological fitness, evolutionists are probably lower than the general population in reproductive success.
Which proves nothing about the correctness of their theories. Ignorant and poverty-stricken people in the third world reproduce far better than educated and affluent members of society. Does god like them better? No. They simply lack the information and resources to plan their reproductive acts for convenient times, and the perspective to restrain themselves from overpopulating and destroying their respective sections of the world. No offense, but reproductive fitness in today's world is a very bad thing for us all, if you use the textbook definition. That's why so many of us choose to be reproductively unfit. We realize that the blind reproductive obession of instinct, which has brought mankind to its place in the world, will cause our race serious harm if we do not transcend its directives.
One might even say that religious restrictions on birth control, which forcefully increase the reproductive fitness of members of their faiths, run counter to the supposed divine charge that humanity be good stewards of the earth. We have been fruitful and multiplied and are now in the process of going beyond filling the earth to crowding it out and destroying countless other beings in the process. It is obvious that today's reproductive fitness is tomorrow's overpopulation. Thus, the creationist view (as virtually always associated with this point of view) is more likely part of the problem, and in the long run does not serve reproductive fitness but rather encourages population crash via mass die-off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 1:14 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 2:21 PM zephyr has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 128 (78044)
01-12-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by zephyr
01-12-2004 1:59 PM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
Zephyr,
Your cautions are appropriate, and accepted. But hear mine. You say things like "completely ruin" and "proves nothing." which suggests that you have an "all-or-nothing" (dogmatic) inclination driving you. I disagree with most of your ad hoc explanations of the predictions, which doesn't mean too much. What is interesting is that you decided to weaken the argument that way, instead of coming up with a contrasting set of predictions confirming evolution over evolition.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by zephyr, posted 01-12-2004 1:59 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by zephyr, posted 01-12-2004 2:34 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 33 of 128 (78047)
01-12-2004 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-12-2004 2:21 PM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
quote:
Your cautions are appropriate, and accepted. But hear mine. You say things like "completely ruin" and "proves nothing." which suggests that you have an "all-or-nothing" (dogmatic) inclination driving you.
That, or maybe I just have a tendency to over-dramatize
quote:
I disagree with most of your ad hoc explanations of the predictions, which doesn't mean too much. What is interesting is that you decided to weaken the argument that way, instead of coming up with a contrasting set of predictions confirming evolution over evolition.
What's even more interesting is your decision that psychoanalyzing me is more important than answering my concerns.
The fact remains that in today's world, the people who breed the most are either ignorant, poor, held captive to religious restrictions on contraception (and thus highly fit against their will, or some combination of all of those. High present-day reproductive fitness is antithetical to responsibility, wisdom, foresight, and respect for the environment of which humanity is but a small part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 2:21 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 11:29 PM zephyr has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 128 (78127)
01-12-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by zephyr
01-12-2004 2:34 PM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
Zephyr,
The relatively high reproductive rates in some third world nations does not, as you point out, represent true fitness, which is best estimated using reproducing offspring. You'll recall that I drew attention to Amish and Mennonites, who average over 9 children per couple, 85% of whom stay "in the faith" and go one to also average 9 children per family. All the while stewarding the land as well as it is stewarded anywhere. Actually, I also look at Switzerland, a K-selected population, as also having, under the terms you suggest, a rather fit population. Be interesting to compare the Swiss W before and after they took up with evolutionary thinking. But evolutionists are like Shakers, hardly reproducing at all, but converting many to their belief system. Unfortuneately, the "broad road/narrow road" prediction of biblical creation actually predicts this sort of "fitness" for evolutionists. So, it does not really separate the two theories.
Nor was I psychoanalyzing you. Just drawing attention to the rules you are playing by. Ad hoc ideas have a very weak influence on debates, until they are tested by predictions, at least as I was taught the game.
You might benefit from Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" from Princeton. Also, note in passing that the "overpopulation" hypothesis has been around a long time, has made many predictions, none of which have been confirmed. Why do you find it plausible? Reason? How do you separate reason from rationalization?
Please recall that this is no place, epistemologically, for persuasion. I can help you understand certain ideas, and can point you to information you might not otherwise have. Whether you want to understand, or to cure ignorance, is a choice you now have. I have helped you be freer, given you more intellectual choice. Of course, if you choose to be more deeply opinionated in your views, my comments are less than useless.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by zephyr, posted 01-12-2004 2:34 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by zephyr, posted 01-14-2004 8:16 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 35 of 128 (78371)
01-14-2004 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-12-2004 11:29 PM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
I am always interested in learning, and I prefer to do so on my own time at my own pace. You're barking up the wrong tree by calling me dogmatic. Most of the time, I just watch these arguments and hit all the links I have time for, and assimilate everything that seems valid.
You're right about this being the wrong place for persuasion. I'm not sure how many people even learn anything here, let alone change their minds about anything, since so many just come to pick fights and leave as ignorant as they started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-12-2004 11:29 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-14-2004 11:16 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 128 (78413)
01-14-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by zephyr
01-14-2004 8:16 AM


Re: Yec-Oec are both true
Zephyr,
You say,
You're barking up the wrong tree by calling me dogmatic.
Glad to hear it! And to have been mistaken in my judgment.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by zephyr, posted 01-14-2004 8:16 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 128 (87052)
02-17-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


I have come to wonder if form-mnaking may not in fact occur DUE to differnt rates of radioactive decay IN LIFE. This is a weird thought I admit but one if true will bring my own creationist inclination and ICR declinations in line. The only requirement of completing Einstein's program for science I wrongly thought reified the differnt KINDS of forces while in historical context I have come to understand that only asserting ELECTRICTY annnnnnd MAGNETISIM remands parralels NOT be crossed and that is possible with math of Groups. It seems possible purely to me that Cantor's ABCD..L real number groups which have never been defined do not violate Einstein's intention and this would bring the grammer as well in line with Von Weisacker's philosophy if not every errrrrrLOL UR provided Muller's terms of morph is rigourously so applicable.
If all that is true, a bit too big for me to swallow whole, then the reason that we MISTAKEN discuss creation and evolution of material non living timing events is that we have enabled the medical phenomena to take over the neumana or some such sounding thing WHILE SEPERATING DISCIPLINES bioLOGY, chemISTRY, phySICS. sCHOOL iS iNDEed boring. The reason creationists discuss this is clear having to do with internal dissent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 8:23 PM Rei has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 128 (104943)
05-03-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
12-15-2003 8:23 PM


Are they really missing?
Rei, What is the evidence that any of these alleged missing isotopes were ever on earth? IOW soemthing shouldn't be considered missing if it wasn't here in the first place. So that is where we need to start. It will only become a problem for YEC if and only if those isotopes can be placed on earth. If they can't be placed on earth at some point in the past then YECs have nothing to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 12-15-2003 8:23 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2004 1:34 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-03-2004 1:37 PM John Paul has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 39 of 128 (104945)
05-03-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John Paul
05-03-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
What is the evidence that any of these alleged missing isotopes were ever on earth?
Daughter isotopes. Start explaining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:18 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:46 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 40 of 128 (104946)
05-03-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by John Paul
05-03-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
True, there is no need to explain the absence of something that was never present. Rei's point (by the way, Rei hasn't been active in a while) is that the missing isotopes all have the shorter half-lives, and that the line of demarkation between those missing and those present is consistent with an age of billions of years. It's simply another bit of evidence consistent with an ancient earth.
What is the Creationist explanation for why the isotopes with shorter half-lives are missing?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:18 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:50 PM Percy has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 128 (104949)
05-03-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coragyps
05-03-2004 1:34 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
Daughter isotopes? It would depend if those alleged daughter isotopes have one and only one possible parent. Please state which daughter isotopes fall in to this category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2004 1:34 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coragyps, posted 05-03-2004 3:08 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 128 (104950)
05-03-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-03-2004 1:37 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
Percy, my point is that we don't know if they are missing or were never here. It doesn't matter what the half-life is. If that isotope wasn't here in the first place it is not an issue and not missing. I could say my bank account is missing one million dollars. I mean there isn't a million dollars in my account so it must be missing? Right? No, I never had one million dollars in any one account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-03-2004 1:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 05-03-2004 2:27 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-03-2004 2:27 PM John Paul has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 128 (104960)
05-03-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John Paul
05-03-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
Yes yes, John Paul, but as noted this is just one of the pieces of evidence. Is it just a huge co-incidence that the ones that are missing are exactly right to match the measured age by using the long lived isotopes? (and any and all other pieces of evidence? )
Here is a bit of writing by a Christian:
Geoscience Research Institute | I think we need more research on that...
quote:
For example, samarium-146, with a half-life of about 100 million years, is not found in naturally occurring deposits. However, its stable daughter product, neodymium-142, is found there. A 10 half-life calculation would therefore set a minimum age for consolidation of about one billion years. Thus, this process brings us to the interesting conclusion that the radiometric age of the planets, moons, and meteorites of our Solar System may range between one and five billion years.
I don't know enough nuclear physics to tell if neodymium-142 can come from other sources. How far are you going to go with this?

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:50 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 4:00 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 89 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-13-2004 2:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 44 of 128 (104961)
05-03-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by John Paul
05-03-2004 1:50 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
The isotopes are naturally occurring, and so they all should exist on earth. But a number of them are missing, and they're all the ones with shorter half-lives. They are missing because sufficient time has passed for them to decay completely away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:50 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 3:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 45 of 128 (104968)
05-03-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
05-03-2004 1:46 PM


Re: Are they really missing?
An example is that of uranium and lead in zircons. When zircons crystallize, they reject lead from their crystal lattices, but can incorporate uranium. And lo and behold, today's zircons have some lead in them - with lead-206 and lead-207 in excess. And those two isotopes are daughters of uranium isotopes. The same sort of thing happens in meteorites, where there's magnesium-26 in aluminum minerals. It's the daughter of Al-26, which is ~1,600,000 year half-life, IIRC.
I'll look at the books for zirconium and hafnium daughters when I get the chance. Both should be in zircons, and I'll bet their daughters are rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 05-03-2004 1:46 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024