Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 61 of 141 (252736)
10-18-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Nuggin
10-18-2005 12:28 PM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
It's 17 pages and I have read it. The depictions of Stegasaurus alone is astonishing in accuracy even if it is hard to envision the depiction of it as domesticated as accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 12:28 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 6:21 PM randman has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 62 of 141 (252840)
10-18-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
10-18-2005 12:33 PM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
Rather than coopt this thread further, Im going to open a thread about your link and discuss it there.
Please join me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 12:33 PM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 63 of 141 (252966)
10-19-2005 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 11:54 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
quote:
You and Shraf have a different opinion on "scholarly sources" being willing within the evo camp to discuss evidence that severely contradicts evo paradigms.
See, you have the problem of not understanding that Biologists do not "believe" in the ToE the way that you "believe" your mythology.
ANY scientist would give almost anything to be the one to discover something that overturns a dominant paradigm.
That's what makes scientists famous.
Einstein and Stephen Jay Gould immediately come to mind.
They win Nobel Prizes for it and go on TV and get great book deals and get lots of funding for their work and get a (relatively) high salary from their university, and they get lots and lots and lots of citations and attention given to their work in the form of other scientists dissecting it and seeing if they can replicate it.
Biologists (all scientists) are constantly testing and trying to find holes and errors in their theories.
Is this what you do? Are you constantly questioning your beliefs, and does the religious community heap praise and accolades upon those who show that what everyone thought was true in the past was quite wrong?
No, of course not. They are excommunicated, they are run off, they are branded as "heretics", they are hated.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2005 08:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:54 AM randman has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 141 (252967)
10-19-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
10-18-2005 11:54 AM


Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread
quote:
As far as the web-site, the data is the data, period. Pictures, written accounts, etc,...are no less real just because a web-site dedicated to the anomalous or strange stuff publishes them.
I have two words for you, hun:
Photo Shop

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 11:54 AM randman has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 65 of 141 (257861)
11-08-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


Schra ??
1) The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
This can only refer to the genome which is determinative of what an offspring will be gentically, morphologically , etc. So the original number of kinds would be precisely the original number of unique genomes before a single variation had taken effect. This would of course be orders of magnitude smaller than the number of species at a later point in time due to the built in range of variation in the genome and later the variation caused by interbreeding, mutations, etc.
If one takes a single sample of material and makes multiple readings from that one sample it would be surprising indeed to get bi-polar answers for an estimate arrived at by analytically identical methods.
The bias in the results is almost always in the direction of "too old" and consistently so because one of the errors is the assumption that no material is lost by any method other than redioactive decay.. without any support I may say. There is zero chance of any material being added to the sample over its life as there is no mechanism for such, but there are plenty of ways material could be lost. Thus the errors or biases always occur in the same mistakenly older direction.
I would expect that the flood mechanisms of rain and subterranian volcanization, earthquakes, sunamis, etc. would have resulted in enourmous mixing, swirling, displacement and it would be remarkable to have lighter objects at the bottom plus fossilized grass must be fairly rare. As a matter of fact inversion layers are quite common in the geolgic column.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 4:46 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 5:08 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 83 by nwr, posted 11-09-2005 5:20 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 11-09-2005 7:49 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 100 by nator, posted 11-10-2005 3:32 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 141 (257891)
11-08-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Schra ??
I would expect that the flood mechanisms of rain and subterranian volcanization, earthquakes, sunamis, etc. would have resulted in enourmous mixing, swirling, displacement and it would be remarkable to have lighter objects at the bottom plus fossilized grass must be fairly rare.
No, it turns out that fossil grass pollen is quite common indeed - right at the top. Totally consistent with evolution; a devastating contradiction of creationism.
In regards to sorting - in the fossil record, none of the really heavy objects, the large animals, are at the very bottom of the record. They're all in the middle-to-top area, reflecting again a position consistent with evolution, but totally contradictory to flood-creationism accounts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 67 of 141 (257896)
11-08-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Schra ??
The bias in the results is almost always in the direction of "too old" and consistently so because one of the errors is the assumption that no material is lost by any method other than redioactive decay.. without any support I may say. There is zero chance of any material being added to the sample over its life as there is no mechanism for such, but there are plenty of ways material could be lost. Thus the errors or biases always occur in the same mistakenly older direction.
Your understanding of radioactive decay seems to be a bit off. There is no material that is "lost" by radioactive decay. The material is changed from a parent isotope to a daughter isotope and the date is determined by the ratio between the two.
If more parent material is added the sample will look younger. The parent material is lost the sample will look older.
If daughter material is added the sample looks older. If daughter material is lost the sample looks younger.
It is my understanding that the most common form of contamination is the loss of daughter product. Real geologists please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore the trend would actually be error on the side of younger.
Then of course if loss of material of any significant amount were very common at all then we would not have any correlations.
{ABE}
See also this discussion of the correlation of ages in the Hawaiian islands.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 11-08-2005 03:17 PM

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:30 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 68 of 141 (257898)
11-08-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
11-08-2005 4:46 PM


Re: Schra ??
I ventured an answer to three questions but you commented on only one... maybe later.
I suggest you review The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris where you will find rather complete answers for your questions from a Phd in Geology and Hydrology having quite good credentials in text book writing and teaching etc. in these subjects.
How would one explain the fact that nowhere on earth is there a complete geologic column and there is no world-wide nonconformity.. period.
You make it sound as though there is little or no evidence for flood geology yet we both know much better. As always there is evidence for both positions and it is in the eye of the beholder often as to the interpretation.
Your defining the creation account in your terms and then attacking it is called a logical fallacy.. straw man.. no pun intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 4:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 5:22 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2005 6:04 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 69 of 141 (257901)
11-08-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:14 PM


Re: Schra ??
A more non-combative way of expressing what crash is saying is this.
Where in the model of the flood does it describe the mechanism that kept grass, grass pollen, flowering plants, and flowering plant pollen, which is ubiquitous in higher layers of the column, from existing in the lower layers of the column?
If flood geology cannot describe the facts of the column then it is a hypothesis in crisis.
To deny the geologic column is to deny fact; an even worse proposition.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:14 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 70 of 141 (257904)
11-08-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jazzns
11-08-2005 5:08 PM


Re: Schra ??
Sorry but you haven't explained how material is added... clearly impossible in either case.
But leaching out of the original material (parent) is quite likely and more likely because its obviously been around longer than the daughter product (sort of by definition) and that is a major source of error which biases toward older ages. You know water transport and such.
Actually radiocarbon dating uses C14 to C14 comparisons.. no daughter involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 5:08 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 5:40 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 75 by Nighttrain, posted 11-08-2005 6:43 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 71 of 141 (257907)
11-08-2005 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:30 PM


Re: Schra ??
Sorry but you haven't explained how material is added... clearly impossible in either case.
Daughter material is potentially added during initial formation. I am unaware of any particular mechanisms to add parent material.
Loss of daughter material is much more common. The nature of the crystalization of the rock rejects the daughter isotope. Therefore the daughter product "wants" to get out and thus the error if any is more often than not toward the younger rather than older as per your assertion.
But leaching out of the original material (parent) is quite likely and more likely because its obviously been around longer than the daughter product (sort of by definition) and that is a major source of error which biases toward older ages.
False. Parent material is part of the crystal matrix AFAIK which is why it exists as part of the rock to begin with. The daughter product is activly rejected which is why for these systems we can assume the initial state. Loss of material is not linear with time.
You know water transport and such.
You must soley be thinking of carbon dating. Please realize that carbon dating is vastly inferior to the forms of dating used for igneous and metamorphic rocks. It is a whole different animal.
Actually radiocarbon dating uses C14 to C14 comparisons.. no daughter involved.
Yes it seems you are limiting your discussion to carbon dating. Certainly carbon dating has its issues which are discussed in many threads here. But that does not invalidate what I said about the numerous other radioactive dating techniques for dating crystaline rock. These are the important ones that give us the age of the earth. Carbon dating is limited to organics and can only give us ages in the tens of thousands of years.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:30 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:49 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 72 of 141 (257909)
11-08-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jazzns
11-08-2005 5:40 PM


Re: Schra ??
NO just wanted to refute your claim that all methods require ratios of parent to daughter... just so.
I suggest you read the RATE project material before swallowing whole the traditional evolutionary geologists claims.
You know these things depend on the solution of differential equations and assumptions about initial conditions, constant decay rates and boundary values.. I would be cautious about my dead certain assertions.
Nothing so concentrates a man's attention as a good hanging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 5:40 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2005 7:57 PM Evopeach has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 73 of 141 (257914)
11-08-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:49 PM


Re: Schra ??
NO just wanted to refute your claim that all methods require ratios of parent to daughter... just so.
All dating techniques use a ratio of parent to daughter. Even carbon dating. The only caveat with carbon dating is that the initial concentration of parent isotope is dependent on the environment which is why you get margins of error based on the CO2 in the atmosphere and marine vs non-marine organics.
I suggest you read the RATE project material before swallowing whole the traditional evolutionary geologists claims.
I have read nearly every scrap of material produced by the RATE project. I don't swallow any claims. I am a student of geology. Also, what is an evolutionary geologist? Evolution is the study of changes in a population of living organisms. Geology is the study of the non-living earth and the things its made of. Do you know anyone who has a degree in evolutionary geology?
You know these things depend on the solution of differential equations and assumptions about initial conditions, constant decay rates and boundary values.. I would be cautious about my dead certain assertions.
Solutions of differential equations which I am capable of examining and solving myself with my concentration in mathematics.
Initial conditions which can be demonstrated with basic chemistry.
Constant decay rates which are established via direct observation and verified via subsequent observations from astronomy.
A hard math problem and a few facts hardly make something an assertion. Assertions are things that are unfounded. Perhaps you can show us how the solution to a differential equation is an assertion.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:49 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 141 (257918)
11-08-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:14 PM


Re: Schra ??
I suggest you review The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris where you will find rather complete answers for your questions from a Phd in Geology and Hydrology having quite good credentials in text book writing and teaching etc. in these subjects.
I did. Didn't answer my questions.
How would one explain the fact that nowhere on earth is there a complete geologic column and there is no world-wide nonconformity.. period.
"No world-wide nonconformity"? I'm not sure what you mean. The very fact that the column has no world wide conformity at all is how we know that it's not the product of one big flood.
Your defining the creation account in your terms and then attacking it is called a logical fallacy.. straw man..
Sorry, but no. I'm simply pointing out how the flood as you've defined it is not consistent with any of the evidence that we observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:14 PM Evopeach has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 75 of 141 (257935)
11-08-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 5:30 PM


Re: Schra ??
Hi,EP, instead of attacking geological methods of dating, can you give me one reliable method of dating the Flood. The Bible is-----out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 5:30 PM Evopeach 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