|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
NO just wanted to refute your claim that all methods require ratios of parent to daughter... just so. Some methods do require parent\daughter ratios, others do not. Some utilize water transport of soluble {parents\daughters} too. For a rather complete discussion of radiometric dating technology readRadiometric Dating Dr. Wiens addresses many of the common errors of creationists as well as providing a good overview of the state of the science of radiometric technology.
Evopeach, msg 70 writes: Actually radiocarbon dating uses C14 to C14 comparisons.. no daughter involved. You meant the ratio of 14C to 12C within an object, and not 14C to 14C, right? (it is also checked with the ratio of 13C when there is doubt, as in resevoir effects and the like.)
I suggest you read the RATE project material ... Why? there is plenty of scientific material on the topic. Like Dr. Wiens ... Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6640 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal. If so that's one answer you must not have received previously.. the logical one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Kind has absolutely NOTHING to do with either your discussion with RazD or the sub-topic of your message.
You are supposed to be addressing techniques of radiometric dating right now. If you want to return to the issue of Kind we can address that part, but first try to complete the discussion on radiometric dating. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6640 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Actually his post contained three questions and the first I believe was concerning the definition of kind. I answered all three to be complete in my response. Perhaps you should read the entire post before interjecting your views into the conversation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
actually I did read back to your post where you tried to define Kind. However, the discussion continuing from there on related to trying to correct your misunderstandings of radiometric dating. Before addressing your definition of kind, I think it's important to resolve the isue of radiometric dating. You have not yet completed the discussion with RAZD on the radiometric dating issue. One of the things we often see with Creationistas is that when they need to address one topic, they simply change direction and walk off as though something has been resolved.
Can you follow up on your discussion of radiometric dating with RAZD so that issue, at least gets resolved? There is no requirement to do so, you're free of course to simply change subjects. I'm perfectly sure there are many here who will be happy to discuss your definition of Kind. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6640 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Unless I am supposed to read the Wien paper there was nothing left to followup on that I can determine.
When one dismisses the RATE project as unscientific out of hand just because the people who performed it are people of faith and Creationists regardless of their academic credentials and the time and money spent, the excellent scholarship and referencing they provide and that the project was privately not publically funded simply demonstrates that there is no work that will ever be seriously considered by this forum from another perspective... yet I am to read, study and capitualate to your groups recommended readings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nothing was dismissed simply because it is religious based. Many of us, myself included, are very religious. Classic Creationism is dismissed because it is simply wrong. All the evidence shows it's wrong. That's why no major Church supports it.
RATE is dismissed because their science is lousy. RAZD even provided you all the links to the evidence supporting his position. If you wish to remain in a state of willfull ignorance, that's fine. Simply say that you are not going to believe the evidence and everyone will let you go on your merry way. But we are over in the science side of the house. Here you are expected to back up your assertions. Or, as I said above, you can simply say that regardless of the evidence, you are going to stick to your beliefs. No one will object to that. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Since you seem to want responses on kinds, I'll comment here.
The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.
Can you provide a reference? On reading your definition the first time, my reaction was that all creatures are the same kind. That's on the basis of common descent. On my second reading I tried to read it a little more strictly. Doing that, it seems to me that "kind" refers only to a single family. Perhaps the definition is just a little too vague if it can lead to such a range of interpretations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6640 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
I fully intend to read the material furnished. However the RATE project was published this year after 4 years of work by qualified people. Thus Wien could not have referenced or read or considered that work since his was a 2002 effort and that an update to an earlier version.
Your term lousy science... is that a studied highly academic term based on a careful review or just hip shooting at work you never glanced at and predetermined to attack both scientifically and personally. Never mind I know the answer to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6640 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.
This can only mean the genome of a kind was unique in its reproduction via genes turned on and off , etc. to deliver a specific kind after kind sexual reproduction. In fact it is a specific and highly specicic and prediction and description of precisely what we have always experienced in reproduction. (unless you believe in saltation) Of course after a while the effects of imperfection in reproduction set in plus the natural variation and other factors to permit homological and morphological vairaition including speciation. Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I fully intend to read the material furnished. However the RATE project was published this year after 4 years of work by qualified people. Thus Wien could not have referenced or read or considered that work since his was a 2002 effort and that an update to an earlier version. I can't find anything published later than 2004. Do you have links to the final material you are talking about? All the material from '04 back seems to have already been taken apart as noted by others. Could you point out the flaws in those critisisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Evopeach writes: In fact it is a specific and highly specicic and prediction and description of precisely what we have always experienced in reproduction. The Biblical use of the word "kind", in Genesis and later in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, is very much like the way we use the word "kind" today. What kind of dog is that? It's a Great Dane. Great Danes produce Great Danes, but there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that the "kind" boundary can not be crossed. A Great Dane can still be bred with other "kinds" of dogs. Different kinds of cattle can be interbred. Different kinds of horses can be interbred. In short, the Biblical concept of "kinds" is a loose, usually visual, classification - not a precise scientific term. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal. I'll get back to you on that after reading it. Until then lets keep this on radiometric dating and answering the questions of the posts you are replying to eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Evopeach, msg 65 writes: 1) The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring. Does this mean only a parent is a kind? This is a pretty narrow definition, as the above definition means that two different varieties of the same species are not of a kind: one variety cannot bring forth offspring within the other varietal group (genetically impossible). This is contradictory to the usual creationist usage to move "kind" up the tree from species to a higher level.
This can only refer to the genome which is determinative of what an offspring will be gentically, morphologically , etc. Still can't get to variety {A} from variety {B}, even though {A} and {B} can interbreed and produce living breathing breeding hybrids.
So the original number of kinds would be precisely the original number of unique genomes before a single variation had taken effect. Tautology: the number created would be the number created.
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. Why? There has been massive extinction of many more species than exist on the earth today, so therefore there had to be more varieties of genomes in the past than exist now. By orders of magnetude. Point falsified.
Evopeach, msg 77 writes: I gave an answer to teh definition of kinds. May I take it that the answer was satisfactory and thus no rebuttal Looks to me like the answer has several logical problems with its construction and conclusions. So, no, the answer is not satisfactory. Or do you have another definition elsewhere? This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*09*2005 07:50 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.
That makes it sound as if kind = species.
Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.
And now we are at genus. According to Ken Ham, Noah's ark carried only one or two pairs of dinosaurs, and all the rest of the dinosaur kind evolved from that. So Ken Ham appears to want a much larger idea of "kind" than just genus.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024