|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey b0ilingfrog,
Quick question, how do you isolate a phrase from a posting in the light blue box? type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy You can also use the peek function to see how other formatting is done.
As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process. Ah the old conspiracy theory. It couldn't be that they are not accepted because they are not scientifically valid, no, there must be some other reason. It surprises me how quickly people jump to a conspiracy motive when they don't understand things: the 9/11 towers, the 2000/2004 elections, the failure of creationists to publish in scientific journals .... An open-minded skeptic should be wary of all conspiracy theories, eh?
I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade. When I learned the Principle of Uniformity You do realize, don't you that you are not talking about uniformitarianism? Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia
quote: That was, of course, based on the evidence available at the time. Note that this means that volcanoes don't occur vastly different from past eruptions, for example, similar in types of eruption. Geology - Wikipedia
Important principles in the Development of Geology quote: You will note that this does not mean that uniformitarianism does not include catastrophic events, just that they will occur according to the known physics and the way things behave today. For instance the meteor impact on the Yucatan Peninsula in ~65million BCE is a catastrophic event, but one entirely "explained by what can be seen to be happening now" - and this is about as catastrophic as one needs, as it caused a mass extinction that included most of the dinosaurs. The geological record is full of instances of mass extinctions, so we know catastrophe was a part of earths history. Let's look at a typical creationist example of uniformitarianism:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i2/news.asp quote: This comes down to using different definitions for the same words again: Creationist definition of uniformitarianism: the principle that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes, with no changes or sudden events. (The Mississippi River behaves today exactly as it did 35 years ago). Scientific definition of uniformitarianism: the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. (The Mississippi River on any day behaves according to the physics of hydraulics and the energy gradient of the river, the principles that govern the formation of meanders during low flow and the destruction of meanders, and flooding etc. during high flow). Do you agree that they are using two entirely different definitions? The next question is one that really perplexes me, and maybe you can help me understand it: If you are talking about a science and what that science says, shouldn't you use the definitions used in that science to discuss it? What would be the point of using a different definition in such discussion? Is it stupidity - that they don't understand that the definitions are different? Is it ignorance - that they are unaware of the scientific definitions? Is it apathy - that they can't bother to learn them? Is it misinformation - that they have been told a false definition by a trusted source (and failed to fact-check it)? Is it malicious - that they are intentionally lying in order to delude gullible people into believing something false (and to what end)? Is it delusion - that they think their definition is correct and all of science has it wrong? Can there be ANY valid reason to use an incorrect definition in such a discussion? Thanks for your help on this perplexing issue. Now you will excuse me while I walk down to the local fish market where - according to my uniformitarianistic beliefs - they will hopefully have fresh fish, but not the same ones as yesterday ... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Thanx Granny Magda Can I just call you Granny? Be my guest!
As to it being typical of creationist to embrace the same science they are lampooning to make a point. No different than evol ones quoting scripture. As far as I see it same intent same results. Many evolution proponents quote scripture because many of them are Christians. They are every bit as sincere in their religious beliefs as you are in yours, it's just that their version of Christianity doesn't seek to deny reality by insisting upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I agree the "soft tissue" is only speculatory as far as I am concerned. In fact soft tissue is not a fossil by definition (unless the definition of fossil has changed) Agreed. "Fossils containing soft tissues" would probably be the best way to phrase it, if a genuine example were confirmed that is.
For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact". A surprising number were all too willing to reconsider million year old soft tissue than a younger sample than previously accepted. Make any sense? Good question. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that genuine soft tissues are found in a dinosaur fossil. We would then have two alternative explanations for this observation. a) In rare cases, soft tissues can survive much longer than was previously thought. b) Soft tissues can only persist for a short time and thus the dinosaur fossil is much, much younger than previously supposed. The problem is that explanation b contradicts a great many other areas of scientific enquiry. It throws into doubt most of geology, all of palaeontology, all forms of dating and so on. That's fine, questioning orthodoxy is a good thing, but in these cases fields such as radiocarbon dating are based upon a wealth of evidence. This evidence takes the form of literally hundreds of thousands of observations, none of which contradict an old Earth. Now, should we discard this wealth of observed evidence? Should we discard entire fields of scientific knowledge, based upon one observation? Or, should we simply discard the one simple mistaken idea that soft tissues can't survive millions of years? To me it seems like a no-brainer.
Again I do not think it was intact soft tissue anyway. No, me neither. A pity, I must admit it's disappointing, we could have learned so much from preserved dinosaur soft tissues. As it happens though, we must follow the evidence where it leads and not where we wish it would lead.
But Yes the Scientific community most certainly does cherry pick. It made me mad when I found out but they do. Well, I was talking about creationist propagandists cherry picking from scientific research that they barely understand. You wont find scientists cherry picking creationist research, because; a) there isn't much to pick from; and b) they don't need to. Scientists are not interested in creationism. It is irrelevant at best, a minor irritant at worst. The teaching of creationism in schools is perhaps a more serious matter, but that is another topic.
Proper science is neutral. I agree with that. I am not wearing blinders I know how science works. I also know money ruined the scientific process as surely as it ruined pro sports. As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process. Money may be a big issue in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, but I think you are perhaps underestimating how much money is involved in evolutionary biology. I don't really think it is an issue here. As for the peer review process being unfairly stacked against creationism, you need to actually submit papers before they can be peer reviewed, unfairly or otherwise. This rarely happens. Creationists seem largely uninterested in publishing their ideas in the proper manner, preferring instead to circumvent the usual scientific process and aim straight for the lay audience or the schools. I strongly suspect that if someone such as Intelligent Design hero Michael Behe were to submit a paper to, say, Nature, they would jump at the chance to publish it. I'm sure they would relish the chance to point out his many blunders. Behe has wisely avoided this.
I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade. Well, with respect, that sounds to me like the root of your problem. Fifth grade seems a little young to decide that one knows geology better than the worlds most eminent geologists, does it not?
These claims you say are refuted in these journals how are they refuted? I can tell you before I go look that 90% are "refuted" on the basis of uniformatarian criteria. It is not science, has never been proven and is supported exclusively on censorship. It is supported by allowing interpretations to be perceived as evidence. I'm not sure what claims you are referring to here., but I will say that the basic assumption of uniformitarianism is that the basic laws of physics and their manifestations in the physical world were the same in the past as they are today. That seems entirely reasonable to me and if you disagree, it is up to you to point out evidence that physical laws or geological processes were formerly different. If you can't do this (and to date, no-one has) then there is no reason to suppose that physics was any different in the past to how it is today.
When I learned the Principle of Uniformity it was the doctrine of gradualism and I was taught that there were no global catastrophes like the flood. By the way global flood was specifically cited as the one example of catastrophes that violated the Principle of Uniformity. Well you were taught wrong my friend. Either that or you simply misunderstood what was being said. I suggest that you read RAZD's post above, because he explains this very well. Uniformity does not mean what you seem to think it does!
Now that only 8th grade graduates and not very many even of them sincerely believe in things like the flood and God there WAS a global catastrophe. Yup. Wiped out the dinosaurs. But there's a big difference. There is evidence for the Yucatan impact. There's a bloody great big crater for a start. Furthermore, there is a debris layer, known as the K-T boundary. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read up on it. The Flood on the other hand, is not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence contradicts it.
It is the methods used to suppress anything that might remotely infer there is any validity to bible. I'm sorry, but there is no such conspiracy, except in the minds of creationists, who would rather imagine themselves to be a persecuted minority, than accept that their cherished beliefs might actually be in error.
I actually have a problem with interpretation being deceptively presented as fact even more than when it is expressly stated as such. Care to provide an example? Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
You didn't do any sort of forum crime - This is just a writing style tip.
Your messages will look better and will be easier to read if you put blank lines between paragraphs. I have edited the message this is a reply to, to add such lines. I think I've done the same to quite a few of your other messages. PLEASE, NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
b0ilingfrog Junior Member (Idle past 5675 days) Posts: 27 From: Seattle Joined: |
Hey Granny,
Guilty, at this point I am YEC and do stick to as literal interpretation of Genesis as I can. Wealth of evidence is still there it is how we choose to interpret the evidence. I admit there are lots of things I do not understand about science. Radiometric dating, Potassium-argon, Amino Acid Racemization, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Even Carbon 14 the math makes my head spin but here is what I do know about all of them. They all assume uniformity. Is the rate of C-14 entering the biosphere a constant? Is it absorbed more rapidly with higher sea levels? Yes I suppose uniformity is my problem. I still have not mastered the stuff on Razd's page but I will get to it next week. I mean boxing comments I am replying too and such. Anyhow, Uniformity is as yet assumed and not repeatable so it really is a matter of choice. From your perspective I make the wrong choice. The recent research on sedimentology and stratigraphy? Watch how fast factual repeatable experiments are dismissed by the scientific community when the results conflict with accepted theories, and how they are dismissed. Note that trying to repeat them is not being mentioned as a means of refuting them. That is cherry picking as far as I can tell. On conspiracy, it is more logical to assume there is one even when there is not, than to assume there isn't one. I mean there is no conspiracy that advertises in the yellow pages. Evidence that conflicts with the accepted model is stamped anomalous and and ignored. We all tend to believe that such anomalies are rare. There may not be smoke filled rooms of evol ones plotting to suppress evidence and may never have been. The funding goes to maintaining the status quo. Money is the issue everywhere. I don't know Behe or his work. I must concede the point of uniformity as I can not find the books that defined it as I stated it. Take your pick on being taught wrong or not paying attention in class or I am lying. Like I said I never claimed I was any good at being Christian. Read what Lyell had to say about it. That is as close as I can get to proving what I and my classmates were taught. According to what he wrote uniformity was different. As late as 1917 "The Origins of Evolution and Life" science was building on the foundation as I describe it. I think it was Coyote that said I wouldn't believe anything he had to say. I restate that the evidence is the same I choose to question the manner in which it is interpreted. The millions of years paradigm was built on the assumption of uniformity as defined by Lyell. Even if it was correct it was not science. If you are not on the millions of years bandwagon good luck graduating let alone qualifying for research grants. I suspect I am persuading few if any that my world view is just as valid as theirs but I will say it sure beats preaching to the choir. Listen I type slow and already should have been working. I pretty much only have Saturdays to surf and such. Hope to type at all of you next week.
Edited by Adminnemooseus to put blank lines between paragraphs. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact". Sure. They can date the stratum in which it was found by the usual dating methods. If the usual methods, whose reliability has consistently been shown, show it is more that 65 million years old, then why should we consider any longer that the specimen is younger? -
...I have heard scientists insist it [evolution] is a fact but it was built on uniformity. Actually, the theory of evolution is based on evidence, not a requirement to be consistent with uniformitarianism. -
Now even global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't involve a global flood. No, global catastrophes are perfectly acceptable as long as they are supported by evidence. -
Read what happened to Emanuel Velikovsky. He was roundly criticized for a theory whose parts violated the very laws of physics, and whose "evidence" could be more simply explained by the already established theories of science. Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Even Carbon 14 the math makes my head spin but here is what I do know about all of them. They all assume uniformity. Is the rate of C-14 entering the biosphere a constant? That one thing you know about radiometric dating is wrong, at least as it pertains to carbon 14 dating. Uniformity is not assumed! It has been known for 50 years (since shortly after the C14 method was developed) that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere vary (see de Vries 1958). That is why all C14 dates today are corrected for atmospheric variation! There are several other corrections that are done, but we won't trouble you with them yet.
I think it was Coyote that said I wouldn't believe anything he had to say. I restate that the evidence is the same I choose to question the manner in which it is interpreted. Not all interpretations fit the evidence equally well. You could interpret the data to mean that the moon is made of green cheese, but you would look like an idiot. That is the case with the young earth idea. It is a religious belief, and its adherents, when they deal with science, twist, ignore, and manipulate the data to make it fit their a priori belief. That doesn't make their interpretation right. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The recent research on sedimentology and stratigraphy? Watch how fast factual repeatable experiments are dismissed by the scientific community when the results conflict with accepted theories, and how they are dismissed. Note that trying to repeat them is not being mentioned as a means of refuting them. That is cherry picking as far as I can tell. Berthault's experiments are perfectly OK. The problem is, again, in the application. They involve conditions that could occur in nature, but practically never do. Take, just for one example close to my house, the redbeds in the Palo Duro Canyon near Amarillo, Texas. They are hundreds of feet thick and consist of thin little leaves of red sandstone or siltstone with white layers of crystalline gypsum interbedded all through them. Thousands of layers. Formations that look just like them are forming now, between Anglagard's home and Midland, Texas at a place called Red Lake. It's a lake of sorts maybe one month out of the year in wet years, and otherwise a big flat pan. When it rains hard, reddish sand and silt wash into the pan with the rainwater and then settle out. Then the water evaporates in the sun, and the gypsum and other salts it carries crystallize on top of the silt. The cycle repeats year after year - though the dirtbikers and four-wheelers disturb it a lot lately. It looks just like those redbeds. And Berthault's experiments can't make something similar, what with the delicacy and grown-in-place nature of the gypsum crystals. And that's only one of hundreds of formations Berthault can't make. The White Cliffs of Dover come to mind - Thomas Huxley showed that about 140 years ago. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... the redbeds in the Palo Duro Canyon near Amarillo, Texas. They are hundreds of feet thick and consist of thin little leaves of red sandstone or siltstone with white layers of crystalline gypsum interbedded all through them. Thousands of layers. Formations that look just like them are forming now, ... It's a lake of sorts maybe one month out of the year in wet years, and otherwise a big flat pan. When it rains hard, reddish sand and silt wash into the pan with the rainwater and then settle out. Then the water evaporates in the sun, and the gypsum and other salts it carries crystallize on top of the silt. The cycle repeats year after year ... Has there been any attempt to correlate the layers with annual layers? Has anyone taken core samples of the current vernal lake? Presumably there would be plant if not animal life that would also grow on each layer and that could be c-14 dated. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 172 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Just throwing a thought in here: Could the insects found in ancient amber be examples of preserved soft tissue? If I recall correctly, some of these examples have been dated to 75 million years old. In some cases, biological molecules or molecular fragments have been recovered. Does amber present an environment in which "soft tissue" may be preserved for millions of years? Is there any chance of finding a small chordate encased in amber, or has such already been discovered?
And of equal interest, why does it seem that every time we argue these issues with a YEC like bOilingfrog, they write as though they barely made it through the eighth grade and that their science teacher, English teacher, gym teacher, and football coach were one in the same person. --------------------If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there any chance of finding a small chordate encased in amber, or has such already been discovered? A quick google seems to turn up only bones, but what about hair? http://www.springerlink.com/content/kr562162l7r07l06/
quote: Can you get DNA from hair? also
Mammal bones found in Amberquote: Then there is this - from creationist fraud Harun Yahya Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya | Forbidden Music
quote: Can you get soft tissue from a fishing lure? Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : also Edited by RAZD, : added fraud picture for amusement Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 172 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
As a forensic biologist with several years experience (well, I've been a Law And Order fan for several years) I can tell you yes, hair does contain its owners DNA. I always tell Benjamin Bratte to collect used hair brushes whenever he flips a house (cop talk for exercising a search warrant). However, DNA is a very fragile molecule and might not survive over long periods of time, even under ideal conditions. Fortunately, with PCR, only a few molecules are need for analysis.
The Dominican Republic samples could be particularly interesting if they are actual bones, remembering that (most) fossils are not the actual bones of the decedent, but are mineralized remains in which minerals seep in and gradually replace the bone material in a lost wax type of process. Thanks for the info.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... if they are actual bones, remembering that (most) fossils are not the actual bones of the decedent, but are mineralized remains ... Yes, and it had me wondering if you could find soft tissue inside the bones rather than the hair, might be a little better protected. Note that there are, apparently, a lot of frauds with amber fossils - I found one site dedicated to uncovering them (modern bugs inserted through drilled and refilled holes). Watch out for the hook. Enjoy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I'll bet that the modern lakes (playas, really) have been studied: there are lots of Pleistocene digs not too far away, like the Clovis area that the arrowheads took their name from. I know nothing of how to search that literature, but I bet that a day at the Texas Tech library could fix that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi AnswersInGenitals,
If you can get hold of it, a BBC nature documentary called The Amber Time machine, by David Attenborough, is worth a look. Having just watched it, I have a few answers for you. Soft tissues are very much preserved in amber, depending on what you mean by preserved. They're there, but in very bad shape. Using an electron microscope however, researchers have been able to observe individual cells and even the nuclei of those cells. There have been numerous attempts to extract DNA from amber fossils, mostly involving termites and small bees, etc. The scientists were initially astounded and delighted to find fragments of apparently ancient DNA, but with further study, most of them are now convinced that the positive results were false positives, caused by contamination. A few remain optimistic that DNA fragments will still be found. There have been chordates found in amber, including small lizards, anoles and geckos. There has even been a tadpole found! It is believed to have come from a small pool in a tree top bromeliad. This is supported by the incredibly fortuitous presence of an small frog egg in the same piece of amber. Some modern poison dart frogs lay these infertile eggs to provide their offspring with food as they develop in the bromeliad pools. Presumably, the bromeliad that this particular tadpole was in took a tumble and the little fella ended up stuck to a tree! Here is a lizard in amber. I think this is genuine...
From here. Hope this helps. Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : I found a nicer picture Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I fail to see any connection between the amber and soft parts in fossils preservation to the topic theme. Unless you can find such a connection and make it explicit in your messages, please find an existing topic or propose a new topic if you wish to pursue such.
The Coragyps/RAZD discussion of messages 37 and 38, however, are right on topic. NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1 Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024