evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

You seem to be really confused about elementary maths and calculus. The trick is to recognize that you don't actually know what you are talking about with respect to the mathematical formulae of decay, and express yourself accordingly.The constant k is does not change at all; that is what constant means. It is called the decay constant, and usually identified with the symbol lambda (λ). Every radioactive substance has a characteristic decay constant, which is fixed. Thus dk/dt = 0 (or dλ/dt = 0).The formula you have written uses a "T" and also a "t". This is a bit odd. The symbol "t" is a reference to time. Knowing this, the formula you have given is recognizable as an equation more often written as N = Ni(e^-λt). N is the number of atoms at time t, and Ni is the initial number of atoms (at time zero). Note the minus sign.From basic calculus, we have dN/dt = -λN, or in your notation dT/dt = -kT. Watch the capitals.The minus sign means that the number of atoms is getting smaller with time, as they decay. The derivative dN/dt is the rate at which atoms are decaying, or the number of atoms lost per unit time. The equation dN/dt = -λN means that the number of atoms that are decaying depends on the number of atoms in the sample, and on the decay constant of the substance.Cheers -- Sylas

I have responded to this assertion in another thread in a more appropriate forum. See: Message 1.Best wishes -- Sylas.

Yes. I gave an example of speciation of mice on the island of Madeira in another forum. See: Message 35, and Message 40 (same thread); plus associated links. There is increasing recognition by creationists that they require enormous amounts of speciation (far more rapid evolution than required by evolutionary biology) to allow for the diversity of animal life since the flood. See Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists, in which Carl Wieland of Answers in Genesis actually cites observed speciation as evidence for creationism. (Obligatory sheesh: Sheesh)Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-21-2004]

The "sheesh" is obligatory when reading Carl Wieland's paper. It was not a reference to you; my apologies for failing to make that clear.Cheers -- Sylas

We are both off topic; but if we are real quiet about it they might not notice. I'll try to slip in some stuff about a contest and winning; we might get away with it...I don't actually think anything the creationists have corresponds to a model, as the term is used in science. Some creationists think speciation can't occur; some recognize that it does occur. In neither case do they have an actual model which can be used to make any kind of prediction or test of the putative model. Talking of "winning" or "losing", in such cases, is beside the point. They aren't even playing the game.Science never works by absolute certainty or "truth", but it does work by proposing models that have empirical consequences, and we can have considerable confidence in various models which have been stringently tested and explored. Evolution is one such; it stands in relation to biology pretty much as the periodic table stands in relation to chemistry.In so far as a creationist model has been given that can be tested, it has been falsified. This at least is better than a no-show.The mice in Madeira don't usually give any pause to creationists. Those who insist speciation can't occur say that this isn't speciation, because they are "still mice". Those who agree that speciation does occur claim that this is just the kind of minor change which fits a creationist model.It does stand as an illustration that speciation occurs and is observed; and can be helpful in answering an honest question from someone like yourself on whether we observe speciation or not.Another thing about this example which is interesting is refutation of a common argument given against our relationship with the great apes. Humans have one less chromosome than chimpanzees and gorillas; and some creationists have argued that this indicates a deep division incompatible with common ancestry. The mice are a simple and comprehensible illustration that this argument is incorrect; since they have had just such a fusion of chromosomes as occured in our own lineage.In any case, the amount of speciation required to allow animal life to be descended from what was carried on an Ark several thousand years ago is orders of magnitude greater than what we see taking place today. It would be macroevolution at an unprecedented level; orders of magnitude more than anything proposed in evolutionary biology.Cheers -- Sylas

I was interested to see Glenn Morton say similar things in a post at TheologyWeb; though with a rather serious proviso. I trust Glenn does not mind me quoting an extract... I've not looked into his material in any depth; but what little I have seen seems worse than Glenn's comments would suggest. In any case, those interested can see Baumgardner's own web site for themselves.Cheers -- Sylas

Yes, it is obviously John Baumgardner's own page.The domain information you found may be related to Baumgardner's webmaster/technical support. The name "Dennis" does not appear on the pages at all that I can see. It is all Baumgardner, and largely written in the first person. There is some third person stuff; but this is not really unusual in describing your own background in professional style writing. Some bits could have been written by a webmaster, but John is clearly the driving force behind setting up this page.I have taken the title of this post from the description given right at the top of the main page of globalflood.com. The FAQ is set up with Baumgardner's email (baumgardner.atsymbol.globalflood.org) as the place to submit questions. The reason for the web site is given at The Age of the Earth index page (at the end of the page): Cheers -- Sylas