Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9014 total)
51 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 881,963 Year: 13,711/23,288 Month: 229/412 Week: 16/40 Day: 1/12 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 51 (536286)
11-21-2009 12:02 PM


Suggesting Finding Agreements First
I'd like to suggest that we see if we can pare down the list of items to discuss. We can remove those that we can all agree on (there must be some ).

In addtion, should we refer to discussions that are ongoing in other threads rather than reproduce those here? I'm not sure about this one since in many cases those threads are stalled.

For removal could we look at those that are marked as PRATTs in the OP? Even one or two of them? Some of those (e.g., salt in the oceans IIRC are even rejected by some major creationist organizations.)

ABE
Sigh, nope, they don't even reject the ocean salt one. Let's see if we can be smarter than that here.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 51 (536398)
11-22-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Arphy
11-22-2009 4:46 AM


Clearing things up
Again, why make claims when you don't know how it happened and you believe to talk about it would be off topic?

Because the creationists (especially young earthers) have a lot of trouble with evolution itself and even more with supporting their own 'theories' they have developed a habit of trying to widen the playing field and muddy the waters.

It is necessary in these discussions to point out the boundaries of the sciences involved.

In addition, theologians would point out to them that the tactic of bringing these things in is very bad theology as well as poor logic.

That is; any attempt to distract from the weakness of support for their own ideas by trying to find unanswered questions just shows that they are, in fact, unwilling to focus attention on their own ideas.

In addition, anything which says "Aha, you don't know how that happened so it must be goddidit!" is understood to be dangerous theology because we have many centuries of experiences with such gaps being closed. If a gap is used to suggest that it is support the the actions (and even the actual existance) of a god then when the gap is closed is it not logical to say it is now support for the non-existance of such a god? This is the theological danger that the most simple-minded are getting themselves into.

As well, saying that "Aha, you don't know that!" means that their opponents don't know some other thing or know nothing is recognizable by most to be so utterly silly that the more thoughtful would recommend staying away from that debate approach.

If I say "I don't know" to a specific question then the debate about that is over. If you want to say, "Well, I know!" then you have to supply actual evidence and logic. Goddidit contains neither and doesn't give an answer which supports any further exploration.

If you wish to move away from biological evolution and the time frames involved then we can discuss the origin of the universe and life. We know a lot about both areas up to a point but beyond that point the answer is "I don't know." Why not save time and just put aside these unknowns for now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Arphy, posted 11-22-2009 4:46 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Arphy, posted 11-24-2009 4:03 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 51 (536687)
11-24-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Arphy
11-24-2009 4:03 AM


Bringing up Extraneous Areas
Yet the ironic thing is that AS in their opening list of claims make clear references to abiogenesis and cosmic evolution. Why did they do this? Then, in the second essay they give CMI a telling off for bringing up the subjects when they (AS) did so as well! What sort of a tactic is that?

This is just one of many things that the AS did poorly. They should wait for the other side of the debate to wander off topic before reacting proactively. However, since they know that the creationists pretty well always bring this up and attempt to muddy the waters maybe they just wanted to save time.

But, since when is it wrong to point out weaknesses in a theory? And since when is it wrong to reject a theory if it's flaws are too great?

You are correct. There are two sides to the discussion; supporting your own ideas and attacking the ideas you disagree with. Unfortunately, the CMI didn't supply any support for their own ideas. I'm unclear as to whether this thread should be broadened to doing what they didn't do or simply discussing what both sides did say.

I'm game for either.

Also if it is scientifically valid to conduct research into finding evidence which supports materialistic abiogenesis, why is it suddenly unscientific to conduct research into finding evidence that supports special creation? Is evidence and research only valid if it supports a materialistic view? If so, then this is no longer hunting for the truth, but rather promoting one theory at the exclusion of another.

It is, in my opinion, perfectly valid to conduct research into supporting your views. I'm still waiting for it. Where did CMI refer to this research and it's results?

Geologic evidence and Anthropological evidence gives more direct biblical evidence as it provides evidence for one of the most significant events in the bible. Namely The Flood. Therefore i would like to focus on these topics. Could be a bit broad at the moment so will try to narrow it down with specific examples later.

We have had a number of threads on the flood on EvC. Should we turn this thread into another one? You may if you wish and we'll see how it goes. You should note that this area has been gone over a lot and no one answers the questions raised. Perhaps you're willing to try.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Arphy, posted 11-24-2009 4:03 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Arphy, posted 11-24-2009 11:26 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 51 (537150)
11-27-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
Sorry I'm taking a long time with this. It needs considerable research and I'm dealing with some things right now.

However there is an issue of the context. Even if this could be shown to be apparently correct in the measurements made there is the problem of it being an extreme outlier. There are many other methods of measuring age which support an age much, much older. With the others in such good agreement one is forced to suspect an error in this one odd-man-out.

The other area of context is that for this to remain only accepted by the handful of researchers who also happen to be YECs and not accepted by 10,000s of other geologists you have to assume extreme incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the vast majority. This seems somewhat unlikely.

For those reasons it is worth looking more closely at these results since there is a high probability of error in what you have referred to.

It's my job to get back to you but it'll be some days.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-26-2009 1:31 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 11-27-2009 3:48 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 51 (537265)
11-28-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
11-27-2009 3:48 PM


Dating methods
But not all methods involve radioactive decay and it is very wrong to say all decay methods are the same and we have calibrated some and shown that over periods much, much longer than 6,000 years they are correct.

So you still have to problem of explaining not just this one case by tying it in to all of the others.

I suggest you look over:
Message 1

All of the correlations there have to be explained. Note it is the correlations between methods that is the tricky bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 11-27-2009 3:48 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 51 (537397)
11-28-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
11-28-2009 2:28 AM


Correlations
But could it be that it reveals that there is a common faulty assumption behind all these dating methods ?

You could offer your idea of what could be common between counting, using the calendar (historical records), beta decay, alpha decay and gama decay.

Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.

Two points here:
1) This sounds like a fun side thread since it isn't something that came up in the debate. (Though if we all agree then I guess anything could be in here).

2) Even if you can offer multiple line of evidence that correlate on the same maximum date (which I don't think you can) that isn't nearly (not by a mile) as powerful as one which correlates date by date, year by year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 11-29-2009 1:24 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 51 (537878)
12-01-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by slevesque
11-26-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Helium retention in Zircon crystals
I've spent some time reviewing the arguments put foreward.

As best as I can tell Humphreys has not at all answered the criticisms of the zircon-helium paper.

He is accused of really lousy geology such as being careless in specimen collection, not knowing what rocks or even kind of rocks he is dealing with and making up names of geological formations.

He doesn't not answer the issue of diffusion under different conditions and ignores warnings about that in published geological work.

His past has some poor work which makes these conclusions a bit suspect as well.

Given all of that and the context of so very many other measurements of age it seems very reasonable to conclude that this is in error. I'll get back to the context of other measurements now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by slevesque, posted 11-26-2009 1:31 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 12-02-2009 1:44 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 51 (537879)
12-01-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
11-29-2009 1:24 AM


Re: Correlations
Why would we have to do that? Even if you have some methods which give approx. the same max date, this is little more than coincident (or the two methods are related). You will always find a different method which disagrees with your initial method. Anyway, What would it mean if every method had the same max date?

You seem confused. You are the one who said:

Arphy writes:

Besides, creationist also have multiple lines of evidence that all show a maximum age smaller then the common dates of the earth, solar system, etc. It would seem both sides sit on their 'correlation'.

So you need to support that.

Well, I don't think long-agers have found this, but feel free to shows us in more detail what you mean. As i said before, Trying to pinpoint specific years with geological "clocks" has too many assumptions attached.

So you agree that the correlation of results in detail rather than just a maximum date is very powerful?

You are, of course, utterly wrong; there are many independent methods which agree very well.

The "assumptions" have been checked out and there is good, strong reasons for accepting them as being the case.

If you think that "I don't think so." is an adequate argument then I guess you are finished now. But you are not impressing any thinking individual. Perhaps slevesque needs to invite someone else into the debate to help out.

You can, if you really want to discuss the issues. Supply the "assumptions" that you feel are wrong and exactly why you think they are wrong.

Then you can explain the rather detailed correlations given in RAZD's very strong thread at:
Message 1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 11-29-2009 1:24 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 3:44 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 51 (537880)
12-01-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
11-28-2009 2:28 AM


Independent methods
Your problem with the correlations can be viewed through a couple of analogies:

If I walk into a clock store with a couple of hundred clocks on the wall, free standing in cases and on shelves and look at the time they are reading there are a number of possibilities:

1) Most may not be moving at all. No one bothered to wind them or plug them in or supply batteries.

2) However if they are all ticking, clicking and whirring away I may notice that they don't all tell the same time. Perhaps they supply many different times. Then I notice that more than half of them are all reading the same time to within a few minutes while the others read all kinds of totally different times.

Is there anything I can conclude from this?

It seems highly likely that the hundred or so clocks that agree were not set randomly. They are very likely to have been set at the same time and to approximately the same time.

Then I have to judge if they are reading the correct time. Can I? Well, not without making judgments about what people do when they set a bunch of clocks in a store. There is at least a pretty good chance that they are reading about the right time but [i]for our issue about dating that doesn't matter![/qs].

What I can judge with a reasonably high degree of confidence is that they have all counted off the same amount of time since they were set. I have to get pretty creative to come up with other scenarios that work. Remember that in our case of geologic dating I can know if someone has been resetting the clocks or not so that isn't an explanation for the match of the clocks in the store.

Another, related, analogy is if I wish to measure the passage of some period of time (say a few hours or days).

I use a water clock, a pendulum clock, a silicon crystal clock, and atomic clock and an hour glass full of sand. Each of these has been calibrated and some idea of its error determined.

If I then measure a duration of time with them all and they all agree to within the range of errors of each type do I have a high degree of confidence in my measurement of the duration or not?

If some disagree, let's say the pendulum clock says 27 hours and the others all say about 35 hours (+- 2 hours for the water clock, +- 3 seconds for the crystal, +- .000000003 seconds for the atomic clock and +- 32 minutes for the hour class), what can I conclude? Do I decide I have no idea of the time or that the pendulum clock is correct? What actions should I take to resolve the issue?

What if the pendulum clock and the hour glass and the water clock all have wildly different times but the others agree to within measurement errors? Are there any assumptions I have made which might not apply (e.g., there have been no earthquakes with in the last 2 days)?

Would you like to discuss these analogies first before we move on to the range of dating methods?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 11-28-2009 2:28 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 4:20 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 32 of 51 (537912)
12-01-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Arphy
12-01-2009 4:20 PM


Re: Independent methods
This is in fact the part that is hardest to judge. Of course in a normal clock this is impossible because the numbers are "recycled". Therefore I guess you are talking about stopwatches. Can you say for certain that none of the watches have been stopped and started again? Can you say for certain that none of the watches were fast-fowarded?

First: We can say nothing at any time with certainty. It is a matter of how high a degree of confidence we may have in our conclusions.

Obviously, if a jokester is sneaking into the store and messing with the clocks then anything is possible so it isn't an interesting discussion at that point.

Any other case (I think) that comes up leads to a situation that may be reasonably judged to be less likely that that the clocks agree because they are correct. What is are the odds that a clock got stuck and happened to restart such that it agrees with all the others? Assumming no prankster what are the odds that all of the are fast forwarded (or whatever else) by the same amount by accident?

Explain?

In the case of some of the radiological dating methods the "resetting" also marks that rock. We know that our duration measurement is only from the resetting.

hang on. If something went wrong then either we calibrated it wrong or something happened to the clocks. Right? So what happened to them? Well, perhaps the water clock lost or gained some water? or the sand in the hour glass somehow leaked? or perhaps the sand flowed faster or slower due to some inconsistencies in the sand? etc. So you can conclude that you no longer know what the time is. You can also conclude that next time you need to recalibrate the methods and check regularly that they don't vary.

But I have a number of different clocks that tell time in different ways. If the hour glass leaked or the water evaporated why is it that they agree with the silicon crystal watch or the atomic clock?

The point of this isn't that I am trusting any one clock but that I have totally independent methods of measuring duration.

The other problem with this experiment for our purposes here is that the experimenter is there at the beginning of the experiment. He knows that he set off all the clocks at the same time. The fact that two clocks are in sync with each other doesn't mean that they necessarily show the "actual" time. Disturbances in the environment may have had a similar effect on these two clocks which kept them in sync with each other but not the "actual" time.

I am the person who wanders in to the set up sometime after it has been running. I can check the clocks as I find them now and read off the durations they measure.

You are correct that they may not show the actual time (e.g., noon) but they read a duration since they were set and that is what is most interesting here.

Can you explain what disturbances would would make a water clock, hour glass, pendulum clock, atomic clock and my wrist watch all read wrong by the same amount?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 4:20 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 12-02-2009 3:36 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 51 (537916)
12-01-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Arphy
12-01-2009 3:44 PM


Re: Correlations
Shall we reproduce that thread of RAZD's here? If so we can start doing that.

The point at the moment isn't the dates but is the correlations between them. It doesn't matter how many times you say one method is wrong you have to explain why all the methods are wrong and still agree with each other.

Note that not all the minimmum ages for the earth are not the same. It is not necessary to have exactly the same minimum date for all the methods for RAZD to make his point. I was just pointing out the same thing in relation to maximum ages. They don't have to point to the exact same maximum age for the point to be made. i.e. They correlate in terms of "young" or "old" earth, but not in terms of exact dates, and they don't need to.

Your point about maximum dates make some sense but neither the maximum or minimum offers the same strength as the correlations given by RAZD.

Do you wish to offer some evidence for any of your maximums?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Arphy, posted 12-01-2009 3:44 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 12-02-2009 1:18 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 36 of 51 (537976)
12-02-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
12-02-2009 1:44 AM


Prediction Match
I think the data can't be discarded as easily since he made a prediction of it, and that he was spot on. This puts a lot of weight on the disclaimer to prove his point. If his research really does not make sense and was poorly done, why in the world would it fall on his predictions so precisely ?

Because he fudged it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 12-02-2009 1:44 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-02-2009 3:15 PM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 51 (538044)
12-02-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Arphy
12-02-2009 3:15 PM


Fudging
At the very least his own numbers and methods don't work measureing other zircon ages. That is he has had to stick to this one run to get an "acceptable" result. Not trying it for other cases or bringing up the failure in those cases is rather too selective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Arphy, posted 12-02-2009 3:15 PM Arphy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 12-03-2009 1:55 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 51 (538051)
12-02-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Arphy
12-02-2009 3:36 PM


Re: Independent methods
Why a jokester? Natural environmental factors can often do the same trick. Including stopping and starting, and slowing down and speeding up.

Yes, I guess they could. Now, explain just what environmental factors could affect all the clocks to make them be both wrong and agree with each other.

If the environmental conditions effect them similarly then why not?

Obviously some of the clock types are more easily affected by some environmental conditions. The water and pendulum clocks perhaps most so. In addition, the water and pendulum clocks could be badly affected by the same environmental impact.

But even for those two what impact could affect both of them to "adjust" them to the same reading? And if you can find that impact how does it "adjust" all the other clock types by the same amount.

Great, so which one is telling the "correct" time?

Not "which one" but "which oneS". What would you pick under a variety of circumstances?

ok, so do you know all the environmental conditions that the watches experienced before you came? and how it effected them? Can you tell if one watch is running faster or slower than another at the present point in time (note, a watch that is going slower now might not necessarily be the one with the shortest age)? Do you know if the watches were set off simulataneously?

OK, it seems you do not get the point here at all. Let's make it simpler and have you look at the situation where you know only 2 things:

1) No one has been in the store for a small number of days.
2) All the clocks read the same.

How likely is it that the duration form the last setting to know is the same for all the clocks?

I think i have answered this above. the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.

No you have not answered it at all, not the tiniest bit not an iota. You haven't begun.

What can impact all the clocks in the same way? You said there might be something. What is it?

the other point i would like to make is that as far as I know, it is not the norm for geological clocks to have the same dates. If you want to bring an example of two different methods producing the same result this could be helpful.

Why don't we finish with the clocks first but if you must have it:
Message 1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Arphy, posted 12-02-2009 3:36 PM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 12-03-2009 5:39 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8949
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 51 (538076)
12-03-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
12-03-2009 1:55 AM


Difusion
This'll take longer again. I'm dealing with somethings, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 12-03-2009 1:55 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020