Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
341 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 340 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Evidence Museums...
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 70 of 117 (106542)
05-08-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by almeyda
05-08-2004 5:52 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

I dont see this need because we are finding evidence for a literal genesis.

What evidence do you have for created kinds & a 6,000 year old earth.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 05:08 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 5:52 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:43 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 117 (106560)
05-08-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:43 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

Creationist lies again. When will you guys see AiG for what it really is?

1.According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years

This has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory!

If a comet has a typical age of 10 kiloyears then your own evidence falsifies a 6,000 year old earth.

Comets do not have the same elliptical orbits for very long. The large gas giants affect the orbit of these objects considerably. All a comet is, is an object that is currently making a close pass relative to the sun. Long period comets can become short period comets via a close pass to a planet.

In short, the existence of a short period comet argues for the relatively short existence of that short period phase of a comet. It is an invalid inference to assume a short age of the universe, because the same inference argues for a large age of the universe inferred by the existence of long period comets. You can't have it both ways.

2.The total energy stored in the Earth’s magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years.Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm

A mish mash of errors derived from the extrapolation of incomplete, or deliberately omitted data.

"It is apparent that the earth's magnetic field is not "decaying", and that it routinely fluctuates and even occasionally reverses itself completely. The only explanation that the creationists can invoke to deal with these fluctuations and reversals is to turn to their religious sources, and opine that these reversals were a result of the actions of God in bringing about Noah's Flood. The creationist "magnetic field decay" hypothesis is simply not capable of giving us any scientific estimate of the earth's age."

3.All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth’s atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years.21 This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years

Helium is lost from the atmosphere over time. It is the next lightest element next to hydrogen.

Secondly, how does this support a 6,000 year old earth? What positive correlation do you make that suggests the earth is this young from the data presented? It seems this is an excuse to reject an old earth, not to accept a 6,000 year old one.

The argument that helium retention in older rocks presents a problem to an old earth is flawed, also. Since you haven't presented anything that shows a 6,000 year old earth, there is nothing to rebut, so I'll content myself to linking to to an excellent discussion of this very issue.

http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=51&p=2

3.Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

Again, nothing that correlates to a 6,000 year old earth.

As someone else pointed out, there were a BILLION carrier pigeons in existence at any one time, there are NO fossils of them.

4.According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely

Again nothing that supports a 6,000 year old earth.

The request was that you support biblical kinds & a 6,000 year old earth (not "ten thousand", because that contradicts the biblical geneaology rather than supports it, an error of 67%) evidentially.

Care to try again?

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 07:31 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:43 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:49 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 84 of 117 (106578)
05-08-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by almeyda
05-08-2004 10:49 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

If there is no record of man before 4-5000yrs where did the notion come from that they existed?

From the record of man that is older than 4-5000 years old, obviously. Note, not records by man. If we date the earliest civilisation at, say 5,000 years old, then we must accept that deposits below those are older still.

But again 4-5000 years ago isn't 6,000 years ago, is it? In any case, it's a bit like saying because the records that show my house as being ~100 years old must mean that's how old the earth is.

Can you say evolutionary framework anyone?..It is relevant because it shows that man began showing signs of his existence coincidently when the Bible says life began. True?

Well it would, wouldn't it? If civilisation kicked off at that time, having had the time in the Holocene to meet the prerequisites (population size, shared advancements, writing, agriculture, advent of metals etc) then clearly when writing appeared, so would records of religion. As evidenced by MANY religions coinciding with civilisation. Again, the time records appeared is evidence of the time records first appeared, nothing more.

For the third time, please present evidence, of a 6,000 year old earth & biblical kinds. An attempted refutation of an old earth is not the same thing.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 10:14 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 10:49 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 11:41 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 86 of 117 (106586)
05-08-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by almeyda
05-08-2004 11:41 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

Maybe youve missed a point here. Human bones are marked by Evolutionists at tremendous ages. Like that note said 100,000 or less. Why are they lying about the bones for?

That's a serious charge. Back up the claim that evolutionists are perpetrating a deliberate misconception or retract.

The ages are attributed to dating methods that cross corroborate, there is no lie, there is only denial on your part. Why would different dating methods that possess different areas of potential error match so closely unless they were broadly correct?

Maybe its because of an interpretation, About man evolving. Thats there view but is it consistant with the evidence?

Yes, dating methods that possess different areas of potential error match closely. So, yes, it is consistent with the evidence. What I do note however, is that you still haven't presented ANYTHING that leads us to conclude the earth is 6,000 years old. So, looking at the evidence, the dates are consistent with evolution & not biblical creation. I have evidence, you don't.

Now Creationists must have a better time as it fits there framework beautifully.

What does? You have presented NOTHING, nothing, nothing that would lead anyone to conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old!!!!! Good grief.

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EARTH IS 6,000 YEARS OLD. AND ALSO THAT CREATED KINDS, WERE.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 11:41 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 89 of 117 (106612)
05-08-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by almeyda
05-08-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Another unsupported claim
Almeyda,

Bare, unsupported links are against forum rules.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-08-2004 12:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 1:18 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 93 of 117 (106691)
05-08-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by almeyda
05-08-2004 1:18 PM


Re: Another unsupported claim
Almeyda,

Can I assume that you have no evidence of a 6,000 year old earth, & biblical kinds, like you claimed, then?

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 1:18 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 117 (106744)
05-09-2004 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by almeyda
05-09-2004 4:11 AM


Re: Another unsupported claim
almeyda,

MARK24- The Bible is proof & also that civilisation only started 5-6,000yrs ago whereas Evolution says we evolved over time bit by bit which doesnt fit the facts.

The bible is proof of nothing more than there is a religious book called the bible. It isn't even "proof" that civilisation began at that time, it is only evidence that the bible was written at that time.

Civilisation indeed began at around that time, & it is in no way inconsistent with evolution. Your problem seems to be that you can't jive humans being around for twenty times longer than civilisation. That it took a vast amount of time for the discoveries that are necessary to allow urbanisation to arise. Tough, that's your problem. You see, there's evidence that man WAS around a hundred thousand years ago. And there are corroborating evidences that make the earth a lot older than that, as well.

So, for FOR THE FIFTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 4:11 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 9:02 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 102 of 117 (106788)
05-09-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by almeyda
05-09-2004 9:02 AM


Re: Another unsupported claim
almeyda,

But the Bible was the first one. The rest came after.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Religious texts that predate the bible are legion. And for your information Christianity is one of the more recent religions. Perhaps you are referring to Judaism?

Which other book has the creation of the world? or the end of the world?.

They all contain fairy tales, what's your point?

Which other book has fullfilled prophecies?.

Name ONE prophecy that meets the following standards?

(Quoting Percy)

"1. The prophecy must be specific. For example, "There will be wars and rumors of wars" does not qualify as a specific prophecy. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply.

2. The complete prophecy must be fulfilled. If parts are fulfilled and parts not fulfilled then the prophecy is not considered fulfilled. In other words, you can't pick and choose predictions out of a longer prophecy.

3. The prophecy must be interpreted in the context in which it appears. A prophecy about one time period or geographic region or political entity can't be reinterpreted into other venues.

4. The event or person or whatever that fulfills the prophecy must have extra-Biblical corroboration.

5. The original prophecy itself must be interpreted in a straightforward way, not in some convoluted way.

6. If the prophecy is mundane and easy to satisfy, then it must not have been previously known to the person, group, whatever, that fulfills it."

Not one. Not a single solitary one. Believing a prophecy to be fulfilled is an entirely different to showing it.

Which other book can challenge the theory of evolution like the Bible can?.

All of them, ie. none of them.

*Snipped irrelevant rest of your post*.

Once you realise that they both found the same evidence just interpreted to different frameworks you will then see the evidence that supports a young earth and the Holy Bible.

Where the fuck is it, then? I have asked for legitimate scientific evidence in support of a 6,000 year old earth for five posts now & got nothing.

How do you interpret multiple corroborating dating techniques that show the K-T boundary as being 65 million years old, for example, as being 6,000 years old? What sort of anti-logical, drug induced haze must you live in to think that it can be done? The creation timeline has no evidence that supports a 6,000 year old earth, & faces contradictory evidence that the earth is indeed much older. They are contradictory positions & cannot be reconciled.

Now, FOR THE SIXTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.

This is getting embarrassing.

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 9:02 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 1:37 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 117 (107030)
05-10-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by almeyda
05-10-2004 1:37 AM


Re: Another unsupported claim
almeyda,

There is no dating method that proves something to be 65 million yrs!..Its based on assumptions..Assumptions that the earth formed billions of yrs ago therefore layers means millions of yrs,dead bones means they extinct 80 million yrs ago..

OMG, no wonder you are so easily misled. There is nothing that proves anything in science. There is only evidence. And when that evidence is available in sufficient quantities it reduces the tentativity to such a degree it becomes unreasonable to withhold consent.

Everything in science is based upon assumptions. The question is, are they testable. In the case of radiometric dating the question is YES!

But why we're on the subject, what "evidence" (& I think that's worth a snigger at this stage) supports a 6,000 year old earth that isn't based upon assumption? Hell, what evidence is there for a 6,000 year old earth, at all?! I can't even say you have double standards because you haven't presented any legitimate evidence to apply different standards to.

Try this for size:

quote:

I have tried to push this a couple of times & not gotten very far, so I’ve formalised it a bit & given it a thread of its own, apologies to those who’ve seen the bulk of this before. It deals with four radiometric dating methods dating K-T tektites that corroborate a 65 m.y. age, & the implications of rationale & reason, with respect to maintaining a YEC 6,000 year old earth world view, based on the odds involved.
http://www.ncseweb.org/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

“The K-T Tektites

One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula. Measuring the age of this impact event independently of the stratigraphic evidence is an obvious test for radiometric methods, and a number of scientists in laboratories around the world set to work.

In addition to shocked quartz grains and high concentrations of iridium, the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact. The K-T tektites were ejected into the atmosphere and deposited some distance away. Tektites are easily recognizable and form in no other way, so the discovery of a sedimentary bed (the Beloc Formation) in Haiti that contained tektites and that, from fossil evidence, coincided with the K-T boundary provided an obvious candidate for dating. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma (Table 2). Similar tektites were also found in Mexico, and the Berkeley lab found that they were the same age as the Haiti tektites. But the story doesn’t end there.

The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimetres above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2).

There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible.”

1/
So the K-T Tektites were dated by no less than four methods that corroborate. 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb . If that weren't evidence enough, lets take a look at how inaccurate they all must be, to fit a YEC worldview. The lower age given is 64.4 mya. Now, assuming a 6,000 year old YEC earth is what YECs perceive as 100% of available time, then 60 years is 1%. This means that all the above methods, were ALL (1,085,000-100 = ) 1,084,900% inaccurate. Let me reiterate, the YECs requires these FOUR different, corroborating methods to be over ONE MILLION PERCENT INACCURATE all at the same time!!

Now, given that the four methods are different, & are subject to DIFFERENT potential error sources & yet still corroborate closely means that the various potential bugbears of each method have been reasonably accounted for in the date calculations themselves. This can only leave a YEC one place to go, the underlying physics. Half-life constancy.

2/
The range of dates is from 64.4 mya to 65.1 mya giving a 0.7 my range.

64.4/0.7 = 92 (Not taking the 65.1 m.y. figure to be as favourable as possible to YEC's)

The range of error is 92 times smaller than the minimum given date, giving us usable increments of time. Probabilistically speaking, we basically have four 92 sided dice. What are the odds of all four dice rolling a 92? On the familiar 6 sided die, the chance of rolling two sixes (or any two numbers, for that matter) is 6^2 = 36:1 (Number of sides to the nth power where nth = number of die).
Therefore, the odds of four radiometric dating methods reaching the same date range by chance is……..drum roll……..

92^4 (92*92*92*92)= 71,639,296:1

Is there any YEC that is prepared to state that the four radiometric dating methods achieve their high level of corroboration by pure chance?

If not, how much of the 65 m.y. old figure do you attribute to chance, & how much to radiometric half lives contributing to the derived date, percentage wise?

Here is your dilemma. The error required by the radiometric methods are 1,084,900% to fit a YEC 6,000 year old view. If they accept that the methods are capable of not being in error by more than 1,084,000%, then they accept a 60,000 year old earth, minimum. So, saying that half lives contribute only 1% to any derived radiometric date, means in this case (1% of 65,000,000 is 650,000 years), so even this small “contribution” by half lives falsifies a YEC young earth.

3/
The chance of all four methods being off by (chance) 64,400,000 years when the result SHOULD have been 6,000 years is truly staggering.
64,400,000/6,000 = 10,733.33 recurring (following the previous example, we now have four 10,733.33 sided dice)
10,733.33 recurring ^4 = 13,272,064,019,753,086:1

My questions to creationists are;

A/ How do you account for four corroborating radiometric dating methods dating the tektites so closely at 65 m.y. old, given the odds of it occurring by pure chance?

B/ IF you don’t accept that radiometric dating is valid as a dating method, how do you account for the four methods being over one million percent inaccurate, relative to a YEC assumed 6,000 year old earth?

C/ If you DO accept that half lives affect the resultant date, even to a small degree, what percentage would you be prepared to accept that radiometric dating is influenced by half lives, the rest being just plain chance? And how do you come by this figure, evidentially?

D/ How do you rationalise the odds of all four radiometric methods being wrong by a factor of 10,733 each, when the odds of such an occurrence is 13,272,064,019,753,086:1 of them being “wrong” by the same factor?


Care to comment on the points raised?

Now, what is it now? Ah, yes, FOR THE SEVENTH TIME, PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH, AS OPPOSED TO CIVILISATION, IS 6,000 YEARS OLD.

Mark

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-10-2004 04:26 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 1:37 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 110 of 117 (107064)
05-10-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by almeyda
05-10-2004 6:54 AM


Re: ...
almeyda,

MARK24 - Creationists arent as much based on assumptions because they can base it on what God says.

And your assumption is that the bible is god's word, an untestable, unfalsifiable assumption, that renders any corollary argument or hypothesis as unscientific. Your argument disappears in a puff of logic. Wasn't that your objection, assumption? What is this, some sort of wierd double standard?

My assumptions are tested to a very high degree, & yours are pie in the sky. THAT is the difference between religion & science.

And when this proves to be right they can almost call it fact.

FOR THE EIGHTH TIME PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A 6,000 YEAR OLD EARTH.

Then, & only then, can we call it fact.

Its pretty much fact that if we jump off a cliff we will go down.

Nope, it's a testable assumption based upon observation.

Creationists start with answers so its not science??? .

Correct. You don't have the answers.

What if the answers are consistent with the evidence? Does that still mean its not science?...

But the answers aren't consistent with the evidence, you would have given me evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old by now if that were true.

At this stage I think it's fair to point out when it comes to the existence of scientifically valid evidence that would lead us to conclude that the earth is 6,000 years old; there is none.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-10-2004 08:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 6:54 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:46 PM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 111 of 117 (107077)
05-10-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Adminnemooseus
05-10-2004 5:32 AM


Re: Any recent contact with the theme of the topic?
Moose,

I'd let it run, it shouldn't go on for much longer & then it'll drop off of the bottom. Alternatively, if you so desire, I'll submit a new topic.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-10-2004 5:32 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 117 (107351)
05-11-2004 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by almeyda
05-10-2004 11:46 PM


Re: ...
almeyda,

Your assumptions are based to a very high degree?? All yous have are evolutionists opinions..

Nope, I have provided evidence to the confidence of 70,000,000 : 1 PLUS that radiometric dating is accurate to within a percent or two. I have also provided evidence with a confidence limit of 13,272,064,019,753,086 : 1 that the YEC timeline is false. Not an opinion. A mathematical FACT.

And the facts? well they dont speak for themselves.

Unless you live in a world of coincidence, they do.

And just about everything evolutinists say happened cannot be proven.

Nothing is proven in science, so 70,000,000 : 1 will have to do.

Do you really see evolution in the fossil record? I would of expected a bit more evidence than what there is.

Really?

quote:

Testing Cladistics & Stratigraphy

Given that the phylogenies under study are independent of stratigraphy, it is possible to compare the two to see how well they match. There are two main reasons for disagreement. 1/ The phylogeny is wrong, & 2/ the fossil record is so poor that the daughter species is found in older rock than the parent. Given that this is the case, we should expect a very low SCI (SCI is the ratio of consistent to inconsistent nodes in a cladogram) value if evolution were not indicative of reality. ie. Nodes (in complex trees) match by chance rather than signal. In other words, the null hypothesis is that the SCI value will be a low value.

“Stratigraphic Consistency Index

The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3).

Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids.

SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), “mammallike reptiles” (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and “mammallike reptiles”. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), “mammallike reptiles” (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%)."

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how do you explain this significant correlation?

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.

Thanks to Rrhain for the maths help.

The average cladogram has six taxa, meaning five nodes. Giving you the benefit of the doubt for ease of calculation we’ll assume only 60% (average) nodes (rather than ~75%) corroborate.

C(n,k) * r! * {1 - [1 - 1/2! + 1/3! - 1/4! + ... + (-1)^(r+1)*1/r!]} / n!

n= total no. of nodes
K= correct nodes
r= n-k= incorrect no. of nodes

C(5,3) * 2! * [1 - (1 - 1/2!)] / 5!
10 * 2 * (1/2) / 120
10/120
1/12

There is a 12:1 chance of getting the average cladogram to match stratigraphy as well as it does. There is therefore a 12^300:1 chance of getting 300 cladograms to match stratigraphy in this way.

5.68*10^323:1

568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 chance of 300 cladograms enjoying a 60% corroboration with stratigraphy."


It is now incumbent on you to explain why evolutionary predictions are so clearly seen in the fossil record.

But now they have punctuated quilibrium. Wow! thats such a great way to explain the absence of evidence.

It doesn't, it explains stasis. See The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ Gould. Stasis is data.

The fossil evidence actually fits the biblical frame better where animals dont change into complete different animals but stay in there own kind.

So why are evolutionary predictions over 300 cladograms matching stratigraphy with odds of 5.68*10^323:1, then?

The fossil record is woefully incomplete, that's why there have been over a billion carrier pigeons at any given time & there isn't a solitary fossil of one.

Evolution however cannot be observed or called fact. Just opinions and interpretations.

5.68*10^323 is more than there are fundamental particles in the known universe. It doesn't get more FACT than this.

I just said we do have answers because were basing it on the God who was there and you say we dont have answers? If the evidence is consistent with what God says which AiG proves then i think we have answers.

In which case you don't have the answers, you just believe you do..

The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that the K-T Tektites are ~65 million years old of over 70 million to one. There are no untested assumptions.

The evidence I have shown you suggest a confidence limit that evolution occured of 5.68*10^323 : 1. There are no untested assumptions.

Please explain how these FACTS fit into a creationist scenario?

Creationism works by ignoring such massive (/understatement) falsifying evidence. The simple fact is you have no answer to the vast wealth of contradictory evidence that supports evolution, & at the same ime blows away a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Evolutionists just have we will never know truth. But creation is wrong! creation is not science!. You never know truth so you will never know evolution is fact or even happened.

And for the evidence ill have a topic up soon hopefully.

We both know you won't. You would have presented it here by now as you were asked, if you could. [altered by edit]

All of your answers have been to ignore the evidence presented, & simply assert sans evidence that the evidence equally supports creationism when it is patently untrue.

You are a living testament to the intellectual accident that is creationism. You wave away evidence without addressing it, & simply assert that what you say is true without evidence. If you accept a few illogical anecdotalisms, ignore valid contradictory evidence, then you think you are on intellectually safe ground in claiming "the evidence supports creation". You are not.

A woman is killed with a knife in a department store. Security guards apprehend the man after witnessing the crime, by their watches it occurred at 10 PM. The stores video equipment also records the crime & puts the incident at 22.01. Subsequent DNA evidence matches the suspect, as do fingerprints.

Your argument would be that video evidence can be tampered with, it can't be trusted. The mens watches requires too many assumptions to be be considered reliable; they go wrong, or had the wrong time to begin with. DNA? You don't think I trust the evolutionist conspiracy do you? No, the DNA could match at least 4 other men in the world, it must be thrown out on that basis. Fingerprints? Chuck 'em out. It is an assumption that everyones fingerprints are unique & so it must be inadmissible as evidence. Clearly the suspect is innocent. Good grief, they can't even pin down the time of the crime, who are they trying to fool?

Of course, in the real world, the tentativity of the hypothesis that the suspect is guilty is very, very low. So it is with radiometric dating & evolution.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 05-11-2004 06:52 AM


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by almeyda, posted 05-10-2004 11:46 PM almeyda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 4:12 AM mark24 has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 116 of 117 (107359)
05-11-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NosyNed
05-11-2004 4:12 AM


Re: New Topic
Ned,

Though I suppose s/he could have posted to the correlations topic in dating if he had an explanation for them.

It's not like I hadn't asked, why does it specifically need a new thread, why not here?

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2004 4:12 AM NosyNed 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 © 2021