quote:
Quetzal: Even C-14 dating, corroborated by other methods, can be used to date materials much older than 10,000 years.
Mr. Blonde: Which was what my original point was.
Then you agree that C-14 methods can be used to date organic materials older than your YEC philosophy states for the age of the Earth? I’m confused — either it can (in which case your premise is falsified), or it can’t (in which case you need to state the evidence that leads you to this conclusion). Please clarify your position.
quote:
Quetzal: If you would care to provide some evidence that decay rates are constantly changing, then perhaps your argument could have some merit.
Mr. Blonde: I could easily flip this around, what evidence do you have to assume that the decay rates must have always been the same? Secondly, don't you find it odd that the rock is assumed to have no gains or losses of isotopes since its formation, yet, when dates are given that fit awkwardly in the old earth timeline, the rock is then concluded to be corrupted, or in other words, invalid! It seems that this dating method is on both sides, which ever one is conveniant.
Not very easily (flipping, that is). The evidence that physical constants remain constant is pretty convincing.
This site describes one — of many — investigations into the variation of nuclear decay constants. Another good source explaining a great deal of the physics — and why physicists are convinced that their fundamental postulates are correct — is G. Brent Dalrymple’s
Age of the Earth. Dalrymple discusses in detail radiocarbon dating methodologies, their statistical corroboration, and radioactive decay. I’m afraid simply flipping the question around doesn’t work. Once again, since innumerable scientists since at least Dirac have been trying — and failing — to show decay rates and other physical constants can vary, you’ll need to provide positive evidence that they’re missing something. I’m sure they would be fascinated by your contribution to their work.
As to your second point, our very own
Joe Meert has provided quite a readable explanation that tends to cast doubt on your interpretation of how geologists use/perform radiometric dating. His
webpage would be a good place to start seeing why your contention is invalid.
quote:
Quetzal: 1. Please define "information" in a biological context. Be as specific as possible, and provide examples (if practicable) of you believe constitutes an "increase" or "decrease". Then, or perhaps even first, please identify which methodology you are using: Shannon Communications Information Theory, Kolomgorov-Chaitan Algorithmic Information Theory, Fisher Information Theory, or semantic information. [reposting the complete question]
Mr. Blonde: Example of decrease: a control gene being thrown out. Although in some cases this could benefit the mutant, it is still a loss of information.
Example of increase: still waiting to this day for an example. I suppose I could make one up though...
I’m afraid you may have misunderstood the question. I asked you to define your use of the term information and explain its relevance to biology — specifically genetics. I also asked you to indicate which information theory you were using. This last bit is important because what would constitute an increase or decrease is different in each case. Once you clarify your position, then I may be able to provide some insight.
I also confess to being unclear as to what you mean by control gene being thrown out. The statement makes no sense to me. Please explain. Thanks.
quote:
Quetzal: Please define "complexity" in terms of a biological system. At what level are you using the term (structural, organizational, systemic, etc)? If you are using "complexity" as a basis for a design inference (which may be implied from your posts but wasn't explicitly stated), please specify how this form of complexity can be positively identified in nature. How are you differentiating between natural or "apparent" complexity and designed complexity? [again reposting complete question]
Mr. Blonde: I'll just give an example I suppose:
Lose of complexity - animal loosing its legs, mutant loosing dna information, (as stated eariler) loosing a control gene, etc... We observe this a lot in nature...a lot.
Gain of complexity - Still waiting for an example in nature.
NOTE: I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.
Please answer the question. I can’t discuss the issue with you until I understand how you are using the terms. Thanks.
quote:
Quetzal: However, what puzzles me is your assertion that natural selection is non-existent
Mr. Blonde: Ok, now you're puzzling me. What made you think I denied the existance of natural selection?
My confusion arises from the statement I was responding to: Forgive me for the confusion I put upon everyone, but it seemed relevant at the time...I get very angry when people use the
non-existant natural selection argument at other places. (emphasis added). Perhaps I misunderstood. What DID you mean by this statement?
quote:
Quetzal: I think it has been pointed out that evolution is not linear, nor is it necessarily "progress". Here's a graphic representation of the three recognized "outcomes" of the selection process: [graphic omitted]
Mr. Blonde: Basically what I meant by "evidence of uphill evolution", is any "uphill information". Specifically, change that suggests new species could evolve over time.
In the first place, there is no uphill or downhill element to evolution as the graphic I posted (and to which you failed to respond) clearly showed. Evolution is not linear. In addition, you have yet to define what you mean by information, so I am unable to respond to your statement.
As to the lack of speciation, perhaps we have yet another terminology problem. I generally use the biological species concept when referring to species. Simply put, when two populations of the same organism are in contact yet are incapable of interbreeding, the two populations can (provisionally, at least) be considered distinct species. If you are using the term in a different context, please explain. To be able to substantively reply to your (apparent) contention that speciation does not occur, this definition is important.
quote:
Quetzal: Since you have made this assertion, it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for making it. How was it determined that Adam (assuming he existed) was "more intelligent" than, say, Einstein, Schrodinger, Darwin, or Pope John Paul?
Mr. Blonde: Again, the only thing I can give you is evidence for downhill evolution (which basically all we observe today), and my bible. It would be pointless to even bother with the latter because it has been stated that faith is not excepted. (although, evolutionists have much of it to present to the rest of us)
You have failed to provide
any evidence of any kind thus far. I would be interested in hearing some. As to faith — I concur. You cannot use faith to disprove science any more than you can use science to disprove faith — they are completely separate and distinct magisteria.
You seem to have missed this bit:
quote:
Mr. Blonde: Question - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.
As for a christian argument, this would explain the fall of man as previously mentioned.
Quetzal: Answer: D. All of the above. You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Even in those instances where "uphill" is not observed (if I'm understanding you correctly), this does NOT axiomatically lead to a supposition that things are getting "worse" for a particular population.
Would you care to address the issue of false dichotomy as outlined? I believe gene90 has also requested this explanation.
™ Version 4.2
