Evolution is Not Science

"JM: The argument is against faster decay no matter what the source. Surely, you were able to glean that from the equations?"
--It isn't the same, because your calculations are countering the apparent argument of creationists asserting that decay rates were higher (as C-14 decay rate is higher than P-40). This is different than a decay rate that is hightened from natural cause in the sample's metamorphical or disruptional change. An example would be the expansion of space, or a sample being cut in pieces.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"JM: The argument is against faster decay no matter what the source. Surely, you were able to glean that from the equations?"
--It isn't the same, because your calculations are countering the apparent argument of creationists asserting that decay rates were higher (as C-14 decay rate is higher than P-40). This is different than a decay rate that is hightened from natural cause in the sample's metamorphical or disruptional change. An example would be the expansion of space, or a sample being cut in pieces.

​

---

JM: Incorrect! You need to learn a bit more. Increased decay (whatever the mechanism) releases heat. BTW, there is not such term as metamorphical.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-25-2002]

"Hi, yes I am new to this board but I am not new to the debate. I have been going at it to varying degrees for about 20 years now."
--Experienced I see, I am sure you will enjoy mingling with my 4 month's of such experience in debate."As to the water, there is not enough in the polar ice caps to cover all of the land masses."
--No Doubt."I have this from a number of reputable sources, one was from a grad school friend who was in teh space physics department and was working on plate techtonics and models that could be applied to extrasolar bodies. Here is a different source that outlines the , prety much, most up to date data concerning the earths past,
http://www.ps.ucl.ac.uk/~awayne/polar/geology.html
so you see, even with plate movements and no caps there is still uncovered land mass, and a good deal of it as well ."
--This of course assumes uniformity."There was a model put out by a researcher at Los Alamos that has been used to demonstrate fast movement of the plates by creationsts, problem is that some model also demonstrates the slow movement postulated by geologists who are not young earth creationists."
--Not exactly positive in my understanding for what you said as I do not have the model, though my model as well, is not a slap at an old earth, nor uniformity, simply another explination and interperetation on the earths geologic history."It also fails (the creationist model) to account for the massive offgassing which would accompany the fast movement model and pretty much give us a Venuvian atmosphere and the extinction of all non-bacterial life on this planet."
--You mean 'outgassing'? Mind if you show me the source of gas, its origin (the reason it previously existed in the earth), and relatively how much would have been extruded? Such volatiles as H₂O would not have been present in any large quantity as its reason for it being extruded from volcanoes, rifts, and sea-floor spreading centers is due to subduction."Oh well, I have a great deal of work to do today so please consider this my answer to your reply on the other thread as well. Got to run."
--I will, thank you.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

quote:

---

"well ."
--This of course assumes uniformity.

​

--Not exactly positive in my understanding for what you said as I do not have the model, though my model as well, is not a slap at an old earth, nor uniformity, simply another explination and interperetation on the earths geologic history.

---

JM: I believe the correct spelling is EXPLANATION and interpretation.CheersJoe Meert

"JM: Incorrect! You need to learn a bit more. Increased decay (whatever the mechanism) releases heat."
--I think there is a missunderstanding here, I have no problem with its release of heat, though as I pointed out, you are arguing with a change in the isotope half-life. This is much different than having a sample decay faster (in a different scence than a lesser half-life) by the effect of a physical metamorphism, or for the sake of example, the expansion of space. This means that half-life does not need to be mingled with, and that as long as your sample is not altered, radionucleic decay is constant."BTW, there is not such term as metamorphical."
--Sorry, 'metamorphic' would have been more sufficient, though I don't think that my suffix is exactly indecipherable.------------------

"JM: I believe the correct spelling is EXPLANATION and interpretation."
--Please excuse me, I do have a rather horrible habit in misspelling.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"JM: Incorrect! You need to learn a bit more. Increased decay (whatever the mechanism) releases heat."
--I think there is a missunderstanding here, I have no problem with its release of heat, though as I pointed out, you are arguing with a change in the isotope half-life. This is much different than having a sample decay faster (in a different scence than a lesser half-life) by the effect of a physical metamorphism, or for the sake of example, the expansion of space. This means that half-life does not need to be mingled with, and that as long as your sample is not altered, radionucleic decay is constant.[/QUOTE]

​

JM: umm, show me this mathematically. As I mentioned, increased decay, no matter the explanation will release tremendous quantities of heat for which you have no adequate explanation. Apparently, your excuse is based on a misunderstanding of the energies involved in nuclear tunneling.

​

[QUOTE] "BTW, there is not such term as metamorphical."
--Sorry, 'metamorphic' would have been more sufficient, though I don't think that my suffix is exactly indecipherable.
[/b]

---

JM: No, but it suggests a certain naivete about geology which is not good for someone trying to argue geology.CheersJoe Meert

Hey I think I`ve solved the problem of the lack of water for the flood.....1)Uniformity is wrong...2)At the time of the flood water was half as dense as it is today and everything else was twice as dense (except for the creationists because they wouldn`t have survived to breed if they were that dumb) thus there was effectively 4 times as much water...All I gotta do now is kick back and wait for that Nobel prize...Whats that Joe there are serious problems with my model....Well I understand this subject as well as you do Joe...What? You want me to actually do the math Joe?Um I had a devastating agument all typed up but I backed out on my browser and lost it Joe....Sound familiar?????

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"It also fails (the creationist model) to account for the massive offgassing which would accompany the fast movement model and pretty much give us a Venuvian atmosphere and the extinction of all non-bacterial life on this planet."

​

--You mean 'outgassing'? Mind if you show me the source of gas, its origin (the reason it previously existed in the earth), and relatively how much would have been extruded? Such volatiles as H₂O would not have been present in any large quantity as its reason for it being extruded from volcanoes, rifts, and sea-floor spreading centers is due to subduction.

---

Outgassing occurs when magma is depressurized during an eruption. Many of these gases are toxic or have other effects on the climate. The eruption of Laki in 1783-84 polluted the air in Europe for months and resulted in acid rain, a short growing season and famine. Forage was killed off in Iceland during the "blue haze famine" and most of the livestock died. The gases were mostly water with some carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and flourine. It is estimated the the eruption produced 50 million tons of sulfur dioxide and ultimately 150 million tons of sulfuric acid aerosols. The Mississippi River actually froze in New Orleans that winter. The cold weather may have contributed to the food shortages leading up to the French Revolution. So, the effects of degassing are not trivial. This information is from Volcanoes in Human History by de Boer and Sanders.With this in mind, just remember the Laki eruption of 1783-84 would be an extremely small eruption compared to what Baumgardner's model predicts.

"Sometimes it is basic. Unfortunately, it is always basic to the professional creationists."
--I was more refering to my statments such as the obviousness of heat effects viscosity and the like. This is most basic.
--You should hold your tounge here, please hold off on the ignorance, It would be most appreciative. I do not believe these sort of comments are at all abundant in my responses toward any old earther through a biased notion against them besed entirely on the fact of this characteristic."I am confused. I thought you wanted it to be faster."
--Yes, though in this statment, I am refering to today, or at-least a later date."And how is "must be ... sea floor spreading" evidence? Evidence should indicate that sea floor spreading actually was slower."
--Not exactly, this is evidence because it is an expectant, your notion on what this evidence should provide is based on interperetation of the evidence."Must be?" Well, there either is or there isn't."
--Here I am first showing what there should be according to the model, later I say that this is what is found."What does the evidence say?"
--The evidence says that there have been magnetic variations in the ocean floor by reversing polarity, whether this was a rapid or gradual process is subject to interperetation."And what is a "frantic outer-core?" How do yo know it is frantic?"
--a 'frantic outer-core' is a rapidly convecting outer-core, and you know it is frantic because this is an effect(though not direct) of increased heat."What is the evidence?"
--Heat is being lost, convection is slowing and if the earth continues, convection will cease and the planet will be tectonically dead."Are you one of those creationists who ridicules evolutionists for being speculative?"
--No, I most enjoy intelligent and respectful speculation."What? Why is the temperature increasing?"
--Radioisotopic decay produces energy in the form of heat and light."Was it cooler at one time?"
--Yes, before this energy was released, or before this energy was beginning to accumulate."What about the rest of the earth? Was not radioactivity increasing there also? What did this do to life on earth?"
--Radioisotopic decay may not have been decaying at a higher rate in the lithosphere, as it was much more stable than the core."How do yo know this? What is the evidence? You are telling stories without any supporting data."
--At one point in time, tectonic plates were one thick mass, the effects of heat ate away at the lithosphere, and now lithosphere is being underplated because of this loss of heat, the supporting data is the fact that this is exactly what is expected from the effects of heat."We actually see evidence of rifting far back in the geological record, long before the break up of Pangea."
--Like what?"I thought you said we were going to look at the evidence..."
--No problem in that."This is another story. What is the evidence?"
--This is what happens when heat is added, and this is how the magnetosphere and polarity are controlled, in the outer-core. The earth is losing heat."What tells you that the convection cells were once slower, then speeded up and then slowed down again?"
--Convection would have been slow, from a lack of heat, and would then heat up from an accumulation of heat, and then would decrease from the rupture and excrusion of this heat."Tell us how this directly relates to polarity of the earth?"
--Convection in the earth's outer core causes the magnetic field. When friction ionizes metal atoms, then the flow of ionized material creates an electric current, which produces the magnetic field. Reversing polarity may be related to changes in the Earth's rotation or in the fluid state of its outer core, but in mainstream paleomagnetic geology, it is relatively unknown."What do you mean by "must be?" Are there such mountain ranges? If so, that would be evidence."
--Yes there are such mountain ranges, and the evidence is that there are such mountain ranges :\."Tell us which mountain ranges you are talking about and then perhaps explain the older mountian ranges that are eroded away."
--Don't know the names of these uplifting mountains, though aligning shields and rocks of three mountain-building phases help give this ancient fit for southern lands, shields, early paleozoic rocks, early Mesozoic rocks, Late Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic."Actually, plate tectonics does not require this. It may and does occur but it is not a requirement."
--Right, though such plate diversion (and thus creating an oceanic sea-floor spreading center) is required by my model."Sounds like Baumgardner here."
--Yeah, no one better use Einstein's Theory on Relativity, that would be stealing. "Do you know that the only reason he needs heat is to make his model work? So, Baumgardner's model actually explains Baumgardner's model!"
--Did you know the only reason Evolution needs natural selection is to make Evolution work? (I don't see the fault in logic)"There is no evidence for such heat flows in the geological record."
--This is souly dependant on your interpretation, mechenism, and explanation on the Earths past geologic history."And is explained more than adequately by standard plate tectonics."
--And this means that my interpretation is falsified how?"How is your plate tectonics better?"
--Opinionated."What evidence do you have that contradicts standard plate tectonics that makes CPT better?"
--I am not fighting against the uniformitarian figure but presenting another explanation, whether CPT or UPT (uniform plate tectonics) is better is opinionated."The core is leaking? To the surface? How do you know this?"
--This is the reason convection exists in the mantle and outer-core (the inner-core does not convect, it is solid). It is essential for any model on the earths interior."How do you know that the radiogenic energy is burned out?"
--Because when (take for instance) Uranium-238 decays, it takes a new atomic form of Pb-206, a stable, non radioactive isotope of Lead."These things would be data. What you are giving us is a (kind of fragmentary) story."
--It wasn't exactly presented as conclusive."Indeed. Now how is this different from standard plate tectonic theory?"
--Well I guess it isn't, we cant share in the same pile of scientific observation and physics?"All you have thrown a bunch of ideas, stories and and scientific nonsense, along with a dash of evidence, up against the wall to see if it sticks. Care to try again?"
--It sticks., I do not think that 'trying again' is necessary.------------------

"So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?"
--Possibly Waptia fieldensis, Penaeus speciosus, and Udora brevispina------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

"TC, if you're going to claim that lobsters and crayfish came from something that doesn't even look like a lobster, isn't that a far bigger leap than from monkeys to man? That's macro if I've ever heard of it."
--Besides the fact that they are very simmilar, micro changes can produce macro effects, genetics and anatomy can have little or devistating effects on taxonomy."Anyway I think I'm going to look for ASU's "Tree of Life" website and see what lobster-like crustaceans predate lobsters and crayfish and when."
--I found these sites helpful:- http://entomologia.rediris.es/sea/bol/vol26/s3/index.htm
- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/m_kreps_liste_e.htm
- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/m_kreps_e.htm
--- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/162_495.htm
--- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/a31393.htm *
--- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/x663.htm *
--- http://www.toyen.uio.no/palmus/galleri/montre/english/a30976.htm *------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

"OK, show how your explanation is more logical and more plausible than current explanations by Geologists."
--This is opinionated. to have it 'more' logical or 'more' plausible."ALso, did you look ONLY at the physical evidence and come up with your model (which would be scientific), or did you look at the Bible story first, and then figure out a model trying to incorporate as much of natural phenomena as you could in order to make the Bible true (which wouldn't be scientific)?"
--I would highly prefer the former."It doesn't matter, really, even if you can explain where all the water comes from in a way that makes sense and doesn't require magic (althought I don't think you can). You have an enormous amount of evidence which strongly tends to refute the flood having happened."
--What evidence would that be? (besides your examples in the next comment, is it geology?)"Also, how do you explain why there are no flowering grasses, no flowering trees, and, in fact, no flowering plants, mammoth or miniscule, in the top layers of the Geologic strata?"
--Mammoths are not tough to explain, being such massive mammals, though flowering plants, I seem to be tending to be drawn toward the argument of seasonal growth, however. I would need to do research on flowering plants though (I am currently researching enough topics I think).------------------

If I may contribute KingPenguin - "--science does state that dna arose spontaneously but like ive said science isnt nothing more than gift from God."
--Science doesn't actually state that DNA arose out of spontaneous generation, the theory of abiogenesis does.Mark - "HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE ODDS OF FOUR DIFFERENT RADIOMETRIC METHODS HITTING THE SAME AGE RANGE BY CHANCE ALONE? Let me state it again : 74,805,201:1 . "
--I dont' think it would be about 'odds', but about cause. There is no need to reconfigure half-life, this very well may be consistant. Though if you take a sample and cut it in many pieces, and leave it as such for a time, and put it back together, it is going to appear many magnitudes older than is assumed if it were not mingled with in this way. (this was for the sake of example). A possible cause for the relative consistancy in given dates for radioisotopes is the same decintegration or effect contributed to increasing decay rate of radioisotopes.Mark - "Do you have a SINGLE evidence that the earth is in the order of 6,000 years old?"
--Encompassing interperetation.Mark - "The odds you are arguing against are 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1"
--Sounds like the big bang (sorry couldn't help myself).KingPenguin - "---like ive said the earth can appear to be however old it wants to be. it still has no effect on when it was created. God did create us an old earth to live on, with stars in the sky for us to admire."
--Mark 10:15 - I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.
--I admire your faith KP.Mark - "Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance!"
--It is sufficient if valid either way.KingPenguin - "---i cant show this because i wasnt there when God created the earth but im sure half-life is well within his domain of control."
--There is no need to mingle with isotope half-lives, though decay is another issue.KingPenguin - "---God never shows himself and im not for Creation Science, since Christianity shouldnt mix with science that way. Science says it isnt proof either."
--I personally find science as a beautiful thing that God invented and has the ability to use to show his creation the amazing universe that he made for us, and that to study it is an encouragement that further enhances the image of a loving Father.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-25-2002]

"JM: Well, you know since we are at the same level and all, how do you fit the LIL's into the core?"
--I was more directing toward your 'LIL' abreviation."JM: Let's see, your answer simply adds more mumbo-jumbo to your pile of mumbo-jumbo."
--In your words, 'ROTFL!!'."I thought you told me earlier that you and I were at the same level of understanding?"
--In the question at hand yes."Why is it that your answers indicate an incomplete reading of an amateur text?"
--I don't know, It seems I'm getting alot of conclusions, but analysis is void."JM: The correct term is divergent plate boundary, not 'diversion'."
--Yes if you wish to use it in this context, it simply still is the fact that these two plates diverge, so 'diversion' seems appropriate in context with the correct suffix."I thought you claimed to be 'on the same page as me'? Why is your terminology not at the level of freshman geology student?"
--I do see no problem in my terminology, obviously this forum is not my college thesis, so I have less care in my grammatical errors."JM: well, run it through your models and see. The math is simple dif-eq."
--I think I would have to know what are the missing factors besides temperature in any Differential Equation. Also, I didn't imply that heat does 'automatically' imply lower viscosity, as the inner-core of the planet is the hottest portion though it is solid and cannot convect."JM: ROTFL!! "
--I thought it was pretty funny too. (I don't see the error in my syntax, as it seems no one else has had this magnitude of a problem:

quote:

---

The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc.

---

"JM: I've asked you a series of pointed questions and asked for quantitative answers. So far, zilch."
--Not in this thread and these questions were not related to the quantitive answers you asked for in another thread."JM: Yes, several years of physics, maths, and geology."
--Perhaps a little more specific Joe.."JM: No, it's too simplistic and jumbled for me. "
--Simplistic, yes (I obviously did not assert it as a conclusive sealed case), jumbled, no one else seemed to think so."None of what you are saying makes any sense because you don't know the subject well enough to speak intelligently."
--You havent even supported this assertion in the area of geology."That's not bad, education takes some time. You need some more basic math, physics and geology knowledge before tackling such a formidable problem. Right now, you are not able to defend your hypothesis because you don't understand all the physics, math and geology. Learn it and then post something sensible."
--I think that even if I do, this is not necessary for a question like 'what am I missing'.------------------