Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Saying that you are on the same level as a PhD in Geology but do not even know basic terminology is about as arrogant as you can get."
--I think I know the terminology, though as for my assertion that basically 'were on the same level' with Joe, It was not meant in the context as everyone is refering. I interpereted Joe's post as that it seemed he believed there are spreading centers taking place on continents producing new continental mass(If this were so, it would have been quite an ignorance of geology), which I did not think that he thought. So I asserted that I was on the same level as he in this question. I am most sertaintly not on the same level 'period' with him.

---

You think you know the terminology... Pardon me while I control my mirth. And now you are weaseling on your statement that you are on the same level as Joe. Give me a break! You're killing me!

quote:

---

"You will also note that I said nothing about the ignorance of anyone here."
--You don't have to mention ignorance to use it.

---

Hunh?

quote:

---

"Remember, you need that heat. Are you saying that radiometric dating in the crust is possibly okay because the decay rates were slower and constant?"
--I see no problem in 'dating' with radioisotope ratio's within the spectrum of older and younger, but as an absolute dating method, I disagree.

---

But that's not possible if some rates were higher in the mantle but lower in the crust. But that's not the point. The point is that you make an assertion with absolutely no back up. What is the evidence that radiometric decay occured at different rates in different places on earth? Why are there any concordant dates at all?

quote:

---

"What do you mean, "one thick mass?" And what is your evidence for it?"
--One thick mass, that is, tectonic plates not being plates, but a single global plate. The evidence, the origin of such plates is from world volcanic activity breaking the plates, they once were one mass, I place this date preceeding the flood.

---

This is not evidence. It is not even related.

quote:

---

"This is another story. What is "expected" is not "data." You need to show that the lithosphere actually thinned and then thickened."
--The problem is that there is no direct evidence for the thinning of the lithosphere from a previous thicker state, this is an indirect notion, basically what is found in Evolution abundantly, I see no problem in this reasoning.

---

Could'a been stories are not evidence, nor are they theories. If you want credibility give us some evidence.

quote:

---

"Now show us how your explanation is better than the conventional plate tectonics model that also observes the earth to be losing heat. This will take more evidence..."
--Show you how it is 'better'? I may be able to show you how it is a compairable explination in plausability, though being 'better' should be dispelled as being opinionated.

---

Not at all. It would be better if it explained something that conventional plate tectonics cannot explain.

quote:

---

Heat would have been lost because spreading centers would have been more rapid because of this heat generating convection, in this way, heat would have dissipated from the earth because of these large fissures of extruding heat.

---

This is gibberish. Please explain in geological terms that you are so famililar with.

quote:

---

"I think the names of mountain ranges can often be found on maps."
--Yes, I don't have access to one currently, just the text which doesn't mention the names but locations.

---

You mean a person so well-versed in science doesn't have this information handy?

quote:

---

"THese are the details you need in order to provide evidence. Now, what about the ranges that are eroded away?"
--Yes, what about the ranges that are eroded away?

---

How does your model explain them?

quote:

---

"The main difference is that we have observed natural selection. That is evidence. What is your evidence for high heat flows 4000 years ago?"
--Heat leakage, and the rapid drop in heat over the past 4,500 years is from more rapid plate motion.

---

Nonsense. The mainstream model has heat dissipation. How do you know that there has been a rapid heat decrease in the last 4500 years? How did they measure worldwide heat flows in those days? How do you know it is from rapid plate motion? Where is the evidence for rapid plate motion?

quote:

---

"No. There should be some evidence in the form of massive volcanism confined to a short period of time."
--IC, India has had a lava flow that flowed through over 250,000 sq. miles of its land in the past.

---

I don't think get the picture. Where are the ash flows, where are the eruptive ultramafics? The Deccan Traps were the largest known eruption of volcanics, but where are the contemporaneous flows on the Canadian shield? Or the Appalachian Mountains? This is a piece of evidence, but you ignore everything else around it.

quote:

---

"There should be unusual rock types and formations."
--There should? How so?

---

We know what volcanic eruptions look like in the geological record. I would expect there to be thick hyaloclatites all over the ocean basins and ashflows with peculiar chemistry profiles because we see them elsewhere."There should be extensive, even worldwide ash flows and hyaloclastites. Where are they?"
--There are, remember, the geologic column wasn't deposited over millions of years but within a year, this is alot of volcanism! Hyaloclastites are well in abundance in oceanic basalt.Abundant but thin. What about all of the sediments deposited between the volcanics? How do you get them all deposited in a year? How do you develope coral reefs in sucha toxic environment in a year? This is silliness.

quote:

---

"Well, maybe it wasn't you who said that the CPT model better explains the evidence."
--I didn't assert it as being 'better', but simply another explination for the observed geology.

---

But it fails on every contact with the data. How can it possibly compete? [QUOTE]"In other words not supported?"
--No, in other words, it being 'better' is an opinion, and isn't relevant to such science. I can say that I like the theory that dinosaurs were wiped out by a decrease in oxygen better, rather than a meteoric bombardment, but that doesn't give the theory on decreased oxygen any advantage in whichever is right over meteor impacts.[quote] I think you are having a problem with the concept of evidence. A better model would explain more of the evidence. This is fairly objective.

quote:

---

"Gladly, but you seem to only see parts of the pile."
--I would like to see the whole pile then.

---

Then get some information from elswhere than your favorite creationist website.

quote:

---

"Sure you can make up a story, but you have consistently avoided anything that looks like data. Your model fails in every case where it confronts the details of the geological record."
--Thats just it, the explination complies fully with the geologic record, but you are looking for evidence, in which it is not as abundant as you would wish it to be.

---

Okay then where are all of the 4000 year old volcanic rocks that should be here if your model were correct? And why do we have volcanic rocks of much older ages? Where is the worldwide flood deposit? Where is the worldwide volcanic deposit?

"You know, I just got through a big argument with a creationist who claimed that there is evidence that there is more water in the mantle than all of the surface waters combined."
--Thats a pretty bold claim!"And then we have people like Walt Brow who wants to have a continuous cavern several kilometers high and full of water in the mantle. And here you are saying that the water in the mantle is solely due to subduction! ARGHHHH!"
--LoL, way too many theories, sounds like the dinosaur extinction! In my humble opinion, mine is more analogous to the theory on meteoric impact in uniformitarian geology for the extinction."Cant' you guys a) get together a little bit, and b) take a path somewhere in the middle?"
--Don't worry, I'll start my revolution and we'll get my theories together and I'll be the creationist with all those answers. "You are WRONG. There is water in the mantle. There is also water entrained by magmas coursing near the surface. Can I be any clearer on this?"
--No, clarity is fine, though this is why I said 'wich would not have been present in any large quantity, because it is due to subduction'. I didn't say that H₂O was non-existant in the mantle."So you admit that there are volatiles in the magma, even at Hawaii. Good."
--Most certainly, it is of great variability on the quantity in different areas, though volatiles non-the-less."Get this, TC... Iceland is on a spreading center. There is water in the magma."
--Yes but why? I believe it is due to sea water leaching inward the magma chamber."Your model calls for spreading boundaries all around the globe. This is getting tedious and disrespectful."
--I am not trying to be disrespectful."Good. Then you understand that there are toxic volatiles released during even mild volcanism at the spreading zones."
--Sure there will be much."Now multiply this by millions of times and see what the effects of your CPT would be."
--First you need to address the origin of volatiles such as sulphur."Yes, and Iceland is on a spreading zone. So now you are telling me that even more toxic gasses would be released at the convergent boundaries during CPT even further toxifying the atmosphere. This is getting worse for Noah."
--I don't think it is, as it would have been much less than today's volatilic quantities."Yeah, and I'd like to play linebacker for the Packers. Sorry, but wishing things are so does not make them that way."
--I'm not wishing, but presenting the facts."From the SO2 in the vapors released from the lava, and water in the atmosphere. Do you understand this?"
--Yes I do."Because there had been no previous volcanos or mountain building to allow degassing. The flood was at time=zero for degassing."
--Ok"Sometimes it would help if you read on before posting."
--I did read it, that is why I asked the question."So you are saying that there are no volatiles in the mantle?"
--I would have to be ignorant of Geology(or ill-informed)."Sorry, but the data is not on your side. Or are you saying that the argon that is such a problem for radiometric dating or the helium fluxes that show us how young the earth are somehow manufactured in the mantle to maintain a constant flux?"
--Sarcasm? Not quite sure what your asserting."Besides, the point is that such eruptions, when extremely rapid and worldwide, would release such gasses. We know that it happens."
--No doubt there would have been much of this, though not at all the magnitude that you would believe as it would happen today.------------------

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Get this, TC... Iceland is on a spreading center. There is water in the magma."
--Yes but why? I believe it is due to sea water leaching inward the magma chamber.

---

That is what I said. However, that is not the point. The point is that there is water in the magma erupted at the mid-ocean ridge.

quote:

---

"Now multiply this by millions of times and see what the effects of your CPT would be."
--First you need to address the origin of volatiles such as sulphur.

---

Three places. Prexisting rocks, sea water, and primordial sulfur. Not that it matters. The point is that there is sulfur there which results in SO2 which reacts to form sulfuric acid.

quote:

---

"Yes, and Iceland is on a spreading zone. So now you are telling me that even more toxic gasses would be released at the convergent boundaries during CPT even further toxifying the atmosphere. This is getting worse for Noah."
--I don't think it is, as it would have been much less than today's volatilic quantities.

---

LOL! Didn't we just get through the fact that there are volatiles in the eruptions? that they would be greater if the eruptions were magnified thousands fold? And that if this were the first degassing event, then there should have been more volatiles for later eruptions which are the one we see? There is no evidence to say for certain either way, but logic absolutely forbids your assertion. Unless you have another logical explanation? You are going to increase magmatism at the spreading zones thousands of times and increase magmatism at the convergent zones thousands of times but still have less volatiles injected into the atmosphere?

quote:

---

"Sorry, but the data is not on your side. Or are you saying that the argon that is such a problem for radiometric dating or the helium fluxes that show us how young the earth are somehow manufactured in the mantle to maintain a constant flux?"
--Sarcasm?

---

NOOOO!

quote:

---

"Besides, the point is that such eruptions, when extremely rapid and worldwide, would release such gasses. We know that it happens."
--No doubt there would have been much of this, though not at all the magnitude that you would believe as it would happen today.

---

Are you saying that a several orders-of-magnitude of increased eruptions would release LESS volatiles? Man, have I got a deal on beachfront property for you!

If I may, I would like to restate some of TC's problems in fleshing out his 'theory' of rapid plate tectonics.TC's 'model' requires very low volatiles in mantle derived upwelling magma at mid ocean ridges. Otherwise, the SO2, CO2 and H2O would have poisoned, greenhoused, and steamed Noah and company.Unfortunately, low volatiles in the mantle also greatly increases viscosity and melt temperatures. So mantle convection, subduction and oceanic plate formation could never have gotten started in the first place.The only way out is to postulate vastly higher mantle temperatures to lower the viscosity and facilitate melting. But that doesn't work either... a higher starting temp for the mantle means we have to get rid of that heat very quickly to arrive at today's lower value. The only way to get rid of heat is to increase the amount radiated into space. To do that, we must raise the effective surface temperature of the Earth. That's very hard to do when the surface is blanketed by greenhouse gasses (there had to be SOME volatiles released). Even ignoring greenhouse effects, the surface and atmosphere would have to be thousands of degrees higher (that's my initial guess, anyway) to get rid of all that heat.I will leave confirmation of my guess to TC. He should calulate the mantle temperature required to lower viscosity by many orders of magnitude while keeping volatiles low, then calculate the black-body temperature required to get rid of that heat in a year or so. The best part is, this calculation requires little or no calculus to get a pretty good approximation.On a related subject, I came across a useful piece of data that TC has absolutely NO hope of ever reconciling with his mythology... http://earth.agu.org/revgeophys/sleep00/node9.htmlAt this site we find a very interesting overview of the effects of water and other volatiles in driving plate tectonics. Near the end is a section on cosmogenic beryllium - 10Be:

quote:

---

Studies of the cosmogenic isotope 10Be in arc lavas provide strong evidence that water from the slabs is derived in part from subducted sediments and that some sediments are subducted to great depths [ Morris et al., 1990; Edwards et al., 1993; Gill et al., 1993; Leeman et al., 1994]. The half life of 10Be, 1.5 million years is short enough that the isotope is present in young sediments but not in other crust and mantle reservoirs that might enter the magma. The 10Be in sediments needs to be subducted and reach the source region within a few million years to be present in the observed concentrations. The concentration of 10Be, normalized to the concentration of the stable isotope 9Be, shows the variations implied by the geometry of subduction. The ratio 10Be/9Be is low for lavas derived from young hot slabs which dehydrate at depths shallower than the source region compared with lavas derived from old cold slabs that dehydrate at source region depths [ Leeman et al., 1994] and decreases for volcanoes further from the trench. As expected, detectable 10Be is absent in mid-ocean ridge and oceanic island lavas where no slab is present.

---

So we have evidence that the magmas erupting at MORs and oceanic islands are either older than a few dozen million years, or are derived from primordial mantle material (in the context of TC's model). Which do you prefer, TC?Either way, to form 10Be at the concentrations found on the surface of the earth requires either a very long time (tens of millions of years), or a cosmic ray flux that was higher by about 10 million times during TC's period of rapid plate teconics. That means Noah and family received about 26 millirems(annual dosage today) times 10 million = 260,000 rems. That's nearly a thousand times the lethal dose. Noah was poached, steamed and FRIED - extra cripsy.After several years of reading the standard creationist debunking material, I do not recall seeing this particular argument. Has anyone else seen this idea before? Or can I claim credit for an additional YEC-bashing tool? (as if we needed any more)

quote:

---

Originally posted by wehappyfew:

I will leave confirmation of my guess to TC. He should calulate the mantle temperature required to lower viscosity by many orders of magnitude while keeping volatiles low, then calculate the black-body temperature required to get rid of that heat in a year or so. The best part is, this calculation requires little or no calculus to get a pretty good approximation.

​

---

Nice post.The problem isn't heat dissipation in a year, it's never letting it get higher than a few tens of degrees above todays average AT ALL. If the temperature goes up by say 80 deg C, we boil. It only has to do that for a minute or two, let alone a year.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Nice post.

​

The problem isn't heat dissipation in a year, it's never letting it get higher than a few tens of degrees above todays average AT ALL. If the temperature goes up by say 80 deg C, we boil. It only has to do that for a minute or two, let alone a year.

​

Mark

​

---

Yes, and you also end up with those really shallow oceans (if the water can somehow survive the heat and rain back down).CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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.[/QUOTE]

​

Well...right.

​

What's wrong with that?

​

Why should I be attracted to a LESS plausible or a LESS logical explanation for a given phenomena?

​

Why should the explanation that has LESS evidenciary and logical support be given as much or more credence that the explanation that has more evidence to support it and is logically-sound?

​

Science isn't, as Larry has said, a post modern relativistic exercise where one can consider all explanations equal.

​

quote:

---

"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.

---

​

But which one did you actually DO?

​

quote:

---

"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?)

---

​

There is strong evidence that several civilizations existed long before, during, and after the time the flood was supposed to have occurred, yet there are not records of such an event and there is no evidence that the civilizations were disturbed or eliminated.

​

Here are more problems:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

​

[QUOTE]"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).
[/b]

---

Uh, TC, flowering trees don't die and rot every winter. They stay standing. Seasonal growth is not an issue for flowering trees. Grass dies, but it doesn't completely disintigrate in the winter, either.This is a huge hole in your argument, TC. In fact, one might call it devastating.Remember, if you want to do science, you must consider ALL the evidence, not only that which supports your desired result.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"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.[/QUOTE]

​

Well...right.

​

What's wrong with that?

​

Why should I be attracted to a LESS plausible or a LESS logical explanation for a given phenomena?

​

Why should the explanation that has LESS evidenciary and logical support be given as much or more credence that the explanation that has more evidence to support it and is logically-sound?

​

Science isn't, as Larry has said, a post modern relativistic exercise where one can consider all explanations equal.

​

quote:

---

"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.

---

​

But which one did you actually DO?

​

quote:

---

"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?)

---

​

There is strong evidence that several civilizations existed long before, during, and after the time the flood was supposed to have occurred, yet there are not records of such an event and there is no evidence that the civilizations were disturbed or eliminated.

​

Here are more problems:

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

​

quote:

---

"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,

---

​

I was describing the relative sizes of the flowering plants, not the wooly mammoth.

​

[QUOTE]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).
[/b]

---

Uh, TC, flowering trees don't die and rot away completely into the soil every winter. They stay standing. Seasonal dieback is not an issue for flowering trees, or cactus. Grass dies, but it doesn't completely disintigrate in the winter, either.This is a huge hole in your argument, TC. In fact, one might call it devastating. At first, you thought that you had an easy explanation for this problem, but then it was revealed that you didn't realize the enormous diversity of plants that fall into the "flowering" category.Remember, if you want to do science, you must consider ALL the evidence, not only that which supports your desired result.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-28-2002]

"If I may, I would like to restate some of TC's problems in fleshing out his 'theory' of rapid plate tectonics."
--Glad you could join us."TC's 'model' requires very low volatiles in mantle derived upwelling magma at mid ocean ridges. Otherwise, the SO2, CO2 and H2O would have poisoned, greenhoused, and steamed Noah and company."
--'Very low [quantity of] volatiles' would rest on what you would see as 'very low', though I do not necessarely require extreamly smaller amounts than is being produced today, however, I do require it being significantly smaller.
--Poisoned, yes. Greenhoused, not with the amount of impact dust in the atmosphere. Steeming Noah and Company, I wouldn't think so, this though would have to be calculated after finding mantle temp and how much would be released through sea-floor spreading."Unfortunately, low volatiles in the mantle also greatly increases viscosity and melt temperatures. So mantle convection, subduction and oceanic plate formation could never have gotten started in the first place."
--See first comment. By how much does it increase with the ratio of volatilic particles, and how does it relate to todays mantle composition."The only way out is to postulate vastly higher mantle temperatures to lower the viscosity and facilitate melting. But that doesn't work either... a higher starting temp for the mantle means we have to get rid of that heat very quickly to arrive at today's lower value."
--This would of course depend on the amount of heat you start with, or has accumulated."The only way to get rid of heat is to increase the amount radiated into space. To do that, we must raise the effective surface temperature of the Earth. That's very hard to do when the surface is blanketed by greenhouse gasses (there had to be SOME volatiles released). Even ignoring greenhouse effects, the surface and atmosphere would have to be thousands of degrees higher (that's my initial guess, anyway) to get rid of all that heat."
--This assumes that such heat is to rise by a natural process as is going on today, with no backing force."I will leave confirmation of my guess to TC. He should calulate the mantle temperature required to lower viscosity by many orders of magnitude while keeping volatiles low, then calculate the black-body temperature required to get rid of that heat in a year or so. The best part is, this calculation requires little or no calculus to get a pretty good approximation."
--Yes I would like to do this, though, first off, I would rather instead of disregarding evidence and just saying 'well this is what it needs to be so thats what it was'. I would like to find ratio's of U-235 : Pb-207(though Pb-207 is an unstable isotope and decays into Pb-206), U-238 : Pb-206, Th-232 : Pb-208. In this way you could estimate the amount of heat this would produce, and then possibly refer to other sources of heat."On a related subject, I came across a useful piece of data that TC has absolutely NO hope of ever reconciling with his mythology..."
--I hope not!"At this site we find a very interesting overview of the effects of water and other volatiles in driving plate tectonics."
--Hey, I've been looking for something simmilar, thanx "So we have evidence that the magmas erupting at MORs and oceanic islands are either older than a few dozen million years, or are derived from primordial mantle material (in the context of TC's model). Which do you prefer, TC?"
--If I had to choose, the latter."Either way, to form 10Be at the concentrations found on the surface of the earth requires either a very long time (tens of millions of years), or a cosmic ray flux that was higher by about 10 million times during TC's period of rapid plate teconics. That means Noah and family received about 26 millirems(annual dosage today) times 10 million = 260,000 rems. That's nearly a thousand times the lethal dose. Noah was poached, steamed and FRIED - extra cripsy."
--Unfortunatelly my radioisotope and the Age of the Earth argument is very weak . Though I have always thought that everything came from a single cluster of space at the beginning of time (couple thousand years ago). This was before life was created, so, theres alot of cosmogenic rays raining down on the earth at this point in time."After several years of reading the standard creationist debunking material, I do not recall seeing this particular argument. Has anyone else seen this idea before? Or can I claim credit for an additional YEC-bashing tool? (as if we needed any more)"
--Might want to add it to the radioisotope pile. And through my time reading up on the debate and debating, when radioisotopes are debunked (if they havent been allready somewhere, I am not aware of it as of yet) the whole theory on the old earth goes down with it as being supported. (If not, it will ofcourse then rely on the billions of light year travelling light, most of Geology will be shaken)(Edited for the problem with Isotope ratio's putting in a sticking tounge out happy face for the : P (spaced so the happy face doesn't appear) part)------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-29-2002]

[I apologize for the technical difficulty with this post. The website ran out of disk space. The problem has been remedied. --Percy]

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 03-31-2002](no prob, percy. I saved it when I saw the post wouldn't take)Posted by me previously:
"So we have evidence that the magmas erupting at MORs and oceanic islands are either older than a few dozen million years, or are derived from primordial mantle material (in the context of TC's model). Which do you prefer, TC?"TC --If I had to choose, the latter.OK, then you must be prepared to accept that MOR basalt erupting today is similar to MOR basalt erupting during the runaway subduction implicit in your creationist mythos.Therefore the volatiles escaping from today's eruptions must be very similar to those produced by the formation of all that new ocean crust in the runaway subduction during the Flood. You are back to the same point in this discussion that edge brought to your attention... hundreds of millions of cubic kilometers of ocean crust forming at MORs... cooling - thus boiling the oceans... and releasing enough volatiles to poison (enough SO2 to turn the atmosphere into a Venus-like sulphuric acid atmosphere), greenhouse (more than enough CO2 to create Venus-like temps), and steam Noah (just the H2O released from erupting magma at MORs would turn the atmosphere into a pressure cooker of overheated steam).Is this clear in your mind yet?

​

[This message has been edited by wehappyfew, 03-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Either way, to form 10Be at the concentrations found on the surface of the earth requires either a very long time (tens of millions of years), or a cosmic ray flux that was higher by about 10 million times during TC's period of rapid plate teconics. That means Noah and family received about 26 millirems(annual dosage today) times 10 million = 260,000 rems. That's nearly a thousand times the lethal dose. Noah was poached, steamed and FRIED - extra cripsy."

​

--Unfortunatelly my radioisotope and the Age of the Earth argument is very weak . Though I have always thought that everything came from a single cluster of space at the beginning of time (couple thousand years ago). This was before life was created, so, theres alot of cosmogenic rays raining down on the earth at this point in time.

---

Actually, stellar theory predicts that the earth is subject to more radiation now than ever. Young stars contain H, & He. Hydrogen fuses to helium, helium to carbon etc, all the way up to Fe. As concentrations increase, so does the rate of fusion of those elements. More energy is liberated from those fusions (compared to H-He), thus as a star ages, it liberates more energy per second. Thus, the earth is bombarded by more solar radiation now than ever, other cosmic radiation is negligable when compared to solar radiation.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

As requested by Percy, this is a reposting from another thread.Well, let's take this point by point.
Point #1
Jet: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.Mark: Yes there are. Tell me, what would you expect a reptile mammal transitional to look like?***Mark chooses to respond in a somewhat typical Evo fashion. Rather than give examples of transitionals and intermediates, followed by the references to the scientific tests performed that led to the scientific explanation of how these were determined to be so, followed by the scientific attempts at falsification of this data, etc., Mark simply says "yes there are" and then moves into a non'supportive question.***JetPoint #2
***Actually, Marks reply is well taken so my only response is in regard to what actually qualifies as evolution, IMHO. Micro is not debatable, but, as I have stated before, I do not classify it as evolution. I will expound on my reasons for this belief upon request. As for Macro, it is, as yet, unobserved and, IMHO, an unobservable event and therefore macro-evolution is completely untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific. Obviously, this is my personal opinion and I eagerly await the scientific data that can show me otherwise. Unless you are able to provide true science, with true scientific results, including all data from A to Z, you won't be able to convince me that it is scientific.***JetPoint #3
***Evos must disregard abiogenesis. They prefer, rather, to promote a theory that picks up somewhere after the beginning of life, rather than start at the very beginning. How convienent. Without the theory of abiogenesis, the TOE is nonexistant. But that doesn't seem to bother the Evos. At least with the creationists, you begin at the begnning, from before there was life on earth, to the moment that life came into existance. Evos are unable to give an explanation for life "evolving" from non-life, and so they must abandon the beginning in order to justify their acceptance of the TOE. Personally, I do not care to pick up a book and start my reading of it somewhere in the middle, ignoring the beginning chapters as if they were irrelevant to the entire story. Why Evos prefer to take this approach is beyond me, unless it is because they must do so in order for the TOE to be accepted.***JetPoints #4,5,6
Mark: How does this represent positive evidence that the ToE is false.***Did I read that correctly? OK, I'll just bite my lip, refrain from laughing, and move on to your next point.***JetMark: If there is no fossil evidence of hominid to human evolution, then this is positive evidence of what? No evidence disproves nothing.***So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE? Beautiful! And Evos say Christians must have great faith to believe in creation and a Creator!***JetMark: Positive evidence please.***It is positive evidence that the TOE is not a scientific theory. It is positive evidence that those who champion the dogma of the TOE are willing to totally disregard true science in order to further their unbelieveably unscientific theory.***JetPoint #7
***Ah yes, the old NS argument. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of the definition of NS. How is it natural, aside from occurring in nature? What determining factors are necessary for the selection to occur, and what makes it natural apart from the existing nature of the creature/entity involved in the process. What power, or entity, controls the process of selection? Is it Nature? Environment? Chaos? Uniformity? Random Chance? Supposed Infinite Possibility? What? Explain how this is science. Reference the data from falsification attempts. Reference duplication data. Reference the scientists who performed these tests and where they were performed. Give the scientific definition of "Natural Selection" as well as the tests performed to validate this as true science. Define the properties incorporated within this theory that qualify it as a truly scientific theory and possibility.***JetPoint #8
***Obviously, it is not. I disagree with your opinion on this matter and you disagree with my opinion, and I can respect that. Agree to disagree. For further clarification, please refer to point #7.***JetPoint # 9
***And so we have the somewhat typical strategy of the Evos. See the evidence that the TOE is false and unscientific, reject the evidence, repeat the question that has already been answered, claiming that it has not been answered. Repeat the process as needed.***Jet*********************I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.
2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.
3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.
4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.
5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.Falsification! I would love to see the many examples of scientific tests performed. If it is true science, this should be an easy task.[This is message #42, which is a reply to message #29 from the thread in Evolution versus Creationism / Is It Science? / A Christian (and creationist)'s condemnation of "Creation Science" (Page 3)]ShalomJet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

Jet writes:

---

So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE?

---

It's important to keep in mind that there are two separate aspects involved:

• Evidence for evolution.
  ​
• Interpretation of evidence in an evolutionary context.

That evolution of species had occurred was first recognized in the early 19th century as the increasing differences of fossils from modern forms with increasing geologic depth was discovered, as well as the correspondence of particular fossils and geologic layers with one another.Theories of human evolutionary history represent an interpretation of sparse paleontological data in an evolutionary framework. Hominid fossils do not represent evidence for evolution, though they *are* consistent with it. Mark was saying that even if there were a complete absence of hominid fossil evidence, how could that represent a falsification of the ToE?There's no desire on the part of evolutionists to avoid the topic of abiogenesis, and the Origin of Life forum is expressly provided for discussion of this topic.The misimpression that evolutionists want to avoid the topic may stem from the typical reply to the oft-heard Creationist statement, "The theory of evolution is false because life could never arise from non-life." There's no choice but to point out the logical fallacy that demonstrating one impossible has little bearing on the other.

---

I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.

​

1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.

---

Morphological classifications based upon fossils and genetic similarity studies could have indicated that man and other living species are not at the top of a nested tree hierarchy. They instead confirmed that this view agrees with the data.

---

2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.

---

Examples of a few recently observed speciation events can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

---

3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.

---

In the late 19th century the paleontologists and geologists, who needed a timeframe of at least hundreds of millions of years, battled the physicists led by Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who would grant no more than a 100 million years. That the battle was won by the paleontologists and geologists would be one piece of positive evidence since they received the time they felt they needed, and then some. I don't think anyone seriously questions whether a timeframe at least 45 times greater than that originally granted is sufficient.

---

4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.

---

Did you mean explosions of speciation? Anyway, the fossil record clearly indicates species coming into existence and then fading away with time.

---

5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.

---

Need more information about how the ToE fails to follow the scientific method before I can comment.--Percy

Originally posted by Percipient:Jet: I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.Percy: Morphological classifications based upon fossils and genetic similarity studies could have indicated that man and other living species are not at the top of a nested tree hierarchy. They instead confirmed that this view agrees with the data.***Not the raw scientific data I requested.***Jet: 2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.Examples of a few recently observed speciation events can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.***Again, not the raw scientific data I requested. I have stated this before. If a reference to the talkorigins site is the best that can be offered, a site that is widely recognized as one of the most biased and misleading sites when it comes to an honest presentation of all the facts concerning the ongoing controversy between evolution and creation, then offer nothing, which is what the talkorigins site is worth.***Jet: 3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.Percy: In the late 19th century the paleontologists and geologists, who needed a timeframe of at least hundreds of millions of years, battled the physicists led by Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who would grant no more than a 100 million years. That the battle was won by the paleontologists and geologists would be one piece of positive evidence since they received the time they felt they needed, and then some. I don't think anyone seriously questions whether a timeframe at least 45 times greater than that originally granted is sufficient.***Did my request for "raw scientific data" go unnoticed, or was it just conviently ignored?***Jet: 4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.Percy: Did you mean explosions of speciation? Anyway, the fossil record clearly indicates species coming into existence and then fading away with time.***Once again, no raw scientific data is offered.***Jet: 5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.Percy: Need more information about how the ToE fails to follow the scientific method before I can comment.***Need the actual raw scientific data with references from accredited science institutes, along with the institutes informational material of falsification test results of the raw data, and the identity of the scientists involved in the research before I can offer more information. To some Evos, this may seem alot to ask for, but if the information is truly available, it should no problem to fulfill my request. Surely the knowledgeable Evos, those totally convinced of the accuracy of the TOE, are privy to this information. How about sharing it with the rest of us.*** Shalom Jet------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?Prof. George Greenstei

When you visit a museum and see the fossil reconstructions you're looking at raw scientific data. The link I provided about speciation contained references to scientific papers, so you obviously didn't even follow the link. The books on evolution that most of us here rely upon here reflect the findings of scientific papers and journals. If you'd really like to see "raw scientific data" for yourself then I suppose you could find it in a university library.--Percy