Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,835 Year: 3,092/9,624 Month: 937/1,588 Week: 120/223 Day: 18/13 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 46 of 83 (92313)
03-13-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
03-13-2004 12:21 PM


Paulk writes:
Well the simple answer is that by taking this line you are arguing that science has shown your religion to be false.
All I need to know that this science of yours that proves my religion wrong doesnt leave any evidence for important things like the transitional fossils. Dont give me any computer made pictures based on assumptions give me the real fossil.
Paulk writes:
The empirical evidence shows us a universe billions of years old. And that evidence is observations of the universe itself.
An example of empirical evidence is that 2+2 will always be 4. Empirical evidence doesnt say anything about origins since all the theories are built on interpretation including creation and evolution theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2004 12:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:28 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 03-14-2004 9:42 AM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 56 by Quetzal, posted 03-14-2004 9:50 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2004 3:00 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 47 of 83 (92314)
03-13-2004 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha
03-13-2004 11:26 PM


If empirical evidence supported any of the theories then it would become a law and not a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:26 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Navy10E, posted 03-14-2004 2:10 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2004 2:25 AM Itachi Uchiha has replied

  
Navy10E
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 83 (92337)
03-14-2004 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Itachi Uchiha
03-13-2004 11:28 PM


I'm getting to like this kid...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:28 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Asgara, posted 03-14-2004 2:16 AM Navy10E has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 49 of 83 (92339)
03-14-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Navy10E
03-14-2004 2:10 AM


Other then the fact that they don't call things "laws" anymore in science. Theory is as good as it gets...a theory is the best current explanation for the evidence, and is subject to change. Like many have said in the past...Gravity is "only a theory" does this mean that you don't accept it?
edited to add ( Lets get back on target, the topic of this thread is "Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?" )
[This message has been edited by Asgara, 03-14-2004]

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Navy10E, posted 03-14-2004 2:10 AM Navy10E has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-14-2004 1:46 PM Asgara has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 83 (92344)
03-14-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Itachi Uchiha
03-13-2004 11:28 PM


If empirical evidence supported any of the theories then it would become a law and not a theory.
Glad to know that, as a 16-year-old kid, you feel yourself in a position of sufficient authority to dictate terms of nomenclature to the entire scientific community.
Who died and left you Samuel Johnson?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:28 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Navy10E, posted 03-14-2004 4:49 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 58 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-14-2004 1:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Navy10E
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 83 (92362)
03-14-2004 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-14-2004 2:25 AM


Mr Crunched Toad,
Now THAT is screwed up. Attack his arguements, not his age. He has not attacked you in any way that I have seen (I might have missed something) and you have really lowered the bar on this one. I'm 19, and you said I was intelligent and you looked forward to future conversations with me. That's only a three year difference. You may have changed your mind about me, (not that I would care one way or another)but for for the love of arguing, fight with his ideas, not how long ago his parents decided to have sex!!! If you can't control yourself, yell at the monitor.
I would hope that as a (supposed) adult you would appolgize to the kid for your stupid and pathetic attack.
And a final note, the best debating I've seen from our side has come for a 16 and 19 yr old. I would assume that the collective numbers of older, supposedly wiser, and definitly more experienced people should be able to totally crush us in debate. I'm still waiting. And apparently, this is the best you can come up with. Maybe someday you can hope to be as mature and respectful of those you debate as this guy whom you so patheticly assailed. You messed up, elistist, condescending, sneering, sad, pathetic excuse for an adult. Maybe someday, you can be cool like us kids.
Slightly frustrated:
Joe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2004 2:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-14-2004 5:39 AM Navy10E has not replied
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2004 7:23 AM Navy10E has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 52 of 83 (92368)
03-14-2004 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Navy10E
03-14-2004 4:49 AM


Topic drift alert again, and a word from the the staff
Navy10E -
While there is a certain amount of validity to your point about Crashfrog, my greater concern is that you are quickly showing signs of becoming 's #1 "problem child" (NOT an age reference).
I now suggest that you try to bring up the quality level of your postings. Keep to the topic, try to make some substantial points, etc.
Least you think that I'm showing a bias in favor of the Frog, I point out to you that also well known in these parts, are my moderating clashes with Crashfrog.
Remember, part of achieving knowledge, is to come to know how ignorant you are.
Please take any further discussion of moderation issues to the "Change in Moderation?" topic, link supplied below.
To all - Once again, let's try to get this topic back onto the theme of the topic.
Adminnemooseus

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Navy10E, posted 03-14-2004 4:49 AM Navy10E has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1468 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 83 (92382)
03-14-2004 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Navy10E
03-14-2004 4:49 AM


Message moved to more appropriate forum.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Navy10E, posted 03-14-2004 4:49 AM Navy10E has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 83 (92389)
03-14-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha
03-12-2004 10:29 PM


quote:
Why am I a creationist? This is more spiritual than science. Since god is present in my life through prayer and scripture it is hard for me to accept a theory which tries to disprove what i experience everyday
What do you experience "every day" that compells you to reject 200 years of scientific inquiry?
I mean, why does your stripe of Christianity or your belief in God seem to be dependent upon rejection of the reality of nature?
Do you really think God would be displeased, and send you to Hell, if you, for example, accepted that allele frequencies change in populations over time, or that all of the various radiometric dating methods return very similar results for the same rock sample?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-12-2004 10:29 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-14-2004 2:03 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2171 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 83 (92391)
03-14-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha
03-13-2004 11:26 PM


quote:
An example of empirical evidence is that 2+2 will always be 4.
Incorrect.
2+2=4 is an abstract, mathematical "proof", not "empirical evidence".
"Empirical" means "derived by experience". IOW, Empirical evidence is evidence which can be experienced by our senses.
quote:
Empirical evidence doesnt say anything about origins since all the theories are built on interpretation including creation and evolution theories.
Empirical evidence has, in fact, a few things to say about origins in the form of hypothese, but why do you seamlessly shift into talking about the ToE?
Ideas about the origins of the first life are wholly distinct and separate from the Theory of Evolution.
(You've been here a while, Jazz, so I'm surprised that you have fallen into this error)
The ToE is an extremely robust and productive scientific Theory which has withstood probably millions of individual tests, including being confirmed by the evidence from the (relatively) new field of genetics.
Lastly, you mention something about Creation "theories". Since I assume you are referring to the scientific definition of "theory" could you please refer me to a scientific theory of Creation? I have never seen one that has positive evidence observable by anyone, is falsafiable, and that explains all of the observed evidence better than the existing theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:26 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-14-2004 2:10 PM nator has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 56 of 83 (92393)
03-14-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha
03-13-2004 11:26 PM


Hi Jazz,
I think this post covers a fair bit of your objection. See especially the tenrec example of methodological naturalism in action. Pending Tokyojim's return, perhaps you'd care to pick up the thread. It seems a good choice (in spite of the thread title) for this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 03-13-2004 11:26 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 57 of 83 (92409)
03-14-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Asgara
03-14-2004 2:16 AM


Asgara writes:
Like many have said in the past...Gravity is "only a theory" does this mean that you don't accept it?
Why is gravity only a theory? Because it changes according to your position in the universe? Because its a human invention made to explain certain things like why are we not floating in the air? Gravity exists. It is not a law because its value changes according to your position so yes its a theory because its not constant. The same thing happens with the elactric and magnetic field. They are concepts that were introduced (invented) to explain certain aspects of charges and magnetism but no matter how you look at it its still there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Asgara, posted 03-14-2004 2:16 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 03-15-2004 9:15 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 58 of 83 (92412)
03-14-2004 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
03-14-2004 2:25 AM


crashfrog writes:
Glad to know that, as a 16-year-old kid, you feel yourself in a position of sufficient authority to dictate terms of nomenclature to the entire scientific community.
For your information I turn 21 on march 31. Dont let my babyface fool you sonny. Chicks dig it.
crashfrog writes:
Who died and left you Samuel Johnson?
Funny stuff. You could earn a few extra bucks auditioning for the comedy hour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2004 2:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2004 11:54 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 59 of 83 (92414)
03-14-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
03-14-2004 9:13 AM


schrafinator writes:
What do you experience "every day" that compells you to reject 200 years of scientific inquiry?
Here we go again. Why dont you take up prayer and see what i mean. I'm tired of answering this question. Let God become a reality in your life and see what I mean.
schrafinator writes:
that all of the various radiometric dating methods return very similar results for the same rock sample?
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth’s igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially).
All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events’ or `second’ or `third events.’
And again,
It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.
It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:
a. In the lead-uranium systems both uranium and lead can migrate easily in some rocks, and lead volatilizes and escapes as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. It has been suggested that free neutrons could transform Pb-206 first to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, thus tending to reset the clocks and throw thorium-lead and uranium-lead clocks completely off, even to the point of wiping out geological time. Furthermore, there is still disagreement of 15 percent between the two preferred values for the U-238 decay constant.
b. In the potassium/argon system argon is a gas which can escape from or migrate through the rocks. Potassium volatilizes easily, is easily leached by water, and can migrate through the rocks under certain conditions. Furthermore, the value of the decay constant is still disputed, although the scientific community seems to be approaching agreement. Historically, the decay constants used for the various radiometric dating systems have been adjusted to obtain agreement between the results obtained. In the potassium/argon system another adjustable constant called the branching ratio is also not accurately known and is adjusted to give acceptable results.
Argon-40, the daughter substance, makes up about one percent of the atmosphere, which is therefore a possible source of contamination. This is corrected for by comparing the ratio argon-40/argon-36 in the rock with that in the atmosphere. However, since it is possible for argon-36 to be formed in the rocks by cosmic radiation, the correction may also be in error. Argon from the environment may be trapped in magma by pressure and rapid cooling to give very high erroneous age results. In view of these and other problems it is hardly surprising that the potassium/argon method can yield highly variable results, even among different minerals in the same rock.
c. In the strontium/rubidium system the strontium-87 daughter atoms are very plentiful in the earth’s crust. Rubidium-87 parent atoms can be leached out of the rock by water or volatilized by heat.
All of these special problems as well as others can produce contradictory and erroneous results for the various radiometric dating systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we have a number of mechanisms that can introduce errors in radiometric dates. Heating can cause argon to leave a rock and make it look younger. In general, if lava was heated after the initial flow, it can yield an age that is too young. If the minerals in the lava did not melt with the lava, one can obtain an age that is too old. Leaching can also occur; this involves water circulating in rock that can cause parent and daughter elements to enter or leave the rock and change the radiometric age.
Thus it is easy to rationalize any date that is obtained. If a date is too old, one can say that the mineral did not melt with the lava. (Maybe it got included from surrounding rock as the lava flowed upward.) If the date is too young, one can say that there was a later heating event. One can also hypothesize that leaching occurred.
But then it is claimed that we can detect leaching and heating. But how can we know that this claim is true, without knowing the history of rocks and knowing whether they have in fact experienced later heating or leaching?
The problems are compounded because many of the parent and daughter substances are mobile, to some extent. I believe that all parent substances are water soluble, and many of the daughter products as well. A few sources have said that Sr is mobile in rock to some extent. This could cause trouble for Rb-Sr dating. In fact, some sources say that Sr and Ar have similar mobilities in rock, and Ar is very mobile.
Especially the gaseous radiometric decay byproducts such as argon, radon, and helium are mobile in rock. So if a rock has tiny cracks permitting gas to enter or escape or permitting the flow of water, the radiometric ages could be changed substantially even without the rock ever melting or mixing.
For example, suppose that 1/300,000 of the argon in a rock escapes in one day. Then in 1000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7) of its original argon. In 5000 years the rock will have less than 1/(2.7^5) of its original argon. Now, there is probably not much argon in a rock to start with. So the loss of a tiny amount of argon can have significant effects over long time periods. A loss of argon would make the rock look younger.
In a similar way, argon could enter the rock from the air or from surrounding rocks and make it look older. And this can also happen by water flowing through the rock through tiny cracks, dissolving parent and daughter elements. It would be difficult to measure the tiny changes in concentration that would suffice to make large changes in the radiometric ages over long time periods.
I also question the assertion that argon, for example, is excluded from certain minerals when they crystallize and never enters later on. Geologists often say that ages that are too old are due to excess argon. So it must be possible for that excess argon to get in, even though the crystal is supposed to exclude it. Here is one such reference, although this is to a mineral that does not exclude argon:
As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.
[from the Online Encyclopedia Britannica article, Geochronology: The Interpretation and Dating of the Geologic Record, Potassium-argon methods.]
Another problem is that the crystal structure typically has imperfections and impurities. For example, different kinds of quartz have different colors due to various impurities that are included but not part of the repetitive unit of the quartz crystal. So even if the crystal excludes the daughter element, it could be present in impurities. Thus crystals, as they form, may have tiny imperfections that accept parent and daughter products in the same ratios as they occur in the lava, so one can inherit ages from the lava into minerals in this way. It is also possible that parent and daughter elements could be present in boundaries between regular crystal domains. I don’t know how we can be sure that a crystal will exclude argon or other daughter substances except by growing it in the laboratory under many conditions.
There can also be argon or other daughter products added from the air or from other rocks. One could say that we can detect whether the daughter is embedded in the crystal structure or not. But this would require an atom by atom analysis, which I do not believe is practical.
Reference:The Radiometric Dating Game
1998 by David Plaisted. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 10 March 2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 03-14-2004 9:13 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nator, posted 03-15-2004 9:23 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5616 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 60 of 83 (92415)
03-14-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
03-14-2004 9:42 AM


schrafinator writes:
Incorrect.
2+2=4 is an abstract, mathematical "proof", not "empirical evidence".
Let me see if I got this. Youre basically saying that if you have two cookies and i give you two more the day may come when this adds up to five or three. Explain yourself I dont get you.
schrafinator writes:
Empirical evidence has, in fact, a few things to say about origins in the form of hypothese, but why do you seamlessly shift into talking about the ToE?
Youll have to forgive me on this one but ive never heard of this toe theory. Have any good links where i can learn about this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 03-14-2004 9:42 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 03-15-2004 9:49 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024