PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Valid Creationis Arguments
       a challenge to creationists

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



















Everyone get the joke?

seriously though, I have yet to find one solitary valid argument for creationism.  They all boil down to "I don't understand, so it can't be true"  or "u'r goan to hell u siners.  Im a beliven in god so i goes to hevan and live furever cuz god hates siners, so ills pray fur u cuz yu dont knew ane bedder"  (Believe it or not, it's actually tough to try and type that way).

If creationism is the only logical choice (as creationists insist)  Where are the mountains of verifiable evidence that overthrow the ToE?  Every time I ask that on my other board, all it gets me is a subject change.  I'm hoping the posters here are more intellectually honest, but judging from past experience, I'm not going to be on it.  

So, here is the challenge:  I want creationists to post actual, verifiable, current (as in not 20 or more years old) scientific data, observations, etc that support the creationist viewpoint.  Note the wording please- I said support the creationist viewpoint, as in proves it.  This does not mean I want ignorant postings on problems with evolutionary theory.  I'm already well aware of typical creationist attacks on the ToE, I want proof for creationism here.  

Any takers?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 03:44 AM on February 23, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And no phony World News magazine stories about crackpots talking to jesus.
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 6:11 PM on February 23, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, not only is that stuff difficult to type, its also difficult to read. It might be a novel idea to start debating people your own age and stop debating ten year olds. Or is that the whole point?

No evidence can 'prove' it as you insist on ("Note the wording please- I said support the creationist viewpoint, as in proves it."). But evidence can be found that implies it rather.

This brings me to Russ Humphrey's recent RATE work. The experiments measured the rate at which nuclear-decay generated helium diffuses from radioactive crystals in granite like rock. The oringinal report can be found
here.

An assistant professor of geology and co-editor of Gondwana Reseach Journal in Gainesville Florida, Joseph G. Meert, attempted a critique of the RATE work but was refuted by Humphreys here and here.

This RATE data was also presented to the AGU Fall Meeting and has remained virtually unchallenged since.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 6:03 PM on February 24, 2004 | IP
alliwantisalife

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm confused how does this support creation?
 


Posts: 61 | Posted: 6:13 PM on February 24, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Strange how they never adressed any of Meert's other allegations, isn't it?

http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:28 PM on February 24, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Young Earth Toad posted this:
This RATE data was also presented to the AGU Fall Meeting and has remained virtually unchallenged since.

Remained virtually unchallenged???  Surely you jest!

From here:RATE

"So after close inspection by  mainstream scientists who have experience in this field of research, the "breakthrough" in helium-zircon studies touted by the RATE Group turns out really nothing more than a breakdown in the utilization of sound scientific practices."

This site mentions some of the problems with this "hypothesis":

1. Some one third of the data was omitted from the analysis.  
2. Some of the noisiest, most erratic data were used to obtain a more favorable (for the YECs) activation energy which gave a higher diffusion rate.
3. Some of the best fitting data, which would have produced results that support the old-earth model, were arbitrarily omitted.
4. The data were manipulated to make the measured diffusion rate appear to gibe with the YEC model.
5. The YEC model predicts an increasing diffusion rate at lower temperatures.  This prediction is incompatible with physical laws governing such processes.
6. When adjusted for actual helium content (crystals closer to the surface contain far more helium than those at the bottom of the borehole), the observed diffusion rates do not substantiate the YEC model at all.  They do, however, conform to the old-earth model.

If you want to discuss these points more in depth, I'm game.  I'm still reading up on this, it's new to me but already it sounds like more dishonest creatinist bluster, a lot of hot air with no real science to back it up.






 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:47 AM on February 25, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Strange how they never adressed any of Meert's other allegations, isn't
it?

Do you want to know what else is strange? Last year (2003) I pressed Professor Meert about Humphrey's rebuttal to his allegations, and all he could do was dissmis it as an 'ad-hominem attack.' Nor has he directly replied to the rebuttal in any of his site essays.

Demon38: Remained virtually unchallenged???  Surely you jest!

Remains virtually unchallenged in a complete sense. No 'critique' of the RATE work will be even close to complete until a detailed, technical description of the experimental results is published in the up coming book due next year in 2005. So far all 'critiques' are only relying on a laymans description ("3. That creationist scientists who researched this subject for years are blind enough to miss something you thought you could spot immediately after reading a short layman’s summary of the work.") of the experimental results of this seven year RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project.

Demon38: From here:RATE

"So after close inspection by  mainstream scientists who have experience in this field of research, the "breakthrough" in helium-zircon studies touted by the RATE Group turns out really nothing more than a breakdown in the utilization of sound scientific practices."

This site mentions some of the problems with this "hypothesis"

Some things it failed to mention were who this 'reviewer' ("Regarding the critiques referenced above, one reviewer noted a number of deficiencies in the paper.") was and how and where they attained this 'data.' Without this information, that list of 'problems' is speculations based on a laymans understanding of the data, by someone we don't even know (it could
have even been a fourth grader). Who ever it was knew exactly how much of the data was omitted ("1. Some one third of the data was omitted from the analysis."), therefore either this person is outright lying or either him/her works (or used to work recently) with ICR. Not only does this 'reviewer' as we know him/her know exactly how much data was omitted, he/she knows exactly what parts ("3. Some of the best fitting data, which would have produced results that support the old-earth model, were arbitrarily omitted.") of the data were omitted. I personally find that to be rather amusing.

Demon38: If you want to discuss these points more in depth, I'm game.  I'm still reading up on this, it's new to me but already it sounds like more dishonest creatinist bluster, a lot of hot air with no real science to back it up.

Im not going to dissmis it so quickly, although Im not going to dogmatically except it either. As of now the data seems valid for a young earth, but I am waiting on the further details before drawing a final conclusion.


References

1. http://www.icr.org/headlines/replytojoemeert.html

2. http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item14.htm


(Edited by Young Earth Toad 2/25/2004 at 1:57 PM).

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 2/25/2004 at 1:59 PM).

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 2/25/2004 at 2:02 PM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 1:48 PM on February 25, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm, 72 views, one reply that (from what I can follow of the responses and rebuttals, as it a bit of it was over my head) seems quite suspect.

Any others?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:28 AM on February 26, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remains virtually unchallenged in a complete sense. No 'critique' of the RATE work will be even close to complete until a detailed, technical description of the experimental results is published in the up coming book due next year in 2005.

All right, I see your point, but by the same token, can you claim that it is evidence for a young earth BEFORE a detailed, technical description of the experimental results are published?  It's like saying you have evidence
for a young earth but nobody can look at it yet, they'll just have to take your word for it.

Im not going to dissmis it so quickly, although Im not going to dogmatically except it either. As of now the data seems valid for a young earth, but I am waiting on the further details before drawing a final conclusion.

Good advice, I do try to keep it in mind.  And I'd agree this is definitely worthy of further research.  But a few things do make me leary of this being evidence for a young earth.  First off, a billion years of radioactive decay compresses into 10,000 years would still produce massive amounts of heat, and there is no evidence of this at the New Mexico site these samples were collected from.  Second, from my limited understanding, drastic changes in temperature can affect the rate of helium diffusion.  The samples Humphries used were from Valles Caldera in New Mexico and this area has a very active geological history, faulting, hydrothermal vents, etc.  These factors could invalidate any data on helium diffusion rates in zircon samples taken from the area.  And lastly, other zircon samples from other areas have been dated and conform to an unchanging decay rate and an old earth.  When the majority of the data supports an old earth, do you simply ignore it when an anomalous sample pops up or do you look more closely at the anomalous sample to see why it disagrees with past data?  Regardless, I'll be looking at future results with interest.
But hey, good response young earth toad, I haven't had to deal with this arguement before, so I learned something new.  
Do you have any more evidence for a young earth to discuss?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:57 AM on February 26, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: First off, a billion years of radioactive decay compresses into 10,000 years would still produce massive amounts of heat, and there is no evidence of this at the New Mexico site these samples were collected from.

Ten thousand years is slightly off ("In this paper we argue that the helium has not had enough time (less than 14,000 years) to escape the zircons, much less the crust."), but still remains in the timescale to be considered. Infact, much of the helium has not left the zircons, much less its surrounding biotite (mica) layer or the earths crust ("It is still in the earth’s crust and mantle—much of it still in the zircons."). Much less helium was expected than found, therefore much of it has not even entered the atmosphere. The technical book (mentioned above) is expected to reveal more on this also.

Demon38: Second, from my limited understanding, drastic changes in temperature can affect the rate of helium diffusion.

Yes, temperature does affect diffusion rates. Helium atoms are contained in a cell of 'lattice' atoms, these 'lattice' atoms repel the helium atom(s). Therefore the helium atom(s) are confined to the center of the cell due to equal pressure (repulsion from 'lattice' atoms) from all directions, positioning the helium particles to the center. Diffusion relies on the consistency of atomic vibrations produced by temperature influx, allowing the different frequencies of vibration to occur within the cell. These vibrating atoms contact the helium atom, jostling it from all sides. Since the movement of atomic particles increase with temperature, the higher the temperature the more violent the jostling. Occasionally, the 'lattice' atoms will collide with the helium atom(s) with such force that the helium atom(s) are repositioned in the next 'activated' area which we will refer to as position B (between the two cells). Kenetic energy from the 'lattice' atoms should allow the helium enough force to escape through this repulsion 'barrier' between the cells. We would refer to this energy as the 'activation energy.' Although, depending on the amount of K-energy that was generated, the helium may not stop at the continuum. It may travel all the way into the center of cell B, skipping the intermediary process. This process is repeated until the helium completely escapes the zircon(s).

Illustration:




Demon38: The samples Humphries used were from Valles Caldera in New Mexico and this area has a very active geological history, faulting, hydrothermal vents, etc.  These factors could invalidate any data on helium diffusion rates in zircon samples taken from the area.

Im not ruling out the fact that Valles Caldera New Mexico is active geologically. Its also not as though Dr Humphreys did not take this into consideration. But geologic effects on a particular mineral vary mainly with its molecular structure. These paricular samples are Jemez Zircons, therefore contain an extremely dense molecular 'lattice.' Helium atoms do not bond with other atoms, and have the tendency to disperse or spread rapidly, making it difficult to have reverse diffusion or artificial enrichment as you suggest. If the crystal does have defects (vacancies in the crystal 'lattice'), impurities or dislocations, grain bounderies etc. It will be included in the calculations as a second term in the coefficient related to the defects:




Demon38: And lastly, other zircon samples from other areas have been dated and conform to an unchanging decay rate and an old earth.

Its very possible that they too were affected by accelerated decay rates in the past also. This is one of the main focuses of the RATE group. Future research will reveal this if its correct. Im not being sarcastic here, Im sincerely interested in this information, so if you know a reference to it please let me know.

Demon38: Regardless, I'll be looking at future results with interest.

So will I.




Ending Note: This excerpt was taken from a recent statement by Professor Joseph Meert in January 8th, 2004:

Some praise for the RATE Group

"It has come to my attention that the RATE Group presented 3 papers at the last American Geophysical Union Meeting. As one who has openly criticized them for shying away from mainstream scientific criticism, this is a refreshing and welcome change."



References

1. ABSTRACT* Introduction, http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICChelium.html

2. Dr Joe Meert, http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000060.html

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 2/27/2004 at 10:45 AM).

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 2/27/2004 at 10:49 AM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 3:36 PM on February 26, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some things it failed to mention were who this 'reviewer' ("Regarding the critiques referenced above, one reviewer noted a number of deficiencies in the paper.") was and how and where they attained this 'data.' Without this information, that list of 'problems' is speculations based on a laymans understanding of the data, by someone we don't even know (it could
have even been a fourth grader). Who ever it was knew exactly how much of the data was omitted ("1. Some one third of the data was omitted from the analysis."), therefore either this person is outright lying or either him/her works (or used to work recently) with ICR. Not only does this 'reviewer' as we know him/her know exactly how much data was omitted, he/she knows exactly what parts ("3. Some of the best fitting data, which would have produced results that support the old-earth model, were arbitrarily omitted.") of the data were omitted. I personally find that to be rather amusing.


The data is readily available, I don't see what you find so amusing!  You're questioning the intergrety of the reviewer based on the fact that they have access to the data????  It's out there on the web!  These reviews are made from the data presented here:Helium

Nothing amusing here, they presented the data and it was picked apart.  The more I look at this issue, the more it looks like creationists
B***S***.

Its very possible that they too were affected by accelerated decay rates in the past also.

Why is it very possible they were affected by accelerated decay?  They correspond to an old earth and recognized decay rates...

And I have to question Humphries track record, isn't he the guy who was wrong about short term comets proving a young earth?  Wasn't he the guy who was wrong about the sodium level of the ocean proving a young earth? No Humphries has been wrong  every time he tries to "prove" a young earth, looks like, and it looks like this time is no different.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:09 PM on February 29, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: The data is readily available, I don't see what you find so amusing!  You're questioning the intergrety of the reviewer based on the fact that they have access to the data????  It's out there on the web!

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to show me exactly who this particular viewer was, would it? But you haven't, so my charge still stands. As far as his/her integrity, you took my statements out of context as usual. This person knew exactly how much data was omitted! Not only that, this person knew exactly what parts! Therefore, this person is lying or either is betraying ICR!

Note: He has no problem questioning Humphrey's integrity later in the post.

Demon38: Nothing amusing here, they presented the data and it was picked apart.  The more I look at this issue, the more it looks like creationists
B***S***.

Yes there is something amusing here- your emotinal reaction. The more I look at this issue, the more it looks like the evolutionists are jumping off their rockers at the first sign of data for a young earth without the details. But when questioned, lose their self-control as you did, which brings me to further question the critics.

Demon38: And I have to question Humphries track record, isn't he the guy who was wrong about short term comets proving a young earth?  Wasn't he the guy who was wrong about the sodium level of the ocean proving a young earth? No Humphries has been wrong  every time he tries to "prove" a young earth, looks like, and it looks like this time is no different.

Although you never do question your own sources do you? No Humphreys has not been wrong every time he tries to prove a young earth, although, it does generate emotional reactions from uniformitarians who like to claim that he is wrong- I think that your post was good hard evidence for this.

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 3/1/2004 at 09:11 AM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 09:09 AM on March 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to show me exactly who this particular viewer was, would it?

Why does it matter who the reviewer was if his conclusions are correct?
This person knew exactly how much data was omitted! Not only that, this person knew exactly what parts! Therefore, this person is lying or either is betraying ICR!

The person knew the original data, so what?  They saw the original report, before the doctoring was done.  That last line is far and away my favorite though.  By exposing the truth, the reviewer has betrayed the IRC.  Nice to see christian morals aren't applicable to Christian Fundamentalist groups.  All that truth telling really gets in the way of furthering an agenda, doesn't it?  Not to mention that if they are actually practicing science, as they say they are, they should be getting anybody and everybody to critique their work and try to punch holes in it.  The fact that they are not, and that they are upset when errors are pointed out further proves that YEC "science" is anything but.
Although you never do question your own sources do you?

Although this was adressed to Demon, I think I can predict his response.  Yes, we check our sources all the time.  That would be why any article that deals with evolution and has science behind it has references.  These references allow anybody to check out original source material and data for the article.  You may not understand the concept if you primarily check out IRC and AiG "research papers"  
No Humphreys has not been wrong every time he tries to prove a young earth

Oh?  I've never heard of him being right.
it does generate emotional reactions from uniformitarians who like to claim that he is wrong
About the only emotion it generates in me is sadness and pity for the poor people who are so weak in their faith that any deviance from the literal bible causes it to come toppling down.  


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 1:07 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Why does it matter who the reviewer was if his conclusions are correct?

It doesn't, although Im sure you would be asking the same thing if this 'reviewer' was a creationist. It only goes to show that you accept 'data' with a double standard. So tell me, Demon imposes that information on this 'reviewer' is 'readily available,' therefore Im still waiting on your answer and my charge still holds.

TQ: The person knew the original data, so what?  They saw the original report, before the doctoring was done.

I suppose this person personally told you this? Otherwise its more double standard speculation.

TQ: That last line is far and away my favorite though.  By exposing the truth, the reviewer has betrayed the IRC.  Nice to see christian morals aren't applicable to Christian Fundamentalist groups.

Would you mean 'ICR?' Amazing how many conclusions one can draw without any information what so ever to go by (although Demon insists the contrary). Not only that, your already certain that he is accosiated with ICR, sounds like more sound conclusions based on scientific facts to me!

TQ: All that truth telling really gets in the way of furthering an agenda, doesn't it?

Especially when it comes to double standard, evolutionist speculation.

TQ: Not to mention that if they are actually practicing science, as they say they are, they should be getting anybody and everybody to critique their work and try to punch holes in it. The fact that they are not, and that they are upset when errors are pointed out further proves that YEC "science" is anything but.

More hollow accusations. They presented it to the AGU Fall Meeting, comprised of some of the top geologists in the United States.  Please be respectful enough to read the existing information before making unfounded, double standard accusations.

Some praise for the RATE Group

"It has come to my attention that the RATE Group presented 3 papers at the last American Geophysical Union Meeting. As one who has openly criticized them for shying away from mainstream scientific criticism, this is a refreshing and welcome change." - Dr Joseph Meert

TQ: Although this was adressed to Demon, I think I can predict his response.  Yes, we check our sources all the time.  That would be why any article that deals with evolution and has science behind it has references.  These references allow anybody to check out original source material and data for the article.  You may not understand the concept if you primarily check out IRC and AiG "research papers"

Maybe you dont check your sources often enough, otherwise you wouldn't have made the assine blunders above, nor would you posses your unscientific double standard tactics of evaluating data.

Note: Unlike me, If you will notice that TQ has not referenced any information (besides one link to Gondwana Research) in this post, or his former posts.

TQ: Oh?  I've never heard of him being right.

Ive never heard of him being wrong, if so please let me know.

TQ: About the only emotion it generates in me is sadness and pity for the poor people who are so weak in their faith that any deviance from the literal bible causes it to come toppling down.

Im sorry it generates any emotion, maybe some real research will help you overcome your sadness.




References

1. Rate Criticism, http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item14.htm

2. American Geophysical Union,
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm03/index.shtml

(Edited by Young Earth Toad 3/1/2004 at 2:15 PM).


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 2:10 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

:lol: Oh, this is too funny!
It doesn't, although Im sure you would be asking the same thing if this 'reviewer' was a creationist.

Nice assumption.  Has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but hey, it's your opinion.
So tell me, Demon imposes that information on this 'reviewer' is 'readily available,' therefore Im still waiting on your answer and my charge still holds.
Hey, I was talking to this guy once and he had some information about a subject I was interested in.  Can you give it to me? To make it clearer, I don't have the info Demon has.   BTW, you may want to read again.  He said the reviewer has access to the information on the web, not that the reviewer was readily available on the web
I suppose this person personally told you this? Otherwise its more double standard speculation.
 
Let's see:  The reviewer know the report, and knows exactly what data was left out.  That would indicate to me that they saw the original report.  I'm confused.  How is this "double standard speculation"?

Would you mean 'ICR?' Amazing how many conclusions one can draw without any information what so ever to go by (although Demon insists the contrary). Not only that, your already certain that he is accosiated with ICR, sounds like more sound conclusions based on scientific facts to me!

Ok, now I'm really confused.  You accuse the researcher of betraying the ICR (you must be desperate if you're calling me on typos, btw), and then say I'm drawing conclusions when I say that I find that amusing?  And, in order to betray someone (as you accused the reviewer of doing), you have to be close to them.  If the reviewer "betrayed" IRC, as you say, he must be a member, which also explains his access to the materials, as you yourself said:
therefore either this person is outright lying or either him/her works (or used to work recently) with ICR.


Especially when it comes to double standard, evolutionist speculation.

Once again, you lost me.  Please explain how I'm employing a double standard.

More hollow accusations. They presented it to the AGU Fall Meeting, comprised of some of the top geologists in the United States.  Please be respectful enough to read the existing information before making unfounded, double standard accusations.

My mistake.  It was presented, and shot down.  Got it now.  Once again, how is it a double standard?  Or do you just like the sound of it?

Maybe you dont check your sources often enough, otherwise you wouldn't have made the assine blunders above, nor would you posses your unscientific double standard tactics of evaluating data.

Checking.... nope, no assinine blunders.  One error, but no assinine blunders.  There's a lot of you making no sense, but that's about it.  Double standard!   Are you going for a record or something?  Let me ask you:  do YEC's get together and each pick an insult to use in debates.  I had one who called me hypocritical in every post he made, and another who called me arrogant, and now one who accuses me of holding a double standard.  So tell me, do you draw numbers or what?  I mean, how do you decide who gets to use what insult?


Note: Unlike me, If you will notice that TQ has not referenced any information (besides one link to Gondwana Research) in this post, or his former posts.


Note: TQ hasn't posted anything that has needed a source, unless I need a source for my personal opinion and observances?

Ive never heard of him being wrong, if so please let me know.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE421.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD220_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html#humphreys
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Here's one regarding the very topic we are discussing:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD510.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html
Good enough?  
Im sorry it generates any emotion, maybe some real research will help you overcome your sadness.
Aw, that's so nice of you!  You keep on with the "real" research too.  Maybe someday you'll be able to leave the 19th century and join the rest of us!  Hope to see you here!


(Edited by TQ 3/1/2004 at 5:47 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:42 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting post.  Some of the equations are over my head.  However, both sides have the potential to be wrong.  I'll wait on the RATE research over the next several years and the rebuttals and see how it goes.  There is not enough out there to tell.  I don't think this is the last we've heard of this.  


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:57 PM on March 1, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're original statement:

Remains virtually unchallenged in a complete sense. No 'critique' of the RATE work will be even close to complete until a detailed, technical description of the experimental results is published in the up coming book due next year in 2005. So far all 'critiques' are only relying on a laymans description

is still wrong.  The data published so far has been picked apart as seen here:
null
and here:
null

Yes there is something amusing here- your emotinal reaction. The more I look at this issue, the more it looks like the evolutionists are jumping off their rockers at the first sign of data for a young earth without the details. But when questioned, lose their self-control as you did, which brings me to further question the critics.

You worry too much about my 'emotional reaction' and not enough about the data.  I looked at your data and I looked at the opposing data, you seem to have a problem with this, how come?

Although you never do question your own sources do you?

Sure I do!  I'll go with mainstream scientific theories though, they are supported by all the evidence, they are peer reviewed and experts have already tried to tear them apart.  Science is cumulative, science is repeatable and testable and science is as close to objective as we can possibly get.  When someone makes an extraodinary claim that goes against established scientific theories, extraordinary evidence is required, neither you nor Humphreys has presented extraordinary evidence!  

No Humphreys has not been wrong every time he tries to prove a young earth

Show us any evidence that he has been right!
TQ presented a nice list of Humphreys errors, go ahead and respond to the list.  The fact is I've never seen Humphreys produce any evidence for a young earth, back up your claims with cold, hard evidence instead of babbling on about how upset the evolutionists are or what our emotional state is...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:50 AM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm...

(Edited by Brother Darwin 3/2/2004 at 4:00 PM).


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 3:59 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: TQ presented a nice list of Humphreys errors, go ahead and respond to the list.
TQ: Good enough?

No, because since Talk Origins has been wrong in the past:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/moonmb.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

Using your own logic, their critique of Humphrey's must also be wrong. Therefore Humphreys must be right. So tell me Demon, or TQ, how do Jemez Zircons become artificially enriched because of fault lines, and earthquakes? You never did respond to my figures, Im still waiting on a rational response to those. Interesting how the topic slowly drifts away from the original material...


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 4:04 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting comments on Religious Fundamentalists.  I agree that many people fall into that category.  TQ and Demon38 are religious fundamentalists also, just not of the "Christian" variety.


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:29 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Brother Darwin: Both require a measure of faith.

Hopefully they will muster enough of that faith to come back and tell us how those Jemez Zircons were artificially enriched from fault activity.


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 6:42 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Using your own logic, their critique of Humphrey's must also be wrong.

No, reality is enough to prove Humphreys is wrong, no need to make the mental gyrations you continually make in your vain attempt to suport your silly beliefs...Humphreys has been wrong numerous times, and a preliminary look at his work on helium diffusion in zircons looks bogus already.  
Please provide any instance of talkorigins being wrong, if you can't, drop the charge.
Trueorigins, on the other hand, is drivel.  Since you were so kind to supply links, here's a little example of the nonsense they spout:

"Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved."

All five points are completely wrong, show a lack of understanding about evolution in particular and science in general.  So yes, we can completely dismiss Trueorigins as a source of factual information.  AS to your assertions about the Jemez Zircons, I already showed you that they are not an unchallenged indication of a young earth.  You never provided an explaination as to what happened to all the heat that accelerated radioactive decay would invariably produce.  As to how they become 'artifically enriched', well, if the concentration of helium is high, the zircons will not only diffuse helium but continue to absorb it, simple as that.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:03 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ and Demon38 are religious fundamentalists also, just not of the "Christian" variety.

Oh Please!  If you don't have anything coherent to say, sit back, shut up and maybe you'll learn something!  Religious fundamentalists?!?  Don't be insulting!  What do I take on faith?  What have I said that isn't supported by evidence?  To be religious you have to believe in a supreme being, have a 'personal' relationship with them, accept things on faith...Where, in any of my posts, have I indicated any of those characteristics?
Sorry, religion has nothing to do with science, so explain how you can possibly claim I am a religious fundamentalist????
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:11 PM on March 2, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon beat me to it.  It's pretty obvious Bother Darwin that you haven't the slightest clue what the ToE is.  Until you do, you would do best to keep your opinions of its worthiness quiet.  My suggestion: If you think it is not science but religion, research it and prove it.  And when I say research, I mean read, study, learn, and comprehend.  I do not mean "state your opinion".

If you do as I suggest, this will be the last of this nonsense we hear from you


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:45 AM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I used to adhere to the ToE, so I know all about it.  And you are right, Science is completely separate from religion.  That's why I wish you would not mix the two together.  Or at least when you do, admit that you are doing that.  

I think people get confused because we see the results of science...applied science, in our current technological society.  We see advancement in computers, medicine, mapping the human genome, etc.  But all of those advancements are from observing processes in the PRESENT, and experimenting in the PRESENT, reaching conclusions about things in the PRESENT.  In these things, we have pure science.  

But when reaching conclusions about the past, BOTH creation and evolution must interpret the evidence within a philosophical framework.  This framework is brought to the evidence.  It is not a result of the evidence.  It is a presupposition.  BOTH sides do this.  However, at least Creationists usually are willing to admit it, while evolutionists try to deny it.  

When our presupposition is so strong that it automatically filters out anything and everything that disagrees with our presupposition, then it is basically functioning like a religious conviction.  

For myself, I used to adhere that evolution made the most sense of the data.  My religion was such that it did not interfere.  My religious beliefs would allow me to have either a young earth starting premise or a "billions of years" starting premise.  So you see, having either option, I was able to have an open mind about the issue, because I could openly consider both.  

Over time, I begin to see where the young earth viewpoint made more sense of the evidence over the "billions of years" viewpoint.  My religious convictions did not interfere with this process (because it allowed for either), so I was able to fully understand both sides of the argument.  

However you, if you are strictly atheist or agnostic or "billions of years" only, you are starting out with only one option allowed.  Thus you will filter out anything that disagrees with your "religious" presupposition.  You will fit anything and everything into your worldview.  Since I started out believing in "billions of years", while also having the freedom to consider the YEC viewpoint, I was not handicapped in this area as you are (with only one presupposition allowed).


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:06 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: AS to your assertions about the Jemez Zircons, I already showed you that they are not an unchallenged indication of a young earth.

The only thing you showed me time and time again is that you are completely ignorant of the diffusion process. You only parrot from other websites without understanding the issue yourself.

Demon38: Please provide any instance of talkorigins being wrong, if you can't, drop the charge.

You continually ask me to show where Talk Origins is incorrect- I would be delighted. Their credibility is shot in the first few statements "The possibility of measurement error accounting for the results is never mentioned." Looks like someone needs to do some more research before making accusations! Humphreys and other young earth geoscientists (Austin, Snelling) clearly mention the margin of error in their technical papers, any scientists would know this if they were familiar with this material.

The defects (vacancies in the crystal 'lattice'), impurities or dislocations, grain bounderies etc. are clearly mentioned in the calculations as a second term in the coefficient relating to the error,



Its plain to see why Humphreys refers to most critics as:

(1) They swallow criticisms of creationism whole without checking them.

(2) They do not admit to errors on their part.

(3) They are quick to argue and slow to think.

Guilty on all counts. It really comes down to an emotional obligation to silence true evidence for a young earth, it seriously threatens the religion of those at Talk Origins and others who are guilty of this list of follies as mentioned by Humphreys. Otherwise, these embarrasing errors committed by those attempting to do so would not exist. It testifies loudly to the fact that Talk Origins and other similar organisations are not as 'objective' as some of the more gullible people might think.

If Russ Humphreys were truly wrong, Meert would have no problems sending a second rebuttal into ICR. He has not. Not even in an essay indirectly addressing what Humphreys had to say about his criticism. No matter how much I tried to get him to address it, he refuses. If you disagree with me, maybe you should send him an email and ask him about it. Once again, the silence testifies to a young earth.

One would also imagine that if Humphreys were truly wrong, Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe would not hesitate to expose him in a public debate on the Starlight and Time cosmology model when challenged. Although this is not the case. Ross refuses a public debate, the email exchange is even reproduced and referrenced in this article. Once again, the silence testifies to a young earth.

Then again, if your so sure that Humphreys is flawed, why don't you point out his errors and send them to him? Or are you going to tuck tail and run like the people you gullibly accept information from? I predict the latter.

Demon38: You never provided an explaination as to what happened to all the heat that accelerated radioactive decay would invariably produce.

The flow of heat out of the earth is strongly correlated locally with the amount of radioactivity in the near surface rocks. This indicates that the surface heat flow is dominated by the radioactive heat production in these rocks. However, the quantity of radioactive heat production even in highly radioactive granitic rock appears to be insufficient to produce the observed patterns of surface heat flow if one assumes current decay rates over a period of just a few thousand years. This suggests that rates were much higher sometime in the recent past.

Demon38: As to how they become 'artifically enriched', well, if the concentration of helium is high, the zircons will not only diffuse helium but continue to absorb it, simple as that.

So you think that creation scientists who have researched this for years, are blind enough to not take this into account? They clearly include a margin of error that accounts for enrichment and reverse diffusion. Isaac does not acknowledge that zircons contain unique molecular structures that do not allow these contaminations, the molecular lattice of zircons are that of which repulsion is equated to release and retain certain quantities, not absorb quantities. Although this is explained clearly in ICR's technical papers, sadly I don't think Isaac pays much attention going back to what Humphreys said ("(3) They are quick to argue and slow to think.").




References


1. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

2.
http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICChelium.html

3.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_01.asp

4.
http://www.icr.org/headlines/humphreyshughross.html


-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 5:10 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
sidney

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question. To believe in evolution, do you have to believe in spontaneous generation?

I think that this is an interesting thread. One where people can take a defensive rather than aggressive position on this issue.

I believe that it is not possible to convince everyone of what I believe is the truth because nothing can truly be proved beyond all doubt.

Okay. I'll always gone with with the "to have a watch, you must have a watchmaker" idea. But everyone here has probably already heard that one. Can someone explain to me what he/she sees wrong with that picture?

Moving on.

No matter how chemicals are mixed, they can't create any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA can reproduce DNA.

When scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes, they came up with less than 1 in 1,040,000 chance that life could have originated by random trials.

Even if the universe were billions of years old, even if nature could have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second, the probabilities of producing intelligent life are extremely low.

Life as we know it is too complex to have formed by chance. There must have been an intelligent design.

(Edited by sidney 3/3/2004 at 9:53 PM).


-------
God: Don't make me come down there.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:32 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, I will study these figures and look at Humphrey's data in depth.  But I want to know how you can call this stunning evidence when it's based on a handful of samples from a geologically questionable source.  Again, there are a great amount of zircons from other sites that display helium diffusion rates consistant with an Old earth.  Please give any other evidence of accelerated decay rates in anything else naturally occurring on the planet, they just don't exist.  So it comes down to the mountain of evidence that radioactive decay rates have not changed against 2 or 3 anomolus samples researched by creationists who are looking to support their dogma.  You keep calling evolution religion, along with being ignorant of what evolution rely is, you don't know the meaning of religion either...
From here: errors

"Regarding the critiques referenced above, one reviewer noted a number of deficiencies in the paper.  

1. Some one third of the data was omitted from the analysis.  

2. Some of the noisiest, most erratic data were used to obtain a more favorable (for the YECs) activation energy which gave a higher diffusion rate.

3. Some of the best fitting data, which would have produced results that support the old-earth model, were arbitrarily omitted.

4. The data were manipulated to make the measured diffusion rate appear to gibe with the YEC model.

5. The YEC model predicts an increasing diffusion rate at lower temperatures.  This prediction is incompatible with physical laws governing such processes.

6. When adjusted for actual helium content (crystals closer to the surface contain far more helium than those at the bottom of the borehole), the observed diffusion rates do not substantiate the YEC model at all.  They do, however, conform to the old-earth model.

So after close inspection by  mainstream scientists who have experience in this field of research, the "breakthrough" in helium-zircon studies touted by the RATE Group turns out really nothing more than a breakdown in the utilization of sound scientific practices.  I am aware of at least one other geochronologist who is currently reviewing these "stunning helium-diffusion results."  When that review becomes available, I will include it with this discussion."


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:44 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When our presupposition is so strong that it automatically filters out anything and everything that disagrees with our presupposition, then it is basically functioning like a religious conviction.

And this was the state of the scientific world a little over 200 years ago.  The presupposition was that the world was only 6,000 years old, Noah's flood really happened, etc.   But the evidence they began to observe was so strong against these beliefs, they were forced to admit that the earth was very old, and there could never have been a world wide flood.  Their presupposition of a literal interpretation of Genesis gave way to the objective evidence.  

However, at least Creationists usually are willing to admit it, while evolutionists try to deny it.

Creationists claim to know the "truth" already, they ignore or try to twist any evidence that counters their "truth".  Scientists, on the other hand, simply go with the facts, they have no higher motive as the creationists do.  The reason evolution and an old earth are so staunchly supported by mainstream science is because there is such a preponderance of evidence that to doubt these theories is intellectually perverse.  Look at Young Earth Toad, all he/she has to support their position is a couple of anomolous zircon samples gathered from a questionable source by creationists driven by their dogma.  Compare this to all the concurring evidence produced by radiometric dating, ice core samples, lake varves, tree ring research, coral reef dating, all of geology, all of astronomy.  The comparison seems pretty one sided...  

However you, if you are strictly atheist or agnostic or "billions of years" only, you are starting out with only one option allowed.

First of all many of the geologists who support a billions of years old earth are Christains.  Second of all, it was Christian geologists who first demonstrated that the world had to be older than 6,000 years.  The scientific method is cumulative, it draws it's conclusions from past research, it builds on what has gone before, it's testable, anyone can test those conclusions, and let's face it, it's objective, nothing in science is purported to be the absolute truth, everything can be questioned, modified by new data, or falsified if the data supports falsification.  This is the exact opposite of fundamental creationists, no evidence can make them change, they already know the "truth", and because of this mental stagnation, they still accept the primitive creation myths of bronze age herdsman 3000 years out of date.
Hey, this thread was for showing valid creationist arguements, all we got was the zircon issue, and they haven't even released the official findings yet...If you have any more evidence, bring it on.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:18 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However you, if you are strictly atheist or agnostic or "billions of years" only, you are starting out with only one option allowed.  Thus you will filter out anything that disagrees with your "religious" presupposition.  You will fit anything and everything into your worldview.  Since I started out believing in "billions of years", while also having the freedom to consider the YEC viewpoint, I was not handicapped in this area as you are (with only one presupposition allowed).


One supposition?  Why is it, if I only have "one presupposition", that when YEC's tried telling me all about how young the earth was, I didn't buy it?  Why didn't it make sense to me?  I was EIGHT YEARS OLD AT THE TIME!!!!  8 years old, and I could still tell crap from truth.  If evolution is such a "religion", and not science, how do you explain the numerous predictions its made?  The evidence to support it?  Any of it?  

Whatever


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 10:22 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question. To believe in evolution, do you have to believe in spontaneous generation?

I think you mean abiogenesis, but regardless, no you don't.  The theory of evolution says nothing about life from non life, no matter how it formed, it evolved.

Okay. I'll always gone with with the "to have a watch, you must have a watchmaker" idea. But everyone here has probably already heard that one. Can someone explain to me what he/she sees wrong with that picture?

What's wrong with that picture is we see complex systems arise in nature without the need of an intelligence.  Water freezes into complex snowflake designs, stars form naturally, trees grow from small seeds.  There is no evidence that a designer is needed, none at all.

No matter how chemicals are mixed, they can't create any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA can reproduce DNA.

Show us some evidence of this because until you do it's merely an uninformed asertion....

When scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes, they came up with less than 1 in 1,040,000 chance that life could have originated by random trials.

This is untrue, no biochemists, the ones who study the first formation of life, say this.  1 in 1,040,000 chance in this unimaginably huge universe i pretty good odds when you come right down to it.  The odds for winning the New Jersey lottery are something like 1 in 22 million, yet someone always beats those odds and wins it.  And chemical reations are not random.

Even if the universe were billions of years old, even if nature could have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second, the probabilities of producing intelligent life are extremely low.

So you admit that it IS possible for intelligent life to form naturally!  By the way, just how did you determine those probabilities?

Life as we know it is too complex to have formed by chance

Why, you've given us no evidence for this assertion...

There must have been an intelligent  
designer.


Why?  If this is your claim, show us the evidence to support it.

At one point there was no life on earth, then there was, life had to come from non life.  Since everything we have observed so far can be explained naturally and has not needed a supernatural explaination, it is reasonable to assume that those things we have not yet observered and do not yet understand also have a natural explaination that we haven't discovered yet...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:39 PM on March 3, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I think you mean abiogenesis, but regardless, no you don't.  The theory of evolution says nothing about life from non life, no matter how it formed, it evolved."

Dancing Dancing.  Whether you call it  abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, you still use faith to believe in it.  It doesn't go away so easily.  Or are you unable to connect the issues?



-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:51 PM on March 4, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dancing Dancing.  Whether you call it  abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation, you still use faith to believe in it.  It doesn't go away so easily.  Or are you unable to connect the issues?

Faith?!?  What the hell are you talking about?  
I don't use faith to believe in it....  Like I said above, at one point there was no life on earth, and then there was.  Life formed fromed non life, that's a fact.  Now how it formed is the question...  Since all natural processes we've observed so far have NOT required a supernatural agent, it is logical to think that abiogenesis didn't either.  Just because science can not explain it now, doesn't mean it will never be able to.  At one point man couldn't explain lightning, so he said it was Zeus, man couldn't explain disease, so he said it was demons, man can not explain how life arose from non life yet, so YOU say it was God,  See a pattern here?

And if you are claiming evolution is depend on abiogenesis, then you still don't have a clue about evolution or science.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:32 PM on March 4, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes I do see a pattern.  I see a pattern of quite a bit of religious fervor.  

You said, "Life formed fromed non life, that's a fact".  I have never had an evolutionist so boldly state their faith in spontaneous generation before.  And by the way, if you use the term "Abiogenesis" instead of "spontaneous generation" it does not make it more plausable.  Abiogenesis SOUNDS more scientific and so I see why you prefer to use it.


You said, "Since all natural processes we've observed so far have NOT required a supernatural agent, it is logical to think that abiogenesis didn't either".  

The effects of gravity are natural, yet they are also observable.  We don't observe spontaneous generation.  Instead, the natural processes we observe seem to point against the concept of spontaneous generation.  Or, to sound more scientific for you, natural processes point to the validity of Biogenesis.

Finally, you said, "Just because science can not explain it now, doesn't mean it will never be able to.  At one point man couldn't explain lightning, so he said it was Zeus, man couldn't explain disease, so he said it was demons, man can not explain how life arose from non life yet, so YOU say it was God,  See a pattern here?"

Thank you for providing me with an object lesson.  This will help me illustrate what I was saying before.  In the case of lightning, lightning happens in the present, and always has.  It is an observation in the present.

Diseases happen in the present, and always have.  They are observable today, and our experiments concerning them occur in the present.  

So people can use scientific methodology in the PRESENT to study things in the PRESENT.  So eventually, the true cause of lightning became known.  (Oh, by the way, many of the scientists like Pastuer and Newton who made major advancements in science were Christians and Creationists.  And many other scientific advancements have been made by scientists who where NOT Christians or Creationists ...That's just a side observation...now back to my point...)

So, people get accustomed to seeing the validity of science...applied science...in the present.  That is exactly the kind of thing you mentioned with the lightning and disease.  

But, you cannot observe spontaneous generation.  It is different than your illustrations.  You can't observe what supposedly happened 4 billion, or 4 million, or 400,000 years ago.

Why do you think we still have a jury in our court system?  

Secular Humanism is just as much of a religion as buddism, etc.  The tenets are different, but it is still very much a philosophy and "religion" to live by.  Evolutionists seem to be the only ones who try to masquerade their philosophy as "science".  



-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 09:12 AM on March 6, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes I do see a pattern.  I see a pattern of quite a bit of religious fervor.

You still don't understand religion, why do you continue to insist that science is religion??  Religion is based on a belief of a supernatural entity, a relationship with that supernatural entity, faith in the supernatural.  Science accounts for only what it can observe, what it can test, it goes where the facts lead, there is no ultimate truth.

You said, "Life formed fromed non life, that's a fact".  I have never had an evolutionist so boldly state their faith in spontaneous generation before.

First of all, are you denying that life came from non life?  At one point the earth was lifeless, and then it had life.  How did that life get there?  You say God, I say natural processes formed it.  What evidence do you have that God zapped it into existance?

And by the way, if you use the term "Abiogenesis" instead of "spontaneous generation" it does not make it more plausable.  Abiogenesis SOUNDS more scientific and so I see why you prefer to use    it.

Technically, I guess you're right, but spontaneous generation was used initially to describe complex life coming from dead organic material.  And it should be mentioned that abiogenesis has never been shown to be impossible.  Thousands of scientists today are experimenting with it now.

So people can use scientific methodology in the PRESENT to study things in the     PRESENT.

Wrong, the scientific method can be applied to any evidence, it is not limited to what we can observe in the present.  Astronomers look at stars millions of light years away.  Since it takes the light of those stars millions of years to reach us we are essentially looking at those stars in the past.  We can tell a great deal about these stars from millions of years in the past, there position, there composition, etc..
Yet by your shoddy definition, we shouldn't be able to.  The reason we can is because the evidence for their existance is very good (the light that took millions of years to reach us).  So our research into past events depends on the sophistication of our tools and the quality of the evidence we have.  The better the evidence, the more complete a theory we can develope.  The evidence for abiogenesis is sketchy at best, but you haven't provided us with any reasons why it couldn't have happened...

Why do you think we still have a jury in our court system?  

It's funny how you mention the court systems, many times there are no eyewitnesses so verdicts rest on the weight of the evidence, just like in science.  

Evolutionists seem to be the only ones who try to masquerade their philosophy as "science".

Evolution, which has nothing to do with spontaneous generation, is based on facts, it has nothing to do with philosophy or religion.
You ramble on and yet you can show us nothing to support your assertions...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:08 AM on March 6, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, the starlight that we see, even from stars millions of light years away, is reaching us in the PRESENT.  It is still dealing with observations in the PRESENT.  Every decision we make about comes from what we are observing NOW.  

On the other hand, I don't see organisms spontaneously generating now.  Scientists are working on it, but are far from it.  I don't think it will ever happen.  But if it does, this will be the press conference:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the scientific community, we have an exciting announcement.  After billions and billions of dollars, after years and years of research spanning generations of scientists who are nothing less than pure genius, we having finally managed to create life from non-life, or abiogenesis, therefore proving beyond any doubt that NO INTELLIGENCE IS REQUIRED!!!!


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 08:15 AM on March 7, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, the starlight that we see, even from stars millions of light years away, is reaching us in the PRESENT.  It is still dealing with observations in the PRESENT.  Every decision we make about comes from what we are observing NOW.

Yes but that applies to every scrap of evidence we have found or will ever find.  The light from stars is just evidence, like the state of decay for radioactive isotopes that support a 4.5 billion year old earth that is reaching us in the present!  The fossils we find that overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution are found and examined in the PRESENT!  So all evidence we observe and examine, we observe and examine in the present, just like the light from millions of year old stars, there is no difference.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the scientific community, we have an exciting announcement.  After billions and billions of dollars, after years and years of research spanning generations of scientists who are nothing less than pure genius, we having finally managed to create life from non-life, or abiogenesis, therefore proving beyond any doubt that NO INTELLIGENCE IS    REQUIRED!!!!

you still don't understand the scientific method!  According to your scenario, there is no possible way to show abiogenesis happened, how very open minded of you!  But what happens if primitive replicators are found in deep sea hydrothermal vents?  Or a future space probe to a moon of Saturn or Jupiter?  Will you accept abiogenesis then?  Of course not!  You'll have some convoluted creationist claptrap to dismiss it out of hand, just like you did above!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:00 PM on March 7, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Posted by Brother Darwin at Sat March 6, 2004 - 09:12 AM
Oh, by the way, many of the scientists like Pastuer and Newton who made major advancements in science were Christians and Creationists.


If you are broad-minded enough to consider Newton a Christian, nothing any theistic evolutionist has to say should bother you in the least.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:02 PM on March 8, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, you said, "Yes but that applies to every scrap of evidence we have found or will ever find.  The light from stars is just evidence, like the state of decay for radioactive isotopes that support a 4.5 billion year old earth that is reaching us in the present!  The fossils we find that overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution are found and examined in the PRESENT!  So all evidence we observe and examine, we observe and examine in the present, just like the light from millions of year old stars, there is no difference."

You seem to be unable to distinguish between scientific facts and your interpretation of the facts.  

Also, you said, "you still don't understand the scientific method!  According to your scenario, there is no possible way to show abiogenesis happened, how very open minded of you!  But what happens if primitive replicators are found in deep sea hydrothermal vents?  Or a future space probe to a moon of Saturn or Jupiter?  Will you accept abiogenesis then?  Of course not!  You'll have some convoluted creationist claptrap to dismiss it out of hand, just like you did above!"

I gather from that you must disagree with the statement I made.  My statement contained two points.  First, The first point is that if scientists ever manage to create life from non-life in a laboratory, it will be the result of much money and time spent in research.  The second point is that, according to you, it will prove that no intelligent design is necessary.

Which point in my statement do you disagree with?  That it will require lots of time and money or that it will prove that no intelligent design is necessary?  Is it point one or point two that is the convoluted creationist claptrap?


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 7:58 PM on March 8, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You seem to be unable to distinguish between scientific facts and your interpretation of the facts.

I'm calling you on this one!  Explain how I've confused the two, you've made the assertion and I claim you are wrong.  Making an accusation and backing it up are two different things.  It appears you are unable to back up your accusation.  You can't defend your position with reason or evidence so you resort to unfounded lies.  Explain to me how light from billions of years old stars and other cosmic phenomenon, light that we can't see with the naked eye, light we can only observe and conduct research on with sophisticated equipment like radio telescopes and mass spectrometers, is different from any of the other evidence I sited...Put up or shut up!

Which point in my statement do you disagree with?  That it will require lots of time and money or that it will prove that no intelligent design is necessary?  Is it point one or point two that is the convoluted creationist claptrap?

Of course, it is point two.  I thought you were being sarcastic, if this is not the case, I apologize.  Creationists make the claim that even if life was created in the lab, it would only prove that life can not form with out intelligent design.  If this is not your arguement, again I apologize...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:31 PM on March 8, 2004 | IP
Fishhead

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll ask this question here, since I've asked before on other C v E forums and not gotten a satisfactory answer.  I'm trying to understand the geologic column; what it is, and what it isn't.

Is there any one location where actual strata of more than one era can be found in succession?  Specifically, are there any outcrops where you find (index) fossils of different eras actually in succession?  Or are fossil succession and geologic time periods all composed by inference/corrolation with other locations?

Thanks
Fishhead


-------
FishHead
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:03 PM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand that the entire geological column exists at at least 31 locations, but I'm not sure if that is the exact question you are asking.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:05 PM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, actually I was being sarcastic.  But, that does not take away from the fact that you agree with both points.  Point 1 being that it would require immense research and experimentation, if in fact it can ever happen.  (I personally don't think it ever will, but time will tell.  Of course I doubt it would ever be in our lifetimes).  

The second point is that according to your opinion, all that immense research would prove that no intelligence is necessary to create life from non-life.  

I think the reason why you took offense is that when my statement is first read, it sounds sarcastic and silly.  But I think it is because it is INHERENTLY silly.  So, it's a true statement of your position, yet it sounds sarcastic and that I'm trying to make the position sound silly.  But I think it just sounds silly on it's own.  It doesn't need my help.

Of course, whether it's silly or not is a matter of opinion.  It cannot at this time be proven scientifically whether it's silly or not.  So I can't say that it is a fact that it is silly.

You see, I recognize the limitations of science.  I'm not going to declare something that can't be tested as fact.  I recognize where my opinion enters in and mixes with actual facts.

However you, with abiogenesis, just flat out insist that it is a fact, even though it has never been observed, and so far everything seems to point toward biogenesis.

I don't mind others disagreeing with me.  It's just that you don't seem to be able to seperate your "infallible" opinion from observable facts.  

Oh, and abiogenesis is the example you were asking for (from where in your last post you asked for me to tell you where you can't seperate your interpretations of the data from the actual data).


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 8:54 PM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, actually I was being sarcastic.  But, that does not take away from the fact that you agree with both points.  Point 1 being that it would require immense research and experimentation, if in fact it can ever happen.  (I personally don't think it ever will, but time will tell.  Of course I doubt it would ever be in our lifetimes).

Of course it will take money and research to research abiogenesis, what research doesn't?
Biochemists are researching this even as se speak.  You believe it will ever happen, I think it will.  We have seen that organic molecules can form from inorganic moleculres.  And the experiments done in these labs are trying to recreate natural conditions.

But regarless, I think you misconstrued my initial statements.  I said that at one point there was no life on earth and then there was life, so life had to have come from non life, that's obvious.  I did not say that abiogenesis was the only way that could have happened.
There is simply not enough evidence to even form a real scientific theory on abiogenesis.  I don't think I said anywhere in this thread that abiogenesis was a fact, I don't think I even said it was a well supported theory with all the evidence backing it up...
What I DID say is that everything so far has had a naturalistic explaination, everything.  No process in nature we've studied has needed a supernatural explaination, so it's reasonable to think that abiogenesis didn't either.  Now if science ever showed that it was impossible for life to form from non life, that there was some insurmountable barrier preventing this, then I would change my stand, if there was no way for life to form naturally, I would say that would be excellent evidence for a supernatural supreme being.  But there has been no barrier found, simply because science can't do it yet, doesn't mean they never will.  As I've said above there has been a great amount of progress and as you say time will tell.
So, just to clarify the issue, life could have arisen on earth by the following methods:

1. A supernatural deity could have created it instantaneously, in which case there will be no direct evidence that science will be able to study (science by definition can not study the supernatural).

2. A supernatural deity formed life with the natural laws they set up.  Science will be able to understand the natural causes but not the ultimate cause behind the natural laws that form life.

3. Life arose naturally with no supernatural intervention on any level.  

4. Life was transported here from somewhere else.  This would push back the question until
we could study this 'somewhere else' first hand (another planet or region of space).

There you go, 4 hypothesises of how life came to be on our planet, based on the evidence we have so far.  I told you why I lean toward a natural origin.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:39 PM on March 9, 2004 | IP
Fishhead

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the map, Apoapsis.  I have heard that the "entire" column can be found, and I have heard also the contrary, or that "most" of it can be found in some locations.

But does this also mean that fossils specific to strata of different eras are found at those locations, or just rocks.  I.e., can you find, say, a Protoceratops in one layer, and a Triceratops higher up in the same column?

I have not seen a specific answer other than people saying, "well, I've heard this or that".

Thanks
Chris


-------
FishHead
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:32 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But does this also mean that fossils specific to strata of different eras are found at those locations, or just rocks.


I think that the answer is a somewhat qualified "yes", and that you need to be careful with the term "index fossils".    As I understand it, to be an index fossil the species needs to be fairly widespread and  have fairly tight stratigraphic range.  Petroleum geologists like to use micro-fossils, such as ooliths.    You can see various references to oolitic limestone in the following  reference.  They are often used as index fossils.

North Dakota oil well log


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:51 PM on March 10, 2004 | IP
Brother Darwin

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, that's cool.  Listing 4 hypothesises and stating which one you deem the best.  

I would reword a few details and pick a different one than you, but that's okay.

My background specialty is not in biology.  My degree is in Computer Science and I have spent the last 20 years designing and creating computer systems for major corporations.

I'll be gone several days but perhaps I can come back later and tell where my viewpoints would be different and why.

thanks,

Bro Darwin


-------
John Henry
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 3:21 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Demon38 at Tue March 9, 2004 - 10:39 PM
I don't think I said anywhere in this thread that abiogenesis was a fact, I don't think I even said it was a well supported theory with all the evidence backing it up...


You may want to read the article in the Feb 13 Science to catch up on the latest work.

If this link doesn't work, it is on page 963, titled "Transition from Nonliving to Living Matter"

Transition from Nonliving to Living Matter


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:43 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapis,

 I wouldlove to read the article, but I can't access it, any way you could give me a synopsis?   Thanks.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:04 PM on March 11, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Found it copied at another site.

Transition from nonliving to living matter


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:22 AM on March 12, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.