Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[grannymh]

Alethios, easy on, I’m on your side absolutely. I put up that account of Eve’s ‘creation’ - which I thought was pretty ingenious for evolutionists - just to see their reaction. Many years ago, I met a man who had researched the history of the great ‘scientific’ plot against the Catholic Faith purely from a need-to-know position. He never goes public, simply uses his God given intellect to assess the ‘evidence’ for himself so that he can enjoy TRUTH for its own sake. You know what, I cannot even get him to argue evolutionism over a drink or two because he has come to the conclusion it is so absurd it is an insult to man’s intelligence even to take it seriously.
I know he would be disappointed if he knew I was indulging.

One point he made was that there are two kinds of evolutionism, one is ‘atheistic’ evolutionism that relies on assumptions to tell their lies, and the other theistic-evolutionism wherein they get God to do their dirty work. ‘I would prefer to debate the absurd with an atheist any day that with theistic-evolutionists Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI’ he once told me.

Talking about intelligence, he brought this to my attention once.In a 2006 issue of Science and Theology News William Hasker, emeritus professor of philosophy at Huntington University asks: ‘What is the evolutionary account for the origin of intelligence?’ He answered that in order to make sense of this intelligence, intelligence itself has to be something that natural selection can work on.

‘But if your thought has no causal influence on what happens physically in your body, no top-down causation, then your thoughts, your conciousness becomes invisible. Natural selection can only operate on physical structures and behavior. If there is no influence on physical behavior, thought is unaffected by natural selection and you can give no evolutionary explanation on how we have come to be thinking beings.’

If this view was reported accurately then it means intelligence has to be present from the beginning. But for evolution theory to have any credibility it must be able to show how human intelligence evolved…

You see then how it is theistic-evolutionism as held within the Catholic Church today, that keep evolutionism alive. Catholics simply use God when necessary to give credibility to atheism. That is why my friend said Dawkins has one big imagination but that it is nothing compared to the personal evolutionary opinions of the last two popes and their flock of followers.

There is evolutionary theory and then there is evolutionary theory.

Just curious. Did you have any comments on my recent posts leading up to the real fact that free will is not the product of the material body?

 

[Orogeny]

Quote:
Original:
Did anyone C14 date the wooden hammer? Of course not - that would give support for a young date.
If the hammer was part of a limestone formation, the question is, why would you even ask that question?

Do you know the technical reason why you don’t date limestone using C14?

The wood has to be C14 dated - the inorganic radiometry dates are discordant.

Give us a reference to the peer-reviewed, published paper that documents the collection technique, the handling, the testing and the analysis of the results. Otherwise, you are just making this up.

The limestone is carbon-based, so it also can be C14 dated.

So you admit that you don’t understand C14 testing. Fine. You should not use C14 for your argument when you don’t understand how it works.

The wood can be physically and chemically separated from the limestone, to prevent contamination errors.

Right.

Same response - 'cause we get no credible answers.
Coal has been C14 dated with AMS to < 50,000 years, far less than the megayears claimed by MS science.

Since you don’t understand radiocarbon dating, you should really move away from this argument. There are technical reasons that there are problems with radiocarbon dating of coal that have nothing to do with the accuracy of the method as a whole. Do you know what they are?

The only reason for not dating the hammer wood and the coal is the knowledge that old ages would be refuted…
which reminds us…

Or that we know that the technique has limitations and honest people don’t use techniques that don’t work.

We asked why the dinosaur bones filling museum storerooms haven’t been RC dated…

Of course you asked. If you took some time to learn the science behing radiocarbon dating, you would have your answer. But, you see, then you would have the problem of having to defend your charges against science while understanding that they are not valid charges. And that would be real painfull.

Repeat:where are the DATA, not diversions, showing dino bone ages are outside the C14 range and can’t be tested?

You have been given that information and have chosen to ignore it.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

On the faith issue: this is a Catholic thread, whose evidence is based on the Magisterium and primoliteral Scriptural exegesis. Christian groups that use personal interpretation of the Bible as evidence lack credibility here, as they replace God’s word with their own.

Do you place non-Catholic Christians in the same conspiracy with athiests?

The RATE reference was used in Post 437 (not 436) only for their documentation of errors discovered in inorganic radiometric dating based on recent vulcanism, not for their theory of accelerated nuclear decay or any other testing …
Read the posted evidence again and please stick to the issue raised. No diversions, please.

Their “evidence” has been refuted. Do you really want to rely on it?

Did we even mention accelerated nuclear decay? NO
Did we mention Radiocarbon Decay? NO
Did we mention Polonium Halos? NO
Did we mention Excessive Geothermal Energy? NO
Did we mention Isochron Discordances? NO

Who is “we”? You referenced RATE and that is a major part of their argument. Why didn’t you mention those items? Embarassed by them? I would be if I were you.

Specifically, post 437 used the data from recent volcanic eruptions to demolish K-Ar and other inorganic radiometries as valid paleochronometers.

Nope. Anyone can misuse an analytical method. The question is why would one intentionally do so?

ASA and Isaac say nothing about the volcanic rock dating contradictions; indeed, what could they say?

Steve Austin has been exposed for selecting geologic samples that he knows will give anomalous dates (because he DOES understand the science behind the testing) in the past. Why would ASA need to re-iterate that?

Look, if you want to run away from RATE, I wouldn’t blame you. The authors have intentionally tried to mislead people specifically to get them to accept the YEC position. If one has to mislead others to get them to accept one’s position, what does that say about that position?

Peace

Tim

 

[StAnastasia]

Is anyone stopping you from speaking/writing? This isn’t the Vatican’s Evolution STOQ conference - you can say all you want.

Altethios, no one was silenced at STOQ for expressing what he or she believed. We had a very rich discussion over five days. The only incident was taking the microphone back from someone who had grabbed it out of order, and was attempting to monopolize the discussion and steal time from the next speaker.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Another gem from the Evol. STOQ conference? Can one soul go to heaven and the other… oh, never mind.

No – that is from my own research. I wish it had been discussed at STOQ, but it wasn’t. The fusion of two fertilized ova into one blastocyst would seem to present an interesting challenge, if souls are infused at the moment of conception. Either the one blastocyst has two souls from the two separate conceptions, or one soul is removed after the fusion.

 

[StAnastasia]

You have completely and utterly misunderstood what that paper was saying (I dare say you haven’t even read paper as usual) and your conclusions about it here are deeply mistaken. I could explain it all to you but I suspect you will not want to hear anything that negates what you erroneously imagine to be evidence that supports you. If anyone else is interested I am willing to put in the time to explain what the paper actually says and why Ed’s claims for it are quite wrong. Alecevolutionpages.com

Alec, I would appreciate your explanation!

 

[StAnastasia]

Since, as you say, ASA has “no patience for bad science” … a review of the featured speakers leads to a very interesting conclusion.You may want to consider revoking your membership now?

Why would I want to revoke my membership?

 

[reggieM]

Why would I want to revoke my membership?

If you’ve suddenly decided to take ID theorists as seriously as ASA does, then you wouldn’t.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you’ve suddenly decided to take ID theorists as seriously as ASA does, then you wouldn’t.

Their proposals will be discussed and winnowed as are all such proposals. This is not new; ID was discussed in Oregon at last year’s ASA.

 

[reggieM]

Their proposals will be discussed and winnowed as are all such proposals. This is not new; ID was discussed in Oregon at last year’s ASA.

That sounds good to me. They invited 9 pro-ID scholars as either featured speakers or workshop leaders. Perhaps the next Vatican conference on evolution will do the same.

 

[StAnastasia]

That sounds good to me. They invited 9 pro-ID scholars as either featured speakers or workshop leaders. Perhaps the next Vatican conference on evolution will do the same.

If ID is substantiated as science, perhaps they will be invited!

 

[reggieM]

If ID is substantiated as science, perhaps they will be invited!

It’s fully accepted by a group that has “no patience for bad science” so I’ll look forward to it.

 

[hugh_miller]

Let us just take the nonsensical claims of Berthault as representative of the standards of the “conference”
See here for a thorough demolition of Bethault’s delusions of grandeur:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

If you and the above try and undermine mechanics of sediment formation as observed by the research of Guy Berthault (BG) than you must also try and undermine the research of the following scientists who agree with GB’s observations regarding the rapid deposition of sediments; some of this research preceded GB’s and others followed: For starters you must belittle the observations of the German, J. Walthur’s coring in the Bay of Naples in his 1894 publication whom GB referenced in his main paper of 1993 on flume studies.

1894 - Strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water from rivers into bay areas; the top strata may be younger than the bottom strata deposited much earlier thereby challenging Stenno and Lyell’s assumptions that the top strata is “always” older than the strata below:
-Walthur, J. 1894. Eintleitung in die Geologie und Historische Wissenschaft, Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena , Germany.

1967 - Catastrophic deposition of mud in flowing water of a river [after a major storm that killed several campers] segregate based upon particle size and density with McKee et al. observing distinct strata formation as others have observed in lab and flume studies. GB observed similar phenomena.
-McKee E.D. and E.J. Crosby. (1967). Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal Sedimentary Petrolology 37: 829-851.

1980 - Observations by all visiting scientists that the mud flows of Mt. St. Helens volcanic explosions 0f 1980, and resulting mudflows, look amazing like they took 1000’s of years to form instead of hours [Gosh, a major revelation to traditional geologists as many fine laminations as I recall watching on TV and reading about this catastrophe].

1993 - Flume studies at the University of Colorado established the mechanics of adjusting flow rates of water that carried sand sediments.
-Julien, Pierre Y., Yongqiang Lan, and Guy Berthault. 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 164(5):649-660.

1997 - Laborataory studies confirmed again GB’s studies
Fineberg, Jay. Nature, vol. 386: 323-324, 27 March 1997, “From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides”

1997 - Laboratory studies confirmed GB’s previous lab observations of the 1980’s in French geology publications:
Makse, H.A., S. Havlin, P.R. King, H.E. Stanley. 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature. 386:379-382.

2007 and 2009 sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1760 Accretion of mudstones from rapidly moving waters whereas mudstones which are 2/3’ds of the GC were once thought to form in still waters. They formed at similar speeds as do flume studies of sand in moving waters.

sedimentology.fr/ This is GB’s web site. I see nothing that is any diffferent than what he, Walthur and the Russians have learned about Paleohydraulics.
It seems to me that the stratigraphy of Stenno, Darwin, Lyell has been replaced with a whole new method of studying the geologic column and understanding of the GC where rapid deposition has replaced the assumption of slow accumulation of sediements at a few cm/1000 years. Those millions and zillions of years just don’t seem to exist.

amazon.com/gp/product/0521636396/ref=sip_pdp_dp_1 Erosion and sedimentation by Piere Y. Julien.

The delusions of grandeur about which you deride GB can best be applied to yourself for believing as did some of the ancient Romans in the pagan God Mithras who was assumed to have born out of a rock. Mythology is fun to speculate about until the believers in mythology try to force it on students of all ages as a “scientific fact.”

 

[StAnastasia]

It’s fully accepted by a group that has “no patience for bad science” so I’ll look forward to it.

Will you be at the ASA conference?

 

[StAnastasia]

Mythology is fun to speculate about until the believers in mythology try to force it on students of all ages as a “scientific fact.”

I presume this applies to the resurrection of Jesus as well.

 

[reggieM]

Will you be at the ASA conference?

If I go then yes, I will be there.

The “it” I was referring to was the invitation of ID theorists to the next Vatican Conference.

 

[hugh_miller]

I presume this applies to the resurrection of Jesus as well.

I was referring to the type of assumption noted at the bottom of your above remark, namely:

"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism." ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)

I think that you need to attend the ASA conference in which intelligence and Intelligent Design will be discussed. The resurrection of Jesus was confirmed as result of many intelligent observations by early church fathers and our Lady herself and as our Lord revealed to his apostles and our Lady in the next forty days after the resurrection. The Catholic faith is not built on pagan Roman mythology but on Genesis 1-11 and and what Jesus taught. But it could be said that evolution of life from non-life most certainly is closely related to the pagan religion of Mithras and is based on what mere man taught, namely Charles Darwin.

 

[hugh_miller]

If you and the above try and undermine mechanics of sediment formation as observed by the research of Guy Berthault (BG) than you must also try and undermine the research of the following scientists who agree with GB’s observations regarding the rapid deposition of sediments; some of this research preceded GB’s and others followed: For starters you must belittle the observations of the German, J. Walthur’s coring in the Bay of Naples in his 1894 publication whom GB referenced in his main paper of 1993 on flume studies.

1894 - Strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water from rivers into bay areas; the top strata may be younger than the bottom strata deposited much earlier thereby challenging Stenno and Lyell’s assumptions that the top strata is “always” older than the strata below:
-Walthur, J. 1894. Eintleitung in die Geologie und Historische Wissenschaft, Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena , Germany.

1967 - Catastrophic deposition of mud in flowing water of a river [after a major storm that killed several campers] segregate based upon particle size and density with McKee et al. observing distinct strata formation as others have observed in lab and flume studies. GB observed similar phenomena.
-McKee E.D. and E.J. Crosby. (1967). Flood deposits, Bijou Creek, Colorado, June 1965, Journal Sedimentary Petrolology 37: 829-851.

1980 - Observations by all visiting scientists that the mud flows of Mt. St. Helens volcanic explosions 0f 1980, and resulting mudflows, look amazing like they took 1000’s of years to form instead of hours [Gosh, a major revelation to traditional geologists as many fine laminations as I recall watching on TV and reading about this catastrophe].

1993 - Flume studies at the University of Colorado established the mechanics of adjusting flow rates of water that carried sand sediments.
-Julien, Pierre Y., Yongqiang Lan, and Guy Berthault. 1993. Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 164(5):649-660.

1997 - Laborataory studies confirmed again GB’s studies
Fineberg, Jay. Nature, vol. 386: 323-324, 27 March 1997, “From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides”

1997 - Laboratory studies confirmed GB’s previous lab observations of the 1980’s in French geology publications:
Makse, H.A., S. Havlin, P.R. King, H.E. Stanley. 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature. 386:379-382.

2007 and 2009 sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1760 Accretion of mudstones from rapidly moving waters whereas mudstones which are 2/3’ds of the GC were once thought to form in still waters. They formed at similar speeds as do flume studies of sand in moving waters.

sedimentology.fr/ This is GB’s web site. I see nothing that is any diffferent than what he, Walthur and the Russians have learned about Paleohydraulics.
It seems to me that the stratigraphy of Stenno, Darwin, Lyell has been replaced with a whole new method of studying the geologic column and understanding of the GC where rapid deposition has replaced the assumption of slow accumulation of sediements at a few cm/1000 years. Those millions and zillions of years just don’t seem to exist.

amazon.com/gp/product/0521636396/ref=sip_pdp_dp_1 Erosion and sedimentation by Piere Y. Julien.

The delusions of grandeur about which you deride GB can best be applied to yourself for believing as did some of the ancient Romans in the pagan God Mithras who was assumed to have born out of a rock. Mythology is fun to speculate about until the believers in mythology try to force it on students of all ages as a “scientific fact.”

In the first paragraph RE Walthur’s observations it should have read: 1894 - Strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water from rivers into bay areas; the “top” strata may be “older” at some point than the bottom strata thereby challenging Stenno and Lyell’s assumptions that the top strata is “always younger” at every point than the strata below.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think that you need to attend the ASA conference in which intelligence and Intelligent Design will be discussed. The resurrection of Jesus was confirmed as result of many intelligent observations by early church fathers and our Lady herself and as our Lord revealed to his apostles and our Lady in the next forty days after the resurrection. The Catholic faith is not built on pagan Roman mythology but on Genesis 1-11 and and what Jesus taught. But it could be said that evolution of life from non-life most certainly is closely related to the pagan religion of Mithras and is based on what mere man taught, namely Charles Darwin.

(1) If I were not going to be leaving for England at the time of the Baylor ASA conference, I would be presenting a paper there. I look forward to reading the proceedings.

(2) The resurrection is a theological claim, not subject to scientific investigation.

(3) Evolution of life from non-life is not part of the theory of evolution. You are perhaps confusing it with theories of abiogenesis.

 

[StAnastasia]

In the first paragraph RE Walthur’s observations it should have read: 1894 - Strata is NOT a function of time in flowing water from rivers into bay areas; the “top” strata may be “older” at some point than the bottom strata thereby challenging Stenno and Lyell’s assumptions that the top strata is “always younger” at every point than the strata below.

Yes, strata are indeed a function of estuarine deposition.