Z
zian
Guest
Are you suggesting that the plates are solid graphite!!
Please do provide a source for that one, won’t you?
- Status
Please do provide a source for that one, won’t you?
R
rheins2000
Guest
Yeah, wrong source there, buddy…I havent gotten to that yet…there were only 400 replies that im trying to deal with here.
The source you are commenting on has nothing to do with the human artifacts in coal deposits…ill get to that…probably will be tomorrow…I have to sleep.
zian said:
Well then I think it would be fair to read my earlier post where I repeat the ENORMOUS assumption he makes.
Yeah the references were good, and citations in order, but the assumption makes the entire piece a THEORY NOT A FACT.
Funny that when I present my evidence, like about 300 pieces of it, you dont address them, but keep telling me that I have to provide you with evidence.
How about this: PROVIDE ME WITH EVIDENCE OF HOW MATTER GOT HERE
R
rheins2000
Guest
R
rheins2000
Guest
Then your scientists are crackpots
Are you degree dropping to prove your point…Thats what you guys do…“Well uninformed person, lots of scientists with degrees say this, and you are dumb, so if you dont believe us, you will be labeled as an idiot.” Just stick with facts. I was just making the point that these people were scientists, which if I didnt mention that, you would explode.
No, numbers are what you have been giving me the whole time. You keep telling me that most all scientists accept evolution. You make people think that there are only like 1 or 2 guys around that still cling to Creationism.
Now wait do numbers determine credibility or not. How about the numbers of scientists against Galileo? You still havent answered that.
R
rheins2000
Guest
Phil said: "Get over it, we come from Chicken Noodle a couple billion years ago, Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken. "
He is either a liar or a swindler. I am not going to let someone lie to all these people reading this. I dont care what liberal debate scheme you subscribe to. That statement is a lie. Period. Jesus called the Pharisees snakes, and I call a liar a liar. Im sorry that hurts your feelings.
WRONG…He gave a reply, then a quote, then a commentary from no authoritative source on Catholic Doctrine whatsoever, and then just wrote a blatant conclusion lie at the end. I had no problem with the quote, and I noted that.
YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ THESE POSTS BEFORE WRITING YOUR REPLIES.
My source was Catholic Doctrine. Maybe you ought to learn it, being that you spend so much time arguing against Catholics.
It can be found on Catholic.com for one www.catholic.com
Once again, stop writing lies and I will stop calling them lies and the one who tells them a liar. But if you think Im going to roll over for people writing lies about the Catholic faith, then you’re in the wrong place. I am truly sorry it hurts your feelings, but when someone writes statements like that, they are not playing nice. My sense of charity requires me to lead people away from lies.
Peace
Tim
R
rheins2000
Guest
Ummm, that would be the little highlighted number 3 next to the quote. Again, try to look at my posts before attacking them.
No kidding…thats what im telling you…and i know plenty of analytical tests that have no margin of error, thats the definition of analytical. Mathematics is analytical, and anything that can be derived from mathematics is FACT, logic is analytical. Your radiometric dating is hardly analytical, unless you are putting some spin on the meaning of analytical.
Funny you keep asking me for references, but then you say this without any grounds or references. Lets see the pictures. The only place your column exists in its entirety is in a text book.
Do you understand what it is?
From Wikipedia: All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide.
Theres another assumption. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochrons, so how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is whereever the sample fits in their little geologic column, just like every other flawed dating system. Nice try though. Talking to me like im an idiot helps.
AND NEXT TIME DONT JUST THROW QUESTIONS OUT THERE…TELL ME HOW THEY SUPORT YOUR POSITION AND LOGICALLY HOW YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION
Who in the world do you think you are…Come down off your high horse Mr. Science. Where do you think all your knowledge came from…You were born not knowing how to say a single word…obviously your information comes from other people, as has every piece of information in the History of Science. Do me a favor, stop attacking and start addressing. I use quotes, because these people are experts in the field and could argue you under a table…thats the real reason. Now have I attacked your quotes and sources, calling you a quote miner?..no…I take your quotes and address the quote, not you(unless you start quoting 3rd grade geology students…then Ill have to)…so dispense with your high horse mentality and come back down to Earth.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << WRONG…He [PhilVaz] gave a reply, then a quote, then a commentary from no authoritative source on Catholic Doctrine whatsoever, and then just wrote a blatant conclusion lie at the end. I had no problem with the quote, and I noted that. >>
This is getting a little ridiculous, like the “abcdefg” threads a month ago. I guess I am wrong to assume the massive evidence I see for an ancient earth and evolution is enough to convince most reasonable people. I am definitely wrong there, and it is depressing and frustrating.
BTW, since this thread is still kicking, I’ll have to quote from that book I mentioned “In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.” This book demonstrates clearly that “scientific” creationists accept a young earth for religious reasons based on their Genesis interpretations. It has nothing to do with science.
In response to young-earthism: Part 1 on Theology, Part 2 on Age of Earth, Part 3 on Evolution.
Also in response to young-earthism, I can’t do better than quote Cardinal Schonborn again:
"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…
“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.”
(Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)
Phil P
This is getting a little ridiculous, like the “abcdefg” threads a month ago. I guess I am wrong to assume the massive evidence I see for an ancient earth and evolution is enough to convince most reasonable people. I am definitely wrong there, and it is depressing and frustrating.
BTW, since this thread is still kicking, I’ll have to quote from that book I mentioned “In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.” This book demonstrates clearly that “scientific” creationists accept a young earth for religious reasons based on their Genesis interpretations. It has nothing to do with science.
In response to young-earthism: Part 1 on Theology, Part 2 on Age of Earth, Part 3 on Evolution.
Also in response to young-earthism, I can’t do better than quote Cardinal Schonborn again:
"Now there is another misunderstanding that is constantly found in the ongoing discussion, and I have to deal with it right here at the beginning. I refer to what is called ‘creationism.’ Nowadays the belief in a creator is automatically run together with ‘creationism.’ But in fact to believe in a creator is not the same as trying to understand the six days of creation literally, as six chronological days, and as trying to prove scientifically, with whatever means available, that the earth is 6000 years old. These attempts of certain Christians at taking the Bible absolutely literally, as if it made chronological and scientific statements – I have met defenders of this position who honestly strive to find scientific arguments for it – is called ‘fundamentalism.’ Or more exactly, within American Protestantism this view of the Christian faith originally called itself fundamentalism. Starting from the belief that the Bible is inspired by God, so that every word in it is immediately inspired by Him, the six days of creation are taken in a strict literal way. It is understandable that in the United States many people, using not only kinds of polemics but lawsuits as well, vehemently resist the teaching of creationism in the schools…
“The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of ‘creationism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ for the entire remainder of this catechesis; what we want to say about it should be so clear that we do not have to return to the subject.”
(Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, Catechetical Lecture for 11/13/2005)
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << Mathematics is analytical, and anything that can be derived from mathematics is FACT, logic is analytical. Your radiometric dating is hardly analytical, unless you are putting some spin on the meaning of analytical. >>
Which of these points of Dalrymple do you dispute? Please provide references to the mainstream scientific literature for the points you dispute:
– The decay constants used in radiometric dating have been determined by direct laboratory counting experiments and with the possible exception of 187Re, are known to within an accuracy of about 2%. The decay constants of 87Rb, 147Sm, 176Lu, and 187Re are known to 2% accuracy, while the decay constants of 40K, 232Th, 235U, and 238U are known to an accuracy of better than 1%. These small uncertainties do not significantly affect the values for the ages of the Earth, Moon, or meteorites.
– Virtually all investigators worldwide use the same decay constants and isotopic compositions for their calculations, and updating them occurs every decade or so.
– Modern analytical instruments especially the mass spectrometers used for isotopic measurements have been refined to the point where the precision of the laboratory measurements usually far exceeds the errors introduced by geological factors. Most isotope ratios can now be measured to an accuracy of a few tenths of a percent or better.
– Isochron slopes, concordia-discordia intercepts, and other relevant quantities are not determined graphically but are calculated by appropriate formulae and statistical methods. The numbers themselves are still the most rigorous way to determine how well a set of data fit or do not fit an isochron.
– The uncertainty in a radiometric age is usually an estimate of the precision of the age measurement at the “two-thirds confidence” level. Sometimes, the 95% confidence level will be used instead of two-thirds. The main point is that the errors, although expertly determined, highly useful, and generally realistic, are statistically-based approximations and do not define precise limits within which the “real age” must fall.
– Geochronologists do not rely entirely on error estimates and the self-checking features of age-diagnostic diagrams to evaluate accuracy. Whenever possible, they repeat the analytical measurements to minimize analytical errors. Another strategy is to make age measurements on several samples (minerals or rocks) from the same rock unit. This technique helps to identify post-formation geological disturbances (re-heating or chemical changes, etc).
– The use of different decay schemes on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks running at different rates give the same age, this is powerful evidence that the ages are correct. This approach is similar to checking the time in your house by comparing various clocks (wristwatch, pendulum, electric, battery, etc). If all agree within a few minutes, then we are confident we know the time of day. In the same way, different radiometric methods may be compared. If all agree on the same age, our confidence in the accuracy of the results is greatly increased (Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth [1991], pages 122-124).
Phil P
Which of these points of Dalrymple do you dispute? Please provide references to the mainstream scientific literature for the points you dispute:
– The decay constants used in radiometric dating have been determined by direct laboratory counting experiments and with the possible exception of 187Re, are known to within an accuracy of about 2%. The decay constants of 87Rb, 147Sm, 176Lu, and 187Re are known to 2% accuracy, while the decay constants of 40K, 232Th, 235U, and 238U are known to an accuracy of better than 1%. These small uncertainties do not significantly affect the values for the ages of the Earth, Moon, or meteorites.
– Virtually all investigators worldwide use the same decay constants and isotopic compositions for their calculations, and updating them occurs every decade or so.
– Modern analytical instruments especially the mass spectrometers used for isotopic measurements have been refined to the point where the precision of the laboratory measurements usually far exceeds the errors introduced by geological factors. Most isotope ratios can now be measured to an accuracy of a few tenths of a percent or better.
– Isochron slopes, concordia-discordia intercepts, and other relevant quantities are not determined graphically but are calculated by appropriate formulae and statistical methods. The numbers themselves are still the most rigorous way to determine how well a set of data fit or do not fit an isochron.
– The uncertainty in a radiometric age is usually an estimate of the precision of the age measurement at the “two-thirds confidence” level. Sometimes, the 95% confidence level will be used instead of two-thirds. The main point is that the errors, although expertly determined, highly useful, and generally realistic, are statistically-based approximations and do not define precise limits within which the “real age” must fall.
– Geochronologists do not rely entirely on error estimates and the self-checking features of age-diagnostic diagrams to evaluate accuracy. Whenever possible, they repeat the analytical measurements to minimize analytical errors. Another strategy is to make age measurements on several samples (minerals or rocks) from the same rock unit. This technique helps to identify post-formation geological disturbances (re-heating or chemical changes, etc).
– The use of different decay schemes on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks running at different rates give the same age, this is powerful evidence that the ages are correct. This approach is similar to checking the time in your house by comparing various clocks (wristwatch, pendulum, electric, battery, etc). If all agree within a few minutes, then we are confident we know the time of day. In the same way, different radiometric methods may be compared. If all agree on the same age, our confidence in the accuracy of the results is greatly increased (Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth [1991], pages 122-124).
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << Phil said: "Get over it, we come from Chicken Noodle a couple billion years ago, Ratzinger/Benedict has spoken. " >>
OK, you are the guy who originally brought up “soup” – I was only poking fun at that. Sometimes my humor is hard to get. We got that cleared up now.
Now deal with the serious material on radiometric dating, or other pertinent questions from the “evolution regulars” in here. Quotes from “In Six Days” from so-called creation-scientists to follow soon. Young-earth creationism has nothing to do with science as this book shows.
Phil P
OK, you are the guy who originally brought up “soup” – I was only poking fun at that. Sometimes my humor is hard to get. We got that cleared up now.
Now deal with the serious material on radiometric dating, or other pertinent questions from the “evolution regulars” in here. Quotes from “In Six Days” from so-called creation-scientists to follow soon. Young-earth creationism has nothing to do with science as this book shows.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Your questions from post #63 are answered below. All of the people you are debating in here are Catholics, except Rossum who is Buddhist.
rheins << Simply stating questions wont get us far. Heres some for you. Why is there matter? Did matter create matter? >>
God created the universe and sustains it. God is ultimately responsible for all matter that exists. And all the scientific evidence shows us that biological evolution is how life developed and diversified, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
rheins << Why is there a universe? >>
God created the universe. He created it not because of need but out of love.
rheins << Why are there no trees over 5,000 years old? >>
There are trees that are 11,000 years old. From the Roger Wiens article on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective:
“Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. ‘Floating’ records, which are not tied to the present time, exist farther back than this, but their ages are not known with absolute certainty. An effort is presently underway to bridge the gaps so as to have a reliable, continuous record significantly farther back in time. The study of tree rings and the ages they give is called ‘dendrochronology’. Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age.” (Source: Roger Wiens article)
“The giant clone named Pando (Latin for ‘I spread’) in south-central Utah stretches over 43 ha and contains more than 47,000 individual stems, with an estimated weight of 6 million kg (Mitton and Grant 1996). The age of such clones is not known, but it is commonly assumed that they go back to the last glaciation period about 10,000 years ago. Those in the Great Basin have been estimated at 8,000 years old. Thus the aspen clone is in the same class as other clones, such as creosote (some individuals of which are estimated at 11,000 years old) and huckleberry (13,000 years old). It’s also conceivable that modern clones may be only a few sexual generations from million-year-old ancestors, whose fossilized leaves look identical (Madsen 1996).” (Source: Biogeography of Quaking Aspen from the Geography Dept at San Fran State Univ)
“Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, Nov 1979, p. 76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings.” (Source: Oldest trees response to Kent Hovind’s arguments)
“The King Clone creosote bush, today a patch of shrubbery 70 by 25 feet in the Mojave Desert about 80 miles northeast of Los Angeles, goes back 11,700 years! (This item comes from The Washington Post, December 10, 1984 and was noted in the Creation/Evolution Newsletter of Nov-Dec 1984.) The evergreen shrub is called a creosote bush because it has a pungent odor like that of creosote, an oily liquid produced from coal tar.” (Source: same as above)
Now what is your source for “no trees over 5,000 years old?” Whatever it is, it appears to be wrong.
rheins << Why do you have a conscience? >>
God gave us a conscience to tell right from wrong. God is the source of the soul, conscience, and objective morality. Your questions are not difficult for Catholics to answer.
Phil P
rheins << Simply stating questions wont get us far. Heres some for you. Why is there matter? Did matter create matter? >>
God created the universe and sustains it. God is ultimately responsible for all matter that exists. And all the scientific evidence shows us that biological evolution is how life developed and diversified, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
rheins << Why is there a universe? >>
God created the universe. He created it not because of need but out of love.
rheins << Why are there no trees over 5,000 years old? >>
There are trees that are 11,000 years old. From the Roger Wiens article on radiometric dating from a Christian perspective:
“Growth ring patterns based on wet and dry years can be correlated between living and long dead trees, extending the continuous ring count back to 11,800 years ago. ‘Floating’ records, which are not tied to the present time, exist farther back than this, but their ages are not known with absolute certainty. An effort is presently underway to bridge the gaps so as to have a reliable, continuous record significantly farther back in time. The study of tree rings and the ages they give is called ‘dendrochronology’. Tree rings do not provide continuous chronologies beyond 11,800 years ago because a rather abrupt change in climate took place at that time, which was the end of the last ice age.” (Source: Roger Wiens article)
“The giant clone named Pando (Latin for ‘I spread’) in south-central Utah stretches over 43 ha and contains more than 47,000 individual stems, with an estimated weight of 6 million kg (Mitton and Grant 1996). The age of such clones is not known, but it is commonly assumed that they go back to the last glaciation period about 10,000 years ago. Those in the Great Basin have been estimated at 8,000 years old. Thus the aspen clone is in the same class as other clones, such as creosote (some individuals of which are estimated at 11,000 years old) and huckleberry (13,000 years old). It’s also conceivable that modern clones may be only a few sexual generations from million-year-old ancestors, whose fossilized leaves look identical (Madsen 1996).” (Source: Biogeography of Quaking Aspen from the Geography Dept at San Fran State Univ)
“Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona has, by matching up overlapping tree rings of living and dead bristlecone pines, carefully built a tree ring sequence going back to 6273 BC (Popular Science, Nov 1979, p. 76). It turns out that such things as rainfall, floods, glacial activity, atmospheric pressure, volcanic activity, and even variations in nearby stream flows show up in the rings.” (Source: Oldest trees response to Kent Hovind’s arguments)
“The King Clone creosote bush, today a patch of shrubbery 70 by 25 feet in the Mojave Desert about 80 miles northeast of Los Angeles, goes back 11,700 years! (This item comes from The Washington Post, December 10, 1984 and was noted in the Creation/Evolution Newsletter of Nov-Dec 1984.) The evergreen shrub is called a creosote bush because it has a pungent odor like that of creosote, an oily liquid produced from coal tar.” (Source: same as above)
Now what is your source for “no trees over 5,000 years old?” Whatever it is, it appears to be wrong.
rheins << Why do you have a conscience? >>
God gave us a conscience to tell right from wrong. God is the source of the soul, conscience, and objective morality. Your questions are not difficult for Catholics to answer.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << and they came to creationism because of the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, because they realized there is no valid science to evolution. >>
Just to be clear: you haven’t given any valid scientific evidence for young-earth creationism yet. Do you have any? Here is my evidence, in case you missed the previous links:
Evidence for an Old Earth and Evidence for Evolution
Part 1 on Theology, Part 2 on Age of Earth, Part 3 on Evolution
This game of “I know you are but what am I” is amusing, but I am wondering if you really have any valid scientific evidence to present?
Phil P
Just to be clear: you haven’t given any valid scientific evidence for young-earth creationism yet. Do you have any? Here is my evidence, in case you missed the previous links:
Evidence for an Old Earth and Evidence for Evolution
Part 1 on Theology, Part 2 on Age of Earth, Part 3 on Evolution
This game of “I know you are but what am I” is amusing, but I am wondering if you really have any valid scientific evidence to present?
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << Still clinging to those dating methods…of which you have to assume about 20 things in order for them to fit your predated ages? >>
You are wrong. There is one main assumption:
(1) half-life decay rates are constant
The assumption is that the rate at which decay proceeds in any given nuclide is either unalterable or that variations are quite negligible over a wide variety of physical and chemical conditions and for millions or billions of years of time. How reliable is this assumption? Unless there has been some undiscovered change in the fundamental nature of matter and energy since the universe formed, the presumption of constancy for radioactive decay is eminently reasonable (Dalrymple [1991], page 86-87). There are two basic reasons for this:
– the nuclei of atoms are extremely small and well insulated by their cloud of orbiting electrons; these electrons separate nuclei and thus cannot interact; they also provide a “shield” that prevents ordinary chemical or physical factors from affecting the nucleus. Chemical activity in an atom occurs almost entirely among the outermost electrons and does not involve the nucleus at all.
– the energies involved in nuclear changes are 10^6 times greater than those involved in chemical activity, and 10^4 to 10^5 times greater than energies that bind the electrons to the nucleus. This is why nuclear reactors and powerful particle accelerators are required to penetrate and make changes in atomic nuclei. Except in nuclear reactions, such energies are generally not available in natural processes such as those that form, change, or destroy rocks on the Earth and Solar System (Dalrymple [1991], page 87).
Several experiments have been conducted attempting to seriously change radioactive decay rates, those of Rutherford / Petavel in 1907 on 220Rn radon using a steel-encased cordite bomb – they observed no change in the activity of the sample even though the explosion generated an estimated temperature of 2,500 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1,013 bars; and that of Madame Curie / M. Kamerlingh Onnes in 1913 who lowered the temperature of a radium compound to -252.8 degrees Celsius (the boiling point of liquid hydrogen) and observed no change in the radium activity by more than 0.05% (Emery 1972; Hopke 1974). Other experiments involved varying gravity by measuring the rates on mountain-tops, in the depths of mines, by whirling in a centrifuge, or subjecting to magnetic fields as much as 8.3 Teslas. These early experiments and subsequent ones involving extremes of temperature, pressure, chemical state, electrical and magnetic fields have uniformly failed to induce any changes in the decay rates of a wide variety of alpha and beta emitters involved in radiometric dating (Dalrymple [1991], page 87-88).
However, tiny changes in decay rates are theoretically possible. Example: The maximum difference in activity yet found between any two beryllium Be compounds is 0.18%. Although chemically induced changes in the electron capture (e.c.) decay rates of zirconium 89Zr (0.08%) and strontium 85Sr (0.005%) have been reported (Emery 1972), 7Be is the only isotope for which changes have been observed by more than one investigator (Hopke 1974).
In summary, both theory and experiment have shown that changes in alpha, beta, and e.c. rates (the three main types of radioactive decay) are not only rare but exceedingly small. Even the largest observed change of 0.18% in beryllium 7Be would have a negligible effect on a calculated radiometric age. Also important is the fact that no changes have ever been detected in any of the isotopes used for dating and none of significance are theoretically expected. Of the physical and chemical processes that affect meteorites and rocks from the Earth and Moon, including pressure, temperature, gravity, magnetic and electric fields, none should affect radioactive decay to any significant degree. The assumption of constant decay rates is further strengthened by the consistency of the dating results received using the various radiometric methods (all “ticking” at different “clock” rates) from the past and present (Dalrymple [1991], page 89-90).
see also “How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates” from the Usenet Physics FAQ at the Mathematics Dept of the Univ of California (Riverside)
Emery, G. T. 1972. “Perturbation of nuclear decay rates.” Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22, pages 165-202.
Hopke, P.K. 1974. “Extranuclear effects on nuclear decay rates.” Journal of Chemical Education, vol 51, pages 517-519.
Phil P
You are wrong. There is one main assumption:
(1) half-life decay rates are constant
The assumption is that the rate at which decay proceeds in any given nuclide is either unalterable or that variations are quite negligible over a wide variety of physical and chemical conditions and for millions or billions of years of time. How reliable is this assumption? Unless there has been some undiscovered change in the fundamental nature of matter and energy since the universe formed, the presumption of constancy for radioactive decay is eminently reasonable (Dalrymple [1991], page 86-87). There are two basic reasons for this:
– the nuclei of atoms are extremely small and well insulated by their cloud of orbiting electrons; these electrons separate nuclei and thus cannot interact; they also provide a “shield” that prevents ordinary chemical or physical factors from affecting the nucleus. Chemical activity in an atom occurs almost entirely among the outermost electrons and does not involve the nucleus at all.
– the energies involved in nuclear changes are 10^6 times greater than those involved in chemical activity, and 10^4 to 10^5 times greater than energies that bind the electrons to the nucleus. This is why nuclear reactors and powerful particle accelerators are required to penetrate and make changes in atomic nuclei. Except in nuclear reactions, such energies are generally not available in natural processes such as those that form, change, or destroy rocks on the Earth and Solar System (Dalrymple [1991], page 87).
Several experiments have been conducted attempting to seriously change radioactive decay rates, those of Rutherford / Petavel in 1907 on 220Rn radon using a steel-encased cordite bomb – they observed no change in the activity of the sample even though the explosion generated an estimated temperature of 2,500 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1,013 bars; and that of Madame Curie / M. Kamerlingh Onnes in 1913 who lowered the temperature of a radium compound to -252.8 degrees Celsius (the boiling point of liquid hydrogen) and observed no change in the radium activity by more than 0.05% (Emery 1972; Hopke 1974). Other experiments involved varying gravity by measuring the rates on mountain-tops, in the depths of mines, by whirling in a centrifuge, or subjecting to magnetic fields as much as 8.3 Teslas. These early experiments and subsequent ones involving extremes of temperature, pressure, chemical state, electrical and magnetic fields have uniformly failed to induce any changes in the decay rates of a wide variety of alpha and beta emitters involved in radiometric dating (Dalrymple [1991], page 87-88).
However, tiny changes in decay rates are theoretically possible. Example: The maximum difference in activity yet found between any two beryllium Be compounds is 0.18%. Although chemically induced changes in the electron capture (e.c.) decay rates of zirconium 89Zr (0.08%) and strontium 85Sr (0.005%) have been reported (Emery 1972), 7Be is the only isotope for which changes have been observed by more than one investigator (Hopke 1974).
In summary, both theory and experiment have shown that changes in alpha, beta, and e.c. rates (the three main types of radioactive decay) are not only rare but exceedingly small. Even the largest observed change of 0.18% in beryllium 7Be would have a negligible effect on a calculated radiometric age. Also important is the fact that no changes have ever been detected in any of the isotopes used for dating and none of significance are theoretically expected. Of the physical and chemical processes that affect meteorites and rocks from the Earth and Moon, including pressure, temperature, gravity, magnetic and electric fields, none should affect radioactive decay to any significant degree. The assumption of constant decay rates is further strengthened by the consistency of the dating results received using the various radiometric methods (all “ticking” at different “clock” rates) from the past and present (Dalrymple [1991], page 89-90).
see also “How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates” from the Usenet Physics FAQ at the Mathematics Dept of the Univ of California (Riverside)
Emery, G. T. 1972. “Perturbation of nuclear decay rates.” Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22, pages 165-202.
Hopke, P.K. 1974. “Extranuclear effects on nuclear decay rates.” Journal of Chemical Education, vol 51, pages 517-519.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
The second assumption is not an assumption:
(2) the isochron and concordia-discordia methods completely removes the unknown initial daughter problem
In radiometric dating, the nearly ubiquitous presence of an unknown amount of initial daughter element generally prevents the use of the simple accumulation methods. The exceptions are the parent-daughter pair 40K and 40Ar (Potassium-Argon) and special but rare cases of other decay schemes. However, this “initial daughter” problem is easily solved by the application of isochron or concordia-discordia diagrams, and similar methods.
The problem of the unknown quantity of the initial daughter and whether the system is open or closed are solved by using age-diagnostic diagrams. These diagrams and their mathematical equivalents not only provide an age, but some provide an exact measure of the initial daughter, and some provide an age for systems that have not remained closed, and all are self-checking.
An isochron is a line of equal time. It is obtained by analyzing several minerals from the same rock, or several rocks that formed from the same source at the same time but with differing amounts of the parent and daughter elements. On a simple graph, the amount of the parent isotope is plotted on the x-axis and the amount of the daughter isotope is plotted on the y-axis, both values being divided (or normalized) by the amount of a non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter. If the samples have been closed systems since they formed, the points will fall on a line (an isochron) whose slope is a function of the age of the rock. The intercept of the line on the x-axis gives a measure of the initial daughter.
Source: my summary of Dalrymple’s book here
Now what are the other 18 assumptions? You said there were 20, unless you were kidding.
These are the only two I am aware of. The first one about constancy is eminently reasonable, the second one about the “initial daughter” is taken care of by the isochron and concordia-discordia techniques.
And your scientific response to Dalrymple is what???
Phil P
(2) the isochron and concordia-discordia methods completely removes the unknown initial daughter problem
In radiometric dating, the nearly ubiquitous presence of an unknown amount of initial daughter element generally prevents the use of the simple accumulation methods. The exceptions are the parent-daughter pair 40K and 40Ar (Potassium-Argon) and special but rare cases of other decay schemes. However, this “initial daughter” problem is easily solved by the application of isochron or concordia-discordia diagrams, and similar methods.
The problem of the unknown quantity of the initial daughter and whether the system is open or closed are solved by using age-diagnostic diagrams. These diagrams and their mathematical equivalents not only provide an age, but some provide an exact measure of the initial daughter, and some provide an age for systems that have not remained closed, and all are self-checking.
An isochron is a line of equal time. It is obtained by analyzing several minerals from the same rock, or several rocks that formed from the same source at the same time but with differing amounts of the parent and daughter elements. On a simple graph, the amount of the parent isotope is plotted on the x-axis and the amount of the daughter isotope is plotted on the y-axis, both values being divided (or normalized) by the amount of a non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter. If the samples have been closed systems since they formed, the points will fall on a line (an isochron) whose slope is a function of the age of the rock. The intercept of the line on the x-axis gives a measure of the initial daughter.
Source: my summary of Dalrymple’s book here
Now what are the other 18 assumptions? You said there were 20, unless you were kidding.
These are the only two I am aware of. The first one about constancy is eminently reasonable, the second one about the “initial daughter” is taken care of by the isochron and concordia-discordia techniques.
And your scientific response to Dalrymple is what???
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << YOU DONT GET IT…MY ENTIRE POSITION IS THAT THE 2 SIDES HAVE THEORIES, NOT FACTS, THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THE FACTS. EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY. CREATION IS NOT FACT. IT IS A THEORY. YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THAT IS WHAT IM ARGUING. >>
OK, I’ll respond to this. Young-earth creationists themselves have plainly admitted that young-earth creationism is NOT a scientific theory.
“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)
“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)
“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114)
above citations taken from Judge Overton’s landmark decision in the “Arkansas Creationist” Trial from 1981-82 ]
Let me make this simple for you by summarizing Morris and Gish:
(1) We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.
(2) We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
(3) Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. (I’d like his evidence that evolution is religion and not science, I don’t see it).
(4) If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation.
These are the founders of modern day “creationism.” Can you please explain for me how (1) to (4) fall under any definition of science?
Any response to those? Or is there too much water under the bridge, so to speak. I can keep this up if you can. There is no “scientific theory” of young-earth creationism. None.
Phil P
OK, I’ll respond to this. Young-earth creationists themselves have plainly admitted that young-earth creationism is NOT a scientific theory.
“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)
“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981)
“…it is…quite impossible to determine anything about Creation through a study of present processes, because present processes are not creative in character. If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation. God was there when it happened. We were not there…Therefore, we are completely limited to what God has seen fit to tell us, and this information is in His written Word. This is our textbook on the science of Creation!” (Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science, page 114)
above citations taken from Judge Overton’s landmark decision in the “Arkansas Creationist” Trial from 1981-82 ]
Let me make this simple for you by summarizing Morris and Gish:
(1) We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.
(2) We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
(3) Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory. (I’d like his evidence that evolution is religion and not science, I don’t see it).
(4) If man wished to know anything about Creation (the time of Creation, the duration of Creation, the order of Creation, the methods of Creation, or anything else) his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation.
These are the founders of modern day “creationism.” Can you please explain for me how (1) to (4) fall under any definition of science?
Any response to those? Or is there too much water under the bridge, so to speak. I can keep this up if you can. There is no “scientific theory” of young-earth creationism. None.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
You keep claiming creation is a scientific theory. Let’s get a definition on the table, and clear up your misunderstanding of the word. What is a scientific theory?
In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be “electromagnetic theory,” which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell’s equations. For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.
There are two other uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory. Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a “guess” or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be “proven true,” because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are abandoned altogether or slightly modified.
Further, theory as defined variously by the online dictionaries and used in science is
– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena – see Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory
– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”
“Creationism” does not qualify under these definitions. All your other points of “science” are therefore irrelevant and can be dismissed. There is no scientific theory of “creationism” to be supported or defended.
Phil P
In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be “electromagnetic theory,” which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell’s equations. For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.
There are two other uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory. Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.
In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a “guess” or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be “proven true,” because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are abandoned altogether or slightly modified.
Further, theory as defined variously by the online dictionaries and used in science is
– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena – see Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory
– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”
“Creationism” does not qualify under these definitions. All your other points of “science” are therefore irrelevant and can be dismissed. There is no scientific theory of “creationism” to be supported or defended.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
“…is enough to convince most reasonable people. I am definitely wrong there, and it is depressing and frustrating.”
I should have said, “enough to convince everyone.” My mistake, point of logic. Anyway, good night. :yawn:
Phil P
I should have said, “enough to convince everyone.” My mistake, point of logic. Anyway, good night. :yawn:
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
rheins << Funny you keep asking me for references, but then you say this without any grounds or references. Lets see the pictures. The only place your column exists in its entirety is in a text book. >>
Classic creationist error.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota by Glenn Morton
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate (in Killdeer, North Dakota) Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm …100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm …4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm… 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm…5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm…6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm…7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm…7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm…7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm…8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm…8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm…8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm…8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm…9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm…10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm…11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm…11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm…11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm…11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm…12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm…12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp…12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm…12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm…13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite…13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp…14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm…14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm…14445 feet
Precambrian…14945 feet
Young-earth creationists Morris and Parker write:
“Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.”
They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t’in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
Sources: Robertson Group, 1989; A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396; N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517
I also recommend Glenn Morton’s site to you.
You called me the liar earlier, looks like the creationists are lying to you. Don’t believe them. You are not a liar, just grossly misinformed and mistaken.
Phil P
Classic creationist error.
The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota by Glenn Morton
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate (in Killdeer, North Dakota) Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):
Tertiary Ft. Union Fm …100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm …4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm… 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm…5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm…6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm…7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm…7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm…7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm…8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm…8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm…8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm…8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm…9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm…10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm…11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm…11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm…11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm…11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm…12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm…12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp…12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm…12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm…13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite…13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp…14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm…14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm…14445 feet
Precambrian…14945 feet
Young-earth creationists Morris and Parker write:
“Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.”
They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t’in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
Sources: Robertson Group, 1989; A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396; N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517
I also recommend Glenn Morton’s site to you.
You called me the liar earlier, looks like the creationists are lying to you. Don’t believe them. You are not a liar, just grossly misinformed and mistaken.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
One more crucial point. I have established creationism is not a scientific theory by the statements and words of the founders of modern-day creationism themselves. I’ve already quoted the International Theological Commission. Before you counter with “evolution is not a scientific theory” either let us get the statements of evolutionists on the table:
From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:
“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” American Biology Teacher, March 1973)
From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:
“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)
The Steve Project signed by over 600 (so far) Ph.D. scientists only with names of Steve (or variation):
“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.” (Project Steve, the NCSE response to creationist pseudo-“lists”)
From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:
“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)
All taken from my page here, others there. OK, NOW I might be done for the night.
Phil P
From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:
“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” American Biology Teacher, March 1973)
From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:
“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)
The Steve Project signed by over 600 (so far) Ph.D. scientists only with names of Steve (or variation):
“Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to ‘intelligent design,’ to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.” (Project Steve, the NCSE response to creationist pseudo-“lists”)
From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:
“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true… But people who oppose evolution, and seek to have creationism or intelligent design included in science curricula, seek to dismiss and change the most successful way of knowing ever discovered. They wish to substitute opinion and belief for evidence and testing. The proponents of creationism/intelligent design promote scientific ignorance in the guise of learning.” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)
All taken from my page here, others there. OK, NOW I might be done for the night.
Phil P
R
rossum
Guest
rheins2000 (post #66):
rheins2000 from Pathlights:
rheins2000 (post #70):
rheins2000:
You are in a hole, stop digging. Here is yet more heat you are adding to your flood scenario. You have boiled the oceans away twice over. Noah and all the animals were cooked - nothing survived.
rossum
This is a dishonest post, the only parts of it that you wrote yourself was the “Oh, by the way,” at the start and the closing two lines. You didn’t even bother to change the capital-H following your second comma. A quick google found the Pathlights site which contains the text you have posted here without attribution. That is plagiarism. Apart from being dishonest, plagiarism is also stupid since it gives your opponent an easy point to score against you. When you post quotes from other people you must indicate clearly what the quoted material is and where it came from. Anything less is dishonest.
rheins2000 from Pathlights:
Did you even bother to read this stuff before you posted it? If you had even a smattering of biology you would be able to see the gross error in this one. Bacteria do not have sexes, they reproduce by splitting. Male and female are not defined for bacteria. This is very poor, even for a Creationist website. The authors are either ignorant of basic biology or are insulting your intelligence by using such a ludicrously bad argument. Do check your posts first so you can avoid the most obvious errors; you cannot always trust Creationist websites to get thing right.
rheins2000 (post #70):
This is obviously wrong. A big dinosaur like a sauropod laid eggs roughly the size of an Ostrich egg. So on your sorting by “size and mass” scenario we would expect to see the newly hatched sauropods sorted with small cats and dogs. One year old sauropods would be sorted with bison or water buffalo. Two year old sauropods would be with elephants and mammoths and adult sauropods would be in a layer with all the other large adult dinosaurs. We see nothing like this. Dinosaurs of many different sizes are all together in Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks, sorted by species not by size. No cats, bison or elephants are found in any of those rocks. Not one. Not even a stray bone. Your sorting scenario does not fit the observed facts and is incorrect. You should have realised this yourself before posting it, or is this another unattributed regurgipost that you didn’t even bother to think about before posting?
You are just making things worse for yourself by adding to the heat problems with the flood. Pressurised superheated water at 1000 F will turn into very hot steam as soon as the pressure is released. How did Noah avoid being steamed to death in an atmosphere full of steam? Given the quantities of water/steam involved you are going to have a very large increase in atmospheric temperature. Remember also the millions of cubic kilometres of red hot lava and the kinetic energy of dozens of meteorite impacts. In your flood year everything on earth was steamed to death.
rheins2000 said:
You are in a hole, stop digging. Here is yet more heat you are adding to your flood scenario. You have boiled the oceans away twice over. Noah and all the animals were cooked - nothing survived.
rossum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Just a general reply to this thread, but addressed to those who have a problem with evolution or the age of the earth as taught by science. If you wish to believe in a young earth and that Genesis is literally true, the Church will have no argument with you. Please understand and admit that you are doing so based on your faith, which is a good thing. I honor your faith in those matters, even though I disagree with them. To me, it isn’t something that will get you to or keep you out of heaven.
That being said, if you chose to argue your faith by using science, please be prepared to be challenged. Make sure you understand what science is and what it isn’t. Study the subject, making sure you research both sides, not only the side you agree with. Understand that there is a terminology in science that may make you misunderstand what is being said if you apply common usage to the words.
That being said, if you chose to argue your faith by using science, please be prepared to be challenged. Make sure you understand what science is and what it isn’t. Study the subject, making sure you research both sides, not only the side you agree with. Understand that there is a terminology in science that may make you misunderstand what is being said if you apply common usage to the words.
- Status