(June 5, 2013 at 9:56 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: I remember singing a song in kids club that went something like this:

"Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
I can feel him all over me"

Then we go on to describe the different body parts we're feeling him with.

Uhhh, why do I feel like you should report this fella to the authorities?

---

(June 5, 2013 at 9:49 pm)catfish Wrote:

(June 5, 2013 at 9:44 pm)smax Wrote: Whoa there, Joseph! I know you are trying desperately to invent a new religion, but don't go starting one in my name.

Dude, you've been walking around and posting like your head is on backwards so I thought it was a testament...

You've seen me "walking around"?

(June 5, 2013 at 9:56 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: I remember singing a song in kids club that went something like this:

"Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
Gods not dead, no way, he is aliiiive,
I can feel him all over me"

Then we go on to describe the different body parts we're feeling him with.

I don't know about you, but I'd have felt like I needed a shower after that. Then a telephone.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 6:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Aye, not all rocks agree.... that's because the Earth is far from static and rocks mix and mingle, ending up with young rock contaminating old rocks. If the person taking the sample is not careful with it, contamination becomes easy.

Not all methods are based on the same assumptions. but I guess you know that, but choose to ignore it. more dishonesty...

How do you know the disagreements are due to contamination and not to a fundamental error with the method? Secondly, they do all hold the same assumption, uniformitarianism.

Because they're outliers.
Only some rocks have this problem. Not most... some... a few. Not statistically relevant.
There's a place, not far from where I live, where we can see the rock layers. I'm sure you've probably seen something similar.
But, on this particular location, the layers are not stacked up vertically, but rather horizontally. Care to guess why that is?

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 5:03 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You say the assumptions must be wrong because they disagree with your book. Or is that not the reason why you claim the assumptions present in all dating mechanisms must be wrong?

No, I am saying you cannot argue that my book is wrong because of your dating methods because they all adhere to assumptions that presuppose my book is wrong. So you are essentially assuming the Bible is not the word of God in order to argue that the Bible is not the word of God and therefore wrong about the Earth’s history.

HAHA, someone messed up a quote...

Let's parallel this with something...
So you're saying I can't argue that Harry Potter is wrong because my science adheres to the assumption that presume HP to be wrong (magic doesn't exist). So I'm assuming that HP books are wrong in order to argue that the HP books are wrong, therefore wrong about the existence of magic.

Where am I going with this? To the fact that OF COURSE a book that was written without proper verification of facts is never taken into account when researching something in a scientific way. And if that research leads to a conclusion that clashes with whatever is in the book, then science doesn't care.... the book is wrong! Harry potter is wrong, there's no magic; Dracula is wrong, there are no vampires; Star Trek is wrong, there was no Eugenics war in the late 20th century; etc...etc...etc...

If you really want to prove science wrong and your book true, then provide your creator for science to scrutinize.
This assuming that science's assumptions are wrong just so your book could be true... is not sustainable... hence Why do people laugh at creationists?

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: They could have been different, but there's no evidence supporting that view.... And what sort of force(s)/field(s) would make them different, oh great and powerful, all-knowing, creationist?

Again, forces are a descriptive term; if the decay rates underwent a period of accelerated decay the forces would have been different during that period of time.

Quote: About the decay rate of nuclear isotopes...Indeed the exponential decay is experimentally derived... and, as such, only based of the limited temporal span of the experiment.... But it fits oh so well to the curve... And nature likes exponentials only too much... and there's no reason to think that the exponential turns into something else as we go back... Why? I told you! Short lived radionuclides follow the exponential to the letter. Long lived ones behave similarly in the lab, for new fresh off a volcano rocks, for Mt Vesuvius rocks, and others.... If they follow the same exponential law regardless of their age, then why would we even dream that they followed a different law in the remote past?

Well Nature doesn’t like anything, that’s reification. I would expect the laboratory short lived isotopes to follow the curve because they didn’t go through the conditions which produced the periods of accelerated decay in the Earth’s history while the older ones did. Now if by short lived isotopes you are referring to supposedly extinct isotopes then I would argue that actually supports the idea of periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past.

Short lived isotopes are isotopes with a short half-life, like carbon-14. Which oppose long lived isotopes like Uranium-234.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: OH yeah.... the laws of physics must have changed in the meantime... -.-'

Accelerated nuclear decay doesn’t violate any laws of physics, it merely violates your uniformitarian assumptions and there is nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
Global flood causing radioactive decays to change?! What was that flood made of?!

Well most of the accelerated decay would have taken place during the creation week, but the flood would have affected the closed system assumption that the dating method is founded upon.

The flood of water, you mean?! BUHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I have a much better explanation for that... it's equally bollocks, but much more fun!
You see, the only thing that seems to affect the temporal perception of matter is tacheons. So you must be talking about a flood of tacheons... How could we get something like that?
Some klingon bird of prey did a sling-shot around the sun, went back in time, but the ship's structural integrity didn't hold and it blew up. The warp core tore, reacted with he early sun and produced a burst of tacheons that flooded (HeHe) the entire solar system, leading to an accelerated temporal perception of the solar system's vicinity. That is why, today, every solar system rock that's been dated has pretty much the same "way too old" date.

My fiction is better than yours, however equally unsubstantiated.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: About the moon, the radioisotope dating methods have placed the moon at ~4.5 Billion years old. That matches quite well with the oldest rocks on Earth.

Yes but according to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum the Moon is far younger than 1.38 Billion years old, so now are you asserting the laws of physics were different in the Earth’s past?

Quote: Also, you've probably noticed that the moon is pockmarked with crater impacts. Each of those can tug the moon closer or farther from the Earth... Thus rendering any calculations based on the present drifting speed quite inaccurate.

That seems like quite the Ad Hoc hypothesis. It’d take quite the meteorite to effect the Moon’s recession that greatly, and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting a meteorite of that magnitude ever struck the Moon. A better conclusion would be that your radiometric dating method is just flawed since it requires more assumptions.

No, radiometric dating has been consistent and yields results compatible with independent dating methodologies. I have no reason to doubt it.

All it says is that the Earth and moon were formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago.
Perhaps independently, perhaps through some mutual collision, perhaps somehow else... but they did cool down from their initial lava like state roughly at the same time.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Now do tell me there's a similar process that, in the past, hampered or facilitated radioactive decay... -.-'

It’s been demonstrated in the laboratory that several conditions can lead to billions of years’ worth (at present rates) of nuclear decay to occur in very short periods of time.

Citation needed, but I don't doubt you.
It's possible... of course... but to claim that those conditions happened practically homogeneously throughout the Earth seems a stretch...
Are any of those conditions a flood?!

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:

Enjoy your reading... do try to follow the references.

That paper proves my point; they didn’t get accurate results for the Mt Etna or Mt. St. Helens lava flows. Mt. Etna which was formed 2135 years ago was radio-metrically dated to have formed 250,000 years ago, that’s only 11,610% experimental error! Lava flows from the now 33 year old Mt. St. Helen’s eruption were radio-metrically dated to be between 350,000-2,800,000 years old. Let’s see, that’s only 32,140-8,484,748% experimental error! That’s like asserting a 12” ruler is really 16 miles long! Oops.

When will you learn to read?

Quote:Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

It was that faulty K-Ar method with excessive 40Ar that yielded such results.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Soft tissue... it seems you're still not reading the article. Let me bring it up from memory: they say they've found fossilized soft tissue. Fossilized. As in, turned to rock. All they have are the arrangement of the soft tissue... not the soft tissue itself. Read the damned article if you want more details.

No this is incorrect, in the 1990s Dr. Schweitzer’s team found actual hemoglobin in a piece of un-fossilized T-Rex bone, then in 2005 her team discovered soft tissue (blood cells and blood vessels) in a T-Rex bone that was still soft to the touch, in 2007 she and her team found actual protein collagen, so much of the protein was still remaining that it was able to be sequenced, then in 2012 the team found actual DNA (174 base pairs) in dinosaur fossils. Why is actual DNA such a problem? Well because we know it cannot last that long, empirical tests measuring the decay rate of DNA conclude that no traceable amounts could ever be found at the following temperatures and for the following periods of time…

22,000 years at 25°C
131,000 years at 15°C
882,000 years at 5°C
6,800,000 years at –5°C

Retrieved from “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils” Proceedings of the Royal Society number 279

Since the Earth’s average global temperature is 14.0 degrees C (World Meteorological Organization) it’s safe to assume those bones were not kept at below freezing for the last few million years- so it looks like dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago rather than millions.

Fair enough. Found that study Analysis of Dinosaur Bone Cells Confirms Ancient Protein Preservation. It only proves they found proteins which are found in DNA, but it's a step in the right direction...
They then go on to say (about that half-life of DNA study):

Quote:“The data thus far seem to support the theory that these structures can be preserved over time,” Schweitzer says. “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”

The scientists studying this don't jump the gun and state young Earth... instead, they state proteins can withstand for longer than we thought... let's try to discover what conditions lead to such marvelously long preservation.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Faint young sun? what is this new thing you bring up? Googling.....

You’ve never heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox? That’s surprising.

Yes... unlike you, I don't spend much time over creationist propaganda.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: No climate paradox under the faint early Sun... oops, you did it again!

Well obviously you actually did it again, not bothering to read your own article, shame on you! This article is incredibly sloppy and I usually expect a bit more from Nature. To suggest that the paradox is solved by appealing to a one-dimensional (vertical) climate model is absurd. When modeling climates a three-dimensional model that takes into account the ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere is always preferred. Not only this but the oversimplification of their model causes them to ignore very important factors such as the ice albedo feedback mechanism. It’s no wonder that this very article led to criticism even in Nature itself.

““Despite all these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved.”- Faint Young Sun Redux in Nature issue 464.

I see.... well I could only read the abstract, so yeah... there's that.
But then, I have to show you where the current trend stands on early Earth life. I'm sorry I didn't remember this on my last post... you caught me off guard with that early faint sun (wait, are you accepting that the Earth and Sun are that old?):
Underwater.Volcanic.Vents.
They provide all the heat required to melt water locally, soup like "nutrients", etc... Kind of like what's suspected to happen in Europa.

(June 5, 2013 at 5:45 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: And then you have the independent experiments that confirm radiometric dating.

Perhaps you linked the wrong article because the article you posted has nothing to do with radiometric dating, nor does it contradict the current Creation model because in that model the Sun was created functional. Creationists agree with the proposed source of the Sun’s energy.

Perhaps you don't know what "independent" means.
A completely different method of dating. Not at all related to radiometric. That's why the link I posted "has nothing to do with radiometric dating". It's about neutrino rate dating of the sun... Something you don't find in your creationist books, I assume... or you'd have some snarky comeback.

(June 5, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Ryantology Wrote: only begins after the last comma. Everything before that is an honest summary of the Christian creationist argument.

No, the whole comment is rather fallacious for one reason or another, but I know you were not actually trying to prove a point.

Quote: Where has it been documented that the Christian God specifically, and no other god, created life? Has this been observed and detected?

Only the Christian God has the necessary attributes for the job.

(June 5, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Again..and as usual, you appear to be arguing against your own theory.

Nope, I am arguing against yours, if you do not wish to defend it that’s fine with me.

Quote:
A mutation must become fixed in the population by genetic drift if it is to be passed on or fixed in a population? That's news to me. More of your theory?

That’s not what I said at all, if you’re trying to explain any of the distinct genetic information and phenotypes we observe in organisms on earth with neutral mutations then those mutations would have had to given rise to those features and had become fixed through drift in those populations, and that’s not mathematically possible. So no matter whether you want to explain them through Natural Selection or through Neutral Molecular Evolution, either way you can’t. Perhaps you have a third mechanism?

Quote:
Are you having trouble understanding what happens to allele frequency when one specific segment of a population becomes over-represented relative to the total population?

You’re committing equivocation again; we are not talking about the frequencies of alleles in a population we are talking about the origination of those new alleles to begin with.

Quote:Agreed....so, thanks for the laugh, I guess?

Yes, thank you for tossing out that little ridiculous hypothesis.

Quote:Finally, you get something right.

And those mathematical probabilities indicate your hypothesis is statistically impossible. Game over.

Quote:-and then fuck it up in the next breath. My position - as I have stated very simply is all that a mutation must be to be passed on or become fixed in a population is non-deleterious. Modern synthesis holds that while genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of the law of large numbers - of chance acting upon allele frequency...natural selection is a much more powerful and constant means of effecting change -this barring those instances of drift set in motion by population bottlenecks.

What a waste of time! You only brought up neutral mutations because I was pointing out that the evidence we observe does not support Natural Selection, and now you are admitting that Natural Selection was your best mechanism to begin with; so disingenuous.

Quote:Thus leading me to conclude that you have absolutely no clue what you're on about - whatsoever.

What I said was completely accurate, I am far more educated on this material than you’ll ever be. You just do not understand your own theory as evidenced by all of the time you wasted trying to defend neutral theory; so small time.

(June 6, 2013 at 6:24 am)pocaracas Wrote: Because they're outliers.
Only some rocks have this problem. Not most... some... a few. Not statistically relevant.

Accept when they try to date rocks of known age, all of the sudden the outliers become the norm.

Quote: But, on this particular location, the layers are not stacked up vertically, but rather horizontally. Care to guess why that is?

I’d have to see what you are referring to, I’d assume through some sort of upheaval. Near where I live you can see large bent but unbroken bands of strata, how are they unbroken if they were each deposited separately and solidified over millions of years but were then bent by seismic forces later? It looks to me like they were bent while they were still soft and solidified afterwards.

Quote: HAHA, someone messed up a quote...

Dang! I did didn’t I?

Quote: So you're saying I can't argue that Harry Potter is wrong because my science adheres to the assumption that presume HP to be wrong (magic doesn't exist). So I'm assuming that HP books are wrong in order to argue that the HP books are wrong, therefore wrong about the existence of magic.

Yes, you’re not allowed to use your assumption that magic does not exist in order to argue for the very thing you are assuming to be true (that magic does not exist).

Quote: jWhere am I going with this? To the fact that OF COURSE a book that was written without proper verification of facts is never taken into account when researching something in a scientific way. And if that research leads to a conclusion that clashes with whatever is in the book, then science doesn't care.... the book is wrong! Harry potter is wrong, there's no magic; Dracula is wrong, there are no vampires; Star Trek is wrong, there was no Eugenics war in the late 20th century; etc...etc...etc...

None of those books claim to be infallible, so comparing them to scripture is fallacious. When a source that claims to be infallible disagrees with what we already know is fallible (science) we have to go about things far differently.

Quote: If you really want to prove science wrong and your book true, then provide your creator for science to scrutinize.

This has nothing to do with proving science wrong, science does not hold a position it’s merely a tool and creationists can use that tool perfectly without contradicting scripture.

Quote: This assuming that science's assumptions are wrong just so your book could be true... is not sustainable... hence Why do people laugh at creationists?

People laugh because they cannot refute their arguments and laughing at something you cannot refute is a natural coping mechanism, it’s fallacious though.

Quote:

Short lived isotopes are isotopes with a short half-life, like carbon-14. Which oppose long lived isotopes like Uranium-234.

Yes I am well aware of what they are, but some short-lived isotopes are merely theorized to have naturally existed even though we have never observed them to have existed in nature, so it was unclear which you were referring to.

Quote:
The flood of water, you mean?! BUHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Yes, water is the number one cause of contamination within supposed closed systems; I am shocked you were unaware of that.

Quote:
No, radiometric dating has been consistent and yields results compatible with independent dating methodologies. I have no reason to doubt it.

Except for when it contradicts independent dating methodologies such as the lunar recession rate right? So it’s always consistent except for the numerous times when it’s not.

Quote: All it says is that the Earth and moon were formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago.

But according to the Laws of Physics that’s not possible, so either the Laws of Physics are wrong or radiometric dating is, I’ll side with the Laws of Physics on this one.

Quote:
It's possible... of course... but to claim that those conditions happened practically homogeneously throughout the Earth seems a stretch...
Are any of those conditions a flood?!

No, they most likely occurred during the formation of the Earth during creation week leading to billions of years’ worth of decay (at today’s rates) within a matter of hours. Observable Helium retention rates support this hypothesis.

Quote:
It was that faulty K-Ar method with excessive 40Ar that yielded such results.

Yup, even though you previously stated all of the methods yield consistent results we now appear to have a faulty method. The reason they claim there is excess argon is because they missed the targeted age so badly, it’s an Ad Hoc Hypothesis in order to save their method. The problem is that without a known target, there is no way to determine if excesses exist or not. The method is now useless. Thanks for providing the article by the way.

Quote: Fair enough. Found that study Analysis of Dinosaur Bone Cells Confirms Ancient Protein Preservation. It only proves they found proteins which are found in DNA, but it's a step in the right direction...

No in 2012 they actually found in tact DNA (greater than 170 base pairs), the problem was that nobody had ever tried looking for it because they knew such matter could not last that long and they knew the bones were that old. It’s just another example of how the power of the evolutionary paradigm actually hampers our scientific discoveries.

Quote: “The data thus far seem to support the theory that these structures can be preserved over time,” Schweitzer says. “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”

Mary’s still got to get published, she can’t rock the boat too much. We know DNA cannot last that long, all of the empirical studies measuring its rates of decay demonstrate that.

Quote: The scientists studying this don't jump the gun and state young Earth... instead, they state proteins can withstand for longer than we thought... let's try to discover what conditions lead to such marvelously long preservation.

Yes, even though if you had claimed in the 1980s (as creationists did) that it was feasible to find dinosaur DNA you would have been laughed out of the room. People know what the proper implications of this finding are; they just want to keep their jobs.

Quote:
Yes... unlike you, I don't spend much time over creationist propaganda.

It’s not a creationist idea; it’s been a problem within the secular community for decades.

Quote:
(wait, are you accepting that the Earth and Sun are that old?):

Nope, the faint young-sun paradox is only a problem for those that believe the Sun is that old, not for the Creation model.

Quote: Underwater.Volcanic.Vents.
They provide all the heat required to melt water locally, soup like "nutrients", etc... Kind of like what's suspected to happen in Europa.

Yes, but now you have a different problem, in all of the laboratory experiments seeking to demonstrate amino acids can be formed from early earth environments the catalyst (heat) has to be quickly removed in order to prevent it from destroying the newly created amino acids, but in deep sea vents that are keeping the water at liquid form this could not happen and the heat from the vents would destroy the newly formed amino acid chains and thus no life.

Quote:
Perhaps you don't know what "independent" means.
A completely different method of dating. Not at all related to radiometric. That's why the link I posted "has nothing to do with radiometric dating". It's about neutrino rate dating of the sun... Something you don't find in your creationist books, I assume... or you'd have some snarky comeback.

That’s what you were trying to do? You think the fact that they believe the Sun is 5 billion years old supports the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? That seems to be quite a non-sequitur, even if the Sun were that old it does not support the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

These replies are getting too big again... time for a TLDR, no?


TLDR: creationist "science" keeps failing to sustain itself, while real science acknowledges its limitations and advances...

(June 6, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s not what I said at all, if you’re trying to explain any of the distinct genetic information and phenotypes we observe in organisms on earth with neutral mutations then those mutations would have had to given rise to those features and had become fixed through drift in those populations, and that’s not mathematically possible. So no matter whether you want to explain them through Natural Selection or through Neutral Molecular Evolution, either way you can’t. Perhaps you have a third mechanism?

No, Statler, they would not have to do any such thing, and yet again I have to remind you that what you call impossible happens with regularity. We've already been over this, why should I repeat myself? You mean a 4th...don't you? Since we already have mutation, non-random selection, and random selection. Is there any room for a 4th (what might we point to that doesn't fall under any of these headers?)?

Quote:
You’re committing equivocation again; we are not talking about the frequencies of alleles in a population we are talking about the origination of those new alleles to begin with.

LOL, no, you're arguing from a point of ignorance. If we're talking about selection, be it neutral, deleterious or beneficial - and genetic drift...we are -not- talking about the origin of these things -at all-. You would know this, if you understood the theory. It's right in the damned name of the theory -Synthesis.

Quote:Yes, thank you for tossing out that little ridiculous hypothesis.

It was ridiculous from the first moment you floated it in order to argue against it-something I've mentioned in every post. Required no concessions from me.

Quote:And those mathematical probabilities indicate your hypothesis is statistically impossible. Game over.

Impossi-bru!

Quote:What a waste of time! You only brought up neutral mutations because I was pointing out that the evidence we observe does not support Natural Selection, and now you are admitting that Natural Selection was your best mechanism to begin with; so disingenuous.

Then stop wasting your own fucking time erecting straw effigies of a theory Stat? I explained to you what natural selection could not do pages ago. It clearly went right over your head - because here we are. It isn't as though I haven't reminded you -in every post- that you've been arguing with yourself. I don't see why you're bitching -to me- about your time being wasted?

Let me help you steer clear of wasted time in the future. Learn.....the.....theory - and then- come back and argue against it. Is that too much to ask? Why should I have to correct you at every turn - why am I required to notify you when you're arguing against yourself in the first place man?

Let's try to get passed the fundamentals -one more time-. All that is required of a mutation for it to be passed on or become fixed in a population is that it be non-deleterious. Can you move forward from here, or is your contention DOA from this point onward?

Get real. God never died, he never existed in the first place.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:47 am)little_monkey Wrote: Get real. God never died, he never existed in the first place.

Exactly my thought when I see this thread.

"How do you know he is alive?"

(June 7, 2013 at 9:49 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 9:47 am)little_monkey Wrote: Get real. God never died, he never existed in the first place.

Exactly my thought when I see this thread.

"How do you know he is alive?"

That said, I will admit to snickering a little at the thought of god as he's commonly depicted in christianity- big bearded dude in a white robe glowing with heavenly light- sprawled out dead on a desert highway, still glowing a little.

(June 7, 2013 at 9:49 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(June 7, 2013 at 9:47 am)little_monkey Wrote: Get real. God never died, he never existed in the first place.

Exactly my thought when I see this thread.

"How do you know he is alive?"

How do we know it was ever alive?