Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 9:19 am
(November 7, 2013 at 3:21 am)orogenicman Wrote: Well, since you brought it up, I have to ask, how is it possible that you, a molecular geneticist, can, with a straight face, claim fondness for Tomkins' work, declaring that "he does know what he’s talking about", and yet in nearly in the same sentence call his work "terribly unscientific", "absolutely and unremittingly terrible" and "not honest"?
After reading 4 papers by him, he knows a lot about genomes and how to study them- that much is clear. This makes his very bad work (as in the "chromosome fusion" paper) look very suspicious. Since he clearly knows what the evidence shows, such a terrible misrepresentation of it, along with evidence that claims what all evolutionary biologists have been saying (which renders it useless) and presenting this evidence selectively and disingenuously, can only mean he is deliberately lying (the other option would be that he is ignorant- and he has proven that he's not). Since his audience is going to consist largely of people who will be impressed by "sciency" language, he can get away with that, since I don't think he has many peers at his level of education to review his work.
The "chimp and human chromosomes" paper isn't VERY bad. It's just misrepresentative of others' work and has gaping holes in its study design. What he has done in it I believe he has done correctly- his evidence looks good to a layperson but is fairly meaningless as he has presented it. Still, there is a point of interest in the work itself, and I won't pretend there isn't.
It is absolutely possible to know a great deal about genomes and tell lies about them to other people. The work is a strange mix of correct terminology and selective but correct descriptions of our understanding of certain areas of chromosomes, combined with an utter disregard for facts he finds inconvenient. My fondness comes from the novelty of having a YEC speak my language.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 11:36 am
(November 7, 2013 at 9:19 am)Zazzy Wrote:
(November 7, 2013 at 3:21 am)orogenicman Wrote: Well, since you brought it up, I have to ask, how is it possible that you, a molecular geneticist, can, with a straight face, claim fondness for Tomkins' work, declaring that "he does know what he’s talking about", and yet in nearly in the same sentence call his work "terribly unscientific", "absolutely and unremittingly terrible" and "not honest"?
After reading 4 papers by him, he knows a lot about genomes and how to study them- that much is clear. This makes his very bad work (as in the "chromosome fusion" paper) look very suspicious. Since he clearly knows what the evidence shows, such a terrible misrepresentation of it, along with evidence that claims what all evolutionary biologists have been saying (which renders it useless) and presenting this evidence selectively and disingenuously, can only mean he is deliberately lying (the other option would be that he is ignorant- and he has proven that he's not). Since his audience is going to consist largely of people who will be impressed by "sciency" language, he can get away with that, since I don't think he has many peers at his level of education to review his work.
The "chimp and human chromosomes" paper isn't VERY bad. It's just misrepresentative of others' work and has gaping holes in its study design. What he has done in it I believe he has done correctly- his evidence looks good to a layperson but is fairly meaningless as he has presented it. Still, there is a point of interest in the work itself, and I won't pretend there isn't.
It is absolutely possible to know a great deal about genomes and tell lies about them to other people. The work is a strange mix of correct terminology and selective but correct descriptions of our understanding of certain areas of chromosomes, combined with an utter disregard for facts he finds inconvenient. My fondness comes from the novelty of having a YEC speak my language.
It is inexcusable for any scientist to misrepresent the work of another, much less their own work, no matter how informed they are about their field of study. To me, that makes his behavior unethical and should be subject to sanction.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 11:54 am
(November 7, 2013 at 11:36 am)orogenicman Wrote: It is inexcusable for any scientist to misrepresent the work of another, much less their own work, no matter how informed they are about their field of study.
Of course. This behavior is par for the course in the ID movement, so it's no shock to find it here. And he's doing it somewhat subtly here- for instance, claiming that degenerate telomere regions in a fused chromosome will be a big shock to evolutonary biologists, when in fact that's already a well-known (and expected) fact about this region of the chromosome.
I'm going to evaluate the science in these regardless of any dishonest tactics, though.
Quote: To me, that makes his behavior unethical and should be subject to sanction.
Who should sanction him, since he's not part of any system that could revoke his tenure? I don't know for sure, but I can guess that this journal does not have a lot of knowledgeable scientists on staff to peer-review him, so sanction by refusal to publish when he appears to be their only real geneticist would be unlikely.
The 2 papers I have read very well would never pass peer review for a scientific journal, and it's not because of bias against YEC.
If I appear to be blase about the dishonesty, I suppose it's because given my experience with ID creationists, I expected such behavior, and I don't think it much matters in the grand scheme of things. It will not impact any working scientists- it will just annoy them.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm
So, as long as nobody does or says anything about what these unethical people are doing, they are free to wreck the science, which is their purpose anyway. Are you alright with that?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
(November 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)orogenicman Wrote: So, as long as nobody does or says anything about what these unethical people are doing, they are free to wreck the science, which is their purpose anyway. Are you alright with that?
Well, I am saying something about it. What would you like me to do other than point it out and ask readers to think critically about it? I'm not going to pitch a hissy fit because some guy said some questionable stuff in a creationist mag on the internet.
What I'm going to do is point out errors- and strengths- and hopefully help any interested parties learn something about genomes and about reading papers about genomics.
And they're not wrecking science. They're not even a blip on most scientists' radars. They are expressing free speech in their own journals, which nobody but fundies (and me, apparently) read anyway. If their audience can be convinced by this stuff, then I am at a loss as to how to help them.
If you think I should be getting all aggrieved at Statler Waldorf, then we're going to disagree on that. He did what I asked him to do, and I have no illusions that I am going to change his mind. It's an interesting look into a different mindset for me, not a mission to change him.
Yes, it is rather convenient that you supposedly cannot find any of these. I am beginning to question your ability to use search engines.
Quote: It's your reference, so I suggest you do a better job citing it so the rest of us don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time finding it. Same for all of your references.
Nope, you’re just moving the goalposts yet again; you simply asked for references, you never stipulated that you have to be able to find them for free online. Most research articles are not available for free online.
Quote: Nowhere in that paper does he make that conclusion. All he is saying is that more work needed to be done, and that was back in the 1980s. This is 2013, so perhaps you should review the literature to see what has been done since then on the problem.
So you admit it is a problem for the theory? That’s all I need. Again, you are moving the goalposts. Whether or not subsequent research has been done to alleviate the problem is irrelevant in regards to your initial assertion that creationists never do their own research and never get published in peer-reviewed journals. I have demonstrated that you did not know what you were talking about.
Quote: And you, no doubt, have conducted an exhaustive review of the intervening scientific literature in order to come to that conclusion, right?
If I am incorrect then by all means prove it. I always take the time to prove you wrong when you’re wrong.
Quote:
If I am looking at the wrong article then you need to learn how to cite authors correctly so there is no confusion for others trying to find the right one.
Apparently you need to learn how to use search engines. Not only this but you claim to be such an expert on what creationists have and have not done I figured you would at the very least know who Russell Humphreys was.
Quote: On the contrary, you are assuming that the biological theory of evolution has do with subjects other than biological evolution. What is more, biological evolution says NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING about the origin of life, the origin of the universe or anything else other than the evolution of life on Earth.
We’re not talking about Evolution- we’re talking about Creation which does deal with the origin of life and the Universe. Secondly, the theory of Evolution does entail the origin of life on Earth.
Quote: It's only proposition is that however life originated, it evolves. Stick to the subject - or not, but don't expect us to see you as anything other than a fool if you don't.
The subject is Creation, so who is the fool talking about Evolution now?
Quote:Except that, and I know you have been told this time and time again, but I will continue to tell you until it sinks in - creationism is not science.
According to the definition of science it is. Conjuring up your own self-serving definition of science in order to exclude creation is committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy. I believe I have told you that time and time again, but it could not hurt to tell you again.
Quote: It is a religious belief, one held by a very small minority of radical religious fruitcakes.
Personally attack them all you want, but you cannot beat them on the actual merits of the argument.
Quote: Hell, even mainstream religions think you people are fruity, as does the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mainstream religions do not think anything, that is the fallacy of reification. Why do you insist on being such an irrational person? As for the Supreme Court, is this the same Supreme Court that declared that Tomatoes are vegetables and that Blacks are not people? Appeal to people with law degrees all you want, I’ll appeal to people with actual science degrees.
Quote: Statler, the more you push a religious agenda into the science laboratory, the harder people are going to slam you for doing so.
The more you try to censor the truth from being taught to children the more people are going to call you out for doing so.
Quote:Look, if it creationism Gentry was trying to support, he would have said it, as would any of your alleged researchers. That they don't is not only dishonest, it is unethical. As for who refuted his work:
Dishonest and unethical according to whom? You? You’re hardly a pillar of virtue and intellectual honesty.
That’s not a peer-reviewed journal article. You’re going to have to play the game by your own rules now.
Quote:
So you are admitting that no one in the scientific community has been taken in by the scam these religious junkies are pushing, so they have to make up their own rules and pretend to play science even though everyone knows that they are not.
No I am admitting that you are one of the most irrational posters on this site by insisting on committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy over and over again. Creation Scientists are part of the scientific community, whether you agree with them or not. I realize you do not want to recognize this fact because you know you cannot beat them simply on the merits of your position.
Quote: Perhaps for your next trick you could actually try to get a real science education, assuming any college will have you.
Already did Toots! Perhaps you can actually work in your field again someday. : P
Quote:What design, where, and by who?
On Earth by Yahweh.
Quote:Well, that's a load of crap. Perhaps you should rephrase your bullshite statement.
Are you being serious? You did not know that creationists believe in speciation through natural selection? You ought to be downright embarrassed that you would even try to debate an issue you are so clearly ignorant of; I am sorry but this is downright ridiculous. I really try to treat you with civility and better than you treat me but you are making that awfully difficult right now…
Quote:I see that you don't understand radioisotopic methods. If you did, you would not be arguing against them as the valid methods that they are.
That’s a meaningless assertion; my point still stands.
Quote:Well, actually "all scientific explanations must be natural" can be falsified.
Axioms are not falsifiable through empirical means. “All scientific explanations must be natural” is an axiom that is stipulated, it is not a conclusion as you seem to think.
Quote: I like how you've obviously forgotten that I've already shown that you have no science education of merit and aren't who you claim to be.
How? Do you have my transcripts? You’re such a hack.
Quote: By doing the work, by using the methods each and every day, thousands of scientists, the world over, in hundreds of laboratories. You apparently are of the opinion that all of these dedicated men and women are so stupid that they would use these methods day in and day out for decades even though, according to YOU'RE ILK, they don't work. Don't insult my intelligence.
That’s twice now that you have not answered my question with specifics, I will just assume that you have no idea how they verify such methods and merely take their word for it. Fair enough.
Quote: And we've certainly been busy in that regard. Do a google [sic] scholar search for radioactive isotopic methods, and you will find thousands of peer reviewed papers on the subject. Now compare that with the utter drivel posted on such sites as answers in genesis. Case closed.
How do you radioactive isotope methods demonstrate the Earth is billions of years old? You sure are vague.
Quote: Ad hominem. Don't deflect from your own inadequacies on the subject. I still do research, mostly in astronomy now.
I caught you. You spent this entire time personally attacking my education and career and you completely forgot that I knew that were no longer employed in the field. That would make me the real scientists of the two of us; how ironic is that!?
Quote: Now address the fact that you willfully ignore some of the most successful scientific methods currently in use, radio isotopic dating methods.
I do not ignore them, I disagree with their assumptions.
Quote:Are you calling me a liar? Bad form.
No, I am calling you irrational; there is a difference. You seem to be one of those people who can dish it out but cannot receive it; am I right? Here you have called me a liar numerous times without any evidence to support such an accusation but you begin whimpering even at the thought that I may be accusing you of the same.
Quote:Assuming that tribal scribbles written thousands of years ago to deflect attention away from the fact that they had no air conditioning can even hold a candle to modern scientific achievement, well, that's just sad. Let's remain rational here.
Yes! Let us remain rational! Cease making fallacious appeals to novelty at once!
This is not an actual rule of logic; it is something Carl Sagan just invented as a rhetorical tool.
Quote:My evidence is on the map above. And your evidence is?
How does a map someone made in ArcInfo prove that no polar reversals occurred in the last 10,000 years? The things you accept as “evidence” are downright scary sometimes. Not only this, but this model assumes the existence of a geodynamo which is rather dubious.
Quote: And many other peer reviewed papers.
You can hurl all of the elephants you like; but if their assumptions are wrong then so are their conclusions. I reject the use of such assumptions.
Quote: Yes, all of the current oceanic crust (which ranges from about 250 million years to the present) post-dates nearly all of the continental Paleozoic sedimentary record, BY DEFINITION.
Quote:Apparently you didn't know this either. Probably because you aren't a geologist.
What I stated was accurate. You’re right though, I am not a geologist, and neither are you.
Quote: Because the U.S.G.S has an entire warehouse of rock cores from drilling into it. And much of it is exposed at the surface in the Eastern U.S., and in Eastern Canada. As for what type of rock it is, it is composed of many rock types:
Interesting, but that still does not tell me how you know how old it is. I am really trying to keep my questions simple and straightforward.
Quote:No we don't.
Yes, we do.
Quote:Such a tiny fraction of which are flood deposits that one can completely ignore that line of thinking.
Sedimentary rocks are laid down by water my friend; I thought you were the former geologist here.
Quote: Don't believe me?
Nope.
Quote: I have invited you numerous times to go into the field with me so I can prove to you how wrong that argument is, and in typical creationist fashion, you refuse to do it.
A cute but meaningless ploy. It is no different than me saying, “If you want evidence for the existence of God meet me on the Moon and I will show you it; why won’t you meet me there? Are you hiding something?”
Quote: Gee, I wonder why that is?
Perhaps because I have a job.
Quote: And the biomass that accumulates on the ocean floor today? What happens to it? Does it wait around for the next global flood before it becomes oil? Oh wait - it is already in flooded terrain.
Not sure how that is relevant to anything I said above but okay.
Quote:Right. So what you are saying is that once we suspend the laws of physics, anything is possible.
What laws did I suspend? We know that rapid magnetic reversals take place under such conditions. Again, aren’t you supposed to be the former geologist?
Quote:Not one of which peer reviews independently [sic] of its publication. They aren't accredited scientific journals, either. Moreover, the reason you people publish there is not because real journals won't publish your work. They would if it contained scientifically valid work. It doesn't. And you people don't want to make the effort to ensure that your work is valid (because if it did, you would lose your argument), so you have started these rags and then declare yourself scientifically literate. It is pseudoscience at best. In reality, it is religion pretending to be something it is most assuredly not.
You were just wrong; just man-up and admit it. It is certainly not the first time nor will it be the last. Creationists have their own peer-reviewed journals.
Quote: No, not the same Supreme Court.
You said the US Supreme Court. There is only one and they decide everything upon constitutional grounds by definition.
Quote:I have done no such thing. You are the one trying to pass off someone's work as being in support of creationism when it does no such thing. That makes it fair game, even for ridicule.
Everything I gave you supports the creation model, the problem is that you are completely ignorant of that model; that of course is not my problem.
Quote:Then you haven't argued with evolutionists, because no evolutionary scientist has ever made that claim.
You were not arguing with creationists in the past two years then either because creationists do not argue for C-Decay anymore.
Quote: Then you not only haven't argued with any evolutionary scientist because we all know that radiocarbon dating is not used to date ROCKS, but you don't even know what it does date, showing yet again how ignorant you are on the subject.
Apparently not ALL of you know that. I am quite aware of what radiocarbon dating is used for, and I corrected them much like I have corrected you.
Quote:No, you just willfully ignore what the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum implies.
One-way or round trip speed of light?
(November 1, 2013 at 9:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
The plot thickens.
I got curious so I put the exact name of the paper in quotes into Google and it came up in
However, I couldn't help but notice that the rest of the postings were for one creationist asshole site after another so I checked SAO/NASA further and found......(not to my surprise!)
...
So this is nothing but more creatard hogwash which, I learned with a smile, waldork has previously tried to slip into the discussions on this very board - that came up in my search, too - with little success.
Oh brother. The ADS clearly states that the paper was from the American Geophysical Union as I referenced. Grow up.
(November 1, 2013 at 10:40 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: That's not checkmate. Why would AiG add it on their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use if no creationists use it any more [sic]? If all creationists were in agreement then there would be no reason to tell them to not use a long list of long-debunked arguments which makes them look bad.
Nonsense. There are people who become creationists every day and would want to know what the currently accepted arguments are. If they got their hands on literature from 1981 arguing for C-Decay they could reference AIG to see if this is an argument that is still accepted today. Not only this, but that page sure comes in handy when disingenuous atheists such as yourself like to argue against outdated arguments that creationists do not use anymore because it is easier than arguing against the current model.
Quote: That's what's different between creationism and actual science: Creationists continue using the same tired old ad hoc arguments while science either discards ridiculous hypotheses or rejects them to begin with.
Also nonsense, there are science textbooks still using Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings. Not only do Evolutionists have a difficult time relinquishing bad arguments (i.e. Pepper Moths) but also straight up forgeries.
Quote: This model has fallen out of favor among creationists, but there are still strong adherents that are still trying to test it.
Such as? I want names! You’re not fairing too well in this discussion, perhaps you should just admit that you did not know what you were talking about; does it really hurt that badly?
Quote: Some creationists do still claim the speed of light changed 6,000 years ago.
Such as whom? Give me their names!
(November 2, 2013 at 12:22 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: What? How did you figure that?
If you knew that, then why present the argument you were presenting?
Quote:1) How does the anisotropic synchrony convention account for redshift?
The explanation behind redshifts would be the same, they are due to the expansion of the Universe and ASC does not change the Doppler Effect any.
Quote: 2) How come communication with the apollo mission, ISS, etc suffers from delay? Surely each transmission would arrive instantly in that convention?
We know that motion affects the passage of time, so the clocks aboard the Apollo vessel were not synchronized with clocks on Earth anymore; this is why we saw a delay according to the two clocks.
Quote: Oh, and I found a couple of articles regarding experiments to prove the one way speed of light:
I cannot get the links to open, could you post them again? Wikipedia actually has a decent article on why it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light; it might be helpful.
Quote: When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector. What can however be experimentally measured is the round-trip speed (or "two-way" speed of light) from the source to the detector and back again. Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. The constancy of the one-way speed in any given inertial frame, is the basis of his special theory of relativity although all experimentally verifiable predictions of this theory do not depend on that convention.[1][2]
Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.[3] Those experiments directly establish that synchronization with slow clock-transport is equivalent to Einstein synchronization, which is an important feature of special relativity. Though those experiments don't directly establish the isotropy of the one-way speed of light, because it was shown that slow clock-transport, the laws of motion, and the way inertial reference frames are defined, already involve the assumption of isotropic one-way speeds and thus are conventional as well.[4] In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic.[1]
Quote:Yeah, about 10-35 if memory serves
Haha.
Quote: Yes, I also know that it's possible for no rings to form in a year. That's the advantage of cross referencing the data from multiple sources. In order for that objection to be valid, a large proportion of the samples would have had to produce multiple rings in the same year. Multiple rings are the exception rather than the norm, which is what would have to be the case for a young earth.
We do not actually need that many instances of this to take place because there really are not many trees on Earth with more than 4,350 rings (I believe the oldest Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) had 4,723 rings); so you would only need about a century of the special climatic conditions needed to produce multiple rings. I actually think this is strong evidence confirming the Biblical timescale.
Quote:Have you got a link for that research? I'm sure it would float, that part's easy. It might even be stable, right up until the point where it had to move in open water. If I remember rightly, the practical limit for the length of a wooden ship is about 300ft; even then, taking on water is a constant problem.
Quote:I consider it to be equally ridiculous and hence not worth the effort.
I do not even remember what my objection was anymore, so do not bother.
Quote:Again, that's my point. It would require all antideluvian oceanic crust to be subducted and replaced within a year.
Sure, is there actually a problem with this or do you just prefer a gradual deep time model for the same occurrence?
Quote:Evidence? Not for flood legends and the bible, obviously.
Why do you discount those? We’d expect flood legends if a global event took place (and we have them). I also think it is important that a creation model is compatible with the Biblical text.
Quote:You read more than one book by dawkins???? Why would you do that to yourself? The god delusion stretched my tolerance to the limit, there's no way I'd go through that again.
Well TGSOE was supposed to be his best defense of Neo-Darwinism and TGD was his attempt at theology, so I figured I’d read them both. I was more impressed with the former than the latter, I think he should definitely stick to his expertise.
(November 2, 2013 at 12:50 am)orogenicman Wrote: What is even more interesting is that I can only find the abstract, not the actual paper, which was apparently presented at the 2003 AGU fall meeting. I can find no evidence that it was ever actually published. What I did find was a long article about some of his other work that has been severely criticized by the scientific community, particularly his work with Helium diffusion "dates":
Why would the AGU allow them to present work that the AGU did not publish? Get real.
It is so hilarious that you always ask for all of these peer-reviewed articles but as soon as you find something you do not agree with you run straight to talkorigins.org! I guess life is easy when you allow yourself to break the rules you expect everyone else to play by.
Humphreys already refuted that article and others though…
Quote: Furthermore, as for the original "paper" Humphreys is alleged to have published in the AGU, I'll note the impact of that paper by the utter lack of anyone in the scientific community talking about it ot [sic] referencing it.
People tend to ignore that which they cannot refute. I am completely fine with the research remaining un-refuted.
Quote: I might also add that Humhpreys believes the universe is 60,000 years old (+ or - 400,000 years!!!), well out of proportion with what our dear Statler subscribes to, never mind that his error is 2 order of magnitudes out of whack from what any scientist would accept.
Stop being dishonest, Humphreys believes it is around 6,000 years old.
(November 2, 2013 at 9:22 pm)Thor Wrote: So I repeat... Your evidence for this assertion is....?
It’s physics.
Quote: Sounds pretty ad hoc to me. Evidence?
Are you rejecting the evidence for plate-tectonics?
(November 2, 2013 at 10:18 pm)orogenicman Wrote: As I said before, once you suspend the laws of physics, ANYTHING is possible. How stupid is that?
You act as if the laws of physics are normative rather than descriptive. Ignoring that ridiculous blunder, which of the laws of physics have I suspended? Be specific, I am done allowing you to get away with such posturing.
(November 3, 2013 at 12:36 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: As I said before, the more you have to invoke magic in order to explain something, the more likely that something is totally false.
Where did I involve magic?
(November 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm)Zazzy Wrote: I am a molecular geneticist. I’ve never taken a single geology class. I could probably put a lot of work into understanding it, but I don’t have the time, and I dislike the idea that because one has expertise in one area as a scientist, that means one can comment intelligently on any field of science. I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear that I’m a biologist. I'll leave the geophysics to geophysics experts.
I was merely making it clear that the reason I referenced that article was to prove that creationists do in fact get their work published. I think we are past that now so we’ll move on.
Quote:It would indeed be interesting to look at those side-by-side. If you can find such republishings of any of these, I’d be interested. The problem is that I don’t even know what a creationist analysis of data would look like, so I can’t say if it would be a scientific conclusion or not. I see you have provided me some papers below- perhaps that will help.
Well the only ones I could find quickly were pertaining to geology. Their analysis would not be any different- they would only expand on their conclusions explaining how it supports the Biblical timeline. We saw this in the article pertaining to C14 in coal and diamonds, in the secular article they concluded by saying it was a mystery that required more research; in the creation republishing of the work they concluded by saying it exposed an actual flaw in the C14 dating method because its starting assumptions are fundamentally flawed.
Quote:
I still don’t know what that model looks like. I’m familiar with ID ideas, not YEC ones, so I can’t say. When you characterize the biochemistry of a particular fatty acid, it’s a descriptive work that is, as far as I can tell, not related to questions of creation. If you believe otherwise, please show me where that directly supports a creationist model and we'll discuss it.
You’re right; the descriptive process would not support one model over the other. Although I rather compelling argument can be made that the philosophy behind the science itself directly supports the creation model; that may be a discussion for a different time though.
Quote: It infuriates me that so much research is kept from the general public- it’s ivory tower bullshit. Luckily, now any paper that used tax dollars for the research is required to be free access.
I agree.
Quote:No, I don’t see it. The international scientific peer review system certainly has some problems, but it’s the hurdle we all have to jump to be taken seriously. People have published pretty outré stuff and gotten pretty nasty criticism (there’s always an ugly argument in the letters of any journal you pick up). If you can pass muster, you’ll get published. If creationists were passing muster and producing useful lab tools and protocols, or were advancing understanding in meaningful ways, it would eventually get in, just as other heretical ideas eventually have. I’m not sure you understand exactly how outrageous the ideas of someone like McClintock were. She was, to most scientists at the time, proposing what they saw as the equivalent of fairy magic in genomes. She won. So have many others- and they were not as legion as creationists in support of a single idea.
I could make the exact same argument but in reverse. If the science supporting Darwinism were really that compelling they would get it published in the Journal of Creation or the Answers Research Journal. Science and [/i]Nature[/i] have a religious-like commitment to the Darwinian paradigm so if your paper questions that commitment there is no way it is getting published no matter how good the science is. We saw this when the Smithsonian published that letter by Meyer in its journal- people lost their jobs and the article was merely questioning the adequacy of the Darwinian model. It’s a corrupt system.
Quote: None of this is to say there CAN'T be useful research in creationist labs. It's just hard to keep playing the bias card when it's so evident that when heretical ideas are well-supported, they eventually win.
McClintock’s idea was not questioning the grand paradigm though and that is the difference. She’s a Darwinist; so she was merely rocking the boat a bit, not completely capsizing it as someone who argues for a 6,000 year old Universe is doing.
Quote: I didn’t accuse anyone of intellectual dishonesty- I'm not familiar with Mohler, so I have no idea as to his honesty. I’m stating a research fact: appearances can fool you. The further investigation is what we are discussing here.
Yes, appearances can certainly fool us, and that is exactly Mohler’s point.
Quote:Well, quoting from the cover without having read the book is a disappointing way to argue.
It is not reasonable to assume the Dawkins would quote himself in context on the cover of his own book?
Quote: I don’t know what you mean by “limitations” to natural selection. DNA changes in many ways in response to many mutagenic events, and is selected for different reasons in different environments.
Well I believe the evidence supports the idea that there are limits to how far the genomes of animals and plants can be altered. You can get thousands of different breeds of dogs from a single canine ancestor but you will never get anything other than a canine. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are still both dogs.
Quote:What evidence for rapid speciation immediately after the flood? Again, a paper would be helpful.
Well the fact that we can still breed many species with one another today (lions with tigers, cougars with leopards, potatoes with peppers, and so on) would indicate a very recent divergence right? If such species diverged millions of generations ago we would expect their ability to produce viable offspring with one another to have been lost.
Quote:This is part of the process in peer-reviewed journals. I just watched an ugly exchange in the pages of Science between old small tree scientists and old large tree scientists (those old tree scientists are angry people), and currently there’s some harsh criticism of current flu vaccine work. Response, rebuttal, response, rebuttal. It’s all there when people make extraordinary claims.
Yes, but I would prefer that we did it more like Darwin and Newton did. They merely published their work and then it was available for everyone to see rather than a handful of anonymous reviewers rejecting it before it saw the light of day. If the methodology is poor it will be pointed out. People are biased, envious, and dishonest creatures; believing they can review someone else’s work they disagree with honestly is merely a pipe dream I am afraid.
Quote: Great, except I’m a woman.
Thanks for correcting me. Well, since you are a stand up woman.
Quote:OK, so what does “natural” mean to you? I think most scientists view it as phenomena (objects or processes) that can be observed in the universe.
A natural occurrence is simply what we observe when God is governing his creation in a regular and predictable manner (the Earth revolving around the Sun for example). From our perspective it is inaccurate to say that everything runs on its own and God merely has to step in from time to time.
Quote:Well, I don’t know that there is no supernatural phenomenon. If it truly was supernatural, though, it would be outside of the purview of science. For human history, all the things previously thought to be supernatural (disease, for example, being a product of a curse by a deity, or a witch) have, upon investigation, been found to have natural explanations. I certainly don’t know that we won’t find something that is not bound by natural laws, but if we did, it would be unstudyable and completely inexplicable (being SUPERnatural), and therefore not particularly interesting to me. I like to find out how things work. Something I can’t study and test is frankly kind of a boring idea, not a repulsive one. And it would be very easy for me to conclude that an experiment on an organism that is bamboozling me isn’t working because the organism has supernatural qualities, but that wouldn’t get me very far. It is a common joke in labs that there is an evil lab elf that messes with experiments when you’re not looking. If we really believed that, what would ever be the point of coming to work again?
I agree that the operational sciences deal solely with the natural; this is because empirical science requires direct observation and repeatability. This being said, there is nothing in the scientific study of origins that disallows for inferring the involvement of a creative agent. I think we both agree that science cannot demonstrate naturalism- which is rather ironic because many scientists today adhere to naturalism and pretend that anyone else who does not is not a real scientist. I completely reject naturalism but am able to still work in my field just fine. In fact, I have never run into an instance where I have arrived at a conclusion differing from that of my non-creationist colleagues.
As for your point about supernatural events in the past always having a natural explanation, I do not feel this is accurate at all. I am aware of no purely natural and material explanation for donkeys talking, axe heads floating, water being turned into wine, and people being dead for three days and then resurrecting and ascending to Heaven. I also doubt that you believe we will ever find a material explanation for such events.
I am still not sure what it would take to convince you that the supernatural did in fact exist. It seems that you have created a system that will never allow that to happen.
Quote: I would certainly look for a natural explanation first, because the world is full of hucksters trying to fool people, and it’s reasonable to be suspicious of extraordinary claims. If it was evident beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a resurrection had occurred, of course I would have to accept it. A story in an ancient book written by people who didn't understand how disease happens is not convincing evidence of anything about the behavior of bodies, but I can certainly think of evidence that would convince me of a resurrection. Being a scientist, I'd of course then start examining the resurrected body and genome to find what was different about it. What a cool scenario.
If Christ was willing to allow you to go poking around in his genome of course. How is the writers of the gospels being unaware of germ theory relevant to the story of the resurrection? I actually think that is one of the most compelling aspects of the Bible in general, the miracles described in the Bible would still defy our understanding of science today; which is not consistent with people simply witnessing natural events they merely did not understand at the time.
Quote:Yes, but we ARE starting to go round and round in circles. Eventually, it becomes a waste of everyone's time. Since I still don’t understand your position clearly, we’re not there yet.
In order to avoid the circles we’d have to have this discussion at more of an epistemic level. We’re too far down the conceptual scheme to have much common ground.
Quote:I’m saying that if you conclude that it can never be characterized, described, or tested on (supernatural), it’s a science stopper- not any science editor’s choice of how to further the general knowledge. Imagine if no one had ever kept looking for the cause of disease because everyone know witches were responsible?
You seem to be conflating two very different areas of science here. Yes, a supernatural explanation would not be allowed in the empirical sciences because it is not a repeatable event because of its irregularity. However, to say that inferring that all matter is the result of creation is unscientific because we cannot test it is not completely accurate. We also cannot directly test or repeat the origin of life that supposedly took place 4.3 billion years ago; this does not mean that all theories of abiogenesis are therefore unscientific. In the scientific study of origins it is completely appropriate to make an inference to the best possible explanation, even if that explanation involves creation.
Quote: If you’re making a design argument- that the pyramids in Egypt were probably constructed by Egyptians because they’re obviously man-made, then it’s not an argument I’ve ever found compelling when you move it to a deity. We know a lot about the abilities of human designers over the history of civilization. We don’t know anything about the abilities of a hypothetical supernatural being.
Are you really suggesting that if we did not know how the Egyptians built the pyramids we’d have to infer that they were the result of unintelligent natural processes? We have no idea how Stonehenge was built and yet we know it was the result of a creative mind; it would be ridiculous to argue that those rocks naturally assembled like that. If it is scientific to make such inferences in regards to the pyramids and Stonehenge then it also too must be scientific to make them in biology and cosmology.
Quote: In any case, we come back to the same argument: appearances can fool you. Look at the primary research and see which case is better supported by it.
If the primary research were arguing for the natural formation of the pyramids or the formation of the faces on Mt. Rushmore by wind erosion I would still believe (and correctly so) they were the result of an intelligent creator. I see no reason as to why biology and cosmology have to be any different. I believe that you need to justify why you allow such inferences to be made in the fields of engineering, archeology, sociology, and anthropology but not in biology or cosmology; as of right now it appears to be nothing more than special pleading.
Quote:There is no difference between claiming a witch cursed you and claiming a deity did X action.
I see a big difference.
Quote: Both are supernatural ideas that cannot be studied, because they are supernatural and outside any of the known mechanisms of physics, biology, or chemistry.
We cannot study the origin of life 4.5 billion years ago either; is this idea unscientific too? Your definitions of supernatural and natural seem to be a bit self-serving as well.
Quote: People have found lots of evidence for witches cursing them (and there ARE people who claim to be witches and able to curse people- just as there are people who claim to be living deities). Claiming the supernatural is a daily occurrence outside of Christianity.
I do not see the relevance of this; yes there is evidence for the supernatural worldwide.
Quote:I have done no such thing. I have said, very reasonably, that it is wise to look for natural explanations first, and I haven’t seen any evidence yet.
You did not only say that though, you also said that when we cannot find a natural explanation for something you adhere to the faith position that there is simply one we have not found yet. This means-that no matter how compelling the evidence is-you will never conclude that the supernatural exists.
Quote: If you get sick, are you going to go to the doctor, or are you going to start complaining that your neighbor is a witch who cursed you?
Why do you keep bringing up witches? I am not seeing how they are analogous to God creating and governing everything.
Quote: Doctors run into really thorny and inexplicable issues all the time. What they should do is keep looking for the natural source of the problem and a natural solution. Why should any other scientist be held to any other standard?
What do you mean by a natural source?
Quote:Well,it's a good thing I haven't said that. I have been doing nothing but asking you for evidence, but so far it has not been provided in a field I can intelligently comment on. I’m dying to look at the evidence, and I have never said I will not allow it, because I don’t even know what it looks like. I have certainly been skeptical, but apparently it’s only OK for you to be skeptical. This whole conversation has been about your feeling that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” but now you are doing the same thing. Please don’t misrepresent my position.
You have said such a thing, and multiple times. You have said that supernatural explanations are not allowed in science and that when we cannot find a natural explanation for something we must assume one still exists. Then you turn around and ask for scientific evidence supporting a supernatural event. It’d be no different than…
Me: There is no evidence demonstrating the Earth is billions of years old.
You: What about this? *Points to evidence*
Me: There is a young Earth explanation for that which we just have not found yet.
You: How do you know such an explanation exists?
Me: …because old Earth explanations are unscientific.
You: Why is that?
Me. …because there is no evidence to support an old Earth.
You: But I thought you just said that old Earth evidence was never allowed?
Me: Exactly; but I want to see your evidence…
You: Huh?
Quote:If the implications are magical or supernatural, they don't belong in a science journal because those things are outside the purview of science.
You keep asserting this, but I see nothing in the definition of science that makes this the case. Secondly, why do you ask for scientific evidence supporting supernatural creation when you admit it cannot exist by stipulation?
Quote: Science papers exist to study the studyable.
That’s not completely accurate, there are thousands of articles published yearly dealing with what has happened in the distant past. The past is not directly observable. If scientific journals only dealt with the operational sciences I would agree with you, then creation would not belong in such journals; however that is not the case. Scientists make inferences about the past, and an intelligent cause is a completely valid inference.
Quote:I find it odd that you are using papers that don’t make any creationist arguments to support a creationist position. I haven’t seen any experiments whose conclusions I disagree with from you yet, so I think you're jumping the gun on me. I have asked you repeatedly to point out to me where those creationist implications in the papers are. If I am missing them, show me where. Saying that something is an “unresolved question” means just that: it’s unresolved.
That was my point; such papers do not get published even though the science is legitimate. The only way a creationist can get published in such a corrupt system is to conclude with, “well this is a problem for Darwinism that has not yet been resolved.” Rather than the obvious answer, “Your theory is garbage dummies!”
Quote:It would be interesting to do a forum Journal Club for one of these, where we pick an article and discuss it- down to brass tacks. The purpose of Journal Club is to try to find problems with the method or the analysis, as we do with all papers that may be useful to scientists, so I’m not sure how you’d feel about it, but that would be subjecting it to the same treatment as any other paper.
Do I get to be Vice President of Journal Club? Since your field is genetics and mine is environmental sciences I doubt we’ll find many articles that we both could adequately analyze.
Quote:Then that will be a problem. For someone who doesn’t like presuppositions on the part of anyone else, presupposing a young Earth and then fitting data to that is surprising.
Where did I say I do not like presuppositions? I only dislike them if people do not honestly identify theirs. Creationists are very honest about their axioms and ultimate authorities. Those who believe in an old Earth presuppose uniformitarianism, but very few are intellectually honest enough to identify this presupposition. That is where I get cranky.
Quote: And the purpose of primary bench research IS to propose a mechanism, or to elucidate one.
I am not sure what you mean by primary bench research.
Quote: I appear to be of a more open mind here: if presented with rock-solid evidence of a supernatural phenomenon, I would have to accept it.
Can you give an example?
Quote: You appear to be saying that no evidence could ever be presented that would convince you of anything but what you already believe to be true. Am I misunderstanding?
There are certain things I know are true through deduction, it would be irrational for me to relinquish that knowledge because of something founded in induction.
(November 4, 2013 at 3:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You argued for something even more stupid. Light traveling infinitely fast towards the observer.
Or to put it another way. Trying to shoehorn what you believe to fit reality.
Travelling instantly from point A to point B. lets [sic] all just point and laugh
Laugh all you want, but what is really funny is the fact that you took the time to dig up a post of mine from three years ago but you refuse to take the time to learn the basic idea behind relativity. If I stipulate a position dependent synchrony convention, light does move instantaneously towards the observer. I have no idea why this is so hard for some of you to understand; but I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago
(November 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The creationist idea is that if one has no expertise in any area as a scientist, then that means they can comment intelligently on evolution. If you have a fake PhD from a diploma mill, so much the better!
Why do you insist on being in the dark on this issue? Can you name someone who works as a researcher for CMI, ICR, or AIG who has a “fake” PhD from a “diploma mill”? Take your time.
(November 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm)Zazzy Wrote:
@ Statler Waldorf (and anyone else reading the papers he has provided):
I’d like to start this post by commending you- you are by far the hardest-working and smartest creationist I’ve come across on the internet. I have had great fun reading through the papers you’ve provided. I’ve read the first 3 you provided very well, and am still working on the others. The first one I’m going to skip for now, since it does not provide any primary research and is terribly unscientific in many ways, which we can discuss later if you like. Also, I passed over it in favor of the far better work (and to be honest, work that is way more in my wheelhouse) by your Dr. Tomkins, whom I am getting fond of. The second of his papers you provided (#3 in your links on chromosome #2 fusion, titled “Alleged Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Site…” ) is absolutely and unremittingly terrible. I’d be tempted to say it’s the work of an idiot, but on reading 2 of his papers well, and another 2 glancingly, he does know what he’s talking about, so I can only conclude it’s an attempt to convince those who don’t know much about genetics anyway. It just has to be deliberate lies, it’s so bad. We can get into it, if you like, but see below first.
But… the first of Tomkins’ papers (your link #2, titled “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes..”) you linked is worth some attention. It’s not bad work at all, and it raises some critical questions- ones that evolutionary biologists have asked as well. So I’m going to suggest that you, and anyone else interested, read this paper carefully, because unless you do, there’s no point in discussing it. This is my choice for the “AF Journal Club” paper, because it’s the best one you provided.
I WILL retract my earlier comment that no creationists are doing current primary bench research that directly supports creationist ideas. This paper was published this year, it used current in silico technology, it directly addressed a current, interesting, open, and useful question (although it did make it look as if it was not an open question in evolutionary genetics- not honest), and it provided data to answer that question. If that admission is what you wanted from me, then you’ve got it, along with my kudos for being better- and smarter- than many of your peers. If you’d like to actually look (I’ll [sic] myself here for a split infinitive) at the quality of the work you provided, read on.
There are a number of significant problems with Tomkins’ paper. I’d like to discuss them once you’ve read it. Things to think about (sort of a "reader's guide" to the paper):
1.)What does Tomkins claim about why his paper is more comprehensive than others’ work? How does this lead to his numbers, and how does his “open-mindedness” about his search parameters lead to this? Is this a reasonable way to approach comparative genomics?
2.)What does he compare his numbers to? If I say that I am 70% as likely to enjoy vanilla coffee as another demographic, is that a high number, or a low number? How would you know? What work could you- SHOULD YOU- do to “nest” that information within a framework of comparability?
3.)What do you (or Tomkins) know about the current debate about the value of BLAST searches and E-values as a useful tool of evolutionary comparison?
4.)Who is responsible for the widespread “98.5% homology” number that Tomkins scorns, and what are the ways the public and the scientific community might see that number differently? How did anyone arrive at that number if it’s so wrong? Are there other methods of research that might be useful to consider in discovering a percent homology? Is percent homology even a useful metric? How and why?
These questions should at least get us started on thinking about how good this research is.
**EDIT- C'mon, AF members! This is a great exercise in learning about scientific research, the mysteries of the genomes, and the debate we are always having! S-W ponied up, so let's see some involvement! My questions above are open for ANYONE to think about, answer, research, or ask questions about!
[Emphasis added by SW] [/hide]
I actually enjoyed the paper on fusion and am a bit disappointed that you seem to merely assert it is unscientific rather than give any specifics. I thought he makes several well-reasoned points, and seems to cast light upon the fact that the whole chromosomal fusion hypothesis is nothing more than a post hoc rescue mechanism used to waive away unexpected evidence.
(November 7, 2013 at 6:36 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And when I brought up the fact that Ole Romers [sic] discovery in 1726 that light travelling towards earth does have finite velocity disproves this "theory".
He just brushed it off with more pseudo scientific [sic] babble
1. It’s not a theory, it’s a convention; there is a difference between those two terms?
2. Romer’s discovery only proves the round trip speed of light is finite, not that the one way speed of light is finite.
3. The answer I gave you was according to relativity, so if you want to reject Einstein’s work on relativity by all means be my guest, but I accept it as valid.
4. Romer’s discovery was in 1676, not 1726 (he died in 1710).
(November 7, 2013 at 9:19 am)Zazzy Wrote: After reading 4 papers by him, he knows a lot about genomes and how to study them- that much is clear. This makes his very bad work (as in the "chromosome fusion" paper) look very suspicious. Since he clearly knows what the evidence shows, such a terrible misrepresentation of it, along with evidence that claims what all evolutionary biologists have been saying (which renders it useless) and presenting this evidence selectively and disingenuously, can only mean he is deliberately lying (the other option would be that he is ignorant- and he has proven that he's not). Since his audience is going to consist largely of people who will be impressed by "sciency" language, he can get away with that, since I don't think he has many peers at his level of education to review his work.
The "chimp and human chromosomes" paper isn't VERY bad. It's just misrepresentative of others' work and has gaping holes in its study design. What he has done in it I believe he has done correctly- his evidence looks good to a layperson but is fairly meaningless as he has presented it. Still, there is a point of interest in the work itself, and I won't pretend there isn't.
It is absolutely possible to know a great deal about genomes and tell lies about them to other people. The work is a strange mix of correct terminology and selective but correct descriptions of our understanding of certain areas of chromosomes, combined with an utter disregard for facts he finds inconvenient. My fondness comes from the novelty of having a YEC speak my language.
I hope I am not the only one on here (but mostly likely am) who notices your reluctance to give a single specific example to back up anything you are asserting about the article. If I was given a paper to read and I simply waived it off by asserting the author was a liar without giving a single example I should hope that I would not get away with it as easily as you have Zazzy. You are better than this. Could it be that you are simply married to the idea of chimp/human chromosomal fusion and therefore are going to dismiss any attack upon it as being dishonest?
Quote: The 2 papers I have read very well would never pass peer review for a scientific journal, and it's not because of bias against YEC.
I assume you mean for a secular scientific journals since they already passed peer-review and were published in a scientific journal. Of course a secular journal would not publish these articles- they are too busy publishing the Piltdown man hoax, Hwang Woo-suk’s falsified data, and Jan Hendrik Schön’s falsified data and fraudulent work.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 19, 2013 at 5:51 am
Fuck off Statler, Romers discovery was the one way speed of light heading towards Earth.
Directly contradicting Lisles bullshit dressed up as science.
And all your lame attempts to say otherwise with crap like "conventions" are so much piss and wind.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 19, 2013 at 6:01 am
(November 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Of course a secular journal would not publish these articles- they are too busy publishing the Piltdown man hoax, Hwang Woo-suk’s falsified data, and Jan Hendrik Schön’s falsified data and fraudulent work.
All of which, funnily enough, were found to be false and corrected by those same secular sources, and not theistic ones.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
November 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm
(November 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(November 2, 2013 at 12:22 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: What? How did you figure that?
If you knew that, then why present the argument you were presenting?
It's a moot point now. I was merely pointing out that your post would require all oceanic crust to have been generated during or after the Noachian flood. Since that is indeed what you claim, it's somewhat irrelevant now
Quote:The explanation behind redshifts would be the same, they are due to the expansion of the Universe and ASC does not change the Doppler Effect any.
Ok, but since the distance of a galaxy is calculated using "standard candles" and luminosity, the distance remains the same regardless of the convention employed. If the manner of calculating cosmological redshift is also the same, then it would appear that mature creation is a necessary conclusion. It would also seem to imply that galaxies were created in varying states of "maturity" that are inversely proportional to distance.
I suppose you could also posit that the galaxies underwent massively accelerated development during creation week, with those furthest away being created later (and subject to the same inverse proportionality) and thus subject to a shorter period of rapid development, but this would seem to conflict with the biblical account.
(November 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(November 2, 2013 at 12:22 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: 2) How come communication with the apollo mission, ISS, etc suffers from delay? Surely each transmission would arrive instantly in that convention?
We know that motion affects the passage of time, so the clocks aboard the Apollo vessel were not synchronized with clocks on Earth anymore; this is why we saw a delay according to the two clocks.
True, but if I've understood Lisle's paper on ASC correctly then time dilation is relative to position rather than speed. If this is the case, then surely the transmissions would still have been received almost instantaneously and would instead have been subject to a doppler shift.
It strikes me that a time dilation of such magnitude being caused by positional time dilation would be easily tested
Quote:I cannot get the links to open, could you post them again?
Quote: We do not actually need that many instances of this to take place because there really are not many trees on Earth with more than 4,350 rings (I believe the oldest Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) had 4,723 rings); so you would only need about a century of the special climatic conditions needed to produce multiple rings. I actually think this is strong evidence confirming the Biblical timescale.
I think there was one found recently that is just over 5000 years old, but either way, those are just the trees that are still living. We also have samples from dead trees which I believe date back about 9000 years.
Rings are not just used to determine the age of tree, they give a lot of information regarding the history of the tree, the area in which it grew and the climactic conditions at that time, so any such period of special conditions should be easily identifiable.
The occurrence of double tree rings in bristlecone pines is very rare [Ferguson, 1968, p.840]. Missing rings occur far more often, so if anything, you're far more likely to get an age that is too young, rather than too old.
Cheers I've had a look at the article, and I can see a few problems.
While the article looked into the arks ability to self-right, it didn't appear to take into account its stability in strong waves and winds. With a strong, side on wind in a rough sea, the ship will roll much harder. Without a method of propulsion, this is quite a problem.
It also didn't seem to account for the stresses and strains caused by twisting and rolling. With wooden ships this size, this puts incredible strain on the hull planks and creates gaps which let in water. 18th century wooden ships were no more than 2/3 of the size, had bilge pumps, much shorter voyage times and the opportunity to repair damage.
Another point worth baring in mind is that due to length, large enough waves would have left a large proportion of the ark suspended in mid-air, which isn't particularly desirably unless you want your ship turned into driftwood :p
Quote:Sure, is there actually a problem with this or do you just prefer a gradual deep time model for the same occurrence?
Aside from the massive impact forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates moving at those speeds? No problem at all. I don't really need any other problems.
Even if we allow the movement of the plates to be spread out over the entire year, the forces involved in the collision of tectonic plates at such speed would be......noticeable.
(November 18, 2013 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(November 2, 2013 at 12:22 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Evidence? Not for flood legends and the bible, obviously.
Why do you discount those? We’d expect flood legends if a global event took place (and we have them). I also think it is important that a creation model is compatible with the Biblical text.
I meant that we don't need evidence for the existence of the bible and other flood legends, we can be pretty sure that they exist
You spent this entire time personally attacking my education and career and you completely forgot that I knew that were no longer employed in the field. That would make me the 
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
