June 14, 2009 at 1:42 pm #11460
ScienceDaily: “Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links”
[Birds’ unique leg physiology necessary for lung function]
"In the study, Oregon State University scientists Devon Quick and John Ruben identified a connection between the way birds breathe and the relative lack of movement in birds’ upper leg bones. While most walking animals (including humans) move the upper leg bone as they walk or run, birds essentially keep it still, using their lower legs only.
Quick and Ruben’s breakthrough was in recognizing that this “knee running” anatomy, where the upper leg bones are fixed, is crucial in keeping birds’ lungs from collapsing. Thus, if birds walked like us, they would not be able to support the sophisticated pulmonary system that helps enable flight.
“This is fundamental to bird physiology,” Quick explained. “It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”
In the next phase of research, the scientists examined whether theropod dinosaurs’ skeletons would have allowed a similar pulmonary system. But the evidence shows that skeletal differences—including a mobile femur—meant dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds. “Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link,” Ruben said.
Intriguingly, Ruben commented on the widely held dinosaur-to-bird-evolution model: “Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions.”quote :
antecedent-"Logic. the conditional element in a proposition…."
presuppose-: to require as an antecedent in logic or fact.
presupposition–2. That which is presupposed; a previous supposition or surmise.
This is a good lesson, showing the mechanics of presupposition in science, and the reason for it.
June 14, 2009 at 2:14 pm #91305
but that just comes under colin leslie deans paradox
what did the first bird mate withquote :
June 14, 2009 at 3:21 pm #91306
You are deviating from the subject matter, which is why you are viewed as a troll. Please respond with appropriate research and content for this subject.
Let me preface before I respond.
1)There is an abundance of evidence of variation within groups of related organisms.quote :
Two variations (species, kinds, types whatever you won’t get hung up on)) of weevils can mate and have offspring.
2)Variation in phenotype and genotype of closely related organisms is just a fact.
3)Having said that, two birds of different variations can mate, which has been brought up. They must be closely related in phenotype or they will not mate as a rule (and of course there are always rare exceptions).
So in the evolution model because there is constant slow genetic drift–it’s just a case of defining when they became birds. In light of the news though, they need to find a new common ancestor. And it is nice to know that I no longer have "dinosaurs" chirping in my trees (lol).
June 15, 2009 at 4:42 am #91319quote :quote :
that is not answering my question
what did the first ever bird mate with
what did the first ever weevil mate with
June 15, 2009 at 9:03 am #91323
Hmm, interesting. But as you suggest with your comments about dinosaurs in your trees, birds(if they did come from dinosaurs) have come a long way in evolution to go from big scaly toothed creatures(yes, I’m being stereotypical) to what they are today, so what makes these scientists not even suggest that the femur muscle structure has evolved aswell?quote :
Bit of a strong comment eh? Is this not presupposition?
I do see your point though, but all we can do is teach the future generations what is most likely base on evidence, most of science is theories, so if we were to not teach the future these things because they are only supposed then we wouldn’t get very far.
June 15, 2009 at 9:08 am #91325quote :
so colin leslie deans paradox
so what did the first ever bird mate with
June 15, 2009 at 9:18 am #91329
I’m running gamila, but you are asking a question I have no problem with, as I believe in a creation model where all things were created fully formed.
Sexual reproduction just puts more weight on the evolutionary mule. I would like them to explain how this irreducible complexity happened.quote :
This usually is applied to systems within an organism, but it sounds like sex could apply here. How did sexual organisms evolve interlocking parts as part of their anatomies and at the same time those parts just happen to be able to propagate the species?
Looks like a designed feature to me.
June 15, 2009 at 9:28 am #91333quote :
June 15, 2009 at 10:40 am #91337quote :
Does the male need a protrusion? No, but it certainly helps. Some species of insects can be used as an example, the male lays down a sac of sperm and the female later comes and sucks(for lack of a better word) it into her body for later use. This breeding relationship can evolve over time as it has done with many insects into a much more efficient system of the ‘direct deposition’ of the sperm.
Again this is a question that has several logical answers in terms of evolution, just requires a bit of in-depth thinking.
June 15, 2009 at 12:25 pm #91343quote AFJ:
Simple. Irreducible complexity doesn’t exist. Read Only a Theory by Dr. Kenneth Miller if you don’t believe me.
June 15, 2009 at 4:05 pm #91349
here’s a link to the original article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 092055.htm
"dinosaurs couldn’t have given rise to birds" was never actually said in the article, though the tone of the article pretty much says it.
Interesting. So feathers on dinosaurs may have just been convergence or relics of a common ancestor.
June 15, 2009 at 5:32 pm #91352
It depends on which dinosaurs you’re talking about. Consider this quote from the article:quote :
As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that Tyrannosaurus or Allosaurus were the ancestors of birds. The ancestors of birds were probably much smaller therapods similar to Velociraptor. Also, consider that that the earliest birds probably had a lot more in common with dinosaurs than with modern birds. For example, no modern bird has teeth, but Archaeopteryx did. I see no reason why this thigh and hip anatomy would not have evolved later, after birds had diverged from dinosaurs.
June 15, 2009 at 11:09 pm #91360quote :
Alex, is that online? I will read it. Biochemist Michael Behe coined the term after studying a bacterial flagellum. The one he studied contains 40 functioning nano-parts including a rotor. He called it nothing less than an outboard motor. He is not alone in his amazement.
Irreducible complexity is very testable. Take any one of the 5 parts of a mousetrap away and it will cease to work. The concept is that simple.
The point is that many things would have to evolve simultaneously and obviously fit and /or work together. That is a fact. In other words, if only part of the system evolved by mutation it would be useless and NS would work to eliminate it. There is no way to explain it away.
For instance if only females evolved we would die. If one part of the 40 parts of a flagellum did not evolve at the same time it would have never worked. If the enzymes in the golgi apparatus had not been coded for at the same time as the ribosomes and the mRNA and the tRNA and rRNA for thousands of proteins, the proteins in our body would be improperly shaped and we would be extinct. (But how are you going to create enzymes without enzymes, which are made up of proteins?)
I will read the article, but I’m sure it will be full of straw men.
June 16, 2009 at 2:08 am #91364quote AFJ:
I spent a LOT of time thinking about, and writing, the following so please take the time to read it and consider it before responding to it.
Lets explore the logic of IC.
P1: Some complexly designed systems are only functional when they contain all of their parts in working order, and lose said function when any part is removed.
P2: Systems that are not designed will still have some function after a part is removed.
C: Anything that loses all function after a part is removed must be designed.
On the surface, P1 looks pretty solid; however, within it lies an assumption that the system has a specific function designated by its architect. So we can restate premise 1 as:
P 1: Some complexly designed systems only carry out their designated function when they contain all of their parts in working order, and lose said function when any part is removed.
This, then, becomes a statement that I can find no argument against.
-Now for P2.
Firstly, P2 operates on another logical fallacy; the assumption that all naturally occuring systems with observable (empirical) functions are formed by a gradation of sequential addition of parts – and thus cannot be "irreducibly complex."
-The embedded premise (P2p1), "sequential addition," is clearly wrong. Natural processes are capable of adding, removing, altering, or any number of variable actions. Therefore the conclusion (P2c) is also wrong, invalidating the underlying assumption of P2.
Furthermore – P2 refers to the "function" of a naturally occuring system; whereas, P1 is clearly referring to a designed function.
-If a function is observable in a natural system, it is merely the subjective interpretation of its observer – I name it "empirical function". There can be no "purpose" assumed in a naturally occuring system, merely an observable relationship or result.
–Take, for example, Earth’s meteorological phenomena of interdependent cycles such as ocean currents, jet streams, ice caps, lunar orbit, and solar and terrestrial energy input. Some may say that the "purpose" is to maintain a homeostatic condition. That may be the result, or "empirical function," but there is no logical way to assert that it is the purpose or designated function.
-It is illogical to compare a "designated function" with an "empirical function." This makes P2 not only illogical, but irrelevant.
As P2 fails to hold water, the conclusion is similarly invalidated.
I know I will be accused of constructing a straw man. To pre-empt this, I challenge my accuser to present the "true" IC logical argument which I’ve so horribly butchered in constructing my straw man.
June 16, 2009 at 6:40 am #91370quote AFJ:
No, AFJ, it is irreducible complexity that is full of straw men. Read the book (it’s a book, not an online article) I indicated and you’ll realize that. Every single example of IC you have proposed has already been disproven. For example, take away two parts from a mouse trap and you’ve still got a perfectly good spitball launcher.
June 17, 2009 at 1:33 am #91388
So what would you have Alex if you remove say the mitochondria from the cell? What do I have if I remove the alternator from my car? It will function but I will have to push it. Anyway when I do I’ll disprove irreducible comp. Say hypothetically the car was not designed but evolved–I would still have to push it. The only difference is the car is not alive, cells are.
I understand what you are saying Mr. Arastus. And I understand what you are saying Alex. In plain English, if there’s no designer then whatever random mutation produces is what the product does. Whatever it does it does. It just so happens to share characteristics of an outboard motor. And then everything in life just so happens to do what it does and it all just happens to work together pretty darn good. It just appears to be designed.
I think we need to remember that
1) One of the greatest safety nets for evolution is the vast amount of time–the very reason is the incredible odds that life would come from whatever the latest theory is now–lipids? The mathematical improbability increases with each new interdependent system or new component, but more time helps its plausibility. Whether one agrees with IC or not, the fact remains that you have many interdependent systems which keep life from falling victim to NS.
a)What did the cell have for energy before the mitochondria came along if it did not evolve together with the cell?
b)What about the many enzymes the cell has to have or it will cease to function–they all had to evolve at the same time to make the proteins which form the cell itself, as well as the enzymes which make the proteins for the enzymes–how did that happen??????
2)Man does not have the capability to mimic such a result as life, though he has tried. It seems to me that if life was so possible to produce from molecules simply bonding together, then by now chemists should have produced at least a reproducing cell by now. Let alone many blind random mutations just so happening to produce a interdependent system which earthly intelligence can not reproduce in the lab.
June 17, 2009 at 2:46 am #91389canalonParticipant
I think you need to remember that
a) bacteria do not have mitochondria and are able to use quite a lot of diverse source of energy (light, chemicals, etc…)
b)Life evolved in an abiotic environment. That might seem trivial, but saying that means that the competition for nutrients was not as intense as it is now: leave some energy rich molecule abiotically formed in water, it now get used by organisms that had billions of year to be very good at scraping every bit of energy available, it was not so at the beginning. So even very poorly efficient self-replicating mechanisms had a fair chance to multiply and prosper, that would not be the case anymore.
2) It took hundreds of millions of year for life to appear on earth, in a test tube the size of a planet. Science has had around 50 years in a limited numbers of test tubes, do you see the difference? And how many planets had the conditions to create life and how many did? When you really think about it, the probability are just not so small.
I would add that this is only because those tiny probabilities lead to a sentient life that you can ask those questions. But in how many planets are there where there is no-one to wonder about natural selection? This is just like lottery, the odds of winning are small but there are winner nonetheless.
June 17, 2009 at 5:31 am #91390
I knew I should have just posted something short and snarky, rather than trying to present a logic-argument.
June 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm #91404
AFJ, Canalon has answered your questions well enough, so I’ll just comment that from what I’ve seen, you really don’t seem interested in a scientific discussion at all. Science requires a person to examine an idea based on evidence. The fact that you would dismiss Dr. Miller’s book as "full of straw-men" without ever having read it tells me that you have no desire to look at evidence that does not fit your already-decided viewpoint. This is not how science is supposed to work. You can’t start with an idea and then only accept evidence that fits it while rejecting everything else. You’re supposed to look at the facts first, then decide on a theory. You seem to have this process backwards.
Furthermore, you have yet to give me a simple yes or no answer as to whether or not you are willing to pursue a private discussion about some of the theological questions that have arisen in these discussions. Every time I ask you for an answer, you ignore me. I don’t see what’s so difficult about a simple yes or no answer, but this only reinforces my opinion that you are not interested in discussion anything that might conflict with what you have already decided to believe. This is, I believe, very unfortunate, and not a good attitude to have in a science forum.
June 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm #91405quote AstusAleator:
If it makes you feel better, even if AFJ didn’t read it, I did! 😉
June 18, 2009 at 12:30 am #91420
Did it make sense? Obviously it makes sense to me, but I’m curious how someone else might see it.
June 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm #91431
It makes sense to me. Hopefully AFJ will decide to read it, too.
June 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm #91434quote :
Sorry I took so long. Been busy. I do appreciate what you wrote. I shows that you gave it alot of thought. In the frame of hypothetical thinking–that is attempting to be objective–everything sounds logical. I understand your comments on empirical and designated function. But P1 you say, and I agree can not be argued with, so to say it doesn’t exist is too strong.
I must be honest, I did not get to your example of weather. I just got to it.
I’m not sure, I must think about this–that is– can we compare weather with a biological component? The original idea came from Michael Behe’s research on a flagellum, who incidentally, is not a creationist. I’m not sure if he is ID, but I know he is not a creationist.
My first thoughts are that weather is probably a more open system than a cell say. Though the cell is an open system it is much more in control of what it let’s in. It is predictable and programmed. Weather is dependent on many things and is a result of the atmosphere, the sun and the earth’s rotation-it is not as protected, and it is not programmed.
Alex, please be patient. My time is limited–I have a family and I work 60 hours a week. Yes I do want to talk about science. I am not close minded as I have spoken on a hypothetical plane many times on this thread and have even been misunderstood as though I was contradicting myself. I found Ken Miller online and there is an answer to IC on it. I read the first part about the I believe TTSS molecule. Give me some time here please.
As for your comments about bacteria and mitochondria–how did I already know you were going to say that (lol)?? Bacteria and Archaens are in two different domains than eukaryotes, and if I may quote the Berkley geologic timescale site "are as different from us genetically as night is from day."
We’re talking a major gap, and since the fossil record shows cyano bacteria–then nothing transitioning to eukaryotes, alot of components happened mysteriously, if evolution is true.
My wife is now home and has accused me of making science study my life (lol) so I must go.
June 19, 2009 at 12:56 pm #91444
Dawkins will explain all your misunderstandings,
Take it away Dawkins…
(watch in order)
See the trend here? People say "Oh wow that is a miracle, no evolution could produce that" then someone sits down and thinks about it for a while and comes up with several valid possibilities, t’has happened many times before and as we learn we will uncover any new mysteries the creationists throw upon us.
June 19, 2009 at 5:36 pm #91447
I’m not sure "impatient" is really a fair word when I’ve been asking the same question for a few weeks now, and at least a simple yes or no could’ve been given quite some time ago. Just keep in mind that if you really do want to talk about science, you can’t just dismiss arguments as "straw men" before ever reading them. That is exactly the definition of closed-minded.
June 19, 2009 at 8:40 pm #91449quote AFJ:
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. To say what doesn’t exist? I never refuted p1; however, I did refute p2 which makes the conclusion irrelevant. Perhaps the same conclusion can be reached by another logical argument – which is why I don’t say that the conclusion is false as a statement – and challenge you or anyone else to present a logical argument that solidly supports that conclusion.quote :
My purpose was to use a system that was non-biological. Why? Because if you say a cell is designed for a function, and I use a cell as an example of something that has occurred entirely by natural processes and only has empirical function… we’re at an impasse.
To make my point, I wanted to demonstrate to you that there are systems which you will easily accept as naturally occurring, that have apparent functions.
So – dithering aside – please respond to the logic. Poke holes if you can, or find a different argument that better represents your stance.
June 20, 2009 at 1:43 pm #91465quote :
Irreducible complexity. There had been a comment made that it doesn’t exist. It has allegedly been "disproven" by Ken Miller (there is a difference between a refutation and disproving something). Usually, the wording in the conclusions of scientists who advocate IC goes like "Darwinian processes can not account for this." Not "this proves design."
Let me start over to be clear, as I have some time.
BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM HAS THE MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ELECTRIC MOTOR
1. There are 40 protein parts required to form a flagellum motor
2 These parts fit together to empirically function as the following:
b. stator–stator works with armature in electric motors to create a electromagnetic spinning force.
d. a drive shaft with bushings
3. There is of course a filament which functions as a propeller
Scott Minnich, Molecular Biologist, University of Idahoquote :
It is fueled by an acid flow. Michael Behe, Biochemist, Lehigh Universityquote :
Other notable features.quote :
Scientific Conclusion–Scientifically one can only say the given statement, that "the bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor" with a filament for a propeller. The bacteria does not have and is not motive by "microscopic muscle," or general protoplasm. I think it is safe and scientific to call it a machine and a motor. To say this is not the case would be to say that a motor is not a motor.
Unscientific Conclusions--Now, to enter into the origin of this, whether it evolved, or whether it was by creative fiat is unprovable by the observable evidence in the flagellum itself. Those who would argue otherwise are using inductive reasoning.
1. The bacterial flagellum has the mechanical characteristics of an electric motor.
2. Since the an electric motor is designed, it is scientific to say –not "the BF is designed," but the "the BF has the mechanical characteristics of a designed motor."
3. Those who argue otherwise, must then argue that 1) A motor is not designed and/or 2) the BF does not have the mechanical characteristics of a motor.
June 21, 2009 at 11:17 pm #91495quote AFJ:
Or they could argue that it is possible for it to have originated through evolutionary processes.
June 22, 2009 at 10:27 pm #91518
Irreducible Complexity – as a concept – is more than just its definition.quote :
The implication of IC is that if biological systems are apparently irreducible, then they could not have evolved.
Clearly there are man-made systems which are irreducible for their given function. Natural systems can be subjectively irreducible according to their empirical function. But to then take this as proof that the natural systems did not evolve is fallacious.
–So this is why Alex says IC doesn’t exist
June 23, 2009 at 12:46 am #91519quote :
Alex I gave you my email, and said it was fine. Drop me a line at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By the way, I read Ken Miller’s "The Flagellum Unspun," online. I watched some of his mousetrap rebuttals. Read Michael Behe’s rebuttal to rebuttals. Have thoughts but no time right now. See, Alex even a hard headed creationist like me actually reads science. I just have a non-Darwinian pair of glasses on.
I do want to say that though we disagree, and I’m in the minority here–everyone here is rather civil which I do respect. Thank you.
June 23, 2009 at 4:42 pm #91532
I sent you an e-mail a few weeks ago and never got a reply. If you didn’t get it I can send another.quote AFJ:
This is what concerns me; in science, one should ideally not have "glasses" at all. What you seem to be saying is that you are approaching this issue with an already-made assumption and belief system that you expect the evidence to validate. Science requires a person to forego such assumptions, look at the evidence first, and then decide on a theory. To assume a theory before even looking at the evidence is not only unscientific, but also illogical.
June 24, 2009 at 3:25 am #91545quote :
I know this is going to be wordy, but bear with me because I believe there is content here.
How can we interpret or deal with the world around us without presuppositions. We have to have foundational starting points when we interpret data. Otherwise we would never sit in a chair. We assume it’s going to hold us based on the fact that other chairs have held us.
There are two ways of looking at the historical science of our origin.
A. Darwin looked at the resemblances in characteristics of different organisms, saw all the similarities, but with differences, and assumed that all species had come from a common ancestor. He made assumptions of what took place in our past, based only on the observations he made in the present. Today many people do the same thing. Because two different organisms contain similar protein or DNA they assume it is INHERITED from a common ancestor. They assume something took place in the past, by INTERPRETING observation in the present. MAY I ADD THAT THIS DEDUCTION IS ONLY OBTAINED BY THE RULING OUT OF SPONTANEOUS CREATION. Who set this kind of thinking in motion but Darwin. Therefore, if you think this way you are following his DOCTRINE. It is a doctrine–a guiding principle set by past decisions or tenants. Therefore you have Darwinian glasses on. But there is another way to look at the same data.
B.If God created, would He create each thing completely different, with no similarities? Would he make one with amino acids, another with lipids, another with fats, another with sugars, another with something new? Why would he do that–why would he want to do that? He makes it with the same thing. If an architect or builder builds, he uses similar building materials, whether with steel, or with wood, or with concrete. He also uses similar building techniques. He bases it on the same math and geometry. He knows the building codes and principles whether he is building a corner, a wall, a roof, or a floor.
So when I say I do not have Darwinian glasses on, it means I do not follow Darwin’s doctrine–I do not follow his assumptions. But I assume–just as Issac Newton assumed, whom we can thank for calculus, that God is real and designed all things–and he put the ability to adapt for their survival. just like someone who builds skyscrapers designs flexibility in the building, so it can withstand an earthquake (this is only an illustration for flexibility, not Darwinian principles of evolutionary pressure, or changes in phenotype).
June 24, 2009 at 1:18 pm #91555
AFJ, do you seriously mean to propose that Newton began with an assumption of calculus, and that Einstein began with an assumption of relativity? Or, for that matter, that Copernicus began with an assumption of heliocentricism, and that is all this is, a mere assumption? So what you are telling me is that the earth very well might be the center of the solar system, because this is all just based on assumptions?
Darwin did not begin with an assumption of common descent; he began like everyone else at that time believing in direct creation, and only abandoned that belief when he saw evidence to the contrary. This is how science works: you form theories based on evidence, not on assumptions. Do you think a forensic investigator assumes who is the murderer before he ever even looks at the crime scene, and then simply looks for evidence to back up what he has already decided? Of course not! Just as in any other science, he must examine the evidence first, and then draw conclusions, not the other way around.
June 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm #91577
That red-headed guy on CSI: Miami always seems to have it figured out before they’re done with the science…
Yes biologists usually operate under the assumption that the species they study evolved. It is only called an assumption because we can never truly know 100%. However, this "assumption" is based on volumes of data accumulated throughout the last century.
June 28, 2009 at 5:12 am #91606quote :
I never said he began with an assumption. He believed in God quite wholeheartedly, and wrote about his belief–scientifically that would be an assumption. Calculus is present mathematics, not historical science as the subject of origins is.
Why do you not understand that there are only two basic assumptions one can make about this subject? Either it evolved from naturalistic processes, or it was designed by creative fiat, or I guess we can have the hybrid–God used evolution.
As for Darwin’s belief in God–His wife was unitarian, and there are letters from her that he held dear where she pleaded with him about the importance of general revelation (not the last book of the bible) and saving faith. I know that he waited quite a while after his voyage to publish Origin of Species, only sharing his ideas with close friends, because of his concerns about rejection. The country at that time considered itself "Christian."
June 30, 2009 at 3:35 am #91647quote AFJ:
Why do you not understand that science is based on evidence, not assumptions?
June 30, 2009 at 5:32 am #91652quote AFJ:
Even if you’re right, science clearly cannot use the second assumption without some sort of body of evidence.
July 1, 2009 at 1:34 am #91685quote :
Would you ever consider reading creationists articles, if they were university professors or experienced field geologists with Ph.Ds. ?
There is evidence that is ignored or overlooked because one would not look for it, or if it is seen it is fitted into a hypothesis that is only based from other hypotheses, not evidence.
I do not presume to teach you, as I assume you are probably in the science field, and I a student of science. But I say this as a theologian. 1)One must interpret from the obvious to the obscure, lest we build false doctrine. 2)If you lay an unsquare foundation then your walls and everything in the building will have to be adjusted, and some of it covered up to make it look right. 3)The truth always stands, though not always fully seen, no matter how thought patterns and belief systems are formatted.
July 1, 2009 at 2:59 am #91694
I have read creationist articles, such as this one:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res … chp_sa_r01
These articles usually don’t do anything more than attempt to poke holes in current theory. They provide no evidence of actual creation.
Furthermore they are usually pseudoscience (or deliberate attempts to delude)
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt … ite_kh.htmquote AFJ:
One of the great things about science is that it doesn’t have to rely on metaphors or vagueness.
July 1, 2009 at 3:44 am #91697
AFJ, theology and the natural sciences are two completely different fields. You can’t use the rules of one to command the other. That’d be like trying to steal second base in the middle of a football game.
July 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm #91757quote :
I agree, but both rely on interpretation. Fossils can’t speak, neither can strata, only a paleontologist or a geologist. If a geologist follows and believes uniformintarianism, when he sees thick strata that has huge folds (bends) in it, he would never assume that it was laid wet. These are impossible features if the strata was laid down over millions of years!! But a creationist has a global flood in his model which can attribute this feature.quote :
I’m having trouble understanding "attempt to poke holes." Mr. Astus. This is a significant finding. If you read this then you understand that there was already argon in the very recent samples. The point is that when a ratio is given by these labs, they only give a ratio–there is no way they can tell you how much potassium actually depronated in the past and became argon.
July 5, 2009 at 8:38 pm #91778quote AFJ:
Did you not read the rebuttal I linked to? It addresses the article far better than I could hope to. The lab that did the measurements clearly stated that they were not equipped to accurately measure anything less than 2myo and expect significant results. The Ar present may have been residual from previous tests, or it could have been included in the materials in the form of phenocrysts or xenocrysts (Which Austin deliberately tried to remove from the samples, for obvious reasons).
The results are NOT conclusive or significant but anyone wearing "creationists glasses" will see them as so.
please read the link I provided and furthermore, check out his links to studies supporting the validity of the K/Ar method.
July 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm #91780quote AstusAleator:
Science cannot progress, and neither will this discussion, unless all involved agree never to "wear glasses" in the first place.
July 8, 2009 at 2:27 am #91805
Alex, do you really think you can be neutral or unbiased? I understand we need to be objective, but it is nearly impossible for anyone to be completely objective. Otherwise we would never be able to make a decision on anything. We can forever point–counterpoint, rebuttal the rebuttal. but at one point you make a decision where you are going to stand. You are Catholic–you could be Bahai, but your not because you decided on something. I’m an LSU fan because I decided to be, besides they are the best (lol). I know that doesn’t apply completely but a little lightness never hurt.
I think we just need consider things while keeping in reserve our convictions. I read alot of stuff you guys give me. it helps me learn. But if you have no convictions then you are like a wave on the sea.
July 8, 2009 at 2:51 am #91806quote :
Yes I did, Mr. Astus. If they were not equipped why would they go ahead and date the rocks and send them back? The bottom line is that there is no way to tell if a rock did not have argon (or lead) in it from the beginning of it’s formation. Because a rock has lead 206 and uranium 238 in it does not prove the lead is a daughter. It only proves it is there. It also has many other minerals in it.
C-14 in "Ancient Rocks"
Many of these so-called ancient rocks contain C-14 in them also, which should not be there, because C-14 has a very short half-life of 5270 years.
Helium in "Ancient Rocks"
Helium is a by-product of uranium decay. Helium is so small it much of the helium would diffuse while nuclear decay continues. Research done on zircon crystals inside "1.5 billion an" granite in New Mexico found alot of helium when heated. The diffusion data matched assumed 6000 years calculations rather than an assumed 1.5 billion. The diffusion values were much greater than the "dated age" of 1.5 b by a factor of 100,00.
I also highly doubt that much argon gas could stay in so many rocks for billions of years as it is a noble gas which would not combine with other elements. This is, of course an assumption on my part, but based on the following facts.
1) Rocks are not perfectly closed systems, and cracks can many times be seen under the microscope.
2) They are in a "wild" environment. As well as being contaminated by minerals in or by water, they can be heated which causes expansion and elemental escape.
September 18, 2009 at 9:57 am #92851
September 18, 2009 at 8:27 pm #92868robsabbaParticipantquote AFJ:
These are NOT impossible features if the strata was layed down over millions of years. Not all strata are layed down over millions of years in any case. After rock is formed it can be deformed under high pressures/ temperatures. Therefore it is not impossible. On the other hand, it is impossible for wet sediment to be layered on top of each other, carved intact by rushing water, and then solidify into a canyon. As far as strata that is layed underwater, these do exist, and geologists can tell them apart from strata layed under terrestrial conditions. It has nothing to do with "uniformitarian assumptions."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.