2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 03:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 07:15 AM)alpha male Wrote:  2. You're proving my point: An atheist makes a specific claim. I challenge that specific claim. The atheist and/or other atheists then try to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a young earth, which I never claimed to be able to do.

It's likewise bad form to challenge specific claims as they are raised, ignore the provided substantiation, and then proceed to substitute nothing. So there's that.

...

All the evidence fits together to form a coherent picture of reality. One cannot simply dispute part of it. The same genetic evidence which suggests evolution by means of natural selection arising from common ancestry is the exact same genetic material which means you don't starve to death. And so on.

Tree rings within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Ice cores within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Either may then be used (having already been calibrated) to form relative judgements against like evidence. This process repeats in innumerable ways.

The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever. Impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Radiometric dating - as analogised above, numerous interrelated patterns of evidence, impossible to reconcile with anything less than billiosn of years. Geological history. Impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Cosmological history. The mechanics of all known solar system bodies are impossible to reconcile with anything less than billions of years. Et cetera, until one has covered the entire body of modern knowledge.

Well - that fraction of it that isn't willfully ignored by the pants on head retarded.

The alternatives are to say it is all a perfect divine coincidence (omphalic hypothesis - which is, again, the single most stunningly pointless evasion ever) OR to say it is all a REPTILOID COMMIE NAZI OBAMACARE CONSPIRACY.

Your call.

I'll take REPTILOID COMMIE NAZI OBAMACARE CONSPIRACY for $600, Alex. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
13-12-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 02:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Called it.
So:
1. Atheist 1 asks a theological question
2. I use the Bible in response
3. Atheist 2 pretends that I'm using the Bible to argue science
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 04:26 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 12:47 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 12:00 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  In all honesty - posting biblical quotes or conjecture or theological theories aren't facts. I realize they seem to be facts to you and your life.... but it's a bit much to expect others to rely on or give weight to your *facts*.....
Hope that makes sense.

In this context, he's talking about inconsistent measurements of radiometric dating. Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to weigh in on it, but he wasn't talking about scripture in this case.

Ah - thanks Robby. Bowing Well Alpha already knows my dementia - so he'll chalk it up to that then. *grin*

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
14-12-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 03:55 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 02:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Called it.
So:
1. Atheist 1 asks a theological question
2. I use the Bible in response
3. Atheist 2 pretends that I'm using the Bible to argue science


Posting anything from the Bible as evidence for anything outside of what's literally written in the Bible is...

[Image: pants-on-head-retarded.jpg]

Because the Bible is a CLAIM, it is not evidence for a CLAIM.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-12-2013, 06:46 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
OK, I got bored enough to read, no I lie, skim the 16 pages of stuff in this thread and sift out what Alpha's going on about with moon rock ages. Here's a breakdown:

(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Here's a chart showing various ages of moon rocks.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/ages.htm
Note the Sources tab at the bottom if you're interested. Also note the sample number in the first column.

OK, the data in this table all come from 9 papers published in the January 30, 1970 "Moon Issue" of Science (pages 461-480). 18 different samples of Lunar material were analyzed by a slew of different radiometric dating methods. This should immediately ring a couple of alarm bells. The time from retrieval of the samples from the Moon to publication of the data was just over six months. I can't recall the last time I had a paper so much as reviewed that quickly. People were understandably excited about the science but work done that rapidly should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. Also we're looking at data obtained using 1970s era tech. Not state of the art, expect some noise in the data.

(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  There is significant variance within samples using different methods.

Yes. And? The only thing this demonstrates is Alpha's profound lack of understanding about radiometric dating. You use different methods in the hope that you will get different dates. You have different radiometric "clocks" that can be reset at different temperatures and thus record different geologically significant events. This isn't an error, it's additional data that would have had the folks at NASA jumping for joy. They'd have been bloody disappointed if every sample had tested at 4.55 Ga by every method. And more than a little suspicious.

(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  The moon rocks being somewhat unique were tested by a number of methods. That's typically not the case.

Wrong. Many publications report radiometric data from multiple methods applied to multiple minerals from multiple samples. This is done in order to try and decypher as much of the geological history of an area as possible rather than simply producing a single date. It isn't uncommon to use the same method on the same mineral grain and be able to get different ages from different zones. I recall one paper that had analyzed seven different zones on a single zircon crystal and obtained seven different ages, each of which represented a different geological event.

(07-12-2013 06:01 AM)alpha male Wrote:  One of the hallmarks of science is that it's supposed to methodically remove human bias. However, with radiometric dating, the researcher sends his expected findings to the lab along with the samples.

Wrong. In the overwhelming majority of cases no prior data is required to produce a radiometric date from a geological sample. In rare cases where there is insufficient daughter product to measure or high degrees of contamination the researcher in question might be contacted by the lab in order to try and determine the nature of the problem and potential solutions. Researchers do not submit anticipated ages with their samples and any lab that received samples with that information would rightly regard them with suspicion.

(07-12-2013 10:38 AM)alpha male Wrote:  I sure did - the point is how few measurements fall near the accepted age of the moon. See all the figures in white?

The Moon was not created in six days. It does not have a single age of formation. What you are looking at here is not the age of the Moon, it's a variety of different events that comprise the geological history of the Moon. OK, strictly speaking its selenological history, but you know what I mean.

(07-12-2013 01:19 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Keeping to those that include the uncertainty, 10017 has a low of 2.3 +/- .05 and a high of 3.8 +/- .3. That's over a billion years. That's not small.

No, it isn't and if Alpha had read the articles rather than reading a table of numbers and jumping to conclusions he'd know what they meant. The 2.3 Ga age is a whole-rock Ar-Ar age from a sample that had experienced >48% Argon loss. The same sample yielded an Ar-Ar age of 2.45 Ga and an He age of 2.5 Ga. Ar and He are both noble gases and both prone to being reset at low temperatures because noble gases are not incorporated into crystals easily. These dates suggest a low-temperature event ~2.4 Ga that reset the He and Ar systems but left minerals with higher closure temperatures undisturbed but the authors didn't speculate as to the nature of the event.

There are 2 ages around 3.2 Ga, both K-Ar ages. These are more robust than Ar-Ar but still susceptible to Ar loss. Possibly an event at this time but I'd be more likely to suspect a 3.6 Ga age that's been biased low by Ar loss.

There is then a scatter of ages from ~3.5 Ga up to ~4.2 Ga, almost all of which are U-Pb, U-Th or Pb-Pb ages. The author of the first paper notes the low concentrations of Pb (1.56 ppm), U (0.854 ppm) and Th (3.363 ppm) in all samples. These concentrations are near where you start getting detection problems. The same author noted that sample 10017 may exhibit secular disequilibrium for 230Th/238U. This is a red flag indicating the potential for open system behavior of this sample and resetting of the U-Pb systematics. A number of other samples show ages between 3.7 and 4.2 Ga though, the time during which vulcanism was active in the Sea of Tranquility.

Finally, scroll to the bottom of the data table that Alpha linked. These are the Sr-Rb isochron ages, generated from multiple rocks and less susceptible to contamination than the age of a single sample. The first is low but is the product of just two samples and is probably an error courtesy of whacky sample 10017. The next two are isochrons at ~3.7 Ga that date the end of vulcanism in the Sea of Tranquility. The remaining nine isochrons are with error of 4.55 Ga and correspond well with the U-Pb concordia ages.

Thank you Alpha for demonstrating how well radiogenic dating really works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
16-12-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(13-12-2013 03:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's likewise bad form to challenge specific claims as they are raised, ignore the provided substantiation, and then proceed to substitute nothing. So there's that.
No, there isn't that. An all claim is refuted by counterexamples. I showed counterexamples. Showing instances where it did work is not substantiation of an all claim.
Quote:All the evidence fits together to form a coherent picture of reality. One cannot simply dispute part of it.
I can and I did.
Quote:Tree rings within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Ice cores within historically recorded timeframes are highly reliable means of determining dates. Either may then be used (having already been calibrated) to form relative judgements against like evidence. This process repeats in innumerable ways.
Post some information on it if you like. Still, as noted, these don't substantiate an all claim. Everyone knows, or should know, that such a claim is refuted by a counterexample.
Quote:The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever.
Seriously? Define inconsistency and we'll examine that claim.

The interesting aspect to me is the motivation behind such claims. Why aren't people satisfied to just say there's a lot of evidence? Why the grandiose claims like "Not a single inconsistency. Ever."? This is rhetorical - just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(16-12-2013 07:24 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 03:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever.
Seriously? Define inconsistency and we'll examine that claim.

The interesting aspect to me is the motivation behind such claims. Why aren't people satisfied to just say there's a lot of evidence? Why the grandiose claims like "Not a single inconsistency. Ever."? This is rhetorical - just thinking out loud.

*Waves* *Bounces up and down excitedly*

Oh, oh! I can answer that one....Also Hello! Big Grin

Basically, in regards to 'Inconsistencies'...There's never been a rabbit found in any layers other than where you should find rabbit fossils.

When the scientists start digging into rocks which are a certain age....Low and behold, they actually find fossil's which are correct for what ever age the rocks are. So...no T-rex's fund amongst Cambrian era layers etc.

Big Grin Did I do right? Also Hello!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
16-12-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(16-12-2013 11:49 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Waves* *Bounces up and down excitedly*

Oh, oh! I can answer that one....Also Hello! Big Grin

Basically, in regards to 'Inconsistencies'...There's never been a rabbit found in any layers other than where you should find rabbit fossils.

When the scientists start digging into rocks which are a certain age....Low and behold, they actually find fossil's which are correct for what ever age the rocks are. So...no T-rex's fund amongst Cambrian era layers etc.

Big Grin Did I do right? Also Hello!
Hello back. Yes, you did fine, even throwing in Haldane's Wabbit. Thumbsup

However, you're wrong. Fossils are found in the wrong time. For example, consider tiktaalik. It's supposedly a fish-tetrapod transitional. The team that found it were specifically looking for something like it in the time and environment predicted by the model of the time. When they found it, it was trumpeted as a success of evolution.

However, a few years later fossil tracks from fully-formed tetrapods were found in Poland and dated to ten million years older than tiktaalik. This isn't from a creationist source, it's from Nature. Here's the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...e08623.pdf
Quote:The fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
So, "The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever." is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 04:50 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(16-12-2013 04:08 PM)alpha male Wrote:  However, you're wrong. Fossils are found in the wrong time. For example, consider tiktaalik. It's supposedly a fish-tetrapod transitional. The team that found it were specifically looking for something like it in the time and environment predicted by the model of the time. When they found it, it was trumpeted as a success of evolution.

However, a few years later fossil tracks from fully-formed tetrapods were found in Poland and dated to ten million years older than tiktaalik. This isn't from a creationist source, it's from Nature. Here's the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...e08623.pdf
Quote:The fossil record of the earliest tetrapods (vertebrates with limbs rather than paired fins) consists of body fossils and trackways. The earliest body fossils of tetrapods date to the Late Devonian period (late Frasnian stage) and are preceded by transitional elpistostegids such as Panderichthys and Tiktaalik that still have paired fins. Claims of tetrapod trackways predating these body fossils have remained controversial with regard to both age and the identity of the track makers. Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
So, "The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever." is wrong.

Except no, because you either genuinely don't understand what is being said or you'd rather simply pretend not to.

If I tell you the modern scientific consensus is that I have 8 apples, and I have thought I have 8 apples for a long time, and lots of other scientists agree I have 8 apples, and then we look real close at the bottom of the barrel and it turns out there are actually 9 apples...

That doesn't refute the validity of counting.

An inconsistency is an unexplainable datum. "We're wrong about the exact details" is the precise opposite. That's good news. It means we're - gasp! - learning new things.

The modern scientific consensus is, by definition, the best and most consistent accounting of all present data by all present theories.

It's occasionally of slightly more practical value than pathetic old scriptures.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-12-2013, 07:39 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(16-12-2013 04:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Except no, because you either genuinely don't understand what is being said or you'd rather simply pretend not to.
I understand quite well that:
Quote:The fossil record, say. Not a single inconsistency. Ever.
is incompatible with:
Quote:They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record.
and:
Quote:When the scientists start digging into rocks which are a certain age....Low and behold, they actually find fossil's which are correct for what ever age the rocks are.

It was not considered "correct" to find tetrapod fossils in rocks of the age in which these fossils were found. It wasn't even close, as the abstract notes by saying "they force a radical reassessment of the timing."

It seems likely that people who make such claims are parroting stuff they've heard on youtube and don't really read up on the subject. I don't see why you'd defend that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: