Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-05-2013, 08:51 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked.

Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!

In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?

I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(13-05-2013 08:51 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked.

Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!

In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?

I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability.

"I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked."

Please show me where they have been debunked.

"Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!"

These relationships are shown as though in family trees. Your comment is akin to being unable to believe your own family tree because it contains people in it who were not exactly like you in size, shape, hair color, and gender.

And common ancestry is shown in any given phylogenetic tree. You think it is a common thing for an organism to be placed in the fossil record and just as common for the species you want to be fossilized too. Fossilization not only requires unique surface conditions, but it also require opportunity. Often times, only species with sufficiently large numbers are preserved and/or recovered from the rocks.

"In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?"

This isn't math. Not every step is preserved. I don't know what to tell you. But you no more need every step to determine evolution, than you need to show a mathematical proof for 1 + 1 = 2, and I mean more than just the previously shown equation.

As for the baby birds, it shows you the purpose of a "half-formed" wing. They use their wings functionally for something other than flight. The wing that is useless for flight, is still useful for something else.

"I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability."

First off, what do you mean by "macro" changes? Do you mean speciation? You are aware of our observations of speciation in the modern, right?

Also, it would be quite simple to falsify evolution. Find one instance of an organism that predates its ancestor in the rock record. One rabbit in the Cambrian. One reptile in the Ediacaran. One tetrapod in the Archean. It would be very simple to falsify it with a simple and single credible and verifiable discovery in the rock record. And that is but one example of how to falsify evolution using fossils.

Genetics support evolution too. Had different organisms or even different kingdoms of life had different methods for coding proteins and their cells, it would have demonstrated no common ancestry. But all life shares the same genetic basis.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
13-05-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:"I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked."

Please show me where they have been debunked.

Here's one example that frustrated me. You mentioned the whale antecedents a few times, so I said to myself, "Okay, that's interesting. I want more about this whale set of changes." Typically and time permitting, I read data from both sides on something like this. I was so frustrated when I compared A and B bone structures for Ambulocetus at this page that it's hard to tell you just how I felt:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-c...-evolution

Really looking at Lucy's bones, what bones are added to dinosaur finds elsewhere, proto-human theories, etc. it really never ends.

Quote:"Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!"

These relationships are shown as though in family trees. Your comment is akin to being unable to believe your own family tree because it contains people in it who were not exactly like you in size, shape, hair color, and gender.

And common ancestry is shown in any given phylogenetic tree. You think it is a common thing for an organism to be placed in the fossil record and just as common for the species you want to be fossilized too. Fossilization not only requires unique surface conditions, but it also require opportunity. Often times, only species with sufficiently large numbers are preserved and/or recovered from the rocks.

I understand, nor am I looking for some kind of straight line of descent. I understand the difference between modern phylogenies and some kind of hierarchy straw man argument from 100 years ago. And please understand (I'm not sure why you don't already) that I know enough to know how rare and unusual fossilization is. Having said that, how many modern and ancient species of birds are preserved as fossils in museums now? More specifically (or generally) aren't there thousands upon thousands of bird fossils in museums, even millions? How many of them have... wait for it... three wings, four wings, five wings or one? In statistics, millions of iterations without a single deviation are taken as... no deviations exist.

Quote:"In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?"

This isn't math. Not every step is preserved. I don't know what to tell you. But you no more need every step to determine evolution, than you need to show a mathematical proof for 1 + 1 = 2, and I mean more than just the previously shown equation.

As for the baby birds, it shows you the purpose of a "half-formed" wing. They use their wings functionally for something other than flight. The wing that is useless for flight, is still useful for something else.

That's a half-formed wing of a non-adult bird. We all know that puberty bring significant physiological and brain chemistry, etc. changes. That's doesn't prove that they didn't rapidly or slowly evolve through a half-formed wing stage and doesn't prove they did not, either.

Quote:"I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability."

First off, what do you mean by "macro" changes? Do you mean speciation? You are aware of our observations of speciation in the modern, right?

Also, it would be quite simple to falsify evolution. Find one instance of an organism that predates its ancestor in the rock record. One rabbit in the Cambrian. One reptile in the Ediacaran. One tetrapod in the Archean. It would be very simple to falsify it with a simple and single credible and verifiable discovery in the rock record. And that is but one example of how to falsify evolution using fossils.

Genetics support evolution too. Had different organisms or even different kingdoms of life had different methods for coding proteins and their cells, it would have demonstrated no common ancestry. But all life shares the same genetic basis.

That's not true for several reasons IMO:

1. I wonder how many on this forum realize we often don't date the rocks fossils are preserved in but date adjacent strata.

2. I admit and hope you will too that ones that fall outside the accepted limits are falsified. We've changed the dates geologic ages began and ended before rather than falsify evolution.

3. The Cambrian and other explosions are making a lot of secular scientists doubt the party line. Your statement completely contradicts the anomalies of the species explosions in the same record.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(13-05-2013 01:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:"I did see those things in the records and have looked for them-I just mentioned how wearying and frustrating it is to learn how the whale bones and a dozen other smoking guns of macro-changes have been debunked."

Please show me where they have been debunked.

Here's one example that frustrated me. You mentioned the whale antecedents a few times, so I said to myself, "Okay, that's interesting. I want more about this whale set of changes." Typically and time permitting, I read data from both sides on something like this. I was so frustrated when I compared A and B bone structures for Ambulocetus at this page that it's hard to tell you just how I felt:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-c...-evolution

Really looking at Lucy's bones, what bones are added to dinosaur finds elsewhere, proto-human theories, etc. it really never ends.

Quote:"Taking species with different sized skulls or different sized appendages and placing them in lines of order and hierarchies, even genotype relationships, does not show ANY of the tens to thousands to millions of generational steps. Not to mention that we can't show common ancestry or hierarchies anymore and merely, relationships!"

These relationships are shown as though in family trees. Your comment is akin to being unable to believe your own family tree because it contains people in it who were not exactly like you in size, shape, hair color, and gender.

And common ancestry is shown in any given phylogenetic tree. You think it is a common thing for an organism to be placed in the fossil record and just as common for the species you want to be fossilized too. Fossilization not only requires unique surface conditions, but it also require opportunity. Often times, only species with sufficiently large numbers are preserved and/or recovered from the rocks.

I understand, nor am I looking for some kind of straight line of descent. I understand the difference between modern phylogenies and some kind of hierarchy straw man argument from 100 years ago. And please understand (I'm not sure why you don't already) that I know enough to know how rare and unusual fossilization is. Having said that, how many modern and ancient species of birds are preserved as fossils in museums now? More specifically (or generally) aren't there thousands upon thousands of bird fossils in museums, even millions? How many of them have... wait for it... three wings, four wings, five wings or one? In statistics, millions of iterations without a single deviation are taken as... no deviations exist.

Quote:"In math we are taught as children to show all work/steps. This nowhere exists for evolutionary theory as touching these kinds of macro changes. Yes, I read your point about baby birds. I was also a fetus with certain parts and a child that went through puberty and changed per my genetic encoding. And?"

This isn't math. Not every step is preserved. I don't know what to tell you. But you no more need every step to determine evolution, than you need to show a mathematical proof for 1 + 1 = 2, and I mean more than just the previously shown equation.

As for the baby birds, it shows you the purpose of a "half-formed" wing. They use their wings functionally for something other than flight. The wing that is useless for flight, is still useful for something else.

That's a half-formed wing of a non-adult bird. We all know that puberty bring significant physiological and brain chemistry, etc. changes. That's doesn't prove that they didn't rapidly or slowly evolve through a half-formed wing stage and doesn't prove they did not, either.

Quote:"I'm very honestly trying to understand how macro-changes are possible, plausible, probable, etc. I'm getting the sense, however, that there are no realistic ways to falsify the theory in your opinion(s), which proves its unfalsifiability."

First off, what do you mean by "macro" changes? Do you mean speciation? You are aware of our observations of speciation in the modern, right?

Also, it would be quite simple to falsify evolution. Find one instance of an organism that predates its ancestor in the rock record. One rabbit in the Cambrian. One reptile in the Ediacaran. One tetrapod in the Archean. It would be very simple to falsify it with a simple and single credible and verifiable discovery in the rock record. And that is but one example of how to falsify evolution using fossils.

Genetics support evolution too. Had different organisms or even different kingdoms of life had different methods for coding proteins and their cells, it would have demonstrated no common ancestry. But all life shares the same genetic basis.

That's not true for several reasons IMO:

1. I wonder how many on this forum realize we often don't date the rocks fossils are preserved in but date adjacent strata.

2. I admit and hope you will too that ones that fall outside the accepted limits are falsified. We've changed the dates geologic ages began and ended before rather than falsify evolution.

3. The Cambrian and other explosions are making a lot of secular scientists doubt the party line. Your statement completely contradicts the anomalies of the species explosions in the same record.

If you are just going to keep jumping to creationist websites as if they have some sort of authority on evolution, you can't expect me to take you seriously. The only people who think that they can explain whales as being against evolution are the creationists.

What purpose does the hindlimbs of the whale serve? What have they been designed for?

"Having said that, how many modern and ancient species of birds are preserved as fossils in museums now? More specifically (or generally) aren't there thousands upon thousands of bird fossils in museums, even millions? How many of them have... wait for it... three wings, four wings, five wings or one? In statistics, millions of iterations without a single deviation are taken as... no deviations exist."

Why would there be more than 4 limbs? Birds, reptiles, and mammals all descended from organisms with 4 limbs.

And there are plenty of examples of organisms that evolved flight with more than 2 wings. Insects. And, not all insects use more than 2 wings.

"That's a half-formed wing of a non-adult bird. We all know that puberty bring significant physiological and brain chemistry, etc. changes. That's doesn't prove that they didn't rapidly or slowly evolve through a half-formed wing stage and doesn't prove they did not, either."

But it does absolutely show you the usefulness of a limb that can't be used for flight. Which is the gist of your whole "half-formed" wing argument.

"That's not true for several reasons IMO:

1. I wonder how many on this forum realize we often don't date the rocks fossils are preserved in but date adjacent strata.

2. I admit and hope you will too that ones that fall outside the accepted limits are falsified. We've changed the dates geologic ages began and ended before rather than falsify evolution.

3. The Cambrian and other explosions are making a lot of secular scientists doubt the party line. Your statement completely contradicts the anomalies of the species explosions in the same record."

1) We date the strata above and below, because the fossils contain nothing that can be radiometrically dated. If they were less than 100,000 years old, they could be carbon dated. And some are less than 100,000 years old, but only those at the topmost layers that are basically still soil since the soil has not had enough time to lithify.

2) What the hell are you talking about? If a date comes back as being statistically outside the dates recovered from other crystals in the same layer, they are not simply thrown out because they falsify them. In many cases, there is loss of the daughter isotope, this causes the crystal to appear older than it really is but this doesn't happen in all of the systems because loss of the daughter isotope is typically only done when the daughter isotope is incompatible in the mineral or is a gas. Like potassium-argon dating. This method has to worry about that, but we have developed another method from it called argon-argon dating that bypasses the issue of daughter-isotope loss.

There is no known process for making samples younger than they actually are, and no one comes out with ages that are in error because they are thought to be too young.

Incorporation of old grains in a rock is also something that can skew the results towards an inaccurate age, so when a rock layer is dated and there are outliers that are much older than the rest, they are indeed typically left out of the determination of the age because they are likely inherited grains, or grains that have undergone sufficient daughter isotope loss.

3) The Cambrian explosion is at the exact same place in the rock record globally. The dates we have determined for the boundary has indeed changed through the years as we have found rocks to better constrain it. It still shows a sudden diversification of animal life near the beginning of the Cambrian. I don't know of anyone among my cohorts and colleagues who see any issue with this and evolution.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-05-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:If you are just going to keep jumping to creationist websites as if they have some sort of authority on evolution, you can't expect me to take you seriously. The only people who think that they can explain whales as being against evolution are the creationists.

What purpose does the hindlimbs of the whale serve? What have they been designed for?

TBD, that is a distortion of what I wrote. I didn't say I run to creationist websites, I said on something like that I read both opinions. What do mainstream scientists teach and are there any logical refutations out there. It's called a balanced view.

Did you look at the photo I sent? Ambulocetus is taught as a whale with hind limbs. From the bones that were discovered, it looks to be perhaps a whale, perhaps a four-footed land reptile. This is the frustration I'm having. Will you supersede others in being discerning and challenge the evidence that has been (poorly) presented in textbooks and elsewhere? The hind limbs of the whales (ancient transitory forms) look like reptilian limbs to me.

Quote:Why would there be more than 4 limbs? Birds, reptiles, and mammals all descended from organisms with 4 limbs.

And there are plenty of examples of organisms that evolved flight with more than 2 wings. Insects. And, not all insects use more than 2 wings.

Understood, a genetic mutation can provide more wings on a fly or "limbs" where wings go or vice versa. And assuming their are mutations in other species, we should not see 10 million two-winged creatures and zero multi-winged creatures, right? But I may be presuming too much here despite the fact that the fly mutations are one simple gene.

Quote:But it does absolutely show you the usefulness of a limb that can't be used for flight. Which is the gist of your whole "half-formed" wing argument.

No, honestly, not really. Even Ostrich wings have been shown to have a use. There are NO vestigial wings in the record. There are NO vestigial organs or ancilliary organs (arguably) on anyone or anything anywhere anywhen. A baby bird's wing becomes and adult, functional wing, just like human testes become fully functional (usually) after the onset of puberty...

Quote:We date the strata above and below, because the fossils contain nothing that can be radiometrically dated. If they were less than 100,000 years old, they could be carbon dated. And some are less than 100,000 years old, but only those at the topmost layers that are basically still soil since the soil has not had enough time to lithify.

I understand. I also understand that your point about falsifying evolution is untrue because there is great flexibility in determining which "nearby" strata to date. There is flexibility in radiometric assumptions (such as the standard temperature and pressure and rate of decay in an ancient world rocked by cataclysm and a moon that passed by and was pulled in, etc.). I'm sorry, it's a shell game IMHO.

Quote:What the hell are you talking about? If a date comes back as being statistically outside the dates recovered from other crystals in the same layer, they are not simply thrown out because they falsify them. In many cases, there is loss of the daughter isotope, this causes the crystal to appear older than it really is but this doesn't happen in all of the systems because loss of the daughter isotope is typically only done when the daughter isotope is incompatible in the mineral or is a gas. Like potassium-argon dating. This method has to worry about that, but we have developed another method from it called argon-argon dating that bypasses the issue of daughter-isotope loss.

There is no known process for making samples younger than they actually are, and no one comes out with ages that are in error because they are thought to be too young.

I understand you are upset, and I apologize that I keep testing your patience. But your concern is having you now answer questions I didn't ask. My point had to do with changing the dates for epochs and eras. This has been a convenient methodology for dating to fit the main presumption (evolution versus sudden, intelligent design) for decades.

Next, I'm guessing you'll tell me 1) there are no anomalous dating using the newest, most modern methods of any fossil anywhere on Earth 2) scientists are in complete agreement as to the efficicacy and accuracy of all dating methods and all given dates and ages. My point stands.

Quote:The Cambrian explosion is at the exact same place in the rock record globally. The dates we have determined for the boundary has indeed changed through the years as we have found rocks to better constrain it. It still shows a sudden diversification of animal life near the beginning of the Cambrian. I don't know of anyone among my cohorts and colleagues who see any issue with this and evolution.

Your cohorts and colleagues may still believe evolution by mechanistic random processes despite the Cambrian and other explosions, but to say "there are no issues with them" is not true. I'm not accusing you here, just being reflective. The sudden appearance of species in such a great magnitude (yes, I understand there were some antecedents and common ancestors considered to have evolved just before each explosion) that it's called an EXPLOSION is absolutely an anomaly(s) that scientists are incomplete in explaining. The sole explanation offered by secular scientists is "intense stimuli" pressed on the usual refinements: migration, extinction, mutation, genetic drift, etc.

I'm sorry, but the explosions and many other things are still "Just so stories". Just so there was an explosion(s). Please be honest and relflective here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 08:05 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Your point about the multi winged creatures is valid, but not by any means points to a designer, instead it reinforces evolution. Having multiple wings would be a MAJOR leap in evolution, it would be quite complicated for any vertebrate to evolve more limbs (I think 4 is the maximum, but surely there's some weird critter somewhere), the series of mutations would be enormous even for geological scales. THAT would be an actuall "macro-evolution".
But we don't see that, even the more radical spectiation is nothing but a collection of what you call "micro-evolution" changes.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
"TBD, that is a distortion of what I wrote. I didn't say I run to creationist websites, I said on something like that I read both opinions. What do mainstream scientists teach and are there any logical refutations out there. It's called a balanced view."

If you want to look for sceintific refutations of the arguments made from evolution, it won't come from the special pleading of pseudoscience. This is not a case of a "balanced view," it is the case of being shown something that answers your challenge and looking for a special pleading argument to dismiss it.

"Did you look at the photo I sent? Ambulocetus is taught as a whale with hind limbs. From the bones that were discovered, it looks to be perhaps a whale, perhaps a four-footed land reptile. This is the frustration I'm having. Will you supersede others in being discerning and challenge the evidence that has been (poorly) presented in textbooks and elsewhere? The hind limbs of the whales (ancient transitory forms) look like reptilian limbs to me."

There exists more than one discovery of Ambulocetus and its limbs.
[Image: ambulocetus.gif]

When a website takes a partially complete skeleton and then someone argues for a differing interpretation for the use of the limbs, it doesn't gain them any ground. If they had a legitimate argument for it, they could publish it as science in a peer-reviewed journal. They haven't.

"Understood, a genetic mutation can provide more wings on a fly or "limbs" where wings go or vice versa. And assuming their are mutations in other species, we should not see 10 million two-winged creatures and zero multi-winged creatures, right? But I may be presuming too much here despite the fact that the fly mutations are one simple gene."

You're still missing the point. The insects descended from an ancestor with multiple body segments and multiple limbs. As a result, some of these segments and limbs were modified for flight. This led to some developing 2 wings and some developing more and some losing their wings. Why didn't an organism develop 100 wings? For the same reason no one would build a plane with as many, it wouldn't work. As the organisms descend one from the other, there reaches a point at which the organs and limbs they have work well enough so as to become more or less stable. If an organism can fly well and survive with 4 wings, there is no selection pressure for it to change.

Back to the birds, they descended from organisms with 4 limbs. If evolution were purely a process or generating new mutations then perhaps you could wonder why no more limbs developed. But re-shaping the genome to add in more limbs doesn't afford a benefit to the organisms. If you have an extra finger, it is much more likely to get in your way. We have developed a society around 5 fingers on each hand. If you have more or less, your survival rate is now lower than everyone else's. Good thing there isn't much selection pressure on us anymore.

Take that example to the animal kingdom. If an organism is born with an extra limb, it is much more likely to be useless.

Birds descend from organisms with 4 limbs and still have 4 limbs.

"No, honestly, not really. Even Ostrich wings have been shown to have a use. There are NO vestigial wings in the record. There are NO vestigial organs or ancilliary organs (arguably) on anyone or anything anywhere anywhen. A baby bird's wing becomes and adult, functional wing, just like human testes become fully functional (usually) after the onset of puberty..."

I have already shown you how the wings of other birds not used for flight are still used. You even cite an example yourself, the ostrich. If the wing is a design for flight, then the ostrich is absurd and stupid. If however, the limb is adapted to a function, then it makes sense. Start off with a dinosaur similar in appearance and function to an ostrich. Then, add in some predators selecting against them. Then, watch in the fossil record as the selection pressures cause the lineage to diverge. One group becoming big and strong and running, the other becoming lighter and faster. One group develops its limbs and adapts them for keeping it on the ground (like the wing of a car) while the other becomes more nimble and faster and develops a wing that is longer and thinner and allows for it to get away more quickly by running faster (like a road runner).

"I understand. I also understand that your point about falsifying evolution is untrue because there is great flexibility in determining which "nearby" strata to date. There is flexibility in radiometric assumptions (such as the standard temperature and pressure and rate of decay in an ancient world rocked by cataclysm and a moon that passed by and was pulled in, etc.). I'm sorry, it's a shell game IMHO."

The strata that are dated are those above and below the horizons of interest. The best (and most common) layers to date are ashfall deposits from volcanoes, which don't occur everywhere and don't occur all the time. You date what you can, when you can. You date above and below the horizon of interest in order to constrain the time between your two dates. It would be even easier to falsify an old Earth if you found strata that were not overturned but had younger dates below older dates. That would completely trash what we know of stratigraphy.

All the attempts at finding caveats for radiometric dating don't make any sense.

Increase in temperature from where? In order to "reset" a mineral to get an untrue date, you would need to re-initiate crystal growth, which occurs at (depending on the mineral but for Zircon it would be really high) maybe somewhere around 1,000 degrees C. The steepest geothermal gradient on Earth might be on the order of 50 degrees C per km. That would mean that the mineral would have had to have been heated up on the surface to 1,000 degrees C or buried to a depth of at least 20 km and then exhumed rapidly so as to bring it to the surface.

Pressures necessary to change the parent to daughter ratio? I don't know how pressure could affect it at all. That makes no sense. Radioactive decay does not change with pressure.

Changes in the rate of decay? There is 0 evidence to show that any system has changed its rate of decay. But regardless, lets say it happened. That would mean that every system has altered its decay rate so as to give the appearance of the same ages at the same intervals (like the 2 different isotopes of Uranium with different decay rates giving the same date in the same crystals of Zircon).

This is why I can't take you seriously. Your arguments require a suspension of the most basic tenants of physics. They are the ramblings of someone who is rehashing the creationist special pleadings while ignoring the arguments by science refuting those claims.

"I understand you are upset, and I apologize that I keep testing your patience. But your concern is having you now answer questions I didn't ask. My point had to do with changing the dates for epochs and eras. This has been a convenient methodology for dating to fit the main presumption (evolution versus sudden, intelligent design) for decades.

Next, I'm guessing you'll tell me 1) there are no anomalous dating using the newest, most modern methods of any fossil anywhere on Earth 2) scientists are in complete agreement as to the efficicacy and accuracy of all dating methods and all given dates and ages. My point stands."


I don't understand anything you have written above. The dates have not changed so as to fit the presumptions made. You clearly don't understand how the names of Eons, Epochs, and Periods are defined.

They are defined off of the either the fossil assemblage in most cases (like the first appearance of a particular trace fossil for the base of the Cambrian), or in some cases by the deposition of certain types of strata (like cap carbonates in the Cryogenian). After the boundary is set as the occurrence of a fossil or deposition of a layer, the boundary is dated. As we explore more rocks and more outcrops, we find things like the first appearance of a fossil in older strata than we had previously. This means shifting the age of the boundary.

The dates are always in flux because geologists and paleontologists are always looking for fossils in new rocks and in new outcrops. The periods are defined off of the fossil assemblage they contain, as are the eras. Not every boundary is coincident with a significant event in the history of life (like the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary).

"Your cohorts and colleagues may still believe evolution by mechanistic random processes despite the Cambrian and other explosions, but to say "there are no issues with them" is not true. I'm not accusing you here, just being reflective. The sudden appearance of species in such a great magnitude (yes, I understand there were some antecedents and common ancestors considered to have evolved just before each explosion) that it's called an EXPLOSION is absolutely an anomaly(s) that scientists are incomplete in explaining. The sole explanation offered by secular scientists is "intense stimuli" pressed on the usual refinements: migration, extinction, mutation, genetic drift, etc.

I'm sorry, but the explosions and many other things are still "Just so stories". Just so there was an explosion(s). Please be honest and relflective(sic) here."


No one believes in "mechanistic random processes" in terms of evolution. Where are you getting this from? When have I said that. Where is that mentioned in any of the books you have read on evolution?

The Cambrian Explosion is an explosion in the diversity of life over tens of millions of years. If you are getting hung-up on the fact that it was named an "explosion" and you think of such events as instantaneous, then I can't help you understand it. Tens of millions of years isn't instantaneous, even geologically. But it was named during a time when our understanding of the Cambrian (especially the early Cambrian) was very limited. It appeared to be sudden based on the rocks we had. Then we found more that show it to not be as sudden as once perceived.

The "just so" stories that are a reflection of the scientific literature revolve around how and why certain events in the history of life occurred. What is not ambiguous are the dates and the events themselves. There are still people who disagree about the cause for the mass extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, but there is no disagreement as to when it occurred and which groups went extinct.

How does someone who takes the bible as true, have a problem with any "just so" story in any case?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-05-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
BEHOLD!!! THE KIWI!!

[Image: baby-kiwi.jpg]

Cute motherfucker and its vestigial wings

[Image: kiwi-wing.jpg?w=869]

Yes

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
14-05-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:When a website takes a partially complete skeleton and then someone argues for a differing interpretation for the use of the limbs, it doesn't gain them any ground. If they had a legitimate argument for it, they could publish it as science in a peer-reviewed journal. They haven't.

But the very photo you posted is a "reconstruction" based on several different partial skeletons from several different sources, right? Wrong?

Quote:This is why I can't take you seriously. Your arguments require a suspension of the most basic tenants of physics. They are the ramblings of someone who is rehashing the creationist special pleadings while ignoring the arguments by science refuting those claims.

Here's one example of what I mean:

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Quote:I have already shown you how the wings of other birds not used for flight are still used.
Which underscores my contention that vestigial organs and limbs are not real things in our biosphere. I've been doing more reading from secular sources on evolution. I imagine you did not post the kiwi photo because you know its wings represent degenerative loss or devolution and not evolution.

Quote:They are defined off of the either the fossil assemblage in most cases (like the first appearance of a particular trace fossil for the base of the Cambrian), or in some cases by the deposition of certain types of strata (like cap carbonates in the Cryogenian). After the boundary is set as the occurrence of a fossil or deposition of a layer, the boundary is dated. As we explore more rocks and more outcrops, we find things like the first appearance of a fossil in older strata than we had previously. This means shifting the age of the boundary.

Read the first sentence again and you'll get to the crux of Christian "special pleading" on this issue. We can date the strata itself, or if we don't like those dates that are generated, date the strata based on the presumed age of the fossil within...

Quote:No one believes in "mechanistic random processes" in terms of evolution. Where are you getting this from? When have I said that. Where is that mentioned in any of the books you have read on evolution?

I don't believe in Theistic Evolution, either. I understand that "mechanistic random processes" is another way of saying "genetic drift, mutation, migration, extinction, catastrophe, etc., etc." -- that is, all natural processes. I understand that specific stimuli initiate evolution.

The just so comes in with the lack of empirical evidence for stimulia for the Cambrian explosion and other explosions in their diversity and rapidity. "Maybe a meteorite just so" or "Maybe global cooling just so" and etc.

I have every right as a Bible person who uses logic to call out "just so" when I see it. I see DOZENS of threads here weekly that accuse God just so of being omnisicient or subsuming free will or being capricious. DOZENS of them without giving one iota of reference to any scripture from any religious tradition or even doing the courtesy of looking at available, millennia-long philosophy on the facts. Pot and kettle.

There must thousands of just so examples between a sightless animal and a sighted species. Do you disagree? What is your estimate on mutation rates for every billion creatures? And how many anomalies have to happen to develop an eye and the attachments to the brain to make it work?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(14-05-2013 02:36 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:When a website takes a partially complete skeleton and then someone argues for a differing interpretation for the use of the limbs, it doesn't gain them any ground. If they had a legitimate argument for it, they could publish it as science in a peer-reviewed journal. They haven't.

But the very photo you posted is a "reconstruction" based on several different partial skeletons from several different sources, right? Wrong?

Quote:This is why I can't take you seriously. Your arguments require a suspension of the most basic tenants of physics. They are the ramblings of someone who is rehashing the creationist special pleadings while ignoring the arguments by science refuting those claims.

Here's one example of what I mean:

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

Quote:I have already shown you how the wings of other birds not used for flight are still used.
Which underscores my contention that vestigial organs and limbs are not real things in our biosphere. I've been doing more reading from secular sources on evolution. I imagine you did not post the kiwi photo because you know its wings represent degenerative loss or devolution and not evolution.

Quote:They are defined off of the either the fossil assemblage in most cases (like the first appearance of a particular trace fossil for the base of the Cambrian), or in some cases by the deposition of certain types of strata (like cap carbonates in the Cryogenian). After the boundary is set as the occurrence of a fossil or deposition of a layer, the boundary is dated. As we explore more rocks and more outcrops, we find things like the first appearance of a fossil in older strata than we had previously. This means shifting the age of the boundary.

Read the first sentence again and you'll get to the crux of Christian "special pleading" on this issue. We can date the strata itself, or if we don't like those dates that are generated, date the strata based on the presumed age of the fossil within...

Quote:No one believes in "mechanistic random processes" in terms of evolution. Where are you getting this from? When have I said that. Where is that mentioned in any of the books you have read on evolution?

I don't believe in Theistic Evolution, either. I understand that "mechanistic random processes" is another way of saying "genetic drift, mutation, migration, extinction, catastrophe, etc., etc." -- that is, all natural processes. I understand that specific stimuli initiate evolution.

The just so comes in with the lack of empirical evidence for stimulia for the Cambrian explosion and other explosions in their diversity and rapidity. "Maybe a meteorite just so" or "Maybe global cooling just so" and etc.

I have every right as a Bible person who uses logic to call out "just so" when I see it. I see DOZENS of threads here weekly that accuse God just so of being omnisicient or subsuming free will or being capricious. DOZENS of them without giving one iota of reference to any scripture from any religious tradition or even doing the courtesy of looking at available, millennia-long philosophy on the facts. Pot and kettle.

There must thousands of just so examples between a sightless animal and a sighted species. Do you disagree? What is your estimate on mutation rates for every billion creatures? And how many anomalies have to happen to develop an eye and the attachments to the brain to make it work?

So, have you read any of the books recommended to you? Consider

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: