PDA

View Full Version : One of the best answers ever ...



Jorge
07-06-2014, 04:01 AM
I just finished reading a letter sent to CMI U.S.A. from what appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist. That letter is reproduced below. The response came from Dr. J. Sarfati and it is one of the best responses that I have ever read coming from any Biblical Creationist group. Sarfati states - far more eloquently than I ever have - my own views down to a 'T'. In fact, most of you should be able to correlate portions of Sarfati's response with what I've posted here on TWeb on numerous occasions (again, Sarfati was far more eloquent than I).

Topics covered include "peer review", "woodenly literal", "how to interpret Scripture", "evolution", "evidences for a young earth" and other related topics. Sarfati's reply is also chock-full of references/links to further educate those that are trapped in erroneous ideologies be they Christian or not.

In short, I highly recommend taking the time to carefully read and study this resource. Perhaps it will be able to accomplish what I have not.

Lastly, since the expressed views are essentially my own (except in Sarfati's words), feel free to ask anything that you do not understand. Be forewarned that blind, fanatical, personal incredulity or irrationality will not be answered. Also, 'trouble-makers' will be booted off - this is serious stuff.

Bravo ... great work, Dr. Sarfati!!! :thumb:

Letter and response here : http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously

P.S. By the way, this also serves as evidence that it's NOT about me (Jorge). Of course, those with an ad hominem agenda will continue harping the same tune regardless.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to object strongly to your ministries’ representation of the Bible’s recount of creation in Genesis as a valid scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology, geology and biology.

As a Christian I take seriously the task of reading the Bible. Seriously, but not ‘literally’. It is significant on this first Sunday in Lent (9th Mar) the lectionary readings for the temptations of Christ include passages from Genesis about Adam and Eve’s temptation. Serious exegesis leads the reader to a deeper understanding of the human duty to resist temptation while a pilgrim on the way to the Cross at the end of Easter. The details of the type of fruit or serpent or the alleged dimensions and location of Eden are not important.

As an enthusiastic astronomer and physicist I also perfectly accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth 4.6 billion. Evolution occurs, just as our understanding of science and the Gospel does.

Yours faithfully,
K.G., Australia

HMS_Beagle
07-06-2014, 07:51 AM
I notice Sir Farty didn't actually respond to the age of the Earth discussion but merely provided a link to the same moronic Don Batten "101 evidences for a young Earth" that you did.

He also repeated the stupid YEC PRATT "evolution can't produce new information!!" :ahem:

I can see why you think evasion, misinformation, and flat out lies are the "best" answers. Pollos of a feather flock together it seems. :lol:

Jorge
07-06-2014, 08:39 AM
I notice Sir Farty didn't actually respond to the age of the Earth discussion but merely provided a link to the same moronic Don Batten "101 evidences for a young Earth" that you did.

He also repeated the stupid YEC PRATT "evolution can't produce new information!!"

I can see why you think evasion, misinformation, and flat out lies are the "best" answers. Pollos of a feather flock together it seems.

That was really a worthwhile contribution, Beagle Boy. NOT !!!

That was your first and LAST post on this thread, Beagle Boy.

Mods: any future posts by HMS_Beagle in this thread should be deleted. Thanks.

Jorge

rogue06
07-06-2014, 08:52 AM
Just a couple of points...

He is correct that science is decided by the evidence.

The problem here for YECs is that it is overwhelmingly against them and continues to be even more so as new evidence keeps coming in. And that evidence is cross correlating, corroborating and consilient and comes from dozens of different, independent scientific disciplines.

This is why YECs don't just have a beef with biology and genetics which keeps demonstrating again and again that evolution is real. They also have a problem with geology because it keeps demonstrating that the world is incredibly ancient. They also have a problem with paleontology because it supports both. They also have a problem with physics because it provides us with the means of dating things that demonstrate that the earth is ancient. They also have a problem with astronomy and cosmology because they demonstrate that the universe is even more ancient. And on and on.

IOW, they disagree with nearly every different scientific discipline.

OTOH, YECs continue to do little more than trot out the same hoary old PRATTs.


As for reading this portion of the text literally, as in in an overly simplistic and yes woodenly literal manner.

Let's keep in mind that roughly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 concern the creation of the firmament and when read in the manner mentioned above describe it as a solid structure. So much so that for many centuries Christians unanimous agreed that the firmament was indeed a solid, physical structure on to which the sun, the moons and the stars were physically affixed.

Today (thanks to our closely examining the heavens) we understand that it was incorrect to interpret those verses thusly and realize that a different reading is the correct one. The one where the firmament is understood to be an expanse.

Now, if we can clearly see that a quarter of Genesis 1 was not to be read in the manner that YECs tell us that it must, does not this strongly indicate that the rest of this portion should not be read in the same overly simplistic, woodenly literal manner that has already conclusively been shown to be in error?

Still, the text of chapter 1 does indeed have a literal message and that isn't to teach scientific truths but rather to convey the message that God is unquestionably the creator of everything. From the earth and every single thing on it (including us of course) to the entire universe that surrounds us. God created it all.

Since you get upset and start whining that a post is too long if it is over a certain length (though you obviously have no problem reading lengthy articles if they support YEC claptrap) this should do for now.

Omega Red
07-06-2014, 09:20 AM
I just finished reading a letter sent to CMI U.S.A. from what appears to be a Theistic Evolutionist. That letter is reproduced below. The response came from Dr. J. Sarfati and it is one of the best responses that I have ever read coming from any Biblical Creationist group. Sarfati states - far more eloquently than I ever have - my own views down to a 'T'. In fact, most of you should be able to correlate portions of Sarfati's response with what I've posted here on TWeb on numerous occasions (again, Sarfati was far more eloquent than I).

Topics covered include "peer review", "woodenly literal", "how to interpret Scripture", "evolution", "evidences for a young earth" and other related topics. Sarfati's reply is also chock-full of references/links to further educate those that are trapped in erroneous ideologies be they Christian or not.

In short, I highly recommend taking the time to carefully read and study this resource. Perhaps it will be able to accomplish what I have not.

Lastly, since the expressed views are essentially my own (except in Sarfati's words), feel free to ask anything that you do not understand. Be forewarned that blind, fanatical, personal incredulity or irrationality will not be answered. Also, 'trouble-makers' will be booted off - this is serious stuff.

Bravo ... great work, Dr. Sarfati!!! :thumb:

Letter and response here : http://creation.com/taking-bible-seriously

P.S. By the way, this also serves as evidence that it's NOT about me (Jorge). Of course, those with an ad hominem agenda will continue harping the same tune regardless.


Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to object strongly to your ministries’ representation of the Bible’s recount of creation in Genesis as a valid scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology, geology and biology.

As a Christian I take seriously the task of reading the Bible. Seriously, but not ‘literally’. It is significant on this first Sunday in Lent (9th Mar) the lectionary readings for the temptations of Christ include passages from Genesis about Adam and Eve’s temptation. Serious exegesis leads the reader to a deeper understanding of the human duty to resist temptation while a pilgrim on the way to the Cross at the end of Easter. The details of the type of fruit or serpent or the alleged dimensions and location of Eden are not important.

As an enthusiastic astronomer and physicist I also perfectly accept that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth 4.6 billion. Evolution occurs, just as our understanding of science and the Gospel does.

Yours faithfully,
K.G., Australia

I find it curious for a couple of reasons. First, that K.G. from Australia would believe that such a letter would achieve anything close to his motive for sending it. Second, that out of all the letters/emails that CMI do receive, they would choose from the opposition this one to respond to. Third, comes from the opening sentences:


Objection noted, but we have no intention of changing. For one thing, you have not in the slightest shown that it’s an invalid scientific alternative or that the current mainstream is right.


Is anyone, apart from the pro-CMIs, going to fall for the expectation that K.G. from Australia should have detailed the vast volume of scientific evidence for old life, earth, universe and/or detailed the vast problems with the supposed scientific evidence (4 pieces if I recall correctly) for a 6-12kyr life, earth, universe?

This exchange was self-serving and ultimately pointless. Most if not all those references that Sarfati links to have been considered and disposed of before.

Sarfati does give a good piece of advice: “you could easily have found this out for yourself”. Pity Jorge only saw those words just now, rather than him making the blunder of thinking that certain anti-evolutionary articles were actually pro-evolutionary (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2546-Einstein-and-peer-review-(I-ve-never-been-published-in-Nature-but-)&p=75546&viewfull=1#post75546).

This is another pointless thread started by Jorge where he fails to articulate his arguments with data, but refers everyone to more links.

Jorge
07-06-2014, 11:40 AM
Since you get upset and start whining that a post is too long if it is over a certain length (though you obviously have no problem reading lengthy articles if they support YEC claptrap) this should do for now.

I decided to start with your ending (above). First, your post is long - it brings up multiple issues that would each take considerable time to fully/appropriately answer. And if I give a 'quick and dirty' answer, we all know what would happen, right? It's a lose-lose situation for me. Second, you forget that you write one post but so do other people (such as OR, for now) and so by the time it's all said the volume is huge. I'm one guy having to respond to an avalanche of issues. Third, I do have a life and that life is far more important than trying to convince people that would only be convinced if Jesus Christ Himself came down and slapped them silly into submission. You may have forgotten that I've been posting for over a decade and you remain immersed in the same errors now as then - in fact, you've gotten much worse! Okay, with all that said, let's see what I can do ...




Just a couple of points...

He is correct that science is decided by the evidence.

The problem here for YECs is that it is overwhelmingly against them and continues to be even more so as new evidence keeps coming in. And that evidence is cross correlating, corroborating and consilient and comes from dozens of different, independent scientific disciplines.

See what I mean? The above alone would require a book to answer in its entirety. Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.




This is why YECs don't just have a beef with biology and genetics which keeps demonstrating again and again that evolution is real. They also have a problem with geology because it keeps demonstrating that the world is incredibly ancient. They also have a problem with paleontology because it supports both. They also have a problem with physics because it provides us with the means of dating things that demonstrate that the earth is ancient. They also have a problem with astronomy and cosmology because they demonstrate that the universe is even more ancient. And on and on.

IOW, they disagree with nearly every different scientific discipline.

OTOH, YECs continue to do little more than trot out the same hoary old PRATTs.

The KNM-ER-1470 episode completely obliterates everything you just said.



As for reading this portion of the text literally, as in in an overly simplistic and yes woodenly literal manner.


You dare use "woodenly literal" even after I have repeatedly explained to you the blatant error of such a phrase and after you read (did you?) what Sarfati wrote on that ridiculously stupid "woodenly literal" phrase? See, this is why I am compelled to regard you people as dishonest beyond words. I can certainly listen to other views and ideas, but when said views and ideas totally disregard what has been amply corrected many times - only to continue parroting the same errors / lies - then what's the use?

I'm done here ... at least for now. :argh: ....... :dizzy:

Jorge




Let's keep in mind that roughly a quarter of the verses of Genesis 1 concern the creation of the firmament and when read in the manner mentioned above describe it as a solid structure. So much so that for many centuries Christians unanimous agreed that the firmament was indeed a solid, physical structure on to which the sun, the moons and the stars were physically affixed.

Today (thanks to our closely examining the heavens) we understand that it was incorrect to interpret those verses thusly and realize that a different reading is the correct one. The one where the firmament is understood to be an expanse.

Now, if we can clearly see that a quarter of Genesis 1 was not to be read in the manner that YECs tell us that it must, does not this strongly indicate that the rest of this portion should not be read in the same overly simplistic, woodenly literal manner that has already conclusively been shown to be in error?

Still, the text of chapter 1 does indeed have a literal message and that isn't to teach scientific truths but rather to convey the message that God is unquestionably the creator of everything. From the earth and every single thing on it (including us of course) to the entire universe that surrounds us. God created it all.

klaus54
07-06-2014, 04:51 PM
Jorge,

I've tried about a dozen times to get you to regale us with a literal. unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading of the Genesis stories.

Since you're on web link spree, perhaps this is the thread for you to finally cough it up?

So, IS there a weblink from CMI or some other reputable YEC defense organization that gives the requested reading of God's Word?

Without such a reading it seems to me that any YEC "science" paradigm would be spitting in the wind from the get-go since they would have no position to defend. In others word, why bother trying to dispute mainstream geology, etc. without having an alternate unambiguous physical theory to which to compare them?

So could you provide us with your favorite linky?

Thanks!

K54

Omega Red
07-06-2014, 10:01 PM
...Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.
...


Have you just gone and found an example from papers published 30-40 years ago to dispel the notion that there is consilient evidence in dating techniques. Didn’t you harangue me, in your poor attempt to divert attention away from your blunders, for (supposedly) doing the same thing in the peer review thread? Unbelievable.

With respect to the KNM-ER 1470 fossil, HMS_Beagle said "it was "evo" scientists who both identified and corrected the error.... I'll also note that since this original discovery several other Homo rudolfensis specimens have been identified and all date to the 1.8 tp 1.9 MY time frame providing yet more consilient evidence. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2546-Einstein-and-peer-review-(I-ve-never-been-published-in-Nature-but-)&p=75595&viewfull=1#post75595)"

There’s some interesting reading on Lubenow’s book too (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lubenow_cg.html). What I would like to know is, given that this dating controversy was amongst pro-evo scientists who finally found the errors, why couldn’t Austin et al. have done the same for the Mount St. Helen samples when they knew their samples should be dating much younger? At least he acknowledged that “...higher purity mineral concentrates could be prepared from the dacite at Mount St. Helens” (http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/); as Henke points out "the bogus K-Ar results from Austin's dacite are obvious and Austin et al. and not the K-Ar method are to blame" (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm). But was it simply enough for Austin’s supporters to use those spurious dates and say ‘yep, that confirms radiometric dating is hokum’?

Why do you, Jorge, overstate the (perceived) problem? Despite your veiled attempts to vilify the scientists involved, surely all your highlighted tale can tell us is that they needed a more robust testing procedure back then. Yes, some anomalous data does exist in science, but how many actual problems does it take to destroy all confidence in radiometric dating and consilient, cross-correlating data?

JonF
07-07-2014, 05:42 AM
See what I mean? The above alone would require a book to answer in its entirety. Consider just one of your items, the infamous "consilient evidence". It is a well known fact that when different methods are used to date something, different dates are obtained. So what is done? Simple - anything falling outside of the "accepted" dates is tossed out. Thus, the alleged "consiliency" is actually smuggled into the data - the methods "agree" because they have been made to agree. Many cases substantiate this. One that I recall was detailed in Lubenow's book, Bones of Contention. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Along these lines we also have the word "independent". Well, independent of what? You guys never seem to ask that question. We do and when we do we find that many things regarded as "independent" are actually not - there is much circularity built in the processing of the observations and in the reasoning itself.

Lubenow's Bones of Contention tells the story of the 'Dating Game' (in the Appendix) concerning the case of a famous (or infamous) fossil KNM-ER-1470. It's a long story, very much worth reading if you want to see a classic, thoroughly documented case of how Evolutionary dates should NEVER be accepted as 'gospel truth' and how "independent" and "consiliency" are a myth whenever Evolution is involved.

The story being long, let me just present a few highlights on KNM-ER-1470:

- Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.
- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.

Lubenow writes and concludes: "Astounding about the whole affair was that the anthropologists were rejecting the same objective, scientific data that they universally appeal to. At that time the radiometric evidence for the older date was very strong. There was internal consistency within the studies, and a high degree of conformity by five different dating techniques. The main thing [the determining factor!] the dates did not conform to was the concept of the evolution of pigs and humans."

"The radiometric date of 2.61 m.y.a for the KBS Tuff was established before skull 1470 was discovered. It was supported by faunal correlation, paleomagnetism and fission-track dating. Up until that time, the fossils and the artifacts that had been found ... were more or less compatible with that date."

That date (2.61 m.y.a.) was the official, scientific date. It was changed because Evolution and only Evolution would not allow it. Damn be the physics and the chemistry - it is the Evolutionary paradigm that reigns supreme! It certainly was in this case.

In this one historical example your "consiliency" and "independence" go right down into the toilet.

That's one of my favorite examples of consiliency and evidence winning out in a classic example of the scientific method as it should be applied.

The KBS tuff was dated by Ar-Ar dating (then in its infancy) and index fossils (pigs). The dates failed to agree. By a lot. That's a problem. Scientists started working on resolving the discrepancy by objective measurements and techniques. K-Ar dates roughly agreed with the Ar-Ar dates. The issue was discussed extensively in Nature (at least one of the best journals in the world if not the best). After much investigation scientists found the the KBS tuff was actually a mixture of different-age materials, and when the older material (leached into the formation) was separated the radiometric dates agreed with the pig dates, After this procedure was replicated in other labs the case was closed.

It's worth noting that an eminent scientist, Richard Leakey, favored an older origin of modern man and favored the older date. He lost to the evidence as is exactly the correct way.

No YEC (especially Jorge in his post) has ever suggested what should have been done differently, because the issue was handled exactly as it should have been.

The new Jorge, unthinkingly regurgitating PRATTs, is only slightly more interesting than the old.

shunyadragon
07-07-2014, 05:51 AM
I actually do not need radiometric data to confirm an ancient earth, because stratigraphy does it by direct evidence, and also confirms radiometric dating. The varves in lake deposits are deposited annually for over one hundred thousand years in the same manner as today, and all over the earth we have ancient annual varves going back millions of years. In a number of places we have complete sequences of different kinds of sediments going back hundreds of millions of years. Limestone and coral growth in the Pacific is continuous for millions of years around coral Islands cannot be possibly explained by a young earth scenario.

This evidence is direct and conclusive. Uniformitivism rules and YEC is falsified. Consistency and uniformitivism is directly observed in the incremental annual seasonal lake varves and annual coral growth.

JonF
07-07-2014, 10:10 AM
I forgot to mention that the KBS Tuff dating also belies the common YEC claim that discordant dates are hidden. In this case discrordant dates were published in major scientific journals including Nature.

JonF
07-07-2014, 10:11 AM
This evidence is direct and conclusive. Uniformitivism rules and is falsified as consistent and true by observed incremental annual seasonal lake varves and annual coral growth.
"Uniformitivism rules and is falsified..."; I think you left out a "YEC" there.

klaus54
07-07-2014, 10:44 AM
Jorge,

I've tried about a dozen times to get you to regale us with a literal. unambiguous, clear, plain, straightforward reading of the Genesis stories.

Since you're on web link spree, perhaps this is the thread for you to finally cough it up?

So, IS there a weblink from CMI or some other reputable YEC defense organization that gives the requested reading of God's Word?

Without such a reading it seems to me that any YEC "science" paradigm would be spitting in the wind from the get-go since they would have no position to defend. In others word, why bother trying to dispute mainstream geology, etc. without having an alternate unambiguous physical theory to which to compare them?

So could you provide us with your favorite linky?

Thanks!

K54

I'm waiting for that link or links.

K54

JonF
07-09-2014, 11:53 AM
I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.

The issue was closed when McDougall (at the time the head of one of the best, if not the best, Ar-Ar lab in the world) published 40Ar/39Ar age spectra from the KBS Tuff, Koobi Fora Formation (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v294/n5837/abs/294120a0.html). Bones of Contention was published in 1992 (apparently there's a 2004 edition). There's no excuse for Lubenow's many errors, documented in many places on the Web.

Working from Jorge's summary:


Initially it had been 'scientifically' dated at about 2.9 million years (m.y.a.).
False. In New Hominid Remains and Early Artefacts from Northern Kenya: Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artefact Site (www.nature.com/nature/journal/v226/n5242/abs/226226a0.html) Fitch and Miller reported whole-rock (i.e. no separation) K-Ar dates from 219-223 mya, whole-rock Ar-Ar dates of 2.40 and 3.36 mya, and "feldspar" ("a collection of feldspar phenocrysts (Leakey IB2) separated from the tuff." {In the field - JF}) Ar-Ar dates of 2.38 and 2.36 mya. In their conclusion they wrote:

Thus the age indications obtained in this survey can be summarized as follows: Leakey 1B1 pumice: between 2.25 and 4.62 m.y. 2.5 ± 0.5 m.y. is a close minimum age.

Leakey IB2 crystals: 2.37 ± 0.3 m.y. is a minimum age; 2.64 ± 0.29 m.y. is a reasonably close age; and 2.61 ± less than 0.26 m.y. is a very close age estimate.

These age indications are all consistent. The best and most acceptable estimate is clearly 2-61 ± less than 0.26 m.y."
2.9 was mentioned nowhere, and 2.61 was the author's preferred number.

(Interesting aside: the original samples were collected 16 km from skull 1470. In 1996 in Dating of the KBS Tuff and Homo rudolfensis (www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/current-events-dating-of-the-kbs-tuff-and-homo-rudolfensis-mJKA912o0l) Fitch et al argued that the samples were actually from a different tuff; several of the papers on this issue note the difficulty of correlating tuffs between different locations in this area. We'll never know. As is common the original authors kept some of the samples but in 1981:

...we (F.J.F. and J.A.M.) sent a crush of all the remaining crystals of the original sanidine-anorthoclase concentrate (stored since 1969 in the Herne Bay office of FM Consultants) to Professor John G. Mitchell at the University of Newcastle for "blind" K–Ar dating. Neither the K nor the Ar isotope analysts knew that this sample was from Koobi Fora (if we could have foreseen the technical advances to come, we might have retained a few crystals for single crystal laser dating at some other laboratory, but it is too late for that now). The K–Ar apparent ages obtained in the Newcastle laboratory from the sample were 2.30+/-0.03 Ma and 2.23+/-0.3 Ma (1 sigma; Table 1).
Wonder if Lubenow has updated BoC to reflect this paper?)


- Problem : it's appearance was "too modern" for that age. What to do?
Wrong antecedent for "it's" (and there should be no apostrophe). "It's" in Jorge's post obviously refers to the tuff, when in actuality it refers to the skull 1470 excavated by Leaky (who loved the initial dates).


- The rocks had been dated using K-Ar. Dates came back at 212-230 m.y.a.
Not in the initial study or the re-study of the original samples, see above. I haven't seen those numbers anywhere in my reading.


- In spite of being assured that the dating methods constitute an independent confirmation of evolution, the associated fossils ('index') had already determined the outside limits for dates that would be "acceptable". And so the fossils determined that the rocks beneath the KBS Tuff should be between 2-5 m.y.a. ...
Jorge is very confused. The associated index fossils (mostly pigs) showed that the tuff was expected to be around 1.8-1.9 mya, not the "2-5 mya" Jorge posted (which, amusingly, includes the original range of dates for the tuff.)


... Thus, there had to be "extraneous argon" to explain the dates. MY NOTE: auxiliary hypothesis to the rescue!
Nobody said there had to be excess argon. They would have been remiss not to investigate the possibility of excess argon. Turns out it wasn't there.


- How would they have known that 212-230 m.y.a. was "wrong" without those fossils? Think about that, keeping in mind the word "independent".
When the many rudolphensis fossils found since then were unambiguously dated to much younger, the would have revisited the original finding. It's possible some of our dates are wrong, it's not possible that all of them are wrong. Scientists are always looking for independent verification of even very old results.


- Thus began a ten-year process filled with controversy in which the obvious circularity and subjectivity escaped these people. NOTE: I'm trying to be nice here. If it didn't escape them they they were knowingly committing scientific fraud.
No evidence of subjectivity or circularity has been presented. Two independent dating methods (fossils and radiometric) gave wildly different dates, and real scientists wanted to know 1. why? and 2. what's the correct date? Not at all circular or subjetive.


- The problem was so grave that the (in)famous Richard Leakey declared, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of modern man."
Infamous? No. But he did say that. SFW? He was in favor of tossing out the theories of modern man but he turned out to be wrong.


- This went on for many years. Numerous other dating studies were conducted, showing ages between 0.52-17.5 m.y.a. ... but that blasted skull! All of this was being reported in Nature and elsewhere. Don't forget the words consilient and independent.]
No mention of the pig fossils that were the independent but inconsilient dating method. And more confusion: the fossil was presumed to be the same age as the KBS tuff and the pig fossils, the skull itself was no problem in the dating controversy. (It was a problem at the time in the hominid evolution field.)


- "Fudge factors" were used. Data that "didn't help" was tossed out.
I haven't seen any evidence of fudge factors or data discarded without objective and repeatable reasons. Of course Jorge hasn't seen that evidence either.


- There's much more - 22 pages in all detailing the history (names, dates, events, manipulations, revisions, etc.) of how allegedly "independent and consilient" results 'confirm' evolutionary dates. Nothing could be further from the truth! When skull 1470 was discovered, every goalpost in every discipline was moved so as to conform to the date that Evolution demanded for that skull.
Not even wrong. Ridiculous, in fact. I wrote in a message above about what really happened, and have presented more detail here.

Jorge didn't mention pig fossils. (Reviews of BoC I've seen say Lubenow did). Jorge didn't mention the separation of minerals and the identification of the older and younger components. Jorge didn't mention any of McDougall's 1981 results; it's worth posting some excerpts:

An unresolved problem concerns understanding the meaning of the ages for the KBS Tuff reported by Fitch, Miller and coworkers11,16,19, who mainly used the 40Ar/39Ar dating technique on anorthoclase separated from pumice clasts. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages ranged from 0.52±0.33 to 2.6±0.3 Myr, and the step heating measurements yielded complex age spectra, interpreted11,17-19 as indicating marked disturbance of the anorthoclase subsequent to its crystallization. They suggested that crystallization occurred ~2.48 Myr ago, with deposition in the KBS Tuff shortly thereafter, followed by thermal overprinting at various times, especially at ~1.8 and 1 Myr ago.

Here I present results of dating of anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts found within the KBS Tuff, using the 40Ar/39Ar total fusion and age spectrum techniques. These data provide strong evidence that the samples have remained undisturbed since crystallization, which occurred 1.88±0.02 Myr ago. ...

Locally within the KBS Tuff, pumice clasts are found, regarded as products of the same volcanic eruptions that produced the bulk of the tuff3. Pumice clasts are used for the isotopic dating because they are less likely to be contaminated by old detrital material compared with the enclosing tuff. Here I have used anorthoclase separated from three pumice clasts, previously dated by the conventional K-Ar method13. ...

The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages, measured on separate aliquots of the samples, agree well with one another, yielding a mean age of 1.89 ± 0.01 Myr (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the individual results are concordant with the K-Ar ages measured on the same samples. ...

Finally I comment on the previously published11,16-19. 40Ar/39Ar results on anorthoclase from pumices in the KBS Tuff. The 40Ar/39Ar total fusion ages measured on 10 different concentrates, as summarized by Fitch et al19, range from 0.53 to 2.48 Myr, typically with quoted errors between 0.1 and 0.5 Myr. The proportion of 40Ar* in these analyses generally is <20% of the total 40Ar and commonly <10% (ref. 18). On the basis of the large scatter in the ages and the small proportion of 40Ar* in the gas extracted from the anorthoclase concentrates, I suggest that the results are analytically less precise than given by these authors.
"Less precise than given by these authors". ROFLMAO. Translated from academia-ese for Jorge, he means "total BS". (40Ar* means radiogenically generated 40Ar, i.e. produced by decay of 40K after formation.)

I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Jorge
07-09-2014, 02:29 PM
I see that Jorge has no intention of defending his risible mis-statements about the KBS Tuff. He's probably unthinkingly regurgitating Lubenow's mis-statements. Or maybe lies.
.
.
.
I'm not about to pay to read a book so obviously flawed by someone so obviously ignorant as Lubenow, but Jorge's version of it is so confused and wrong and leaves out so much critical evidence it's downright embarrassing, at least for anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Ad hominem to the rescue - up, up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!! :dizzy:

You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words). :duh:

At least you're "honest" enough to admit that you haven't read Lubenow's book - that puts you one up on Matzke.

From all that I know I stand by Lubenow's work.
It might help a bit if you actually read the book.

Jorge

Roy
07-09-2014, 03:41 PM
Emphasis mine:
You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words). :duhLying again, Jorge? You know Matzke didn't produce his critique in less than a day. You've made this claim before, and it's been shot down before. Last time you tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that you meant 24 hours and didn't include time for eating/sleeping etc. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now. So what's you excuse this time?

Roy

JonF
07-09-2014, 03:48 PM
That's why I confined my detailed critique to your claims. Of course you have no substantive response.

Jorge
07-10-2014, 03:50 AM
Ad hominem to the rescue - up, up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!! :dizzy:

You remind me of Nick Matzke's 9,400-word "critical review" of Meyer's Darwin's Doubt without having read it (unless you're stupid enough to believe that Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day while fulfilling his work and family and personal duties (such as sleeping, eating, etc.) and wrote the 9,400 words). :duh:

At least you're "honest" enough to admit that you haven't read Lubenow's book - that puts you one up on Matzke.

From all that I know I stand by Lubenow's work.
It might help a bit if you actually read the book.

Jorge

***********************************************

BTW, the following recent headline supports why I don't blindly swallow the claims of "science" as most of you people do. Not that I expect that this will be understood by most of you (in fact, I'd bet the farm that most of you will 'pooh-pooh it'), but here it is nonetheless:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25842-first-lifefriendly-exoplanet-may-not-exist-after-all.html#.U75oq0BXfEq

See, one day they're swearing that they've got the "Holy Grail", the next day they're saying, "Oops, maybe not!" Just like the recent "Find of the century!!!" regarding the "proof" of the Big Bang / gravitational waves. Shortly later, "Oops!" And why are they so anxious to promote their beliefs labeled as "science"? Easy - because the main issue is about beliefs, not about science. As I've always said, science is merely a second-tier servant to ideology. In the meantime, people get suckered into believing the Materialistic view of Reality and many lose their soul in the process. That summarizes the entire matter.

Jorge

rwatts
07-10-2014, 04:02 AM
***********************************************

BTW, the following recent headline supports why I don't blindly swallow the claims of "science" as most of you people do. Not that I expect that this will be understood by most of you (in fact, I'd bet the farm that most of you will 'pooh-pooh it'), but here it is nonetheless:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25842-first-lifefriendly-exoplanet-may-not-exist-after-all.html#.U75oq0BXfEq

See, one day they're swearing that they've got the "Holy Grail", the next day they're saying, "Oops, maybe not!" Just like the recent "Find of the century!!!" regarding the "proof" of the Big Bang / gravitational waves. Shortly later, "Oops!" And why are they so anxious to promote their beliefs labeled as "science"? Easy - because the main issue is about beliefs, not about science. As I've always said, science is merely a second-tier servant to ideology. In the meantime, people get suckered into believing the Materialistic view of Reality and many lose their soul in the process. That summarizes the entire matter.

JorgeI thought you understood how science works and humans behave Jorge.

I believe it was a bunch of those atheistic materialistic scientist who convinced the other atheistic materialistic scientists that they could be wrong. And those atheistic materialistic scientists now agree.

See how well be behave?

Jorge
07-10-2014, 04:08 AM
Emphasis mine: Lying again, Jorge? You know Matzke didn't produce his critique in less than a day. You've made this claim before, and it's been shot down before. Last time you tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that you meant 24 hours and didn't include time for eating/sleeping etc. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now. So what's you excuse this time?

Roy

False, unsupported accusations of "lying" again.
I must ask the Mods, why hasn't Roy been banned?

You are an ignorant, pompous, intellectually-dishonest buffoon, Roy.
I hope that I'm not mincing any words and that my meaning is crystal clear.

Read the following and try not to choke on it:

"Now, Darwin's Doubt runs to 413 pages, excluding endnotes and bibliography. Neither the book's publisher, HarperOne, nor its author sent Matzke a prepublication review copy. Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response -- roughly 30 double-spaced pages -- in little more than a day?

Perhaps, but a more likely hypothesis is that he wrote the lion's share of the review before the book was released based upon what he presumed it would say. A reviewer who did receive a prepublication copy, University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, writes:

A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Gödel, Escher, Bach, it simply can't be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night.


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_074511.html


See, unlike people such as yourself, I try to secure objective facts before speaking.

Now, EITHER REFUTE THE ABOVE OR POST A PUBLIC APOLOGY. :glare:

Jorge

Jorge
07-10-2014, 04:16 AM
I thought you understood how science works and humans behave Jorge.

I believe it was a bunch of those atheistic materialistic scientist who convinced the other atheistic materialistic scientists that they could be wrong. And those atheistic materialistic scientists now agree.

See how well be behave?

As is typical for you, you have totally missed the point. :whoosh: :bonk: :whack:

Jorge

oxmixmudd
07-10-2014, 05:03 AM
False, unsupported accusations of "lying" again.
I must ask the Mods, why hasn't Roy been banned?

You are an ignorant, pompous, intellectually-dishonest buffoon, Roy.
I hope that I'm not mincing any words and that my meaning is crystal clear.

Read the following and try not to choke on it:

"Now, Darwin's Doubt runs to 413 pages, excluding endnotes and bibliography. Neither the book's publisher, HarperOne, nor its author sent Matzke a prepublication review copy. Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response -- roughly 30 double-spaced pages -- in little more than a day?

Perhaps, but a more likely hypothesis is that he wrote the lion's share of the review before the book was released based upon what he presumed it would say. A reviewer who did receive a prepublication copy, University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, writes:

A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Gödel, Escher, Bach, it simply can't be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night.


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/how_sudden_was_074511.html


See, unlike people such as yourself, I try to secure objective facts before speaking.

Now, EITHER REFUTE THE ABOVE OR POST A PUBLIC APOLOGY. :glare:

Jorge

As an aside, and in reference to your demand at the end of your post. Such demands can only carry weight if you have demonstrated some willingness of your own to be similarly constrained. Since you have repeatedly and in far more offensive circumstances demonstrated the antithesis, you have no moral grounds upon which to make such a demand.

Jim

JonF
07-10-2014, 05:21 AM
Still no substantive response from Jorge. The "new" Jorge just posts PRATTs and runs.

klaus54
07-10-2014, 09:00 AM
***********************************************

BTW, the following recent headline supports why I don't blindly swallow the claims of "science" as most of you people do. Not that I expect that this will be understood by most of you (in fact, I'd bet the farm that most of you will 'pooh-pooh it'), but here it is nonetheless:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25842-first-lifefriendly-exoplanet-may-not-exist-after-all.html#.U75oq0BXfEq

See, one day they're swearing that they've got the "Holy Grail", the next day they're saying, "Oops, maybe not!" Just like the recent "Find of the century!!!" regarding the "proof" of the Big Bang / gravitational waves. Shortly later, "Oops!" And why are they so anxious to promote their beliefs labeled as "science"? Easy - because the main issue is about beliefs, not about science. As I've always said, science is merely a second-tier servant to ideology. In the meantime, people get suckered into believing the Materialistic view of Reality and many lose their soul in the process. That summarizes the entire matter.

Jorge

Yet more evidence that Jorge doesn't understand how (natural) science works.

Or maybe it's just his ideology?

K54

klaus54
07-10-2014, 09:02 AM
As is typical for you, you have totally missed the point. :whoosh: :bonk: :whack:

Jorge

Which was?

Explain in one or two sentences, please.

K54

Jorge
07-10-2014, 09:33 AM
As an aside, and in reference to your demand at the end of your post. Such demands can only carry weight if you have demonstrated some willingness of your own to be similarly constrained. Since you have repeatedly and in far more offensive circumstances demonstrated the antithesis, you have no moral grounds upon which to make such a demand.

Jim

You, O-Mudd, are another arrogant, pompous jackass which I am sick and tired of exchanging posts with. No wonder you get along so well with your ideological comrades. Furthermore, you had better be able to back up your accusation above with actual facts, not with biased perceptions, distortions, selective reporting or manufactured "facts" such as what Omega Red recently tried to do.

Your own soiled dishonesty is plainly evident in the above post since you KNOW well and good that I've nailed Roy. Your response/tactic? Did you acknowledge what I had clearly shown? Absolutely not. Instead, you respond by trying to divert the spotlight off of Roy onto me. Disgusting! :glare:

Jorge

Enough is enough. I've asked nicely for y'all to tone it down but nobody seems to want to listen. So if it continues I'll have no problem handing out warnings and infractions.

Jorge
07-10-2014, 09:39 AM
Which was?

Explain in one or two sentences, please.

K54

As amply demonstrated by previous exchanged posts, you wouldn't understand if I explained it in one or two books, let alone "sentences". So I'll pass, if you don't mind (and even if you do mind).

Besides, anyone with an IQ above that of a tomato would have grasped my point. :lol:

Jorge

klaus54
07-10-2014, 10:18 AM
As amply demonstrated by previous exchanged posts, you wouldn't understand if I explained it in one or two books, let alone "sentences". So I'll pass, if you don't mind (and even if you do mind).

Besides, anyone with an IQ above that of a tomato would have grasped my point. :lol:

Jorge

My IQ is on par only with a kumquat, so please simplify and repeat.

Please be succinct since I have a very short attention span too.

K54

Hey you! I'm still waiting for a link to a website which gives a pure, direct, simple, straightforward, obvious, literal reading a Genesis.

Think of it as schooling the ponderously ignorant.

Omega Red
07-10-2014, 12:43 PM
... Furthermore, you had better be able to back up your accusation above with actual facts, not with biased perceptions, distortions, selective reporting or manufactured "facts" such as what Omega Red recently tried to do.


Naturally, this dishonest statement should not go without response. I quoted you in context (do you want those links again?), which demonstrated not just your initial mouthing off with an incorrect over generalisation, but went on to blunder in your assessment of 4 anti evolutionary papers. Not just once, but twice. Naturally you could not face the shame of having made such a ridiculous error, you instead tried every dishonest tactic at your command to divert the attention away from you. But nothing you tried worked, so you left the thread in a huff, hoping you heard the last of it. As I said before, your antics and blunders in that thread will hound you for the rest of your days in NS301, until you come clean.

I am tempted to get you modded if another of your posts contains this level of blatant falsehoods towards me, but then that will give you cause for future complaint that the world is against you rather than keeping you focused on your blunders. Far better to keep reminding you of your blunders by quoting you in context and show the readers of these threads the detestable levels at which you operate given that you have no ability to change your past posts where you have erred and refuse to acknowledge your mistakes.

Roy
07-10-2014, 03:54 PM
False, unsupported accusations of "lying" again.
I must ask the Mods, why hasn't Roy been banned?

Jorge's claim: "Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day..."

Jorge's support for his claim: "Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response -- roughly 30 double-spaced pages -- in little more than a day?"

Roy

tabibito
07-10-2014, 09:34 PM
Jorge's claim: "Matzke read/absorbed/understood the entire 500+-page book in less than a day..." Was it a picture book? Maybe like a picture dictionary with one letter per page?

KingsGambit
07-10-2014, 09:49 PM
If Roy has blatantly broken any rules (which I haven't seen any evidence of), then report him. :shrug:

Raphael
07-10-2014, 10:23 PM
Emphasis mine: Lying again, Jorge? You know Matzke didn't produce his critique in less than a day. You've made this claim before, and it's been shot down before. Last time you tried to wriggle off the hook by saying that you meant 24 hours and didn't include time for eating/sleeping etc. It didn't work then and it definitely won't work now. So what's you excuse this time?

RoyFalse, unsupported accusations of "lying" again.
I must ask the Mods, why hasn't Roy been banned?


Because whether or not I agree with Roy's conclusions as to whether or not you are lying he has offered support for his accusation in the very portion of text you are quoting.

The fact that you were able to, in this post, offer evidence as to why Roy's accusation may be incorrect does not mean he didn't offer some support for the accusation.

Roy
07-11-2014, 01:46 AM
The fact that you were able to, in this post, offer evidence as to why Roy's accusation may be incorrect does not mean he didn't offer some support for the accusation.Jorge's evidence doesn't show that I am incorrect. It actually refutes Jorge's claim.

Roy

phank
07-11-2014, 05:54 PM
Jorge's evidence doesn't show that I am incorrect. It actually refutes Jorge's claim.

Roy

And let's not forget that Matzke, however long he spent reading or writing his review, nonetheless got it right. Nobody to my knowledge has ever taken Matzke to task for a single sentence of his review, even after months of opportunity to study both the book and his review of the book.

Raphael
07-12-2014, 12:34 AM
Jorge's evidence doesn't show that I am incorrect. It actually refutes Jorge's claim.

Roy
I did say "may be incorrect" I'm not taking sides in the argument just pointing out to Jorge that you were still well within the rules

Roy
07-12-2014, 03:54 AM
Oh. Ok.

Roy

Roy
07-12-2014, 04:19 AM
And let's not forget that Matzke, however long he spent reading or writing his review, nonetheless got it right. Nobody to my knowledge has ever taken Matzke to task for a single sentence of his review, even after months of opportunity to study both the book and his review of the book.
There've been some attampts, e.g. here (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.html), but not having read Meyer's opius I can't say whether their criticisms are valid.

One thing I do know is that there were positive reviews of Darwin's Doubt that came out before Matzke's essay, but no-one ever criticised the authors of those reviews of not having read the book.

Roy

phank
07-12-2014, 06:17 AM
There've been some attampts, e.g. here (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.html), but not having read Meyer's opius I can't say whether their criticisms are valid.I think when the Discovery Institute criticizes Matzke, we can be pretty sure Matzke got it right.


One thing I do know is that there were positive reviews of Darwin's Doubt that came out before Matzke's essay, but no-one ever criticised the authors of those reviews of not having read the book.

RoyYep, what a surprise. Creationists praised a creationist tract before reading it, and other creationists had no problem with this. I admit I should have said no non-creationist mouthpiece to my knowledge has criticized Matzke. I know of no qualified evolutionary biologist who has had anything good to say about the book.

JonF
07-12-2014, 09:32 AM
The creationists may have gotten advance copies.

But their argument against Matzke is just another God of the gaps.

Vertetuesi
08-18-2017, 01:22 AM
The problem here for YECs is that it is overwhelmingly against them and continues to be even more so as new evidence keeps coming in.

"New evidence keeps coming in"?

Did you see the look on the faces of the New Horizons team in July 2015 as the Pluto images came in that they described as "shockingly young"? It's only shocking if you start with a totally unevidenced belief that Pluto is 4 billion years old. Be very clear about this: until July 15, 2015, old-worlders believed this without evidence, and since then they believe it against evidence.


This is why YECs don't just have a beef with biology and genetics which keeps demonstrating again and again that evolution is real.

The classic bait-and-switch. Nobody has ever observed any organism evolve into one with a quite different body plan - evolutionists acknowledge that this would have taken far longer than the span of human observation, so it remains a matter of conjecture.


They also have a problem with geology because it keeps demonstrating that the world is incredibly ancient.

"Keeps demonstrating"? Can you point to something distinctive discovered during, say, the last five years, that would justify this claim?

Whereas many of the creation evidences have come to light during the time I've been a creationist - the mounting testimony re. C14, dino soft tissue, various solar system discoveries (Titan, Enceladus and now Pluto) and I have every confidence that advancing science will reveal more.

"Science is decided by the evidence" - yes, in an ideal world, but not in one run by corrupt mankind unfortunately. It certainly wasn't for Lyell, midwife to millions of years even though much of his method is now generally disallowed....


Since you get upset and start whining that a post is too long if it is over a certain length [slur deleted] this should do for now.

That might be true for some, though not me. In fact I'd rather have that than the stock-in-trade elephant hurling that pervades your post.

rogue06
08-18-2017, 03:34 AM
"New evidence keeps coming in"?

Did you see the look on the faces of the New Horizons team in July 2015 as the Pluto images came in that they described as "shockingly young"? It's only shocking if you start with a totally unevidenced belief that Pluto is 4 billion years old. Be very clear about this: until July 15, 2015, old-worlders believed this without evidence, and since then they believe it against evidence.
Thanks for ranting at a three year old post. :ahem:

What was "shockingly young" wasn't the planet itself but features on its surface. And at an estimated 100 myo that still doesn't help the YEC model since they would be over 16,666 times older than it permits

The classic bait-and-switch. Nobody has ever observed any organism evolve into one with a quite different body plan - evolutionists acknowledge that this would have taken far longer than the span of human observation, so it remains a matter of conjecture.
"Conjecture" based on a mountain of fossil evidence as well as genetics. If we ignore the evidence then any claim can seem reasonable.

Still the fact remains that evolution happens and even the dreaded boogeyman that keeps YECs awake at night, MACROevolution has been observed taking place both in the lab as well as in the field (nature). So much so that very recently that Creation Ministries International (CMI) added "Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution" to their "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use" section on their "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" page. They claim "we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information," but in fact we do see increases in information[1], but the important thing here is at long last YECs are finally conceding that macroevolution does occur.


"Keeps demonstrating"? Can you point to something distinctive discovered during, say, the last five years, that would justify this claim?

Whereas many of the creation evidences have come to light during the time I've been a creationist - the mounting testimony re. C14, dino soft tissue, various solar system discoveries (Titan, Enceladus and now Pluto) and I have every confidence that advancing science will reveal more.
What is YECs fascination with carbon dating? It can only date things up to something like 50,000 years old. It is other types of radiometric dating that shows that the earth is by many factors older than what YECs claim.

And other types of dating techniques show that carbon 14 dating is accurate...


23725

...something YECs never seem to doubt whenever it is used to demonstrate the age of something that they like such as the age of the Dead Sea scrolls, the age of Hezekiah's tunnel in Jerusalem, or when it shows that various copies of Biblical texts come from the 3rd or 4th century AD rather than the Medieval period as some fringe scholars claimed. But the moment that it shows that something is older than 6 or 10,000 years it magically morphs into a tool of the devil never to be trusted.

As for "dino soft tissues" all that has shown is that scientists don't know everything to know about the fossilization process. Imagine that. They don't know everything. I guess that explains why they keep examining and analyzing things.

And again, that features on the surface of Pluto are only 100,000,000 years old hardly helps the case for YEC (it in fact is yet another indication it is wrong). You can't say a planet is only x years old by the age of of something on the surface or else we should be saying that the earth is only a couple months old since an island has just formed off North Carolina's Cape Hatteras in April of this year. All you can do is say that the planet is at least x years old (and in Pluto's case that is as noted over 16,666 times older than the YEC model permits).


"Science is decided by the evidence" - yes, in an ideal world, but not in one run by corrupt mankind unfortunately. It certainly wasn't for Lyell, midwife to millions of years even though much of his method is now generally disallowed....
Do tell.












1. An ability to digest and gain nutrition from new food sources counts as a gain in information. For instance, most people lose the ability to digest milk when they hit puberty but several thousand years ago, after the domestication of cattle and goats, various groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that permitted them to continue digesting milk into adulthood.

Ask any biologist about this and he will confirm that the genetic mutation that allowed this constitutes a gain in information. Similarly, when different bacteria have a mutation that allows them to digest things that they could not consume previously -- and in some cases were toxic to them -- that is a gain in information.

Or take a look at Old World monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that resulted in the formation of a new protein called TRIM5α or TRIM5alpha that prevents them from getting infected by HIV and several other retroviruses. A similar mutation in some New World monkeys that created a new protein called TRIMCyp (or TRIM5-CypA) isn't as effective as the one in Old World monkeys but also appears to grant some immunity to HIV.

In both cases though we are looking at new proteins with new functions thanks to new information.

Duragizer
08-18-2017, 09:31 PM
What was "shockingly young" wasn't the planet itself but features on its surface. And at an estimated 100 myo that still doesn't help the YEC model since they would be over 16,666 times older than it permits

Oh, but the number "666" is in there. That just proves "millions of years" is of the devil.