[_ Old Earth _] Homologous organs and Analogous organs

[Barbarian]

Homology refers to structures that are common to the descendants of a common ancestor. Analogy refers to superficially similar features that are not inherited from a common ancestor.

A bat and a pterosaur have forelimbs that are homologous:

The bat on the left, and the pterosaur on the right. Notice both have a humus, ulna, radius, and phalanges. So these bones are homologous. This is confirmed by genetics; all tetrapods have the same genes responsible for these structures.

However...
The wings of bats are formed mostly from their hands and to a lesser extent, arms. The wings of pterosaurs are formed mostly from single finger, and to a much lesser extent arms. The wings of bats and pterosaurs are analogous.

 

[Claudya]

Homology refers to structures that are common to the descendants of a common ancestor. Analogy refers to superficially similar features that are not inherited from a common ancestor.

A bat and a pterosaur have forelimbs that are homologous:

The bat on the left, and the pterosaur on the right. Notice both have a humus, ulna, radius, and phalanges. So these bones are homologous. This is confirmed by genetics; all tetrapods have the same genes responsible for these structures.

However...
The wings of bats are formed mostly from their hands and to a lesser extent, arms. The wings of pterosaurs are formed mostly from single finger, and to a much lesser extent arms. The wings of bats and pterosaurs are analogous.

So in humans:

homologous organ:

Analogous organ:

Am I doing it right? :nod

 

[Barbarian]

Yep. :yes

Of course, I've had creationists do that for serious. "If evolution works, why don't we just evolve wings and fly?"

 

[Claudya]

Of course, I've had creationists do that for serious. "If evolution works, why don't we just evolve wings and fly?"

Aww man, I'd never thought of that possibility. That would be sooooo awesome. Evolution is such a letdown sometimes.

Edit: But that would be a cool exercise for your students' understanding of evolution: explain why humans haven't evolved wings although bats did; and explain why that creationist argument is invalid.

 

[Vaccine]

I suppose if one believes in common ancestry, echolocation would be homologous. I was reading about what a "remarkable" example of convergent evolution it is as well.

"Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html

Seems they're suggesting the convergent evolution of sequences now.
I mentioned to my daughter that this is like using the letters A, T, C, G to type out a sequence at least 7612 letters long, giving her a copy to represent dolphins and keeping one for myself to represent bats. Then have her randomly alter the sequence while I altered mine. Then compare results and find we both altered the same 2326 letters!
I'm sure theistic evolutionists will like this but I wonder if the National Association of Biology Teachers will change their stance that natural selection is an "unguided" or "chance" process.

 

[Vaccine]

Aww man, I'd never thought of that possibility. That would be sooooo awesome. Evolution is such a letdown sometimes.

Edit: But that would be a cool exercise for your students' understanding of evolution: explain why humans haven't evolved wings although bats did; and explain why that creationist argument is invalid.

As someone who used to make fun of YE creationists, while believing in billions of years and evolution myself, I'd sincerely ask you examine the evidence yourself, it really isn't as silly as people think.

Just sayin'

 

[Barbarian]

Edit: But that would be a cool exercise for your students' understanding of evolution: explain why humans haven't evolved wings although bats did; and explain why that creationist argument is invalid.

It would have to be more complicated; it would have to include an adaption for which some necessary intermediate step was highly unfit. But now you have me thinking...

 

[Barbarian]

As someone who used to make fun of YE creationists, while believing in billions of years and evolution myself,

Many of the ideas people have expressed here, about evolution, aren't actually part of evolutionary theory at all. My goal is to teach kids what the theory actually says, so that they can make rational decisions about it when they are older. Most people are down on things they aren't up on.

I'd sincerely ask you examine the evidence yourself, it really isn't as silly as people think.

Can you give us what you consider to be the best evidence for creationism? Most of the time, when I ask people, they tell me misconceptions about what evolution is. Can you do it without mentioning evolutionary theory? If not, isn't that a tip-off in itself?

 

[Barbarian]

I suppose if one believes in common ancestry, echolocation would be homologous.

In the sense that all tetrapods possessing it, have at least a rudimentary sense of echolocation. But of course, the different forms of advanced echolocation are clearly analogous, since they rely on different structures to get the information to the inner ear.

I was reading about what a "remarkable" example of convergent evolution it is as well.

"Adaptive phenotypic convergence is widespread in nature, and recent results from several genes have suggested that this phenomenon is powerful enough to also drive recurrent evolution at the sequence level"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html

Seems they're suggesting the convergent evolution of sequences now.

Seems unlikely, unless we're talking about short sequences.

I mentioned to my daughter that this is like using the letters A, T, C, G to type out a sequence at least 7612 letters long, giving her a copy to represent dolphins and keeping one for myself to represent bats. Then have her randomly alter the sequence while I altered mine. Then compare results and find we both altered the same 2326 letters!

That seems completely at odds with the date cited. None of the convergent genes are identical.

I'm sure theistic evolutionists will like this but I wonder if the National Association of Biology Teachers will change their stance that natural selection is an "unguided" or "chance" process.

Given that evolutionary theory says it's not by chance, I'm wondering if you could supply a quote from that association saying that evolution is a random process.

 

[Claudya]

I didn't make fun of young earth creationists. At last not in this thread. Sorry if I came across as making fun of any other user of thir forum.

I'd sincerely ask you examine the evidence yourself, it really isn't as silly as people think.

Most of the "evidence" creationists cite seems to go somewhere along the lines of "evolution seems so unlikely and hard to believe it can't be true" and "there's no evidence for evolution".

 

[Vaccine]

I didn't make fun of young earth creationists. At last not in this thread. Sorry if I came across as making fun of any other user of thir forum.


Most of the "evidence" creationists cite seems to go somewhere along the lines of "evolution seems so unlikely and hard to believe it can't be true" and "there's no evidence for evolution".

My apologies, I didn't intend to imply you we're making fun of creationists. I was just pointing out my personal 180 on the topic.

 

[Vaccine]

Many of the ideas people have expressed here, about evolution, aren't actually part of evolutionary theory at all. My goal is to teach kids what the theory actually says, so that they can make rational decisions about it when they are older. Most people are down on things they aren't up on.

I don't take issue with what the theory actually says. I also realize most scientists accept common ancestry and creationism is in the minority. I know it isn't a salvation issue and many people, like Ken Miller, find evolution brings them closer to God. Unfortunately, my brothers are atheists because of evolution, perhaps if they learned it from aomeone like Miller they would not be.

Can you give us what you consider to be the best evidence for creationism? Most of the time, when I ask people, they tell me misconceptions about what evolution is. Can you do it without mentioning evolutionary theory? If not, isn't that a tip-off in itself?

What I've found most convincing is soft tissue on dinosaur fossils, the proximity and origin of the moon, C14 dating, white hole cosmology, 5th dimension, universal genetic code, and the origin of language.
I think the origin of language and the 5th dimension stand out. I was a fan of Hugh Ross and his Big bang cosmologyuntil recently. I find White hole cosmology and the 5th dimension very convincing. PNAS the peer reviewed journal, usually hostile toward creationists, actually published a paper about white holes.

Language is especially convincing to me because my daughter is autistic. Language was a huge barrier for her but with all the therapy she is better. What got me is how language allows for contemplation. Without language, the synapses in the brain are different which effects memory and our ability to contemplate. Language is what allows us to contemplate why we are here, and know right from wrong. Without language, people experience the world very differently. The window to acquire language (not the same as communication) is before age 6. The origin of language would have to come from children teaching children, which seems unreasonable to me, or from another source, which long before there were any linguists, the bible in several places mentions language originating from God.
I understand most of that is based on inferences from other empirical evidence or just an argument, but As a former skeptic Jesus ever existed or that if there was a God, he/she/it even knew humans existed, it all seems reasonable to me now.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't take issue with what the theory actually says. I also realize most scientists accept common ancestry and creationism is in the minority. I know it isn't a salvation issue and many people, like Ken Miller, find evolution brings them closer to God.

For most of us.

Unfortunately, my brothers are atheists because of evolution

I don't get that. If God chooses to use nature to do something, how is that proof He doesn't exist?
Can you give us what you consider to be the best evidence for creationism? Most of the time, when I ask people, they tell me misconceptions about what evolution is. Can you do it without mentioning evolutionary theory? If not, isn't that a tip-off in itself?

What I've found most convincing is soft tissue on dinosaur fossils

I don't get that. How does that prove anything?

the proximity and origin of the moon

Based on coastal rhythmites, the Moon is just where is should be, if it's a few billion years old. How does that support creationism?

C14 dating

Show me how that establishes special creation.

white hole cosmology, 5th dimension, universal genetic code, and the origin of language.

Show us how any of that establishes special creation.

I think the origin of language and the 5th dimension stand out.

??

I was a fan of Hugh Ross and his Big bang cosmologyuntil recently. I find White hole cosmology and the 5th dimension very convincing.

Show me how white holes demonstrate special creation. It seems that they likely don't exist...
Creationist White Holes debunked:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107195343/http://trueorigin.org/rh_connpage1.pdf

PNAS the peer reviewed journal, usually hostile toward creationists, actually published a paper about white holes.

Show us what part of Humphrey's version PNAS supports.

Language is especially convincing to me because my daughter is autistic. Language was a huge barrier for her but with all the therapy she is better. What got me is how language allows for contemplation. Without language, the synapses in the brain are different which effects memory and our ability to contemplate. Language is what allows us to contemplate why we are here, and know right from wrong. Without language, people experience the world very differently.

Since the great apes show a rudimentary ability to use and even produce language, I don't see how that demonstrates special creation. It looks like the usual. No evidence for creationism, just a desultary attempt to show science is wrong.

 

[Claudya]

The origin of language would have to come from children teaching children, which seems unreasonable to me, or from another source, which long before there were any linguists, the bible in several places mentions language originating from God.

I have no clue as to what the current theory about the origin of lanugage is (and at this time of the night I am also too lazy to look it up ) but I can imagine that "children teaching children" was actually part of what happened. When you were only a child, did you ever have some kind of secret cipher letters only you and your best friend could understand? I and my best friends did, and I still remember most of the letters.
As Barbarian pointed out apes and even much more "primitive" animals have ways of communitcation through sound. So it's not like one generation of humans had no language and the next generation did. It was all gradually starting from an ape-like simple system of grunts and growls and scream sounds (so kind of like modern heavy metal vocals ), and then you don't even need to think of big mutations or so. Maybe it was just kids that grew up together, siblings or friends within a tribe, being creative and coming up with maybe slightly more differentiated sounds than their parents thought them. Like my friends and I did with our secret ciphers, although that wasn't really a differentiation gain. Human kids are very creative with language although we don't seem to observe a rise in complexity in youth language, au contraire... anyway, kids play with language and make up new words or experiment with grammar.
But having a more differentiated way of communicating with siblings and friends may have increased survival and procreation chances because they could coordinate their hunting efforts better and so on. Thus families with more complex communication, even if only by a small margin, had an advantage, and would teach their kids their more complex system, and then again the kids would add their own. While growing up their brains would develop to process their more complex language. Mutation or selections of genes that allow for better language processing or hearing or production would add on the effect.

So the origin of lanuage is easy to explain by the means of evolution.
Not sure what you mean by "5th dimension".
Gonna look into the cosmology stuff.

 

[stovebolts]

Barbarian,
I think its a myth to say that a young earth creationist is out to prove science wrong.

Both theories are based on the same scientific facts and both positions use the same scientific facts to support their theories.

Isn't science about proving a theory and letting go of the parts that are wrong? Libby said once something died and was buried it could no longer take in carbon. Yet we find carbon in diamonds that through the evolutionary lens are said to be well beyond the c14 threshold.

So, the theory needs to be modified because Libby was wrong on that point of his theory.

Evolutionists try to frame their theories around billions of years. Creationists frame their views within 10000 years. Same scientific data, just different conclusions.

Fair enough?

 

[Barbarian]

I think its a myth to say that a young earth creationist is out to prove science wrong.

I can only go by what I've seen. I notice that when asked, creationists don't come up with evidence for creationism, just attempts to discredit science. Can you show me a counter-example?

Both theories are based on the same scientific facts

Creationism is a religion, not theory. A theory is a well-tested idea about the natural world, supported by evidence.

and both positions use the same scientific facts to support their theories.

Show us.

Isn't science about proving a theory

No. Proof isn't part of science. It merely makes inferences from evidence.

and letting go of the parts that are wrong? Libby said once something died and was buried it could no longer take in carbon.

Who? That's clearly contrary to the evidence. Buried campfires can be contaminated with recent carbon, for example.

Yet we find carbon in diamonds that through the evolutionary lens are said to be well beyond the c14 threshold.

No. Diamonds contain a considerable amount of nitrogen, and are found in deposits with significant amounts of thorium and other radioactive material. Nitrogen is converted to C-14 by ionizing radiation.

So, the theory needs to be modified because Libby was wrong on that point of his theory.

I don't know what theory says that, but 48 years ago, when I was an undergraduate, archaeologists knew this. I say "archaeologists", because paleontologists don't use C-14. Too short a half-life.

Evolutionists try to frame their theories around billions of years. Creationists frame their views within 10000 years. Same scientific data, just different conclusions.

Show me how that works. I don't know of any evidence for a world that young.

 

[Vaccine]

I don't get that. If God chooses to use nature to do something, how is that proof He doesn't exist?

Because nature would be indistinguishable from God. If God used nature to do something how do you know there's a God? Wouldn't Dawkins be correct in asserting belief in god is a delusion?
I'll try explain, me and my brothers, when we were in our 20's would discuss atheism, big bang, evolution etc. Assuming the big bang is true and the universe is ~13 billion years old, our solar system began as an accretion disc, the sun reached critical mass and nuclear fusion began, solar wind cleared the dust away, life spontaneously arose on Earth, evolution explains the diversity of life we see, some hairless apes acquired language, began to ponder why they were here, invented the concept of god to explain natural phenomenon therefore God is just another word for a gap in knowledge. Jesus was an exaggeration or outright hoax. That is where I came from, and why when I became a Christian why my family had a falling out.
If all of that is true, nature is indistinguishable from god. More to the point if that's true, god is unnecessary, nothing more than a leftover relic from when man first pondered what lightning or thunder or death was. A soul is nothing more than wishful thinking, a byproduct of language and conscience.
I for one strongly disagree with that. There is quite the paradox with that story. If man invented the concept of god to explain natural phenomenon, how did he know so much? He figured out if a dead animal fell in seed it was to be burned if it was wet, however if it was dry it was OK to use. Or a clay pot used for blood sacrifices had to be broken but a bronze one could be rinsed with water. All this was figured out before soap was invented or probably why soap was invented in the first place. I'm sure people could figure out how to dispose of their waste products, dead bodies or avoid dysentery. Maybe not depending on the culture. At any rate, if those supposedly simple minded men invented the concept of god to control people or explain natural phenomenon, who told them how to avoid so much disease? Prior to Pasteur "germs" were just a theory, "hygiene" didn't include washing surgical equipment or changing bandages.

There are stages to learning language that set it apart from communication. Grunts, howls, etc are communication. Being able to express thoughts, contemplation, and memory go beyond communication. That older languages are more complex in syntax and grammar only complicates the issue. The origin of language has been described as "the hardest problem in science". This is a real problem that may be swept under the rug with anecdotes, but not with evidence.
Language needs a kick start from an outside source, otherwise this is what happens:
http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

I don't get that. How does that prove anything?

It proves science is not willing to correct itself in light of new facts. It was never believed soft tissue lasted more than a few thousand years. It was never believed nature could produce a language like universal genetic code, or that sequences at least 450 basepairs long could be produced independently of each other in bats and dolphins.

Based on coastal rhythmites, the Moon is just where is should be, if it's a few billion years old. How does that support creationism?

http://www.icr.org/article/204/

Show me how that establishes special creation.

It supports a young Earth. Just another example of science unwilling to correct itself in order to cling to a theory that requires millions of years to beat the odds.

Show me how white holes demonstrate special creation. It seems that they likely don't exist...
Creationist White Holes debunked:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107195343/http://trueorigin.org/rh_connpage1.pdf

He makes several assumptions from the beginning which are at odds with Humphrey's cosmology so of course, his conclusions will be different. Unbounded vs bounded universe, homogeneous and isotropic vs only isotropic, etc. As I mentioned before, if someone wanted to assume the Earth is the center of the universe with everything whirling around it, science can't prove that wrong. Science can only offer what they consider to be a better explanation. The big bang model is based on atheist presuppositions, and as someone a while back pointed out that model has many problems. I think he was talking about an static electricity being stronger than gravity. I don't know if he was suggesting an electric universe model since he left before going into biblical cosmology.

Show us what part of Humphrey's version PNAS supports.

http://www.icr.org/article/prestigious-journal-endorses-basics-creationist-co/

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
I don't get that. If God chooses to use nature to do something, how is that proof He doesn't exist?

Because nature would be indistinguishable from God.

If not for His revelation to us:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

If God used nature to do something how do you know there's a God?

If one's faith is insufficient, science can't help. That's not what it's for.

Wouldn't Dawkins be correct in asserting belief in god is a delusion?

God says there's no excuse for that kind of thinking.

I'll try explain, me and my brothers, when we were in our 20's would discuss atheism, big bang, evolution etc. Assuming the big bang is true and the universe is ~13 billion years old, our solar system began as an accretion disc, the sun reached critical mass and nuclear fusion began, solar wind cleared the dust away, life spontaneously arose on Earth, evolution explains the diversity of life we see, some hairless apes acquired language, began to ponder why they were here, invented the concept of god to explain natural phenomenon therefore God is just another word for a gap in knowledge. Jesus was an exaggeration or outright hoax. That is where I came from, and why when I became a Christian why my family had a falling out.

I'm sorry that it happened. But science isn't the reason. I say "science", because you've indicted biology, physics, astronomy, and chemistry as the cause of atheism, here. I've heard preachers justify racism as ordained by God. But Christianity isn't to blame for people who use it to promote their own emotional problems.

If all of that is true, nature is indistinguishable from god. More to the point if that's true, god is unnecessary, nothing more than a leftover relic from when man first pondered what lightning or thunder or death was. A soul is nothing more than wishful thinking, a byproduct of language and conscience.

A mere strawman. No substance to it whatever. And it's equally faulty if it's used by an atheist to reject God, or a believer to reject science.

I for one strongly disagree with that. There is quite the paradox with that story. If man invented the concept of god to explain natural phenomenon, how did he know so much? He figured out if a dead animal fell in seed it was to be burned if it was wet, however if it was dry it was OK to use. Or a clay pot used for blood sacrifices had to be broken but a bronze one could be rinsed with water. All this was figured out before soap was invented or probably why soap was invented in the first place. I'm sure people could figure out how to dispose of their waste products, dead bodies or avoid dysentery. Maybe not depending on the culture. At any rate, if those supposedly simple minded men invented the concept of god to control people or explain natural phenomenon, who told them how to avoid so much disease? Prior to Pasteur "germs" were just a theory, "hygiene" didn't include washing surgical equipment or changing bandages.

Seems to me that God gave us reason to figure things out. Hence, people notice if you do certain things, and avoid certain others, you tend to stay well. It's God, of course, but not the way you suppose.

There are stages to learning language that set it apart from communication. Grunts, howls, etc are communication. Being able to express thoughts, contemplation, and memory go beyond communication.

And apes can do that. They can also infer mental states in others. So it's not unique to humans.

That older languages are more complex in syntax and grammar only complicates the issue. The origin of language has been described as "the hardest problem in science". This is a real problem that may be swept under the rug with anecdotes, but not with evidence.

The evidence shows that apes are transitional between humans and other primates in this regard. They are capable of simple language, thoughts, contemplation, and memory.

Language needs a kick start from an outside source, otherwise this is what happens:
http://listverse.com/2008/03/07/10-modern-cases-of-feral-children/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Without culture, children grow up not much different than apes. Of course, without culture, apes grow up not much different than apes.

Barbarian asks:
I don't get that. How does that prove anything?It proves science is not willing to correct itself in light of new facts. It was never believed soft tissue lasted more than a few thousand years.

No, that's wrong. We always knew that organic materials, under the right conditions, could persist for millions of years. It's been documented in leaves and marine invertebrates. Would you like to learn about that?

It was never believed nature could produce a language like universal genetic code

Show us that. Science has been saying that it could, since Huxley and Darwin.

, or that sequences at least 450 basepairs long could be produced independently of each other in bats and dolphins.

Show me where science denied that, before the fact. BTW, the research doesn't say that they are identical. They just converge on the same solution, without being copies.

Barbarian said: ↑
Based on coastal rhythmites, the Moon is just where is should be, if it's a few billion years old. How does that support creationism?
http://www.icr.org/article/204/

So nothing? I was hoping for something of substance. Show us some evidence that the moon's position demonstrates special creation, instead of a natural creation.

Barbarian said: ↑

Show me how that establishes special creation.​

It supports a young Earth.

No, it's just a fairy tale, that ignores the evidence. But if you doubt it, show us what evidence you think is in that article, that supports your belief. As I predicted, no support at all for special creation, just the usual specious complaints about science.

Just another example of science unwilling to correct itself in order to cling to a theory that requires millions of years to beat the odds.

The recession of the moon is related to the tides; the energy removed from the Earth and transferred to the moon by the tidal forces, is sufficient to have moved the moon to its present position in a few billion years. And that's not "evolutionists"; it's physics. And again, no support for special creation, just another claim that science has it wrong.

Barbarian said: ↑

Show me how white holes demonstrate special creation. It seems that they likely don't exist...
Creationist White Holes debunked:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107195343/http://trueorigin.org/rh_connpage1.pdf​

He makes several assumptions from the beginning which are at odds with Humphrey's cosmology so of course, his conclusions will be different.

Inferences. From evidence. As you see, Humphrey's assumptions are contrary to the evidence.

Unbounded vs bounded universe, homogeneous and isotropic vs only isotropic, etc. As I mentioned before, if someone wanted to assume the Earth is the center of the universe with everything whirling around it, science can't prove that wrong. Science can only offer what they consider to be a better explanation.

Sorry; I don't buy the postmodernist philosophy that truth is whatever you believe it to be.

The big bang model is based on atheist presuppositions

In fact, it was first proposed by a Christian, a Catholic priest. Surprise.

, and as someone a while back pointed out that model has many problems.

All disciplines in science have problems. But the fact that we don't know anything about something, does not mean we don't know something about it. Again, a vague complaint about science, but nothing to support your belief in special creation. And it's clear why. There is nothing. Not in Christian belief, not in science.

I think he was talking about an static electricity being stronger than gravity.

All he's missing is evidence. But it's a good story.

Barbarian suggests:

Show us what part of Humphrey's version PNAS supports.​

http://www.icr.org/article/prestigious-journal-endorses-basics-creationist-co/

So nothing? Not anything at all? Perhaps I'm missing something. Show us where in that article there's any support for God producing things by special creation.

As I predicted, lots of complaints about physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc. But no support at all for special creation.

 

[stovebolts]

I can only go by what I've seen. I notice that when asked, creationists don't come up with evidence for creationism, just attempts to discredit science. Can you show me a counter-example?

Barbarian,
I have presented a view on c-14 in the past and my intent wasn't to discredit science, but rather to show the assumptions. Do you agree that science uses assumptions? Do you think discussing these assumptions is a fair discussion?

Creationism is a religion, not theory. A theory is a well-tested idea about the natural world, supported by evidence.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this one. Are you saying that a Christian can't come up with a valid theory to fit a biblical timeline using the same observational science as an evolutionist? Let's break this down and be honest for a moment can't we? Aren't we really talking about a world view here? You look at the evidence and say the earth is 4.6 billion years. Young Earth Creationists look at the world at 6-10,000 years old using the same evidence. I don't see that as discrediting science, I see it as affirming science.

and both positions use the same scientific facts to support their theories.

Show us.

We see the same coal beds with the same fossils on multiple continents. We infer how this could be.

No. Proof isn't part of science. It merely makes inferences from evidence.

Science infers c-14 has a life of about 70,000 years based on current evidence with numerous assumptions. If we look at some of those assumptions, it is just as plausible to infer that the earth is 6-10,000 years old. The evidence remains the same, but the assumptions are questioned and reworked and different inferences can be made.

Who? That's clearly contrary to the evidence. Buried campfires can be contaminated with recent carbon, for example.

You must remember Willard Libby. Heaven knows you and I have discussed him several times. He was the founder of the C-14 dating method. If you wish, I an quote for you once again where he states matter of factly that once something dies and is buried, it can no longer take in C-14.

No. Diamonds contain a considerable amount of nitrogen, and are found in deposits with significant amounts of thorium and other radioactive material. Nitrogen is converted to C-14 by ionizing radiation.

Thank you for making my case. The Theory of C-14 shifts to accommodate an Evolutionist world view of billions of years old.

So, the theory needs to be modified because Libby was wrong on that point of his theory.

I don't know what theory says that, but 48 years ago, when I was an undergraduate, archaeologists knew this. I say "archaeologists", because paleontologists don't use C-14. Too short a half-life.

My point was when the thoeory of C-14 dating methods were first introduced, Willard Libby who was the author of this theory stated that once something died and was burried, there was no way it could take on C-14.
To your point, if C-14 is found in something that radioactive decay methods report as millions of years old, the C-14 data is discarded for dating purposes since C-14 is not a valid tool when we consider the half life to be nowhere near the age radio active decay methods report. Thus, an assumption regarding the presence of C-14 is that it must have appeared by some other method and in light of this evidence (the finding of C-14 where it shouldn't be) is modified to fit the evolutionary model.

Show me how that works. I don't know of any evidence for a world that young.

We are talking about theory and it is clear you reject the young earth model. We both have the same evidence but we both come to different conclusions. Neither of us can refute that C-14 is found in diamonds which are said to be millions of years old, but we can (and have) disputed over how it got there and to be honest, those disputes are based on theory and assumption and driven by a world view, so I don't really see an end to that conversation.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian,
I have presented a view on c-14 in the past and my intent wasn't to discredit science, but rather to show the assumptions. Do you agree that science uses assumptions?

One. Uniformitarianism. The idea that the rules have always been the same since the beginning. So far, always validated when tested. Everything else depends on evidence.

Do you think discussing these assumptions is a fair discussion?

It's often been discussed. But no one can put together a consistent theory of anything without it.

Barbarian observes: ↑
Creationism is a religion, not theory. A theory is a well-tested idea about the natural world, supported by evidence.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this one. Are you saying that a Christian can't come up with a valid theory to fit a biblical timeline using the same observational science as an evolutionist?

Sure. But that's no longer creationism. And of course, many scientists, like Darwin, Kepler, Dobzhansky, et al, have come up with valid theories that fit a Biblical timeline. It's just that science can't fit the new YE timeline. But it fits traditional Biblical timelines.

Let's break this down and be honest for a moment can't we? Aren't we really talking about a world view here?

Creationism, yes. Science, no. Otherwise, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc. couldn't all do science. But all those world views are consistent with science, which makes no claims about the supernatural.

You look at the evidence and say the earth is 4.6 billion years. Young Earth Creationists look at the world at 6-10,000 years old using the same evidence.

No. YE creationists see most of the evidence as anti-God.

and both positions use the same scientific facts to support their theories.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us.

We see the same coal beds with the same fossils on multiple continents. We infer how this could be.

Can you show us more than simple denial? Show us a consistent YE theory of coal beds that fits the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
No. Proof isn't part of science. It merely makes inferences from evidence.

Science infers c-14 has a life of about 70,000 years

About 5,700 years or so.

based on current evidence with numerous assumptions.

Just one. The rules have always been the same. And of course, with all the evidence for the half-life of elements, (C-14 really has little or nothing to tell us about evolution in general, much less homology and analogy), it's one of the best-established facts in science.

If we look at some of those assumptions, it is just as plausible to infer that the earth is 6-10,000 years old.

In fact, C-14 can tell us nothing at all about the age of the Earth. Too short a half-life. But longer-lived elements can.

The evidence remains the same, but the assumptions are questioned and reworked and different inferences can be made.

Let's take a look. Show me a consistent theory of C-14 that shows the world is 6 to 10 thousand years old, that is also consistent with all the evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Who? That's clearly contrary to the evidence. Buried campfires can be contaminated with recent carbon, for example.

You must remember Willard Libby. Heaven knows you and I have discussed him several times.

Maybe so. Probably more familiar to archaeologists than to biologists. C-14 has little application in evolutionary science.

He was the founder of the C-14 dating method. If you wish, I an quote for you once again where he states matter of factly that once something dies and is buried, it can no longer take in C-14.

That's true. It's impossible for a dead animal to ingest carbon. But it can be contaminated on the outside. Of course, outside contamination isn't what he was talking about there. He was saying that once an organism dies, it doesn't take in any more carbon. However, I'd be open to evidence that Libby denied that contamination of such remains was impossible. Do you have something like that?

And, of course, LIbby was merely adapting a technique discovered by Ernst Rutherford much earlier. Rutherford is the actual originator of radioisotope dating. There's an interesting story in that. Darwin had determined, from biological evidence, that the world was many millions of years old. However, Lord Kelvin's analysis of heat flux from the Earth suggested that it was no more than about ten million years old. Darwin was convinced he was right, but Kelvin's numbers were impeccable.

Then, Rutherford discovered radioactive decay and the source of the excess heat was found. And Kelvin grudgingly admitted that Darwin had been right all along.

I came into the room, which was half dark, and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience and realized that I was in trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the earth, where my views conflicted with his. To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye, and cock a baleful glance at me! Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said, 'Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the earth, provided no new source was discovered. That prophetic utterance refers to what we are now considering tonight, radium!' Behold! the old boy beamed upon me.
Ernest Rutherford

Barbarian observes:
No. Diamonds contain a considerable amount of nitrogen, and are found in deposits with significant amounts of thorium and other radioactive material. Nitrogen is converted to C-14 by ionizing radiation.

Thank you for making my case. The Theory of C-14 shifts to accommodate an Evolutionist world view of billions of years old.

Nope. Same process by which it's made in the atmosphere, as Libby wrote.

To your point, if C-14 is found in something that radioactive decay methods report as millions of years old, the C-14 data is discarded for dating purposes since C-14 is not a valid tool when we consider the half life to be nowhere near the age radio active decay methods report.

No more than the discovery that lupus erythematosis can sometimes give a false Wasserman test means that we can no longer test for syphillus. We just need to be careful about testing. All scientific testing is like this.

Barbarian suggests:

Show me how that works. I don't know of any evidence for a world that young.​

We are talking about theory and it is clear you reject the young earth model. We both have the same evidence but we both come to different conclusions.

Comes down to evidence. And that's where creationism gets off the bus.

Neither of us can refute that C-14 is found in diamonds which are said to be millions of years old, but we can (and have) disputed over how it got there and to be honest, those disputes are based on theory and assumption

Evidence. Do you suppose it's a coincidence that the same process that makes C-14 in the atmosphere, is at work in diamond deposits? It seems to me unwise to think that the laws of physics work differently just for that place.

​