[_ Old Earth _] Alright, time for some answers

[zeke]

The reason radiocarbon dates are viewed positively is because they are widely consistent, use known and verified functions of physics, and are consilient with a range of independent dating methodologies that can be used to verify them.

But isn't it true that the accuracy of all radiometric dating results depends on basic assumptions that in most instances are unknowable and there remains a certain amount of circular reasoning involved in such dating?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."— J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science​

 

[Sparkey]

lordkalvan -- thanks for getting back to me, it's mid-term time for me but I'll look again at the article afterward to compare it with your comments.

Earlier in the thread I made a comment that indicated that I thought dogmatically about it not having rained on the earth before the flood -- but now, with some research, it seems that scholars don't agree on that either.

I don't know of any way (theistically or scientifically) to prove conclusively one view or the other. Certainly, those who advocate long periods of time have valid reason for doing so, and I do appreciate your contriubutions and willingness to work with me. I'm not trying to debate, understanding is more than digging trenches, it involves seeing things from multiple points of view.

 

[Barbarian]

You boast much about your scientific expertise

I've cited a lot of it, but boasted about mine? (Barbarian checks) Nope. You must be confusing me with another Barbarian here.

but you post little science.

Well, let's see what went on in this thread...

Post 30:Barbarian discusses abiotic origins for biological molecules:
That's the point. We're learning that it doesn't. Amino acids and even short proteins have been found to appear naturally. Some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing.

Post 31: Barbarian discusses the equilibrium conundrum and fitness:
One of my degrees is in systems, and of course, game theory is a big part of that. It has some application in the idea of an "optimal strategy", which is another way of expressing fitness.

Post 34: Barbarian discusses one way to calibrate C-14 decay rates:
The actual rate can be calibrated by material of known age. Here's one way to do that:
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html

Post 53: Barbarian cites the flooding of the Black Sea basin a few thousand years ago, as a possible candidate for the flood event:

Post 59: Barbarian explains the technical definition of “evolution.”
Change in allele frequency over time.

Post 80, Barbarian discusses the evidence for evolution of birds from theropods, and the theory of one dissenter, who has a bit of evidence to support his argument for a common ancestor for both.

Do you offer real evidence or pull your 'facts" from the air?

It's easy to find:
Since then, more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered. Most fossils are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.

link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...21436/abstract

Barbarian continues:
The fact that scutes (scales found on dinosaurs and birds) can be induced to form feathers by genetic manipulation.

In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to various degrees.
http://web.me.com/dinoruss/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

Barbarian observes:
The large number of transitional forms between theropods and birds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28985201.../#.TzuxSlHnvMk

Barbarian observes:
The fact that T. rex heme is genetically most similar to that of birds... Stuff like that.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full

Barbarian observes:
Admittedly, there is a chance that Feduccia is right, and birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, rather than birds evolving from dinsaurs. But if I had to bet the farm on it, I'd go with dinosaurs as the ancestors.

Hand-waving and speculation is not science - right? Do you have science?
What does Alan Feduccia say about feathered dinosaurs?

He thinks the common ancestor of birds and dinos had feathers. There is a bit of fragmentary evidence suggesting that.

You missed all that?

Let's see what you have. Present on this thread the evidence from science that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

See above.

You're up.

 

[Barbarian]

But isn't it true that the accuracy of all radiometric dating results depends on basic assumptions that in most instances are unknowable and there remains a certain amount of circular reasoning involved in such dating?

Nope. For example, Argon/Argon methods were tested on a flow of known age (Pompeii eruption) and were verified.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian are you there? Have you located your evidences yet that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds? Should I hold my breath?

I went back and found them, repeating them for you just above. Enjoy.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Your mythology apparently has nothing to do with Darwinian theory.

Your confused – Darwinism is mythology mixed with a little science.

Barbarian suggests:
Start by telling us how it differs with the four points of Darwinian theory.

You have never defined your version of the “four points of Darwinian theoryâ€.

Since you claim to understand the theory, just use them as you know them. You're on.

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Nothing about the origin of life in evolutionary theory. Even Darwin just suggested God did it.

Tell me about Darwin’s “warm little pond†where he supposed goo became me and you. You may be confused about what Chuck believed – yes?

Maybe you should read his book...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species 1878

Barbarian observes:
I talked with one of them once. It seems he was raised to believe God and evolution where incompatible. Then he learned that creationism could not be true.

Your version of reality is skewed my friend. God and biological evolution (science) are completely compatible.

As I told you. But I'm pleased you admit it.

(Barbarian, noting that creationism is a powerful atheist-maker)
At judgement, YE will have much to account for.

Our YEC friends may want to take you to task on your silly statement

Glen Morton's testimony is more persuasive than your denial.

You can explain to the Eternal why you push the leading atheistic creation myth to believer and non-believer - yes?

As you learned, it's got nothing to do with atheism. Now, let's take a look at your belief in a "Darwinist myth." Tell us about the four points of Darwinian theory, and how they are "atheistic."

 

[zeke]

In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers.

LOL – I asked you kindly to present (on this thread ) the required evidence from science that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds. I asked that you please not include your assertions, presumptions and speculations. I asked that you provide scientific evidence only. And what do you provide – infected chicks that develop feathers. Is that about all you have? Your 'evidences' simply prove you have no evidence --- but you are entertaining.

 

[lordkalvan]

But isn't it true that the accuracy of all radiometric dating results depends on basic assumptions that in most instances are unknowable....

Only if you propose that there have been relatively recent significant variations in the laws of physics that have failed to leave meaningful evidence behind of their having occurred.

...and there remains a certain amount of circular reasoning involved in such dating?

Such as?

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."— J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science​

This quotation appears to refer to the use of index fossils and has little to do with radiometric dating. I think if you read the whole article you will find that O'Rourke goes on to explain (rather turgidly) why the use of index fossils and the geologic column is not circular at all. In other words, this reference has many of the hallmarks of a quote mine.

 

[lordkalvan]

lordkalvan -- thanks for getting back to me, it's mid-term time for me but I'll look again at the article afterward to compare it with your comments.

Earlier in the thread I made a comment that indicated that I thought dogmatically about it not having rained on the earth before the flood -- but now, with some research, it seems that scholars don't agree on that either.

I don't know of any way (theistically or scientifically) to prove conclusively one view or the other. Certainly, those who advocate long periods of time have valid reason for doing so, and I do appreciate your contriubutions and willingness to work with me. I'm not trying to debate, understanding is more than digging trenches, it involves seeing things from multiple points of view.

Sparrow, you're welcome. As I said, I probably haven't given the article the time it deserved. I'll be interested in your further comments if you feel moved to give them. As you know, we are coming at this question from different sides, but it's good to be able to discuss things reasonably. Given that I agree with the general findings of geologists since 19th Century clergymen-scientists went looking for signs of the Noachian deluge and failed to find any, my conclusions is that, at best, the flood described in the Bible was a local event. So not only is the likelihood low that it did not rain before this hypothetical event, but I also understand that there is ample evidence of rain happening in a distant past that long-predates Ussher-style chronologies for a recent global flood event, for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2383980/

 

[lordkalvan]

Sparrow, I have replied to your comments, but my answers appear to have been selected for moderator checking. I hope they will be up soon.

 

[Barbarian]

LOL – I asked you kindly to present (on this thread ) the required evidence from science that proves theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Well, let's recap again...
ost 80, Barbarian discusses the evidence for evolution of birds from theropods, and the theory of one dissenter, who has a bit of evidence to support his argument for a common ancestor for both.

Do you offer real evidence or pull your 'facts" from the air?

It's easy to find:

Since then, more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered. Most fossils are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.

link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...21436/abstract

Barbarian continues:
The fact that scutes (scales found on dinosaurs and birds) can be induced to form feathers by genetic manipulation.

In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to various degrees.
http://web.me.com/dinoruss/jdp/archie/scutes.htm

Barbarian observes:
The large number of transitional forms between theropods and birds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28985201.../#.TzuxSlHnvMk

Barbarian observes:
The fact that T. rex heme is genetically most similar to that of birds... Stuff like that.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full

Barbarian observes:
Admittedly, there is a chance that Feduccia is right, and birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, rather than birds evolving from dinsaurs. But if I had to bet the farm on it, I'd go with dinosaurs as the ancestors.

Hand-waving and speculation is not science - right? Do you have science?
What does Alan Feduccia say about feathered dinosaurs?

He thinks the common ancestor of birds and dinos had feathers. There is a bit of fragmentary evidence suggesting that.

You missed all that?

I asked that you please not include your assertions, presumptions and speculations.

As you see, all facts. There's more. Do you need more?

I asked that you provide scientific evidence only.

So I cited only scientific research.

And what do you provide

Biochemical and observational evidence that scutes (scales found on dinosaurs and birds) can be induced to form feathers.

Demonstration that one dino fossil had feathers with a little keratin remaining that is essentially bird keratin.

Over 20 genera (not species, genera) of feathered dinosaurs.

Demonstration that dino hemoglobin is most like that of birds.

Is that about all you have?

Oh, and evidence that the bird lung evolved from dinosaur lungs...
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm

Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003303

There's still more. Want to see some more?

Your 'evidences' simply prove you have no evidence

I don't think denial is going to do you much good at this point. BTW, you were going to explain to us what the "Darwinian myth" had to do with Darwin's four points.

When do you think you can do that for us?

 

[zeke]

This quotation appears to refer to the use of index fossils and has little to do with radiometric dating. I think if you read the whole article you will find that O'Rourke goes on to explain (rather turgidly) why the use of index fossils and the geologic column is not circular at all. In other words, this reference has many of the hallmarks of a quote mine.

O'Rourke makes the valid point that even laymen can see the circular reasoning used in fossil/rock dating. Is that fact quote mining? I think not. Do you not see the circularity?

 

[zeke]

Demonstration that one dino fossil had feathers with a little keratin remaining that is essentially bird keratin.

Can you provide that evidence on this thread or are you just pulling 'facts' out of the air once again? Dinosaurs with protofeathers hardly proves common ancestry. Goldfish have scales and rattlesnakes have scales, does that mean goldfish evolved from rattlesnakes. I think not. Again, you present simplistic answers for complex questions. Typical of amateurs who push Darwinian mythology.

You never answered the begging question – where did all the new genetic information come from that is required to magically change theropod forelegs into wings of flight. You do understand how complex that new information is - right? Do you not have the required evidence? Do you simply rely on evolution of the gaps?

Your notion remains what is was from the beginning - very anemic and simplistic. Give us some real science. You're up and you have two strikes...don't strike out in the first inning. ;)

 

[zeke]

BTW, you were going to explain to us what the "Darwinian myth" had to do with Darwin's four points.

As soon as you present your version of "Darwin's four points". Can you do that.

 

[zeke]

The fact that T. rex heme is genetically most similar to that of birds... Stuff like that.

LOL - genetically "most similar" to birds than what - earthworms? What does that mean, exactly? Again, genetic similarity works as well for a common designer as it does for common ancestry. If that's all you have - and it appears it is - you have nothing. Think real science and present some on this thread. You have only presented "stuff like that" (repeatedly) thus far and that doesn't cut it...

 

[zeke]

I talked with one of them once. It seems he was raised to believe God and evolution where incompatible. Then he learned that creationism could not be true.

Creationism is true - God created in the beginning. Doesn't your Magisterium teach you that truth? Are you afraid to answer that question? God and biological evolution are compatible - always have been. God and classical Darwinism (atheistic naturalism) are not compatible - never have been - never will be. Right?

 

[zeke]

Nope. For example, Argon/Argon methods were tested on a flow of known age (Pompeii eruption) and were verified.

How can burned trees date back only 225 years and the volcanic material that burned them date back 465,000 years? What do you think? Is there a problem with radiometric dating?

"Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age." ~ Harold Coffin, Origin by Design​

 

[Ravenplucker]

I believe he was referring to the clock being reset to zero when the flow solidified.

I may be completely wrong, of course.

 

[lordkalvan]

O'Rourke makes the valid point that even laymen can see the circular reasoning used in fossil/rock dating. Is that fact quote mining? I think not. Do you not see the circularity?

It is quote mining if the conclusion of the article is, in fact, that the reasoning is not circular; in other words, the quoted statement is a literary device used to introduce a line of reasoning and actually misrepresents the views of the author in order to claim support for a point of view alternative to the one s/he actually holds. And no, absent an elaboration of the argument that index fossils represent circular reasoning, I do not see any reason to suppose that the method of dating is unreliable. You need to present the relevant argument so that we can consider it.

 

[lordkalvan]

How can burned trees date back only 225 years and the volcanic material that burned them date back 465,000 years? What do you think? Is there a problem with radiometric dating?

"Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon `clock' did not get set back to zero. Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in the Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example. The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age." ~ Harold Coffin, Origin by Design​

Lava flows are well-known amongst geologists for trapping Argon-40 in 'bubbles' and preventing it from evaporating, thus dramatically skewing K-Ar dates. This does not provide evidence for a 'young' Earth.