[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[Edward]

The entire package of evolution is a hoax, but just like Communism, once people have been brainwashed, they remain solidly committed to the lies and deception. A lot of genuine scientists have already distanced themselves from evolution.

Amen brother you're exactly right. I wonder what it is, that makes it seem so hard for people to think outside the box and receive truths. It's not like I never been wrong before, lol. One vid I was watching had a cool quote in it, he was talking about the increase in knowledge in these days and said something to the effect of "If you haven't changed your world views within the last 10-15 years...check your pulse, you may be dead!" ...alluding to the fact of knowledge IS increasing and many old theories are being blown out of the water with new discoveries, and still, people cling to those old fables.

This scripture keeps popping up when i think about the zeal evolutionists exude little do they know how deceptive our adversary is..he fooled those that had full divine revelation untainted by sin and yet they bought his version of things.

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

tob

That would be Adam & Eve so this is correct. Not to take the thread off on a tangent, but it always made me wonder...Where was Adam when the serpent tempted Eve? Off praying somewhere? I wonder if they had Guardian Angels? Where were they? Another thing is...do you think Eve was deceived and caved on first approach? Or did she say no at first and after awhile she ate it? It's probably moot but just something that crossed my mind. They were in a state of being in daily intimate relationship with God, they couldn't have been that stupid, could they?

 

[brother Paul]

One aspect of protein folding is called sulfide bonding and refers to di-sulfide bonds which determine the folding that occurs, which determines the function of the protein produced. This is very significant in animal biology.

First I will describe what happens and how they bond, and then point out the significance of this as a refutation for a random chemical coincident explanation. I will describe this process in lay terms so any not of a science background can understand what I saying. For those interested you can find more at Wiki under “Protein Folding” or if you care to go deeper, you can hear it in a lecture at:

http://www.learnerstv.com/video/Free-video-Lecture-1389-Medical.htm

Start at around 3:45…Or for further study you may also try…

http://labs.mcdb.lsa.umich.edu/labs/bardwell/files/publications/2008_nov-dis.pdf

to learn of the importance of the process in forming polypeptide chains as polypeptide chains are essential to all animal life forms.

Here is the dilemma….

Since every protein (every organ, every function, every vessel, every hormone, etc.,) in your body is dependent on what happens in this process I thought you might find it important. When polypeptide chains fold to their three dimensional structure they do this because certain sulfide molecules bond with other PARTICULAR sulfide molecules. The combinations of bonded sulfides determine the shape, the folding of the protein produced, thus the function of the protein.

What we found is that when by chemical process we unfold these proteins and allow them to re-bond freely, even if the string has 100 sulfide possibilities, only the exact same sulfides re-bond with their particular component sulfides.

However there is absolutely no reason scientifically that these mindless allegedly planless, designless sulfides should only bond with those exact same specific sulfides in the presence of such variety and opportunity. Even if and when we try to force an alternative bonding, they just will not and immediately revert to their original site. Now some claim the responsibility lays with certain enzymes but the problem then arises why these same exact enzymes in different proteins cause different bonding combinations (if they are at all the “cause”).

The kind of bonding (called covalent bonding, where two molecules share their valence electrons) is natural when two elements which bond this way come into contact so when we try and force alternative di-sulfide bonds they should automatically covalently bond, but they will not. The particular shape of the folding is inherent in the protein (producing its function and purpose)…now we know what catalysts cause bonding but not the specificity. No matter if we repeat the unfolding and allowance process 100 times in a row, they will only bond with the same other sulfide over and over.

If chemical random coincidence were the rule for this reaction, they would occasionally randomly bond at least some of the time. But they do not! There is clearly an irresistible intention in the resultant fold, shape, and function for which science can offer no satisfactory materialistic explanation.

Brother Paul

 

[Barbarian]

do not count? Or is it that it does not qualify him in Iowa?

I know of no state that would allow you to practice as a psychologist without a degree or certification in the field. Minors normally don't count. My wife has a master's in counseling, but she is not qualified to practice as a psychologist, even with a minor in psychology. This guy padded his resume a bit, and got caught. Bad idea.

 

[Barbarian]

1) Scientific research can only find that which our methods and instruments are capable of finding.

Which limits scientific inquiry to the natural world.

2) Every observation includes an observer, and every experiment, an experimenter who designs it. Thus one can never be totally free of the somewhat subjective element in one’s conclusions.

Hence the requirement for objective measures, rather than non-quantitative measures. And the necessity of peer-review to be published.

3) Each scientific conclusion includes the physical analysis (which is concrete and for the most part objective) and a resultant mathematical and logical speculation (which is abstract and often contains unconscious bias)

No. Analysis by math may seem abstract, but it is, as physics has shown, a better representation of nature than our own perceptions. And of course a scientific conclusion is an inference based on evidence, not speculation. Speculation in science is to propose directions for research, not the research itself. Once you have data, you are making inferences, using inductive logic to understand.

Anyone who supposes that's "speculation" is a stranger to logic.

4) No single method of classification adequately and absolutely describes or finds everything of the subject matter being classified.

Mathematically proven by Kurt Gödel.

5) Definitions (for example what is a “species”) vary over time to include the more general variances and nuances of the one or many that are defining a thing or subject in their time.

True. It's a vexing problem for creationists. As Darwin pointed out, there are so many intermediate cases, that one finds it impossible to draw a definitive definition of "species." If creationism were true, this would be easy. But reality shows that creationism is false.

6) The whole may have qualities not found in the parts, and the parts can have qualities not clearly reflected or discerned when looking at the whole (the nature of the atom is a great example here).

The properties of atoms can be derived from the behavior of quarks. So that's not a very good example. Synergy exists, but it's not what this author seems to think it is.

7) There can be many interpretations of a thing, person, or event. How, when, or from what angle we look at a thing or event/process can influence our conclusions (what is the nature of an electron is a perfect example).

Possibly, this person was thinking of photons, not electrons. There are some ways you can finagle electrons into behaving like photons, but they remain demonstrably particulate.

8) Anything in process or development can only be completely understood when one grasps the past of the process or development and the future or where or why it is going there (which can never actually be fully known until we actually arrive at that place).

"One can only understand something completely when one understands it completely." Hmm... yes, that seems true.

9) Conclusions are only as precise as the concluding intellect can analyze, organize, and articulate them and must not be closed to alternative possibilities that are not the norm.

Would that some modern theologians keep that in mind. As St. Augustine said, we should be very careful about locking down our ideas of what Scripture says, pending better understanding of the world around us. Most Christians get that, I think, but some creationists still want God's creation to conform to their conclusions, even when it obviously does not.

 

[turnorburn]

What's this your teaching, all of a sudden theory is fact?

You say: "True. It's a vexing problem for creationists. As Darwin pointed out, there are so many intermediate cases, that one finds it impossible to draw a definitive definition of "species." If creationism were true, this would be easy. But reality shows that creationism is false."

We don't have a vexing problem Gods word makes it abundantly clear, but you say reality teaches creationism is false, what kind of reality do you see, God designed or Darwin designed..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

Everything here is clearly true not false.. even the stars are different from each other..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Which limits scientific inquiry to the natural world.



Hence the requirement for objective measures, rather than non-quantitative measures. And the necessity of peer-review to be published.



No. Analysis by math may seem abstract, but it is, as physics has shown, a better representation of nature than our own perceptions. And of course a scientific conclusion is an inference based on evidence, not speculation. Speculation in science is to propose directions for research, not the research itself. Once you have data, you are making inferences, using inductive logic to understand.

Anyone who supposes that's "speculation" is a stranger to logic.



Mathematically proven by Kurt Gödel.



True. It's a vexing problem for creationists. As Darwin pointed out, there are so many intermediate cases, that one finds it impossible to draw a definitive definition of "species." If creationism were true, this would be easy. But reality shows that creationism is false.



The properties of atoms can be derived from the behavior of quarks. So that's not a very good example. Synergy exists, but it's not what this author seems to think it is.



Possibly, this person was thinking of photons, not electrons. There are some ways you can finagle electrons into behaving like photons, but they remain demonstrably particulate.



"One can only understand something completely when one understands it completely." Hmm... yes, that seems true.



Would that some modern theologians keep that in mind. As St. Augustine said, we should be very careful about locking down our ideas of what Scripture says, pending better understanding of the world around us. Most Christians get that, I think, but some creationists still want God's creation to conform to their conclusions, even when it obviously does not.

The thread was not about creationism. So good! You agree these are these are things science has to be on guard against.

 

[Barbarian]

What's this your teaching, all of a sudden theory is fact?

You have it backwards. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it.

You say: "True. It's a vexing problem for creationists. As Darwin pointed out, there are so many intermediate cases, that one finds it impossible to draw a definitive definition of "species." If creationism were true, this would be easy. But reality shows that creationism is false."

Yep. All kinds of excuses, why the facts don't fit their beliefs, but nothing of substance.

We don't have a vexing problem

Other than the problem that reality doesn't fit your new doctrine. If there were no evolution, species would be easy to define.

Gods word makes it abundantly clear, but you say reality teaches creationism is false, what kind of reality do you see, God designed or Darwin designed..

Stop trying to force God into man's ways. Created, not designed.

 

[Barbarian]

Paul writes:

So good! You agree these are these are things science has to be on guard against.

Just pointing out some of the bad assumptions in that statement.

 

[turnorburn]

You have it backwards. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the theory that explains it.



Yep. All kinds of excuses, why the facts don't fit their beliefs, but nothing of substance.



Other than the problem that reality doesn't fit your new doctrine. If there were no evolution, species would be easy to define.



Stop trying to force God into man's ways. Created, not designed.

i don't have anything backwards Gods word explains it all, you might take your advice in your last sentence things will become much clearer..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Sorry but the writers of Living Philosophy were not "Creationists" in the sense you use that term, nor were they antagonistic toward the theory of Evolution. Their insights were not assumptions they were observations thought out over time by Science historians and philosophers.

One of these that can sometimes be used to make data appear to fit one's preconceived theory is "the line of best guess". This approach is fine in and of itself, but sometimes it can be deceptive. Different data points plotted can sometimes show a vast range of possibility and an alleged reasonable assumption is made. The only time it is a problem is when textbooks then report the "best guess" as a fact (like the age of Nutcracker Man the ape). This happens a lot in dating fossilized items. Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon, Carbon 14 (where applicable), etc., can all be applied and often yield a number of possible results. Which date is correct when in reality it could be any of the above or actually none (somewhere in between)? Like what do we do when fossils made at Mount St. Helens date to 1,000s of years (it happened)? Do we believe the assumption we COULD draw from this?

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Sorry but the writers of Living Philosophy were not "Creationists" in the sense you use that term, nor were they antagonistic toward the theory of Evolution.

As you see, they made some major errors in assuming what science does. And that confusion between electrons and photons. Now, it makes sense. They aren't actually scientists.

One of these that can sometimes be used to make data appear to fit one's preconceived theory is "the line of best guess". This approach is fine in and of itself, but sometimes it can be deceptive. Different data points plotted can sometimes show a vast range of possibility and an alleged reasonable assumption is made.

"Goodness of fit" is determined mathematically. It's not a guesswork kind of thing. BTW, there's an easy way to get a perfect fit for your data. Do you know what it is?

The only time it is a problem is when textbooks then report the "best guess" as a fact (like the age of Nutcracker Man the ape).

That's an old moniker. I'm guessing you don't know how old it is, and why that was actually a hominin. Would you like to hear about it? Hint: not on the line related to us.

This happens a lot in dating fossilized items. Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon, Carbon 14 (where applicable), etc., can all be applied and often yield a number of possible results. Which date is correct when in reality it could be any of the above or actually none (somewhere in between)? Like what do we do when fossils made at Mount St. Helens date to 1,000s of years (it happened)?

Someone lied to you. There were no fossils formed at Mt. St. Helens. However, there was a bit of dishonesty. Here's how it worked:

A creationist was aware that the dacite in the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens contained xenocrysts (material that was not melted at the time of the eruption, and therefore much older than the lava flow. He took a sample of that, had it analyzed, and claimed to be shocked that it gave ages of thousands of years. He even inadvertently admitted the xenocrysts were present.

Do we believe the assumption we COULD draw from this?

Don't think so. Many creationists are honest. This guy is hardly typical, although there are plenty like him.

 

[brother Paul]

What guy?

 

[brother Paul]

In the respected periodical, Radio Carbon (Vol. II, 1969, pg. 65), we see an example of the dating enigma referred to above. The points of Data varied from about 4,000 years to almost 1,000,000,000. That is a vast variance in probability. To be honest one must admit that the true date for this sample could literally be anywhere within those parameters. Thus, we cannot really be sure just where he falls in this vast array of possibility. If accurate, then the truth is equally possible that he could have been a mere 5000 years old, or even 2,500,000 years old, but these would have put the preconceived theory into question. The same would be true if we interpreted the physical findings as possibly indicative of early Humans. Nut when you add the contrived image (for imprinting) that National Geographic aritsts invented to enhance and impress in Louis S. B. Leakey’s, 'Finding the World's Earliest Man,( National Geographic, September 1960; 421) the conclusion is sold.

The ash layers above and below were dated using potassium/argon dating and it appears the Nutcracker ape dated from 1.2 million years in layers above but 1.9 million years in the layers below. This was probably the cause for narrowing the margin. Yet it was somehow concluded to have been ‘proved’ that Nutcracker Man (which is more like an extinct variety of Gorilla) was approximately 1.75 million years old! This actually was a “best guess” clearly influenced by their preconceived notions. They then declared this age for him as a matter of fact in nearly all the Biology textbooks of our public High Schools.

As time passes more and more people are considering that this creature may actually have been an extinct variety of gorilla and did not in any way eat nuts but mostly grasses. Peter S. Ungar, chairman of Anthropology, University of Arkansas said that this “reminds us that in paleontology, things are not always as they seem". I think Peter is getting a bit honest here…perhaps we should listen. But rather than publicly being honest about a potential error (not necessarily one), they simply avoid you becoming aware of the possibility so you will believe the textbook assumption as if it is a fact. Why? Because it supports the party politick of their camp, or because it keeps the money coming in? For whatever reason, it is not being totally honest with the actual evidence. Even though they found some probable tools near this skull cap that does not automatically preclude that this was the creature who made the tools or even used the tools. This is a prime example of that huge assumption based leap of faith and demonstrates interpretation clearly for convenience.

Nutcracker Man is not even a man….it turns out he is a form of southern ape. Some ancient tools found near this partial ape skull were more than likely never used by this creature, but as some have more honestly concluded they may have been used by or even on him. He may have been killed by a human who wielded those tools. However the presence of such tools does not predicate their use by this creature unless you accept the assumption that no humans could have existed at that time. However in the same place there is a monolithic structure and footprints that too many appear to be human.

 

[brother Paul]

Another article in another very reliable journal, Science (Vol. 141, 1963, pg. 636), revealed that by the Carbon 14 dating alone, “tissues from living mollusks“ were demonstrated to be “dead for over 3,000 years“, while on the other hand, one Egyptian mummy historically known to be about 2000 year old, could not yield a date older than 250 years. Hello-o! Living mollusks dead for over three thousand years? Hmmm? David Pilbeam, in an article from Pro-Evolution, Vol. 14, p.127, says “...in my own subject of Paleo-anthropology the “theory” heavily influenced by implicit ideas, almost always dominates data...ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influences the way fossils are interpreted."

Paul

Science is great, I love it, and I know far less than you do, but there are so many examples showing it is often a matter of interpretation of the data.

 

[Barbarian]

Another article in another very reliable journal, Science (Vol. 141, 1963, pg. 636), revealed that by the Carbon 14 dating alone, “tissues from living mollusks“ were demonstrated to be “dead for over 3,000 years“,

Nothing new. All mollusks do that. They get most of their carbon from geological sources, and so it is depleted in C-14. Your source who cut and pasted this from the article is either hilariously hilarilously ignorant of radiocarbon testing, or is intentionally dishonest.

Hello-o! Living mollusks dead for over three thousand years?
Science 16 August 1963:
Vol. 141 no. 3581 pp. 634-637
DOI: 10.1126/science.141.3581.634

Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells
Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14-activity of ancient fresh-water shell indeterminate, but within limits. Consequent errors of shell radiocarbon dates may be as large as several thousand years for river shells.

Hmmm?

Indeed. You've been conned by a quote-miner. From now on, let's provide a checkable source for such things, seeing as you've presented some things that are seriously and demonstrably wrong.

Science is great, I love it, and I know far less than you do

It's not what you don't know; it's what you know that isn't true.

Does this show you why you're wrong to trust those people to tell you the truth? Enough for you to go look for yourself?

 

[Barbarian]

The ash layers above and below were dated using potassium/argon dating and it appears the Nutcracker ape dated from 1.2 million years in layers above but 1.9 million years in the layers below. This was probably the cause for narrowing the margin.

Rarely can you date the exact strata in which fossils are found. We almost always do it from dates above and below.

Yet it was somehow concluded to have been ‘proved’ that Nutcracker Man (which is more like an extinct variety of Gorilla)

No. It was a robust Australopithecine, closer to chimpanzees and humans. It had the same dietary habits as gorillas, and so some features are somewhat gorilla-like. But they aren't very closely related.

They then declared this age for him as a matter of fact in nearly all the Biology textbooks of our public High Schools.

I review sciences textbooks occasionally. Never saw that. Got a few titles for me to check?

Nutcracker Man is not even a man….it turns out he is a form of southern ape.

Which is what "Australopithecus" means. Yes, some australopithecines made crude tools. So do chimps today. Not surprising.

 

[Barbarian]

What guy?

Austin. The guy who faked the radioassay for Mt. St. Helens. BTW, he often told people that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens made him a creationist, even though he had been publishing creationist tracts under a pen name long before that eruption.

 

[brother Paul]

Austin. The guy who faked the radioassay for Mt. St. Helens. BTW, he often told people that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens made him a creationist, even though he had been publishing creationist tracts under a pen name long before that eruption.

Never heard of the guy. Sorry!

Now then regarding the former defensive post, the source was me…

I always find it strange that in conversations with EBs whenever they quote a section of an article or work it’s called “support”, and when someone making a point they would like to avoid or that analyzes their conclusions (in my case pointing out the wiggle room factor in what is sometimes presented as established fact) they call it “quote mining” (rather convenient and somewhat prejudice if you ask me).

You are well educated and intelligent (unlike yourself I do not make personal insults part of my defense)….so you should know there is a difference between an accepted fact and actual fact. I can tell you think I am attacking “evolution”, but I keep pointing out the OP is about how the human element (a margin for error) finds its way into the alleged conclusions. If the history of science proves anything it’s that!

Many things we now allegedly KNOW, replaced ideas and interpretations we once thought we knew. I can assure you it will continue to happen over the coming century.

The point in this case was that dating isn’t always reliable as a “fact” (though it often is... “within limits”, as your “quote mining” pointed out)….the article more honestly uses the word “probably” (a term in the subjunctive mood which does not equal “IS”, and is actually only equal to “could be” which leaves room for "could not be")...

And the above and below (which is fine in narrowing it down) yields a potential variance of .7 million years (700,000 years is a lot of wiggle room).

Hence even if we just go by the data we can KNOW, 1.75 million is a convenient “best guess” conclusion that fits the theory, and Nutcracker ape could just well have been closer to 2 million years or even only 1 million years. So public school biology texts which give this as his age are tweaking the facts to fit the theory (similar to New Guinea Man for decades).

I said "Nutcracker Man is not even a man….it turns out he is a form of southern ape."

Then you said "Which is what "Australopithecus" means. Yes, some australopithecines made crude tools (only if you assume there were no humans at the time…absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence…this only APPEARS to be true if one rules out early humans but it could equally be evidence of them….IF you look objectively void of the preconceived conclusion). So do chimps today. Not surprising.

Yeah I loved the Jane Goodall studies (for one example) they were amazing, but nothing I did not expect, and nothing like hand shaven and shaped stone tools, and neither have any demonstrated the tendency or ability to build a monolithic structure, or produce foot prints without a rear or separated thumb/big toe.

 

[brother Paul]

Rarely can you date the exact strata in which fossils are found. We almost always do it from dates above and below.

Yes and often one cannot accurately date those....so in fact you make my point....in many cases we must rely on assumption and best guess (thus not "IS" only "could be" or "might be" but then again "might not be" is equally plausible)...

Like when National Geographic reported "...the Denisovans—likely roamed Asia for thousands of years, probably interbreeding occasionally with humans like you and me, according to a new genetic study" it is equally as Likely they Probably may not have! But in discussions with other EBs on other forums I have had them presented as a factual group related to early humans (allegedly mating with Neanderthals which are only early humans anyway, but they spin the language to make it seem like two separate creatures instead of two variations of the same creature).

Paul

 

[brother Paul]

Here are some examples of how Nutcracker Ape is presented

Popular Archaeology states “First discovered in 1959 by Mary and Luis Leakey in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, the cranial (head or skull) fossil remains of Paranthropus boisei, initially named Zinjanthropus boisei, became a huge sensation and was originally classified by the Leakeys as belonging to a genus in the direct ancestral line of humans. Interpreted as being bipedal (walking upright on two legs but we really do not know though now millions assume it true), the new species find was nicknamed "Nutcracker Man" by friend and famous paleoanthropologist colleague Phillip Tobias because of its resemblance to a child's nutcracker toy. That name became its signature title in the popular press. parentheses mine

The remains were later classified as representative of a species that branched off from the australopithecines about 2.5 million years ago. Paranthropus is thought to have become extinct, while Homo went on to spawn Homo sapiens, or modern humans. The species was distinguished by distinctly large jaws, sporting powerful jaw muscles and large, flat molars. Based on examination of these features, including the size and shape of the teeth and extensive microwear analysis, scientists have long suggested that Paranthropus boisei lived off of nuts, hard fruits and seeds.”

So you see all the assumption/best guess here (and by the way they ate grass and such not nuts)…interpreted as….classified as….is thought to have become, and so on….

Yale Scholar and Professor Stephen Broker as part of Curriculum Unit 79.06.02 on “Hominid Evolution” all the time knowing it is not established fact teaches “Zinjanthropus has been accurately dated to 1.8 million years B.P.” NO it has not!!!! That’s propaganda…eliminating the known potential variance to promote the accepted theory. As paleoanthropologist Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas puts it…"This is a great and important study -- it reminds us that in paleontology, things are not always as they seem" to that I say Amen…an honest man (quite refreshing).