Circular Reasoning

[Loudmouth]

they are still assumptions, they are not facts, i don't care how "reasonable" they are.

Not assumed. We can directly observe the past by looking at distant stars and galaxies. When we see that they operate the same as things on Earth, then we can know that physics was the same in the past.

One example is supernova 1987a. When it blew up it produced short lived isotopes, and we could measure their disappearance through spectrometry. As it turns out, cobalt-60 decays at the same rate in distant stars as it does here on Earth. Since SN1987a is 170,000 light years away, we know that radioactive decay was the same 170,000 years ago, at a minimum.

Supernova 1987a

On top of that, in order to change decay rates of the isotopes used for radiometric dating, you would need to change the fundamental laws of physics. If these laws were different in the past, then we would see it in the sky as type Ia supernovae produced less or more luminosity, or stars burned with less or more energy. They don't. The physics across the universe is the same which means that radioactive decay was the same in the past.

As to the presence of argon in rocks at the time of closure, this has been tested by using Ar/Ar dating on rocks with known age.

This is not the only dating study to be done on an historic lava flow. Two extensive studies done more than 25 years ago involved analyzing the isotopic composition of argon in such flows to determine if the source of the argon was atmospheric, as must be assumed in K-Ar dating (Dalrymple 1969, 26 flows; Krummenacher 1970, 19 flows). Both studies detected, in a few of the flows, deviations from atmospheric isotopic composition, most often in the form of excess 40Ar. The majority of flows, however, had no detectable excess 40Ar and thus gave correct ages as expected. Of the handful of flows that did contain excess 40Ar, only a few did so in significant amounts. The 122 BCE flow from Mt Etna, for example, gave an erroneous age of 0.25 +/- 0.08 Ma. Note, however, that even an error of 0.25 Ma would be insignificant in a 20 Ma flow with equivalent potassium content.
Radiometric Dating Does Work! | NCSE
​

These aren't assumptions with no facts behind them. These are facts. Radiometric dating does work, and the age of rocks are determined completely independent of the fossils found in them.

 

[Loudmouth]

you haven't shown me where that process is even a viable one.

The evidence of preserved soft tissue in a 65 million year old fossil shows that it is viable for soft tissue to survive that long.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wouldn't matter - we'd still have to put up with your circular reasoning - which is what we are really discussing.

Rocks are dated by the isotopes found in them, not by the fossils above and below them. You are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

We were discussing dating and the use of Fermi's incorrect theory - until YOU changed the subject. Don't like where it ends up - quit changing the subject with strawmwn.

All you need to know is that the decay of 14C is constant, and it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

it is a beginning tutorial for radiometric dating methods.

What classes use this tutorial? You are talking nonsense.

you HAVE NOT shown where any of the information is false or misleading.

You have not shown where any of it is true.

 

[lasthero]

that's mainly due to the fact that evolution has employed shady practices to get itself established

I regret to inform you that evolution is not, in fact, a person or any such thing, and is therefore incapable of employing 'shady practices'.

 

[bhsmte]

I regret to inform you that evolution is not, in fact, a person or any such thing, and is therefore incapable of employing 'shady practices'.

Some people need to make evolution the enemy and manufacture claims against it.

Guess what kind of people do this?

 

[Split Rock]

I regret to inform you that evolution is not, in fact, a person or any such thing, and is therefore incapable of employing 'shady practices'.

True, but I think we can assume (careful there, I know) that she means those scientists who use the theory of evolution to explain the diversity and distribution of life on Earth.... probably based on "No Intelligence Allowed" type accusations from disgruntled creationists.

 

[sfs]

All you need to know is that the decay of 14C is constant, and it is.

Justa has been posting the same stuff about Fermi for years. It's always been complete nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Justa has been posting the same stuff about Fermi for years. It's always been complete nonsense.

If radioactive decay really is as unpredictable as creationists make it out to be, radiometric dating is the last thing they should be worried about. If any of these physical constants changed just a little bit, we would have either inert or exploding nuclear power plants. Nuclear weapons would spontaneously explode and devastate entire countries, or become useless, depending on which way the constants went.

 

[Loudmouth]

i am however leaning towards some kind of intelligence involved.
that's mainly due to the fact that evolution has employed shady practices to get itself established.

That's the worst argument ever. You have made up stories about fake persecution in science, therefore magic.

Color me unimpressed.

there is also an active effort in science to specifically exclude any type of intelligent/god origins.

There is nothing to exclude. What experimental findings are scientists ignoring? What research is not being allowed to be published? Where is there any evidence of deities being involved in the diversification of species?

Before you accuse scientists of excluding something, you should probably show us that they are actually excluding something.

in other words, if an hypothesis or theory implies one of the above, it must be reworded so that it doesn't.
i didn't believe stuff like that when i heard it, but i found it out last night when i was scouring the web for some of koonins work, and it wasn't from a creationist site.
darwin has made a mockery of science madam, and i'm afraid that evolution might be hard on his heels.

Koonin has had work excluded because Koonin claims that God did it?

 

[dad]

Nope, he never made such a claim. A poetic verse is not an example of someone saying something.



Sorry, but hell is simply another made up and false Christian idea. In fact this whole paragraph of yours is incredibly wrong. I know that you can't argue scientifically or logically so there is no real need for you to answer this post.

Except that a common ancestor claimed by science is exactly what I said. Any imaginary point after that would not matter.

- Stastical models reveal that it is much more likely all life stemmed from a common ancestor rather than multiple sources.
- The common ancestor idea is a major tenet of evolutionary theory.
One isn't such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms."


All Modern Life on Earth Derived from Common Ancestor : Discovery News

I already pointed out that unless you mean some bacteria or something that was observed in the real world, when one uses the term common ancestor in the creation debate, it has certain cognitive associations.

Run. Hehe

 

[dad]

If any of these physical constants changed just a little bit, we would have...

Not if whatever changed left us with the constants we know, rather than THEM changing.

 

[whois]

Originally Posted by whois


What "shady practices" are you referring to? Please be specific.

you cannot possibly feign ignorance with a straight face.
we were flat out lied to in school, and boldly.
the various fossil frauds, piltdown is the best known.
the "gaps" in the record are real, they are not the result of an incomplete record.
the disparity of the record had to be explained by HGT.
the diversity of life is not the result of small accumulating changes.
there is no theory, nor empirical evidence, that gene mutations result in increased complexity.
science has indeed come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is next to impossible, so much so that it has given up on a solution, and now i find that the last universal common ancestor was not one but at least 4 different lifeforms. so, multiply impossible by at least 4.
the disinformation associated with this discipline is outright . . . well, science really should be ashamed of it.
science knew in 1980 that the fossils would never be found.
but yet, what are we told, day after day.
regardless of what anyone says, i know for a FACT that franseco ayala DID NOT retract his statement, everything i have found out about this proves it.
i have no love, nor faith, in such a sham.

The origin of species is no exception.

actually it is.
science has all but given up on a solution.

Please explain how Darwin made a "mockery" of science. He was not only a naturalist but a geologist as well.

see above.

I doubt that your contributions to science come anywhere near to his.

this isn't about me.

Natural selection is still considered the primary mechanism of adaptive evolution, just as Darwin theorized. Do you agree or disagree?

actually is isn't, and never was.
and there is no evidence for it.

 

[crjmurray]

you cannot possibly feign ignorance with a straight face.
we were flat out lied to in school, and boldly.
the various fossil frauds, piltdown is the best known.

Since when has Piltdown been used as evidence for evolution in school? The only time I hear about it is when creationists bring it up.

the "gaps" in the record are real, they are not the result of an incomplete record.

What gaps are you referring to specifically? Yes, the fossil record is incomplete and yes some gaps can be explained by that. I don't understand your point here.

the disparity of the record had to be explained by HGT.

You have any evidence for this or are you just using the new term you learned this week? As has been explained to you before, HGT is not known to occur in eukaryotes to any significant level.

the diversity of life is not the result of small accumulating changes.

Small genetic changes do accumulate. There's no working around that. It's a fact.

there is no theory, nor empirical evidence, that gene mutations result in increased complexity.

Another quote mine.

science has indeed come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is next to impossible, so much so that it has given up on a solution

Well that's just not true.

and now i find that the last universal common ancestor was not one but at least 4 different lifeforms. so, multiply impossible by at least 4.

And where oh where did you read this?

the disinformation associated with this discipline is outright . . . well, science really should be ashamed of it.

Irony

science knew in 1980 that the fossils would never be found.

What fossils? Got a source for this or is this another quote mine?

regardless of what anyone says, i know for a FACT that franseco ayala DID NOT retract his statement, everything i have found out about this proves it.

He didn't retract it, he just didn't say it in the first place. You don't have anything that proves he did, since he didn't say it. Out of the two of us, one has actually spoken to him and the other has quoted him from a creationist website. You're not really in a position to make that call.

 

[Split Rock]

you cannot possibly feign ignorance with a straight face.
we were flat out lied to in school, and boldly.
the various fossil frauds, piltdown is the best known.

You were taught that Piltdown Man was a human ancestor in school??? I find that very hard to believe. What other (ha,ha) "various" fossil frauds were you taught about in school?

the "gaps" in the record are real, they are not the result of an incomplete record.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

the disparity of the record had to be explained by HGT.

Do you mean a process that we have observed many times and is very real?

the diversity of life is not the result of small accumulating changes.
there is no theory, nor empirical evidence, that gene mutations result in increased complexity.

Define complexity in this context... then we can discuss it.

science has indeed come to the conclusion that abiogenesis is next to impossible, so much so that it has given up on a solution, and now i find that the last universal common ancestor was not one but at least 4 different lifeforms. so, multiply impossible by at least 4.

There were likely a pool of proto-cells that exchanged genetic information early on. Provide the calculations that show this was impossible.

the disinformation associated with this discipline is outright . . . well, science really should be ashamed of it.
science knew in 1980 that the fossils would never be found.
but yet, what are we told, day after day.

What "the" fossils" are you referring to? Are you talking about whale, horse, reptile-mammal, fishapod transitionals, all of which we have found in the record?

regardless of what anyone says, i know for a FACT that franseco ayala DID NOT retract his statement, everything i have found out about this proves it.

Who is this franseco ayala and what does he have to do with my post?

i have no love, nor faith, in such a sham.
actually it is.
science has all but given up on a solution.

What sham? A story about how you were supposedly taught that Piltdown Man was a human ancestor?

this isn't about me.

You are the one judging scientists about a subject you seem to understand little about.

actually is isn't, and never was.
and there is no evidence for it.

Really? Here is a PubMed search I did for "natural selection." I got 85947 hits.
natural selection - PubMed - NCBI

Tell me, do you think some intelligence decided that polar bears should have white fur? Or that the sickle cell allele should be more prevalent in areas with a high incidence of malaria? How do you explain antibiotic resistance increasing among bacteria with the increased medical use of antibiotics over time? Or the appearance of glyphosate (Roundup) resistance following the widespread use of glyphosate?

You seem to be very angry. Angry, angry, angry. I understand why creationists are angry about the theory of evolution. They see it as an attack on their religious beliefs. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I understand it. You say you are not a creationist. Why then are you so angry? You claim a "sham" but you have provided no support for the idea there is a "sham" going on. Piltdown Man??? Really? That's it? There must be a better reason for all the angst. What is it?

 

[bhsmte]

You seem to be very angry. Angry, angry, angry. I understand why creationists are angry about the theory of evolution. They see it as an attack on their religious beliefs. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I understand it. You say you are not a creationist. Why then are you so angry? You claim a "sham" but you have provided no support for the idea there is a "sham" going on. Piltdown Man??? Really? That's it? There must be a better reason for all the angst. What is it?

Every poster has their own motivations and I do believe, you just nailed the motivation behind one particular poster.

 

[Papias]

dad wrote:

Except that a common ancestor claimed by science is exactly what I said.

Understand that this generally refers to a common original gene pool. Due to HGT, it's a bit more complicated than a single individual ancestor.

If you've read the Origin of Species, you can see that Darwin famously allowed for this type of adjustment in his ending to the 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 circling 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.
​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[justlookinla]

Small genetic changes do accumulate. There's no working around that. It's a fact.

So?

 

[justlookinla]

dad wrote:

Understand that this generally refers to a common original gene pool. Due to HGT, it's a bit more complicated than a single individual ancestor.

If you've read the Origin of Species, you can see that Darwin famously allowed for this type of adjustment in his ending to the 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 circling 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.
​

In Christ-

Papias

Guesses and suppositions.