Evidence against abiogenesis/evolution

[Tomk80]

I sincerely doubt that increased oxygen levels would increase life spans. Sure, it might make higher metabolisms more feasible, but oxygen is a very caustic element, and oxidation is one of the major causes of aging. I rather suspect that life spans would be significantly shorter with higher levels of atmospheric oxygen.

I'm not even sure whether there would be good comparative material. Insects millions of years ago were much larger than they are now due to the increased oxygen, which means the oxygen could travel deeper in the spiracles. But how could you compare life span?

 

[True_Blue]

1. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that a higher oxygen atmosphere would speed healing or alter the aging process, or are you just speculating off the top of your head?
2. You seem to be implying that dinosaurs were just large, old lizards. They were not lizards, and many were quite small.

What evidence can you provide us to back up your claim that thermodynamically ecosystems today are "degraded" campared to the past?

Actually, this part of his post is fairly accurate. It is hypothesized that the reason insects were larger during the Permian and Carboniferous Periods was becasue the oxygen content in the atmosphere was greater than today. However, this has to do with insect anatomy, rather than how old they could get. Insects do not have a closed circulatory system, and use openings in their exoskeleton (trachea) to take in oygen and remove caron dioxide. This limits the size they can effectively grow to. The idea is that with a higher concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, they were capable of grower larger.

No, I'm not just making up my point about oxygen. People in hospitals suffering from all manner of maladies are often put on elevated levels of oxygen. The reason why we all don't constantly breath enriched oxygen is because it is expensive. 100% oxygen is dangerous in the long term, but I have a sneaky suspicion that 30% oxygen, 69% nitrogen just HAPPENS to be the optimal atmosphere for human beings in the long term, based on my theory that God created the prehistoric ecosystem in just the right way. Hopefully some scientist will set out to prove my theory correct.

Dinosaurs mean "terrible lizard" for a reason. While we still don't even know if they were warm or cold-blooded, it makes sense to believe that, like many other types of animals that we have observed, lizards, fish, etc., that they continue growing with with age. I don't particularly care if some scientists believe dinosaurs more closely resemble chickens or lizards.

Why is the current environment degraded? Many reasons. For one, 99.9% of species are extinct, including a large number of original kinds, such as dinosaurs. It's tragic we can't interact with such creatures. For another thing, the massive oil, gas, and coal deposits are burial chambers for entire ecosystems--trillions of life forms that met a sudden and catastrophic end. There used to be lush rainforests worldwide, now buried under kilometers of polar icecaps, rock, and saline ocean. A perfect environment would mean I could walk naked [comfortably] on the North Pole, stare at the sun unblinking, and pet the manes of wild lions. But the best measure of environmental degradation is human lifespan. People pre-Flood would be shocked and horrified to see 80-year-olds (mere children) with their hair falling out. Our environment matters to the extent it betters people's lives, and by that measure, our environment is already 90% degraded, according to the Bible.

 

[True_Blue]

There are a few problems with your thinking.
1. Biological organisms are never at theromodynamic equilibrium, unless they are dead.
2. The earth is constantly being supplied with a large external supply of energy from the sun.
3. Local increases in entropy are possible in a system, as long as the net entropy of the entire system increases over time.
4. The magnetic field of the earth is not decaying, and has flipped polarity numerous times in the past.

Everything you say in the post above is correct, except Point 4. The Creationists' points regarding the decay of the magnetic field is, in my view, so powerful that no one who understands the operating of magnetic fields can continue to not believe in God. As a result, unless your spirit is willing, nothing I can say will convince you of the inaccuracy of your point. Nevertheless, here are a few quick observations:

1. All magnets and magnetic fields decay exponentially, from solar magnets to those on your refrigerator.
2. If certain theories are to be believed that convection currents in the earth's mantle are causing the geomagnetic field, those currents themselves will slow down with time due to friction, again, exponential decay. Take a glass of water, stir it, then watch the water settle.
3. Reversals in the polarity of the magnetic field must accelerate the underlying reduction in the power of the field. Take a spoon and turn it one rotation within the glass against the flow of the water [not a precise analogy, but good enough].
4. Every time energy from the sun hits the magnetic field, the power of the sun's rays and the energy of the field are both weakened proportionately.

The proposition that "the magnetic field of the earth is not decaying" is simply not true. Because I know you're an intelligent person, this is a matter requiring resolution by your spirit, not your mind.

 

[FTPolice]

You are a lost cause. There is just so much wrong with what you think you know the only way to fix it is to spend several years in school studying genetics, physics and chemistry. Also some environmental sciences. Cause really, man. You are PAINFULLY incorrect. Painfully. Ouch.

 

[Split Rock]

No, I'm not just making up my point about oxygen. People in hospitals suffering from all manner of maladies are often put on elevated levels of oxygen.

And do they live past 80 years?

The reason why we all don't constantly breath enriched oxygen is because it is expensive.

Because there is no reason to, unless our respiratory system is compromised. You know... like patients who do use oxygen.

100% oxygen is dangerous in the long term, but I have a sneaky suspicion that 30% oxygen, 69% nitrogen just HAPPENS to be the optimal atmosphere for human beings in the long term, based on my theory that God created the prehistoric ecosystem in just the right way. Hopefully some scientist will set out to prove my theory correct.

That isn't a theory.. it is called a "guess."

Dinosaurs mean "terrible lizard" for a reason.

I suppose that Star Fish are called "fish" for a reason too. They must be fish then.

While we still don't even know if they were warm or cold-blooded, it makes sense to believe that, like many other types of animals that we have observed, lizards, fish, etc., that they continue growing with with age.

It doesn't matter how old a lizard gets, it will not morph into a dinosaur. Do you really think that paleontologists cannot tell the difference between a dinosaur skeleton and a lizard skeleton? Do you think dinosaurs are just bigger? Is this another "hunch" based on never actually comparing the two?

I don't particularly care if some scientists believe dinosaurs more closely resemble chickens or lizards.

Of course not... why would you listen to what someone who studies dinosaur fossils can tell you about them? You have "hunches," afterall!

Why is the current environment degraded? Many reasons. For one, 99.9% of species are extinct, including a large number of original kinds, such as dinosaurs. It's tragic we can't interact with such creatures.

OK. This just means that older ecosystems were replaced by more recent ecosystems. It has been going on now for 100s of millions of years. How is this evidence of "degradation?"

For another thing, the massive oil, gas, and coal deposits are burial chambers for entire ecosystems--trillions of life forms that met a sudden and catastrophic end. There used to be lush rainforests worldwide, now buried under kilometers of polar icecaps, rock, and saline ocean.

Many organisms met their end, tragic or otherwise. Yes, there used to be lush forests over much more of the planet than today. Why are forests preferable to savannas, hills, valleys, plains, prairies, or even deserts?

A perfect environment would mean I could walk naked [comfortably] on the North Pole, stare at the sun unblinking, and pet the manes of wild lions.

Sounds like a fantasy to me, but you are entitled to your opinion.

But the best measure of environmental degradation is human lifespan. People pre-Flood would be shocked and horrified to see 80-year-olds (mere children) with their hair falling out.

Archeology tells us that our ancestors lived shorter lives, not longer.

Our environment matters to the extent it betters people's lives, and by that measure, our environment is already 90% degraded, according to the Bible.

Another example how 90% of statistics are made up on the spot...

 

[FTPolice]

I just read how you think humans were once able to just hang out and stare at the sun. Wow. That's actually pretty damn funny.

 

[True_Blue]

Are you familiar with Zeroth Order Reaction Rates? They are linear.



Indeed an exponential form. A First Order Rate equation.



The magnetic field fluctuates and has been known to ebb and flow throughout geologic history.



Any reaction rate that can be modelled mathematically would seem to be aptly called a uniformitarian model. It simply means that a rate expression can be forecast and backed out in time.

Uniformitarianism can be generalized to state that processes occuring at a given rate today probably occured at a similar rate in the past. This would seem to account for chemical rates as well. That is how we know that radiometric dating (an exponential decay process) is a good dating technique. The rate is calculable over time.

If a first-order reaction is what you consider to be the only thing of importance then indeed rates may be faster in the past. But that does not mean that streams necessarily ran faster in the past and eroded at dramatically higher rates in the past just because you have some examples of chemical reaction rates that follow an exponential decay.

If that were the case, then surely we'd see such a change happening in stream erosion patterns all over the earth at this time. It would be pattently obvious.

To my knowledge stream erosion rates are not universally decaying. They are a function of gravitational potential, weather, rock strength, capacity and competence of the stream.

Indeed a given stream will erode to a level in which it loses capacity and competence in that locality, but that doesn't affect streams in other unrelated parts of the world.

But further, remember, the way we know how things occured in the past is by the evidence we see in the rocks today compared to the same type of evidence in soft-sediments under modern conditions.

Now, unless you are going to make equally unfounded claims around some decay of fundamental laws of physics over time (like did Gravity follow a different formula in the past that it doesn't today?) you will have to explain how modern structures (a function of the physics or chemistry occuring as we watch it) are wholly unrelated to strikingly similar structures we see preserved in rocks.

Just because you can find some exponential decays in nature does not mean that everything over all of history follows some exponential decay curve.

Indeed, if it were so, then those same decays would be readily apparent today.

Just because you can fit a straight line through a set of data points doesn’t mean that an exponential curve isn’t a better fit. Often when a scientist makes a uniformitarian assumption about some natural phenomena, they are observing data points that are already asymptotically close to zero. Sometimes the curvilinear nature of the data is hard to statistically identify. Drawing on some of the points you made above:

- To explain why erosion is exponential, imagine a sandcastle (a mountain) on the beach. When a wave hits it, the sandcastle is mostly destroyed, usually converted into a mound. It is perhaps 80% destroyed by the first wave. It takes numerous successive waves to flatten out the mount. If the sandcastle were made of marble rather than sand, the decay would still be exponential, but it would be harder to notice.
- If you drop a rock into a calm pool, the amplitude of the water waves decays exponentially.
- The wind speed of a tornado decays exponentially over time. The very act of weather is to exponentially return the atmosphere to a steady state condition.

An application of erosion is the Columbia River Gorge, probably created when natural dam created by glaciers burst suddenly, sending millions of tons of water, ice, and rock through a mountain pass and carving out the Gorge. It’s a far better explanation for all the geological features of the Gorge and surrounding regions than steady-state erosion by the Columbia River.

I’m not sure I understand your other points. However, the fundamental laws of physics should be presumed constant. This would be a very wise supposition.

 

[Split Rock]

Everything you say in the post above is correct, except Point 4. The Creationists' points regarding the decay of the magnetic field is, in my view, so powerful that no one who understands the operating of magnetic fields can continue to not believe in God. As a result, unless your spirit is willing, nothing I can say will convince you of the inaccuracy of your point. Nevertheless, here are a few quick observations:

1. All magnets and magnetic fields decay exponentially, from solar magnets to those on your refrigerator.
2. If certain theories are to be believed that convection currents in the earth's mantle are causing the geomagnetic field, those currents themselves will slow down with time due to friction, again, exponential decay. Take a glass of water, stir it, then watch the water settle.
3. Reversals in the polarity of the magnetic field must accelerate the underlying reduction in the power of the field. Take a spoon and turn it one rotation within the glass against the flow of the water [not a precise analogy, but good enough].
4. Every time energy from the sun hits the magnetic field, the power of the sun's rays and the energy of the field are both weakened proportionately.

The proposition that "the magnetic field of the earth is not decaying" is simply not true. Because I know you're an intelligent person, this is a matter requiring resolution by your spirit, not your mind.

I am not an expert in geophysics, but according to the data, the earth's magnetic field has fluctuated quite a bite over time. Therefore, it means little if the field is curerently decaying. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brunhes_geomagnetism_western_US.png

 

[True_Blue]

...

Split Rock, you've created for yourself a lot of strawmen to tear down.

 

[True_Blue]

You are a lost cause. There is just so much wrong with what you think you know the only way to fix it is to spend several years in school studying genetics, physics and chemistry. Also some environmental sciences. Cause really, man. You are PAINFULLY incorrect. Painfully. Ouch.

FRPolice, you're just plain rude. Quit posting on my thread.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Everything you say in the post above is correct, except Point 4. The Creationists' points regarding the decay of the magnetic field is, in my view, so powerful that no one who understands the operating of magnetic fields can continue to not believe in God.

Why do you say silly things like this? There is no straight line connecting God with your speculations about the magnetic field.

I can't believe that, in amongst your study of things scientific, you haven't managed to work in a book or website on logical argumentation.

As a result, unless your spirit is willing, nothing I can say will convince you of the inaccuracy of your point. Nevertheless, here are a few quick observations:

1. All magnets and magnetic fields decay exponentially, from solar magnets to those on your refrigerator.
2. If certain theories are to be believed that convection currents in the earth's mantle are causing the geomagnetic field, those currents themselves will slow down with time due to friction, again, exponential decay. Take a glass of water, stir it, then watch the water settle.
3. Reversals in the polarity of the magnetic field must accelerate the underlying reduction in the power of the field. Take a spoon and turn it one rotation within the glass against the flow of the water [not a precise analogy, but good enough].
4. Every time energy from the sun hits the magnetic field, the power of the sun's rays and the energy of the field are both weakened proportionately.

The proposition that "the magnetic field of the earth is not decaying" is simply not true. Because I know you're an intelligent person, this is a matter requiring resolution by your spirit, not your mind.

When and where did you "observe" these things? Are they supported in the scientific literature?

 

[True_Blue]

Why do you say silly things like this? There is no straight line connecting God with your speculations about the magnetic field.

Ok, I'll connect the dots in the form of a logical syllogism:

1. The earth's magnetic is and must be decaying exponentially for the reasons stated earlier. I'm so completely sure about this that I will judge the credibility of any geophysicist, regardless of his credentials and education, based on his agreement with exponential decay.
2. While the half-life of the earth's magnetic field has not been definitively determined (Institute of Creation Research says 1400 years, which I accept unless presented with an alternative number), that number could be revised upward to 100,000,000 years or more and still definitively rule out conventional evolutionary timescales. With 10 doublings, the magnetic field would be 1024 times its current strength, far out of proportion to physical reality.
3. Because the magnetic field exists, and decays exponentially at some rate between 1400 year and 100,000,000 years, the earth is young.
4. Because the earth is young, Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation than evolution over billions of years.

The only way forward for evolutionists is to make the assertion that the magnetic field doesn't decay at all, or else strengthens over time. Not a wise idea. You'll never see an atheist scientist put an actual number on the decay of the magnetic field. To do so, he'd have to show actual data rather than arcane hypotheses, and then the number itself would destroy evolution (unless the number happened to be greater than 100M years or so).

 

[Split Rock]

Ok, I'll connect the dots in the form of a logical syllogism:
3. Because the magnetic field exists, and decays exponentially at some rate between 1400 year and 100,000,000 years, the earth is young.

Excuse me, but isn't this a "uniformitarian assumption?"

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock, you've created for yourself a lot of strawmen to tear down.

huh?

 

[Chalnoth]

1. All magnets and magnetic fields decay exponentially, from solar magnets to those on your refrigerator.

Let's look at this point for a second. Are you aware that the magnetic field of the Sun flips every ~11 years?

2. If certain theories are to be believed that convection currents in the earth's mantle are causing the geomagnetic field, those currents themselves will slow down with time due to friction, again, exponential decay. Take a glass of water, stir it, then watch the water settle.

But you're neglecting that there's energy being dumped into the convection system: the cooling of the Earth. Yes, overall we should expect exponential decay, but this is on vastly slower timescales than we're talking about today. It'll take billions of years yet for the Earth's mantle and core to solidify. And until that happens, the cooling of the Earth's core will continue to drive convective currents. And, by the way, friction rarely causes exponential decay, because it is not proportional to velocity.

3. Reversals in the polarity of the magnetic field must accelerate the underlying reduction in the power of the field. Take a spoon and turn it one rotation within the glass against the flow of the water [not a precise analogy, but good enough].

I doubt it's significant compared to the energy lost due to cooling through other methods.

4. Every time energy from the sun hits the magnetic field, the power of the sun's rays and the energy of the field are both weakened proportionately.

Why do you think this?

The proposition that "the magnetic field of the earth is not decaying" is simply not true. Because I know you're an intelligent person, this is a matter requiring resolution by your spirit, not your mind.

The point isn't that it's not decaying on incredibly long timescales. The point is that the current decrease in the magnetic field is an indication that the magnetic field is likely to flip soon. It's not an indication that it's going to go away, or that it was massively higher in the past. The variability of the magnetic field is, in short, far, far faster than any slow decay due to the cooling of the Earth.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok, I'll connect the dots in the form of a logical syllogism:

1. The earth's magnetic is and must be decaying exponentially for the reasons stated earlier. I'm so completely sure about this that I will judge the credibility of any geophysicist, regardless of his credentials and education, based on his agreement with exponential decay.
2. While the half-life of the earth's magnetic field has not been definitively determined (Institute of Creation Research says 1400 years, which I accept unless presented with an alternative number), that number could be revised upward to 100,000,000 years or more and still definitively rule out conventional evolutionary timescales. With 10 doublings, the magnetic field would be 1024 times its current strength, far out of proportion to physical reality.
3. Because the magnetic field exists, and decays exponentially at some rate between 1400 year and 100,000,000 years, the earth is young.
4. Because the earth is young, Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation than evolution over billions of years.

We do have measurements of the Earth's magnetic field over millions of years. Why don't you use those measurements to extrapolate the overall decay rate, instead of making up numbers? Oh, and don't forget to include an appropriate noise model so that you don't mistakenly underestimate the uncertainty in your answer.

The only way forward for evolutionists is to make the assertion that the magnetic field doesn't decay at all, or else strengthens over time. Not a wise idea. You'll never see an atheist scientist put an actual number on the decay of the magnetic field. To do so, he'd have to show actual data rather than arcane hypotheses, and then the number itself would destroy evolution (unless the number happened to be greater than 100M years or so).

Probably because the decay of the magnetic field isn't interesting, because the variability of the magnetic field is vastly faster than any decay, and because it's probably too poorly-measured to be interesting.

 

[Gracchus]

FRPolice, you're just plain rude.

I'm afraid you'll just have to put up with him. Any fool who stands on a soapbox and spouts nonsense is likely to get called on it. (Unless, of course, the fool is also an omnipotent tyrant!)

Quit posting on my thread.

I am pretty sure the thread belongs to the forum. It is their server, their website, and their delete button.

 

[plindboe]

You are a lost cause. There is just so much wrong with what you think you know the only way to fix it is to spend several years in school studying genetics, physics and chemistry. Also some environmental sciences. Cause really, man. You are PAINFULLY incorrect. Painfully. Ouch.

Actually I doubt that would help, as he seems to be studying interesting stuff already, but he simply rationalizes whatever new he learns to fit it into his unique paradigm using simplistic pet theories.

We're dealing with a bright young man suffering from a lack of critical thinking skills here. I think critical thinking classes is the only possibility of a cure.

Peter

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just because you can fit a straight line through a set of data points doesn’t mean that an exponential curve isn’t a better fit.

So are you saying zeroth order reaction rates are actually just special cases of exponential decay? Maybe you need to look at the form of the rate law on that one. Maybe you could make the assumption that the exponent is zero.

Often when a scientist makes a uniformitarian assumption about some natural phenomena, they are observing data points that are already asymptotically close to zero.

Care to back up with some examples?

Sometimes the curvilinear nature of the data is hard to statistically identify.

Indeed, but not always. That would appear to be your point here.

Drawing on some of the points you made above:

- To explain why erosion is exponential, imagine a sandcastle (a mountain) on the beach. When a wave hits it, the sandcastle is mostly destroyed, usually converted into a mound. It is perhaps 80% destroyed by the first wave.

You are missing the point altogether. We are not talking about a single event of erosion. When discussing uniformitarianism, we are talking about overall actions.

It takes numerous successive waves to flatten out the mount. If the sandcastle were made of marble rather than sand, the decay would still be exponential, but it would be harder to notice.

Maybe you need to back this up with some actual data.

- If you drop a rock into a calm pool, the amplitude of the water waves decays exponentially.

No one here is denying that some things decay exponentially. Trust us. Trust me. I'm a geochemist. I know about exponential decay.

But I also know that there are numerous linear functions in the world.

An application of erosion is the Columbia River Gorge, probably created when natural dam created by glaciers burst suddenly, sending millions of tons of water, ice, and rock through a mountain pass and carving out the Gorge.

And I repeat, geologists know that some catastrophic events occur.

But the way we can identify catastrophes is to be able to differentiate them from steady state events.

I’m not sure I understand your other points. However, the fundamental laws of physics should be presumed constant. This would be a very wise supposition.

I don't think you fully understand the details behind uniformitarianism. I think you are conflating a couple of different concepts as if there is some fundamental reason to reject the core concept of Uniformitarianism which is simply put: The Present is the Key to the Past.

The only way for your "everything is exponential decay" concept to have any bearing on this is if everything is in consistent decay, including the processes that created things in the past.

Which means that if stream beds decays at rate x today, they all decayed at an exponentiall higher rate in the past.

This is what I mean by the importance of all physical laws being considered in totality.

Are there exponential rates? Yes! Most assuredly. Does this mean Uniformitarianism is somehow rendered wrong? NO. A resounding no.

Here's an example to clarify my point:

I start a reaction that is a FIRST ORDER RATE reaction. It decays exponentially. I start it 10,000 years ago. After a certain amount of time, say 100 years, I will find that it has proceeded to 50% of the original reactant content. I know the HALF-LIFE of this reaction.

Now, I start the same type of reaction TODAY, assuming it is the same type of reaction, in 100 years I know exactly how much of the original material will be there because I know the half-life is 100 years.

The reaction may be exponential, but the ability to correlate the RATE is unchanged. The reaction, once started, procedes at a given rate, regardless of when it was started.

This is part and parcel of Uniformitarianism. This is the point I think you are missing here.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Ok, I'll connect the dots in the form of a logical syllogism:

1. The earth's magnetic is and must be decaying exponentially for the reasons stated earlier. I'm so completely sure about this that I will judge the credibility of any geophysicist, regardless of his credentials and education, based on his agreement with exponential decay.
2. While the half-life of the earth's magnetic field has not been definitively determined (Institute of Creation Research says 1400 years, which I accept unless presented with an alternative number), that number could be revised upward to 100,000,000 years or more and still definitively rule out conventional evolutionary timescales. With 10 doublings, the magnetic field would be 1024 times its current strength, far out of proportion to physical reality.
3. Because the magnetic field exists, and decays exponentially at some rate between 1400 year and 100,000,000 years, the earth is young.
4. Because the earth is young, Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation than evolution over billions of years.

The only way forward for evolutionists is to make the assertion that the magnetic field doesn't decay at all, or else strengthens over time. Not a wise idea. You'll never see an atheist scientist put an actual number on the decay of the magnetic field. To do so, he'd have to show actual data rather than arcane hypotheses, and then the number itself would destroy evolution (unless the number happened to be greater than 100M years or so).

Magnetic field decay? Oi vey. Talk about your old-school creationist arguments.

You may not know this, but the Sun's magnetic field also decays. Then it reverses. And this happenes ever 11 years. So no, magnetic field decay does not demonstrate young Earth. And in fact, there's evidence the Earth's own magnetic field has undergone reversals in the past. It's a cyclical process, like a pendulum.

Now for a contrast, dating of the Sun based on helioseismology and radiometric dating of off-planet rock both yield solar system ages of ~4.5 billion years. Why would these methods yield consistent ages if things really weren't 4.5 billion years? Oh, and don't bother looking up helioseismology on any creationist web sites. They haven't ever addressed it.