Evolution is a Lie

[sandwiches]

Yeah, why believe is evolution when you can believe in spontaneous generation. Everybody knows that maggots come from rotten meat, mice from damp straw, and Adam came from a mud pit. It is all so obvious!

Silly wabbit! Adam came from dirt and Eve from his rib! Make a lot more sense, dontcha see?!

 

[sandwiches]

Who said God sent the Black Plague?

God, in my right to have an opinion, smites King David with a strange disease (probably the aforementioned 'burning ague'), and this means He sent the Black Plague?

God sent the plague. If he exists as described in the Bible, it couldn't have been otherwise.

 

[DataPacRat]

You can start by listing ONE that fits what I say here and now, got it?

Very well, then. Skimming back a couple of pages in this thread, I come across:

What is funny is that you haven't gotten the point yet. Present slow evolution is not what was in place pre flood. Neither was present laws, lifespans, plant growth rates, and etc. So, that means that we can have all the evolving from created kinds you could ever conceive, and maybe more, and no long ages are needed. Wonderful, how God really was right all along. I almost feel like spreading the news. I would enjoy speaking in schools...

This seems to fall under what the Index lists as the CH's, "Biblical Creationism", more specifically CH320 or so.

I'll admit it's not a perfect fit, but that particular post seems to rest on assumptions covered by this entry. A better match comes from the post you made just before that one:

You are misinformed. The fossils are actually not that old.

There are whole sections in the Index about fossils and the ages thereof; since I'm not entirely sure what reason you're using to dispute the age of fossils, other than referring to ones that are around 3.5 billion years old, we might be dealing with CC310 "Dating of fossils", or perhaps the CH560's "Fossils were deposited by the Flood", though if you're disputing the entire idea of Earth being that old, then we've got all of CD "Geology" and CE "Astronomy and Cosmology", and the CH200's "Age of the Universe", to play with.

 

[dad]

I thought that was your game? Except you call this alien 'Jesus'.

He is a local. He made the place. Just been away awhile. When the fallen angels get here, they will likely be the long awaited aliens to evos.

 

[dad]

Very well, then. Skimming back a couple of pages in this thread, I come across:



This seems to fall under what the Index lists as the CH's, "Biblical Creationism", more specifically CH320 or so.

I'll admit it's not a perfect fit, but that particular post seems to rest on assumptions covered by this entry.

Not even close. I spoke of evolution of the present, under our present laws being slow, as opposed to true state evolving of the past, which was fast. Your link talks of some silly "deterioration". You will have to do better than that.

A better match comes from the post you made just before that one:



There are whole sections in the Index about fossils and the ages thereof; since I'm not entirely sure what reason you're using to dispute the age of fossils, other than referring to ones that are around 3.5 billion years old, we might be dealing with CC310 "Dating of fossils",

This link also is out in left field to anything I said. It talks about 'fossil progression'...which I agree with. It alludes to other methods of dating that agrees....why beast around the bush, they mean radioactive decay. Since that is a feature of this state it cannot be used to 'date' anything before this state! They need to get with it on that old outdated site.

or perhaps the CH560's "Fossils were deposited by the Flood", though if you're disputing the entire idea of Earth being that old, then we've got all of CD "Geology" and CE "Astronomy and Cosmology", and the CH200's "Age of the Universe", to play with.

No no no, I do not claim the flood deposited all things. Strawman. You are flailing in the dark man.

 

[DataPacRat]

It alludes to other methods of dating that agrees....why beast around the bush, they mean radioactive decay. Since that is a feature of this state it cannot be used to 'date' anything before this state!

Ah, now there's a particular item, and I don't have to go hunting through previous posts to dig it up. You're describing a universe in which the physical laws, such as rates of radiometric decay, were in one state before a specific point (eg, the flood), and which then changed into a different state after that point. This would be covered under item CF210 "Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant" and, to a lesser degree, CE410 "Physical constants are only assumed constant".

You asked me to name one particular item dealing with at least one of your points - I think CF210 fits the bill nicely, and so, since you tacitly agreed to my earlier suggestion should I do so, I shall assume that you'll be checking the Index to Creationist Claims on your own from now on, without my having to pipe up to offer references each and every time I notice you mention something covered in that list.

 

[dad]

Ah, now there's a particular item, and I don't have to go hunting through previous posts to dig it up. You're describing a universe in which the physical laws, such as rates of radiometric decay, were in one state before a specific point (eg, the flood), and which then changed into a different state after that point.

No, nothing remotely similar actually. Better get back to digging. Who says decay existed at all as we know it????

This would be covered under item CF210 "Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant" and, to a lesser degree, CE410 "Physical constants are only assumed constant".

As noted above, irrelevant nonsense. No change in our decay.

You asked me to name one particular item dealing with at least one of your points - I think CF210 fits the bill nicely, and so, since you tacitly agreed to my earlier suggestion should I do so, I shall assume that you'll be checking the Index to Creationist Claims on your own from now on, without my having to pipe up to offer references each and every time I notice you mention something covered in that list.

Hope you realize you have not found one that is even close to anything I said. Better lose that loser site.

 

[DataPacRat]

No, nothing remotely similar actually. Better get back to digging. Who says decay existed at all as we know it????

If you'd bothered to actually read the links provided :

Claim CF210: Radiometric dating assumes that radioisotope decay rates are constant, but this assumption is not supported. All processes in nature vary according to different factors, and we should not expect radioactivity to be different. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 139.
Response:

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
   • The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
   • Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
   • The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

Links:

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating References:

1. Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
2. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401.
3. Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of alpha decay. http://www.phys.jyu.fi/research/gamma/publications/ptgthesis/node26.html
4. Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. [astro-ph/9912131] Constraints on stellar yields and SNe from gamma-ray line observations
5. Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. New York: Wiley.
6. Meert, Joe, 2002. Were Adam and Eve toast? ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem
7. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. [astro-ph/9706025] Nucleosynthesis in Type Ia Supernovae
8. Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. [astro-ph/9706024] Nucleosynthesis in Type II Supernovae
9. Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. [astro-ph/9712212] Discovery of a Supernova Explosion at Half the Age of the Universe and its Cosmological Implications
10. Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. [astro-ph/9901373] Gamma-Ray Line Astrophysics and Stellar Nucleosynthesis: Perspectives for INTEGRAL
11. Renne, P. R., W. D. Sharp, A. L. Deino, G. Orsi and L. Civetta, 1997. 40Ar/39Ar dating into the historical realm: Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Science 277: 1279-1280.
12. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf
13. Thielemann, F.-K. et al., 1998. Nucleosynthesis basics and applications to supernovae. In: Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics, J. Hirsch and D. Page, eds., Cambridge University Press, p. 27. [astro-ph/9802077] Nucleosynthesis Basics and Applications to Supernovae

Further Reading:

Johnson, Bill, 1993. How to change nuclear decay rates. How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates

Claim CE410: Physicists only assume that physical constants have been constant over billions of years. In particular, this untestable assumption underlies all radiometric dating techniques. Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:

1. The constancy of constants is a conclusion, not an assumption. It is tested whenever possible. For example:
   • The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from products of the Oklo reactor, where a natural nuclear reaction occurred 1,800 million years ago. These measurements show that the fine structure constant has remained constant (within one part in 1017 per year) for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
   • Despite some weak evidence that the fine structure constant may have varied slightly more than six billion years ago (Musser 1998; Webb et al. 1999), analysis of the spectra of quasars shows that it has changed less than 0.6 parts per million over the last ten billion years (Chand et al. 2004)
   • Experiments with atomic clocks show that any change is less than a rate of about 10-15 per year (Fischer et al. 2004).
   • Absorption lines in light from quasars suggest that the ratio of masses of the proton and electron may have changed by 20 parts per million over the last 12 billion years (Cho 2006).

Links:

Ball, Philip, 2003. Lab tests tenets' limits. Nature Science Update, http://www.nature.com/nsu/030428/030428-20.html

SpaceDaily, 2004. Quasar studies keep fundamental physical constant - constant. New Quasar Studies Keep Fundamental Physical Constant Constant References:

1. Bize, S. et al., 2003. Testing the stability of fundamental constants with the 199Hg+ single-ion optical clock. Physical Review Letters 90: 150802.
2. Chand, H., R. Srianand, P. Petitjean and B. Aracil, 2004. Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample. Astronomy and Astrophysics 417: 853. [astro-ph/0401094] Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample
3. Cho, Adrian. 2006. Skewed starlight suggests particle masses changed over eons. Science 312: 348.
4. Fischer, M. et al., 2004. New limits on the drift of fundamental constants from laboratory measurements. Physical Review Letters 92: 230802.
5. Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B 573: 377-401. [hep-ph/9809549] The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago
6. Marion, H. et al., 2003. Search for variations of fundamental constants using atomic fountain clocks. Physical Review Letters 90: 150801.
7. Musser, George, 1998. Inconstant constants. Scientific American 279(5) (Nov.): 24,28. http://members.tripod.com/unifier2/inconstantconstants.html
8. Shlyakhter, A. I., 1976. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Nature 264: 340. http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/~ilya_shl/alex/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf
9. Webb J. K., V. V. Flambaum, C. W. Churchill, M. J. Drinkwater, J. D. Barrow, 1999. Search for time variation of the fine structure constant. Physical Review Letters, 82: 884-887. [astro-ph/9803165] A Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant

But if, as I expect, you decide to disparage all of the above... then, in the parlance of the ancient order of hackers, about the only other thing I can think of to say would be *plonk*.

 

[dad]

If you'd bothered to actually read the links provided :

"...decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable..."


Strawman. That was recently.

 

[driewerf]

Of course I am not satisfied with the "Goddidit" answer. Am I satisfied with the "Goddidit" answer when someone comes in with tuberculosis, breast cancer, kidney failure, myocardial ischemia, HIV, or hemolytic anemia? NO. Because I don't want the patient to die. If you say "Goddidit", the patient will die. You are satisfied with non-explanations. Non-explanations lead to no way of treating the disease.

[delete]

Nevermind ... just nevermind.

No, AV1611VET. I just do mind.

If in all these thousand years people had contiued to say 'goddidit', then indeed no inquiry had happened. Then tons of diseases would still be uncurable, billions of people would have died an early death.

Hell, even such a simple thing as the lightning rod wouldn't exist.

'Goddidit' kills the scientific inquiry and with that it kills all progress. For progress is the result of scientific inquiry.

 

[Greg1234]

Luckily your wishful thinking does not equal fact.

Coincidentally just the opposite is true.

Then present your refutation

 

[Greg1234]

Yeah, why believe is evolution when you can believe in spontaneous generation. Everybody knows that maggots come from rotten meat, mice from damp straw, and Adam came from a mud pit. It is all so obvious!

Actually spontaneous generation is still the assembly of a structure by chance. Intelligent Design is engineering. Additionally, it doesn't matter where you think the material to build a structure comes from, nor does it affect the fact that it is the product of engineering by intelligence.

 

[Greg1234]

No, AV1611VET. I just do mind.

If in all these thousand years people had contiued to say 'goddidit', then indeed no inquiry had happened. Then tons of diseases would still be uncurable, billions of people would have died an early death.

Hell, even such a simple thing as the lightning rod wouldn't exist.

These came to pass primarily through the utilization of multiple branches.

'Goddidit' kills the scientific inquiry

Doesn't matter. Physical science is not the only branch.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

These came to pass primarily through the utilization of multiple branches.
Doesn't matter. Physical science is not the only branch.

Physical science is the only branch that brings results. Was it prayer or vaccines that eliminated smallpox?

 

[AV1611VET]

Physical science is the only branch that brings results. Was it prayer or vaccines that eliminated smallpox?

We pray to God and [if] He answers either directly, or through doctors.

 

[Tomatoman]

Actually radioactive half lives are not even an issue? Strawman. Of course things ate in this state of decay now. No news there. You may not attribute all (what is now) daughter materials to present decay however, which kills your would be case quite dead.

The funny thing is that it is obvious you don't even understand why you are wrong. Which brings me back to my previous post which you conveniently ignored. What science education have you had? Given the content of your posts my guess is next to none.

I think it would be worth your coin. The thing is, I might need a few hundred bodyguards..

I'm not so sure about the bogyguards. Most of the damage would be to your ego.

 

[Greg1234]

Physical science is the only branch that brings results.

Before there were the means to explore a particular branch in physical science, there were limited to no results from that branch. And the result that is Man, is not through physical science.

Was it prayer or vaccines that eliminated smallpox?

Vaccines are walking sticks and guide dogs. Prayer is the regimen for sight restoration.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We pray to God and [if] He answers either directly, or through doctors.

How is that anything more than you taking the credit for other people's work?

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that anything more than you taking the credit for other people's work?

Well ... when other people use the hardware supplied to them by the God of creation, we send the buck up one more level.

We'll go ahead and clap for them when they make a medical breakthrough, but we'll also give God the ultimate glory.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[DataPacRat]

"...decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable..."


Strawman. That was recently.

What, you're expecting people to have been using geiger counters for more than the century or so we knew radioactivity even existed?

Besides - the point is that, by using recent measurements of radioactivity rates, people were able to make various /predictions/ that they would be able to gather evidence consistent with such decay rates remaining constant over long periods of time, millions and billions of years; and those predictions have born fruit, and multiple independent lines of evidence have all converged on the same overall answers about the Earth being ~5 billion years old, and the universe being ~14 billion.

But, since, as /I/ predicted, you have disparaged such forms of evidence and the predictions made therefrom (with the word 'strawman'), I will now do as I said I would in such a situation, and say *plonk*.