First born

[Subduction Zone]

Because you sound like somebody who is holding forth on a subject he has no knowledge of.

And I have no doubt that he is fairly bright in the field of mathematics. Sadly when people get outside of their area of expertise they sometimes assume that the processes they use are universal. That is rarely the case.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Renormalization is not a term in evolutionary biology.

It is a mathematical term.

Do evolutionary biologist use mathematics?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Because you sound like somebody who is holding forth on a subject he has no knowledge of.

Excellent.

Remember, don't argue with a fool or else no one on the outside will be able to tell the difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there ever an assumption made that those isotopes have their particular parameters set as they are today because that has always been the case?

Is there an assumption made that there are no significant weak forces that have externally affected those parameters, for example?

You still seem to be hung up on radiometric dating. Once again that is not important to the theory of evolution. We knew from geology before the technique was invented that the Earth is old. That is all that is required for evolution. Specific dates are nice to know but no key to the theory.

Renormalization is not a physics term only: it is actually a mathematical term often borrowed by physicists. You can renormalize any data to fit what you expect: that is the purpose of renormalization.

I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.

When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.

Then find some examples outside of the world of quantum mechanics that uses this technique.

ETA: And you as much as admitted that it is not needed for the theory of evolution. In your own words:

"When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data."

The answer that we get is not ridiculous.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What have you published in those areas?

I am most certainly NOT giving you access to my name, institution and other sensitive information. I have already posted my handwriting on these forums once for the purposes of showing mathematical evidence of something requested. I won't go any further than that in order to protect my identity.

 

[sfs]

Is there ever an assumption made that those isotopes have their particular parameters set as they are today because that has always been the case?

As I just told you, no, this is a hypothesis that physicists have tested.

Is there an assumption made that there are no significant weak forces that have externally affected those parameters, for example?

I already answered that question, too.

Renormalization is not a physics term only: it is actually a mathematical term often borrowed by physicists. You can renormalize any data to fit what you expect: that is the purpose of renormalization.

I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.

When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.

You have offered no example of renormalization occurring in evolutionary modeling, no ridiculous answers that had to be changed, no specifics on what biologists are supposedly doing, no evidence whatsoever that this supposed massive error is anything other than a fantasy that you dreamed up.

 

[sfs]

Remember, don't argue with a fool or else no one on the outside will be able to tell the difference.

This is the internet. If we didn't spend our time arguing with fools, the only things that would be left would be porn and cat videos.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I cannot accept that magnitude of error for something that not only declares its scientific authority, but also allows for social judgment placed upon those who do not accept it.


It is religion.

I always find it strange to see religious people calling things they don't agree with "religion", as if that was a bad thing. How does that work exactly?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

As I just told you, no, this is a hypothesis that physicists have tested.

So, physicists absolutely know for a fact that there are no external sources of weak force interacting with isotopes that could influence their lifetimes? Is this the case even though neutrinos have a mean free path of one light-year in lead, and are the fundamental particles for weak force (radiation/decay)? Is this also true even though the decay of a neutron involves expelling a neutrino, or that the absorption of a neutrino involves releasing energy in the form of a photon and neutrino?

I already answered that question, too.

Indeed you have; you have designated physicists' knowledge on scientific phenomena as god-like - to be able to know for a fact that their hypotheses and parameters are only affected by the parameters for which they have determined.

You have offered no example of renormalization occurring in evolutionary modeling, no ridiculous answers that had to be changed, no specifics on what biologists are supposedly doing, no evidence whatsoever that this supposed massive error is anything other than a fantasy that you dreamed up.

Excellent.

 

[sfs]

I am most certainly NOT giving you access to my name, institution and other sensitive information.

I'm not that shy. Here is a list of my publications. It's not accurate for the physics ones, but it's got the biology ones right. A number of those publications involve evolution. Please tell me where I employed renormalization.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This is the internet. If we didn't spend our time arguing with fools, the only things that would be left would be porn and cat videos.

I always find it strange to see religious people calling things they don't agree with "religion", as if that was a bad thing. How does that work exactly?

I call my "own" religion religion, and have the same transparent qualms and questions of legitimacy - which is why my faith icon is "other," while at the same time I profess Christ.

Did you ask me the important pre-questions before you came to this conclusion: e.g. What is my religion? What do I believe? Why did I call something I don't agree with religion, and what did I mean by it?

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't know how the data is renormalized to provide a result that is acceptable, but it must be, because the primary and fundamental error one starts with to come to a conclusion about the theory is astronomical. The data must be normalized.

When an answer is ridiculous, you renormalize the data.

You sound exactly like a creationist trying o tell a biologist his job. Like them, you make assertions you don't bother to substantiate. Probably because you lack the specialised knowledge to do so.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I'm not that shy. Here is a list of my publications. It's not accurate for the physics ones, but it's got the biology ones right. A number of those publications involve evolution. Please tell me where I employed renormalization.

I am glad you are not shy. That is your prerogative. I am not shy either, I just fully understand the power of the internet, hacking and the purposeful destruction of one's character and credibility because of disagreements. I have seen it too often in my own field. For me, it isn't about shyness.

I keep my "internet," and professional life separate. This is, for example, the only social network I use.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You sound exactly like a creationist trying o tell a biologist his job. Like them, you make assertions you don't bother to substantiate. Probably because you lack the specialised knowledge to do so.

Excellent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, physicists absolutely know for a fact that there are no external sources of weak force interacting with isotopes that could influence their lifetimes? Is this the case even though neutrinos have a mean free path of one light-year in lead, and are the fundamental particles for weak force (radiation/decay)? Is this also true even though the decay of a neutron involves expelling a neutrino, or that the absorption of a neutrino involves releasing energy in the form of a photon and neutrino?

Pretty much. Isotopes have been tested in just about every way possible. And astronomers have observed ejected matter of distant novae and have been able to measure halflives of specific isotopes many years in the past.

But once again, why are you so focused on radiometric ages? The theory of evolution does not rely on them.

Indeed you have; you have designated physicists' knowledge on scientific phenomena as god-like - to be able to know for a fact that their hypotheses and parameters are only affected by the parameters for which they have determined.

sfs also has a doctorate in physics, if I recall correctly. He knows far more than either of us on that area of science.

Excellent.

So you are learning from your mistakes. At least I hope that is your reason for that word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am glad you are not shy. That is your prerogative. I am not shy either, I just fully understand the power of the internet, hacking and the purposeful destruction of one's character and credibility because of disagreements. I have seen it too often in my own field. For me, it isn't about shyness.

I keep my "internet," and professional life separate. This is, for example, the only social network I use.

That is not an unreasonable stance to take. But then perhaps you should not tout your supposed ability. I have also see those that claim to have degrees that they clearly did not. Me, I have a mere BS, which means that I barely dipped my toes into science. I will gladly defer to my betters here.

 

[sfs]

So, physicists absolutely know for a fact that there are no external sources of weak force interacting with isotopes that could influence their lifetimes?

Physicists know that they have looked for evidence of external forces that could change lifetimes -- and found them in some cases, but not such that it would alter radiometric dating. They have found good evidence that fundamental physics has not changed over billions of years, and that there are no forces that would disrupt radiometric dating that are also consistent with the observed state of the Earth.

Is this the case even though neutrinos have a mean free path of one light-year in lead, and are the fundamental particles for weak force (radiation/decay)? Is this also true even though the decay of a neutron involves expelling a neutrino, or that the absorption of a neutrino involves releasing energy in the form of a photon and neutrino?

Of course it's true given those facts. Were you under the impression that particle physicists are unaware of the basics of particle physics?

Indeed you have; you have designated physicists' knowledge on scientific phenomena as god-like - to be able to know for a fact that their hypotheses and parameters are only affected by the parameters for which they have determined.

God-like? No. But physicists do know a lot about physics.

To sum up, you have presented no reason to think that isotope lifetimes have changed, no mechanism by which they could have changed that's consistent with observed data, and no alternative explanation for why different dating methods consistently agree. Based on this wide-ranging and pretty much complete lack of any substance at all, you feel justified in asserting that entire fields of scientists have made colossal blunders in their work, even though you are unable to point to any particular place where they've made a mistake.

Uh, okay.

 

[lesliedellow]

sfs also has a doctorate in physics, if I recall correctly. He knows far more than either of us on that area of science.

You do recall correctly.

 

[JIMINZ]

What evidence do you have that moses wrote genesis?

.
For you none, you don't believe any of it anyway.

 

[JIMINZ]

You rely on science, every hourof every day of your life. Every time you visit a doctor, you are relying on the theory of evolution, as painful as that may be for you.

.
Haven't been to any doctor in 45 yrs. my God is my Physician, and when the time does come to visit a Doctor I will rely on the knowledge which my God has given to the Scientific Community in order to treat whatever condition I may need help in.

You see, it isn't the Scientific Community I don't hold in esteem. it's the Theory of Evolution.

It's this theory which is incorrect in it's so called findings.