If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[rmwilliamsll]

i dont' know anything about these He claims so i'll do a little digging.

first to AiG
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp

This is an unsolved problem to the long-age atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker, who stated: ‘… there appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere.’6 Another expert, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem ‘… will not go away, and it is unsolved.’7 The evolutionary community have been desperately looking for other explanations for the shortage, but none of them have proved adequate. A simple solution is that the earth is not nearly as old as the evolutionists think! The creationist atmospheric scientist Larry Vardiman has written a more in-depth study of this topic.8, 9

this has promise for where the details of
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=22999946&postcount=479
comes from, a difficulty since no links given for the contentions, but that's ok. there is always google.

so it looks like this is what needs to be researched

# J.W. Chamberlain and D.M. Hunten, Theory of Planetary Atmospheres, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, 1987. Cited by Vardiman, Ref. 8, p. 30. Return to text.
# The most comprehensive work on this topic is Dr Larry Vardiman’s book: The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, 1990. See also his article Up, Up, and Away! The Helium Escape Problem, ICR Impact , 1985. Return to text.
# David Malcolm provided more detailed calculations than in this article: Helium in the Earth’s Atmosphere (Answering the Critics), Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(2):142–147, 1994. Return to text.

so go to my local university library:
Author Chamberlain, Joseph W. (Joseph Wyan), 1928-
Title Theory of planetary atmospheres : an introduction to their physics and chemistry
LOCATION CALL NO. STATUS
Science-Engineering Library QB603.A85 C48 1987 DUE 07-22-06

and
Your entry Vardiman, Larry would be here
so he is not listed in the library.
nor is: Malcolm, David
so those are unobtainable, for now.

now to who links to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp
3 other pages at AiG so it is not an in demand scientific paper
link:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp

lets look for rebuttals directed at:
helium concentration AiG

Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates"
Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.
at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
not really the same topic, move on.

particularly helpful is another exchange on the topic in a forum like this one.
pointers and links into the literature.
from: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1731.html

Dr. Larry Vardiman's 1990 book "The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere" is the most recent survey of the helium problem.
The atmosphere now contains about 4.1 billion
tons of He-4. It is estimated that about 2400 tons per year He-4 is released from the crust into the atmosphere. The theoretically calculated rate of escape of He-4 from the atmosphere into space averaged over an eleven-year solar cycle is only about 70 tons per year. This is only 1/33rd of the rate of inflow from the crust. If we assume a zero content of He-4 in the original atmosphere, the maximum age of our
atmosphere calculated from these figures is only about 1.8 million years. The atmosphere of an earth 4.5 billion years old should contain 2,500 times more helium-4 than it does. Joseph Chamberlain and Donald Hunten at the close of a detailed examination of atmospheric helium concluded, "The problem will not go away and it is unsolved. Vardiman discusses three possible solutions for the missing helium problem. He shows that
these solutions have not yet made the helium problem go away. Atmospheric helium clock continues to report a young age for the earth.

Prince: Dr. Larry Vardiman's 1990 book "The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere" is the most recent survey of the helium problem.

Vardiman, in true creationist fashion, always assumes that any problem which does not already have a known solution, cannot ever be solved. Hence the illogical retreat to creationism.

Like I said, Vardiman glosses over the nonthermal escape of helium, and assumes that some dire passage from Chamberlain's 1978 text book on atmospheres is the eternal last word.

Vardiman was & is wrong. We now know that nonthermal escape mechanisms balance helium added to Earth's atmosphere by outgassing.

Helium escape from the terrestrial atmosphere: The ion outflow mechanism
O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees
Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics 101(A2): 2435-2443, February 1, 1996

ABSTRACT: We have computed global He+ escape fluxes for a range and a variety of diurnal, seasonal, universal time, and solar activity geophysical conditions. We average over the short-term variables and compute the globally averaged escape flux for a range of cutoff latitudes, which separate regions of open and closed field lines, during one solar cycle. The global escape flux averaged over a solar cycle was computed, and we find that a cutoff latitude of about 60 degrees or lower is sufficient to balance the outgassing from the Earth's crust.

Despite the misplaced confidence of Prince the "helium problem" is just another of the many pleasant fictions that creationists weave to while away the time.

Prince: Wrt radiogenic helium trapped in very hot rocks deep in the crust, whose rate of escape and diffusion upward is greatly increased at high temperatures: ...

Prince's first mistake, simply assuming without reason that the diffusion rate must be high enough to drive all of the primordial helium out, just because the temperature is "high". This is far from the truth. In reality, ost of the helium is trapped and hard to mobilize. The temperature is of little account, since diffusion is dominated by partial pressure. The helium only moves if the partial pressure in the direction of motion allows it. There is in fact no reason to believe that helium should escape so rapidly.

But the comment shows that Prince is unaware of the real problem. He says "yet much of the helium-4 produced in them has not escaped ...". Dead wrong, much of it, in fact most of it, has escaped. The real problem with Earth's mantle is not that there is too much helium, but too little helium.

The 3He/4He ratio is strongly skewed in the mantle, at a minimum of several times the atmospheric ratio. 3He is non-radiogenic, meaning that all of the 3He inside Earth must have been put there when the planet formed. But if Earth experienced nothing but a "normal" outgassing history, the ratio of 3He/4He should be much smaller than it is (there should be more 4He with respect to 3He).

The answer is that the outgassing rate is not constant, but quite variable. Outgassing was furious during planet formation, and during the the heavy bombardment phase of the early solar system. That outgassing model fits very nicely with the current observed outgassing rate.

Cosmic helium does not rain down on Earth. All of the helium in the solar wind (about 5% of the solar wind) is ionized & deflected by Earth's magnetic field. Helium generated by cosmic rays in Earth's crust is practically non-existent, a miniscule fraction of the helium produced by radioactive decay in the mantle. So two of Prince's sources are wrong. The earth's atmosphere gains helium exclusively by outgassing from the mantle.

The half life of the 238U decay chain is 4.468 billion years, and the half life of the 232Th decay chain is 14.010 billion years. This means that there are long term sources of 4He in Earth's mantle.

I already showed that the loss rate of ionized helium from the polar regions balances the observed rate of outgassing, so the system is in equilibrium. It may have been that way for a long time or a short time, but the fasct that it is in equilibrium is simply not a problem for any evolutionary model of an "old earth". Furthermore, ougassing models based on evolutionary histories for Earth do reproduce the current observed abundances, outgassing rates, and isotopic ratios (Noble gases in the Earth's Mantle, Farley & Naroda, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 26: 189-218, 1998; Rheology and Volatile Exchange in the Framework of Planetary Evolution, Franck & Bounama, Advances in Space Research 15(10): 79-86, 1995).

Summary: The current loss rate from the upper atmosphere is in equilibrium with mantle outgassing, contrary to Vardiman's claim. The current abundance of helium in the mantle is not too large, contrary to Prince's claim. The Earth's atmosphere receives helium only from mantle outgassing, contrary to Prince's claim. The expected diffusion rate of helium in the mantle is not as high as Prince thinks, which means that he seriously overestimates the outgassing rate. The skewed isotopic abundance (3He/4He) indicates that either the mantle or the atmosphere (probably the latter) is not primordial, but has been processed. The net result is that there is no "helium problem" for evolution with respect to creationism.

Helium

caryn: Brown giving an updated Creationist view on Helium ... (Unique Enigmatic Helium (http://www.grisda.org/origins/25055.htm))

At first glance I thought maybe it was the infamous Walter Brown, but it is R.H. Brown from the creationist think tank Geoscience Research Institute[/utl].

It is an interesting paper, certainly a cut above the usual brain-dead creationist fare. But for all the technical window dressing, the whole argument boils down to this: What is the real diffusion rate of helium in the mantle?

"Evolutionists", like Ken Farley (http://www.grisda.org/), who is cited & quoted in Brown's paper, don't buy the argument that the diffusion in the mantle should match the diffusion seen in the lab. Brown & creationists, on the other hand, think the two should match.

It would not be the first time that an idealized laboratory experiment failed to reproduce the complications of a real, natural system. The laboratory experiments all feature a rock or diamond or some such, sitting there & outgassing, into a low pressure environment, across a surface (the surface of the rock) that is a sharp discontinuity. However, it isn't like that in the mantle. There, you won't find that kind of discontinuous surface, and the pressure is far higher. Also the composition & density are much different. There is in fact no good reason to assume that diffusion rates in an environment that does not well match the target environment, should still match that target environment (in this case, the mantle).

So you find that all of the paper is built as a house of cards around a single sentence: "A simpler, more reasonable conclusion is that conventional geological age dating is
incorrect ...". I maintain that it is neither simpler nor more reasonable.

You can't take the issue of helium, and separate it from all otehr science, as if the rest of science didn't exist, and then assume blindly a "young" earth. That is a highly unreasonable approach. There is copious evidence in favor of an "old" earth, so much so that it is unreasonable under any circumstance to make an assumption of a "young" earth.

It is in fact, simpler & more reasonable, to accept the bulk of strong evidence in favor of an "old" earth, and then question under what circumstances the data can be so interpreted, and whether or not the interpretation makes physical sense. If you do that, and are unable to come up with anything, only then is it reasonable to expand your question to the age of the earth.

There are in fact good physical reasons for assuming that the in situ transport of helium will not match the laboratoey version, because the environments are so different. In the dense mantle helium can be trapped & immobilized for long periods of time, such as cannot happen in the crust. Furthermore, the lack of a paritial pressure gradient across the sharp boundary of a surface will inhibit transport in the mantle, where it would go easily near the surface. And how well do we really know the real abundances of radiogenic sources for helium in the mantle. If we underestimate (or overestimate) the production rate by 1%, 5%, 10%, how does that affect the argument?

In isolation the helium in the mantle presents a problem, one that is readily acknowledged in the literature. However, there are so many parameters of the problem to study, which can alter the results by purely ordinary physics, that going to the extreme of immediately calling into question the age of the earth is unreasonable.

from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/25055.htm

UNIQUE ENIGMATIC HELIUM
R. H. Brown
Yucaipa, California

Origins 25(2):55-73 (1998).

WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT

Among the 92 elements from hydrogen to uranium, helium is unique in not having a universally characteristic isotope ratio. Various mixtures of helium from three primary sources produce He-3/He-4 ratios over a six orders-of-magnitude range. The primary sources are: primordial, radiogenic, and cosmogenic. The concentrations of He-3 in many minerals, sediments, and volcanic provinces indicate that conventional geologic age assignments are grossly inflated, since these concentrations are orders-of-magnitude greater than may be expected on the basis of laboratory measurement of diffusion rates.
Attempts to account for the He-4 in Earth's atmosphere on the basis of diffusion of radiogenic helium from the crust and thermal loss to outer space yield unreasonable models. This consideration, and observations concerning nonthermal escape processes first made during the 1970s, have led to the conclusion that helium escape from Earth is largely by nonthermal processes. Of the seven such processes that have been identified, the greatest loss appears to be in a polar "wind" of ions accelerated along open lines of magnetic field in the regions surrounding Earth's magnetic poles.

so to understand the issues i have to concentrate on the escape of He and the rate of diffusion from the rocks

back to reading on the topic.
my immediate question is: did the poster of the original helium problem actually do all of this before he posted the link? that is, do YECist understand the science to which they refer?
good question.

 

[TexasSky]

Wrong.

(sorry, I had to run down the block to get the kids from school.)

Theistic evolution does not require abiogenesis for any part of its theology or philosophy. If you examine the wide range of views that encompass the spectrum that is theistic evolution, you will discover that there are those of us, like myself, who accept abiogenesis (while recognizing that the scientific court is still not yet fully ruled on this), while others subscribe to 'divine-biogenesis' and others to special creation.

To emphasize again, no part of either evolutionary theory or theistic evolution theology requires abiogenesis.

I'm sorry, I totally disagree with the last part, as standardly taught evolutionary theory does teach abiogensis.

As to "theistic evolution" - you have me there. I'm not as familiar with it. Please expound on it in regards to creation.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm sorry, I totally disagree with the last part, as standardly taught evolutionary theory does teach abiogensis.

How evolution is taught in schools and what the theory (theories) actually say (or how the scientists who are engaged in the research state and use the theories) can be two different things, not necessarily related.

I accept evolutionary theory. I also have issues will how it is taught in schools. I have issues with how science and math are handled, and the fact that Latin isn't required curriculum as well.

However, if you examine that the theory actually says, you will discover that abiogenesis has nothing to do with it.

As to "theistic evolution" - you have me there. I'm not as familiar with it. Please expound on it in regards to creation.

If you are to spend any amount of time in this forum, then I suggest that you step back and start reading past threads. There are many theistic evolution theology Christians on this board.

But, in order not to be rude, I will answer your question with my personal take on theistic evolution (ala Christianity):

Theistic evolution within the context of orthodox Christianity is a point of view (POV) which states that both scripture and Creation are proper revelations of God's character, will and intent. Whereas scripture, especially the creation account of Genesis, is viewed primarily as a stating of the 'why' and the 'where do we humans fit into all of this' of creation, Creation itself is the actual statement of God's 'how' of Creation, and reveals the answers to the questions regarding the origins of the diversity of life as we know it.

Christians who embrace theistic evolution are orthodox Christians (especially in the context of CF) who acknowledge that God is the Creator Father. They also recognize that the act of creation is not done, but ongoing, and that God has gifted humans with science and reason in order to discover this ongoing revelation at our own pace.

An important point to remember when connecting with theistic evolution Christians is that they do not belive that science and or nature (and therefore naturalistic science and explanation) require the abscence of God, but instead reject that notion on the belief that God is omnipresent within Creation.

OK, others more articulate and thorough than me will be along shortly to add to this and correct me where I've gone astray.

Homework do be done now. Gotta go.

 

[random_guy]

I did not present their arguements because they take up volumes and volumes of work.

As to "quoting out of context" - may I suggest that it is MY contention that it is YOU are quoting out of context, and that the "that isn't what they really believed" arguement is a frequent arguement of athiests and agnostics when they don't like the facts they are presented with.

If what you say is true, how come Colin Patterson wrote this book: Evolution, where the description was,

"Introducing the latest ideas on how life originated and diversified on earth, this new edition of a classic work provides a concise and engaging summary of modern evolutionary theory. The heavily illustrated book is intended for readers with little or no formal training in science and is an ideal introduction for students. Teachers of biology will also find the book a valuable reference text. Among the features of the second edition: new chapters on neural evolution and gene evolution explanations of the latest theories on the evolution of humans extensive updates throughout, with emphasis on molecular evolution many new or updated illustrations comprehensive coverage, clear and concise presentation"

basically a book supporting evolution and explains the evidence supporting evolution? Now, why would you use a person as a source against evolution when he supports it? Is that not dishonest?

Not only that, I like how you equate giving facts (such as Colin Patterson wrote a book called evolution, supporting evolution) to refute the quote mining that Colin Patterson doesn't accept evolution, is some sort of tactic that atheists and agnostics use. I guess if telling the truth and presenting the entire truth groups me with them over liars, I'll gladly be grouped with them.

Abiogensis is required in order for evolution to be used as an explanation for creation.

An atoms are required into order to explain chemistry. Does the fact that we don't know where the atoms came from invalidate chemistry? Does chemistry need to explain the origins of atoms? I suggest you take my advice and learn science from science books instead of sites that lie to and mislead you.

 

[shernren]

Actually, many Intelligent Design advocates believe that an Intelligent Designer fashioned life, but at the same time believe that evolution acts on them, if I'm not mistaken. So much for needing abiogenesis to go with evolution.

Winding Down is Entropy. It involves the most basic laws of thermo dynamics. Given the Milky Ways current rate of entropy, and its current spiral - even if it "held steady" from the moment of Big Bang until today, our galaxy would be a black hole if it had existed for billions of years. The laws of physics say it actually would have been going at a much faster rate in the early days. This supports a "young earth" view point.

Not just a YEC fallacy, a conflation and misquotation of YEC fallacies. There are two fallacies, two misinterpretations, and one conflation in play here (entropy precludes natural arising of order, galaxies should lose spiral shape, conflation of both, misinterpretation of winding, misunderstanding of black holes). rmswilliams, I wonder what cladistic fallacy analysis would yield here, I've never seen this before. XD

Entropy is basically a measure of the unavailability of energy in a substance. It is NOT a simple measure of "how chaotic a system is". There is some good discussion here: http://www.christianforums.com/t2558054-the-second-law-fallacy.html How do you calculate the entropy of a galaxy? That's going to be one mother of a computation, from what I know.

Actually, the creationist attack is that galaxies wind up, not down. Because stars on the inner radii of a spiral galaxy have less distance to cover, and stars seem to have nearly the same orbital speed throughout the galaxy irrespective of orbital radius, they should be able to move faster and cover more ground than stars on the outer rim, and therefore they should "wind up" the spiral and make it look tighter instead of looking loose like today.

And the answer is that it's not orbital motion per se that causes the spiral shape, it's density waves. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html

And I've never seen any creationist claim that the galaxy should have collapsed into a black hole right now. There is some evidence that our galaxy actually does have a black hole at its center, though, and if it is there it's one huge beast of a black hole. If you know what you're talking about, this black hole aspect could be interesting.

 

[TexasSky]

Actually, many Intelligent Design advocates believe that an Intelligent Designer fashioned life, but at the same time believe that evolution acts on them, if I'm not mistaken. So much for needing abiogenesis to go with evolution.



Not just a YEC fallacy, a conflation and misquotation of YEC fallacies. There are two fallacies, two misinterpretations, and one conflation in play here (entropy precludes natural arising of order, galaxies should lose spiral shape, conflation of both, misinterpretation of winding, misunderstanding of black holes). rmswilliams, I wonder what cladistic fallacy analysis would yield here, I've never seen this before. XD

Entropy is basically a measure of the unavailability of energy in a substance. It is NOT a simple measure of "how chaotic a system is". There is some good discussion here: http://www.christianforums.com/t2558054-the-second-law-fallacy.html How do you calculate the entropy of a galaxy? That's going to be one mother of a computation, from what I know.

Actually, the creationist attack is that galaxies wind up, not down. Because stars on the inner radii of a spiral galaxy have less distance to cover, and stars seem to have nearly the same orbital speed throughout the galaxy irrespective of orbital radius, they should be able to move faster and cover more ground than stars on the outer rim, and therefore they should "wind up" the spiral and make it look tighter instead of looking loose like today.

And the answer is that it's not orbital motion per se that causes the spiral shape, it's density waves. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE380.html

And I've never seen any creationist claim that the galaxy should have collapsed into a black hole right now. There is some evidence that our galaxy actually does have a black hole at its center, though, and if it is there it's one huge beast of a black hole. If you know what you're talking about, this black hole aspect could be interesting.

I didn't say that Entropy has anything to do with Caos.
I said that winding down, in a 4.6 Billion year time pattern, would have resulted in a black hole more than the current spiral.

In simplistic terms - the galaxy is currently displaying evidence of entropy and of winding itself down. It is "expelling energy". The rate is measureable. The affect is that as the energy is expelled, the galaxy closes in on itself. The forces that allow it to not do so growing weaker as entropy occurs. Since the rate is measureable, calculations are possible regarding the amount of time the masses involved could survive from "extended creation" to "dead". 4.6 Billion years is much, much too long a time period.

 

[TexasSky]

And I don't know which creationists you are speaking to, but we don't disagree with laws of physics, and we DO believe the universe winds down.

We believe perfection was at Eden. Not today.

We believe we will never achieve perfection again until Christ returns and forms the new heaven and the new earth.

 

[random_guy]

And I don't know which creationists you are speaking to, but we don't disagree with laws of physics, and we DO believe the universe winds down.

We believe perfection was at Eden. Not today.

We believe we will never achieve perfection again until Christ returns and forms the new heaven and the new earth.

But you do disagree with physics. Physics suggests that the universe is old, just by examining star light. Creationists explain this away by suggest light either moved quicker back then, is slowing down, or God created the light in transit. Radioactive dating suggests that the Earth is old. Creationists explain this away by suggesting faster radioactive decay rates before the Fall or Flood.

 

[TexasSky]

If what you say is true, how come Colin Patterson wrote this book: Evolution, where the description was,

"Introducing the latest ideas on how life originated and diversified on earth, this new edition of a classic work provides a concise and engaging summary of modern evolutionary theory. The heavily illustrated book is intended for readers with little or no formal training in science and is an ideal introduction for students. Teachers of biology will also find the book a valuable reference text. Among the features of the second edition: new chapters on neural evolution and gene evolution explanations of the latest theories on the evolution of humans extensive updates throughout, with emphasis on molecular evolution many new or updated illustrations comprehensive coverage, clear and concise presentation"

basically a book supporting evolution and explains the evidence supporting evolution? Now, why would you use a person as a source against evolution when he supports it? Is that not dishonest?

Not only that, I like how you equate giving facts (such as Colin Patterson wrote a book called evolution, supporting evolution) to refute the quote mining that Colin Patterson doesn't accept evolution, is some sort of tactic that atheists and agnostics use. I guess if telling the truth and presenting the entire truth groups me with them over liars, I'll gladly be grouped with them.



An atoms are required into order to explain chemistry. Does the fact that we don't know where the atoms came from invalidate chemistry? Does chemistry need to explain the origins of atoms? I suggest you take my advice and learn science from science books instead of sites that lie to and mislead you.

I said in the beginning of my list that many of the scientists are not creationists. Patterson was asked about his famous quote that there is no transitional fossil evidence and made the folllowing statement. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

In his book, Evolution, Patterson personally points out many gaps in fossile records. Common man calls them "missing links".

What makes Patterson interesting is that he is NOT a creationist. I tend to put in the same boat as Huxley who freely admitted that he doesn't reject creationism because of the science, but rather because he doesn't like the consequence of admitting that there is a God. At least Huxley was honest enough to admit that he didn't like the idea of having his "freedom limited" by "morals".

 

[TexasSky]

I've already found factual errors in 'talkorigins.com'.

Citing it over and over will not change the fact that it is not credible.

I have seen, in this thread, people misrepresent the views of many Christian scientists, and tear down the misprepresented view, but none that have successfully attacked the actual views.

A long time ago I had the honor of working for one of the most brilliant scientists this world has ever known. He was NOT a Christian.

I had not really been deeply involved in the Creation vs Evolution/ Old-earth vs new-earth debate, but someone handed me a book on Creation Science that was unlike any of the usual books I'd seen. This one had actual science in it. Some of it sounded very compelling from all scientific viewpoints that I knew, but I am NOT a physicist.

I asked him about it. He said, "I seriously doubt what you are saying they say is right, but I'll look it over if you really want me to." He came back to me a week later, and silently put the book back on my desk.

I said, "Well? Is it bunk like people say it is? Or are they scientifically sound when they say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves Big Bang?"

He looked upset, and said, "They are scientifically accurate, but - - science will debate and debunk them. Science does not like to have its myths taken apart any more than religion does."

And he walked off.

 

[TexasSky]

Also you wrote: An atoms are required into order to explain chemistry. Does the fact that we don't know where the atoms came from invalidate chemistry? Does chemistry need to explain the origins of atoms? I suggest you take my advice and learn science from science books instead of sites that lie to and mislead you.

I cannot help but say that I find it interesting that Creationists have used this argument for years, and that now it is anti-creationists who use it.

Basically, to a creationist, the view is simple.

Either total order came from intelligent design or total order came from random caos, and we choose intelligent design.

 

[random_guy]

I said in the beginning of my list that many of the scientists are not creationists. Patterson was asked about his famous quote that there is no transitional fossil evidence and made the folllowing statement. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

In his book, Evolution, Patterson personally points out many gaps in fossile records. Common man calls them "missing links".

What makes Patterson interesting is that he is NOT a creationist. I tend to put in the same boat as Huxley who freely admitted that he doesn't reject creationism because of the science, but rather because he doesn't like the consequence of admitting that there is a God. At least Huxley was honest enough to admit that he didn't like the idea of having his "freedom limited" by "morals".

Even if what you say is true, this isn't what Patterson meant in the quote.

Here's his actual response:

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
Colin Patterson

Here is what Patterson actually meant, from the person that wrote to Patterson, personally:

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

The problem is Creationists tend to think that transitional means a direct link between two species. That's incorrect. Transitional means showing characteristics of two different groups. Patterson was saying that, suggesting Archy was the ancestor of modern birds is wrong. That's correct. We don't know if Archy was a dead end or just another branch. However, what we do know is we have a dinosaur with feathers, and it shows a possible pathway for dino-bird evolution.

Now, show me evidence that Patterson believes transitional forms don't exist, like you said he believes.

Also, please show me evidence of Patterson pointing out Gaps in the correct context. I guarentee you that Patterson means that we will never have complete knowledge of the fossil record, but that is expected. For fun, here's a quote from Patterson from the book:

Creationism itself receives only a few pages, which include Patterson's response to the taping: "Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context"

Gee, you think that Creationists would be so dishonest as to distort a scientists belief?

 

[random_guy]

Also you wrote: An atoms are required into order to explain chemistry. Does the fact that we don't know where the atoms came from invalidate chemistry? Does chemistry need to explain the origins of atoms? I suggest you take my advice and learn science from science books instead of sites that lie to and mislead you.

I cannot help but say that I find it interesting that Creationists have used this argument for years, and that now it is anti-creationists who use it.

Basically, to a creationist, the view is simple.

Either total order came from intelligent design or total order came from random caos, and we choose intelligent design.

What in the world are you talking about? You said that evolutionary theory needs to deal with abiogenesis since life is required for evolution to act, and I gave a counter example of that logic being wrong. How am I using a Creationist argument by doing so?

 

[Dannager]

I've already found factual errors in 'talkorigins.com'.

Which ones? I'd like to know if Talk.Origins had problems with it. Could you elaborate on them?

Citing it over and over will not change the fact that it is not credible.

As far as I am aware Talk.Origins is very credible, not only because it has successfully defended its refutations for a decade but it is maintained by scientists working in the relevant fields and provides source references (usually peer-reviewed scientific journal articles) for all its claims.

I have seen, in this thread, people misrepresent the views of many Christian scientists, and tear down the misprepresented view, but none that have successfully attacked the actual views.

Oh? Could you please elaborate on this?

A long time ago I had the honor of working for one of the most brilliant scientists this world has ever known. He was NOT a Christian.

And he didn't correct your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics? I hope he wasn't a physicist.

I had not really been deeply involved in the Creation vs Evolution/ Old-earth vs new-earth debate, but someone handed me a book on Creation Science that was unlike any of the usual books I'd seen. This one had actual science in it. Some of it sounded very compelling from all scientific viewpoints that I knew, but I am NOT a physicist.

And that's why it sounded compelling to you. Any trained physicist who sees a claim like that would know that it's bunk. The authors of those books thrive on those who don't already have the requisite knowledge to do anything other than assume they're getting valid information, when in fact they are feeding you lies.

I asked him about it. He said, "I seriously doubt what you are saying they say is right, but I'll look it over if you really want me to." He came back to me a week later, and silently put the book back on my desk.

I said, "Well? Is it bunk like people say it is? Or are they scientifically sound when they say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves Big Bang?"

He looked upset, and said, "They are scientifically accurate, but - - science will debate and debunk them. Science does not like to have its myths taken apart any more than religion does."

And he walked off.

It sounds like your scientist friend is not one of the most brilliant scientists the world had ever known unless the argument presented in that book is very different from your "winding down" problem - which is completely ridiculous. Heck, you seem to think that the universe is at a lower entropy than it was when the Big Bang occured. Are you interested in learning about the laws of thermodynamics, TexasSky? It is apparent that your grasp on them, especially the Second Law, is less than firm.

 

[Dannager]

Also you wrote: An atoms are required into order to explain chemistry. Does the fact that we don't know where the atoms came from invalidate chemistry? Does chemistry need to explain the origins of atoms? I suggest you take my advice and learn science from science books instead of sites that lie to and mislead you.

I cannot help but say that I find it interesting that Creationists have used this argument for years, and that now it is anti-creationists who use it.

Basically, to a creationist, the view is simple.

Either total order came from intelligent design or total order came from random caos, and we choose intelligent design.

Total order? We don't live in a world of total order. Where are you getting this "total order" nonsense from?

 

[Willtor]

I've already found factual errors in 'talkorigins.com'.

Citing it over and over will not change the fact that it is not credible.

I have seen, in this thread, people misrepresent the views of many Christian scientists, and tear down the misprepresented view, but none that have successfully attacked the actual views.

A long time ago I had the honor of working for one of the most brilliant scientists this world has ever known. He was NOT a Christian.

I had not really been deeply involved in the Creation vs Evolution/ Old-earth vs new-earth debate, but someone handed me a book on Creation Science that was unlike any of the usual books I'd seen. This one had actual science in it. Some of it sounded very compelling from all scientific viewpoints that I knew, but I am NOT a physicist.

I asked him about it. He said, "I seriously doubt what you are saying they say is right, but I'll look it over if you really want me to." He came back to me a week later, and silently put the book back on my desk.

I said, "Well? Is it bunk like people say it is? Or are they scientifically sound when they say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves Big Bang?"

He looked upset, and said, "They are scientifically accurate, but - - science will debate and debunk them. Science does not like to have its myths taken apart any more than religion does."

And he walked off.

Of course, nobody expects you to name names. But a few details would really help us with our understanding of your position. What sorts of errors have you found on talkorigins? Also, what is the book that convinced the scientist, for whom you worked. What was the setting in which you worked? University, private sector, etc? What is your field? You say you don't know much about physics, but if this were a physics book, wouldn't the scientist have been out of his league for disputing findings in physics?

 

[chaoschristian]

I cannot help but say that I find it interesting that Creationists have used this argument for years, and that now it is anti-creationists who use it.

Basically, to a creationist, the view is simple.

Either total order came from intelligent design or total order came from random caos, and we choose intelligent design.

I'm willing to wager a princely sum that there is not one anti-creationist posting in this thread.

Also, chaos is not random. That might be the common use of the word (unfortunate), but chaotic systems are not random.

 

[nolidad]

Why don't they count? You are aware that the immunity system requires mutations in order to confer immune response against a variety of different pathogens(look up MHC alleles). Also, from you post, what do you mean by sentient? The immune response requires no thinking, it boils down to chemistry.

Well then we get down down to how mutation is defined, for immuno support systems are inherent in most sentient creatures. They are part of the genome of the vcreature to protect it from the varied dieases that can inflict that species.

But you're the one claiming that a bias exists and Creationists do creatae real research in Creationism, and that the only reason why it isn't published is because evolutionists control every single branch of science, every single scientific organization, and every single University.

Random guy--please do not take my words and blow them way out of proportion! I never claimed that evolutionists control everything of secular science--but you are not too far from the truth. There are two philosophies of science and both sides admit they conflict with each other-Creation and evolution. The super majority of scientists (99%) or so are evolutionists. They are in charge of most research labes and do populate all the "secular" peer review boards. They do exert great great influence. It is knownt hat most boards do not review (nor do creationists as a habit) submit creation research to boards comprised of evolutionary beleivers. This is fairly common knowledge. Creationists submit creationist research to creation peer review boards. All their other research and pubsd they submit ot he noirmal peer review process for it is about science and specied research apart from th eYEC/evo debate. Once again if you wish specific info about specific authors and specific pubs--email them I am sure they will be able to give you the first hand info you "claim" to seek.

As long as a paper follows the scientific method, it will get reviewed and it will get a letter of acceptance or rejection. That's my honest opinion. So if these "scientists" are doing real Creationist research, why is it that Creationist organizations can't produce the rejection letters?

See above for with the expansion of qualified scientists in the many fields creation research (as far as I know) goes through creationist peer review now and for a while now.

If these are real research projects, why not submit them to peer reviewed journals to see if a bias does exist? It's such a simple task to mail out to a journal.

Once again you are asking me to speak concerning attitudes and opinions of others. As I was not designated their spokesperson, I can only offer supposition. if you really want to know specifics--seek them and you will get ist hand answers and not my suppositions.

Gluadys writes:

Nonsensical question. Pre-existent variation in the genome is a consequence of mutations occurring in earlier generations which have been inherited. They may or may not have been beneficial when they occurred, but became beneficial due to a change in environmental selection pressure.

nonsensical answer! You prove nothing with a statement like this. All you do is to seek to move the answer back. Prove there were mutations to a past genome to make the variants part of the present genome.

So pre-existent variation cannot be contrasted to "true mutations" since it is simply a mutation which occurred in an earlier generation.

Well give empirical evidence to this and you will have won a battle in this debate!! Proof is in the history you know!

Robert the Pilgrim writes:

For that matter you might want to define "beneficial", is the mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia beneficial?

Well I will accept the definition of evolutionists who define mutations as either neutral, harmful, or beneficial.

I still want 10 variations that can be shown to have happened by mutation and preexisitng coding int he genome.

Ah but you invoke a miracle to put all the decay on the 2nd day (before plants or animals are created) and then invoke another miracle to clean up all the radiation this created and yet another to cool down the earth.

or that radio decay is not constant and that radio dating is not an accurate chronometer as shown by the R.A.T.E. research project.

willtor writes:

I'm extremely frustrated by the dishonesty I've found in YEC books. These were the very sorts things that convinced me of a young Earth. How can they even rationalize doing this? Aren't they supposed to be interested in the unfettered truth?

a simple question-- are you as hard on evolutionists that write and later are proven wrong or just YECers???

 

[random_guy]

Well then we get down down to how mutation is defined, for immuno support systems are inherent in most sentient creatures. They are part of the genome of the vcreature to protect it from the varied dieases that can inflict that species.

I'm still confused by what you mean by sentient. For example, slugs and spiders have immuno response, as do plants. Are all these creatures sentient?

Random guy--please do not take my words and blow them way out of proportion! I never claimed that evolutionists control everything of secular science--but you are not too far from the truth. There are two philosophies of science and both sides admit they conflict with each other-Creation and evolution. The super majority of scientists (99%) or so are evolutionists. They are in charge of most research labes and do populate all the "secular" peer review boards. They do exert great great influence. It is knownt hat most boards do not review (nor do creationists as a habit) submit creation research to boards comprised of evolutionary beleivers. This is fairly common knowledge. Creationists submit creationist research to creation peer review boards. All their other research and pubsd they submit ot he noirmal peer review process for it is about science and specied research apart from th eYEC/evo debate. Once again if you wish specific info about specific authors and specific pubs--email them I am sure they will be able to give you the first hand info you "claim" to seek.

Well, basically, this is the claim you make. Think about it. Every single accreditted university biology program accepts evolution. Every single accreditted physics/geology program accepts an old Earth/old Universe. You're saying that it's impossible to publish a Creationism paper since evolutionists control the journals. Guess what? Universities and science academies fund the research that goes into journals. This means that evolutionists control the funding for research in not only biology, but also in geology, chemistry, physics, etc... This is because, as you stated, evolutionists somehow also control scientific journals outside of evolution since there's no papers published about YECism or fast starlight. I suggest you change your conspiracy theory. It's not the evolutionists that prevent Creationists from publishing papers, it's the scientists. It's not evolutionists that control geology boards, it's scientists. It's not evolutionists that control universities, it's the scientists. There's your real target.


You continue to claim that Creationists would submit journals, but the evolutionists wouldn't even review it. Until you present evidence supporting this, I stand by my view that Creationists do no scientific research in Creationism as evidenced by the lack of peer reviewed papers in academic journals.

 

[nolidad]

Okay this post is in response to the request to show why resistance to pesticides is not really a beneifical mutation or evolution in progress.

Antibiotic and pesticide resistance

Teaching about Evolution claims on pages 16–17:

The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation. Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfarin. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them—even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.
​

However, what has this to do with the evolution of new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information, but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced. This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotic. But normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase.
Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.