The YEC creation of "Darwinist"

[KerrMetric]

Thank you. I stand corrected. (There's a reason why I'm more into biochem than physics, much to my father's chagrin. )

Actually you did hit on another problem in your earlier post and it has to do with my comment about poor sample choice.

Dating volcanic materials is not a trivial task. The magma process resets the clocks of most minerals in the rock but various minerals crystallise in the parent magma at different times. Also some minerals are not reset at all and their crystals can give far older ages from when those crystals were originally formed - these are termed xenocysts or even xenoliths for foreign rock mixed in thre.

 

[simplyg123]

I said OR. I wasn't saying they were the same groups. Jeez.



That is a lie that you are parotting. It is not flawed - in fact the technique is excellent. I have personally performed dating analyses. Have you? ----- thought not!



Someone already posted a link to you about this. BUT I guess you don't want to read it.

That dating was bound to give a false age.


Does this stuff not compute with you? Is it just above your head or something?

no it computes just fine, but just as evolutionist can make accusations that suggest creationist articles are wrong, i can do the same about evolutionists theroys, however, my accusations dont count, because they conflict with your belief.

 

[KerrMetric]

no it computes just fine, but just as evolutionist can make accusations that suggest creationist articles are wrong, i can do the same about evolutionists theroys, however, my accusations dont count, because they conflict with your belief.

NO - it's because I am a professional scientist with over a quarter of a century experience and have actually done this work.

Creationist articles are usually wrong from even a 30 second glance with high school level science. On top of all this - you don't have the knowledge necessary to realise the good from the bad as you have basically admitted in prior postings. Why not just leave the science to the professionals instead of posting nonsense about it.

By the way - it's not my beliefs, it's my facts. It's my job - one I trained for from the age of 14 until I was 22 education wise and then have worked in continuously since. With you it is belief, with me it's knowledge.

 

[random_guy]

no it computes just fine, but just as evolutionist can make accusations that suggest creationist articles are wrong, i can do the same about evolutionists theroys, however, my accusations dont count, because they conflict with your belief.

Okay, here's a simple way to settle this. Why don't you explain why using K-Ar is valid for dating volanic flows. I'm sure another evolutionist would be more then ready to show why it's not valid. I'll add to what others have said. From an actual scientific site, the UC-Santa Barbara geology page:

Potassium-Argon Dating Potassium-Argon dating is the only viable technique for dating very old archaeological materials. Geologists have used this method to date rocks as much as 4 billion years old. It is based on the fact that some of the radioactive isotope of Potassium, Potassium-40 (K-40) ,decays to the gas Argon as Argon-40 (Ar-40). By comparing the proportion of K-40 to Ar-40 in a sample of volcanic rock, and knowing the decay rate of K-40, the date that the rock formed can be determined.

EDIT: Also, KerrMetric listed several problems using K-Ar dating. What was wrong with his points? Can you even tell or is the problem of going against a real scientist making hard to throw out claims with no support.



How Does the Reaction Work?
Potassium (K) is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust (2.4% by mass). One out of every 10,000 Potassium atoms is radioactive Potassium-40 (K-40). These each have 19 protons and 21 neutrons in their nucleus. If one of these protons is hit by a beta particle, it can be converted into a neutron. With 18 protons and 22 neutrons, the atom has become Argon-40 (Ar-40), an inert gas. For every 100 K-40 atoms that decay, 11 become Ar-40.

Looks like K-Ar is only viable on old samples. Now why would a Creationist use the wrong technique in order to date rocks. It's either ignorance or deliberate lies.

 

[Melethiel]

no it computes just fine, but just as evolutionist can make accusations that suggest creationist articles are wrong, i can do the same about evolutionists theroys, however, my accusations dont count, because they conflict with your belief.

The difference is that when evolutionists say that creationist articles are wrong, they can point to the precise points that are wrong, and produce the facts to back them up. You haven't done this to any scientific theories, and have admitted that you don't have any formal scientific training. It is not all that difficult to obtain at least enough scientific knowledge to be able to follow technical discussions. (Hey, if I can do it...)

 

[simplyg123]

NO - it's because I am a professional scientist with over a quarter of a century experience and have actually done this work.

Creationist articles are usually wrong from even a 30 second glance with high school level science. On top of all this - you don't have the knowledge necessary to realise the good from the bad as you have basically admitted in prior postings. Why not just leave the science to the professionals instead of posting nonsense about it.

By the way - it's not my beliefs, it's my facts. It's my job - one I trained for from the age of 14 until I was 22 education wise and then have worked in continuously since. With you it is belief, with me it's knowledge.

ok, is it true that when measuring the age of a rock, the scientist asks in ada\vance what the age of the rock is thought to be, in order to tweak the process??

 

[KerrMetric]

ok, is it true that when measuring the age of a rock, the scientist asks in ada\vance what the age of the rock is thought to be, in order to tweak the process??

No. Of course not.

 

[random_guy]

No. Of course not.

Could this be correct, in a way? For example, a geologist might be told it's a Pre-Cambrian rock, so they'd pick the right method to date it. Of course, if the method gives back faulty readings, then they'd know it wasn't Pre-Cambrian. I'm not a geologist, so I wouldn't know if this happens or not.

 

[KerrMetric]

Could this be correct, in a way? For example, a geologist might be told it's a Pre-Cambrian rock, so they'd pick the right method to date it. Of course, if the method gives back faulty readings, then they'd know it wasn't Pre-Cambrian. I'm not a geologist, so I wouldn't know if this happens or not.

I almost mentioned earlier that Yes you probably have an idea ahead of time as to the approx. date (from other factors like location, type, fossil indexing etc etc) and so would choose an appropriate suite of dating methods.

However - what I wanted simplyg123 to realise is that there is no tweaking of the dating to get a result you want which was the implication in his question.

 

[simplyg123]

k

 

[ProDeoEtVeritate]

specificity and predictions.
what specificity and predictive value does the "fact" that animals are made out of "dirt and water" make.
if you think that your statement is on the same scientific level as the one you quoted, then i understand how you can the claim: "I'd say the same about evolutionists. Not one evolutionist has been able to show me evidence that makes evolution a conclusion."
you don't really care enough about the issues to engage with them. but rather think that childishness and foolishness trump good science, guess what, it doesn't.
the shame of it is that your behavior reflects on the icon of the Bible you have in your header, so that some lurkers, with good reason, will make the statement that all Christians will reply to science with "made of dirt and water" and thus bring derision on the faith before the unbelieving world. This is exactly what YECism does. Poses silliness like: "Humans and all animals are both dirt and water. Are you going to use that as well for a common ancestory?" in the faces of scientists claiming that this is the very word of God, no wonder the more education you have the less likely you are to be a Christian.

I'd rather be called silly and believe what the Bible says about our origin than to believe in evolution and not believe what God says.

 

[KerrMetric]

I'd rather be called silly and believe what the Bible says about our origin than to believe in evolution and not believe what God says.

Man - you guys cannot use enough false dichotomies can you? Was there a sale going on these I didn't notice?

 

[simplyg123]

I have a question, is evolution the same as adaptation?

 

[KerrMetric]

I have a question, is evolution the same as adaptation?

Technically no.

 

[Mallon]

I have a question, is evolution the same as adaptation?

Goodness no. Some American evolutionary scientists once fell into this trap, but Gould and Lewontin did a beautiful job of putting that one to rest. Read:

Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin. " The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme." Proc. Roy. Soc. London B 205 (1979) pp. 581-598.

Link: http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/GouldLewontin.pdf

 

[simplyg123]

Sorry as kerrmetric will surely tell you, these writings are miles over my head

i did give it a shot though.

From what i do know, is adaptaion is the climaticle adjustment of an organism, through heredity

And evolution is A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form through heredity

it seems changes in an organisms climate or habitat causes the adaptation, but what exactly causes the evolutional change

 

[Mallon]

Sorry as kerrmetric will surely tell you, these writings are miles over my head

i did give it a shot though.

Can't fault you for trying.

From what i do know, is adaptaion is the climaticle adjustment of an organism, through heredity

Adaptation is simply the manner in which a lineage becomes better suited to its changing environment through time. The point of the Gould article I directed you to is that not all species traits can be attributed to adaptation. Stochastic factors and structural limitations play a big role, too. Evolution does not predict 20-foot beetles, for example.

And evolution is A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form through heredity

Well, evolution is not necessarily gradual. Big changes in bodyplans can occur over just two generations. Mutations in hox genes, for example, can lead to radical new forms:

Nor does evolution necesitate that forms become more complex. It simply holds that species change one way or the other.

it seems changes in an organisms climate or habitat causes the adaptation, but what exactly causes the evolutional change

Usually, simple natural selecting acting upon variation brought about mutation. This was the main tenet of Darwin's Origin of the Species.

 

[simplyg123]

Ok, so evolution, can be considered a type of mutation, I am almost willing to accept this, What i cant accept is man came from monkey. I am pretty sure men may not have been in the same form as they are today. But to say that God created monkey like men with tails, seems to put us in the same catagory as the beasts he created.

 

[Mallon]

Ok, so evolution, can be considered a type of mutation, I am almost willing to accept this,

I wouldn't want you to do that either. Evolution is most certainly NOT "a type of mutation." Mutation is simply a factor that leads to novel traits upon which natural selection may act. This, in turn, leads to evolution. But mutation =/= evolution.

What i cant accept is man came from monkey. I am pretty sure men may not have been in the same form as they are today. But to say that God created monkey like men with tails, seems to put us in the same catagory as the beasts he created.

So your rejection of evolution is purely for personal/religious reasons, and has nothing to do with the evidence. I'm glad we've established that. I won't bother trying to convince you with evidence, then, since no amount of it could change your mind.
P.S. The theory of evolution does not state that man came from a monkey. It says we share a common ancestor with monkeys. Let's not perpetuate that falsehood.

 

[simplyg123]

I wouldn't want you to do that either. Evolution is most certainly NOT "a type of mutation." Mutation is simply a factor that leads to novel traits upon which natural selection may act. This, in turn, leads to evolution. But mutation =/= evolution.

So your rejection of evolution is purely for personal/religious reasons, and has nothing to do with the evidence. I'm glad we've established that. I won't bother trying to convince you with evidence, then, since no amount of it could change your mind.
P.S. The theory of evolution does not state that man came from a monkey. It says we share a common ancestor with monkeys. Let's not perpetuate that falsehood.

well textbooks all over america clearly show that this ancestor looked much more like a monkey then a man.

So your rejection of evolution is purely for personal/religious reasons, and has nothing to do with the evidence. I'm glad we've established that. I won't bother trying to convince you with evidence, then, since no amount of it could change your mind.

If what you try to teach contridicts with the bible then you are correct. Science is obsolete to my faith. However i am teachable. If it makes since to me. But im no scientist, and what i have read, and what others have told me, doesnt make since to me. And all the explanations given to support evolution, Is all completely in another language to me. Seems like it is impossible, to break it down in a more simple form.

However the young Earth Theorys, actually make since to me. They take a factor that is needed in evolution, and show why its mpossible. And they do this in modern day english. Using every day teminology.

KerrMetric has declared me Science Dumb multiple times. And he is right, does that mean i dont half the right to know.

I believe Most people except evolution because of their pride, they hear it , it sounds intelligent, so they accept it to be true, of course this is my oppinion, but how many people truely understand evolution. I would almost gurrantee half the people on this forum that support evolution, have no clue, on the details of it.

I am glad my salvation does not depend on my knowledge of this because my faith would not be very strong either way
]
God Bless