Wheaton Christian College teaches evolution

[randman]

I think Nick has pretty much slammed you seebs.

Evolutionists have relied on lies. They kept up the ape to man progression in textbooks for years with neanderthal being a hunched over ape-man long after it was known to be false. Even within the past 5 years, Haeckel's embryos have been included in textbooks.

Heck, even here we see the deception of evolutionists present. Look over the threads. One admits "intemediaries" are not shown, a nd another lists them. One even claimed PE w as for paelontologists, which basically means it isn't a new model for evolution at all.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find any significant evidence for evolution presented for public consumption in a totally objective and honest manner.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

2. Theories which were tossed out when data didn't support them.

How about data being tossed out because it doesn't fit the theory? That happens all the time in labs. They usually call it "calibration," but no matter how you "justify" it, it's still a matter of making the data fit the theory.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Archaeoraptor
Appeared in National Geographic, shown three months later to be a hoax. Never had any influence on evolution.

Nebraska man
If it was such a lie, why did the same scientists who originally identified it as a man correct himself when he discovered additional evidence about the specimin. Never had any influence on evolution.

Piltdown man
Became suspect because it didn't agree with the rest of the evidence. New techniques revealed its actual origin. Never had any influence on evolution outside of England.

Orce man
Obsure fossil fragment of unknown origin. No hoxes or lies there.

The Haeckel embryo sequence
Probably about the only one that you can say that lied to support evolution. Or rather exagerated. Haeckel's errors do not disprove embryonic similarity between taxa.

Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


How about data being tossed out because it doesn't fit the theory? That happens all the time in labs. They usually call it "calibration," but no matter how you "justify" it, it's still a matter of making the data fit the theory.

If data anomalous data are thrown out, it is because they don't fit the other data, not because they don't fit the theory.

If you don't like statistical analysis, then it isn't just evolution you don't like. You can join me in trashing relativity too - in the relativity thread.

If you catch someone making the data fit the theory, that is "fudging" and isn't allowed. They stand a lot to lose by risking it. Even so, some try, and sometimes get away with it. One would have to be a complete idiot to think that thousands of scientists have done this in every research program that provided data in support of neodarwinism.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If data anomalous data are thrown out, it is because they don't fit the other data, not because they don't fit the theory.

If you catch someone making the data fit the theory, that is "fudging" and isn't allowed.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Calibration *is* fudging the data to fit the theory, and it is standard practice. Scientists simply have enough confidence in the reference (such as the dating of the strata) that they don't realize it's the same thing as fudging the data. But it is.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Never had any influence on evolution.

So that makes the lie not a lie, then?

Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

I'm not familiar with your Pauxly stuff or the hyrax thing. But almost all of the rest of what you list are theories and objections to theories. That doesn't make them lies and deliberate fraud, even if they are wrong. So while it makes your list look longer, it hardly qualifies as apples-to-apples comparisons to things like Piltdown man, etc.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Off the top of my head, creationist lies and bad scholarship:
Pauxly man tracks
Pauxly tooth
Puncuated Equilibrium disproves evolution
There are not transitional fossils
Evolution is the work of atheists
Scientific Conspiracy
anti-biotic resistance is not evolution
Moon dust
Eohippis is a hyrax
The geological column does not exist
Practicly everything that comes out of Hovind's mouth.
Etc.

Gish's Bullfrog proteins come to mind.
The several independent Noah's ark discoveries do too...

That second, especially so - as I stood face to face with a good friend (who is a creationist and actually took a course at Bryan College from none other than Kurt Wise), and had a lengthy conversation wherein I was informed not only that the ark had been found (satellite photos and all), but that "they" wouldn't let anyone "go up there", and futhermore that scientists had tracked down Joshua's lost day...

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Bzzzt. Wrong. Calibration *is* fudging the data to fit the theory, and it is standard practice. Scientists simply have enough confidence in the reference (such as the dating of the strata) that they don't realize it's the same thing as fudging the data. But it is.

BZZZZT. Calibration is sometimes done based on whether the data fit a theory - but never the theory being tested. If a radiometric date is thrown out, it is because it is believed to be in error: because a) the potential for error exists, and b) it gives a spurious result compared to other dating methods -including index fossils, but NOT including the fossil being dated, and/or c) a statistical analysis of the data leaves the erroneous point as an outlyer.

Now please, write that down.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Hey guys: BZZZZT Wrong!

(did that make me look smarter?)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

a) the potential for error exists

The potential for error ALWAYS exists.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

b) it gives a spurious result compared to other dating methods -including index fossils

Bingo. The fossils are dated by the radiometric measurements. The radiometric measurements are checked against each other, and against index fossils. The dates of the index fossils were verified by radiometrics. Which were checked using index fossils. Which were checked using radiometrics. Which were...

Ah, such reliable checks and balances.

And anything that falls outside the accepted ranges is thrown out as an anomaly because we all know that the reference dates must be correct. After all, we checked the data against itself so many times, and it miraculously kept coming out equal.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


The potential for error ALWAYS exists.



Bingo. The fossils are dated by the radiometric measurements. The radiometric measurements are checked against each other, and against index fossils. The dates of the index fossils were verified by radiometrics. Which were checked using index fossils. Which were checked using radiometrics. Which were...

Ah, such reliable checks and balances.

And anything that falls outside the accepted ranges is thrown out as an anomaly because we all know that the reference dates must be correct. After all, we checked the data against itself so many times, and it miraculously kept coming out equal.

You know better. Index fossils were established by rigor, using independent radiometric dating systems, including different radioisotopes. Most new fossil finds are tested by more than one radioisotope as well. If the cross checks are all pointing to the same thing, it can only be because the thing they point to is the correct age, or some supernatural meddler wanted to fool us.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley

So that makes the lie not a lie, then?

Never said that. It's just wasn't a lie conconcted to support evolution.

I'm not familiar with your Pauxly stuff or the hyrax thing.

I guess that is a good thing because it signals that whatever creationists literature you are familiar with have dropped such obvious frauds.

Pauxly "Man-tracks"
Is Eohippus a Hyrax?

But almost all of the rest of what you list are theories and objections to theories. That doesn't make them lies and deliberate fraud, even if they are wrong.

It's intellectual dishonesty and deliberate fraud because they keep making such claims even after they have been shown again to be wrong. See Scientific Creationism and Error to see how well creationists deal with their errors. Glenn Morton, who used to be a member of the professional creationist community, also has some works about this.

Morton's Demon
The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

It's intellectual dishonesty and deliberate fraud because they keep making such claims even after they have been shown again to be wrong.

IMO we've shown you time and again that evolution is wrong. So does that mean you're a deliberate fraud?

There are two sides to this, you know. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I believe you are deliberately fraudulent about what you think is true.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

You know better. Index fossils were established by rigor, using independent radiometric dating systems, including different radioisotopes. Most new fossil finds are tested by more than one radioisotope as well. If the cross checks are all pointing to the same thing, it can only be because the thing they point to is the correct age, or some supernatural meddler wanted to fool us.

ROFL!! It doesn't matter how many isotopes you use - in all cases you must assume a starting point in order to give the current measurements any meaning in terms of time. So the whole system is arbitrarily linked to your assumptions, and checked against those assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, all of your figures will agree, but they'll all be wrong.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


ROFL!! It doesn't matter how many isotopes you use - in all cases you must assume a starting point in order to give the current measurements any meaning in terms of time. So the whole system is arbitrarily linked to your assumptions, and checked against those assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, all of your figures will agree, but they'll all be wrong.

You think? Did you read any of the articles that were posted? Different isotopes in different rocks will agree on an age because of different errors in measurement? I guess I should take your word for it.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
It doesn't matter how many isotopes you use - in all cases you must assume a starting point in order to give the current measurements any meaning in terms of time.

How many times does this have to be explained to you before you understand? The assumptions required by radioisotope dating are simple, completely reasonable, and testable through cross checks and validation. If you still feel there are problems with radioisotope dating, please list your objections and I will be happy to forward them to Prof. Meert for an explanation.

So the whole system is arbitrarily linked to your assumptions, and checked against those assumptions. If your assumptions are wrong, all of your figures will agree, but they'll all be wrong.

Go learn about radioisotope dating, work the math, and come back here and show us exactly how you have determined this to be true. If you can't, then this is yet another empty assertion on your part.

Here are the on-line lecture notes for a graduate class on isotope geochemistry. Have at it.

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo656/656notes00.html

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
There are two sides to this, you know. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I believe you are deliberately fraudulent about what you think is true.

I'm not talking about two different opinions. I'm talking about made up evidence and out right misrepresentation of science.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

 

[Morat]

As far as I know, there is only one assumption that is core to radiometric dating: the constancy of radioactive decay.

This constancy, by the way, is the foundation of much of your life. If radioactive decay rates weren't constant, the sun wouldn't shine. Your computer wouldn't work. And the universe as you see it wouldn't exist.

If you want to argue decay rates aren't constant, then by all means, let's have at it. The constancy of radioactive decay is only slightly less firm than the laws of thermodynamics.

After accepting the constancy of decay rates, everything else is just application. Yes, there are things that can give you bad numbers. They're different for different elements, and these things skew the numbers in different ways for different elements.

After all, if some unknown mechanism was fiddling with decay rates, you wouldn't get agreement between methods at all. All the math on dating is done assuming constancy.

I'd prefer if someone checked me on this claim, but I'm prett sure that if decay rates varied, the changes in half-lifes would be all over the map, and the resulting ages would range all over the place. You'd get 20 billion years from this method, 200 million from this one, 57 million from that one, and 9.65 million from another.

I don't think you could get agreement, period. I know you couldn't if it was something that didn't change decay rates, but something element specific (some things, like massive temperatures and pressures, can change the decay rates of some elements up to 2 or so percent).

Of course, even if you claimed they all magically decayed faster, but someone didn't stop solar fusion in it's tracks (Setterfield), you still have something of a problem. Heat. As in "Earth being molten slag".

Decay rates have to be constant, which means that agreement among dating methods is firm evidence of their accuracy, or they vary, in which case: slag Earth.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
As far as I know, there is only one assumption that is core to radiometric dating: the constancy of radioactive decay.

I believe it is possible that radioactive decay rates have changed, but I've yet to see any conclusive evidence regarding this, so I'll assume it hasn't changed.

Regardless, your understanding of radiometric dating is incomplete if you think that's the only assumption.

One does not measure the decay in order to date the material under test. One measures the current amount of isotopes in the material under test and then calculates a date based on the assumption that the material had a known amount of parent and daughter isotopes when the material was formed, cooled, buried, etc. Only then can you compare the current amounts with the assumed amounts and arrive at a suggested age.

Isochron dating improves the methodology but it doesn't get around all assumptions about the initial blend of parent-daughter-isotopes and minerals, etc. Plus, isochron advocates brush off the possibility that what you're testing is not a closed system -- only to resurrect the idea of open systems when they have to explain why you can find C14 in materials that are supposedly millions of years old.