Jump to content


Photo

Scientist Fired Over Soft Tissue In T-Tops Dino


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 10 February 2016 - 02:48 PM

Pi>> I'm still waiting for a reason I should discard a statistically valid age measurement that is not, so far as we can tell, subject to any significant outside influence >>

 

Carbon 14 dating is reliable..at least enough to show that a sample which contains an amount far exceeding the limitation of the equipment has an age less than 100,000 years.  But you have arbitrarily decided to reject that "statistically valid measurement"...just because you don't like the results.  Typical for a non-inquisitive AE.

 

>> IMO, physics is much more a problem for YEC than biology could ever be.>>

 

Yeah, part of your problem is instead of seeking truth, you are seeking only that which can help you to make a "problem" for YEC's.  Biology is indeed a problem for AE when it comes to soft dino tissue.  So the HS science teacher just doesn't LIKE that kind of science I guess.  I suppose if you found a chunk of dinosaur meat inside a solid rock formation, you would ignore that too...because it is biological.  Eh?  Maybe sort of like this human skeleton found inside very hard limestone (no indication of intrusive burial) from the lower Cretaceous:

 

malachite-man-1990-leg-knee.jpg

 

 

Why would you ignore "biological evidence" like this (OR the very well-established soft dino tissue evidence) just because you don't like what it shows?

 

>>I see no reason to discard radioisotope dating in favor of biological decay dating.>>

Only one who is religiously devoted to his AE view would ignore the evidence of soft tissue.  Radio dating has many assumptions about the past that cannot be proved.  Constant decay rate is one of them.  The rate of breakdown of tissue AND rate of DNA decay AND the rate of protein degradation AND the rate of amino acid racemization...are all quite well-understood, and they all support the idea that the tissue is young.  Long chain molecules like collagen simply can't be made to remain intact indefinitely, even if they can be protected from microbial attack, hydrolysis or other outside destructive forces.  These known rates of decay are known even if you choose to ignore those because you don't like what they say against your precious evolutionary theory.  To you, the only good science is AE-confirming science. 

 

>>I see this as having about the impact of a flea farting in a hurricane.>>

Nice.  I hesitate to carry forward that analogy, but your misinformation about evolution is indeed a lot of wind that would obscure your noticing what might seem to be a small but significant fart...er...fact. 

 

>>I see it as more of a nerf ball than a silver bullet.>>

See...that is your failure.  If indeed the tissue is endogenous dinosaur material, then given what has been known for thousands of years about what happens to proteins when they are buried (w/o being frozen), then that SHOULD cause a fair mind to question someone who would say that tissue has been buried for tens of millions of years...or even hundreds of millions.  That is precisely WHY Schweitzer's find was so earth-shattering...and denied by most AE's to begin with.  That is no nerf ball, except perhaps to those who have willfully blinded themselves, like you.  To someone who IS receptive to good science against evolution...I would suggest this would be at least in the top 5 of the most convincing arguments anyone could use.  The presence of C14 in these samples would have to be of equal importance.  All one can say against it is that some mysterious but unidentifiable bacteria...in LARGE AMOUNTS...snuck in to contaminate the samples.  That is absurd.  Especially when no bacterial DNA can be identified...when large amounts of it SHOULD be there if indeed large amounts were present to provide their modern C14. 

 

>>To me, that would mean one who begins with no presupposition about the accuracy and/or inerrancy of the Bible and goes from there.>>

HUH?  I thought you DID believe it was accurate...but that we YE's had just misinterpreted Gen 6-9 to be history when the real message it intended to give us is that a global flood was only a myth.  Which is it?  A lie, or a truth which we YE's badly misinterpreted?



#62 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 February 2016 - 10:55 AM

Pi>> I'm still waiting for a reason I should discard a statistically valid age measurement that is not, so far as we can tell, subject to any significant outside influence >>

 

Carbon 14 dating is reliable..at least enough to show that a sample which contains an amount far exceeding the limitation of the equipment has an age less than 100,000 years.  But you have arbitrarily decided to reject that "statistically valid measurement"...just because you don't like the results.  Typical for a non-inquisitive AE.

Pot - Kettle - Black.

 

You have arbitrarily decided to reject thousands of "statistically valid measurements" from a dozen or more other radioisotope dating methods .... just because you don't like the results.  Typical for a non-inquisitive YEC.

 

Pi:>> IMO, physics is much more a problem for YEC than biology could ever be.>>

 

Yeah, part of your problem is instead of seeking truth, you are seeking only that which can help you to make a "problem" for YEC's.    Biology is indeed a problem for AE when it comes to soft dino tissue.  So the HS science teacher just doesn't LIKE that kind of science I guess.

Only because YEC harp on-and-on about biological evolution while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room .... physics.  Besides, I've studied physics to some (fairly significant) extent while I have never had a class in biology at any level of school.  I think it's fair to say that each of us will assign more weight to those matters we know and understand fairly well as opposed to those we have studied little, if at all.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that is normal and expected.

 

I do seek truth.  The difference is when I question whether or not something is true, I do not start with a presupposition that the matter being tested is true and any evidence in conflict with that position is invalid .... BY DEFINITION .... as many YEC do.  Speaking for myself only, I prefer (as much as possible) an OBJECTIVE approach to evidence when evaluating it.

 

Why would you ignore "biological evidence" like this (OR the very well-established soft dino tissue evidence) just because you don't like what it shows?

Why would you ignore the physical evidence provided by our ability to directly observe something like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars just because you don't like what it shows?

 

Pi>>I see no reason to discard radioisotope dating in favor of biological decay dating.>>

Only one who is religiously devoted to his AE view would ignore the evidence of soft tissue.  Radio dating has many assumptions about the past that cannot be proved.  Constant decay rate is one of them.  The rate of breakdown of tissue AND rate of DNA decay AND the rate of protein degradation AND the rate of amino acid racemization...are all quite well-understood, and they all support the idea that the tissue is young.  .... These known rates of decay are known even if you choose to ignore those because you don't like what they say against your precious evolutionary theory.  To you, the only good science is AE-confirming science. 

Pot - Kettle - Black again.

 

Only one who is religiously devoted to his YEC view would ignore the evidence of our ability to see so many objects beyond the 6,000 year event horizon that should exist if YEC is true.... The rates of radioisotope decay are well known and stable even if you choose to ignore those because you don' like what they say against your precious YEC theory.  To you, the only good science is YEC-confirming science.

 

To the best of my knowledge, there are only two assumptions with regard to radioisotope dating:  1) Constant decay rate and 2)  Initial parent-daughter isotope ratios (which does not apply to all techniques).  There are only two known things that will significantly change nuclear decay rates:  a) temperatures over 200,000,000C and b.) A small seasonal fluctuation (about 1%) that cancels itself out over a year's time.

 

If the many factors that can change biological decay rates are all well understood, there must have been some considerable advances in our knowledge of them since we last discussed this matter and you provided a source that said they are NOT well understood.  Here's the short list of things that are known to dramatically change biological decay rates:  1) Temperature 2) Humidity 3) Exposure to air 4) pH  5) Exposure to sun light.  If I looked it up, I'm pretty sure I could come up with 5 or 6 more.  These factors, in combination, are known to change biological decay rates by orders of magnitude.... (factors up to 10,000x or so).

 

I'm not so sure you want to compare a process that may vary by up to 1% with one that can change by up to 1,000,000%.  I'm pretty certain which process a truly objective person would determine to be more reliable.

 

Pi>>I see it as more of a nerf ball than a silver bullet.>>

See...that is your failure.  If indeed the tissue is endogenous dinosaur material, then given what has been known for thousands of years about what happens to proteins when they are buried (w/o being frozen), then that SHOULD cause a fair mind to question someone who would say that tissue has been buried for tens of millions of years...or even hundreds of millions.  That is precisely WHY Schweitzer's find was so earth-shattering...and denied by most AE's to begin with.  That is no nerf ball, except perhaps to those who have willfully blinded themselves, like you.  To someone who IS receptive to good science against evolution...I would suggest this would be at least in the top 5 of the most convincing arguments anyone could use.  The presence of C14 in these samples would have to be of equal importance.  All one can say against it is that some mysterious but unidentifiable bacteria...in LARGE AMOUNTS...snuck in to contaminate the samples.  That is absurd.  Especially when no bacterial DNA can be identified...when large amounts of it SHOULD be there if indeed large amounts were present to provide their modern C14. 

Yet another case of Pot - Kettle - Black.

 

Our ability to directly observe events far beyond 6000 light years SHOULD cause a fair mind to question someone who says the universe is only a few thousand years old.... That is no nerf ball, except perhaps to those who have willfully blinded themselves, like you.  To someone who IS receptive to good science against YEC, I would suggest ability to see events at great distances would be at least in the top 5 of the most convincing arguments anyone could use.

 

If you want to see absurdity, you should examine the increasingly improbable scenarios offered by YEC to explain astronomy.... a science completely independent of biological evolution that relies only on direct observation of distant objects to reach its conclusion that the universe is billions of years old, not thousands.

 

Pi>>To me, that would mean one who begins with no presupposition about the accuracy and/or inerrancy of the Bible and goes from there.>>

HUH?  I thought you DID believe it was accurate...but that we YE's had just misinterpreted Gen 6-9 to be history when the real message it intended to give us is that a global flood was only a myth.  Which is it?  A lie, or a truth which we YE's badly misinterpreted?

What I mean is that when one is examining the accuracy or validity of a source, one does not begin with a presupposition that the source is correct and anything in conflict with that determination is invalid, by definition, as YEC do.

 

Unless you have something to offer with respect to the Armitage case, I think we're done here as I have no intention of engaging in another lengthy (and fruitless) discussion of soft dino tissue with you.



#63 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:36 PM

 

You have arbitrarily decided to reject thousands of "statistically valid measurements" from a dozen or more other radioisotope dating methods .... just because you don't like the results.  Typical for a non-inquisitive YEC.

 

 

1.  Not arbitrarily but based on Scientific Evidence.  Radio-Carbon Dating is somewhat different from all other forms of Radioisotope Dating--- which have 3 Main Assumptions that can never be Verified, and an Elephant in the Room :

 

Unverifiable Assumptions:

 

a. You must know the Initial Parent-Daughter Ratio. (This is the Dagger, the rest in this group are just Icing)

b. The Rock must remain a "Closed-System".

c.  Decay Rates must remain Constant.

 

The Elephant in The Room:  Quantum Mechanics....

 

According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 
Independent of Observation/Measurement... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics)

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."

Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

 

Ergo, if nobody was there to observe these rocks and record (Date and Time Stamp), and continue observing them and recording, then please provide...

the "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

 

2. Moreover, We're not using C14 to "date" anything because it's a Begging The Question (Fallacy) IN TOTO; All we're looking for is " IT'S PRESENCE ".


The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years. SO...after a Million Years there should be NO TRACE of " IT ". 

Animals only take it in as they breath and stop once they die. Ergo...if you find C14 in Dino Bones/Soft Tissue (Collagen) that are "Supposedly" 80 Million Years Old...THEN, The Fairytale Millions of Years IMPLODES !!! Savvy? (As if SOFT TISSUE ALONE, didn't already Jack it Yard!)
 
The Inventor of C14 Dating Dr. Walter Libby...
 
"There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen may be altered to yield a false age."
Libby W.F. et al: Radiocarbon Dating of Bone and Shell from Their Organic Components;  Science 22 May 1964: Vol. 144 no. 3621 pp. 995-1001 DOI: 10.1126/science.144.3621.995
 
There is No "Natural" Mechanism to contaminate COLLAGEN "BIOLOGICAL MATRICES" with *NEW* C14 !!  Once the animal dies, that's it. If it's Presence is found in these tissues then Turn out the Lights on the Fairytale Millions of Years. Period, end of story.

 

 

 

Only because YEC harp on-and-on about biological evolution while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room .... physics.

 

 

 

What "specifically" from your overweight "alleged" ignored gorilla is the issue ??

 

 

I do not start with a presupposition that the matter being tested is true and any evidence in conflict with that position is invalid .... BY DEFINITION .... as many YEC do.  Speaking for myself only, I prefer (as much as possible) an OBJECTIVE approach to evidence when evaluating it.

 

 

We all know this is pure 100% Baloney; we all have Presuppositions/Biases.

 

 

Why would you ignore the physical evidence provided by our ability to directly observe something like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars just because you don't like what it shows?

 

 

What is your point?  You have the Antecedent "observe something like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars," What's the Consequent (Punch Line)??

 

Is this it...

 

Only one who is religiously devoted to his YEC view would ignore the evidence of our ability to see so many objects beyond the 6,000 year event horizon that should exist if YEC is true

 

 

Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics?? You have already been challenged to reconcile this "nerf ball", here you've seen this before...

 

According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 
Independent of Observation/Measurement... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." 

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics)

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."

Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

 

“The path taken by the photon is NOT an element of REALITY. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is NOT APPLICABLE.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

 

Ergo, if nobody was there to OBSERVE these Photons @ the source of Origin and Record (Date and Time Stamp), and continued observing their path; Then, handing that off to an Observer on Earth (Date and Time Stamped) then please...

 

Post the "One Way Speed"  ;)  for a Wave of Potentialities....?

 

 

 

Here's the short list of things that are known to dramatically change biological decay rates:  1) Temperature 2) Humidity 3) Exposure to air 4) pH  5) Exposure to sun light.  If I looked it up, I'm pretty sure I could come up with 5 or 6 more.  These factors, in combination, are known to change biological decay rates by orders of magnitude.... (factors up to 10,000x or so).

 

 

Here's my "Short List": 

 

"In particular, it has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years..Therefore, even in cases where organic material is preserved, it is generally accepted that only parts of original proteins are preserved and that the full tertiary or quaternary structure has been lost."
Bertazzo, S et al; Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens; Nature Communication 6,Article number: 7352, doi:10.1038/ncomms8352; 09 June 2015
 
But...
 
"If collagen is completely degraded, this banding is no longer seen, due to loss of the quaternary structure of the protein. Therefore, the observation of a ~67-nm banding in the fibrous structures of fossilized samples here is very exciting, as it is consistent with a preservation of the ultrastructure of putative collagen fibres over a time period of 75 million years."
Bertazzo, S et al; Fibres and cellular structures preserved in 75-million–year-old dinosaur specimens; Nature Communication,  6, Article number:  7352, doi:10.1038/ncomms8352; 09 June 2015
 
:think:  So no proteins should last 4 million years and ESPECIALLY none with their Ultrastructure (Tertiary and Quaternary) intact; BUT here with have The Whole Enchilada after 75 MILLION !!!
 
Appears we have a paradoxical dilemma wrapped in an enigmatic riddle.  I Know brightidea.gif  maybe it's not 75 Million Years Old!!!
 
 
In 2011, UK archaeologists and experts on bone collagen decay wrote that “it will take between 0.2 and 0.7 Ma [million years] at 10°C for levels of collagen to fall to 1% in an optimal burial environment.”
Buckley, M. and Collins, M., Collagen survival and its use for species identification in Holocene-lower Pleistocene bone fragments from British archaeological and paleontological sites. Antiqua 1(e1):1–7, 20 September 2011
 
DNA degrades somewhat rapidly when in contact with water; See Hydrolysis (complete disintegration in less than 5,000 years).
Martin B. Hebsgaard, Matthew J. Phillip and Eske Willerslev, "Geologically ancient DNA: fact or artefact?" TRENDS in Microbiology, Vol.13 No.5, May 2005
 
"maximal DNA survival of 50 thousand (Kyr) to 1 million (Myr) years."
Martin B. Hebsgaard, Matthew J. Phillip and Eske Willerslev, "Geologically ancient DNA: fact or artefact?" TRENDS in Microbiology, Vol.13 No.5, May 2005

 

 
"However, even under the best preservation conditions at –5°C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA ‘strand’ after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80–85 Myr old Cretaceous bone [Table 1]."
Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society B 279(1748):4724-4733,7 December 2012 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745.
 
Uh oh...
 
"The lack of amplification with other primer sets is consistent with the sample being free of contaminating contemporary DNA.  Amplification with the noted primer set produced a 174-bp fragment (Fig 4.)."
Woodward S. R., Weyand N. J., Bunnell M. 1994. DNA-sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments. Science 266, 1229–1232...

(Abstract- DNA was extracted from 80-million-year-old bone fragments found in strata of the Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation in the roof of an underground coal mine in eastern Utah. This DNA was used as the template in a polymerase chain reaction that amplified and sequenced a portion of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome b. These sequences differ from all other cytochrome b sequences investigated, including those in the GenBank and European Molecular Biology Laboratory databases.)
 


#64 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:39 PM

Interesting ..... the YEC here frequently complain that evolutionists drag the conversation off topic.  First Indy tried to make this about soft dino tissue.  Now Enoch wants to make this about a half dozen issues not related to the firing of Armitage.

 

OK.... one response only, then we can return this to Armitage's case.....

Pi>> I'm still waiting for a reason I should discard a statistically valid age measurement that is not, so far as we can tell, subject to any significant outside influence >>

 

Carbon 14 dating is reliable..at least enough to show that a sample which contains an amount far exceeding the limitation of the equipment has an age less than 100,000 years.  But you have arbitrarily decided to reject that "statistically valid measurement"...just because you don't like the results.  Typical for a non-inquisitive AE.

 

1.  Not arbitrarily but based on Scientific Evidence.  Radio-Carbon Dating is somewhat different from all other forms of Radioisotope Dating--- which have 3 Main Assumptions that can never be Verified, and an Elephant in the Room :

 

Unverifiable Assumptions:

 

a. You must know the Initial Parent-Daughter Ratio. (This is the Dagger, the rest in this group are just Icing)

b. The Rock must remain a "Closed-System".

c.  Decay Rates must remain Constant.

Substitute the more precise word "sample" for "rock" and C14 dating is subject to the exact same assumptions.

 

All radioisotope dating methods have a host of difficulties that can subject them to a wide range of potential errors.  That is why sample selection, handling, and preparation are critical.  Even with the best processing there are still some "outlier" results that simply can't be explained.  (Which is why I hold that radioisotope processes produce only "statistically valid" results.

 

The Elephant in The Room:  Quantum Mechanics....

 

According to the Schrodinger Equation THEN...Validated Repeatedly via thousands of "EXPERIMENTS" without Exception for the past 100 years with the most successful branch of Physics in the History of "Actual" Science, Quantum Mechanics... : 
Independent of Observation/Measurement... particles have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, "Matter" doesn't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics)

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist)

 

“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."

Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

 

Ergo, if nobody was there to observe these rocks and record (Date and Time Stamp), and continue observing them and recording, then please provide...

the "Decay Rate" for a Wave of Potentialities....?

So now you're arguing about reality itself.  I guess we could all be in some kind of "Matrix" where we only think we have a consciousness .... but I'll leave that one alone.  I still recall, during my days of studying philosophy, the discussions about how we could prove aren't some kind of a figment of imagination and really exist.  As it turns out, we must pretty much assume our own existence.   I have no intention of resurrecting those discussions from 50 or so years ago.....

 

You may argue that the "atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL" and "they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts" when someone punches you in the nose.  But my money is that the resulting nosebleed would be very real.

 

2. Moreover, We're not using C14 to "date" anything because it's a Begging The Question (Fallacy) IN TOTO; All we're looking for is " IT'S PRESENCE ".


The half-life of Carbon 14 is 5730 years. SO...after a Million Years there should be NO TRACE of " IT ". 

Animals only take it in as they breath and stop once they die. Ergo...if you find C14 in Dino Bones/Soft Tissue (Collagen) that are "Supposedly" 80 Million Years Old...THEN, The Fairytale Millions of Years IMPLODES !!! Savvy? (As if SOFT TISSUE ALONE, didn't already Jack it Yard!)

More semantic hair splitting.  Of course we're using C14 to establish a "date."  You're stopping a step or two short of the end result.  We use the presence of C14 to establish a date.   Sheesh.

 

Thanks for the "lesson" in basic C-14 methodology.

 

Other, independent, lines of evidence point to billions of years, not millions.

 

Post the "One Way Speed"  ;)  for a Wave of Potentialities....?

Easy .... 299,792,458 meters per second.  We had a long discussion of that in the "One Way Speed of Light" topic.

 

Appears we have a paradoxical dilemma wrapped in an enigmatic riddle.  I Know brightidea.gif  maybe it's not 75 Million Years Old!!!

Maybe not.  But my money is still on a planet and universe billions of years old rather than thousands.

 

Now, do you have anything relevant to the Armitage case to add?



#65 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 February 2016 - 03:46 PM

Interesting ..... the YEC here frequently complain that evolutionists drag the conversation off topic.  First Indy tried to make this about soft dino tissue.  Now Enoch wants to make this about a half dozen issues not related to the firing of Armitage.

 

Well it's not like I conjured up each of "your" comments I replied to.

 

 

OK.... one response only, then we can return this to Armitage's case.....

 

 

You call these a response?

 

 

Which is why I hold that radioisotope processes produce only "statistically valid" results.

 

 

Well "Statistics", "Statistically".... isn't Science.

 

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
(I HIGHLY recommend reading this review)
 
Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like a Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're 2 different words.
 
Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada.
 
Science is in the business of EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
 
Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin (My old stomping grounds  ;) ), 27 Jan 1921...
 
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
 

 
 I still recall, during my days of studying philosophy, the discussions about how we could prove aren't some kind of a figment of imagination and really exist. 

 

 

Why on earth are you waxing philosophical when I CRUSHED your position 'IN TOTO' with Quantum Mechanics ??

 

Do you think the most successful branch of Physics in the History of Science is "Philosophy"?

 

 

As it turns out, we must pretty much assume our own existence.   I have no intention of resurrecting those discussions from 50 or so years ago 

 

 

What on Earth are you talking about?  :dono:

 

 

You may argue that the "atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL" and "they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts" when someone punches you in the nose.  But my money is that the resulting nosebleed would be very real.

 

 

:consoling:   Can I ask, are you reading another post and responding here? 

 

 

More semantic hair splitting.  Of course we're using C14 to establish a "date."

 

 

No "WE" are not.  " I " am stopping because "my point" is the mere "Presence" of C14, as I explained.  I'll leave you to the "Statistics" and begging the question epithets.

 

And can you point to the "Semantic Hair Splitting" for us....?  You know, so as to offer SUPPORT for your mind numbing attempted diversion...?

 

 

Other, independent, lines of evidence point to billions of years, not millions.

 

 

It doesn't matter if you have 1 Begging The Question Fallacy or 1500, they're still Begging The Question Fallacies. There's no quantity threshold that changes it's underlying/inherent characteristics or features.

 

 

Easy .... 299,792,458 meters per second.  We had a long discussion of that in the "One Way Speed of Light" topic.

 

 

So "Waves of Potentialities" have Validated Speeds?? :laugh_point:   Please SUPPORT and Cite relevant reference....?

 

 

"800 pound gorilla in the room .... physics.  Besides, I've studied physics to some (fairly significant)...

 

 

"Mr. physics", (I'm assuming you've heard of the Double-Slit Experiment), in the Traditional Double-Slit Experiment (No-Slit Detectors), when Photons/Electrons/Atoms/Molecules are fired @ the double-slit partition, can you tell us WHAT is...

 

1. 'Specifically' between the emitter and the double-slit partition....?

 

2. What 'specifically' is passing through the double-slits....?

 

3. What 'specifically' is between the double-slit partition and the photographic plate/detector....?

 

Please provide relevant references in SUPPORT of each.  Thanks.

 

 

But my money is still on a planet and universe billions of years old rather than thousands.

 

 

Well gamblers lose their shirts daily.  In lieu of the "Hand-Wave" dismissals you employed for direct contradictory evidence from the comprehensive evaluations of: Radiometric Dating, Dino Soft Tissue, and Quantum Mechanics, what SUPPORTING evidence are you basing this " BET " on?

 

Or is this one of those "Hunches" ?   

 

 

Now, do you have anything relevant to the Armitage case to add?

 

 

Not really.  Why should I....I was merely responding to your claims.  Do "YOU" have anything relevant to add to the Armitage Case?



#66 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 16 February 2016 - 09:20 AM

Now, do you have anything relevant to the Armitage case to add?

Not really.  

Then I guess we're done with these off topic matters.



#67 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 March 2016 - 04:16 AM

I see Mark Armitage here labelled as a scientist. What Experiments has he done?

#68 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 28 March 2016 - 11:12 PM

I see Mark Armitage here labelled as a scientist. What Experiments has he done?

bump.

#69 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 April 2016 - 06:10 AM

bump.


Had you read a previous post you may have seen that he has written about 30 journal articles, I'd suggest you do some research and read them to see the work that he does.

Also wasn't it agreed upon that Mark is a scientist? I mean he was a laboratory technician.

#70 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 August 2016 - 06:27 PM

Since the OP has made the topic of this discussion about the Armitage case as well, I'm posting the update on his lawsuit here also.... 

 

According to the source article:

..... a jury trial had been set for 22 August 2016 at 09:30 am, which is this coming Monday, 5 days from now. There were two more hearings scheduled before that, which were:

• 08 August: Motion to dismiss (presumably regarding Armitage’s latest attempt to amend his complaint), and also a status conference.

• 16 August: a final status conference.

 

We took a look at the court docket, and were surprised to learn that the trial is no longer scheduled. Only one item remains on the calendar, which is set, not in August, and not even in September, but for 07 October 2016, and it has this cryptic description: “OSC RE Dismissal.” OSC probably means “order to show cause.” It sounds like a hearing where Armitage has to show why the case should not be dismissed.....

 

Then we looked at the listing of Proceedings Held. Only one item appears since our last update: 08 August 2016: Motion to Dismiss – Off Calendar.

That motion to dismiss had been pending. We thought it was about Armitage’s recent attempt to amend his complaint. Whatever it was, it’s been decided. We think “Off Calendar” refers to the court’s decision to remove the case from its list of pending cases.

 

What happened? There may have been a settlement, but if so, we can’t figure out why anything remains on the court’s calendar. Settlements usually include an agreed order dismissing the case. Perhaps someone with access to the documents will provide us with some details. In any event, it would appear that the Armitage case is over — or just about over.....

 

 

####

Edit: The source article has links to pretty much all relevant information in the case including Armitage's original (21 page) complaint.



#71 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 01 October 2016 - 03:07 PM

Evidently it was a settlement. Armitage just posted this on youtube today.

 



#72 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 October 2016 - 06:16 PM

Had you read a previous post you may have seen that he has written about 30 journal articles, I'd suggest you do some research and read them to see the work that he does.

Also wasn't it agreed upon that Mark is a scientist? I mean he was a laboratory technician.

It's of course debatable, whether I lab technician is a scientist. But how relevant is this anyway? This smells like an ad hominem / appeal to authority question. 

 

So he wrote articles, are they done sufficiently to standards of logic deduction from facts? That should actually suffice. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users