Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

#281 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:22 PM

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 

 

Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?

 

Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.

Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

 

Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."

 

"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"

 

So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14. 

 

From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.

Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.

 

The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.

 

This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.

 

You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years.  Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that.  There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.

 

A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist.  Nor is it "conceivable."  Not without destruction of the sample.

 

 

 

Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists.  Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations.  It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.

 

For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable.  They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay. 



#282 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:55 PM

BK, what I get from this personally, is that the dates are a bunch of mish-mashed, disparate codswallop anyway. Even for the young ages they all seem to differ, I think it is far stronger evidence of youth that the soft tissues exist, we know that collagen, cartilage and DNA have all been measured, their decays rates precisely extrapolated.

Seriously?

 

Biological decay rates are subject to at least a half-dozen external factors.  You can't tell from the state of biological decay if a sample died 5 months or 5,000 years ago.

Go ahead and show where they have been "precisely extrapolated."  Show the studies where biological decay has been used to establish age.

 

On the other hand, more than a century of testing has shown nothing (short of a nuclear chain reaction) that will significantly impact nuclear decay rates.  They have been measured and "their decay rates precisely extrapolated."  We can verify their stability back thru time by spectral analysis of decay rates in the light of distant stars.  For example, the spectra of Sn1987a shows a decay rate for 56Co consistent with what is observed on Earth today.

 

Yet you embrace the more volatile, least precise ways of age determination over one that is based on one of the most stable processes in the universe.

 

.... and that, I suppose, is the more "logical" approach.



#283 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:15 PM

?
Another matter that has to be sorted out is why we would give higher credence to radiometric dating methods (given for example how hard it is to verify that a stone is 100 million years old or not) over knowledge of how decay of organic structures work. What reason would we have to do that?

Because the rate of biological decay is subject to multiple external factors including:  temperature, humidity, pH.  Nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly.  Further, they can be verified back in time by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.

 

What reason would we have to give higher credence to the less stable process over the more stable one as a means to establish dates?



#284 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:26 PM

It isn't only the t-Rex tissue but Armitage's case of the soft tissue in a dino horn, even Piasan said his work was excellent when he seemed to acknowledge how meticulous Armitage was in ruling out contamination and other factors. But there are also less known, less popular cases. 

To clarify:

 

My comment had nothing to do with Armitage's work on the dino horn.  It was a statement based on evidence entered in his legal case that his performance reviews indicated he did excellent work.



#285 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:27 PM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.

 

There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.

 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.

 

 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.

 

 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!
Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.


#286 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 September 2017 - 10:48 PM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.
 
There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.
 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.
 
 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.
 
 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!

Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.

"BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy)have anything to do with biological evolution."

But that didnt seem to stop you from bringing it into this conversation about the age of the Dinosaurs for some unknown reason I see..LOL..


"Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts. When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.

"And God streched out the heavens (Over 14 times) maybe you should listen to him.. (Hint, he knows more than even YOU do about HIS creation).. Hard to believe Im sure..

NOW

Explain to us how the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve fit into your Billions of Years of Evolution.. This is going to be real good..

Oh, That's right.. I have already asked you many times and you go away for awhile only to pop your head up like one of those moles at the arcade only to be hammered down again with my questions that you never answer NEXT!

Sadly, Theistic Evolutionists are either Dishonest or Delusional.. Either way, it is impossible to have an honest debate with them..


‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’ American Atheist


“The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.”G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”

#287 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 25 September 2017 - 02:13 AM

 

?
Another matter that has to be sorted out is why we would give higher credence to radiometric dating methods (given for example how hard it is to verify that a stone is 100 million years old or not) over knowledge of how decay of organic structures work. What reason would we have to do that?

Because the rate of biological decay is subject to multiple external factors including:  temperature, humidity, pH.  Nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly.  Further, they can be verified back in time by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.
 
What reason would we have to give higher credence to the less stable process over the more stable one as a means to establish dates?

 

 

But don't you understand Piasan. It's about giving credence to what can be empirically verified and tested (decay of organic structures) and what can not be emiprically verified and tested (radiometric dating methods). It's more problematic than that, because when the opportunity have risen the radiometric dating methods have not always been successfully verified (recent stone formation).

There are three aspects of this:

1 - It's not that the rate of biological decay can vary that is the problem, but how long it would take for organic structures to decay at the slowest rate. It's two separate questions.
2 - Your assurance that 'nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly' is as much uniform philosophy as it is science. We can't test that in a lab.
3 - The Bible do side with the thought that dinosaurs did live with humans (Job 40:15-24).

So it seems that from both a scientific and biblical perspective we have all the reasons to actually give higher credence to our knowledge of how decay of organic structures work.



#288 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 September 2017 - 03:19 AM

 

 

Piasan: My comment had nothing to do with Armitage's work on the dino horn.  It was a statement based on evidence entered in his legal case that his performance reviews indicated he did excellent work.

 

Hardly makes my point weaker does it? It seems we are in agreement his work was excellent and in the thread we discussed it in my memory was you acknowledged that excellence in the dino horn work, or that's the impression I got. I even remember BK saying to you, "his works excellent but you won't accept it?" or something along those lines.

 

Piasan, his work was peer reviewed, there is simply no need to doubt it. If I say you said his work is excellent and you say you also say his work was excellent, are we really in disagreement? Please don't tell me you have caught quote-mining-disease, where the evolutionist believes in the following axiom;

 

"If a creationist says X is true do not listen, but if an evolutionist says X is true we can accept it."

 

Piasan, we are both saying X, what then are you saying, that I can't say that you said his work is excellent even though you do? Do you think you will catch a disease if you agree with me on a trivial point?

 

As for the dating methods, I would say that I don't agree they are of significance because of the reasons Tirian explained. I can understand if evolutionists may think we give C14 extra credit. We do, though we don't accept it necessarily tests accurately. But we treat it differently not because we are special pleading on behalf of a young earth but because there is an important corroborative factor involved.

 

What is that factor? That factor is recorded human history.(documented). C14 dates things even a thousand or 2 thousand years old meaning we can compare the dates you get for C14 to recorded history. This is not so with K-Ar dating or Ar-Ar, or whatever.

 

So C14 can actually be measured against another method of measuring. But it can only be measured against recorded human history, nothing beyond it, and that's roughly about 6,000 years. :gotcha:






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 1 anonymous users