Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


wibble last won the day on April 24

wibble had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

1 Follower

About wibble

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)

Recent Profile Visitors

760 profile views
  1. Of course they're made of the correct stuff to be viable, else the organism would die and its genes wouldn't be passed on. And the various parts forming piece by piece to come together like a jigsaw in a targeted way is another strawman by you. Bit like Blitzkings strawman of organs forming one by one to produce the human anatomy. We've heard all this before from Mike on here, that everything had the "correct " design (which ignores examples of sub optimal design in nature) and 100% of designed things have a designer. The problem with that idea is that we know for a fact that the technology we have has a designer, like William Paley's watch, because we observe the creator (us). On the other hand, you have to assume the existence of a creator that no one has ever observed (save OT stories). Adding a layer of stupendous complexity (god) is not obeying Occam's Razor. Science has done a pretty good job so far by explaining stuff by natural processes. We're not there yet with the origin of life and probably we will never know for sure exactly what happened 3.8 billion years ago but we are making progress towards plausible scenarios. But say you're right and God exists and created life. Doesn't make any difference to the fact of evolution. If you are of that mind, you can simply exchange abiogenesis for a miraculous spark of life a few billion years ago which thereon set life on an evolutionary path of change and diversification. Because the combined weight of evidence does indeed put the issue beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. How about Stephen Meyer or David Berlinski? There are plenty of agnostics that deny evolution. It seems to me you are changing the goal posts because we were talking about whether evolution is a fact. Can we at least discuss that first then? Berlinski is the only one you could claim is agnostic as he doesn't openly state a belief in God. There are not "plenty" of agnostics you can point to. Sure we can discuss the fact of evolution. If that's your idea of changing the goal posts then every single person here is guilty of it. No its actually because they don't want to dignify creation with a response because it would be a propaganda win for the creationist to be seen at the same table as Dawkins or whoever. I know which episode you are referring to. I was cringing for the host, he had no clue. At the end of the show Dawkins said he would be happy to receive an invitation to talk to "their creationist". Yes but I am not stating my position is a fact beyond dispute. We should be able to dispute historical cases, yes? So you were the one that brought in the "evolution is a fact end of debate", rubber stamp. If it's rubber stamped I already feel silly for saying anything to you because you have decided to ignore my arguments against evolution. I didn't say it was a fact beyond dispute, I said beyond reasonable doubt. You haven't presented any evidence against the fact of evolution, just some arguments against the mechanism of evolution, and even that seemed to be based on a strawman of evolution commencing once a complete cell was assembled.
  3. But it seems like only an asserted statement when evolutionists say it is a "fact beyond reasonable doubt". Yet it is clear it isn't to so many people that raise reasonable doubts. Strangely the only people who deny evolution are the ones who literally believe in the writings in some purported holy book. some people even go as far as claiming a flat earth or heliocentrism due to a literal reading of certain passages, it seems to me all part of a continuum. Only by saying God did it which is unfalsifiable. For example God could have created a common genetic code, or a unique code for every organism. The latter would have blown evolution out of the water but the fact of a common code is clearly supportive of common ancestry. If all i ever did was assert and not provide evidence and rational argument for my claims then what you say would be fair, but I don't. Have you decided a creationism is true already or are you open to evolution being a possibility ?
  4. Evolution is the diversity of all species from common ancestors, if that has been overturned then whatever you are calling evolution is not evolution. Evolution theory is the theory Darwin put forward, right? Or have I entered the twilight zone or something? We are talking about descent with modification, yes? Whether the modern synthesis is wrong or not (it isn't, mutations and natural selection are still central to the theory, it has just been augmented in new areas from developmental biology etc.), evolution remains a scientific fact beyond reasonable doubt because of the overwhelming evidence from the various fields of comparative anatomy, palaentology, genetics, biogeography, embryology etc.
  5. Liza seemed to be referring to life as it is now, not the first cell. And genomes weren't in place when evolution began. RNA world seems to be the leading hypothesis where replicators existed before cells It looked very much like she was saying that complex things like you find in a drop water arrived here by random changes, no mention of natural selection. Are you Mike in disguise ? Your writings are pretty much a carbon copy of his style and wording.
  6. hello Liza Hopefully you understand that Natural Selection is not random though, only the mutations underlying it are (or in some cases possibly not) (yes Whatif, I know evolutionary theory has moved on from solely a mathematical population genetics perspective)
  7. I've read the paper by Cherkinsky where he describes his technique. Have you? Yes. He tells you that because of isotopic exchange it is sometimes impossible to date reliably, particularly in carbonate environments. Some bioapatite sources in his paper he describes as reliable, particularly from arid environments like the Sahara. Almost all the material he used is relatively recent, a few thousand years so dates won't be so significantly affected by a few % C14 contamination, unlike infinite age dino bones. The only two older bones, the mammoth from Texas date similar to the "older" dino bones. Cherkinsky says these are in good agreement with the stratigraphy, which suggests this is post Flood according to you. Why aren't they about 4000 yrs old ? Don't baselessly claim C14 was somehow vastly different back then, we have calibration curves as you know. How so ? The honesty I'm talking about is not whether bioapatite can be reliably dated it is your assertion that radiocarbon labs used incorrect methods on the malachite/moab bone material, just because you didn't like the date. You have no basis to make this claim, have you ? No I didn't question your honesty during that particular exchange. That was a good example of an honest, fruitful discussion between us. We did not know the correct conclusion until I found the relevant paper, and showed it to you, at which point I immediately conceded on that particular point. The hadrosaur#2 bone presents the youngest dates (equivalent to about 5% C14) in the entire list. The fact that there are other bones "dated" to up to 39,000 years (only 0.89% C14) shows that the hadrosaur likely had a large fraction of exogenous C14. If all your dino dates all clustered around 39,000 years you might have some sort of case. The only two collagen dates in the list range from about 21,000 to 31,000 years. This is hardly consistent data for your position Dave, instead it is strongly indicative of varying amounts of contamination. You didn't respond to this. Doesn't the variability trouble you at all ? For example, how do you explain different samples of the same bone differing by up to 9000 yrs in that list ?
  8. No, because a different procedure is appropriate when there is no collagen and you are trying to date the carbon that is within the bioapatite. The radiocarbon labs recognize this and their procedures are different. Apparently they did not attempt to use those procedures on malachite man. Unfortunately the bones are no longer accessible for study. I don't like it when you make things up, I prefer honest debate. You don't know that they didn't use the correct procedure for the malachite bones, or can you show me otherwise ? What basis do you have to assert that the lab used the wrong procedure ? The available information is a bit sketchy but the report that includes the 210 yr old 'Moab woman' specimen states that almost all of the radiocarbon dates listed were done on collagen. The 1450 yr old bone was dated using "a sample of organic material" but its not specified exactly in the report what that was, which is unfortunate. Again, I'm struggling to comprehend how you justify the idea of a professional radiocarbon lab failing to remove 97% contamination thereby falsely reporting a 210 yr old date. Do you not even accept the dilemma you have here Dave, since from the other side of your mouth you insist that the same labs are so efficient they can always get rid of a few % contamination, therefore the dino dates are based on actual intrinsic C14. The hadrosaur#2 bone presents the youngest dates (equivalent to about 5% C14) in the entire list. The fact that there are other bones "dated" to up to 39,000 years (only 0.89% C14) shows that the hadrosaur likely had a large fraction of exogenous C14. If all your dino dates all clustered around 39,000 years you might have some sort of case. The only two collagen dates in the list range from about 21,000 to 31,000 years. This is hardly consistent data for your position Dave, instead it is strongly indicative of varying amounts of contamination.
  9. i hate to say this but almost all "evidence" in regards to evolution is highly suspect given what i know. in fact, if it has ANYTHING to do with the modern synthesis i'll reject it out of hand. and that's sad man, really really sad. Would you consider starting a separate topic to discuss the problems you have with the modern synthesis ? I'm not sure what you know that makes you suspicious of the evidence for evolution. Your main argument seems to be your 'allusions to ID" obsession which is a strange argument since the author and reviewers openly discussed the change of wording in the comments of the online paper you are referring to, rather than doing it on the quiet. Its a big fat so what to me.
  10. When we discussed this previously I showed you two independent sources that said that there was no collagen in the bones. And that means that if there was some groundwater penetration, it could easily add modern carbon. If the radiocarbon labs are so perfectly competent, then why did one of the labs have a date of something like three hundred years and the other one had a date of something like 1900 as I recall? As I recall your sources were a forensic scientist who declared there was no collagen by literally smelling a femur (are you that gullible to accept this as a valid test ?) and Armitage who found there was no collagen in a completely different bone but found some insect remains inside. Neither bones were involved in the carbon dating, if I recall correctly from our previous discussions. As for the different dates, well they were from two different bones from different locations within the azurite mine area. Why need they be the same ? Anyway, given that you agree that bones lacking collagen can be easily contaminated and are no good for reliable dates, will you reject all the dates in this table of results that some creationists like to use, apart from the two where collagen is stated ?
  11. Known?...or ADMITTED? They won't admit to what the facts show them because it destroys too much. Before AMS, they could credibly say that very ancient carbon sources like limestone or marble would have no c14 in them but with AMS, where they can count the atoms themselves, that claim could no longer be credibly made so they had to make the bold move of simply DECLARING these objects to have zero carbon 14 and then that would allow them to subtract that amount from all of the samples that they attempted to date. Yep... Make that conspiracy if you want. They had an entire worldview they had to defend. And they figured out that they could make it fly with people who are as gullible as you. Yeah sure Dave, it's all a big conspiracy involving hundreds of scientists. They keep running the blanks and finding big wedges of C14 in it. They know its there but they all keep it a trade secret and there has never been a whistle blower. Before AMS you could still tell if limestone had C14 by getting a big chunk and using a beta counter to check if the amount of electrons detected was higher than the background level over a period of time. Sure it is fine if you want to have a blank and NOT subtract the amount that you obtained from the blank. The funny thing is that if they will use for the blank a substance that does not have carbon, then it NEVER gets any added carbon-14! A steel blank gets 0 Show the study done with a steel blank then. There is always background noise that needs to be accounted for. Of course, it wouldn't make sense to use a steel blank with a sample to be carbon dated because you need a carbon based blank so that the chemical pre treatment process is properly accounted for as a way of introducing C14. Malachite man had zero collagen. Isn't it YOU who has told us that in order to get a valid carbon date, you have to have substantial amounts of collagen? There is no comparison between the amount of collagen found in the mosasaur. They found TONS of it! YOU JUST WANT TO PRETEND IT ISN'T THERE. You do not know that malachite man had no collagen. The two bones dated came at about 250 yrs and about 1450 yrs. It is pure desperation from you that you would claim that the radiocarbon lab was so incompetent that it found 97% or 85% C14 for the two bones and didn't realise this was almost entirely contamination. Do you really believe a professional lab would make that magnitude of error ? Then from the other side of your mouth a dino bone with 3% is now conveniently not contamination according to you. It's just an excuse from you in a limp attempt to bridge the gap between the disparate results of human bones and dino bones that you have to insist are the same age, buried by the same event. Yes there was collagen in the mosasaur. I have never denied that at any point so don't give me nonsense about pretending its not there. What I need is the metrics to show it was not degraded and subject to infiltration from environmental C14, until then you have no leg to stand on. Then you explain for us what the purpose of that test was. Go ahead. EXPLAIN THAT. I say it was that they ran the test NOT expecting to find any c14. The aim of their research was to prove they had endogenous dinosaur tissue and NOT bacteria. They NEVER carbon date dinosaur bones, remember? The only possible reason they wanted to do it this time was because they were looking to eliminate the possibility of modern bacteria. But then they WERE shocked. I've explained what the purpose was several times now, including in this thread, and they tell you in the paper. I don't need to repeat it again. What evidence do you have that they were "shocked". Perhaps a quote or something ? "Exceedingly small"is a nebulous and meaningless relative term. Compared to what? 4.6% modern content is NOT considered exceedingly small to anyone attempting to calculate the date of an old object. Trying to suggest that finding 4.6% of the carbon came from a lot of bacteria would imply that you would find a PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT of bacterial DNA and collagen-LIKE proteins, such as bacterial hopanoids. That wasn't found, but they DID find strong evidence of large amounts of dinosaur collagen. 13%. BTW, if I wrote to Lindgren and asked them what was the percentage of collagen, and they came back and answered 13%, how would that affect you? Maybe the sample carbon dated happened to be a hotspot for bone glue and/or bacteria/fungus and the samples analysed for contaminants happened to have lower amounts. Another possibility is that carbon from the environment cross linked with the bone structure when it was exposed to groundwater in the rock it came from. Higham's metrics would help here. Depends. If it came back with substantial amounts (more than a few %) that would be extremely difficult to explain.
  12. Can YOU go and 'Check' your own post there?? Then you can do some actual READING!!! Is Earth The Center Of The Universe? By piasan, April 5, 2018 in Miscellaneous A simple yes or no would have been more helpful. But I see from your reply to Indy in your next post that you do indeed appear to believe the Earth is motionless and all other celestial bodies spin around us. Did you escape from the same asylum as flat earther Enoch ?
  13. Can I just check that you believe that the Earth is at the centre of everything, including the idea that the sun and planets revolve around us ?
  14. You don't think natural selection acting on random mutations have any role at all ? Have you got any evidence that HGT has been significant since the emergence multicellular life ? Do you think Koonin and the other authorities you cite reject Darwinian processes like you seem to do ?
  15. This has been explained for you many times. Your view about carbon dating is that the atmosphere has been in approximate equilibrium for at least a hundred thousand years and so something which is 5000 years old should have 50% of the modern content. But if the atmosphere was NOT in equilibrium at the time of the flood (Libby, who INVENTED the method said it STILL isn't) then we would not EXPECT objects from that time period to have 50% of modern content. If we could go back in time to measure the amount of carbon-14 in a living organism just before the flood, it might have 5% (or less) of what we would see in a living organism today. There is your answer, for maybe about the fifth or sixth time so quit pretending that you have not been given an answer. Yes you have "explained" it this way before but fabricating a story purely because the observations are completely out of kilter with the ages you need does not mean you get away with not being challenged on it anymore. You are coming up with a baseless assumption that C14 was just a few % of modern in the atmosphere 5000 yrs ago on the back of the assumption that your flood was real and adding the further baseless assumption that such a flood would impact heavily on the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Why do you think that explanation is enough to move on and never need to speak of it again ? In any case we know your story is bunk because we have calibration curves (based on independent dating methods) to account for the small fluctuations in the C14/C12 ratio back to 50,000 yrs ago. Will get back to the rest of your post when I have time.

Important Information

Our Terms