Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... >

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,22:57    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,22:19) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis All very interesting. But on reflection, the following questions occur to me: 1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege? Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction? Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go. 2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth? Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues and are not young? Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus") Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope (not a heading but a statement) Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs DNA and protein isolation from the 290 million year-old amphibian Discosauriscus austriacus and applications of biotechnology in palaeontology In the March 25, 2005, issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her co-authors reported the discovery of intact blood vessels and other soft tissues in demineralized bone from a 65- million-year–old specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex housed at the Museum of the Rockies (MOR). This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years How do you know that these unmineralized fossils are to old to be dated directly. That’s circularly SSIK

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,05:37    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:57) This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years Quote “I have no idea. But since we don’t know very much about why things become fossils in the first place, that’s not surprising. What we do know is that this particular fossil is 65 million years old.” Yawn. We do know one thing for sure. It's much much older then 6000 years... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,06:30    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,23:57) Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues and are not young? Because we read more than the headlines, Tardbucket. You should try it sometime. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,06:50    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,23:57) Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues ... <snip further evasions> You've lost the thread of our exchange. Due to your evasiveness, there really isn't much to it. A month ago I asked for a clarification concerning a contradiction between your cite of events ("explosions") that purportedly occurred during various ecological eras and epochs, and your implied assertion that these eras never occurred at all:   Quote Is it your belief that these geological eras occurred, complete with exploding diversity, but that dinosaurs did not live during those eras? Is it therefore your belief that the evidence (the geological column, radiometric dating, etc.) in fact correctly establishes the existence of those eras, yet the evidence that associates dinosaurs with those eras - grounded in the same geology and physics - is completely mistaken? You denied the reality of those epochs, repeating something about "eco zones," some of which existed before and some after the flood. Because you anchored your description of these "eco zones" to "the flood," I asked for a further clarification:   Quote Entering your frame of reference, when was the flood, relative to which these eras were 'ante' and 'post'? You ignored/evaded this question, asked in various forms for a many days, and never did give a straight answer. But at long last you did mutter:   Quote I answered honestly the question about the date of the Flood when I said no human really knows until he gets to heaven. Its and inhouse debate but I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old In response to your reported belief that the world is probably under 20,000 years old, and recalling your earlier assertions regarding errors in radiometric dating, I then asked:   Quote Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values? For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light. Is that your belief? You ignored and evaded this question for many more days and countless further repetitions. At long last you mumbled:   Quote Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off. I now ask, for perhaps the 20th time: 1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege? Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction? Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go. 2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,07:10    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:07) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24)   Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)     Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)     Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because ....... Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... " So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world? The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1.  Rain. 2.  Flooding. 3.  Rapid sediment deposits. 4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5.  Forests grow underwater. 6.  More sediment deposits. 4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. all in 40 days? They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc. Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'?  Pretty please. I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!! well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion. However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics? So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark? So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form?   Quote So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) That's where you want to go with this?  If not, then you need to try explaining yourself.  One line answers are not explanations. Since this isn't really a discussion, I am compelled to ask you what you think exploded and what scientists think exploded? Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words.  But you can't because you're scared.  It's OK. edit to add reference -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,08:31    Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit? He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut. I don't see the attraction. he's like a pet, maybe. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,08:41    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2011,08:31) Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit? He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut. I don't see the attraction. he's like a pet, maybe. One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,09:16    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? What about those blokes who "went" to Mars then? Sort of a boat. They don't seem to have come back as long lived giants! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,09:38    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 03 2011,09:16) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? What about those blokes who "went" to Mars then? Sort of a boat. They don't seem to have come back as long lived giants! :p I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,10:13    Something else you've never answered: How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation?  Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now.  If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach: 1.  you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of. 2.  you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct. Which is it? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,11:41    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:11) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21)   Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. That's not an explanation, it's handwaving. You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such. You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially. You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis.  You have six. Ah, The IDiot is back. Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to.  Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases).  Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae). All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Sounds like somebody is singing "We didn't start the fire", and is even less coherent. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,12:02    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand. And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method. Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,12:07    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis Not according to the scientists who have actually studied such things. You're trying to claim that some effects make radiometric dating wildly inaccurate, by six orders of magnitude, under terrestrial conditions. Asserting that this happens is just BS; let's see the evidence. Of course, you have no evidence. You think radiometric dating is wrong solely because you don't like the results. Again, reality doesn't care what you like or don't like.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,12:48    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:07)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24)     Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46)     Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05)       Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because ....... Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... " So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian?  Do those rocks just not exist in your world? The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle.  So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1.  Rain. 2.  Flooding. 3.  Rapid sediment deposits. 4.  Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5.  Forests grow underwater. 6.  More sediment deposits. 4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. all in 40 days? They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc. Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'?  Pretty please. I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!! well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion. However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics? So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark? So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form?   Quote So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) That's where you want to go with this?  If not, then you need to try explaining yourself.  One line answers are not explanations. I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse. One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room. Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words.  But you can't because you're scared.  It's OK. edit to add reference Actually I mentioned multiple epigenetic phenomena over several pages so why the one little snippet? A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,12:54    Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) Something else you've never answered: How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation?  Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now.  If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach: 1.  you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of. 2.  you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct. Which is it? I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point?

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,13:05    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand. And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method. Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but  I  cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time.  Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,14:20    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,13:05) Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. Can you explain the observed data in terms of a 6000 year old universe then? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,14:21    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:48) A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects So therefore how long, according to you, until they revert back to the biblical cat "kind"? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,14:28    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. Which doesn't respond to my questions. But here is a new question for you to evade, which we will add to the others: How many millions of years must pass to culminate in the radiometric "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,15:33    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand. And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method. Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. No, you have not even attempted to cite proof that contamination is a problem. Measurements, sonny-boy, Data. The dreaded mathematical analysis. That's what's required. Not vague allegations without support. Plus, anyone claiming that contamination is a problem has to explain the big picture; the consilience between wildly different methods, radiometric and non-radiometric. Oh, "They're all liars in a world-wide conspiracy" isn't an explanation. Quote you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but  I  cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time.  Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. {ETA} You haven't cited any instances of decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions. All the physics we know, and it's a lot, tells us that there has been no noticeable, much less significant, change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years. "Perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems. And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links? Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,16:06    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:48) So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark? So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form?     Quote So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) That's where you want to go with this?  If not, then you need to try explaining yourself.  One line answers are not explanations. I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse. One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room. Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words.  But you can't because you're scared.  It's OK. edit to add reference[/quote] Actually I mentioned multiple epigenetic phenomena over several pages so why the one little snippet? A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects Can you PLEASE focus.  Geez, you're worse than actually herding cats (and I've actually done it). We're not talking about all your previous stuff on epigenetics.  We are looking at a SPECIFIC claim that you JUST made. Your claim is that all[/] variation in [b]every population of organisms on the planet is based on epigenetics. Since, by definition, epigenetics is reversible, then we must be able to go from any modern species back to the Noah's ark version. This is simply a requirement of your claim... unless you would like to modify your claim at this time... please answer it. Now, you have one huge, epic issue that you cannot explain with epigenetics. The 673 HLA-A alleles in the human species.  These are known to be non-epigenetic.  These are different alleles, not different interpretations of alleles because of environmental factors.   You said you were happy with 2250BC as the date of Noah's flood. You absolutely must explain how the entire human population added 1 new allele every 7 years (roughly).  Begin. BTW: What exploded?  What do scientists say exploded? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,17:34    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,11:02) Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. Thou shalt not asketh too mucheth!!!!!!!!

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,19:52    Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers! We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation: where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science. (Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.) And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian. But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years? 10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years. 100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity. Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,20:23    Quote 100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity. Ah, but as long as the heat intensity stays below the melting point of the material in that rock, then... !!!!!!!!!!

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,20:57    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers! We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation: where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science. (Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.) And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian. But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years? 10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years. 100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity. Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.) This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time.  The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time.  (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.) For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years? So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that? I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require.  I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it. Regardless, I can make some predictions.  Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed. So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time. And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop.  We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors.  And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.   Wow.  Scary stuff... But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles.  That's gonna be creepy as hell. Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin.  In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on. All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant. I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot.  Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions.  The Big Bang really was a fission explosion. The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2011,21:10    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2011,09:31) Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit? He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut. I don't see the attraction. he's like a pet, maybe. -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,00:11    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,17:52) Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers! Fuck "numbers"! Do some DATA! "Are Constants Constant?" -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,08:57    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,21:57)   Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers! We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation: where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science. (Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.) And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian. But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years? 10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years. 100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity. Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.) This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time.  The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time.  (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.) For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years? So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that? I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require.  I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it. Regardless, I can make some predictions.  Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed. So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time. And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop.  We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors.  And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.   Wow.  Scary stuff... But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles.  That's gonna be creepy as hell. Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin.  In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on. All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant. I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot.  Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions.  The Big Bang really was a fission explosion. The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. I suppose I could do the numbers for your scenario, but IMHO it's not worth it. The typical creo "scenario" for accelerated nuclear decay is fast decay before life is created, normal decay between the creation of life and Noye's Fludde, accelerated decay during the Fludde (when the water would supposedly shield the animals on ye arke), then normal decay thereafter. There's an infinite number of versions of that scenario. And it is contradicted by the fact that radiometric ages match the deeper-is-older rule ... all the flood strata (presumably all the strata above the initial Fludde stratum)  should date to the same age. The other interesting problem with that scenario is that we have an eentsy-weentsy amount of 40K in our bodies. Any accelerated decay sufficient to make a lot of the post-Cambrian strata into Fludde strata would kill all the animals from inside. From the RATE group, Summary of Evidence for a Young Earth from the RATE Project:   Quote However, at second glance there is a problem. It turns out shielding from the increased radiation dose from outside the Ark is not sufficient. Noah and his family may have had sources of radiation within their own bodies. For example, plants and animals today contain 40K, which is radioactive. If nuclear decay rates were accelerated to the levels the RATE group believes occurred during the Genesis Flood, the radiation dose from similar levels of 40K within Noah’s body likely would have been lethal. One solution has been offered that possibly could mitigate this problem—namely, that the 40K we measure in plants and animals today is the result of the Genesis Flood itself. The RATE team believes an attempt should be made to test for 40K in the bodies of pre-Flood insects which were trapped in amber during the Genesis Flood and were thereby protected from subsequent contamination. Talk about an ad-hoc-hypothesis! No 40K in living creatures before the Fludde! Of course, nobody's done such a study, bet they know what it would show.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,09:17    Oops.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2011,09:30    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand. And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method. Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but  I  cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time.  Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. I've got a little free time waiting for something to finish .... let's take a look at all the messages from ol' forastero which contain the word "contamination". Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,04:40) Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:10) Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating{sic} Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,05:20) You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) Oh and contamination is also still a problem Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,20:37) Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58) Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,00:14) Btw, according to "geologists" nuclear decay is most always defined as random as is often the case with fluctuations in solar flares, the magnetic field, cosmic rays, isotope contamination by flash floods, quantum tunneling, radioisotopic substitutions, etc.. etc.. etc... Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,01:55) Isochron is a dating method based on radioisotpic decay and why have you continually avoided answering how on earth it is calibrated and avoids contamination? Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:02) Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking  you about Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38) Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination. It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations. Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15) Finally, not only does your Isochron dating (like with your Argon) dating suffer contamination from various sources before and during crystallization, but igneous rocks have unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios. Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33) Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years   Its proven though that Radiometric dating has much greater problems than fluctuating decay rates. For instance the dinosaur soft tissues. The calibrating errors and circular reasoning involved in calibration. Fluctuating production of radioisotopes. Contamination from various sources. Igneous rocks having unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios. Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19) Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:07) So called millions of years of sedimentary and magma mixing, flooding, erosion, and uplift, yet no contamination in the rocks? Nah, just more more radiomagic formula waving from crony academicism. Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56) Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21) All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks? Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions,  contamination, oscillations in  energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions,  chemicals etc... Its  the quantum tunneling  we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis So, sonny boy, which one of those messages is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? I don't see a single piece of data or cite of any study in the whole shebang. Wotta maroon!!

Pages: (51) < ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard