Creation

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
ola
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: home soon

Post by ola »

I'm glad you did and that we can solve this now without a big fight or anything.

We can just leave it at the point that it is interesting and twisting, but whether you believe it or not is your own choice and no one can take that.

Alas, peace restored here. :D
"He's a stranger to some
and a vision to none,
he can never get enough
get enough of the one" 30stm-from yesterday
There are so many sides to life....why should I only have one? :smt084

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

It is hard to imagine for me too that behavior and such can be due to molecules and their interactions. I like to believe that there is something else too, I just find it intriguing how such things can influence behavior and have impact on a person, especially considering how small molecules are.
Hello again Ola, been away for a few days otherwise I'd have responded sooner. Funnily enough, I don't find it hard to imagine the world in terms of molecules and atoms alone. Its the most pre-dominant mode of explanation in the world today. And its not so much that I'd like to believe in something more "grand" or "spiritual" for the human mind - its just that biochemical/ neuroscientific models of the mind are inadequate to the task of explaning mind.

I'm not sure if you've read much on the so called mind-body problem, but the general upshot is that while neuroscience etc are valuable areas of research their contribution to our understanding of human "mind" basically appeals to future advances for its vindication. This is an unsatisfactory position in my view. Appeals to future vindication are no vindication at all. It's not unlike the "god of the gaps" criticism often placed against the intelligent design argument DK examines.

My own personal favourite position is supervenience or epiphenominalism - basically stating that mind is a phenomenon which, while dependent on the presence of certain types of matter in certain complex arrangements, mind is NOT reducible to this matter alone. In other words, in the case of mind the whole is not merely the sum of its parts. This is a simplified stating of the case, but seems intuitively plausible to me.

Anyhow, the science and logic of mind may well be beside the point in the case of good and evil. What constantly amazes me - in myself as well as others - is how easy it is to forget our most natural and instinctive way of viewing the world. The first person perspective is value filled, non-scientific and steeped in the concepts of good and evil. From this viewpoint - that is the most undeniable and self-evident thing in the world to us - there can be no question of the reality of the moral perspective. Funny how we can lose this when we frame the world in our learned scientific/objective viewpoint.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Imaginary Feathers Found on Dinosaur 02/08/2006
The science news outlets are all talking about a new dinosaur with feathers, but where are the feathers? Bjorn Carey at LiveScience said that Guanlong wucaii were “likely covered in feathers” and MSNBC said it was “likely feathered as a chicken.” John Roach on National Geographic News even went so far as to say, “Scientists say the 160-million-year-old animal, which had simple feathers and an elaborate head crest, is the oldest known tyrannosaur” (emphasis added in all quotes).
We went to the source looking for the feathers. The original paper by Xu et al. in Nature1 says nothing about feathers. Neither does the news story about it by Thomas R. Holtz in the same issue of Nature.2 Holtz does mention “feathered dinosaurs” from China, lists “feathered maniraptorans” in passing, and refers to an earlier discovery, Dilong paradoxus, that had some kind of coating that he calls “simple fuzzy ‘protofeathers’” in quote marks. Still no conclusive feathers for Guanlong. The plot thickens in The Case of the Missing Feathers.
The first solution to this mystery is to go back to an Oct. 6, 2004 story in National Geographic about D. paradoxus. This mentions a “at least a partial coat of hairlike feathers” on this small tyrannosaurid, but the description of the feathers is not what most of us picture when we think of a bird feather. These are called “featherlike structures” that apparently were for warmth or insulation, not flight.3 Since Sinosauropteryx had these “featherlike structures”, the discoverer assumed that this new fossil, along with birds, were “all expressions of the same evolutionary change.” Holtz said, “then we have to infer that tyrannosaurids also had some expression of the same trait [feathers].” Yet even these structures on D. paradoxus seem questionable. The article goes on: “The description of Dilong paradoxus is based on the fossils of four specimens, including a fragmented one with evidence of protofeathers—precursors to the feathers found on modern birds.” Then the article speculates on whether T. rex youngsters sported the downy coats, without mentioning any fossil evidence for such a claim.
Back to Guanlong wucaii. Now we have the context for the claims about feathers in the science news articles, despite the absence of the word in the scientific paper. The end of the MSNBC article quotes Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History, one of the co-discoverers of both fossils, who made a big point about the “featherlike structures” on the earlier find. After referring back to Dilong paradoxus, he explains about the new fossil: “Because they’re so closely related [sic], there’s no reason at all to think it didn’t have feathers.” (His museum is the same one with an exhibit that boldly announces to the public, “Birds Are Dinosaurs.”)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Xu et al., “A basal tyrannosauroid dinosaur from the Late Jurassic of China,” Nature 439, 715-718 (9 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04511.
2Thomas R. Holtz Jr., “Palaeontology: A Jurassic tyrant is crowned,” Nature 439, 665-666 (9 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439665a.
3See Jonathan Sarfati’s analysis on AIG #1 and AIG #2. The fossil impressions could be from flayed collagen fibers, not feathers.

This is very strange. Only one specimen of the earlier fossil, a fragmented specimen, had some kind of hairy skin filaments, that were not feathers, but “protofeathers” or “featherlike structures.” Then the new fossil has none at all. One team member leaps from fragmentary evidence to pure imagination in a single bound, assuming evolution relates these two dinosaurs to birds according to a common evolutionary innovation. From there, the news media print color drawings of Gualong coated in colorful plumage, with the word FEATHERS in bold type in the headlines. What is going on here? Why are they doing this to us?
Horsefeathers. They should know better. We are onto their tricks. They are mixing and matching fragments of flimsy evidence to fit a preconceived speculation and market it as fact. For earlier and similar claims, see 05/06/2004 on the questionable museum exhibit, 06/18/2001 on a New Mexico tale, and 08/21/2001 and 10/30/2002 on problems with feather evolution. Mark Robertson on AIG called for more skepticism over the weak claims, and AIG has many other articles on dinosaurs and birds.


From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200602.htm

HulloKitty202
New User
New User
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:28 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by HulloKitty202 »

I am a firm believer in evolution, and I have some questions that I hope you could answer from a Creationist point of view.

1) Were (are) the dinosaurs part of God's plan (Please forgive me if the terminology is incorrect)?
2) How does one explain carbon dating, in terms with your beliefs?
3) How do Creationists feel about human induced extiniction?
4) Why on earth would God create eight other planets, in addition to our own? In addition to that: The Oort Cloud, the Kuiper Belt, and the Asteroid Belt?
"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
-Hobbes from "Calvin and Hobbes"

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Answers:

1: Yes of course dinosaurs where part of God’s plan. God created them.......

2: Well I could post the whole article from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp , but instead I will try to sum it up….by cutting bits from the article…..

“First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are.”

“Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant”

historical calibration can be used…..

“However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies.”

“The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system.”

"Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood."


3: I would think human induced extinction is not good, and should be prevented if possible.

4: One could say for his enjoyment, one could say for our enjoyment. As in people do get enjoyment out of look at the pics of these things…..One could argue and say it is for some future enjoyment that we don’t know about……we creationists don’t claim to know everything about God’s plan……..

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood."
No offence DK but this assertion is largely a tautology and as such is no assertion at all, at least in logical terms.

"carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood can give useful results" - if by 'usefull' one means that those results never go back further than 7000 bc or so?

"it does not give dates of millions of yearsi" - except of course when carbon dating does give us dates of millions of years.

"when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood" - again, only if properly means the assumption of the flood, which is a pretty big assumption to say the least.

No one claims carbon dating is an infallible or exact process. Neither does anyone deny that carbon dating frequently displays striking anomolies or outright contradictions. Such is the nature of fallible science and the time scales involved (or not). However, the spurious results thrown up by carbon dating are every bit as problematic for the creationist as the evoloutionist. I think it is slightly disingenuous to suggest otherwise, but perhaps this hasn't been your intention.

As always, Kind regards,

Omnituton.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

When you of course, use the cut bits and sum up paste method you can end up with the odd problem.....
"it does not give dates of millions of years" - except of course when carbon dating does give us dates of millions of years.
The article also said

"The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old."
from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp

Of course I'm no expert, but that is what the article says...
"carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood can give useful results" - if by 'usefull' one means that those results never go back further than 7000 bc or so?
Yes....
"when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood" - again, only if properly means the assumption of the flood, which is a pretty big assumption to say the least.
It is more than a pretty big assumption, based just on the Bible account.

There is evidence of the flood..It is not just creationists that believe there was a flood...

Go to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... eology.asp

and you will find articles that cover flood evidence....

for instance:

"These columns point to large-scale geological catastrophe. When the basalt lava intruded horizontally, the sand was still wet and unconsolidated. The heat from the molten rock boiled the water immediately above the sill. As a result the water welled up, forming a vertical column through the sandstone. The upward flowing water suspended the sand particles against gravity, causing the sediment to behave like a fluid. Naturally, the flow destroyed the layers of horizontal bedding. Because of this behaviour, the structure has been called a ‘fluidisation pipe’.

It is clear that fluidisation pipes point to large-scale rapid geological processes."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pipes.asp

from one of the articles....on that page...

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Life Didn’t Start on Hot Clay02/13/2006

Strike off one more proposal for the origin of life. “Darwin’s warm pond theory tested,” announced the BBC News, but it was found wanting.
Origin of life researchers have long recognized the serious problem of concentrating organic molecules in a primordial soup such that they could interact and grow. A popular ingredient in the mix in recent years has been clay. Some suggested that organic molecules could adhere to the surfaces of clay minerals and thereby get close enough to join hands. Rather than occurring in the open ocean, they suggested this process might occur in hot springs or at deep sea vents.
David Deamer (UC Santa Cruz) has revealed a difficulty with this proposal; “in our experiments,” he said, “the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions.” That appears to bring the clay scenario to a dead end. “The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into ‘pioneer organisms.’” Deamer is not ruling out the “warm little pond” scenario completely, but his findings dash cold water on hot springs or hydrothermal vents.
The results, not yet published, were presented at an international meeting at the Royal Society to discuss the latest ideas on the origin of life. About 200 were in attendance. Organizer Ian Smith (U of Cambridge) explained the reason for the conference: “Understanding how life emerged on Earth within 1,000 million years of its formation is both a fascinating scientific problem and an essential step in predicting the presence of life elsewhere in the Universe.” Nevertheless, the BBC stated, “While our understanding of the world is rapidly increasing, the answer to how life began on Earth remains elusive.”

Robert Hazen (George Mason U) made a big deal of clay in his recent lecture series for The Teaching Company on the origins of life. He described clays as almost magical surfaces for concentrating organic molecules so that they could polymerize and grow into more suitable building blocks for life. The options are diminishing. Shall we pull that part of the lecture out in the second edition? How about including some discussion of intelligent design, a cause sufficient to explain the observations?

More at http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200602.htm

User avatar
ola
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: home soon

Post by ola »

Well the problem with an intelligent designer you mention, DK, is the question: Assuming there is one, where did he/she/it come from? Who is he/she/it? What is he/she/it?

I can't tell you how everything started exactly, but consider this: DNA is the genetic material in every living organism and the genetic code is nearly universal. Genomics and biotechnology rely on that. This is the reason we don't have to experiment on people to find treatments for them, we can use bacteria...

And about your post where you said that it was found that mutations "wait" silently in the body until their usage, all I can say to that is that this doesn't contradict evolution or anything. It is just the mechanism. A mutation occurs and either it is useful or not and if it isn't useful it will be abolished or just not used until it actually finds a use for itself. Consider that humans have to create new genes(unlike bacteria whos genome is compact since they inject and duplicate it) hence you need excess DNA. Most of our genome are unused introns which have a lot of mutaions in them. As soon as one mutation shows to be useful it pushes through. It might have been there a long time before that.
"He's a stranger to some
and a vision to none,
he can never get enough
get enough of the one" 30stm-from yesterday
There are so many sides to life....why should I only have one? :smt084

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

When you of course, use the cut bits and sum up paste method you can end up with the odd problem
Dear DK,

The Tautology (something which is true if one already assumes the truth of the premises or true by definition) inherent in your argument is not an illusion of a 'cut & paste' method.

Rather, my underlining of given parts of your argument was intended to show where certain controversial assumptions on your part were glossed over. It was not an attempt to misrepresent your argument but rather to point out - correctly I believe, for you have said nothing on the point- that problems in carbon dating are every bit as much a problem for the creationist as for the evoloutionist.

I accept that carbon dating does not yield dates of millions of years (an exaggeration on my part to make my point), but statistically no more than 50,000-60,000 years is possible with this method. Nevertheless, samples from which no dating is possible are indicative of a miniumum 9-10 half-life cycles...and hence dates beyond 60,000 years.

I might also point out that 'cut & paste' is also a very useful device for making an argument seem more sound than it actually is i.e. as in pasting parts of articles as a responce to questions that are not dealt with.

Sincerely

Omnituton.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

I create a problem, which I did not realise....my bad..... :wink:

The first point in that post was only related to the millions of years, not the rest of what was in the post after that......

By doing the cut and paste I had left out why it does not give millions of years....that was my point....my only point....in that first bit

Therefore I should try to go back and edit that post somehow to clear that up....

Clearly info on the flood and any evidence was not cover in the article so posting the whole article would not have help in anyway to cover that point.....that did not mean there was none....however.....
The Tautology (something which is true if one already assumes the truth of the premises or true by definition) inherent in your argument is not an illusion of a 'cut & paste' method.
Yes this is true.....
correctly I believe, for you have said nothing on the point- that problems in carbon dating are every bit as much a problem for the creationist as for the evoloutionist.
Yes I have not said anything on that point you made, no doubt it is problem, but again the problem goes both ways, some don’t realise there are any problems…..

glossed over

Yes certain parts where "glossed over".

One reason was as I have said, the article did not cover certain things.....like evidence for the flood.....no doubt they could have cover evidence, but to do so in full detail would have taken pages and pages....I do not know why they did cover any evidence in brief, that was there call....

The cut and paste method is useful, not everyone wants to read long articles....people on this site before have complained about the length of some of the stuff I post......

Also I just what to give a brief overview, instead of getting into all the ins and outs.....I view it as giving a brief outline of the main points instead of a full out lengthy explanation....
I might also point out that 'cut & paste' is also a very useful device for making an argument seem more sound than it actually is i.e. as in pasting parts of articles as a responce to questions that are not dealt with.
I can see you point.....so therefore I should post the full "Fluidisation pipes: evidence of large-scale watery catastrophe", article......

Along with all the other articles in full detail. .not cutting them in anyway.......that would be a lengthy post....... or I could have post bits from all the articles on the page, but then you would have said what you said....so that was not a solution.....or maybe I should not have posted that bit......maybe just links to the articles, but hey done that..... but hey done one link to all the articles.......

Of course I also know that people don't always click on the links I put up....hence they will not read the articles unless I post them here...just posting a link to articles does not usually do much…....then some people don't what to read the full lengthy articles that I post here, while others what the whole article......

Hence covering the flood evidence in all it's ins and outs creates problems, and not posting enough creates problems....

I was making a point that there was evidence, however that evidence along with any evidence about anything can be debated in length....it was a brief point....that was all, If I had just said there was evidence, someone could have said what evidence....

......will the problems never end.....

I hope I have not offend anyone, I don't what to seem to hard on anyone.......

User avatar
omnituton
New User
New User
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: Ireland

Post by omnituton »

Dear DK,

Thanks for your lengthy reply and I assure you you have not offended me. If I might make a suggestion, I believe it would be better if you only referenced these articles and provided a link to them. This way people who are genuinely interested in the topic will research the information leaving you free to express your views on the evidence. All you need do is state in your own words the relevence and/or importance of that evidence. This also has the added benefit of preventing confusion over what exactly are your views and those of your sources.

As indicated, my primary difficulty with your original post was that it tended to portray the uncertainty inherent in Carbon dating techniques as prima facie evidence for creation theory while also suggesting that the ambiguities that occur from time to time with carbon dated samples can only be resolved by assuming the truth of certain creationist beliefs.

This is why I believe it important to point out that problems in carbon dating are every bit as much a problem for the creationist as for the evoloutionist. The ambiguities of carbon dating are ambiguities inherent in the technique itself - not a result of evoloutionist bias that are simply resolved if one takes a creationst perspective on the procedure.

I've never doubted your bona fide in your endeavour or your passion for the subject but it's a simple truth that you can't forward all your research every time you make an observation. Personally, it's your perspective and interpretation that I'm more interested in hearing. The research I'll happily sift through in my own time if the links are present. But I warn you (in a friendly manner!) - if you make a claim that I think goes beyond your evidence, I will bring you up on it. No doubt, you will extend me the same courtesy - as per my millions of years exaggeration.

As always,

Kind regards,

Omnituton

Post Reply