Free anti-evolution seminar coming to town

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh Joy!! And here are some thoughts from the "dr."nor does the geological and pale ontological data support evolution over long periods of time, but rather implies Catastrophism which is consistent with the Genesis account.

Professor Veith is deeply interested in the ecological deterioration of our planet and is convinced that this state of affairs has been predicted in Biblical prophecy. He is an ardent student of Biblical prophecy and the veracity of the Bible, which he believes is proved by the science of archaeology as well as the fulfillment of numerous prophecies found in the Bible. He believes that the Bible has a message to modern man. Professor Veith's many lectures on all of his topics, including the Bible ones, are available on video, and viewers find them unique, eye-opening, and controversia

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/walter.html

He got his degree in Africa in 1979.

4 free days of misinformation. Yay! It's called "The Genesis Conflict".

Does anyone have any more information on his theories. I'm not interested in buying the darn books he writes.

[Eos of the Eons]

No model of origins can supply all the answers, particularly if our knowledge of many biochemical and genetic mechanisms is still so incomplete. The creationist model does, however supply many plausible answers to some of the many questions that plague us in terms of origins. There will be areas where faith must supply the lack of knowledge, but the same is true for the evolutionary paradigm. In the final analysis, both paradigms thus require faith. The question that everyone must ask himself is, which of the two requires more faith?

http://www.jodkowski.pl/wk/WJVeith.html


Okay, found that argument...
We haven't discovered everything yet, so the answer is goddittit?

There's tons of strawman arguments. We don't consider marsupials "primitive" just because they appeared on the scene before other mammals like placentals. Some marsupials are still alive, and we don't consider them "primitive". Sheesh. Seems he likes to put derogatory words into other evolutionary scientist's mouths.

I'm looking into this because I'm considering writing a letter to the editor on what to/what not to expect at this guy's free seminar. I'm sure he's selling books and tapes, of course...but I'm sure he's more interested in the spread of misinformation-much like the IDers.

Here's an argument I don't really understand:

To sum up: The organismic genome is endowed with an
enormous capacity for variation. Under conditions of stress,
or where organism enter new adaptive zones or low selective
pressures there are even built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation.

These findings are consistent with the creation model, and the palaeontological record. After the deluge, precisely such a situation existed. The new adaptive zone that was to be reoccupied required extraordinary adaptive potential.
The palaeontological record reveals great variety of form
and structure of organisms in what we have classified as
post-floor deposits. The large mammals with the extremes in
variation such as the woolly mammoths and sabre-tooth
tigers are just some examples. Moreover, given this
tremendous potential for change, and the obvious relationship
between even species with totally different chromosome
numbers, a situation can be envisaged where a relatively
small number of "kinds" can account for large number of
"species" in a very short time. For those with faith in the
Biblical account of the ark, the problem of fitting the
animals into the ark would no longer seem as daunting. Not all
the antelope species had to be on board just a few
representative kinds.



" built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation"

What is he talking about? Some great enhanced mutation rates? What about all the species that die that can't adapt? The gods didn't like them?

Has there been a great flood that covered the entire planet? Where did all the water come from and go back to in such a short period of time?

Please help me with a discussion on this...
Thanks,
Eos

[hammegk]

Gee, Eos, you should attend. Afraid you might learn something that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions?

[Eos of the Eons]

Gee, like my preconcieved notion that a massive flood over the entire planet is virtually impossible unless some great global warming melted the polar caps suddenly, and then just as suddenly froze them up again in only 40 days? Gee, sorry for thinking this must take a few thousand years instead of only 40 days.

What is your problem with logical arguments hammy? Beat it, I would prefer a discussion with those that can bring something to a discussion which involves some reality.

Edited to add...paradigm? He goes on about some paradigm requiring faith with evolution. He seriously suggests that there is not enough proof for evolution? Or is it that further study requires faith? I don't get his paradigm point...so can't effectively argue it...help!

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Gee, like my preconcieved notion that a massive flood over the entire planet is virtually impossible unless some great global warming melted the polar caps suddenly, and then just as suddenly froze them up again in only 40 days? Gee, sorry for thinking this must take a few thousand years instead of only 40 days.

And even then the amount of water wouldn't be close to flooding all the landmass on the planet... But anyone who chooses to actually look at the facts knew this already, of course.

That, and hundreds of other problems with "Noah's flood" (not the least being that there is not a single real evidence for it), makes it pretty clear that this Veith is a fraud, incapable of bringing anything relevant to the discussion except by accident. No wonder hammegk likes him, Eos.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Gee, like my preconcieved notion that a massive flood over the entire planet is virtually impossible unless some great global warming melted the polar caps suddenly, and then just as suddenly froze them up again in only 40 days? Gee, sorry for thinking this must take a few thousand years instead of only 40 days.
I'd say 10's or 100's of thousands, but who's counting ... ;)

What is your problem with logical arguments hammy?
Logic is wonderful -- unless your axioms don't withstand scrutiny.


Beat it, I would prefer a discussion with those that can bring something to a discussion which involves some reality.
I.E. agrees with Eos. :p

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Hawk one
And even then the amount of water wouldn't be close to flooding all the landmass on the planet... But anyone who chooses to actually look at the facts knew this already, of course.

That, and hundreds of other problems with "Noah's flood" (not the least being that there is not a single real evidence for it), makes it pretty clear that this Veith is a fraud, incapable of bringing anything relevant to the discussion except by accident. No wonder hammegk likes him, Eos.

Thank you, that's what I'm looking for. How much water would be required to add to the planet to cause such a flood? How to argue some crazy point that goddit and just took the water back out to a comet or something? What other problems with the flood.

The prof argues the flood happens via "zoology" without even proving the flood happened. I don't know if it would be worth it to argue how it couldn't happen...

How to argue his crazy points about the
" built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation"


Do I have a point about all the species that have gone extinct?

Since life began, about 99 percent of the earth's species have disappeared
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/english.htm

Or is it a moot point to the zoologist's arguments? I'm still not sure I understand his arguments.

Nobody needs to agree with me Hammy, just help with facts. You never have any, so beat it. I'm 100% certain you can't prove the flood happened either.

[fishbob]

hammy - is listening to nonsense for 4 days somehow supposed to make you smarter? It might be fun to go and ask difficult questions - if you have the time. I don't.

These findings are consistent with the creation model, and the palaeontological record. That is a complete fabrication.

After the deluge, precisely such a situation existed. Except there is no evidence for a one-time world-wide deluge - so another fabrication.

The palaeontological record reveals great variety of form and structure of organisms in what we have classified as
post-floor deposits. I assume he means 'post-flood'. It would be interesting to see how he has classified organisms as pre-flood vs post-flood.

a situation can be envisaged where a relatively
small number of "kinds" can account for large number of
"species" in a very short time. For those with faith in the
Biblical account of the ark, the problem of fitting the
animals into the ark would no longer seem as daunting. Not all
the antelope species had to be on board just a few
representative kinds. How much time is 'very short'? How did pronghorns get to Texas and ibex get to Africa from Turkey in this 'very short time'? How did bushmasters and copperheads and pythons and the deadly mamba get to their various habitats in this 'very short time'?

PS - even if all the ice melted, there would still not be enough flood the entire world. If I recall correctly, there would be something like a 200 foot rise in sea level - not even enough water to float to the foot of Mt Ararat.

[fishbob]

Veith is an ICR guy.
ref (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_veith)

ICR = Institute for Creation Research:
ICR home page (http://www.icr.org/)

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ� (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

Also from ICR - these guys are not above outright lying to support their cause: ICR president's column (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2032) The recent discovery of dinosaur soft parts (see page 5) has spawned much interest among scientists. The deposit in which the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil was found is dated at 70 million years. Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels. . . . Faced with the implications of this discovery, secular evolutionists are scrambling to suggest a way soft tissue can be completely preserved in pristine condition . . . (my bold) A bunch of little lies makes for a big fat liar.

[Eos of the Eons]

Really good...

Yes, when exactly was the flood, and how does one determine a pre-flood model of animal from a post-flood? Where did the ark land and does his elephant hypothesis really support elephant migration/speciation from that point?

We must assume the entire planet was NOT flooded then...there's no way all the mountains could have been under water.
even if all the ice melted, there would still not be enough flood the entire world. If I recall correctly, there would be something like a 200 foot rise in sea level - not even enough water to float to the foot of Mt Ararat.

Thank you!

How much time is 'very short'? How did pronghorns get to Texas and ibex get to Africa from Turkey in this 'very short time'? How did bushmasters and copperheads and pythons and the deadly mamba get to their various habitats in this 'very short time'?

I wish I did have time to attend and ask these very questions.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Thank you, that's what I'm looking for. How much water would be required to add to the planet to cause such a flood? How to argue some crazy point that goddit and just took the water back out to a comet or something? What other problems with the flood.

The prof argues the flood happens via "zoology" without even proving the flood happened. I don't know if it would be worth it to argue how it couldn't happen...

How to argue his crazy points about the
" built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation"


Do I have a point about all the species that have gone extinct?


http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/english.htm

Or is it a moot point to the zoologist's arguments? I'm still not sure I understand his arguments.

Nobody needs to agree with me Hammy, just help with facts. You never have any, so beat it. I'm 100% certain you can't prove the flood happened either.


Hmmm, if I were to write the letter, I'd first of all establish how the "goddiddit" argument is not science, because of the usual reasons (untestable, unfalsifiable, evidence to the contrary shows God to be a liar.) Then point out a few scientific problems with the socalled flood hypothesis.

Try to use the kind of problems the layman understands. Tae for example a zoo in your area, and point out how much it takes to simply keep the animals in there alive, not to mention healthy and capable of breeding. And there's usually a lot less of animals in the zoo than supposedly were in the ark, even with that bovine exrement "kinds" scenario he's representing

Point out how much water the ice at the polar caps and Greenland is capable of covering, should they hypothetically melt within days (which they can't be). I am not sure exactly how high this is, but according to memories from Global Warming alarms, it'd be about 100-150 metres (better look up the real estimation somewhere, I'm sure it exists out there.)

Don't bother too much with the 99% exctinction deal. People like Veith will "retaliate" by saying the devil's responible or some crap like that.

"There will be areas where faith must supply the lack of knowledge, but the same is true for the evolutionary paradigm." <--- Also point out how this is a strawman. The only way to deal with lack of knowledge is to fill that hole. Faith - as in believing in things without a lack of evidence - is precicely the opposite of what science is about, and thus has no place in the theory of evolution. The fact that he's basing his "hypothesis" on faith shows that he's not attacking this from a scientific angle, since faith can and will be used by creeationists to ignore all evidence to their contrary, as well as getting the excuse for saying "goddidit" when they don't know something. While real scientists will start doing their best to fill that gap of knowledge with what happens to be the facts, no matter which way the facts turn.

After that... I don't know. Point out some of the evidence of evolution. Give lots of references. Explain that evolution is something you need to study for months to understand properly, and isn't something that can be fully explained in a 4-day seminar.

Hope this might be of any help in organising the layout of your letter. ;)

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by fishbob
Veith is an ICR guy.
ref (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci_veith)

ICR = Institute for Creation Research:
ICR home page (http://www.icr.org/)



Also from ICR - these guys are not above outright lying to support their cause: ICR president's column (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2032) (my bold) A bunch of little lies makes for a big fat liar.

I am seeing him as a liar...it's pointing that out and making it obvious that will be the hard part. This is helping, thank you!

Soft tissue found? Where, how, etc....I've yet to find a news story, the links are broken on the fundy wiki site.A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

I don't understand the creationist excitement over this. It was found in sandstone...and is 70 million years old. How is this an argument for a young earth??

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Hawk one

After that... I don't know. Point out some of the evidence of evolution. Give lots of references. Explain that evolution is something you need to study for months to understand properly, and isn't something that can be fully explained in a 4-day seminar.

Hope this might be of any help in organising the layout of your letter. ;)

This is such a bad week for this. The seminar is next week...and I'll give you the subjects:

-The earth in time and space
-The universal flood
-Bones in Stones
-Where mammals Reigned
-Genes of Genesis
-Creation to Restoration
-A day to remember
-The spade unearths the truth.

I'm dying to know what the subject matter is! He has spoken elsewhere. I'll be searching the net for reviews.

Thanks for all the help so far...I have to get my kids to a b-day party.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I don't understand the creationist excitement over this. It was found in sandstone...and is 70 million years old. How is this an argument for a young earth??
Argument from ignorance - with a few lies mixed in. From the ICR President's column:
Indeed, it is hard to imagine how soft tissue could have lasted even 5,000 years or so since the Flood of Noah's day when creationists propose the dinosaur was buried. Such a thing could hardly happen today, for soft tissue decays rather quickly under any condition. Clearly, non-uniform processes must have been involved.

Another ICR whopper: just plain wrong stuff (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842) Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old.

[fishbob]

Motive:

On most - if not all - of the ICR web pages, near the top of the page, in high contrast burnt orange - is Donate to ICR Online

ICR is grateful for and well-equipped to receive gifts of publicly traded stocks and mutual funds. Please call using our Director of Stewardship and Trust Services' direct line, . . . .

Checks and/or money orders may be made payable to
Institute for Creation Research or "ICR"
and mailed to . . .

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, the angle I'm thinking of so far, with the help here, is...if you go see this guy you won't get science because...

His hypothesis is not based on facts, his "research" is not science...etc.

I'm too tired right now to gather information. I want to get this done by Wednesday if possible.

But a)
If I'm to talk about the flood and the proposed pre/post flood animals, is there a date via the bible that can be pinpointed for the flood happening? Then maybe I can point out how there is virtually no change in spcecies and their distribution around the world...and point out how dinos WEREN'T around because...

The guys seems to base his whole life's work around the flood and seems to want to prove it using genetics etc. If I can pinpoint when the flood supposedly happened I can show how he misuses science to support his hairbrained hypotheses.

I just found this:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/antichrist.html

It's rather hilarious...his claims about NATO
The Anti-Christ Revealed


...A united Europe would be a Catholic Europe, as the majority of the nations are Catholic. Obstacles in the path of unification would be countries with Protestant Constitutions, such as Great Britain

mmmhmmm

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, anybody know much on the topic of dna and latency?

Naked mole rats, if the ecological circumstances get tough, respond with a whole host of drastic rearrangements of their genetic material, so-called “jumping genes� doing their thing. This creates a far greater variety in the offspring, which of course has an effect on selection.

‘I think that organisms were endowed with a great capacity for variation, and that we haven’t begun to figure out all the mechanisms in the latent DNA. Evolutionists have tried to write this DNA off as leftover “junk�, but it is increasingly recognized as playing an important (though still largely unknown) role.’



http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/professing_creation.asp

From what little I know, it sounds like things are being misconstrued...

Tooth structure is not a good indicator. The panda bear is classified on the basis of its tooth structure as a carnivore

Okay...so they have no molars for chewing???For example, island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.

Okayyyy...within generations or because they lose fat and water??

[Dymanic]

Naked mole rats, if the ecological circumstances get tough, respond with a whole host of drastic rearrangements of their genetic material, so-called 'jumping genes' doing their thing. This creates a far greater variety in the offspring, which of course has an effect on selection.

I think that organisms were endowed with a great capacity for variation, and that we haven’t begun to figure out all the mechanisms in the latent DNA. Evolutionists have tried to write this DNA off as leftover 'junk', but it is increasingly recognized as playing an important (though still largely unknown) role.

Veith is invoking 'multiplication of mysteries' here. Naked mole rats are mysterious. Transposons are mysterious. His target audience is likely to be too busy being fascinated by the implications contained in his comments to notice that he doesn't offer a shred of evidence to support the claim that transposons play any greater role in naked mole rat genetics than in any other mammal, or explained how their 'jumping into action' benefits the rats. Transposons are mutagens, and are usually associated with disease. The DNA is a battlefield between transposons and the mechanisms organisms have evolved to suppress them, and many biologists feel that much of the 'junk DNA' represents a collection of broken relics from this battle.

Talking out of both sides of his face, Veith acknowledges that the role of transposons is not fully known, yet he speaks as if that lack of knowledge somehow supports the creationist cause (he's right in one sense, ignorance always does that). If he's betting that new evidence will support the creationist viewpoint, he must not have noticed that it's never happened yet.

island deer have been seen to respond to a scarcity of resources by decreasing their body size, by as much as two-thirds.
Insular dwarfism is a widely observed phenomenon (see "Foster's rule"). Unfortunately, it is often described as: "a response to a scarcity of resources". This phaseology not only ignores several other factors (such as lighter predation), but it takes on board an assumption which has been tried before in evolutionary biology and found utterly wanting. The idea's original author was Jean Baptiste Lamark.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Oh Joy!! And here are some thoughts from the "dr."

He got his degree in Africa in 1979.



Me too!
:D

[Floyt]

How to argue his crazy points about the
" built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation"


To me that sounds strangely like punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium), which is weird because creationists stealing from S.J. Gould is like Randi quoting Scripture :D

My guess is he's mistaking PunkEek for catastrophism. Might actually be a good field to slay him on!

[lylfyl]

To sum up: The organismic genome is endowed with an
enormous capacity for variation. Under conditions of stress,
or where organism enter new adaptive zones or low selective
pressures there are even built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation.
Well.... he could be talking about something like the SOS repair system in bacteria. Under intense UV conditons, bacteria can turn on an error-prone DNA replication, which causes DNA to be copied inaccurately, inducing a large number of mutations. Don't know if there is a eukaryotic analogue.

Although, the rest of the sentence makes me laugh. Really, there's a mechanism for variation when there's low selective pressure? Isn't that evolution? If there is no selective pressure, random mutations that would normally be selected against, are allowed to breed and spread. Mutation increases variations and species. Natural selection removes the bad ones.

[Jas]

Is he coming to Calgary? How exciting!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lylfyl
Well.... he could be talking about something like the SOS repair system in bacteria. Under intense UV conditons, bacteria can turn on an error-prone DNA replication, which causes DNA to be copied inaccurately, inducing a large number of mutations. Don't know if there is a eukaryotic analogue.

The first example that comes to mind is the somatic hypermutation engine that is at the heart of our antibodies' affinity maturation.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jas
Is he coming to Calgary? How exciting!

Uh-huh, and doubtless well worth the price.

[Jas]

Yay!

Although I couldn't see anything on the site for a Calgary date, does anyone know it?

[tracer]

Originally posted by Hawk one
And even then [if the polar ice caps completely melted] the amount of water wouldn't be close to flooding all the landmass on the planet...
DO NOT QUESTION THE WISDOM OF WATERWORLD!

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm so distracted by my PARE run coming up that I can't focus one bit. Do I bother? Will I just encourage more people to go? Maybe I should attend at least one night and then write a critique. This background will help with that. His target audience is likely to be too busy being fascinated by the implications contained in his comments to notice that he doesn't offer a shred of evidence to support the claim that transposons play any greater role in naked mole rat genetics than in any other mammal, or explained how their 'jumping into action' benefits the rats. Transposons are mutagens, and are usually associated with disease. The DNA is a battlefield between transposons and the mechanisms organisms have evolved to suppress them, and many biologists feel that much of the 'junk DNA' represents a collection of broken relics from this battle.

Thank you thank you thank you! I'm wondering if my lack of knowledge will just make me look like a fly trying to take down an elephant. I only have some first year courses, and this zoologist is far more sophisticated, though somewhat deluded. Thanks everyone for their help.

I think I will wait to attend one session at least.

[Jas]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I'm so distracted by my PARE run coming up that I can't focus one bit.

Are you applying for the police?

[Eos of the Eons]

You got me! I just got home. I passed with 3 seconds to spare and 2 skinned shins! I got one 5 second mat penalty for touching the 5 foot mat once out of 6 times that I was supposed to jump over. That thing is as long as I am tall! I skinned my shins on a 4 foot obstacle, okay, maybe it was 3.5 feet tall...I had to climb that sucker! I was supposed to do a controlled landing...but...

Now I have to get my eyes lasered in order to continue. My eyes are about 10 x worse than allowed. I have to find out how much it will cost....blah blah.

Now back to the zoologist and his hairbrained ideas...

[Soapy Sam]

Wait a bit. We don't need a layer of water 5 miles deep across the world. Act global, think local.
I have a globe of the Earth before me. Radius is about six inches.

If I put the pad of my thumb about Damascus and press hard I can cause a 1mm deep basin in Syria. That translates to a depression of every country known to the writers of the old testament ranging from zero to 27 miles deep. It would flood just dandy.
Old Noah's ears would pop too. Atmospheric pressure in the middle would be a tad high. Let's drop that maximum depth to three miles. The surface gradient would be minimal. Nobody would notice the depression. Now let the water in.


Now I doubt god actually did that, but if so, the thumbprint should be still visible. Fault lines, caldera subsidence, stuff like that. Satellite photos anyone?

Actually, the refilling of the Black Sea basin since the last glaciation may explain the widespread legends of a flood in the middle east. It's not so far from the above scenario, but does not require the thumb. The Med would just have to rise till it backed up through the Hellespont. The tribes around the growing sea would scatter, each with a version of a flood myth.

No Arks. No Unicorns. Could be lots of interesting archaeology under there though.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
No Unicorns.

No unicorns?!?

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/images/040623_narwhal2.jpg

Just add vikings and honey mead.

[Zep]

It would be well worth asking this guy some much simpler questions, and see what his answers are. For example:

1. Does he agree that after The Flood, all living creatures went from where Noah's Ark landed (a question yet to be answered conclusively, but let us say modern Turkey) back to their exclusive domains where they live now?

2. Does he agree that koalas are now found EXCLUSIVELY on the Australian continent?

3. Does he agree that koalas are slow-moving arboreal creatures that could be easily outrun by faster, fiercer creatures, and could not possibly swim unaided thousands of miles across broad oceans?

3. If YES to the above, these questions follow:

4a. How did the koalas successfully travel from Turkey to Australia?

4b. If by some means of mysterious "land-bridge" (this is a common ICR escape clause, btw), why didn't all the possible predators of the koala follow it to the Australian continent and wipe it out there? Or at least leave some evidence of their presence?

4c. Why is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever that koalas have ever lived anywhere between Turkey and Australia? No fossils, no variants or cross-bred species that stayed on the way, etc. How did these slow and easily killed specialist creatures somehow sprint 24,000 miles around the world across completely hostile terrain that has killed most other animals, they all survived, and yet left no trace of their passing?

4d. Why did koalas go back specifically and ONLY to Australia? Why not stay in an equivalent climate like, say, Turkey or Syria or Jordan, and save themselves a huge amount of effort and potential danger? Other animals have migrated and settled over time, why not koalas?

5. Now explain why exactly the same thing "migration" occured for kangaroos. And wombats. And platypuses. And the echidna.


:D :D

[Soapy Sam]

There were tolls on the land bridge.

The kangaroo's pouch was designed by god to carry change.

Placental mammals, lacking pouches, could not get across.

Oh ye of little faith!:p

[Mojo]

The creationist model does, however supply many plausible answers to some of the many questions that plague us in terms of origins. Actually, it only seems to supply one answer: "God diddit." How plausible this is depends, I suppose, on whether you are prepared to accept an unsupported assertion.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Here's an argument I don't really understand:



" built-in mechanism for even
greater change and variation"

What is he talking about? Some great enhanced mutation rates? What about all the species that die that can't adapt? The gods didn't like them?

Has there been a great flood that covered the entire planet? Where did all the water come from and go back to in such a short period of time?

Please help me with a discussion on this...
Thanks,
Eos He is trying to present evidence for evolution as if it supports creation. I'm not sure of the formal name of this fallacy, but you could call it "hijacking evidence". Unfortunately for him this nearly invariably involves shooting yourself in the foot, in this particular case by his essentially supporting speciation, and thus making evolution the most parsimonious explanation.

Hans

[wastepanel]

I do not like arguing the creationism vs. darwinism debate. First of all, I am Christian. I believe we were all created by God. But, I often wonder about the interpretation of the beginnings of this world. Creationism is a very difficult argument to make because, even though it is lumped into one category, there are hundreds (if not thousands) theories and interpretations regarding it. There are several groups that still believe the Earth is the center of the universe, and even that the world is flat. I always wonder why or how the creationists can agree on what should be in a text book, because often, their views are contradictory.

I do believe that there is a connection between creationism and darwinism. I'm not saying that you guys have to listen to me. I'm just throwing in my two cents worth...

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by wastepanel
I do not like arguing the creationism vs. darwinism debate. First of all, I am Christian. I believe we were all created by God. But, I often wonder about the interpretation of the beginnings of this world. Creationism is a very difficult argument to make because, even though it is lumped into one category, there are hundreds (if not thousands) theories and interpretations regarding it. There are several groups that still believe the Earth is the center of the universe, and even that the world is flat. I always wonder why or how the creationists can agree on what should be in a text book, because often, their views are contradictory.

I do believe that there is a connection between creationism and darwinism. I'm not saying that you guys have to listen to me. I'm just throwing in my two cents worth...

Well, thing is, evolution does not in any way deny religion per se. The only thing evolution denies are when religious people make testable claims based on their faith. One claim is to say that there is evidence for the global flood story with Noah. There isn't. And there is plenty of evidence against it. Another claim is, like you said, that the earth is flat.

However, abiogenesis doesn't claim that there could not be a supernatural hand kicking it off. All it claims is that based on what evidence we have, the kick-off was that some proteins reacted in a way as to become a string of molecules with the remarkable way of being able to reproduce itself.

And there could still be a supernatural being that kicked off what we today refer to as "Big Bang". And this same being thus made the universe with its physical laws over 14 billion years ago.

My point is that you can certainly be a Christian and still accept that evolution is how we humans came to be. All you have to do is to take a good look at the evidence around us, and if you choose to believe in a god, accept that your god would be most likely to put together the universe in the way the absolute majority of cosmologists agree on happened, and that this being then made the physical laws for this universe that would eventually at least once, on one planet, lead to that string of reproducing molecules, which is what abiogenesists is agreeing is the most likely way for life to have started. And finally, once these molecules started reproducing, the biological evolution kicked in, and the rest is history.

Here is an article dealing with gods and evolution. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html) I hope you find that and my little post an interesting read. ;)

[Eos of the Eons]

The guy mostly wants to argue evolution as the "origin of mankind". He wants to prove that all animals were made on whatever day of creation and then went on the ark...including the dinos.

Starts in 1 hour and 45 minutes! There will be two seminars a night (at 7 p.m. and 8:15 p.m.) for the next four days.

Why are koalas only found in australia? Hmm, where did the ark land when the flood waters subsided?

Man, I need some dates! I'll try to get them from Mr. "Expert" tonight.

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay,.....


Intro...
Veith says he was was an evolutionary atheist (I guess all scientists must be) but then evidence changed his mind. This seminar brought to you by the BC based folks "Exposing Deceptions"

http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/ad_aboutus.htm

Now changing your mind and asking questions gets you called an "ignoramous", even though there is a lack of support for "scientific evidence". Science is immutable to change, it is rigid and unchanging even in the light of new evidence.

What do we get on TV and in Museums? Only "scientific fact" and new ideas are not given a chance. Veith has to go to the public to allow them a chance at new information and give them the opportunity to make up their own minds.

Just look at scientists. Most of the time they make no sense. They donot care if people don't understand all the technical talk, they just want to look smart and use big words. How do we know if they even know what they are talking about?

Now, remember folks, if Evolutionists admit to a Universal flood, it means the evolutionary theory dies. Any evidence of a universal flood threatens evolutionists. Let's set this up:

Earth in Time and Space.

Science claims the same as theism. God spoke and the heavens and earth came from "nothing". What does science claim...to quote A. Guth and GP Steinhart ...in Scientific American of May 1984 P. 12...the universe evolved from nothing. (I think you can find some discussion of these guys at: http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/eft.htm)

An article titled "Big Bang on Decline but Not Dead Yet" was also quoted. Why is it on the decline? Let's look at the big bang...

If everything was generated in a big bang then there should be "linear momentum". This is not the case since everything is spinning and orbiting. So, there should be "angular momentum"...everything should spin in the same direction. This is not true...look at the Andromeda galaxy vs the NGC4622 galaxy. Look at Earth compared to Venus. They don't spin in the same direction. The big bang is bunk. It violates the law of conservatism of angular momentum. Heck, even saturn's moons don't all spin in the same direction!

Now, scientist also say originally there was only Hydrogen...and some molecules of helium...but we have 84 elements now! Where did the other 82 elements come from! (I've never heard this claim before, that the big bang was just originally hydrogen??)

Okay, now we know the big bang doesn't explain anything. We looked at red shift vs blue shift with no real point, except maybe to look at picture of the universe and see there are not just red lights moving away from us, so that means the universe is not getting bigger?

okay...now back to just Earth....

Radiometric dating is bunk. Don't let those scientists make you think that anything is millions of years old because carbon dating is flawed for 3 major reasons:

1. Reate of decay must be assumed to be constant. This is not the case. If there is a solar flare it will speed up the rate of decay here and there. Rate of decay is not constant.

2. The clock is assumed to start at "zero". What is the starting point of material that is being dated? When it was formed in a volcano? No. The starting point is when the material only contains "parent" isotopes. At no point in time does any matter just contain parent isotopes and no daughter isotopes. There is no starting point...carbon dating is useless.

3. There must be an assumed closed system. The matter that is dated must exist in a vacuum for the rate of decay not to be affected by anything like water or solar flares. If you have a time piece, say a sand hourglass it only works if there are no holes for the sand to leak out of, or nobody adding sand through a hole in the top. Nothing that is being dated exists in a closed system, so all dating is flawed.

So ignore all the dating, the dating is flawed. Don't let scientists intimidate you with claims of something being millions or billions of years old.

I mean, look at the theory of relativity. It's all relative. We can say what we want to! Scientists said that light coming towards you should measure at a rate faster than light travelling away from you. But they measured light travel and came up with a claim of "constant" since it travels at the same speed coming or going.

Now let's look at layers. Layers are formed quickly. You can even see flaring of one layer into another, and layers that fold around each other into circles! Geologists are confounded by flaring and folding! In fact, the grand canyon is missing a layer that is found everywhere else. It's a layer that is supposed to be 20 million years old! Missing layers also confound geologists! They explain it away with claims of "erosion". A whole 20 million year old layer eroded away only at the grand canyon? No, it must be that layer didn't spread all the way over the entire earth (for whatever reason). [We are shown an underwater formation of 8 layers poured over "old mountains" making everything flat, but the mountains aren't in just one layer.]

Look at the Himalayas. Scientists claim they erode 2 meters every thousand years. If they have been around for millions of years they should be flat...yet they talk of deposits forming on top as welll, and the mountains being pushed to compensate for why they are not flat by now...it's all back peddling and excuses.

This brings us to flooding. Look at ALL canyons. They are ALL V shaped. Only flooding causes V shaped canyons. Remember, a Universal flood means that Evolutionary Theory is dead....let's take a break.

[Eos of the Eons]

Now...the flood happened in 1 year and 17 days as it says in the bible. It occurred in the Cretaceus period which is in the last part of the Mesozoic. We know this is true because there is a Universal Layer over the entire planet that shows the earth, the whole earth was covered in a shallow ocean at that time.

How do we know this? A chalky layer is covering the whole entire planet. The chalky layer is made of sea creatures/parts/shells. This is THE ONLY universal layer in existence.

The ENTIRE EARTH WAS COVERED!! As in the water model shown earlier, even all the mountains were covered over in this layer. You can see the chalky layer on top of them, like a covering of snow.

Three sources of water caused this and a down movement of continents under the sea.

The down movements caused the water levels to rise.

Water came from the heavens

The oceans then also covered the earth.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches3.html

This caused the mid-atlantic ridge...blah blah.

The earth was made flat-er even all over (no mountains, just flat continents under a layer of dead sea creatures) in this year and 17 days. Then new mountains rose up since, etc. The continents rose up after again after that year and 17 days.

[Eos of the Eons]

Things happen quickly. Stalactites and Stalagmites form in just a few years as can be seen in new mines. You can take a teddy bear to Yorkshire and have it petrified within 3 months of submerging it. You can cause malachite to form in 3 months using copper wires.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.asp
Look at this glacier. In the fifities planes were abondoned, and then found 30 years later under ice that had thousands of layers in it. Were these planes landed thousand of years ago? NO!! The dating methods for ice layering are flawed! Each ice layer IS NOT representative of just one year!

And look at this video of the flooding in iceland in 1996. The ice blocks moved over the rock and made those scratch marks in seconds, not thousands of years! [In the video they showed how rock and blocks of ice moved over other ice parts of glacier making skid marks...they didn't say the skid marks were made in any stone.] The glacier was formed in only 600 years, it doesn't take tens of thousands of years to form a glacier! A glacier can break up and disappear in days!

We have a freedom of choice. We can choose to believe what we want. We can believe things happen in only millions of years, some people believe in fairies *snicker*. Or we can examine the evidence...

Other evidence for universal flooding...claims that water moved only one direction over the continents when the flood waters receded-examine Paleocurrents. There were no basins after the flood, the earth was all even all over the planet.
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm

[Anti_Hypeman]

I watch these seminars late night on the religious channels. My favorite is the guy who explained transitonal skulls by saying thats what people look like after 400 years, they lived that long in biblical times you see.

[Eos of the Eons]

So, as you can see...lots and lots of information that other creationists also support. The largest argument...the Cretaceous period layering!! I found all this to be very confusing with many conflicting arguments along with a very "science bashing" tone.

For some reason Veith feels that this all rips apart evolutionary theory. He has 3 days left to explain why evolution didn't happen up until the flood, and why an "interruption" by a flood also argues against evolution.

So far he has set out to rip apart and poo poo science and try to prove a flood DID cover the entire planet. He has argued catastrophism and young earth evidence as opposed to claims of a flawed "scientific carbon dating system".

[Zep]

Carbon dating is only useful up to 30,000 years ago. Beyond that it becomes more inaccurate. However there are about a dozen other radiometric isotope dating mechanisms that work back millions and even billions of years. Funny - these all seem to agree very well on dating when applied to the same test materials...

If he is banging on about a Cretaceous Flood, that puts paid to the notion of Young Earth Creationism. The Cretaceous period was many millions of years ago, not 6,000-10,000. I doubt his ICR colleagues would like that info publicised.

Eos, you are hearing from a patent looney in this seminar. I feel sorry for you, I really do, having to put up with this.

And I'm still waiting for answers on koalas! :D

[Zep]

Allow me to respond to this, Eos! I know it isn't you saying this either.Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Things happen quickly. Stalactites and Stalagmites form in just a few years as can be seen in new mines. You can take a teddy bear to Yorkshire and have it petrified within 3 months of submerging it. You can cause malachite to form in 3 months using copper wires.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.aspRubbish. That's not the same process at all, and that has been known for hundreds of years. That is simply crystallisation out of saturated solution - you can grow big salt crystals at home with salt and water if you know how. What sort of scientist IS this guy? Oh, I see from the link - an AiG maroon.
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Look at this glacier. In the fifities planes were abondoned, and then found 30 years later under ice that had thousands of layers in it. Were these planes landed thousand of years ago? NO!! The dating methods for ice layering are flawed! Each ice layer IS NOT representative of just one year!No they didn't find "thousands of layers". And no-one ever said that single layers represent years - they took extreme care when dating ice to ensure they did NOT make such a mistake.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
And look at this video of the flooding in iceland in 1996. The ice blocks moved over the rock and made those scratch marks in seconds, not thousands of years! [In the video they showed how rock and blocks of ice moved over other ice parts of glacier making skid marks...they didn't say the skid marks were made in any stone.] The glacier was formed in only 600 years, it doesn't take tens of thousands of years to form a glacier! A glacier can break up and disappear in days!Has he NO idea how silly he looks saying this?

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
We have a freedom of choice. We can choose to believe what we want. We can believe things happen in only millions of years, some people believe in fairies *snicker*. Or we can examine the evidence......which leads inexorably to conclusions he wants no part of. Which suggests he has the wrong evidence, or none.

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Other evidence for universal flooding...claims that water moved only one direction over the continents when the flood waters receded-examine Paleocurrents. There were no basins after the flood, the earth was all even all over the planet.
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm Well, now he has just gone plain loopy. And the link is evidence of exactly that.

Demand your money back, Eos (if you paid any). This is total tosh.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Zep
Demand your money back, Eos (if you paid any). This is total tosh.

Or simply stand up and walk out.

[Eos of the Eons]

So, How do I refute these things now? We have a lot of material there. People looked dazed and a little angry (hate for those lying scientists!). Other creation sites claim the same, that the flood levelled the earth and now they have proof, blah blah...

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/

He even went on about a geologists that bemoaned how he had to LIE to students who came out on a site about the chalky layers and coal bed layers taking a long time to form...because they don't take a long time to form. They showed pictures of a leaf that was embedded in a rock through various layers that should span "50 years", but it couldn't possibly span 50 years because the leaf is over top them all! The layers all formed at once! [The leaf couldn't have settled there later after the layers formed...nooooo]
http://www.worldofstock.com/thumbs/NAB1257.jpg
A pic like that...only show the "layers" it lies across...a grey layer and a rustier layer...

I'm not a geologist, so have to look everything up, but don't even know where to start for some.

[Deetee]

In one sense, I feel that good intentioned quizzing of people like him at seminars by skeptics like us may not actually do much good. You will not convert him, you will not dissuade many of the other attenders, and the only outcome is to sharpen his debating skills and help him work out plausible future responses to 'unanswerable' questions such as koala migration.
If only there was a good way of keeping our powder dry until a big publicity event such as a televised debate, during which a number of hard questions would expose him for what he is - a blustering fibber.

That said, here are a few of my thoughts:
He seems to subscribe to the theory of 'kinds', or baraminology, to explain the impossibility of every single species of creature both current and extinct being present in pairs (or sevens) for a year. If so.....
Why did some things on the ark never evolve, oops, 'vary' any further? If there is 'one' bird kind ancestor, why were there doves and ravens on the ark? Did all other birds come from these, but some of the original doves and ravens remain unchanged?

Why do some of god's creatures 'evolve' at an alarmingly unfeasible rate?
How does he explain the fact that there are now 40000 individually distinct species of nematode worm currently on the planet, an evolutionary burst of new speciation that means the creation of a new species every 40 days or so on average since the flood (assuming it was 5000 years or so ago), and never mind the thousands of nematode species that didn't make it through to the present day? Darwinist theory would not accept an evolutionary timescale like this, which is another reasom to envisage that evolution has been incremental over hundreds of millions of years.
[even if you suppose hat every 'new' nematode kind further speciates, then those further speciate and so on in an exponential fashion, you need around 300 years to develop each new speciation step - still evolutionarily unfeasible]

Were infectious diseases that have exclusive human hosts (like syphilis and gonorrhoea) on the ark? If not, how did they arise? If so, seems like Noah & co must have been a pretty sickly bunch, and morally may not really have been worthy enough to be saved (or it says a lot more about the ones god chose to die for their sins!)......I suspect he may try and tell you there was one kind of bacterium on the ark, and things have changed since so that sexually transmitted diseases only arrived since then....

[wastepanel]

This conversation could go on for ever...

If a skeptic says it was evolution only, then the creationist will argue when and where did everything come from? If a creationist argues it was God only, the the darwinist will argue the facts we know of. If both sides leave unanswered questions to the argument, then who is right? I don't know.

EDIT: I, by no means, am trying to argue a particular side. If I choose to believe in Creationism, then what harm is it? I do, however, believe there may be a connection between the two theories. Besides, the fun part about being a skeptic is to also have the belief that there is something out there that is supernatural.

[aargh57]

Originally posted by wastepanel

EDIT: I, by no means, am trying to argue a particular side. If I choose to believe in Creationism, then what harm is it? I do, however, believe there may be a connection between the two theories. Besides, the fun part about being a skeptic is to also have the belief that there is something out there that is supernatural.

I always thought the "fun part about being a skeptic" was to demand evidence before believing in something. I think that most skeptics have a much more "show me" attitude concerning the supernatural.

Also, I don't think there's any harm in you personally believing in Creationism. I think the harm comes in when religous theory is taught alongside science and given equal billing.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Stalactites and Stalagmites form in just a few years...
You can cause malachite to form in 3 months...
The dating methods for ice layering are flawed...
it doesn't take tens of thousands of years to form a glacier...
Sounds like his issues are mainly with geology rather than biology.

I found all this to be very confusing with many conflicting arguments along with a very "science bashing" tone.Yet his arguments are themselves attempts at science.

The key here is that this is not education, it's more like entertainment (with an element of something like group therapy). It's not a seminar, it's a circus. The target audience attends in order to have its beliefs stroked. It doesn't take much to do that, and the typical consumer of this garbage has little appetite for serious science anyway (hence the dazed look). An event like this is likely to attract some who are not just dazed and angry, but seriously emotionally unbalanced. If you must charge this windmill, keep in mind that it's their court, their ball, and their rules (and stay alert on the way back to your car).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by aargh57
I always thought the "fun part about being a skeptic" was to demand evidence before believing in something. I think that most skeptics have a much more "show me" attitude concerning the supernatural.

Also, I don't think there's any harm in you personally believing in Creationism. I think the harm comes in when religous theory is taught alongside science and given equal billing.
Sorry to hear skepticism comes up short in your opinion. But tell me how one is supposed to believe in creationism without tossing out science? They are in utter conflict. One can clearly see that creationists have figured out this much and have decided to take on almost all of science because chemistry, geology, cosmology and biology have all converged on the same answers. So tell me how one can possibly be educated in science and believe in creationism? Not a deity, mind you, but creationism.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Man, I need some dates! I'll try to get them from Mr. "Expert" tonight.

Not sure why you'd want to date such a clown, but did he say "yes?"

:D





I know. It was a low blow at an ambiguity. :)

[aargh57]

Billy,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post or you me. All I said was I thought it was fine that he believe in creationism. I also think it's fine if he believe in Santa Clause, fairies, Zeus, and Mr. Ed. I don't really care. How does that equate to believing in creationism without tossing out science?

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Sorry to hear skepticism comes up short in your opinion. But tell me how one is supposed to believe in creationism without tossing out science? They are in utter conflict. One can clearly see that creationists have figured out this much and have decided to take on almost all of science because chemistry, geology, cosmology and biology have all converged on the same answers. So tell me how one can possibly be educated in science and believe in creationism? Not a deity, mind you, but creationism.



Very simply: I believe that we all had to come from something (big bang, primordial ooze, etc). I believe that we did evolve into the species we are today. What I don't know, and science cannot explain, is how the first molecule came into existance in this vast reality that we know. If it was derived from something else, than where did that come from? Neither religion nor science can explain either of those questions. Religion says "God was always there and created it" and science says "everything has always existed and we evolved". Something had to start the process. So, unless someone can say DEFINATIVELY where the first molecule came from, and what made it, I will believe in God.

And refer to my first post where I do say I believe there is a combination of evolution and creationism. I believe that God started the process, and worked up to humans. I believe he did it through evolution, and I do not read the Bible as it taking a literal 6 days to complete. I also said there are hundreds if not thousands of theories on creationism. I don't believe it belongs in a biology book because it ignores darwinian philosophy and religion and science should be separate to an extent. Besides, there are many other religions that would need to be addressed also.

Just don't tell me that science has proven this or that. Science has unanswered questions of its own on this subject. All I'm saying is that you are not going to change my theology, and I will am not going to try to change yours.

Skepticism doesn't fall short in my opinion. If you can honestly say that the idea of finding or stumbling upon something supernatural doesn't fuel your interest in the subject, I think you're lying. Skepticism looks at the process, variables, constants, and the end result. All science is basically skepticism proven right or wrong. Then it becomes natural, and no longer supernatural. If Ghosts was proven to exist through science, would you view them as natural occurences then?

Don't let me dissuade you of idealogy. I was simply addressing what I believe in. If you agree with me, fine. If you don't, I'm not asking you to conform.

EDIT: I apologize. I thought Billy was talking to me. Shoulda looked before I lept there...friends?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by aargh57
Billy,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your post or you me. All I said was I thought it was fine that he believe in creationism. I also think it's fine if he believe in Santa Clause, fairies, Zeus, and Mr. Ed. I don't really care. How does that equate to believing in creationism without tossing out science?

How is it "fine?" This belief necessitates disbelief in the available knowledgebase from multiple scientific disciplines. Once science becomes just another narrative, then we open ourselves up for belief from authority. How is this "fine?"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Very simply: I believe that we all had to come from something (big bang, primordial ooze, etc). I believe that we did evolve into the species we are today. What I don't know, and science cannot explain, is how the first molecule came into existance in this vast reality that we know. If it was derived from something else, than where did that come from? Neither religion nor science can explain either of those questions. Religion says "God was always there and created it" and science says "everything has always existed and we evolved". Something had to start the process. So, unless someone can say DEFINATIVELY where the first molecule came from, and what made it, I will believe in God.

And refer to my first post where I do say I believe there is a combination of evolution and creationism. I believe that God started the process, and worked up to humans. I believe he did it through evolution, and I do not read the Bible as it taking a literal 6 days to complete. I also said there are hundreds if not thousands of theories on creationism. I don't believe it belongs in a biology book because it ignores darwinian philosophy and religion and science should be separate to an extent. Besides, there are many other religions that would need to be addressed also.

Just don't tell me that science has proven this or that. Science has unanswered questions of its own on this subject. All I'm saying is that you are not going to change my theology, and I will am not going to try to change yours.

Skepticism doesn't fall short in my opinion. If you can honestly say that the idea of finding or stumbling upon something supernatural doesn't fuel your interest in the subject, I think you're lying. Skepticism looks at the process, variables, constants, and the end result. All science is basically skepticism proven right or wrong. Then it becomes natural, and no longer supernatural. If Ghosts was proven to exist through science, would you view them as natural occurences then?

Don't let me dissuade you of idealogy. I was simply addressing what I believe in. If you agree with me, fine. If you don't, I'm not asking you to conform.

EDIT: I apologize. I thought Billy was talking to me. Shoulda looked before I lept there...friends?

"Friends?" After this diatribe? Riiiiiight.

"Ideology?" "Conform?" Read my post again before you spout your party lines. Better yet, identify specifically where I espoused an ideology or required conformity?

[wastepanel]

Billy,

You are a good skeptic. You argue your point very well. But this isn't personal. You asked how I could believe in both, and I explained my beliefs. I'm sorry if I came off preachy. I do think I may have been unclear when I stated "conform".

I'm sorry that we are having a difference of opinion on the subject. But that's what a forum is for, right? To express opinions, even if they are contradictory?

[aargh57]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
How is it "fine?" This belief necessitates disbelief in the available knowledgebase from multiple scientific disciplines. Once science becomes just another narrative, then we open ourselves up for belief from authority. How is this "fine?"

I think that you equate my tolerance of someone's beliefs to my acceptance of their beliefs on equal grounds of science. I don't. I do think it is "fine" if he wants to believe whatever in the world he wishes. I do object when it comes into the public domain in the forms of teaching it in schools, legislation, etc...
If someone wishes to believe in creation, I really don't care (althought my opinion of that persons intellect may change). What are my alternatives? Thumbscrews? The rack? Reruns of Baywatch? So what do you do when you meet someone who professes an irrational belief? Berate them until they succumb? If you do this, how often does it work?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Billy,

You are a good skeptic. You argue your point very well. But this isn't personal. You asked how I could believe in both, and I explained my beliefs. I'm sorry if I came off preachy. I do think I may have been unclear when I stated "conform".

I'm sorry that we are having a difference of opinion on the subject. But that's what a forum is for, right? To express opinions, even if they are contradictory?

Your "opinion" is completely contrary to known facts. One cannot rationally hold the opinion that gravity doesn't exist, or that the earth is not an oblate spheroid.

Now onto your assertions. "Darwinian philosophy." Bullpucky, sir. It is no longer "darwinian", a fact you would be aware of if you spent more time in the subject matter and less listening to fundy preachers. It is now 150 years past darwin. It is not a philosophy. It is a theory. I use the word with its scientific meaning. It is an overarching framework explaining a host of facts and fully tested hypotheses. The support for this theory spans the disciplines of physcis, chemistry, geology, biology and cosmology. Your assertion that god diddit requires strong evidence that, somehow there was a deviation from the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know them. Where is this strong evidence?

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by aargh57
I think that you equate my tolerance of someone's beliefs to my acceptance of their beliefs on equal grounds of science. I don't. I do think it is "fine" if he wants to believe whatever in the world he wishes. I do object when it comes into the public domain in the forms of teaching it in schools, legislation, etc...
If someone wishes to believe in creation, I really don't care (althought I may opinion of that persons intellect may change). What are my alternatives? Thumbscrews? The rack? Reruns of Baywatch? So what do you do when you meet someone who professes an irrational belief? Berate them until they succumb? If you do this, how often does it work?

Thank you for the tolerance.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Your "opinion" is completely contrary to known facts. One cannot rationally hold the opinion that gravity doesn't exist, or that the earth is not an oblate spheroid.

Now onto your assertions. "Darwinian philosophy." Bullpucky, sir. It is no longer "darwinian", a fact you would be aware of if you spent more time in the subject matter and less listening to fundy preachers. It is now 150 years past darwin. It is not a philosophy. It is a theory. I use the word with its scientific meaning. It is an overarching framework explaining a host of facts and fully tested hypotheses. The support for this theory spans the disciplines of physcis, chemistry, geology, biology and cosmology. Your assertion that god diddit requires strong evidence that, somehow there was a deviation from the laws of physics, chemistry and biology as we know them. Where is this strong evidence?

I refer to it as "Darwinian philosophy" because it was Darwin who came up with the theory. Yes, it has been proved. Yes, I believe there is evolution to bring all creatures to this point. From now on, I'll refer to it as a theory.

Look, I agree the scientific evidence is correct that we evolved throughout time. I'm not quite sure if we are arguing about creationism anymore though. Here's what it comes down to:

(1) I AM NOT REFUTING THE DARWIN THEORY OR EVOLUTION

(2) IF I BELIEVE IN GOD, WHAT IS THE HARM?

I'm a newbie here, and I like these forums. But I do not like getting into arguments of namecalling. I am not a fundamentalist, unless you consider anyone who is religious a fundamentalist. If you want to explain your stance, answer me WHERE DID THE FIRST MOLECULE COME FROM? There is no widely accepted theory out there except "it was just there". Life is full of unanswered questions.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I came off bad in that post. I reread it and I apologize. Can we just agree to disagree?

[BillHoyt]

argh57,

I feel the need to elaborate a bit here. Randi wrote, a long time ago, that one can hold the belief that God is a french-speaking cabbage that lives in Duluth. I concur. That is, simply, an opinon, unless we can devise an acid test and sweep all of Duluth, looking for such a cabbage, and demonstrate otherwise. However, one cannot hold the belief that this cabbage is responsible for the earth spinning about its axis when we have so many well-supported explanations for the earth's rotation. The cabbage belief, then, is simply idiocy. The attempt to promulgate this belief is worse: it is a conscious and nefarious attempt to spread the idiocy like an infectious disease. There is a clear difference between beliefs without evidence and beliefs despite or stolidly ignoring evidence.

[aargh57]

wastepanel,

I'm sorry if I came off as condescending or anything. When I said "althought my opinion of that persons intellect may change", I was referring to someone who takes the literal interpretation of the bible such as the guy doing these lectures. I really can't respect someone's intellect who believes stuff like the flood, Johah, etc... Anyway, stick around. I rarely post but I find the forums very informative.

A little off topic, there was a poster that had a link to her website that had a lot of good info on evolution. Is that poster still here, or does anyone know of the link I'm talking about.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
I refer to it as "Darwinian philosophy" because it was Darwin who came up with the theory. Yes, it has been proved. Yes, I believe there is evolution to bring all creatures to this point. From now on, I'll refer to it as a theory.
Thank you for understanding this point.

[quote]Look, I agree the scientific evidence is correct that we evolved throughout time. I'm not quite sure if we are arguing about creationism anymore though. Here's what it comes down to:

(1) I AM NOT REFUTING THE DARWIN THEORY OR EVOLUTION

(2) IF I BELIEVE IN GOD, WHAT IS THE HARM?
Perhaps you missed where I said that there is no harm in a belief in Deism. You, however, are going further, and contrary to facts established by science. For example, your points about the first molecule (I think you really mean atom, BTW) are way off base. Cosmology and physics offer much insight into this question, starting with the simple fact that matter and energy are interconvertible.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I came off bad in that post. I reread it and I apologize. Can we just agree to disagree?
This depends on what we are disagreeing about...

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Perhaps you missed where I said that there is no harm in a belief in Deism. You, however, are going further, and contrary to facts established by science. For example, your points about the first molecule (I think you really mean atom, BTW) are way off base. Cosmology and physics offer much insight into this question, starting with the simple fact that matter and energy are interconvertible.


This depends on what we are disagreeing about... [/B]

I have done a little research on cosmology and it still hasn't been able to explain the birth of the universe at the instance of t=o. All I'm saying is that there is no true answer to this question. Nobody knows.

I'll state this: If we know that X+Y=2, with X equalling what is known and Y equally what is unexplained. There are infinate possibilities to this equation at hand. The unknown can be seen as derived from the known, and vice versa. Unless there is more information, I could walk around all day saying Y=100, and nobody could refute it. But, in doing that, I would have to concede that X=88 (X=2-Y). I think that if you give all the credence to the known, or all to the unknown, your equation is flawed. You are assuming that one of the variables is zero. If someone came up to me and said "You know, X does equal 2 because I proved Y =0", then I would totally concede.

Thank you for this little discussion...I'm actually enjoying it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
I have done a little research on cosmology and it still hasn't been able to explain the birth of the universe at the instance of t=o. All I'm saying is that there is no true answer to this question. Nobody knows.
What happened at t=0 is different from your original statement about "the first molecule." I agree with you about our ignorance at t=0. The broader point, though, is not to argue from ignorance. That is fallacious reasoning. One cannot logically support a deity with a fallacy. This goes also for a Deistic view of the deity.

I'll state this: If we know that X+Y=2, with X equalling what is known and Y equally what is unexplained. There are infinate possibilities to this equation at hand.
??? No. There is only one possible solution to this.¹

The unknown can be seen as derived from the known, and vice versa. Unless there is more information, I could walk around all day saying Y=100, and nobody could refute it. But, in doing that, I would have to concede that X=88 (X=2-Y).
You're losing me. If X is known, then Y is implicitly known. There is only one solution to the equation. Very bad example, I'm afraid.

But back to the broader point here: yes we can refute your basic gist. It is yet another example of argument from ignorance. Before we landed men on the moon we had no direct evidence that it was not made of green cheese. Nonetheless, it would have been utterly fallacious to argue, "Hey, you don't know it isn't made of green cheese, therefore, it is."


[Edited to add:

__________________
¹ This is a degenerate case of linear algebra's solution of simultaneous equations. One equation, one unknown.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

What happened at t=0 is different from your original statement about "the first molecule." I agree with you about our ignorance at t=0. The broader point, though, is not to argue from ignorance. That is fallacious reasoning. One cannot logically support a deity with a fallacy. This goes also for a Deistic view of the deity.


??? No. There is only one possible solution to this.


You're losing me. If X is known, then Y is implicitly known. There is only one solution to the equation. Very bad example, I'm afraid.

But back to the broader point here: yes we can refute your basic gist. It is yet another example of argument from ignorance. Before we landed men on the moon we had no direct evidence that it was not made of green cheese. Nonetheless, it would have been utterly fallacious to argue, "Hey, you don't know it isn't made of green cheese, therefore, it is." [/B]

Let me see if I can explain that example better. I apologize for the confusion....

(1) Let X+Y=2

In this equation, there are infinate possibilities. If X=1, then Y=1. If X=-1, then Y=3, If X=-2, then Y=4, etc. X will always equal 2-Y, and Y will always equal 2-X.

(2) If I claim Y=100, you cannot argue that X=105 by my reasoning...It must be -98. You would have to sepatately prove X does equal 105. There is more information necessary (and an additional equation or two) to solve for X or Y if you are going to argue one variable or the other.

(3) I make this analogy because I believe (referring to my original statement) that the known (X) is approaching 2. That makes the unknown (Y) approaching 0. Therefore, assuming X+Y=2, then this statement is true. However, I do not agree we should ultimately say "If Y is approaching 0, then Y=0". Wouldn't that go against all of the scientific principles of researching everything? Yes, it means to keep researching, not to assume the variables are constants. You could argue that research is showing a tendency of Y approaching 0. But it does not ultimately prove Y=0. By assuming there is no plausability in a deity, you are assuming that X and Y are constants. Science is attempting to prove that through cosmology.

The thing is that we have no proof for either variable that makes it a constant. I base my beliefs on what I find compelling, and one of those compelling questions I have is: Where did the energy, matter, etc. come from that created this giant model? You can't grow bacteria in a dish void of bacteria. You can't make energy just appear. You can only transfer the energy, or convert it to something else. If an answer is given to that effect, then I would recant my beliefs. But, as you even stated in your argument, science is ignorant of what happened at t=0.

Please correct me if I am incorrect in my arguments. But do not make this an insult contest. I do not like being called ignorant. I believe in the same sciences you do. I just happen to believe that the known does not disprove the unkown, and that they are ultimately represented by each other. I offered a "theory" to fill the unknown. If another "theory" is offered, I can't disprove it (just like you can't disprove mine).

And, again, I am not trying to get you to believe me. I am offering my beliefs (or Hypothesis) as to the existance of God. The thing about a hypothesis is that an experiment is not a failure if the hypothesis is wrong or right. It becomes a constant, and the end result will define the previously unknown elements that are relative to that now constant.

[Eos of the Eons]

Bah humbug. Guys & Gals...I want to write some refutationt to the entertainment!

So far we have this nutter who wants to say that certain situations apply to the whole planet. We have a waterfall that allows petrification within 3 months of very porous objects (teddy bears). I'd like to see how long that Yorkshire water fall petrifies a tree stump! Then we have some salt crystals and other saturated solutions used as an example to be extrapolated to all other stalactites and stalagmites...

Now, how about those claims about ALL the continents being pushed downwards to allow the flood to happen? And those claims about the KT Layer being formed in a year?
How can he even say that he knows that the currents flowed over ALL the continents in one direction and that is evidence of a world flood receding back to the oceans? He showed a picture and said that there are marks showing this happened over the continents...Did they x-ray the entire chalky layer that he claims is the only universal layer to get this evidence? Is the chalky Cretaceus layer the ONLY cretaceous layer? I'll be looking this up tonight to try to refute his claims some how.

Is there a site that refutes the creationist claims about the ice layers they found the abondoned planes under? I thought most layers formed from snowfalls, but this guy is trying to claim that scientists try to say that each year has its own ice ring!!

Basically, I find he lies about what science actually claims, and the biggest most annoying lie was introduced right in the beginning where he says science is rigid and unchanging.

[Eos of the Eons]

Do we have any astronomers of any sort that can address Veith's claims about the big bang theories? I put most of that in my first posting of the review. Is it true that for the big bang to have happened that all celestial bodies must therefore be spinning in all the exact same direction?

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, every creationut site claim that when the planes were recovered from the ice that ice cores were taken and examined.

This is the story we are talking about:
http://www.coffeedrome.com/glacier.html

I cannot find one bit of fact in the creationut claims that ice cores were taken.

Were cores taken?? Was the 268 feet deep ice examined? Did scientists claim that the planes should have taken thousands of years to cover rather than just 50?

Not to mention that some layers "flow" and damaged the planes, while other layers remained stationary...creationuts are trying to claim we know nothing about glaciers and how long they actually take to form.

Creationist claim:
It is a powerful, real-life testimony against the widespread belief that it takes vast timespans to lay down thick layers of ice.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/plane.asp

Do scientists REALLY claim IT MUST have taken thousands of years to build up ice 268 feet deep??

NOPE:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Veith is a lier. Go figure.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10336157

Uni students in England and Wales have been told to get inoculated before they show up for class as health authorities try to stem a mumps epidemic. One third of them are believed to have missed their MMR vaccinations because their parents chose not to protect them, and mumps cases have risen from 5800 in 2003-4 to just over 55,000 during the past year. Most students will suffer only pain and discomfort but others will be left deaf or infertile.

Wakefield is patting himself on the back. So many people listened to him.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Now, how about those claims about ALL the continents being pushed downwards to allow the flood to happen?
The energy required to do that would likely melt all the continents.

And those claims about the KT Layer being formed in a year?
Evidently the KT boundary formed rapidly, if the hypothesized meteor strike is what caused it. However Veith seems to be confusing the KT boundary with some of the widespread Cretaceous formations. These were most certainly not formed in a year, and they are not world wide.

How can he even say that he knows that the currents flowed over ALL the continents in one direction and that is evidence of a world flood receding back to the oceans? He showed a picture and said that there are marks showing this happened over the continents.
This is a bald-faced lie.

Is the chalky Cretaceus layer the ONLY cretaceous layer?
No. For example, in Texas the Cretaceous Austin Chalk sits on the Cretaceous Eagleford Shale, which sits on the Cretaceous Woodbine Sand, which sits on some other Cretaceous formations.

the biggest most annoying lie was introduced right in the beginning where he says science is rigid and unchanging. Gotta agree with that. Big and annoying.

[Zep]

Eos,

START HERE!

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/

[SezMe]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Let me see if I can explain that example better. I apologize for the confusion....
I'd really like to respond to this, wastepanel, but it seems an unfair derail of Eos' fun thread. I suggest you start another thread by copying this to be the OP of it and just post a link here.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

How can he even say that he knows that the currents flowed over ALL the continents in one direction and that is evidence of a world flood receding back to the oceans?
In the context of a globe, I cannot even imagine what the assertion is. How can flow go in ONE direction on a sphere, forgetting all the other silliness?

Eos, can you explain any more about this claim.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SezMe
I'd really like to respond to this, wastepanel, but it seems an unfair derail of Eos' fun thread. I suggest you start another thread by copying this to be the OP of it and just post a link here.

I agree. If you want to pursue this side discussion, please start another thread for it. Thanks.

[wastepanel]

I apologize. I really didn't attempt to hijack this thread. I just got into a heated debate where we got off track.

[Floyt]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Do we have any astronomers of any sort that can address Veith's claims about the big bang theories? I put most of that in my first posting of the review. Is it true that for the big bang to have happened that all celestial bodies must therefore be spinning in all the exact same direction?

Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html) the short answer from TalkOrigins. Basically he's wrong on three consecutive levels:

1) The BB was not an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself. Therefore, things might start off spinning every which way, depending on other processes.

2) If it HAD been a genuine explosion, the "debris" would even be expected to be spinning in random directions!

3) The conservation of angular momentum just requires individual spins within a system to compensate each other, not to spin in the same direction (so reverse one, slow down three others, or something in that vein).

[wastepanel]

If the flood covered the entire planet, does that mean that these ancient civilizations knew of the Americas? Or is it possible this was a flood around the area Noah lived in? If the storm was as prolific as he states, then the ark may have been bounced onto an entirely different continent. How would anyone be able to get off the ark? The amount of water that is proposed to flood the earth would leave the ground entirely saturated, and if the ark reached land, it would sink into the ground. Perhaps, due to some very literal interpretations of the Bible, he is attempting to argue his points with half truths.

At least use all of science to prove things...


Sorry again for hijacking the thread...I got back on subject though.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Floyt
Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html) the short answer from TalkOrigins. Basically he's wrong on three consecutive levels:

1) The BB was not an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself. Therefore, things might start off spinning every which way, depending on other processes.

2) If it HAD been a genuine explosion, the "debris" would even be expected to be spinning in random directions!

3) The conservation of angular momentum just requires individual spins within a system to compensate each other, not to spin in the same direction (so reverse one, slow down three others, or something in that vein).

And that's not even considering the fact that the bodies we see today are recycled over many generations of contraction due to gravity, nuclear fusion in the stars, and supernova explosions.

Even if everything was spinning in the same direction just after the BB, there's no reason to think it should all still be spinning in the same direction after all it's been through. It's almost as if they think that the stars and planets were born fully-formed in their current positions and configurations at the moment of the BB.

But of course they don't think that, because they don't accept the BB at all. But they think that the BB theory suggests that... etc. etc. because they don't really understand it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
I apologize. I really didn't attempt to hijack this thread. I just got into a heated debate where we got off track.
wastepanel,

It really isn't a big problem. You're new here. The older members are sensitive to sidetracking subthreads because of the few regulars here who seem to do it deliberately and frequently. If you really want to pursue the subthread, just create a new topic and let us know.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by SezMe
In the context of a globe, I cannot even imagine what the assertion is. How can flow go in ONE direction on a sphere, forgetting all the other silliness?

Eos, can you explain any more about this claim.

Okay, thanks for asking. He claims water flowed off of the continents as the continents rose above the water again...in a NE direction off of South America for example. All of the water flowed off the continent in a NE direction, he claimed. He showed a pic of "currents" with arrows pointing in NE directions. So the water flowed in one direction off of each continent. If you ask me, shouldn't it have flowed from the middle of each to the edges or something? Put a plate under water and raise it up. He claims the continents WERE all made flat by the flood.

I also read up on the carbon dating. I guess the "starting point" is the organism's death in some cases. Veith told the audience there was no "starting point" that could be determined accurately, so the method is therefore useless. He also claims solar flares and such can speed the decay process when they happen, so there is no way the dating can be in any way accurate. It seems to me there is a constant rate of decay not affected by outside influences? It is also a method of comparison? Can anybody explain this to me in layman's terms?

[Eos of the Eons]

Sad thing is we have a "scientist" misusing science and using misinformation to refute basics of science.

Originally posted by Floyt
Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260_1.html) the short answer from TalkOrigins. Basically he's wrong on three consecutive levels:

1) The BB was not an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself. Therefore, things might start off spinning every which way, depending on other processes.

2) If it HAD been a genuine explosion, the "debris" would even be expected to be spinning in random directions!

3) The conservation of angular momentum just requires individual spins within a system to compensate each other, not to spin in the same direction (so reverse one, slow down three others, or something in that vein).

Thank you!1) The BB was not an "explosion", but an expansion of space itself. Therefore, things might start off spinning every which way, depending on other processes.

As you can see in my review, Veith quotes scientists that say you can essentially imagine it all started as "nothing" and then "bang, boom" big explosion and you have a Universe. So he did also say that the theory states that everything comes from one tiny spot and zooms out from there...and he says the theory can only be true if everything zoomed out by spinning in all the same way...clockwise say. So, the fact that not everything spinning in the same direction refutes the big bang theory. To me, this is silly, I can't find anything that says the "big bang theory only works if...".

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by wastepanel
If the flood covered the entire planet, does that mean that these ancient civilizations knew of the Americas? Or is it possible this was a flood around the area Noah lived in? If the storm was as prolific as he states, then the ark may have been bounced onto an entirely different continent. How would anyone be able to get off the ark? The amount of water that is proposed to flood the earth would leave the ground entirely saturated, and if the ark reached land, it would sink into the ground. Perhaps, due to some very literal interpretations of the Bible, he is attempting to argue his points with half truths.

At least use all of science to prove things...


Sorry again for hijacking the thread...I got back on subject though.

Veith poo - pooed "scientist allowances" for claims of local flooding rather than admitting to a Universal flood. Veith's main point was that scientists CANNOT admit to a Universal flood because it would blow evolution out of the water. So they hide evidence, and Veith was the "good guy" who would present the evidence.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

I also read up on the carbon dating. I guess the "starting point" is the organism's death in some cases. Veith told the audience there was no "starting point" that could be determined accurately, so the method is therefore useless. He also claims solar flares and such can speed the decay process when they happen, so there is no way the dating can be in any way accurate. It seems to me there is a constant rate of decay not affected by outside influences? It is also a method of comparison? Can anybody explain this to me in layman's terms?

First of all, carbon dating is limited to dating material less than 100 000 years old. Homo sapiens had already emerged by 100 000 years ago, so carbon dating is not very useful in researching human origins or evolution in general. When someone brings up carbon dating in an attempt to discredit evolution, it is a dead giveaway they don't know what they're talking about.

Information on other radiometric dating methods can be found at the Talk Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html) .

[Eos of the Eons]

Okay, here is what Veith says about the Cretaceous layer:

The Cretaceous layer comprises of chalk deposits consisting largely of calcium carbonate derived from vast deposits of coccolith (algal) shells and other micro organisms with calcium carbonate skeletons.

In view of its universal distribution, the Cretaceous layer is evidence of a worldwide shallow sea covering the continents. The calcium carbonate skeletons of certain algae and Foraminifera would only settle out in large quantities if the seas were shallow and conditions favoured algal blooms. Such disturbed ecological conditions would have prevailed in the immediate post-flood era.

The Cretaceous layer varies in thickness, a condition which could have been brought about by currents or by differences in the time that the various areas were submerged under water.


Blah blah etc. etc.
.
http://64.180.102.203/images/cretaceous.jpg

http://64.180.102.203/catastrophy-p2.html

This is what I want to focus on the most. All I have so far is:

I did my homework after attending one of Professor Walter Veith’s seminars. I’m not sure if Veith just forgot everything he learned, or is just ignoring science, actual science.
There are several examples where he claims science “says� one thing, but I’ve found science revealing the opposite.

Let’s start with space. Veith claims that the Big Bang Theory depends on the conservation of angular momentum. If you look up the theory you cannot find where this is stated. Instead you find yourself reading about the expansion of the Universe instead of an explosion. Also, you will find information on gravity and viscous interactions that will cause opposite rotations between heavenly bodies. Not all galaxies formed at once either, and there have been many changes over time, including supernovas, that cause some rather random interactions. The statement that all particles/bodies in the universe need to be rotating in the exact same direction is not supported by science or common sense. In fact, angular momentum actually requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects.

Now let’s move back to the earth itself. Veith brings up the P-38 fighters airplanes that were buried beneath an ice layer 268 feet thick. He claims core samples show so many rings at the site that they were dated as thousands of years old rather than 50 years old. What do scientists really say? Dating ice cores is not like dating tree rings. Where the planes were buried there was an annual snowfall of around 2 meters per year, which is a lot compared to the Antarctic where snow accumulation is not nearly so rapid. Why are core samples taken from the Antarctic? Because it is a stable ice field, and not an active glacier like the glacier the planes were buried in. Ice core layers depend on snowfall, not active growth. You cannot find single layers representing one year. Scientists don’t try to claim they do. Layers simply represent different periods of snowfall.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Flatworm
First of all, carbon dating is limited to dating material less than 100 000 years old. Homo sapiens had already emerged by 100 000 years ago, so carbon dating is not very useful in researching human origins or evolution in general. When someone brings up carbon dating in an attempt to discredit evolution, it is a dead giveaway they don't know what they're talking about.

Information on other radiometric dating methods can be found at the Talk Origins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html) .

Thanks for that. I do want to focus on Veith's claims as well as bring up why discrediting it doesn't discredit evolution.

So I want to address his claims that his "assumptions" that must be met for carbaon dating make carbon dating useless.

For me to do this I have to understand if I'm getting the actual process correct myself.

What are the constants for carbon dating and what are they compared against? I will try to find out, but a short explanation to make sure I'm getting it right would help. Veith claims:

http://64.180.102.203/rad_dating.html

Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.


...Many examples from literature show that the zero reset assumption is not always valid. Volcanic ejecta of Mount Rangitoto (Auckland, New Zealand) was found to have a potassium-40 age of 485,000 years, yet trees buried within the volcanic material were dated with the carbon-14 method to be less than 300 years old.


From talk origins we have:

Porig - The quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present.

Veith is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the quantity of the parent isotope that was originally present. Not only that, but he says to ignore all claims of dating that would put the Earth as older than...you know...6,000 years or so, since all current methods of dating are horribly flawed anyways.Radiometric dating techniques are thus based on sound scientific principles, but rely on so many basic assumptions that the Bible-believing student need not have his faith shattered by data derived from these techniques.
http://64.180.102.203/rad_dating-p2.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Loss of genetic material has led to speciation. Loss of flight is common in birds, particularly in island birds where flight can be a distinct disadvantage as the birds can be blown out to sea in storms and not make land again. Often related species retain the capacity to fly. Examples are the flightless rails (marsh hens), flightless cormorant of the Galapagos Islands and the flightless goose from Hawaii, loss of eyes in blind cave fish and many cave dwelling insects.

Bwwaaahhhhaaaaaa!!!

Anybody want to discuss this idiocy he spouts on genetics! More found:

http://64.180.102.203/postdeluge.html

This is more my "bag".

He seems to confuse diversity with "loss of genetic material". You lose genes if your genes code for "non-flight" modes or "non-sight" modes? What about the "increased genetic material" to allow for compensations for those with decreased sight? Don't bats have an awesome way to compensate for lack of sight? They have sonar!!

His simplistic ignoramous spiffle really dumbs down science to the point where he can get creationists to scoff at it. Veith ends up looking like a Tard to anyone with half a brain though...he doesn't seem to realize that.

[Eos of the Eons]

Sorry for so many posts, but I need help!!

For example:

The half-life of carbon-14 is known to be 5720 years
http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/c14dating.htm

How do we know this? This is why Veith can make claims about "assumptions". I want to rebutt this, but don't understand enough about the process to do so effectively...help!!

You can see why creationists eat this up, he plays on ignorance, like mine, very well!

[Flatworm]

In this case, it is not the carbon-14 date that was wrong but the K-Ar date. This is because they tried dating olivine inclusions within the lava instead of the surrounding lava, which did indeed show a very young age.

Also, the K-Ar technique used at the time has now been moslty superseded by more accurate techniques.

Talk Origins Again (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html)

Basically, the creationists come up with a short list of known measurement errors, and try to stretch them enough to impeach all radiometric dating. To do this, they must patently ignore a huge body of consistent results obtained by various radiometric and other dating techniques.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Sorry for so many posts, but I need help!!

For example:


http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/c14dating.htm

How do we know this? This is why Veith can make claims about "assumptions". I want to rebutt this, but don't understand enough about the process to do so effectively...help!!

You can see why creationists eat this up, he plays on ignorance, like mine, very well!

Well, radioactive decay produces radiation which can be measured. As less of the radioactive isotope remains, the radiation intensity falls off exponentially. So, essentially, we can measure a half-life by measuring the decline in radiation intensity from a sample over time. It doesn't matter how much of the isotope was originall present- the half-life will be the same.

Further, decay rates can be accurately predicted by Quantum Mechanics. This is how we know the decay rates have not changed, because such a change would require a change in fundamental constants of the universe. Such a change would have consequences reaching far beyond screwing up radiometric dating- it could very well make the formation of matter as we know it impossible.

Edit:

Here (http://ie.lbl.gov/radioactivedecay/) is a link to an experiment designed to allow high school students measure half-lives.

[Eos of the Eons]

Bah, I'm still not getting it enought to write something I feel rips apart his "can't date without knowing start" blathering. I'll just be going on about half lifes. Can somebody read what he is saying from where I linked before?http://64.180.102.203/rad_dating.html

I'm getting too tired to come up with anything useful...bleah.

[Deetee]

Any updates, Eos?
How'd it go?

[Xeriar]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I also read up on the carbon dating. I guess the "starting point" is the organism's death in some cases. Veith told the audience there was no "starting point" that could be determined accurately, so the method is therefore useless. He also claims solar flares and such can speed the decay process when they happen, so there is no way the dating can be in any way accurate. It seems to me there is a constant rate of decay not affected by outside influences? It is also a method of comparison? Can anybody explain this to me in layman's terms?

C-14 exists in the atmosphere, and land-based organisms thus breath it. They accumulate it over the course of their lives and when they die, they stop breathing, and thus, stop accumulating it.

This is subject to variation due to changes in the atmosphere's C-14 content during a given year, and incidents like neutron capture by a coal deposit from uranium ore can raise the local C-14 levels if there is a fire (and there all too often is).

Therefore, it is important to know the history of Earth's atmosphere for which, fortunately, tree-ring and ice core data comes to the rescue, and lately ancient lakes have provided data. Unfotunately, at best, we are getting better with our guesses out to 30,000 years and more and more certain about our conclusions out to 12,000 years.

This limits radiocarbon dating to a archeological tool and not a paleo one.

There is no known case in which radioactive decay rates change. From near absolute zero to the 100+ millions of kelvin found in a nuclear inferno and beyond, to the decay rates found in supernovas and starstuff themselves, they are constant through all known applications of temperature and pressure.

For radioactive dating, the prime sources are potassium-argon dating and the isochronic methods (uranium-lead being the best known). These can only really date volcanic sources, but you can use them on a sea bed to get a 'result'. It won't be a good one, but you can do it.

In potassium-argon dating, we follow the general rule that, unless a sample has received significant heating or some other known anomoly, when potassium decays into argon, the argon will remain trapped, and thus you can acquire the proper ratio and get reliable dates out to a billion years or so.

Isochronic dating is far more clever, in my opinion, because it specificly addresses the issue of knowing the proportion of start materials.

Basically, it works by the fact that the relative mix of the isotopes of the same element will be identical to within a few thousandths of a percent (their proportions need not be identical and certainly won't be! It's just the simple matter of brownian motion and the fact that they are chemically identical). However, these isotopes will decay at different rates into different child products, while the initial set of child products will remain the same.

If you end up taking a series of samples from a single source (a single lava flow, a series of lava flows, all lava flows on Earth) - you will get a series of points. These points will form an 'isochron line' that will tell you just how much of the original daughter product was present in the tested sample.

This has some pretty cool uses, not the least of which was exploited by the ICR's infamous Grand Canyon dating project. Rather than sampling a single lava flow (like the date they were comparing too), they sampled a few of them, and reported the result, which would be the common date of the material the volcano melted and later expunged, rather than the single lava flows they were comparing the dates to.