Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Actually, I think the ID crowd are the Georges Lemaître of our day. I wonder what those who condemn ID proponents as some sort of religious fanatics would have said about a Belgian Monsignor with a new theory that seemed to explain the gaps in the physics of the day.
http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/imp-137.htm"
I read it with some care. This article was written in 1984, and while some of it is perfectly accurate, other parts are not, and the overall tone is way-off.
Also, Austin works at the Institute for Creation Research, certainly not at Penn State.
I might note that back in ancient times, when I was a young man ( ;-) ), geology was a very popular course at Penn State, and it's lead professor the single most popular instructor on campus. Sadly, I don't recall his name, but his introductory course was held in the largest auditoriums, and always filled.
Of course, I don't know if Austin is old enough (or too old!) to remember him, but I'm pretty certain that my old geology prof, if he's still alive, would be most ashamed of Austin's association (if true!) with the name Penn State Geology Department.
Of course, those were the days before plate-techtonic theories, and who could say for sure how quick an old professor might accept some new-fangled theory in his field of expertise and popularity? But I think he'd be ashamed of Austin.
If your man Austin & I took geology from the same professor, you tell me.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/macroevolution"
My apologies, you and schaef21 are right. See my post 1,719.
If you've read the posts from YHAOS, you might note that he makes a big deal of the fact I'm just a regular guy who "pounds sand" for living and likes read books. That gives YHAOS unlimited authority to insult me and downplay my intelligence. YHAOS wants us to understand that his own background is so vastly superior he can barely bring himself to talk down at my level! ;-)
I do actually have some education, including science, and some degrees though not in science. But I am in no way trying to pass myself off here as any kind of expert in anything. I think everything I say here can be referenced back to some genuine "voice of authority," and when it can't, such as my misstatement on "MACRO-evolution," I'm certain you will call me on it, and cause me to correct myself.
As for the "real scientists," I think there is an actual discipline called "science," which includes the "scientific method," and certain rules for thinking, which have to be practiced by anyone doing the work of a "scientist." Evolution theory meets these standards, while anti-evolution, so far at least, does not.
I think scientists themselves criticize each other in scientific debates every day. But I don't think our ID-Creationists have ever qualified themselves, or their criticisms of science itself, as "real scientists" criticizing other "real scientists."
Obviously, that's just my opinion, and you are free to disagree. But I've seen nothing convincing to say you're right on this.
You're shooting yourself in the foot with those arguments."
I don't think so, and don't know why you say it.
The truth is that all scientific classifications -- i.e., kingdom, phylum, class, genus, species (did I forget one?) -- are more-or-less arbitrary definitions that make a certain scientific sense but can easily be argued scientifically at the boundaries between them. Scientist don't say otherwise.
By contrast, as I understand it, "kinds" is some sort of biblical classification, which may or may not correspond to species, sub-species, genus, class -- who knows how the biblical ID-Creationist idea of "kinds" translates into scientific classifications?
And the real issue here is Micro- versus Macroevolution -- when does micro cross some line into macro? Well, for science this is not a problem, since all the words are more-or-less arbitrarily determined. To science, it's just microevolution carried on long enough becomes eventually macroevolution.
But to ID-Creationists, this whole subject is a matter of literal life and death! Since according to their biblical world view, MICRO-evolution is perfectly acceptable, while MACRO-evolution (however you define it) is absolutely forbidden!
Needless to say, I don't even understand the ID-Creationist case, much less agree with it.
And you, young lady, are working too hard to distort my words. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
ID-Creationists not only can but do publish every day in their own literature with mass audiences numbering in the millions. They have never been prevented or suppressed in this country in any way.
But a genuinely scientific article in a recognized scientific publication must meet normal scientific standards, and to my knowledge, no ID-Creationist has ever done that.
And we might well note that where ID-Creationism has an eager readership in this country of millions, the typical scientific journal gets published in just a few thousand copies, and is fully read & understood by even fewer people.
So, if anything, it's SCIENCE that's being suppressed by ID-Creationism, in not being allowed into their distribution network of millions! Take that! ;-)
Great...so where's the answer to the question? He asked you to date the rock, not Eugenie.
metmom"Do you always contradict yourself like you have been in this thread? "
You are way too quick to criticize what you don't understand. In other posts I've explained at great length the differences between "speculation," "hypotheses," and "theories."
Darwin's speculation on a "warm little pond" was not even a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. To my knowledge, it wasn't even his opinion, it was just a possible brain-storming idea.
Since Darwin's time many researchers have attempted to firm up Darwin's speculation into something like a scientific hypothesis. But I can't cite even one example which has yet reached that stage. As far as I know, it's all still scientific speculation.
Maybe someone can correct me on that?
I trust you are not accusing me of any of these nefarious practices! If so, I'd be interested to see an example, so I avoid it in the future!
Right now I'm just making available what appears to be some valuable information. I'll keep an eye on your arguments when I get a chance if you want, but if I do you have to do the same for me.
You refer, no doubt, to the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.
The American Declaration of Independence has been repeated in some form many times -- and especially since World War Two, with US government blessings. Independence was US policy from the First World War -- indeed, you could say that colonial independence was the real price the US extracted from our European allies for our support in those wars.
And George Bush 43 was far from our first president to publicly link God's will with independent democratic self-government.
But the US has seldom, if ever, supported Civil Wars for independence. Indeed, consider Vietnam, where the Left successfully argued we were morally wrong there precisely BECAUSE it was a Civil War, and our side was not successful in arguing Vietnam was, and rightfully should be, two separate countries.
So, in your example, if the proposal is for independence FROM a colonial power (such as Great Britain), that's one thing. But if it's for Civil War against our Republic (i.e., 1860), that is a very, very different subject. My ancestors served and fought to protect the Union, and so have I.
ha! ;-)
Try this Wikipedia article on Radiometric Dating.
Note the section titled "Blocking temperature."
Can you give him the age of the rock he cited? Yes or no?
He obviously doesn’t want to answer it because he can’t.
There’s no way to date rocks or anything else without making assumptions.
Here’s a little tidbit for him:
A team of Scientists (yes, young-earthers...you can find out about them at: http://www.icr.org/rate/ )
Had a rock (the same rock, not different rocks from the same strata) tested by four different labs using four different dating methods. Here are the results:
Potassium/Argon - 841,000,000 years old
Rubidium/Strontium - 1,060,000,000 years old
Lead/Lead - 1,250,000,000 years old
Samarium/Neodymium - 1,379,000,000 years old
The difference between Potassium/Argon (the youngest) and Samarium/Neodymium (the oldest) is 538,000,000 years....it’s the same rock. Why the big difference? Because each lab used different assumptions in their dating methods.
It’s guesswork passed off as science. There’s no real way they can know. They don’t have all the information they need to start with.
BroJoe hasn’t answered the question because he can’t. He hasn’t figured out a way around it, so he ignores it and throws it off on Eugenie....after all....she’s the guru.
One more thing that the RATE team did which is of interest.
They dated diamonds using the Radiocarbon method. Since C-14 has a half-life of around 5800 years, it would be impossible for any C-14 to be detectable in a specimen after about 100,000 years.
They tested 12 diamonds from different mines and at different geologic levels. All diamonds had C-14 in them and were dated by labs (on average) to be 58,000 years old. Here’s what’s interesting about that....the crystal structure of diamonds prevents recent contamination with Carbon-14.
While assumptions have to be used in C-14 dating just as they have to be used in other dating methods, the fact that a specimen containing ANY detectable C-14 cannot possibly be over 100,000 years old makes evolution (according to this test) an impossibility. Even BroJoe will admit that 100,000 years is not enough. Although maybe they can come up with Superexpeditiouslyhyperduperpunctuated equilibrium to explain it.
Blessings.....
In most any case, it appears that you have so framed your definitions that, if you encounter any departure from your opinion, you are free to call said departure a lie, should you choose that course. You haven’t exactly declared that to be your object, so you’ve given yourself the opportunity to retreat into plausible deniability if you are challenged, but your behavior reveals your intent. Apparently, you regard calling someone a liar to be a desirable debating tactic. It must be, then, that you don’t consider merely declaring your adversary mistaken to be a sufficiently robust riposte.
”. . . it seems you imagine I'm trying to let this scientist off the hook . . .”
However clearly and frequently you may express your denial, your behavior throws your declaration into disrepute. You can rehabilitate my imagination through the simple expedient of directing my attention to instances where you have ripped into scientists for declaring God to not exist, in the same manner as you have ripped into Christians for questioning the validity of one or another facet of evolution.
Now, in keeping with the grand tradition you’ve established, it’s time for you to again issue great billowing clouds of smoke and deny, deny, deny.
Everyone reading this should carefully note that I replied “NO” to your question, no matter what followed that declaration.
You just don’t get it. I offered my “no” in the context of an increasingly oppressive Federal government taking over the entire educational establishment, so you apparently assumed that to be the go ahead signal to indulge in all sorts of fantasies regarding how the states can regulate the education of our children, instead of taking it to be an object lesson on the inevitable consequences of allowing government to regulate human activity. My fault, doubtless, for being less clear than I could have been. You are, sadly, a child of government. Perhaps not as hopelessly a one as many, but a child of government nonetheless. You seemingly cannot conceive of human action without the participation of government at some juncture along the way.
Any government activity is problematic. The less clear-cut its function, the more problematic the government activity. Consequently, the list of acceptable government activities is rather short. This is extremely frustrating for busybodies and for anyone else whose first thought is almost always “The Government ought to do something about this.” But, it is wonderfully liberating for the rest of us.
”But,” you might protest, “there are children who will not get an education.” Is that not the case now? What has public education accomplished except to provide a cozy nest for an unholy collection of Marxists/Socialists?
"The volume of ice in a glass of water is twice as much as the volume of water. How long did it take from the time the glass was filled until now to reach the current state?
"Is it possible to answer that question without more information?
"Is that question any different than this question?:
"Black rock was examined that had been formed as a result of lava flow from a volcanic eruption. There is twice as much Potassium as there is Argon in the sample. How long did it take to reach the current state?
"How about responding to it now?
"Here’s what I say: Neither can be answered without making MANY assumptions....that fact makes dating methods subject to bias. Any date assigned (by an evo or a crevo) is unknowable and therefore wishful thinking."
from 1,734 Mr. Silverback:"Can you give him the age of the rock he cited? Yes or no?"
I'm no geologist or chemist, and would not presume to calculate an age for this example.
But fellows, if it were a test question on a geology exam, the student would be told something along the lines that analysis of the material showed it had (or had not) reached a "blocking temperature," which did (or did not) reset its "atomic clock." If the clock was reset, then the rock's age could be simply a function of the material's decay rate.
Bottom line here is that schaef21's point could be somewhat valid -- if he were saying that the rock's age cannot be calculated without "more information." But instead, schaef21 uses the words "without making many assumptions," which he then claims must necessarily bias the results. Of course, I don't agree.
Here's that article again. Take some time to read it:
You could have saved yourself some time by just typing “No, I can’t.”
"Had a rock (the same rock, not different rocks from the same strata) tested by four different labs using four different dating methods. Here are the results:
"Potassium/Argon - 841,000,000 years old
"Rubidium/Strontium - 1,060,000,000 years old
"Lead/Lead - 1,250,000,000 years old
"Samarium/Neodymium - 1,379,000,000 years old
"The difference between Potassium/Argon (the youngest) and Samarium/Neodymium (the oldest) is 538,000,000 years....it’s the same rock. Why the big difference? Because each lab used different assumptions in their dating methods."
I can't say, don't know, if these results were typical or unusual. I'd first ask: was each lab given identical information about the rocks, or did they just arbitrarily assign different values to different variables?
I would also ask, aren't such dates themselves usually expressed as a range of most likely ages -- say for example, plus or minus 150,000 years? If so, then there's more overlap in those results than your numbers suggest.
But still, some things about this example are rather striking, don't you agree?
First of all, all four radiometric techniques returned results in the one million year range -- not ten million, a hundred million or a billion years. This would seem (assuming the test itself is legit) to at least gets us into the right ball park.
Second, the range of dates is around plus or minus 250,000 years, which seems a bit high (what variables were assigned?), compared to one million years, but suppose those rocks were found to be a billion years old, plus or minus 250,000 years -- wouldn't we be VERY impressed with that accuracy?
Third point -- from a scientific perspective, this example sort of blows completely out of the water any Young Earthers suggestions that our planet is only 10,000 years old, doesn't it?
Finally, we should note a rather notorious case, where Young Earthers misrepresented rocks they had taken from Mount Saint Helens, and were successful in getting an age of several million years. If this is that particular example, then the whole exercise is bogus!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.