Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)

To: Right Wing Professor

So you throw out the whole argument of earth rotational speed decay rates refuting a million year old earth because I listed wind friction, which by the way exists, and did not mention magma friction and wave action friction effects.

This is a refutation?

Wow, glad you are not my lawyer in court, you would get me hanged for a parking offense.

Here is another cut and paste, since you love them so well:

Atheistic cosmogonies are all simply different forms of evolutionism in which God is denied as the Creator at all; matter and the universe are eternal and have neither origin nor end. In them the world develops from the primary chaos into cosmos without participation of the Supreme Will and Design. It happens by immanent laws, but it runs contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics, which is believed not to hinder the world’s progress. Denying supernatural acts of creation, evolutionism is forced to admit a miracle of the second principle of thermodynamics being invalid despite its universal character.

Despite the facts that disprove it, evolutionism is being imposed on science because of its atheism and moral degradation—not for scientific but for ideological and political reasons. A product of atheism, evolutionism claims that mankind is the only intelligence in the universe, thereby justifying the re-making of nature and society in accordance with the false ideals of scientific and technological progress.

Thought since you think I am so stupid, you could listen to a real professor and learn a bit.

341 posted on 10/24/2005 2:22:46 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

Genetics: Enemy of Evolution

by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4a.html

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of those two concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Why then did Mendel's work lie unappreciated for some 35 years? No one really knows; therefore, anyone is free to speculate. My own speculation is that Darwin's ideas were immediately adopted because they gave fallen men a justification for ignoring their Creator, even for denying His existence. But by the end of the 19th century, other research had so clearly confirmed the principles discovered by Mendel that evolutionists had to incorporate these principles into their theories. They did so, and have continued to do so, on a very selective basis. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

Having said the above, I do not plan to say much more about evolution. I would prefer to talk about creation and the testimony of genetics to the power and glory of the Creator. Too long have creationists concentrated on pointing out the fallacies of evolution, and spent too little time demonstrating the truth of creation. Indeed with some justification, the evangelists of evolution prefer to call us anti-evolutionists rather than creationists. Dr. William Mayer claims repeatedly that there is no creation model and that anti-evolutionists merely call attention to weaknesses in the evolution model. Of course, if there are only two competing concepts, destroying one is almost as conclusive as proving the other. But it is probably true that creation will never receive anything like its proper acceptance until it is fully developed as a foundation for modern science. Tom Bethell, writing on economics in National Review said, "The discrediting of a theory, whether in science or economics, must necessarily await the arrival of an alternative hypothesis. Darwin's theory of natural selection, for example, exposed in recent years as devoid of meaning because of its circular nature, survives in practice for lack of a rival" (Bethell, 1980, p. 1562). I believe that the lack of a creation-based science has helped evolution maintain its total ascendancy, even among those who would be philosophically inclined to reject it.

Fortunately, the wind is shifting. More and more creationist scientists are concentrating on building the creation model rather than just tearing down the evolution model. Research is being done at both secular and Christian colleges and universities that seeks to rebuild science on a foundation of creation. I say "rebuild" because modern science was developed primarily by creationists who knew that a rational God had created a rational universe, and that rational man could, through observation, experimentation, and reason, learn much about the creation.

Now let us sample some of the evidence from genetics as it helps us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution. It may be helpful to arrange this evidence under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation. A combination of these four sources can explain any and all differences between any one creature and another.

Environment

By environment I mean all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one may have darker skin than another simply because he is exposed to more sunshine. Or one may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Or one may have a greater resistance to disease because he eats right. Now these environmentally-caused variations may have great importance for the individuals who possess them. But they have no importance to the history of life, because these variations die with their owners; they are not inherited. In the middle 1800's some of the scientists who had rejected the Creator believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck through "the inherited effects of the increased use of parts" (Darwin, 1958, p. 202). In seasons of limited food supply, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves and these longer necks would be passed along to the offspring. One who is studying the living world on the basis of creation is not tempted to fall into this fallacy because a perfect creation would already contain perfect variations without the necessity for new ones.

Recombination

The second source of variation is recombination. This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble very closely their parents but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel studied seven pairs of traits in the garden pea. In each of these he showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were never lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. A few examples might help us appreciate the limited nature of variation through recombination.

Many varieties of chickens have been produced from the wild jungle fowl, a lot of variation. But no new varieties are being produced, because all of the genes in the wild jungle fowl have been sorted out into the existing varieties, limited variation. From the science of plant breeding we have the example of the sugar beet. Beginning in 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why is that? Simply because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Finally, let us consider an example of recombination provided for us by Charles Darwin. During his voyage around the world which began in 1831, Darwin observed many fascinating plants and animals. But none were more fascinating that those he saw on the Galapagos Islands. Among these were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.

Mutation

Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has an intricate molecular machinery designed for the copying of DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000 copies a gene will contain a mistake. The cell also has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all. The genetic code has a certain amount of redundancy, so that some slight changes in the DNA produce no change in the end result. Other mutations produce so small a change in the end result that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners. Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of them to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help to illustrate this.

A rather interesting mutation is albinism, found in many plants and animals. This particular genetic mistake prevents the production of color. Various harmful side effects are seen in albino animals, such as impaired eyesight. But in plants albinism is lethal. Without chlorophyll photosynthesis is impossible, and as soon as the food from the seed is gone, the seedling dies. For a thorough study of the effects of mutations Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, is unsurpassed as a source of information. Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3000 mutations have been identified (Lindsley and Grell, 1967). All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly; exactly as predicted by the creation model.

It seems appropriate at this point to take a side trip and consider the control of mutations. Certainly if mutations were free to spread through populations of organisms, life would soon disappear. It is one of the roles of natural selection to prevent the spread of mutations. We must not allow the fact that circular reasoning is present in discussions of natural selection to cause us to deny that it is a real and an important factor in the history of life. The fact that it was Charles Darwin who called our attention to natural selection is more a comment on the sorry state of creation science in the mid-1800's than it is a comment on the validity of the concept.

Natural selection is no more or less than the label we give to what now seems to be the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and that they will contribute more offspring to future generations. Everybody's favorite example of natural selection is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two varieties, speckled and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in color because of the color of the bark or of lichens growing on the bark. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed a vast preponderance of speckled over black. When the Industrial Age came to England, coal was one of the primary sources of energy. Since there was then no Environmental Protection Agency, the burning of coal put a layer of soot on everything, including the tree trunks. The trunks were blackened, and the camouflage of the peppered moth was reversed. Then the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled. This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection. As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection increases the combinations of traits which will make the creature most successful in its new environment. The negative role of natural selection is seen in the elimination or minimization of harmful mutations when they occur. The disadvantage of the mutation prevents its spread through the population.

Is there no such thing as a beneficial mutation? I'm afraid that I have to depart from my creationist colleagues that maintain the impossibility of such an occurrence. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation. For example, there occurred in Florida in 1914 a mutation in the tomato which caused a change in its growth pattern, making the tomatoes much easier to harvest. Because of human selection for this mutation, it has been spread throughout the cultivated tomato. The mutation for antibiotic resistance in bacteria is certainly beneficial for those bacteria whose environment is swamped with antibiotic. Of course, none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another.

A type of change of a rather more significant nature involves the decrease or loss of some structure or function. Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would reduce that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss and never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced on creatures on which they have never existed.

Creation

And now the fourth and final source of variation: creation. Why is it a necessary part of the history of life? Simply because the first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves, and foxes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

References

Bethell, Tom. 1980. "The Death of Keynes: Supply-side Economics," National Review, December 31, 1980, p. 1562.

Darwin, Charles. 1958. _On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection_, The New American Library.

Lindsley, Dan L., and E. H. Grell. 1967. _Genetic Variations of Drosophila Melanogaster_, Carnegie Institution of Washington Pub. No. 627.

342 posted on 10/24/2005 2:27:58 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

YEC troll attempting to post entire Creation Research web site URL by URL placemarker.

343 posted on 10/24/2005 2:36:47 PM PDT by ml1954

1-15 as a chain of events is quite logical, if positive mutation was in evidence in nature. Without that you have to have millions of years to cover the lack of positive mutations, and to stack 15 of them in a row is pretty hard to swallow.

Duane Gish claimed that hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones would explode spontaneously if mixed without a chemical inhibitor, and that the beetle starts with a mix of all three and adds an anti-inhibitor when he wants the explosion.

I was unaware of this argument, but something I do not understand, I expect that the mixture of the two agents with an inhibitor and the addition of an anti-inhibitor is the mechanism, because if that was not the mechanism the refutation would have gladly pointed that out. But if the mixture of part A and part B does not explode when put together, then an inhibitor does nothing and an anti-inhibitor is equally useless. I suspect the statement that A and B do not explode when put together is bait and switch. They obviously do react or the entire mechanism does not work and the whole beetle does not exist.

As to the moon creation I agree with you, I figure that was the mechanism as the orbit of the moon is pretty non elliptical which a capture event would cause. However that is why the positive feedback balance of the moon precludes that happening, as the moon would have crashed into the earth or spun off into space at the slightest imbalance with any real length of time, an imbalance that is assured with all the meteor events displayed by the moons surface. It is a young earth argument, which I came to in conclusion by myself, I see I am not the only one out there. They of course are a lot more into it than me, I never really cared that much, I take young earth for granted for many reasons.

Now if it is fair to teach there is no designer, then is it not fair to teach there may be one? Intelligent design simply means design happened, who, what, why we cannot know for sure. But the Naturalistic Humanist does not own the playing field, the Parents do. Let the Parents do the religion, I am sure they will appreciate the return of their rights.

In my musings tonight, I found this section you may find interesting, it addresses some of your viewpoint on ID. Frankly Evolution is silly to me, and non evident in the most basic of observation in the world. It is a theory, like all the rest, as strong as its evidence, of which there is none. There is NO evidence of evolution at all that I have come across myself, but lots of a young earth. Life is just a lot of sometimes conflicting theory's, but I see evidence of creation everywhere. Perhaps it is something with my eyes, the amoeba that designed them screwed up or something. -grin-

Thanks for your reasoned reply, the sh$%^ storm of replies by abusive people was unexpected. I see the moderators are used to it, we got backroomed before they mushroomed. Perhaps you got lumped together with all the rest and you are the interesting conversation I hoped for.

Sorry for my tone. I was getting rather irritated by the abusive jerks that say things like "This is so easy to refute, I don't have too because you are so stupid, yet never really put forth an original thought on their own, or bother to go find one with a google. What a waste of bandwidth.

Naturalism Assailed by Scientific Creationism

Most creationists date the revival of modern scientific creationism from the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1961. Soon after, the Creation Research Society was founded. By the early 1970s, Drs. Morris and Gish were unveiling scientific flaws in evolution in debates held around the United States, and then internationally. Since then, the modern creationist movement has grown to include a variety of individuals represented by at least three principal organizations, all committed to (1) a traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-11, including creation in six 24-hour days, (2) a young Earth, and (3) a global flood responsible for most of the rock record that uniformitarian scientists assert took billions of years to form. These organizations include the Creation Research Society, founded in 1963; the Institute for Creation Research, founded in 1972; and Answers in Genesis, founded in 1993. Numerous local organizations also work hard to propagate the creationist message.

Modern creationism initially attracted attention because of the emphasis on a scientific rebuttal of evolution and uniformitarianism-a method that would prove impossible if there were any truth to Naturalists' claims of a science-versus-religion conflict. But there were also problems. The scientific approach led to friction between creation scientists and some professional theologians. The theologians were biased against the conservative denominational affiliations of the creationists and hesitated to associate with those the academic establishment had labeled "anti-intellectual." Many sincere theologians were indifferent to the age of the Earth and the length of the creation days, ignorant of the role of uniformitarianism and blind to its challenge to biblical authority. Thus, the early attacks on Naturalism emphasized scientific evidence against evolution.

What has come from the past decades? Thankfully, many individuals have recovered proper confidence in the Bible as an authoritative revelation. Furthermore, Christians have seen the once-invincible aura of uniformitarian history founder on incisive critiques and contrary data. However, no mainline Protestant or Orthodox denomination nor the Roman Catholic Church actively defends a young Earth or special creation as opposed to evolution. Few evangelical denominations do either, and many are rent by strife over the issue. Apart from a few brave teachers, no public university or school condones teaching even a comparative evaluation of creationist and evolutionist natural history. Relatively few private universities do either, and some of the most virulent anti-creationist rhetoric emerges from "Christian" institutions. No major seminary and only a few small ones teach a recent creation and universal Flood. Despite the inroads of the 1970s and the continuing laudable efforts of individuals and organizations, progress on the creationist front appears to have slowed.

Unfortunately, the efforts of such stalwarts as Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish that created such turmoil among Naturalists have given way to those who seek a compromise between the "extremes." The most recent trend in that direction is that of Intelligent Design (ID): prestigious scientists and scholars present complex evidence for the creation, but they either tactfully avoid the young-Earth controversy or affirm its contrary. They are welcomed with comparative relief by theologians who were placed in very uncomfortable positions only a few decades back. One of the leaders of this movement is Dr. Phillip Johnson, author of several popular books (Johnson, 1993; 1995; 1997). He epitomizes both the positive and negative aspects of the Intelligent Design movement. Positively, he has done something that the "scientific" creationists neglected: a logical critique of evolution as it resides within the worldview of Naturalism. Negatively, he has failed to see the internal linkage between Naturalism's epistemology-positivism-and its justification of history in uniformitarianism. We seek to correct this oversight. In summary, scientific creationism was an appropriate argument to start the battle, but it is not the major theme that will ultimately lead to victory.

344 posted on 10/24/2005 3:11:37 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

To: American in Israel

"Here is another cut and paste, since you love them so well: "

It's one thing to cut and paste, as long as you give a link. On this post (341) you have just stolen someone else's work.

" Denying supernatural acts of creation, evolutionism is forced to admit a miracle of the second principle of thermodynamics being invalid despite its universal character. "

The 2nd Law is not a problem for evolution because the Earth isn't a closed system by any stretch of the imagination. Tomorrow take a look out a window, and there will most likely be this big orange looking thing called the Sun. That's what drives life on Earth, that's what supplies the energy usable to do work. If what Creationists say is true, then an acorn couldn't grow up to be a tree. It's a pathetic misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

"A product of atheism, evolutionism claims that mankind is the only intelligence in the universe, thereby justifying the re-making of nature and society in accordance with the false ideals of scientific and technological progress."

Evolution says no such thing. Name an evolutionist that said that only humans have intelligence. As for being a product of Atheism, that's another creationist lie. The rest of your statement (well, not really yours, cause you stole it) is a screed against the use of Reason in Man's life.

"Thought since you think I am so stupid, you could listen to a real professor and learn a bit."

Now we are in agreement. :)

345 posted on 10/24/2005 3:17:30 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")

To: Senator Bedfellow

You might want to actually read the article as well as the refutation. I read the refutation, and the point of the test was not based on accelerated nuclear decay, but as below:

The data also resoundingly reject the Uniformitarian model. The points of that model are the values of diffusivity required to retain the observed amounts of helium for 1.5 billion years at today's temperatures in the rock unit. However, uniformitarian thermal models of the rock unit require that the temperatures have been higher in the past (Kolstad and McGetchin, 1978; Harrison et al., 1986; Sakada, 1989). So the points of our Uniformitarian model are below the average temperatures during the alleged eons. A more accurate depiction would slide the Uniformitarian model points horizontally leftward to represent the allegedly higher average temperatures. That would make the vertical gap between that model and the data even larger (Humphreys et al., 2003b, see poster and extended temperature range Arrhenius plot at its bottom). Thus the Uniformitarian model in Figure 6 is very generous to uniformitarians, minimizing the gap. Even so, the data points are about 100,000 times higher than the model points. Uniformitarianism has totally failed this experimental test!

... Note carefully: Our diffusion dating method above differs entirely from the "helium dating" of (U-Th)/He chronometry (Reiners, 2002). Very crudely, the difference is this: (U-Th)/He chronometry divides the number of helium atoms in a crystal by nuclear decay rate. Diffusion dating divides the number of helium atoms lost from the crystal by the diffusion rate. It appears the practitioners of (U-Th)/He chronometry, in their unpublished comments upon this work, have not yet understood this basic distinction

Article

346 posted on 10/24/2005 3:41:12 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

YEC troll attempting to post ...

No, spent two days stating my position in a friendly way to mounting abuse and then got hit with a huge cut and paste as a "refutation". After trying to get a real response I decided to check out the cut and paste and suprise, found lots of other articles and loads of Data. The local trash mouths can't shoot this down because a fellow freeper posted it in his own words, but can at least try to address the issues with cut and paste comments of their own. Its like sign language, for peopel who cannot carry a thought of their own. But, sigh, when with the romans, you gotta play roman. But I think I will skip the trash mouth thing as much as I can resist.

After being told it was all so easy to refute that refutation was not needed, on about my 20th point, I decided to give each of the trash mouths posts that they could not refute based on the fact that I wrote them, nor ignore with any self respect.

I forgot they do not have self respect in the first place I guess, because I still get no refutation, only garbage.

So if you want to refute any of these articles I suggest you make the effort to do so, and I most likely will respond. That is if you wash your mouth out with soap first.

I finally got two decent responses, one from someones viewpoint, which I responded personally to, and a second one that was a decent write up, but on inspection was a real stinker with miss directed points and statements that did not actually address the experiment but attacked the personal theory's of some of the experimenters.

Real snaky argument, pretty much an academic verision of what I am experiencing here. Suprising how veniment Evl's are about their faith. I am beginning to believe this is a spiritual battle, not a scientific one.

The experiment stands on its own, the lead tests confirm the helium diffusion rates, the test was not using the accelerated radiation decay theory's of some of the researchers as the refutation implied.

The refutation was interesting in one point, it by accident highlighted the situation of lack of short term decay items indicating a old earth stated in the original article.

That does pose a question that needs to be answered. Of which I do not have an answer. So, I guess I will look around, and ask God.

So the score is 1 to 87 now. I think I am in a pretty good position at this point as all lack of attempts to refute something are defaults to me. Still it feels nice to be the first to admit a point I do not know, in a sea of know it alls.

And for your information I have kept on topic, unless of course you think slander is the topic. Troll? I hardly think so.

347 posted on 10/24/2005 4:03:27 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

To: American in Israel

You might want to actually read the article as well as the refutation. I read the refutation, and the point of the test was not based on accelerated nuclear decay, but as below

You should take your own advice. From the reply:

As stated in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 20), Dr. Farley performed helium analyses on zircons from a depth of 750 meters in the Fenton Hill GT-2 borehole core. Again, these zircons were taken from a gneiss and not the Jemez Granodiorite as Humphreys et al. (2003a) repeatedly claim. During the study, non-YEC Dr. Farley was not informed that he was providing data for a YEC project (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 6-7).

In Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 20), Dr. Farley refers to the zircon samples (750-meters depth) as releasing "540" nanomoles of helium/gram of sample (nmol/g) (or ~12.1 x 10-9 cc STP/μg of zircon; Humphreys et al., 2004, Table I, p. 3) during the initial heating phase to 500Â°C. As shown in the following quotation, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 13) feel that this partial helium measurement is somehow compatible and supportive of their revisions (see my Table 1) of Gentry et al.'s (1982a) total helium measurements:

"But as Appendix C reports, our experimenter Kenneth Farley, not knowing how much he should find and going to only 500Â°C, got a PARTIAL (NOT EXHAUSTIVE) YIELD of 540 nanomoles of helium per gram of zircon, or in Gentry's units, 11 x 10-9 cm3/microgram [note: the correct value as listed in Humphreys et al., 2004, p. 3, is 12.1 x 10-9 cm3/microgram]. That is on the same order of magnitude as Gentry's results in Table 2 [Humphreys et al., 2003a], which reports the TOTAL (EXHAUSTIVE) amount liberated after heating to 1000Â°C until no more helium would emerge. Thus our experiments support Gentry's data." [my emphasis]

Because the "540" nmol/g is only a partial helium measurement and not a finalized total value, Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 3) have no justification for even reporting this value as an "approximation" in their Table 1 (that is, ~ 12.1 ncc STP/μg). Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 13) also have no rational reason for comparing this incomplete analysis with revisions of Gentry et al.'s data and then declaring that the measurements "support" each other. The fallacy of this comparison becomes very clear when all of the data in Table C1 of Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 21) are reviewed. In the table, heating steps 1-14 represent the initial temperature increase to 500Â°C. If the nmol/g concentrations of helium are summed for the 14 steps (5.337083... 171.5538), the total amount of released helium is 864 nmol/g and not 540 nmol/g. If the amount of helium released by all 44 steps is summed, a total of 1794 nmol/g is obtained. However, the cumulative fraction for step 44 in Table C1 is only 0.423501. By analogy with the biotite analyses in Tables B1 and B2 in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 18-19) and the zircon studies in Table II of Humphreys et al. (2004, p. 6), Farley must have obtained 57.6499% of the total helium from the zircon sample during a fusion step. This fusion step would have released 2442 nmol/g of helium giving a grand total of 4236 nmol/g or 9.5 x 10-8 cc STP/μg (= 95 ncc STP/μg) of helium from the sample.

348 posted on 10/24/2005 4:05:30 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow

To: American in Israel

I didn't post to you, so get lost.

349 posted on 10/24/2005 4:09:42 PM PDT by ml1954

To: CarolinaGuitarman

The 2nd Law is not a problem for evolution because the Earth isn't a closed system by any stretch of the imagination.

But the universe isn't. If things go from a state of order to disorder, then Evolution goes from a state of disorder to order. You ignore the obvious to argue the obtuse by trying to play scale games. Same as the scale game of positive mutation being effectively mathematically impossible, and then deciding the world must be billions of years old for the dice roll to work. Then ignoring that the entire "tree of life" has so many trillions of DNA changes to make the necessary changes that the world would have to be trillions of billions of years old.

The scale game is a useless effort to hide from reality with thousands of zeros, a real empty demonstration of your point.

A product of atheism, evolutionism claims that mankind is the only intelligence in the universe, thereby justifying the re-making of nature and society in accordance with the false ideals of scientific and technological progress."

Its a philosophical viewpoint son. You must have flunked that class. There are more fish in the sea than tuna.

Now we are in agreement. :)

You really must be the life of the party, ever been invited to one at the same place twice?

350 posted on 10/24/2005 4:11:09 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

I didn't post to you, so get lost.

No you posted about me in a public forum and I, sir, am part of the public.

You hate responsibility for your actions don't you? Bet you will learn to really hate it in the future.

351 posted on 10/24/2005 4:13:10 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

To: American in Israel

"Since you thought my comments to base for your comments, care to comment on this?"

That is the sort of track it would be much wiser to take if one wishes to look for scientific basis to justify ID. Gentry has an interesting theory of polonium halos where more conventional dating would suggest the surrounding rock is much older. He is also apparently a decent physicist with a Master's degree. He does have one case of documented fraud to deal with in his reputation but it's not directly related to the creation debate...

His work is interesting enough to have caused a variety of PhD level physicists to take a look at it. Some of them think it is a mystery and some think that there was a phenomenum of granite replacement that explains the halos.

In any case it's interesting work and it's a shame he did not submit to any peer reviewed journals where it could be tested.

352 posted on 10/24/2005 4:16:13 PM PDT by gondramB

To: American in Israel

" Oh well, I will try again, this is your big chance to become famous Professor, refute this article and you will be."

My take on that is that the north and south poles (magnetically speaking) are about to flip again.. This has happened before. It makes sense that the field would weaken before it flips.

"Reduction in the Intensity of the Earth Magnetic Field

It seems, that strength of the Earth magnetic field decreased by 10 % during the last one hundred fifty years, leading some specialists to assuming the possibility of its complete disappearing with time to the point when it gets reversed, causing an inversion of the magnetic poles for the first time for more than 700 thousand years. "

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-29/31706.html

The link you cite is an example of good science but then drawing a conclusion that ignores data that would contradict the desired conclusion. In this case he could have easily done research to find that previous changes in the magnetic field have occurred. this leaves a signature in rock called the hysteresis effect..oddly enough the science is the same science that lets the government reconstruct what was on your hard drive even after you erase it 5 times.

353 posted on 10/24/2005 4:27:03 PM PDT by gondramB

I think a majority believe in the workings of evolution, but reject it as the explanation for the origins of life

It's refreshing to read your post.

I'm in the majority you describe. It is obvious to anyone who has seen birth defects that the human species (and plant life) mutates, but, as Perloff points out, it is always to the detriment of the species.

354 posted on 10/24/2005 4:28:01 PM PDT by GretchenM (Hooked on porn and hating it? Visit http://www.theophostic.com .)

To: Senator Bedfellow

?As stated in Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 20), Dr. Farley performed helium analyses on zircons from a depth of 750 meters in the Fenton Hill GT-2 borehole core. Again, these zircons were taken from a gneiss and not the Jemez Granodiorite as Humphreys et al. (2003a) repeatedly claim. During the study, non-YEC Dr. Farley was not informed that he was providing data for a YEC project (Humphreys et al., 2003a, p. 6-7).
In the fall of 2002, we acquired new samples from borehole GT-2, this time from a depth of 1490 meters. That is between the depths of Gentry's samples 1 and 2 (see Table I). We sent them to Activation Laboratories, where Kapusta extracted both biotites and zircons. This time he sorted the zircons into several size groups, getting about 1200 crystals in the size range Gentry used, having lengths of 50-75 Âµm.

This from the same borehole.

Back at ya! Tell me, why did your article deliberatly misdirect? This was the sample used in the final test, the article admits finding almost the same values as the first researcher till they corrected temperatures to values that were reasonable for what would occur in Nature. What does your refutation have to hide, this is about science, not philosophy right?

... In the table, heating steps 1-14 represent the initial temperature increase to 500Ã‚Â°C. If the nmol/g concentrations of helium are summed for the 14 steps (5.337083... 171.5538), the total amount of released helium is 864 nmol/g and not 540 nmol/g....

Farley must have obtained 57.6499% of the total helium from the zircon sample during a fusion step. This fusion step would have released 2442 nmol/g of helium giving a grand total of 4236 nmol/g or 9.5 x 10-8 cc STP/μg (= 95 ncc STP/μg) of helium from the sample.

The standard formulas (Fechtig and Kalbitzer, 1966, p. 71) assume that the initial distribution of helium in the zircons is uniform. But in reality, the zircons would have a "rounded" helium-versus-radius profile due to the in situ helium loss into the biotite. That is, less helium would emerge during the initial heating steps, because the outer regions of the zircon would be helium-depleted. In that case, said the devisers of the standard formulas (Fechtig and Kalbitzer, 1966, p. 71), "The apparent diffusion constants will come out too low, and the activation energies too high." In his report on the 2002 zircon runs (Humphreys et al., 2003, Appendix C), our experimenter advised us that to account for this effect, we should ignore the first set of increasing-temperature steps in his runs. For the 2003 zircons, he reported that we should treat them just the same. Accordingly, we ignored steps 1-9 in calculating D. A more sophisticated analysis could probably extract accurate values of D from the raw helium-time data for those steps, but we leave that work for later research. Bolds mine... Even if you count 43% of the Helium as being concentrated on the surface of the zircon to get your 57% recovery rate, it still does not make up for the 100,000 point difference in total rate of release. That is the point of the experiment, the zeros tend to add up quick when you are talking about helium leaking from a crystal over 6,000 years vs 100,000 years. The data plots even if off by 100 percent are still quite well in the short earth camp. I, uh, did read it.

355 posted on 10/24/2005 4:32:43 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

I didn't realize how badly things have deteriorated over at "Rent-a-Troll"; from the quality of the one posting here, they must be competing with "Rent-a-Bum" for manpower.

If a plagiarizing second-hand thinker is the best they can do, life must really be tough for the professional trolls.

356 posted on 10/24/2005 4:33:08 PM PDT by longshadow

I think the magnetic field collapse came from an external event, the very same event that caused the ice shield to collapse during the Noah flood. The direct effect of passing solar bodies on the magnetic field was exhibited with Doppler effect magnetic fluctuations cause by the Hale Bop and other comets.

I will have to see if I can find the article, it really was fascinating.

But of course, anything is believeable if they add enough zeros, it is the every 700,000 year effect. -grin-

357 posted on 10/24/2005 4:37:33 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

To: American in Israel

Tell me, why did your article deliberatly misdirect?

"Deliberately". It didn't - it is clear that the value given by Humphries for the helium evolved by heating is not only wrong, it's positively dishonest. See it or not as it suits you, but there it is, in black or white.

The data also resoundingly reject the Uniformitarian model.

So the data's either completely wrong or completely bogus, but it still supports the desired conclusion. Or, to borrow someone else's account when his hand got caught in the cookie jar, it's "fake, but accurate". Well, well - thanks for sharing, Mr. Rather. LOL.

358 posted on 10/24/2005 4:38:52 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow

TROLLING

1.Surfing, or browsing, the Web.

2.Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding.

359 posted on 10/24/2005 4:43:40 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

This I just found:

...The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

Their postulation is that field reversals are not discharges and recharges of the total energy, but simple field reversals. I tend to agree, for what would recharge it? It also mentioned field reversals during the flood, I guess they guessed the same.

360 posted on 10/24/2005 5:01:21 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794