Login

Join for Free!
118340 members


Bird-Dinosaur News

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby AstusAleator » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:32 am

AFJ wrote:Why do you not understand that there are only two basic assumptions one can make about this subject? Either it evolved from naturalistic processes, or it was designed by creative fiat, or I guess we can have the hybrid--God used evolution.


Even if you're right, science clearly cannot use the second assumption without some sort of body of evidence.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:34 am

Even if you're right, science clearly cannot use the second assumption without some sort of body of evidence.


Would you ever consider reading creationists articles, if they were university professors or experienced field geologists with Ph.Ds. ?

There is evidence that is ignored or overlooked because one would not look for it, or if it is seen it is fitted into a hypothesis that is only based from other hypotheses, not evidence.

I do not presume to teach you, as I assume you are probably in the science field, and I a student of science. But I say this as a theologian. 1)One must interpret from the obvious to the obscure, lest we build false doctrine. 2)If you lay an unsquare foundation then your walls and everything in the building will have to be adjusted, and some of it covered up to make it look right. 3)The truth always stands, though not always fully seen, no matter how thought patterns and belief systems are formatted.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AstusAleator » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:59 am

I have read creationist articles, such as this one:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res ... chp_sa_r01

These articles usually don't do anything more than attempt to poke holes in current theory. They provide no evidence of actual creation.

Furthermore they are usually pseudoscience (or deliberate attempts to delude)
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt ... ite_kh.htm

AFJ wrote:One must interpret from the obvious to the obscure, lest we build false doctrine. 2)If you lay an unsquare foundation then your walls and everything in the building will have to be adjusted, and some of it covered up to make it look right. 3)The truth always stands, though not always fully seen, no matter how thought patterns and belief systems are formatted.


One of the great things about science is that it doesn't have to rely on metaphors or vagueness.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA


Postby alextemplet » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:44 am

AFJ, theology and the natural sciences are two completely different fields. You can't use the rules of one to command the other. That'd be like trying to steal second base in the middle of a football game.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:19 pm

Alex wrote
AFJ, theology and the natural sciences are two completely different fields. You can't use the rules of one to command the other. That'd be like trying to steal second base in the middle of a football game.

I agree, but both rely on interpretation. Fossils can't speak, neither can strata, only a paleontologist or a geologist. If a geologist follows and believes uniformintarianism, when he sees thick strata that has huge folds (bends) in it, he would never assume that it was laid wet. These are impossible features if the strata was laid down over millions of years!! But a creationist has a global flood in his model which can attribute this feature.
Mr. Astus wrote
I have read creationist articles, such as this one:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res ... chp_sa_r01

These articles usually don't do anything more than attempt to poke holes in current theory. They provide no evidence of actual creation.

I'm having trouble understanding "attempt to poke holes." Mr. Astus. This is a significant finding. If you read this then you understand that there was already argon in the very recent samples. The point is that when a ratio is given by these labs, they only give a ratio--there is no way they can tell you how much potassium actually depronated in the past and became argon.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AstusAleator » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:38 pm

AFJ wrote:I'm having trouble understanding "attempt to poke holes." Mr. Astus. This is a significant finding. If you read this then you understand that there was already argon in the very recent samples. The point is that when a ratio is given by these labs, they only give a ratio--there is no way they can tell you how much potassium actually depronated in the past and became argon.


Did you not read the rebuttal I linked to? It addresses the article far better than I could hope to. The lab that did the measurements clearly stated that they were not equipped to accurately measure anything less than 2myo and expect significant results. The Ar present may have been residual from previous tests, or it could have been included in the materials in the form of phenocrysts or xenocrysts (Which Austin deliberately tried to remove from the samples, for obvious reasons).
The results are NOT conclusive or significant but anyone wearing "creationists glasses" will see them as so.

please read the link I provided and furthermore, check out his links to studies supporting the validity of the K/Ar method.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Postby alextemplet » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:23 pm

AstusAleator wrote:The results are NOT conclusive or significant but anyone wearing "creationists glasses" will see them as so.


Science cannot progress, and neither will this discussion, unless all involved agree never to "wear glasses" in the first place.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:27 am

Alex, do you really think you can be neutral or unbiased? I understand we need to be objective, but it is nearly impossible for anyone to be completely objective. Otherwise we would never be able to make a decision on anything. We can forever point--counterpoint, rebuttal the rebuttal. but at one point you make a decision where you are going to stand. You are Catholic--you could be Bahai, but your not because you decided on something. I'm an LSU fan because I decided to be, besides they are the best (lol). I know that doesn't apply completely but a little lightness never hurt.

I think we just need consider things while keeping in reserve our convictions. I read alot of stuff you guys give me. it helps me learn. But if you have no convictions then you are like a wave on the sea.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby AFJ » Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:51 am

Mr. Astus
Did you not read the rebuttal I linked to? It addresses the article far better than I could hope to.


Yes I did, Mr. Astus. If they were not equipped why would they go ahead and date the rocks and send them back? The bottom line is that there is no way to tell if a rock did not have argon (or lead) in it from the beginning of it's formation. Because a rock has lead 206 and uranium 238 in it does not prove the lead is a daughter. It only proves it is there. It also has many other minerals in it.

C-14 in "Ancient Rocks"
Many of these so-called ancient rocks contain C-14 in them also, which should not be there, because C-14 has a very short half-life of 5270 years.

Helium in "Ancient Rocks"
Helium is a by-product of uranium decay. Helium is so small it much of the helium would diffuse while nuclear decay continues. Research done on zircon crystals inside "1.5 billion an" granite in New Mexico found alot of helium when heated. The diffusion data matched assumed 6000 years calculations rather than an assumed 1.5 billion. The diffusion values were much greater than the "dated age" of 1.5 b by a factor of 100,00.

I also highly doubt that much argon gas could stay in so many rocks for billions of years as it is a noble gas which would not combine with other elements. This is, of course an assumption on my part, but based on the following facts.

1) Rocks are not perfectly closed systems, and cracks can many times be seen under the microscope.
2) They are in a "wild" environment. As well as being contaminated by minerals in or by water, they can be heated which causes expansion and elemental escape.
Last edited by AFJ on Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:58 am, edited 4 times in total.
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby LeoPol » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:57 am

Sunny. Instrumental methods are not perfect.
But then, this sedition can not be refuted!

"Our ancestors were flying? "

http://translate.google.ru/translate?pr ... ry_state0=
(http://spacenoology.agro.name/?page_id=24)
User avatar
LeoPol
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:49 am
Location: Ukraine, Kiev

Re: Bird-Dinosaur News

Postby robsabba » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:27 pm

AFJ wrote:I agree, but both rely on interpretation. Fossils can't speak, neither can strata, only a paleontologist or a geologist. If a geologist follows and believes uniformintarianism, when he sees thick strata that has huge folds (bends) in it, he would never assume that it was laid wet. These are impossible features if the strata was laid down over millions of years!! But a creationist has a global flood in his model which can attribute this feature.

These are NOT impossible features if the strata was layed down over millions of years. Not all strata are layed down over millions of years in any case. After rock is formed it can be deformed under high pressures/ temperatures. Therefore it is not impossible. On the other hand, it is impossible for wet sediment to be layered on top of each other, carved intact by rushing water, and then solidify into a canyon. As far as strata that is layed underwater, these do exist, and geologists can tell them apart from strata layed under terrestrial conditions. It has nothing to do with "uniformitarian assumptions."
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests