Korean Job Discussion Forums

[nautilus]

[tomato]

[tomato]

The tetrapod discovery is getting kicked around on the evolutionfairytale forum.

A Creationist brought it up.

An Evolutionist responded about like I did, that science is correcting itself.

The Creationist said something like, "If I've heard this once, I've heard it a thousand times: 'science is correcting itself.' If science corrects itself, how could the scientists claim to to be right in the first place.

The Evolutionist responded that scientists do not claim to be right, they merely claim to draw the best conclusion they can given the available evidence.

I don't think Creationists understand this, because Creationists claim to be right and therefore assume that Evolutionists also claim to be right.

[nautilus]

[tomato]

[tomato]

Found something interesting today:
On page 52 of A New Theory of Human Evolution, Sir Brian Keith says that "Early religion worhipped ancestors."
Could this mean that we all carry an instinct to worship our own ancestors? I am not conscious of such a drive myself, but it could be lying hidden somewhere in my unconscious.

Confucius told his followers to respect their ancestors. Some of his followers now worship their ancestors. Some critics say that they are misinterpreting Confucius, but are they really?

I realize that the Bible doesn't say tell us to worship Adam, but it comes close to that when it says that God created man in his own image.
Besides, some cults place reserve a higher station for Adam than the Bible does. The Mormons have a doctrine which the anti-Mormons refer to as the "Adam=God Doctrine." The Moonies say that God tried tried three times to endow the earth with a perfect prophet with a perfect family. Those three attempts were supposedly made with Adam, Jesus, and Reverend Moon.

Could this instinct add an emotional element to the Creationist case? If Evolution is proven true, then those who worship their ancestors will have an unpleasant choice between renouncing ancestor worship and worshipping hairy hominids.

It's all the same to me whether we are descended from apes, from eucalyptus trees, or from cocker spaniels. But other people may feel differently.

[nautilus]

[nautilus]

More of interest:

Sun's activity alters decay rates of radioactive elements

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation.

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/

Other planetry systems defy laws of physics
August 31, 2010 � Before the first extrasolar planets were discovered, astronomers had high confidence that other solar systems would resemble ours. We have rocky planets close to the sun, and gas giants farther out. Planetary scientists were pretty sure the pattern would hold up around other stars. Now that we have hundreds of examples to compare, the reality has been far different from expectations.
There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits. There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system. There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii�at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet. There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn�t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense. There are planets with tilted orbits. There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits. There are planets that orbit retrograde�that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star�s rotation. There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation. For instance, some planets are much too close to one another.

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS/articles/LXXIII3/2010_Summer_JohnJohnson.pdf

August 24, 2010 � Science articles often go beyond the data. A jumble of bones found on an island is boring; people want a story of what they were, and how they got that way. Many scientists and reporters are only happy to fulfill that curiosity. But are the stories they tell, usually presented as fact, the only way to interpret the context?

Arctic reptiles
One does not normally envision alligators and tortoises roaming on Arctic ice, but according to Science Daily, these cold-blooded animals �thrived� there on Ellesmere Island 50 million years ago, despite being relegated to very little sunlight six months of the year. University of Colorado scientists are certain they have figured it out. Back in the Eocene, they surmise, it never got below freezing on Ellesmere. It was a balmy forested swamp back then, like Louisiana. It�s still a bit north, Dr. Jaelyn Eberle admitted: �the existence of large land tortoises in the Eocene High Arctic is still somewhat puzzling, said Eberle, since today�s large tortoises inhabit places like the Galapagos....� Interesting that bowfin fish were also found mixed in with the fossils, which including a surprising assortment of animals like �giant tortoises, aquatic turtles, large snakes, alligators, flying lemurs, tapirs, and hippo-like and rhino-like mammals� in a �lush landscape.� Interesting, also, that the paleontologists are concerned about coal miners disrupting the fossil beds. Coal � in the Arctic? Eberle managed to make her research politically relevant by describing the Eocene as a �a deep time analogue� to modern concerns about global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132417.htm
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm

Cell Regulation Doesn�t Just Happen
August 02, 2010 � Scientists are finding that it�s not just having the right parts that makes a body go; it�s having those parts controlled by the right regulators. Recent stories make the case with their headlines: ��Guardian of the Genome�: Protein Helps Prevent Damaged DNA in Yeast,� announced Science Daily.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100801101914.htm
�Scientists find gas pedal � and brake � for uncontrolled cell growth,� reported PhysOrg.
http://www.physorg.com/news199886285.html
Another PhysOrg article about stem cells gave �New insights into how stem cells determine what tissue to become.�
http://www.physorg.com/news199885917.html
Still another on PhysOrg said that �Researchers find key step in body�s ability to make red blood cells.�
http://www.physorg.com/news199888889.html
Finally, also on PhysOrg, another use was found for large pieces of RNA transcribed from the big stretches of code between genes.
http://www.physorg.com/news199625236.html
In ��Linc-ing� a noncoding RNA to a central cellular pathway,� the opening paragraph announced, �The recent discovery of more than a thousand genes known as large intergenic non-coding RNAs (or �lincRNAs�) opened up a new approach to understanding the function and organization of the genome. That surprising breakthrough is now made even more compelling with the finding that dozens of these lincRNAs are induced by p53 (the most commonly mutated gene in cancer), suggesting that this class of genes plays a critical role in cell development and regulation.� All that was announced in just 3 days of science news, suggesting this is a hot area of research. Without precise regulation of the parts of a cell and its genes, bad things happen.
This brief entry today is a teaser to go and read the articles, look for mentions of evolution or design, and think about which point of view found these discoveries surprising or not.
Of course, don�t expect to see the words �intelligent design� anywhere, since that phrase is effectively banned from secular science journalism. Look instead for indirect inferences that design is the best explanation. Or, look for the lack of attempts to explain the regulation by evolution.

http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm

[tomato]

[Globutron]

[Globutron]

Let's see if I can make an analogy...

It's hard because it is, in itself a kind of analogy.

erm... If I listen to a piece of music, I could say it's classical and incredibly complex. Xenakis, for example.

Then talking to the composer, Xenakis, It could turn out that the music was a load of dogs being thrown on a trampoline, and then the sound reversed.
The result was a piece of music that is contemporary and beyond what I could have composed, but happened by randomised dogs and trampolines (this is how a lot of music is made these days).

Terrible I know. Don't argue 'how did the trampoline and dog get there, xenakis is a designer' - that isnt the point. Something random, that follows the laws of physics could simply be loosely represented by what we discover, also by following the laws of physics. We're all following the same rules, afterall.


And Tomato, post the dating thing if its no trouble, I'd be interested.

[nautilus]

[tomato]

objections to
Evolutionist dating techniques

Joseph Farnsworth was reading Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish. He got to page 51, in which Gish says, �Recent publications have exposed weaknesses and fallacies in radiometric dating methods.� Farnsworth almost believed this. But then he looked up the footnotes and found them all to be Creationist sources.

It is good that Farnsworth did not get fooled, as many of Gish's other readers probably have. But let us not err in the opposite direction. All messages from unreliable sources are not necessarily false. Hypochondriacs sometimes get sick, paranoids sometimes get persecuted, and Creationists sometimes write something which is scientifically valid.

So let us look up the footnotes from page 51 and see:

▶ The age of the earth "can only be known by means of divine revelation."

These are the words quoted from The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb & Morris.

▶ Carbon dating is reliable only up to a certain age.

In his book Prehistory and Earth Models, M. A. Cook speaks of the unreliability of carbon-14 dating for fossils past a certain age.

▶ Dating techniques do not take past catastrophes into account.

In the first two pages of Critique of radiometric dating methods, H. S. Slusher claims that mainline science fails to account for past catastrophes, such as volcano eruptions.

▶ Dating techniques do not take changes in the decay rate into account.

In the same book, Slusher accuses scientists of failing to account for changes in the decay rate. He mentions the difference in the decay rates of cesium 133 and iron 57 as examples.

In the McKee debate of 2001, Gish said that a person making a radiometric reading would "have to assume the decay rates have always been constant, even though �nobody was back there millions of years ago to measure those decay rates.�

▶ There have been inaccurate readings from lava flows.

In an article in Creation Research Society Quarterly, S. P. Clementson argues that new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.

Gish has added some arguments of his own:

▶ Radiochronologists may fail to account for intrusions and extrusions.

In the McKee debate, Gish spoke at length on the "uranium salts, potassium salts, rubidium salts, or solvent water" and on the "lead 206, 207, and 208" which "could have an apparent age of millions and even billions of years to begin with." According to Gish, the age of these intrusions and extrusions could be mistaken for the age of the sample itself.

▶ Radiochronologists are guilty of cherry picking.

Also inn the McKee debate, Gish said that when radiochronologists find a sample which does not give the desired reading, "they simply throw it away."

When geological samples were taken from the Moon, Gish criticized the geologists for rejecting the samples which did not give the desired reading of 4.6 billion years.

Now for the Evolutionist side:

■ Scientists recognize the limitations of carbon dating.

Scientists are aware that carbon is valid only up to about 50,000 years. If a specimen seems to be older, Scientists use other techniques.

■ Radiometric dating is secure from differences in the decay rate.

Isotopes are "two or more atoms having the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons."

S. Brush argues that the two elements mentioned by Slusher are stable isotopes. Therefore, they have no decay rates to be changed.

Dalrymple argues that the only significant case of decadence of isotopes is that of internal conversion, meaning that energy is transmitted directly from an excited nucleus to an orbital electron, causing ejection of that electron from the atom. Dalrymple writes, "These changes are irrelevant to radiometric dating methods." Dalrymple furthermore states that decay rates are essentially unaffected by temperatures between -186�C to 2000�C,

■ Scientists recognize that rocks of different dates can be found in the same place.

Isaak was unable to locate one of Gish's references, but is aware of the danger of dating xenolyths, or older inclusions, by accident. Are xenolyths known only to Creationists? Not very likely.

■ Intrusions and extrusions could be younger than the fossils in the rock.

McKee mentioned a site in which the intrusions were younger than fossils. However, even these intrusions and extrusions were not young enough to confirm Young Earth Creationism.

■ Geologists reject samples in which readings could be affected by outside factors.

Isaak quotes Henke as calling attention to the high cost of radiometric testing. It is unlikely, therefore, that one would spend hundreds of dollars on a sample reading, just to throw out the results if they do not meet one's own fancy.

Kenneth Miller and Isaak counter that geologists rejected samples in which the readings could be affected by outside factors.

What is a geologist supposed to do if a sample contains older and younger elements which could be confused? Make one reading for the whole sample? Then the Creationists would accuse the geologist of ignoring the younger factors in order to get an older reading. Or reject the sample on the grounds that the outside factors could confound the reading? Then the Creationists would accuse the geologist of hiding the sample for fear of getting a younger reading. So the Creationists have the geologist in a double bind.

■ Even when radiometric readings disagree, they do not confirm Young Earth Creationism.

McKee gives the example of a fossil collection found in East Africa which was originally dated at 2 million years and later corrected to 1.75 million years. Big deal. Now we're .25 million years closer to confirming Young Earth Creation.

■ ICR's field work is deceptive.

In 1992, the ICR members took a break from writing their Creationist propaganda, took a trip to Mount Saint Helens, gathered up some rock samples, and sent them in to radiometry laboratories for testing. Their venture was later written up by a member of their team.

Isn't that exciting? The Institute for Creation Research actually went out and did some good, honest, valid field work!

Or did they? Let's see: In the McKee debate, Gish said that ICR sent lava extrusions to two different radiometry labs and got two different readings--2-3 b y a and 1.3 b y a.

What Gish does not say was that the Institute sent samples from different lava flows to these different labs.

In the same debate, Gish also told us that the Institute found a rock sample which was only 12 years old at the time, sent it to a radiometry lab, and got a reading of 300,000 years old.

What Gish did not tell us was that the lab did not purport to accurately measure samples less than two million years old.

Furthermore, Gish did not tell us that the samples were contaminated by crystals from other sources. Excuse the tu quoque fallacy, but Creationists first accuse mainstream scientists of allowing foreign elements to invalidate a reading, now they do the exact same thing!

Pietruszewski claims that he asked the ICR members why the researcher did not try other radiometric tests. He received a reply that he "maybe hasn't done it yet." This was in October 1997, after the Institute posted a report on the Web as if it were complete.

It seems incredible that a party would spend so much time, money, and energy on a project just to pull a trick on an opposing party. But apparently it is true.

■ Radiometric readings are cross-tested.

McKee and Isaak speak of the tireless efforts to cross-test the various dating techniques. The best known techniques are the radiocarbon, potassium-argon, and uranium-lead techniques, but other techniques include samarium-neodymium, rubidium-strontium, uranium-thorium, fission track, chlorine-36, and optically stimulated luminescence.

How could these dating techniques agree closely with each other? There are only three explanations that I can think of.

The first explanation is that they are all close to accurate. Have you ever seen two identical test papers with low scores? Neither have I.

Or perhaps they are all wrong, but come from the same unreliable source. Maybe Satan and his imps are registering all these laboratory readings.

My third explanation is that God is testing us to see who are his true Bible believers, who can remain loyal and faithful in the face of contradictory evidence.

Can you pass that test? Good. Neither can I. I'll see you in Hell.

[nautilus]

[tomato]

I just thought of something:

I understand you to say that the world's problems will be solved if enough people convert to Creationism.
But nearly everyone was a Creationist until Darwin's time, and the world was in a big mess then.
You may say that the culprit is Original Sin, not Creationism.
But Original Sin hasn't been lifted.

So how can Creationism solve the world's problems now if it couldn't before?