Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beausoleil · 07-12-2002, 03:00 PM

Drifting down from the refutations of YEC idiocy on one of those pages, I noticed something about the rarity of fossil meteorites. In fact, a large number of fossil meteorites have been identified and were reported at the meeting of the meteoritical society in Rome last year.

lpetrich · 07-12-2002, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:
I know that the genomes of bass are not yet sequenced, but it would be very interesting to compare those of the small- and large-mouth varieties. I'll bet a pint of Guiness that they are less related than man and bonobo.

Short of that, one could sequence genes that have a shared function; however, I have not been able to find out much by way of molecular-evolution research on fish.

ps418 · 07-13-2002, 10:10 AM

Lpetrich:
Give us all a break. Why would they have varied in exactly the same proportions? And why does one get good agreement with present-day measurements of the rate of continental drift?

ps418:
I'm writing an article on this subject for my website. This is a clear-cut case of radiometric dating being used to make a set of predictions about the modern world (plate vectors and relative velocities) that were subsequently verified (decades later) precisely by space geodetic measurements.

Okay, I was going to wait until I finished my article before I posted anything on this, but I can't resist. The link below is to fig.11 from:

Tectonic Motion and Deformation from Satellite Laser Ranging to Lageos, D. Smith R. Kolenkiewicz, P. Dunn, J. Robbins, M. Torrence, S. Klosko, R. Williamson, E. Pavlis, N. Douglas, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 95, no. B13, 22013-22041, December 1990.

Fig. 11, Smith et al., 1990.

There are at least 3 different ways of measuring current plate motions -- very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), sattelite laser ranging (SLR), and global positioning systems (GPS). The Smith et al. paper compares the rates of plate motion predicted by the radiometric-dating based plate kinematic model, Nuvel 1, on the one hand, and Lageos satellite SLR observations aquired, on the other hand.

The correlation is an amazing 0.989 (p. 22,013). Pretty whopping coincidence, considering that radiometric dates are just a bunch of random numbers, and considering that decays constants have varied wildly, and considering that the entire oceanic crust was supposedly extruded during a single tectonic catastrophe that lasted ~1 year!

I'll post a link to my article when I finish it. It will include VLBI and GPS-based comparisons also.

Patrick

EDIT: For some reason, if I click the link the image will not load. But if I copy the shortcut and past to the address box, the image does load. Go figure.

EDIT2: I uploaded the picture elsewhere so I can display it here.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]

caritas · 07-13-2002, 07:21 PM

So if you cannot accept with some assurance that decay rates have been reasonably constant over the eons due to our measurement technology only existing for several centuries do you believe, as you imply, that these decay rates were different (specifically much faster) than today despite the only recent ability to make measurements? It seems that your logic in rejecting the former would force you to reject the latter as well. Are you saying that we cannot know anything about these rates further back in time because we were not there (equiped with the needed instruments)? I'm interested in how you see this as an argument for YEC rather than an argument for the uselessness of any projections back in time.

Robert

tgamble · 07-14-2002, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by caritas:
So if you cannot accept with some assurance that decay rates have been reasonably constant over the eons due to our measurement technology only existing for several centuries do you believe, as you imply, that these decay rates were different (specifically much faster) than today despite the only recent ability to make measurements? It seems that your logic in rejecting the former would force you to reject the latter as well. Are you saying that we cannot know anything about these rates further back in time because we were not there (equiped with the needed instruments)? I'm interested in how you see this as an argument for YEC rather than an argument for the uselessness of any projections back in time.

Robert

Why, it's simple! GOD'S WORD says the earth is young so it is. No question. Undisputable, undeniable, absolute, unquestionable, 100% pure utter, total TRUTH! So we know for a FACT that the world is 6000 years old. No matter what you evil, atheistic, commi, bible bashing, christian persecuting, evilutionist scum say.

Since dateing methods tell a lie that the earth is older, there MUST be a problem. ie. decay rates can't be constant.

We know this MUST be the case because that's the only way to reconcile it with the TRUTH of GOD'S WORD!

Radiometric dating MUST be wrong because it conflicts with THE TRUTH!

You see? Simple!

caritas · 07-14-2002, 08:34 PM

Yes, tgamble, I'm sure your suggested YEC response is a popular route many YECs would take in answer to my point. I'm just holding out a little hope that Geo Theo, since he seemed once to see past the dark room of YEC thinking before his relapse, might be an exception and have an honest thought or two in response to my question.
I well understand you aetheistic "evilutionists'" experience of getting canned tripe from YEC debators when you have asked honest questions. I know too that many YECs are even more unhappy with theistic "evilutionists" like me; considering us to be the basest of traitors. Perhaps this is Geo's view. Still, I have 2 hardcore YEC friends who, despite our differences on this issue, respect and accept me as their brother in Christ. It may be a long shot but I will ask again of Geo Theo who, as a Christian, I consider my brother in Christ, for his prayerful and thoughtful consideration of my question.

RMSweet

Stephen T-B · 07-15-2002, 05:54 AM

Sorry folks. Thought I was somewhere else.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]

GeoTheo · 07-15-2002, 07:28 AM

Actually, These reasons I gave are not compelling arguements for a young Earth. I am intrigued by the comets though, and how it seems they should have become totally desintigratd by now. But, I reverted back to YEC because an Old Earth would cause the Bible not to make sense. I kind of just grabbed at these arguements.
I know almost nothing about geology. Reading that Guy that has the "Reason to believe" ministry is what caused me to question the YEC position.I listened to a tape of him debating Dr. Gish and he seemed more knowledgeable as well as more sincere. But then I found his theology and hermeneutics to be tortured and inconsistant as he tries to maintian that he is a fundamentalist Christian and Bible literalist. So I was kind of hoping I could just debate the biological aspects(kind of like how people here seem to avoid debating abiogenesis)
My stronger points are philosophy and biology.
evolution would have no hope in a young earth, so to really get to the bottom of the situation I should study lots of geology. I just think that living things are so much more interesting than rocks. I lost my old password and so got a new handle. I guess I could have just acted like I was somebody else but I felt like that would be being a weenie. So I reintroduced myself and this pesky age of the Earth thingy comes up.
To the Christian Guy:
No, I don't damn theistic evolutionsists to Hell. I believe being a Christian has to do with ones belief in Christ not their view of when was it that the dinosaurs walked the Earth.
What I actually did for a year was not think much about evolution. But since then I have become really involved in my Church and have seen God doing some wonderfull things. This strengthened my faith and caused me to approach the Old creation/evolution topic again. It is very important for me to work this out because I am in love with biology and would like to make a living in the feild. I will never believe in a totally closed system however because I know that God is real. This is expiriential knowledge on my part.
In a closed system evolution seems totally logical. (Once you get past the obvious dilemma of the first cause and abiogenesis.)
Well, I felt it could only pay to be honest.

tgamble · 07-15-2002, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Actually, These reasons I gave are not compelling arguements for a young Earth. I am intrigued by the comets though, and how it seems they should have become totally desintigratd by now. But, I reverted back to YEC because an Old Earth would cause the Bible not to make sense.

Sadly, another honest creationist!
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Coragyps · 07-15-2002, 08:27 AM

Quote:

I am intrigued by the comets though, and how it seems they should have become totally desintigratd by now.

With a trillion or so comets out there in the Oort and Kuiper clouds, it'll take a little while yet to deplete them all. And the Kuiper belt is showing more of itself every week, so don't try to claim "it's only a theory!"

07-13-2002, 10:10 AM	#13
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Lpetrich: Give us all a break. Why would they have varied in exactly the same proportions? And why does one get good agreement with present-day measurements of the rate of continental drift? ps418: I'm writing an article on this subject for my website. This is a clear-cut case of radiometric dating being used to make a set of predictions about the modern world (plate vectors and relative velocities) that were subsequently verified (decades later) precisely by space geodetic measurements. Okay, I was going to wait until I finished my article before I posted anything on this, but I can't resist. The link below is to fig.11 from: Tectonic Motion and Deformation from Satellite Laser Ranging to Lageos, D. Smith R. Kolenkiewicz, P. Dunn, J. Robbins, M. Torrence, S. Klosko, R. Williamson, E. Pavlis, N. Douglas, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 95, no. B13, 22013-22041, December 1990. Fig. 11, Smith et al., 1990. There are at least 3 different ways of measuring current plate motions -- very long baseline interferometry (VLBI), sattelite laser ranging (SLR), and global positioning systems (GPS). The Smith et al. paper compares the rates of plate motion predicted by the radiometric-dating based plate kinematic model, Nuvel 1, on the one hand, and Lageos satellite SLR observations aquired, on the other hand. The correlation is an amazing 0.989 (p. 22,013). Pretty whopping coincidence, considering that radiometric dates are just a bunch of random numbers, and considering that decays constants have varied wildly, and considering that the entire oceanic crust was supposedly extruded during a single tectonic catastrophe that lasted ~1 year! I'll post a link to my article when I finish it. It will include VLBI and GPS-based comparisons also. Patrick EDIT: For some reason, if I click the link the image will not load. But if I copy the shortcut and past to the address box, the image does load. Go figure. EDIT2: I uploaded the picture elsewhere so I can display it here. [ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

07-15-2002, 05:54 AM	#17
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Sorry folks. Thought I was somewhere else. [ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-12-2002, 03:00 PM	#11
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	Drifting down from the refutations of YEC idiocy on one of those pages, I noticed something about the rarity of fossil meteorites. In fact, a large number of fossil meteorites have been identified and were reported at the meeting of the meteoritical society in Rome last year.

07-13-2002, 07:21 PM	#14
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	So if you cannot accept with some assurance that decay rates have been reasonably constant over the eons due to our measurement technology only existing for several centuries do you believe, as you imply, that these decay rates were different (specifically much faster) than today despite the only recent ability to make measurements? It seems that your logic in rejecting the former would force you to reject the latter as well. Are you saying that we cannot know anything about these rates further back in time because we were not there (equiped with the needed instruments)? I'm interested in how you see this as an argument for YEC rather than an argument for the uselessness of any projections back in time. Robert

07-14-2002, 08:34 PM	#16
caritas Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tacoma, Wa Posts: 43	Yes, tgamble, I'm sure your suggested YEC response is a popular route many YECs would take in answer to my point. I'm just holding out a little hope that Geo Theo, since he seemed once to see past the dark room of YEC thinking before his relapse, might be an exception and have an honest thought or two in response to my question. I well understand you aetheistic "evilutionists'" experience of getting canned tripe from YEC debators when you have asked honest questions. I know too that many YECs are even more unhappy with theistic "evilutionists" like me; considering us to be the basest of traitors. Perhaps this is Geo's view. Still, I have 2 hardcore YEC friends who, despite our differences on this issue, respect and accept me as their brother in Christ. It may be a long shot but I will ask again of Geo Theo who, as a Christian, I consider my brother in Christ, for his prayerful and thoughtful consideration of my question. RMSweet

07-15-2002, 07:28 AM	#18
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Actually, These reasons I gave are not compelling arguements for a young Earth. I am intrigued by the comets though, and how it seems they should have become totally desintigratd by now. But, I reverted back to YEC because an Old Earth would cause the Bible not to make sense. I kind of just grabbed at these arguements. I know almost nothing about geology. Reading that Guy that has the "Reason to believe" ministry is what caused me to question the YEC position.I listened to a tape of him debating Dr. Gish and he seemed more knowledgeable as well as more sincere. But then I found his theology and hermeneutics to be tortured and inconsistant as he tries to maintian that he is a fundamentalist Christian and Bible literalist. So I was kind of hoping I could just debate the biological aspects(kind of like how people here seem to avoid debating abiogenesis) My stronger points are philosophy and biology. evolution would have no hope in a young earth, so to really get to the bottom of the situation I should study lots of geology. I just think that living things are so much more interesting than rocks. I lost my old password and so got a new handle. I guess I could have just acted like I was somebody else but I felt like that would be being a weenie. So I reintroduced myself and this pesky age of the Earth thingy comes up. To the Christian Guy: No, I don't damn theistic evolutionsists to Hell. I believe being a Christian has to do with ones belief in Christ not their view of when was it that the dinosaurs walked the Earth. What I actually did for a year was not think much about evolution. But since then I have become really involved in my Church and have seen God doing some wonderfull things. This strengthened my faith and caused me to approach the Old creation/evolution topic again. It is very important for me to work this out because I am in love with biology and would like to make a living in the feild. I will never believe in a totally closed system however because I know that God is real. This is expiriential knowledge on my part. In a closed system evolution seems totally logical. (Once you get past the obvious dilemma of the first cause and abiogenesis.) Well, I felt it could only pay to be honest.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.