Oolon Colluphid

Over in the Welcome forum, GeoTheo introduced himself thus:

For those who’d like to see the old discussions, Theo’s previous number is 783, just search on that in the E/C 3Q & 4Q 2001 archive.

Back then, after much discussion (IIRC especially geological stuff from Patrick), Theo said:

So, Theo, I’m really really curious about how you’ve arrived at your present YEC-ness, having once given it up in the face of the evidence. I’ve never heard of this happening before. Please tell us about it. What evidence have you come across that's changed your mind back again? Must have been pretty impressive.

Hey, maybe you’re right and we’re wrong! Show us this evidence!

While you're at it, it’d save time if you’d also confirm where you now stand on the definition of 'kind' please (it was basically the biological species concept previously, IIRC).

Thanks.

Cheers, Oolon

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

excreationist

As a YEC, perhaps GeoTheo believes what AiG says...

In <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">Creation Education: The Date of Noah's Flood</a> it says "The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4285 years."

It also means that practically all of the fossil record was formed then.

AiG also have a good article called <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">Arguments we think creationists should NOT use</a>. In the "Which arguments should definitely not be used?" section, it says that according to the Bible, the earth can only be about 6000 years old - not 10,000 years old. There are no gaps in the genealogies. BTW, <a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wenke/bible/genealogies.htm" target="_blank">here</a> is my chart about Bible genealogies - note that they dated the flood (and therefore creation) about 220 years more recently than what I did. Even if there were long days of creation, Adam would have only been created about 6000 years ago.

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

GeoTheo

On YEC recidivism:
Basically I have no reason to believe that radio-active decay can be assured to have occured at the same rate for eons, if it has only been measured in the last hundred years or so.
Also, The rate of the decay of Earths magnetic feild as well as the existence of comets point to a young Universe. If We can extapolate radio-active decay to have occured at the same rate over countless millenia why not the decay of the Earth's magnetiv feild and the deterioration of comets?

Basically a kind is just an arbitrary classification. Not really that scientific, but obvious in the context of every day life. For example it is obvious that a snall mouth Bass and a large mouth bass are kinds of Bass.
As far as the ability to interbreed in nature or in artificial environments. It does not neccesarily point to common ancestory but rather the similarity in mechanisms of reproduction of similarly designed organisms.

Tabula_rasa

Well, surely no one can argue with that logic. It's not like radioactive half-life measurements are known to be exceptionally reliable, consistent or accurate.

The existence of comets points to a young universe? Please do explain this as I am unfamiliar with the concept.

Ever hear of comparing apples to oranges?

Here's your apple: The earth's magnetic field is known to change abrubtly because of many variables. Sunspot activity on the sun causes changes in the magnetic field. The earth's magnetic core is fluid iron and therefore behaves like a fluid. There is evidence in solidified volcanic rock that points to the possibility that the north and south magnetic poles flip every so often. And of course, it is dependent upon time.

Here's your orange: The half-life of any given radioactive element is the direct result of one variable: time. The tau for any given element is a constant, not a variable. BTW, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you won't bring out the tired, old and dishonest arguments about c-decay.

So you see, apples & oranges.

Tabula_rasa

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?

The Earth's magnetic field is not decaying; at most it's heading toward another one of its flip-flops.

And how are comets supposed to indicate a young Universe?

According to most creationists, a "created kind" is all the organisms that share some specially-created ancestor. So which "kinds" are true "created kinds"?

Are smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomeu) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) separate creations or descendants of a single creation? Checking on the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html/" target="_blank">PubMed taxonomy browser</a>, I find this hierarchy of taxa for these fish:

cellular organisms; Eukaryota; Fungi/Metazoa group; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Coelomata; Deuterostomia; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Gnathostomata; Teleostomi; Euteleostomi; Actinopterygii; Actinopteri; Neopterygii; Teleostei; Elopocephala; Clupeocephala; Euteleostei; Neognathi; Neoteleostei; Eurypterygii; Ctenosquamata; Acanthomorpha; Euacanthomorpha; Holacanthopterygii; Acanthopterygii; Euacanthopterygii; Percomorpha; Perciformes; Percoidei; Centrarchidae; Micropterus

Which one of them represents the created kind for smallmouth and largemouth bass, if they are both descendants of the same created ancestor?

But why a pattern of similarities and differences that suggests some sort of "tree of life"?

And is each "created kind" a species?

lpetrich

I'll simplify it a bit. If smallmouth and largemouth bass are not separate created kinds, then which is?

Their combined group (genus Micropterus)?
Sunfish-like fish (Centrarchidae)?
Perch-like fish (Perciformes)?
Teleosts (Teleostei)?
Ray-finned fish (Acanthopterygii)?
Bony fish (Osteichthyes)?
Jawed vertebrates (Gnathostomata)?
Vertebrates?
Chordates?
Deuterostomes?
Bilaterians?
Metazoans?
All the animal kingdom?
Animals + fungi + certain protozoans?
Eukaryotes?
All life?

Darwin's Finch

Re: changing rates of radioactive decay, maybe GeoTheo has bought into Barry Setterfield's goofy "theory" that the speed of light was much, much faster once upon a time.

GeoTheo, given that you once renounced YECism in the face of overwhelming evidence and now have re-embraced YEC in the face of (what you take to be) other overwhelming evidence &lt;snickers derisively&gt;, perhaps you might want to spend some time learning what exactly constitutes good scientific evidence. You don't seem to have a clue.

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.

ps418

Wow. . . after all this time, Theo still hasnt bothered to read any of the detailed and easy to comprehend refutations of those Young-Earther arguments. Perhaps Theo is afflicted by some relative of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html" target="_blank">Morton's Demon.</a>

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?

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.

Patrick

tgamble

Let the slaughter begin!

On radiometric dating:

<a href="http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html" target="_blank">http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html</a>
<a href="http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" target="_blank">http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Wiens.html</a>

Magnetic field
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html</a>

Comets
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs.html#3" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs.html#3</a>