The Basic stupidity of evolution and evolosers

You're quite a funny guy...

Gunga, try to encapsulate what you feel. Im familkiar with your links (having seen them several do0zen times)

Whats the problem with uniformitarianism? It was a term that encapsulated Lyells own feeling that the presnt is key to the past and that the earths processes today differ hardly at all from those of the past in both energy and kind. When the term "Uniformitarianism" as opposed to "Catastrophism" was coined by Whewell in 1830, it was coined merely to separate the two camps,the gradualistic v the catastrophistic of Lyell v Cuvier.
Today, we know much more about the earth than we did in 1831, are you aware? SO the term Catastrophism is used mainly in its considereation of "kind" and discounts the information of " the present is key to the past" presented from earth energy. Cuvier nor Lyell knew squat about isotopes, continental drift,all the ice ages from glacial cores, trace fossils, atomic crystallography, paleomagnetism, acidic v basic magamas, structural geology modelling and hundreds of other concepts that you probably havent heard of yet cause youre still stuck in the 19th century yourself.

AS weve given up our acceptance of Eugeosyb=nclinal dynamics (That means that from Coumte Buffon and Comte du Lac till about 1965, geologists only thought that the earth layers were movable Up and DOWN , to my ancient colleagues, they did not accept the fact that continental plates move sideqays and crash into each other). This was a huuuge breakthrough and it sorta made the energy banks of uniformitarianisms die a slow death. So if you dont accept Uniformitarianism as a strict concept, ok, welcome to the big leagues. (ITS not been really popular among earth scientists since the 1940's anyway). I still teach it as a concept because ther are actual truthjs in being able to recognize an ancient , say, beach from its ripple marks in the sand because thats how todays beaches mark up the sand. Also, we know how the Navajo sandstone IS NOT a remnant of any "Worldwide Flood" just because theres a fossil of several layers of SAND DUNES among the NAVAJO beds. We learned to identify the tracks that sand dunes leave by studying present day sand dunes and looking at the patterns of cross bedding. Thats where Uniformitarianism processes still mostly fit.
Weve only managed to analyze what formed the Scablands of the Columbia based upon several more recent deposits of lake sediment up stream from the scabs. Putting the pieces together from uniformitarian eyes of process, geologists were able to interpret what really happened (and it wasnt, as Steve Austen tried to state, "Formed by the Great Flood"

Uniformitarianism has been used to debunk that such a flood even happened. Mostly because contemporaneous deposits werent cotinuous within ANY flood deposit that the Creationists wanted to propose as"proof"

ANything you can preset in the geologic record, Im sure I can debunk , Im not really concerned that youd come up with any stumper.

You may not consider yourself a strict Christian Creationist, but, youre close enough. You blindly bought all sorts of silly concepts without ever looking at how much evidence exists for just the opposite

Good point.

Its quite funny that, in your Trex DNA statements (re: the dinos "Soft tissue". I seem to recall that you are still (after I showed you 2 years ago how things fossilize and hardness isnt always a measure of oldness) claiming that the Trex couldnt be 65 my old because no soft tissue survived that long. I , in fact gave YOU a lesson on how DNA in trex is not possible . The most we see is osteocalcin . AND the "Chicken proteins" . rock matrix were similatr to several proteins of several ratites . Im beginning to think that you are a "bot" whose only copmmunication with people is one way, you dont answer direct communications only tangential referrals and you keep pressing the same old **** . I gave you plenty of information about the Trex soft tissue issue and Im ot looking to retrain you so. CLaim what you will, youre all FOS. I can go and look for some of your past assertions on this issue and youve not even oppeed another book since then apparently. The entire chicke and Trex issue has been settled and the fossil IS 65 my old. DEAL WITH IT.

PS gunga, if you read your own "rational wiki" and the NY Times article from 2007, the "cleanup of the original sample went through several iterations and even then hadnt been resolved till 2009. when Schweitzers team wrote the articles in NAtire. about the protein -like Structures (crystals) found in the fossil
Also, to call it "Soft tissue" was a bit of a stretch since it had to be acid etched from a hardened silica mineral matrix (It was embedded in sandstone). The fossil had a pliability , after several treatments of wood (This is not uncommon as I said to you several years ago) Coal fossils form wax-like materails and these are several hundred million years old.

This story of the soft tissue issue has been joined by several others in the anatomists and geochemistry fields. Sawlowicz,Kaye, and Gaugler have looked at Sweitzers own "soft tissue" data and these guys have searched out additional dino bones rom similar formational circumstances (Rock strata containing the fossils had been partially exposed by erosion for variable and lengthy time periods prior to excavation).
They reproduced the same conditions and , after detailed acid etching to remove matrix, they discovered similar "Soft tissue structures) that appeared to be branching tissues and even looked like they contained spherical particles that had been interpreted as "blood cells" by SChweitzers team.
Sawlovicz (et al) prepared and stained several of these "tissues" and then used an SEM to inspect the tissue in details.
Their results have re-interpreted the Schweitzer find as "framboidal" particles which is a recent iron oxide pseudomorph after an original ppyritized mineralization of organic tissue (Unrelated to the original tissue however). The framboids (named after the french for RASPBERRIES) were common in bones found in exposed surfaces.

The clincher was when they exposed the framboids to C14 (there was C14 present in the framboids BUT NOT THE SURROUNDING MATRIX., It now appears that the "pond scum" contamination of the specimens is a high possibility.
SChweitzer's not giving up because, as youd figger it, she has had a lot of time invested in this stuff to just walk away..
What have we got folks?--who knows but the following possibilities are presented (conclusions are mine)

1.It is soft tissue and the stained material is actually branching vessels containing dinosaur blood, leaving us with the eed to discover some new means of fossilization and preservation of soft tissue in kind

2It is not soft tissue but is of recent biological origin ("pond scum") that has been pyritized and then oxidized . The C14 analyses indicates that it is recent (Pyrite can form in months in reducing sulfitic ad moist environments (such as a mine hole or gypsum strata)

3The material is not old at all but is a recent fossil and that our time scale needs to be totally revised


Number 3 is not supported in the cases by Sawlovicz, since the rock matrices contained NO C14 and only the framboidal masses contained the C14, indicatiig recent secondary invasion of some biological organisms

umber 1 is still adhered to by Achweitzer and her team.
Is this a matter of professional pig headedness? or is it actually new breakthrough in detecting some heretofore unknown means of fossilization?

Gunga has jumped to a conclusion and those who want to are free to join him (THAT IS--the earth (and these particular fossils)are saying that the earth is no older than the C14 is telling us in the sampling of the framboids. Now this gives us a problem because, while the C14 says that this sample is young, the same basis of radiochemiostry except using Potassium ARgon Argon means , says that the "surrounding rock" is about 65 million years old
How does gunga keep his brain from exploding because he is caught in a conflicting argument of his own philosophical creation. That is,C14 radiochemistry says the fossil tissue is young, But similar radiochemistry (just of Different isotopes K/A/A) say that he rock that contains the tissue is quite old. Seems gunga likes to deny ALL rdiochemistry means even though they all use the same mathematics and ony different equilibria constants based upon each different isotope. (Scienctific analyses has stated that these equilibria constants vary only by a few ppm).
Well gung, Ill leave you in your own

This bit of linkage by gunga is actually not a really good support system for his "Creationist Arguments". The whole thing is a rebuttal of the original "Evidences for a Young Earth".
Kinda funny because as usual, gunga has once again failed to read his material for content.
PS, its actually a pretty good rebuttal of all the Creationist jibber jabber

YOU are he one who has failed to read here. I NOTED that this page was a rebuttal page and the point I was making was that at least one of the rebuttals was extraordinarily weak.

In a word, everything. It doesn't match up with any real evidence.

The evolosers with the 100+ answers to Hovind and other creationists don't even bother to try as you do to claim that dinosaur soft tissue is 65M years old, presumably because they understand how ridiculous that sounds, hence they stick with the contamination argument which, aside from having been debunked, does not begin to explain how bacteria could contaminate tyrannosaur remains in such a way as to make those remains pass chemical tests for being a chicken or a second cousin to a chicken.

Nothing I believe in requires intellectual gymnastics comparable to claiming that blood and soft tissue including proteins is 65M years old, but if that were the only case against uniformitarianism most people wouldn't buy the argument. There's a lot more.

Uniformitarianism means that no large changes have ever occurred in our solar system or on our own planet and certainly not within the past 50,000 years or thereabouts. All of the so-called "scientific" dating schemes depend upon this axiomatic belief in one way or another. Radio-Carbon dating might be the simplest case, depending as it does on the idea that the ratios of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere have always been what they are now. Interject something like the flood at the time of Noah and there's no way to even guess what that ratio might have been prior to the event.

Likewise the planet next to us (Venus) spins retrograde and exhibits a phase lock with Earth i.e. shows us the same face at nearest approaches. Bob Bass once described that as meaning that if Velikovsky had never existed we'd have to invent him i.e. that the retrograde spin cannot be primordial and must have arisen via interaction with another body and the phase lock indicates that the other body in question was our own planet. Hovind notes that there are six or seven other cases of retrograde spin in our system, indicating further grief in past ages.

If all of that doesn't do enough damage to the claim of uniformity, there is the question of recent Mars images and whatever left Mars uninhabited. NASA and ESA have both been doctoring images which their charters require them to publish i.e. they've been adjusting brightness and contrast and color hues to make images which show tall buildings and city infrastructure look like deserts and I've gone through the exercise of downloading a couple of those images from ESA sites and using gimp to restore them to prove to myself that the people making these claims aren't crazy.

Altogether that amounts to evidence of major and recent grief on the two planets next to us in the system and that could not have failed to cause so much havoc on our own planet as to invalidate any sort of a uniformitarian assumption being used for dating schemes.

That's rather like saying: "A thermometer is only reliable because scientists have found that mercury reacts to changes in temperature in a uniformly predictable way. But they haven't considered the possibility that some event might cause mercury to react in an unpredictable way. So thermometers are unreliable."

If you're going to use analogies use rational ones. A reasonable analogy in this case might involve a glass tube filled with a mixture which might be 99% mercury and 1% water today but in past ages might have been 50/50 mercury and water, and trying to extrapolate an interpretation based on today's reading to the past.

No you are once again full of ****. A separate set of geochemists stated that they failed to see any mechanism for soft tissue preservation at those measured ages(The rock matrix and the skeletal fossil had been dated by U/Zr and K/A/A methods and had gotten a continuous approximate date of 65 my. The team of Sawlovicz and KAye had taken separate specimen subsets of the Trex AND several other fossils that were preserved similarly and had been partially exposed . The fact was that they achieved separating some Carbonaceous material that contained C14 (THIS MATERIAL WAS COATED ON THE ROCK MATRIX AS OPPOSED TO BEING PART OF THE FOSSILS STRUCTURE). They showed that, by using C14, the dates between matriix "soft tissue" and the fossil and bulk matrix rock itself were wildly different. THEN they scanned the specimens with an SEM (Scanning ELectron Microscope) and saw the structures that looked just like oxidized pyrite "framboidal" structures.
Their argument is a lot more convincing that the Creationists who DO NOTHING to underpin their wild accusations. Hovind was just talking out hios ass. If he feels that the data is in error , he should get involved in doing sopme investigations (if he can find a "scientist" capable of understanding what the hell just happened)


PS, now your not reading either. I just presented a statement that said that the "Soft tissue" was found NOT to be 65 myo. "Multiple hypotheses" is a manner of analysis that scientists use. We dont make up our mind (as you had done) at the drop of one sample. Even Aweitzer didnt report initial data as "done science".As you see, there is a wide disagreement as to the meaning of the samples and Switzer seems to feel its actual soft tissue (and means that we have to look at a new means of fossilization )OR its not soft tissue at all.


YOU are the one who quickly jumped to a stupid conclusion that "If it were soft tissue" therefor the dinosaur was of a younger age (No means to even prove that by any Creationist). IF , by your thinking, the dinosaur was of a younger age, THIS PROVES THAT THE WORLD IS VERY YOUNG

Youve just made a leap of faith (in its critical meaning of the phrase). You havent taken part in , or waited for the data to even be assured before you jumoped into a full frontal Creationist SPiehl. (Then you claim that your NOT a Creationist).

As I said before, if C14 is data you wish to accept, and K/A/A data you dont wish to accept , you have a problem bud. I will wait here till your head explodes because youre caught in a dilemma of your own creation. SO Ill wait till you address that.



Uniformitarianism is what I said it is up above. We dont pray at its feet becasuse when it was coined as a term, noone even knew about most of the earth mechanisms. HOWEVER, processes like mountain building, glacial sediment records, sand dune sediments and river deposition and specific mineral mixes are all analyzed in light of present day examples. We have explained the island arc igneous rocks of the Atlantic piedmont in light of what we see in the "hot spot" peridotite volcanics of the HAwaiian Island arc. We know the mineral mixes found in foredeep sediments and metamorphic complexes based upon what we see in earths examples of where these mechanisms are ongoing today.

We FIND OIL based upon sediment traps and inland bay structures like we see in present day sediment areas. WE DONT FIND OIL IN NON LIVING BASINS> LARGE COMMERCIAL DEPOSITS OF OIL ALWAYS GFO ALONG WITH CERTAIN KINDS OF DIATOMS DEPOSITS. We can see the present day examples of same and go backwat=rds.

See gunga, I do this for a living and Im only interesetd in making sure that you dont try to continue your bullshit statements and have people believe that you know of what you speak. You re apparently not only ignorant of facts, but your ineducable too. Ive gone over this same **** with you in years gone by and you still insist on speaking out of your ass.

Theres also so much that you have o idea about in radichemistry that I dont think its worth discussing with you. Youll just continue on your ignorant way and Ill have wasted an afternoon and get all pissed off at how our education system has fucked up royally in your case.


I havent made any pronouncements about the T rex "soft tissue" other than to report work that others have done. Its rarely a situation occuring that has the full facts understood within a few years of a major discovery. Such is the one with this. However, in any case, theres no underpinning that Creationism can claim other than the assertion that "soft tissue" if real, only means that the earth is young. If this is the case, why havent any real scientists jumoped on it. Where are your genius Creationist scientists??
WHere, there are really very few of them cause most of those claiming to be even science literate, are mostly ministers of some Fundamentalist persuasion. Id like to really see some real scientific rebuttal. It would at least be worth something to look at woprk done by someone whose got some training and understanding of the assertion.


As I implied before, Im a geologist and recovering chemist so Ill have to make a phone call about this to anyone who gives a ****. It isnt o the same page of discussion because its an attaempt at ablation by conflation. Im gonna keep nailing you on te errors of your understanding of how Uniformitarianism is applied in the 21st century. You are stuck in the 19th with your understanding of the term. You are using it as it was coined by Whewell in 1831. Were coming up on the 200th anniversary of that coined term and Id like to be the first to let you know that, like "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" science has moved on a lot. Even Darwin, a close friend of Lyell said himself in "Voyages of the Beagle".
I am paraphrasing somewahat but -that "He(Darwin) found no parallel functional means to express such geological horizons in the pampas as would be explained by Dr Lyell"

Your explanation is the one that is silly because you have extrap[olated BACK to the past based only upon an assumption that such an "amalgam" would have even existed.

Uniformitarianism says that , if we see a present day creekbed and we see that its bottom is full of ripple marks in the sand, then, when we see a similar structure in bedrock stratigraphy we could at least conclude that a stream bed is a possible analagous structure. Uniformitarianism in PROCESS is still a valid meas of analyzing most unknown geological horizons.

You missed the best point, which is that mercury is a metal which is immiscible with water. Gunga Dim's "analogy" is complete fantasy. Rational analogies indeed!

I got it. Thats what instigated my comment that "That such an amalgam even existed"

Heartland loses more donors after that ridiculous billboard advertisement:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

But, as farmerman pointed out, you're assuming that such a mixture actually existed. That's begging the question. You're left saying "a massive, worldwide flood could have thrown off carbon dating techniques, so those techniques are invalid. Therefore, there must have been a massive, worldwide flood." Logic doesn't work that way.

gunga-logic does joe...

parta what makes him a hoot.

hoot hoot...

I never said anything like that.

which radioisotope technique are you NOT in agreement with?
1. I do not believe in C14
or
2, I do not believe in Uranium/Lead 207 or K/A/A ?

If you believe that the dino is less than 50K years old but dont believe that the rocks containing it are 65 million years old, youve gotta pick one technique to deny.