3
   

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 09:22 pm
The bible is "gross error." End of debate. LOL
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The bible is "gross error." End of debate. LOL


I knew you'd quit sooner or later. Actually you stopped any serious attempt at debate long ago. You've offered little of substance for quite some time and your posts have become so repetitively predictable that I scroll past many of them without bothering.

There are simply too many other interesting folks with something to contribute here without wasting time reading the same old boring Don Rickles script.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 10:47 am
real, "Gotcha." LOL
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 02:37 pm
real life, perhaps you misss my attempts at analogy, the Dead Sea scrolls are parts of the Gnostic Gospels and not part of the vulgate. When translation from one Greek dialect to another occured, we see many variations in phraseology etc. Same thing with the various English versions.
When one source is used to translate into another language, often the context and original meaning gets smudged a bit. Do this a few times each century and we have Bibles with totally different content.

PS, this is not my idea, Biblical scholars state this. Even Latin, I understand that there were at least 6 hieretical versions of formal Latin and many more colloquial, and since most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate, the Bibles were recorded many times as "comicbooks"
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 10:37 pm
farmerman wrote:
real life, perhaps you misss my attempts at analogy, the Dead Sea scrolls are parts of the Gnostic Gospels and not part of the vulgate. When translation from one Greek dialect to another occured, we see many variations in phraseology etc. Same thing with the various English versions.
When one source is used to translate into another language, often the context and original meaning gets smudged a bit. Do this a few times each century and we have Bibles with totally different content.

PS, this is not my idea, Biblical scholars state this. Even Latin, I understand that there were at least 6 hieretical versions of formal Latin and many more colloquial, and since most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate, the Bibles were recorded many times as "comicbooks"


The reason it's not a good analogy is that it's not the way Bible translation is done.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 10:47 pm
farmerman wrote:


You still havent come up with any scientific achievements that were based upon Creationist principles. Youve continually ducked and shuffled.
Ill give you some
Polonium halos
polystrate fossils
Cretaceous man fossils
flood geology
DNA is static
sea salt levels indicate a young earth
thermocline of the earth
glaciers are post flood
abiogenic oil
dinosaurs were vegetarians (all of em)
There was a worldwide flood

As you can see there is nothing in the above list that any serious worker in science would even attempt to follow to develop some predictive theories that would even make sense.Yet, alas, these are some areas of crap that the ICR still sells to the gullible.


OK , so give us your take on sea salt levels or polonium .
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 07:56 am
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
farmerman, I've come to the simple conclusion that IDers are afraid of the truth, because it destroys their religious beliefs. They can't see how irrational and illogical their arguments are, because their whole religious belief system goes up in smoke once they let in some truths (fresh air). Their desperate hanging on to that last thread that keeps unfurling just makes them look more foolish.

They can't accept that they've been wrong for most of their life.
Exactly, only replace Iders with materialists
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:47 pm
RL
Quote:
OK , so give us your take on sea salt levels or polonium .
.
You firstsince it was my question, humor me.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:53 pm
Thunder runner, you and real life, and mommoa and intrepid have wallowed, yea, washed yourselves in the ignorance of the religious. You guys are empty suits with nothing to say just feeble rejoinders and one liners.
If you wish to ignore fact with books of myths fine. Just dont try to take the rest of us down to your level.
"As our civilaization emerged, we had to sadly release our comfortable myths and gods to live a more purposeful life than one dictated by a schizophrenic god and his clergy henchmen"
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 08:40 pm
farmerman wrote:
RL
Quote:
OK , so give us your take on sea salt levels or polonium .
.
You firstsince it was my question, humor me.


Hmmm, well okay. I didn't realize you were asking a question. Seemed more like a statement to me.

But I will offer my own (tenuous) opinion. I term it such because the polonium halo info is fairly new to me. I came across it recently at http://www.halos.com and http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm and asked for opinions of it here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1615931&highlight=halos#1615931

but didn't see anyone much interested in discussing it at the time.

As you might expect, I consider polonium halos to be circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence.

I do not consider it conclusive but it does seem to trigger some interesting questions:

If polonium has such a short half-life, then how did they leave their imprint in granite that supposedly was produced in such a way to take a long time to cool? (This assumes that the half-life of polonium is constant from that day to this. That may or may not be the case. Thus the inconclusive nature of this particular variety.)

Polonium halos in coalified wood are another interesting puzzle. Wood of this type is apparently somewhat rarely found and to find these unusual occurences (radiohalos) in it rarer still. But apparently it is found in several strata (in the same area) that are supposed to be dated on the evolutionary scale tens of millions of years apart. This interpretation of the long ages (at least of these formations, and by extension, of others since similar methods are assumed to be used to "date" strata all around the world) by evolutionists would therefore seem to have a major stumblingblock in it's path unless a reasonable way to account for these is able to be articulated. I leave open that possibility, but it seems a stretch.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 07:06 am
There ya go with circumstantial evidence. Of what? Science never made a big del out of polonium, since it lies at the end of a decay chain of Uranium. The quantitative presence of Po is an indicator that the parent element(uranium) has been around for a very long time. You know what the half life of U isotopes are? The very ratios are more indicative of age than is the specific isotopic birefringence. Also, Po imparts the "halos" on mica in a granite melt, so it means that mica had already been differentiated and hardened enough so that Po could even go through a birefringence production.

Po in coals is not a roblem since Swaines book "Trace elements in Coal" gives an example of a few hundred coals that contain Uranium and all of these are near mountain foldbelts so the Uranium parent formed a soluble salt and appeared in the coal swamp waters (The Uranium washed from the foldbelt highlands) Interetingly enough, the data supports Zircon ages of the coals pretty close to the foldbelt ages and these correspond nicely to the opening and closing of continents and supercontinents. The neat thing is that Austen has taken one thing, Po "halos" out of the circle of data and he tried to make a point (invalid as it was). Geologists have a complete "circle of data and evidence that supports not only ages of granites or coals by isotopes but by corresponding ages of continental drift features. On top of that, we have paleomagnetic data that allows the events to be roughly located and more accurately dated by the imprints of magnetic reversals.

The father of Po "halos" was a pretty good geologist and mineralogist to begin, he just let his religious beliefs start dictating his science and ruining his objectivity.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:05 pm
farmerman wrote:
The quantitative presence of Po is an indicator that the parent element(uranium) has been around for a very long time. You know what the half life of U isotopes are?


If the uranium had been there a long while, would lead have accumulated?

farmerman wrote:
.......so it means that mica had already been differentiated and hardened enough so that Po could even go through a birefringence production.


As I recall, one of the Polonium isotopes apparently has a very short half-life (a few minutes) If the rock had hardened that quickly to allow the halos to exist as we found them, isn't that rather unusual?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2005 06:18 am
RL, lead does appear. Remember, were talking about very small amounts in a crystal lattice defexct. Youd need a very sensitive instrument to see all the trace elements in the granite.
As U decays in a zirc crstal or in a soluble salt, the amt of daughter products appears through time and as Po reaxches a critical amount so that it can "burn in" a halo may be a billion years or more after the parent actually
produces enough daughter product.
A Po halo, doesnt disappear once its burnt in, it resides in a mica crytal at a microscopic level. However, its presence , and the presence of the granite , are mutually independent, thats the point. The Po is post formation of the granite, that point Austen misses

We know that Po is post implacement because the halo itself resides preferredly along the "B" axis of the mica crystals. That means it had to have "hardened into its sheetlike forms". And, since the Po is pretty much associated with specific trace minerals that contain U, we follow those minerals .
Ive seen where the number and density of the Halos can be used as a erzatz "powder photo" to develop a sort of "U clock" especially for granites. I dont know exactly how this actually works yet but Ill find out easily enough..

How about the worlds SALT balance as an indicator of a young earth?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 12:37 am
farmerman wrote:
RL, lead does appear. Remember, were talking about very small amounts in a crystal lattice defexct. Youd need a very sensitive instrument to see all the trace elements in the granite.
As U decays in a zirc crstal or in a soluble salt, the amt of daughter products appears through time and as Po reaxches a critical amount so that it can "burn in" a halo may be a billion years or more after the parent actually
produces enough daughter product.
A Po halo, doesnt disappear once its burnt in, it resides in a mica crytal at a microscopic level. However, its presence , and the presence of the granite , are mutually independent, thats the point. The Po is post formation of the granite, that point Austen misses

We know that Po is post implacement because the halo itself resides preferredly along the "B" axis of the mica crystals. That means it had to have "hardened into its sheetlike forms". And, since the Po is pretty much associated with specific trace minerals that contain U, we follow those minerals .
Ive seen where the number and density of the Halos can be used as a erzatz "powder photo" to develop a sort of "U clock" especially for granites. I dont know exactly how this actually works yet but Ill find out easily enough..

How about the worlds SALT balance as an indicator of a young earth?


Apparently this is a pretty old idea and cannot be attributed solely to modern creationists, no matter where you come down on the evidence itself.

Sir Edmond Halley was one who proposed it as was (more recently) John Joly (another name with which you might be familiar).

It is a complex area with each side proposing multiple methods by which salt is added and removed from the sea, so doing the math is complex.

Looking at the bigger picture, if evolutionists are correct that "salt in = salt out" today (more or less), then they must show how the seas lost the equilibrium that they had when fresh to become salty, and how that equilibrium was regained today so that they are not becoming progressively saltier.

These two points , even if evolutionists should try to prove them, seem to go against the uniformitarianism that they otherwise try to promote. An unusual dilemma to be sure.

What do you think of the decay of the Earth's magnetic field? If the Earth really was billions of years old, how is it that the magnetic field is as we find it today?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:17 am
RL
Quote:
if evolutionists are correct that "salt in = salt out" today (more or less), then they must show how the seas lost the equilibrium that they had when fresh to become salty, and how that equilibrium was regained today so that they are not becoming progressively saltier.


The interesting feature that you forget is that there is as much salt evaporite and deep beds and "diapirs" from old seas and UNDER existing ocean basins to account for the "salt balance" There really is no problem to geologists. As far as uniformitarianism, Its doing quite well, we have a number of living evaporite basins throughout the low and mid latitudes wherein salt is being deposited inaccordance with its own specific solubility products for a specific compound. Eg, The Baltimore Canyon is a deposit where the salts evaporated at a rate faster than water could keep them in solution (This occured uring opening of the Atlantic after the Triassic . We have an unlimited amount of usable salt deposits in the US (about 160 domes and 6 or more huge basins) The Silurian basin alone covers parts of NY, Pa, Ohio, A large part of Michigan and some of W Va. The "salt balance " ploy was only adopted as a make believe issue by Creationists since they only got half the story. It isnt that salt comes in and out, sometimes (mostly) salt just evaporates and sticks in half mile thick deposits that lie beneath beds of hundreds of millions of years of sediment and also in present day deposits in the Areas around the world.


When you say"more recently by John Joly" what do you consider "recent" Joly died in the 1930s. He was an initial worker in radionuclide dating but, since he didnt have the standardized decay rates and modern MS machinery,(not available till the 1970s) he was unable to trace the radionuclide decay earlier than about 100 MY. There was a reason for his error. HE didnt know that continental drift usually "resets" the atomic clocks by insertion of "cleaned up " nuclides. I do honor Joly's memory since he was one of the few, back in the 1920's who agreed with Wegener that shallow mantle convection COULD serve as a mechanism for continental drift.He was one of a few that thought that Wegeners hypothesis (then a hypothesis) made sense, all the other geologists just laughed and, like Creationists , they really needed to "stick with the inviolate proposition that continental blocks only moved up and down like a WHACK-A MOLE game"

As far as the "decay of the earths magnetic field" I didnt know that Russ Humphreys was still pushing that "theory". The original Barnes theory had been proved wrong when the math for the Magnetohydrodynamics equations were solvable. The earth IS a dynamo and no one really refutes that anymore. So Ole Russ has glommed some "exponential decay equations" based upon physics and "God working hand in hand"

where The decay rate, T=t/ln{Msub c/M}

where t is the Time since Creation and Mc is the dipole moment at Creation and M is the moment measured today. in this equation he "makes up" a value of M sub c (Quite bogus and Russ has been told that by many) Because we now know that the earths dipole has varied and the poles have reversed through time, Humphries has had to adopt a whole new way of affirming his own calcs. Russ has ALL the pole reversals happening in a same week during Noahs flood(And you say that evolution is based upon la la science). He still holds on to this thinking, but since there is always some intervention of a "special k" factor , which is divine in nature, this aint science and Russ has usually shut up about it at conferences (he only writes this crap for ICR).

Besides the earths magnetic field isnt exponentially decaying . The "dynamo" is self sustaining as seismic data has affirmed the presence of an outer molten core.
With the exception of Humphreys holding on to his "Special k" theories, most of the Creationists have abandoned all this and adopted ID thought patterns wherein they stipulate to Pole reversals, the dynamo concept, an old earth, and some, even evolution (just directed). Theres just too much data and evidence from other disciplines that one cant isolate a single theorem into anything plausible. We have so much data about pole reversals that are confirmed by stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, radiochemistry, fossils etc that its necessary for Creationists to only concentrate on one thing and ask us to suspend all knowledge about other fields of evidence
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 12:47 am
farmerman wrote:
RL
Quote:
if evolutionists are correct that "salt in = salt out" today (more or less), then they must show how the seas lost the equilibrium that they had when fresh to become salty, and how that equilibrium was regained today so that they are not becoming progressively saltier.


The interesting feature that you forget is that there is as much salt evaporite and deep beds and "diapirs" from old seas and UNDER existing ocean basins to account for the "salt balance" There really is no problem to geologists. As far as uniformitarianism, Its doing quite well, we have a number of living evaporite basins throughout the low and mid latitudes wherein salt is being deposited inaccordance with its own specific solubility products for a specific compound. Eg, The Baltimore Canyon is a deposit where the salts evaporated at a rate faster than water could keep them in solution (This occured uring opening of the Atlantic after the Triassic . We have an unlimited amount of usable salt deposits in the US (about 160 domes and 6 or more huge basins) The Silurian basin alone covers parts of NY, Pa, Ohio, A large part of Michigan and some of W Va. The "salt balance " ploy was only adopted as a make believe issue by Creationists since they only got half the story. It isnt that salt comes in and out, sometimes (mostly) salt just evaporates and sticks in half mile thick deposits that lie beneath beds of hundreds of millions of years of sediment and also in present day deposits in the Areas around the world.


When you say"more recently by John Joly" what do you consider "recent" Joly died in the 1930s. He was an initial worker in radionuclide dating but, since he didnt have the standardized decay rates and modern MS machinery,(not available till the 1970s) he was unable to trace the radionuclide decay earlier than about 100 MY. There was a reason for his error. HE didnt know that continental drift usually "resets" the atomic clocks by insertion of "cleaned up " nuclides. I do honor Joly's memory since he was one of the few, back in the 1920's who agreed with Wegener that shallow mantle convection COULD serve as a mechanism for continental drift.He was one of a few that thought that Wegeners hypothesis (then a hypothesis) made sense, all the other geologists just laughed and, like Creationists , they really needed to "stick with the inviolate proposition that continental blocks only moved up and down like a WHACK-A MOLE game"

As far as the "decay of the earths magnetic field" I didnt know that Russ Humphreys was still pushing that "theory". The original Barnes theory had been proved wrong when the math for the Magnetohydrodynamics equations were solvable. The earth IS a dynamo and no one really refutes that anymore. So Ole Russ has glommed some "exponential decay equations" based upon physics and "God working hand in hand"

where The decay rate, T=t/ln{Msub c/M}

where t is the Time since Creation and Mc is the dipole moment at Creation and M is the moment measured today. in this equation he "makes up" a value of M sub c (Quite bogus and Russ has been told that by many) Because we now know that the earths dipole has varied and the poles have reversed through time, Humphries has had to adopt a whole new way of affirming his own calcs. Russ has ALL the pole reversals happening in a same week during Noahs flood(And you say that evolution is based upon la la science). He still holds on to this thinking, but since there is always some intervention of a "special k" factor , which is divine in nature, this aint science and Russ has usually shut up about it at conferences (he only writes this crap for ICR).

Besides the earths magnetic field isnt exponentially decaying . The "dynamo" is self sustaining as seismic data has affirmed the presence of an outer molten core.
With the exception of Humphreys holding on to his "Special k" theories, most of the Creationists have abandoned all this and adopted ID thought patterns wherein they stipulate to Pole reversals, the dynamo concept, an old earth, and some, even evolution (just directed). Theres just too much data and evidence from other disciplines that one cant isolate a single theorem into anything plausible. We have so much data about pole reversals that are confirmed by stratigraphy, thermoluminescence, radiochemistry, fossils etc that its necessary for Creationists to only concentrate on one thing and ask us to suspend all knowledge about other fields of evidence


I'm not sure that all salt deposits around the globe can be included in a uniformitarian model of oceanic salt removal.

Many very large salt deposits are nearly pure salt, few or no fossils, no significant level of contaminates, little or no indication thru their many feet of depth that they have been shallow lagoons or seas supporting life for X length of time while they evaporated slowly.

Some salt deposits do have these characteristics, don't they? And they WOULD probably qualify as one of the uniformitarian salt removal mechanisms in attempting to calculate which direction salinity is going.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Oct, 2005 05:57 am
Pardon me if I dont put too much stock in your opinions, RL. Whether you feel a "Uniformitarian " model can not be supported is usually a function of knowing what youre talking about. Heres a URL from U TExas. Ive only talked about evaporite basins , I assumed that you were familiar with the Inland (6) multi State sized basins. This URL is specific to the Permian basin and the sub basinsPERMIAN BASIN OF NM Tex, Ok, Kansas, Colo
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:20 pm
parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Ros,

Darwin started with the theory, AND THEN looked for evidence to back it up. Why is that so hard to admit?

And why aren't students taught that today? They are given the impression that evidence ALONE led Darwin to his conclusions, instead of acknowleding that he started with the conclusion before ever stepping aboard the Beagle.

It is because evolutionists won't (can't) admit that Darwin interpreted circumstantial evidence to support his theory. This is something that only creationists do, right?


Then it ought to be easy to point to the science that disputes Darwin. Please do so.

Provide us the alternate theory that fits the evidence BETTER than evolution does. With the peer reviewed science that backs it up.

RL's been pondering this one for a long time now Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 01:40 pm
And please don't waste time with scientists with creationist leanings who are more interested in religion over science.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:19 pm
CI, no matter how I cut it, I can't get your link to th SF gathering to work. I cn find it in the search OK, but maybe you should post it in your comments ala
cicerone ( http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2769532&highlight=#2769532 ) imposter

Joe would be proud.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 01:14:04