Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

A little levity from theOnion
Source

Quote:

I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

By Stephen Jossler
May 30, 2007 | Issue 4322

I consider myself a rational person. When I have a question, I turn to science and logic to find the answer. Regarding the origins of life, science tells us that humans evolved from single-celled organisms to our current form through a process of natural selection that took billions of years.

This much is clear to anyone with any background in modern thinking. We can look at the fossil record and trace many of our genetic traits back to ancient species. In fact, scientific reasoning can explain nearly every stage of life from the Big Bang to the present day. I say "nearly" because the period that scientists claim lasted from roughly 205 to 250 million years ago, commonly known as the Triassic period, was quite obviously the work of the Lord God Almighty.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those religious nut cases who denies that evolution is real. Of course evolution is real, just not during the "Triassic period."

...
For a half-dozen million years, life advanced from prokaryotes to primitive fish to mammal-like reptiles via natural selection, and we're supposed to believe that that just continued happening? I don't think so. Isn't it much more likely that a formless, invisible deity intervened, temporarily stopped the course of evolution, and shaped each and every trilobite over a period of six days? Of course it is, at least to any objective observer.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Since the fundamental assumption of this method is false, it seems that you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, farmerman.

Bought into, hook line and sinker and said just like any good Creationist who has no idea about what hes talking. RL, You too, have a good dogmatic day. PS, dont give up your day job, cause the rigors of science dont seem to appeal to your "sound byte mind"

Just ask Ham and Austin(maybe Safarti also), In 1986, when they did this "experiment" why didnt they at least follow the established methods for K/Ar analyses? And how can they parade such poor science out here as definitive "proof" of concept, when they failed to follow the methods? ALso, why didnt the wildly variable age differences from different minerals in the same sample give them any clues that maybe they were missing some important data?(They reported "radio ages" of between 0.3 my to over 2.9 my)Thats almost a 1000% variance of age dates from within different minerals of the same dacite rock. The fact that they found argon wsnt the issue, where did the argon come from , was. They didnt attempt to QA anything and merely plopped the data out there with no explanations. The only conclusion they wished drawn was that K/Ar wasnt accurate at young ages. Well , any decent isotope analyst coulda told em that without them wsting their lunch money.

The fact that argon was present is certainly the issue, since the whole K-Ar method is based on the assumption that there is NO argon present at time the rock was produced.

You want to quibble about the ratio, when you are assuming that initially the amount of argon is 0. When shown it is not 0, you simply want to change the subject.

If you cannot determine how much argon was present at the beginning, then how does showing the amount of argon today give you ANY basis to 'date' the sample?

The method is based on guesswork, and the primary guess ( zero argon at the outset ) is demonstratably invalid.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The fact that argon was present is certainly the issue, since the whole K-Ar method is based on the assumption that there is NO argon present at time the rock was produced.

You want to quibble about the ratio, when you are assuming that initially the amount of argon is 0. When shown it is not 0, you simply want to change the subject.

If you cannot determine how much argon was present at the beginning, then how does showing the amount of argon today give you ANY basis to 'date' the sample?

The method is based on guesswork, and the primary guess ( zero argon at the outset ) is demonstratably invalid.

A simple google search shows how silly your argument is rl..

Quote:

Argon, a noble gas, constitutes approximately 0.1-5% of the Earth's present day atmosphere. Because it is present within the atmosphere, every rock and mineral will have some quantity of Argon. Argon can mobilized into or out of a rock or mineral through alteration and thermal processes. Like Potassium, Argon cannot be significantly fractionated in nature. However, 40Ar is the decay product of 40K and therefore will increase in quantity over time. The quantity of 40Ar produced in a rock or mineral over time can be determined by substracting the amount known to be contained in the atmosphere. This is done using the constant 40Ar/36Ar ratio of atmospheric Argon. This ratio is 295.5.

http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/Methods/Methods.html

Quote:

Certain assumptions must be satisfied before the age of mineral can be calculated with the Potassium-Argon dating technique. These are:

+ The material in question must be a closed system. In other words, no radiogenic 40Ar has escaped from the rock/mineral since it formed. In the case of a volcanic mineral, these means rapid cooling.
+ A correction must be made for atmospheric 40Ar (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).
+ No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.
+ The rock/mineral must be a closed system with respect to potassium.
+ The isotopes of Potassium in the rock/mineral have not been fractionated, except by 40K decay
+ The decay constants of 40K are accurately known.
+ The quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined.

No where does the method assume the Ar is zero. Claiming the method does assume that shows your argument is bereft of any logic.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

The fact that argon was present is certainly the issue, since the whole K-Ar method is based on the assumption that there is NO argon present at time the rock was produced.

You want to quibble about the ratio, when you are assuming that initially the amount of argon is 0. When shown it is not 0, you simply want to change the subject.

If you cannot determine how much argon was present at the beginning, then how does showing the amount of argon today give you ANY basis to 'date' the sample?

The method is based on guesswork, and the primary guess ( zero argon at the outset ) is demonstratably invalid.

A simple google search shows how silly your argument is rl..

Quote:
Argon, a noble gas, constitutes approximately 0.1-5% of the Earth's present day atmosphere. Because it is present within the atmosphere, every rock and mineral will have some quantity of Argon. Argon can mobilized into or out of a rock or mineral through alteration and thermal processes. Like Potassium, Argon cannot be significantly fractionated in nature. However, 40Ar is the decay product of 40K and therefore will increase in quantity over time. The quantity of 40Ar produced in a rock or mineral over time can be determined by substracting the amount known to be contained in the atmosphere. This is done using the constant 40Ar/36Ar ratio of atmospheric Argon. This ratio is 295.5.

http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geol/labs/Argon_Lab/Methods/Methods.html

Quote:
Certain assumptions must be satisfied before the age of mineral can be calculated with the Potassium-Argon dating technique. These are:

+ The material in question must be a closed system. In other words, no radiogenic 40Ar has escaped from the rock/mineral since it formed. In the case of a volcanic mineral, these means rapid cooling.
+ A correction must be made for atmospheric 40Ar (40Ar from the 40Ar/36Ar ratio = 295.5 subtracted).
+ No non-atmospheric 40Ar was incorporated into the rock/mineral during or after its formation.
+ The rock/mineral must be a closed system with respect to potassium.
+ The isotopes of Potassium in the rock/mineral have not been fractionated, except by 40K decay
+ The decay constants of 40K are accurately known.
+ The quantities of 40Ar and potassium in the rock/mineral are accurately determined.

No where does the method assume the Ar is zero. Claiming the method does assume that shows your argument is bereft of any logic.

parados,

I agree that the argon IS present. That was my point.

However, if you don't know HOW MUCH argon is in the rock when it is formed, then what amount will you subtract from the amount of argon that is in it now to 'date' the sample?

Farmerman did seem to agree that the assumption used is that there is zero argon to begin with. If I misunderstood him, I would welcome a clarification from him.

However, that won't change the fact that the initial amount of argon is always UNKNOWN. So what are you going to subtract?

0 Replies

rl,

My post that you quoted states twice the number used for figuring initial argon and matches pretty closely to what farmer has been saying.

Quote:

The fact that argon was present is certainly the issue, since the whole K-Ar method is based on the assumption that there is NO argon present at time the rock was produced.

Your point wasn't that Argon is present. Your attempted point was that the method doesn't allow for the argon that is present when the rock is formed. You repeated it back to us where it shows that the method DOES allow for argon being present including the ratio that should be used.

The only thing you are showing is that you can't see past your ideology.

0 Replies

Quote:

Farmerman did seem to agree that the assumption used is that there is zero argon to begin with. If I misunderstood him, I would welcome a clarification from him.

I have no idea how you could possibly get that Farmer said that. I can see no where he stated that there was no argon in the sample. Please point out where you think he said it. He has consistently talked about the failure to look at the argon ratios between the 2 isotopes. It's kind of hard to have a ratio if there is no argon.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

rl,

My post that you quoted states twice the number used for figuring initial argon and matches pretty closely to what farmer has been saying.

Quote:
The fact that argon was present is certainly the issue, since the whole K-Ar method is based on the assumption that there is NO argon present at time the rock was produced.

Your point wasn't that Argon is present.

Yes , it was. Argon was present in the rock when it was formed.

parados wrote:

Your attempted point was that the method doesn't allow for the argon that is present when the rock is formed.

That is correct. That is why the assumption used in this method is incorrect, because argon IS present when the rock was formed.

parados wrote:

You repeated it back to us where it shows that the method DOES allow for argon being present including the ratio that should be used.

That is incorrect.

parados wrote:

The only thing you are showing is that you can't see past your ideology.

Whatever. If you didn't understand my point, (and it is apparent that you didn't) , perhaps you should hold your barbs until you do.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:

Farmerman did seem to agree that the assumption used is that there is zero argon to begin with. If I misunderstood him, I would welcome a clarification from him.

I have no idea how you could possibly get that Farmer said that.

Then we'll let him clarify his view. I am willing to be wrong.

parados wrote:

I can see no where he stated that there was no argon in the sample.

Now I see why you disagree, because you misunderstand the point. I didn't quote him as saying there was no argon in the sample.

parados wrote:

Please point out where you think he said it. He has consistently talked about the failure to look at the argon ratios between the 2 isotopes. It's kind of hard to have a ratio if there is no argon.

The ratio of present day argon to other substances is somewhat irrelevant if there is not supposed to BE any argon in the sample when it was formed-- and there is.

More to the point, if it is assumed there is no argon present at the time of the rock's formation, and we can see that there IS argon present, then the assumption is an invalid one. Thus any method which relies on this assumption will give false results. Which is just what it does.

Austin's sample which was 10 years old had the argon reading of a sample that supposedly is 'millions of years ' old.

Austin also gives several other examples of lava flows of known age which are 'dated' as ridiculously old due to the presence of argon.

0 Replies

RL,Argon has 24 isotopes, 3 of which are stable, including Ar40, Ar 36 and Ar42. Ar39 is a correction factor to see if the clock wasnt restarted and that the Ar found is actually radiogenic. Ar 36 is a heck on background. and Ar40 is the daughre product that occurs in a fixed ratio dur to K 40 disintegration.
I assumed that you were following along. Nowhere did I say that Ar WASNT to be expected=YOU MADE THAT UP ALL BY YOURSELF. Im wondering whether we are on two different universes of understanding.

Austin was being deceptive and you cant seem to accept that. There is so much about K/Ar dating that you are unaware of that its difficult to feed you bytes of information and not have you think "how can I make it appear that Im stil winning something here"

Im just gonna cap this off , you either dont get it, or you refuse to buy it, either way, Austin was being deceptive , not I.

0 Replies

Having actually gone back and read farmerman's posts, I have to agree with him. He never says there was no argon present. That is something real life seems to have produced out of an overfertile imagination. Farmer consistently says K/Ar dating and Ar/Ar dating (which acts as a cross check on known situations when K/Ar dating can produce ambiguous results) are both necessary, and that Austin either intentionally or because of an incomplete knowledge of what he was doing, used a test incorrectly. Not making crosschecks when you know there can be questions is bad science. Austin produced bad science. Real life's quibbles seem to have no basis in the actual exchanges on this topic. If real has any guts at all, he will go and read the wikipedia articles on K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating and then argue with farmer on the basis of those, which clearly support farmer.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Austin was being deceptive , not I.

This is the "bottom line". Farmerman has been very honest in dealing with this issue.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

...Nowhere did I say that Ar WASNT to be expected=YOU MADE THAT UP ALL BY YOURSELF...

The question I had asked was:

Quote:

So, do you disagree that this is a fundamental assumption?

0 Replies

Explain to me(in whatever fashion you wish), what you actually are asking in that question

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
...Nowhere did I say that Ar WASNT to be expected=YOU MADE THAT UP ALL BY YOURSELF...

The question I had asked was:

Quote:

So, do you disagree that this is a fundamental assumption?

The problem seems to be in your understanding rl. 'No radiogenic argon' doesn't equate to 'no argon'.

But what I posted about the method and you quoted certainly says that there is radiogenic argon in the atmosphere that is in the rock when it is formed. That must be dealt with in the basic assumptions. Something Austin clearly is denying even though farmer has pointed out it is wrong and the site I quoted points out its wrong.

0 Replies

RL is just trying to make his point, no matter how desparate the assumptions. RL, look up pleiochromism and nucleation of pyroxenes in melt rock. From there you can assemble a sort of undertsanding of how rock forming minerals can layer upon themselves like sugar crystals.
The fact that Austin didnt look at the ratios of Ar39 and Ar40 clearly indicates that he didnt want to know whether there even was any radiogenic Ar in the mix. You give him credit for being a "Con man" cause youre not even certain how the methods and real assumptions work. You just blindly follow The AIG "gospel" while all the scientists who cry "foul" are just atheists who wish to discredit the Biblical inerrancy that the Creationists want to uphold. However, the methods of cience are not with Austin ojn this. Hes lost a great deal of whatever credibility he originally had. I dont hear him giving lectures at STanford or MIT.
Smile

0 Replies

For those who have not actually read what Austin wrote about this, here is a link.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r01

Some assumptions that are being made about his view might be challenged by actually reading what he said.

He also lists several other lava flows that should be considered in the same topic.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

What I Think About Evolution
by Sam Brownback

That was the biggest pile of fence-sitting, spin-doctored, squirming under the bright light, pandering jargon I've ever seen.

Good job Mr. Politician.

Why this has not completely eliminated his consideration as president is beyond me.

0 Replies

Abstract from Austin's paper:

Quote:

(The entire paper can be read at the link provided by Real Life.)

Creation science propaganda often uses a specialized scientific subfield to convince non-specialists that they should doubt some aspect regarding the evidence for evolutionary theory. The creationist use of "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is another example of how arcane concepts are used to create confusion among non-specialist readers.

0 Replies

I read the article and was surprised that Austin never mentioned the Ar40/Ar39 ratios and the pleiochroic (layered color bands) patterns on the pyroxenes (augite and diopside) which were probably nucleated ABOUT previous large crystals (PHENOCRYSTS).
hE GLIBLY USES THE TERMINOLOGY that is specialized but, in itself deceptive , like Xenocryst (which means that the crustal mineral is not "native " to that rock melt, so therefore it came from outside the mass of meltrock. It could have been incorporated into the magma matrix like hot taffy picks up little pices of sugar candy as you roll it out to cool.

The reason that the clocks are "reset" is that certain rocks contain previous(allogenic) argon which is driven out and other magma portions have some residual Ar 36/39/40 driven out. So the usual date of a minimum of 100000 years (some agencies adopt a 1.5 million year minimum for the technique is in order that the Sigma 3 disintegrations set up a whole rock equilibrium)

For different reasons, we all accept the limitation of C14. Converesely the same limitation (except that its a MINIMUM age) is operant for K/Ar.
The Ar40/Ar39 method was developed during the 1960's to calibrate for this PARENTLESS
Ar-40, becauise the parent Ar is not from the rock being dated nor is it from the air. Early dates were many times apparently older than we knew the rock should have been (Austin just tried the same crap for a new generation)Roger Weims wrote about this very 1986 experiment of Austins. Wiems is a well known CHRISTIAN radio-chemist who , easily shot down Austin and Hams sample of Mt St Helen.
Follow on rigorous mathematical critiques of Austins work by others have been posted in the GSA notes and other journals. Just enough to show Autisn that his methods were fraudulent, but not so much as to give him undue credibility. (Which, by the way, RL is garnering by me keeping this going,I should be horsewhipped for trying to talk sense with him). I realize that these topics can get arcane , but they are not lost on daily practitioners who universally claim that Austin is full of crap.

0 Replies

Once again. showing that Austin is not the issue, here is more on the 'excess argon' problem that brings the K-Ar method into serious question.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_r01

Quote:

ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING"
ANDREW A. SNELLING, Ph.D. - 1998
Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998
Copyright 1998 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
New Zealand's newest and most active volcano, Mt Ngauruhoe in the Taupo Volcanic Zone, produced andesite flows in 1949 and 1954, and avalanche deposits in 1975. Potassium-argon "dating" of five of these flows and deposits yielded K-Ar model "ages" from <0.27 Ma to 3.5 - 0.2 Ma. "Dates" could not be reproduced, even from splits of the same samples from the same flow, the explanation being variations in excess 40Ar* content. A survey of anomalous K-Ar "dates" indicates they are common, particularly in basalts, xenoliths and xenocrysts such as diamonds that are regarded as coming from the upper mantle. In fact, it is now well established that there are large quantities of excess 40Ar* in the mantle, which in part represent primordial argon not produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K and not yet outgassed. And there are mantle-crust domains between, and within, which argon circulates during global tectonic processes, magma genesis and mixing of crustal materials. This has significant implications for the validity of K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar "dating".

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know