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

When I was studying biology, there were several concepts for classifying species. The most obvious was the biological species concept- the ability to breed and produce a sexually viable offspring cable of breeding within the parent species. But as has been pointed out, lions and tigers, though considered separate species, do produce viable fertile offspring. But they are separated by other factors, most notably geographic and behavioural. The interbreeding only occurs under controlled captive conditions. There's nothing contradictory about their ability to interbreed. The most amazing thing, we're still actually bothering to counter the mindless tripe being spewed up by creationist nut jobs.

I'm not amazed--the imaginary friend crowd will never acknowledge that their book of fairy tales is not the conclusive source for the description of the cosmos and all that it contains, so, people who are unwilling to let the nonsense go unanswered have an obligation to respond.

Doesn't make it any less tiring :wink:

RL ia jut being a little gnome who apparently doesnt mind his ignorance showing. His premises are what lack understanding and hes just looking for the pefect bumper sticker to make his day.

Heres w RL here you realy shine .The very point of telling the lab that we got this sample out of a new lava dome would force them to compare the Ca to Ar ratios(since the first daughter products produce a mix88% in favor of Ca. If no Ca or varios Ar's are present , then the system is too young and any Ar being detected would be from Ar in the "sanidine" phenocryst and xenocryst nucleii of the dacite). We never know how much is formed, thats what the lab is for, then after the lab does the analyses and checks its QA, the calculations (based on the activities and rates from which the half lives are derived) are conducted using a second order decay set of eqautions.

I know that you put a deaf ear to how this works but your attempts at asking resonable questions arent working RL. You are just repeating yourmantra of ignorance and failing to shore up Austins fraud.
Either that , or Im trying to explain radiometric dating to a parakeet


Ive patiently explained by analogy how labs are always given the expectations of the analysis outcome in some fashion. Its the way that we keep our labs from just wandering aimlessly around the barn. Apparently you have little knowledge nor appreciation for how analytical labs actually work. If you go into a garage with a busted wheel beraing, do you explain the symptoms to your mechanic or do you just let him go and diagnose anything and everything in the car? Really RL, I dont know where to begin with helping you understand. Theres nothing nefarious with giving a lab an expectation of what they will find. In fact, the lab protocol sheets ("Chain of custody") has on it an entire section of sampling locations , conditions, and formations expected. The chrono lab director is usually a skilled geologist who then has the equipment run the analyses in a series of ranges, the first of which determines whether the sample is entirely out of whack with the samplers logs. Much discussion ensues and decisions are made to re-sample, or "clean up" the existing sample to see whether there are any xenolithic inclusions which can skew the readings. Also the sample is usually run in a 5 times repeatability schedule.

What bothers me about Austin is how you can prsume that a lab is going to be dishonest if you "bracket" your samples dates but you dont even raise an eyebrow as you learn that Austin did not request any standard QA protcols. HE might as well just have submitted a piece of old rock from the Deccans or have ground up some really old sample just to "salt" his results. Thats just about how dishonets he was in all of this. He had been accused of salting his sample by a USGS radiometric tech, mostly because the "dacite" had contained xenoliths that were just too big statistically for the melt to have been a raidly cooling event. I dont make any further judgements than tio state that Suatin had practiced very sloppy field and lab protocol procedures.
If you cant unbderstand that , then maybe you should go back to Austin and ask him why he was trying to pull a fast one.

We are provided recalibration dates for K/Ar/Ar routinely for places all over the world. the USGS publishes lists on the "deep web" and researchers can extract these dates for areas of correlating their own field data. Your "doubts" about the K/Ar method apparently have been mustered from Austins mostly dishonest means but youre not clever enough nor trained enough to know that.

No, the issue is the application of a time tested protocol. The test merely determines the amount of the element present, the protocol establishes the boundaries and the zones of validity for the chemical tests. .Science has realized the limitations of K/Ar, and has provided calibration methods that use all the daughter products of K40. We always employ them especially when were at the lower boundary of accuracy and validation for the method. (The younger the sample, the more calibration needed). If you cannot see that, if no Ca or Ar 36/39 is present in the ratios expected, then theres something whacky about the sample (usually theres an old sanidine nucleus thats carrying a "slug of old Ar"). If a scientist who samples a volcanic mix (knowing full well that its from a 10 year old dome) , and he also knows that there are "excess sanidine" problems in andesitic volcanic materials, but he keeps any of this from the labs hes commissioned to do the K/Ar test, how else can one conclude except that he was trying to deceive all along. NO?



The fossil record shows the developmental relationship of these two species. They probably are isolated 99.9999% of the time and , when a breeding does occur, its written up as an evolutionary oddity. RL is trying to make a ruke that is based upon discrediting the biological definition of species, I wouldnt worry, Hes not gonna be remembered for his "contributions" to the science. Im still holding out for any information that the genetic makeup of the specimen that was analyzed was not just an example of the genetic diversity from which the two species arose?

According to that article, the DNA was showing genetic attributes of both species, it really didnt reach a full conclusion thatnthered been a recent mating. RL really "NEEDS" the species concept to be arbitrary. Ive given him that fossils are at best a "best guess" break and can be arbitrary. However the biological rule of the living species is based solely upon reproductive isolation. Thats the minimal attribute that defines species , and its correct over 99.9999% of the time Matings, such as timber and red wolves are rae and getting rarer as the two species diverge farther. RL resorts to the :"snapshot in time" argument so often that its in his thinking always. A species has diverged (and many are diverging now such as the varieties of rufous hummingbirds or kaibab squirels). We, in our lifetime are shown emergent species and emergent higher taxa and, if we were good Creationists , wed deny them their recognition. .

Mornin' Set. You know I stay away from this argument because I haven't the background in natural science to make coherent posts. But I take exception to your statement.

I have often stated that the bible is not and never claimed to be a scientific treatise. It is quite obvious, and should be quite obvious that all which exists came about by the operation of natural law. My belief is that God is the author of that/those law(s) and the bible is simply simple - a description of how things came about that would make sense to those living in an agrarian society.

Should the inventor of radial tires look with scorn on the discoverer of the wheel?

The first law of thermal dynamics. "Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another". So either all of the energy in the universe has always existed, or an omnipotent, all knowing, supernatural being has always existed, and spoke all of the energy, and everything else, into existence. Belief in god is not provable, testable, or rational. It's an escape clause for the weak of mind, and a crutch for the fearful.

Or, God is energy. (Isaiah 40:25)

Of course, the existence of God cannot be demonstrated by your standards; but are you sure your standards are rational?

Were this the position taken by all the religionists, we'd have nothing to discuss here. Your position is an exception which serves to prove the rule that most creationists claim that the Bobble explains completely the origin and contents of the cosmos.



You don't need to tell me that--you need to speak to the bible-thumpers.



This is a theistic position which, if carried to extreme conclusions, leads to the "absent creator" position--that the god created the cosmos and its natural laws, and hasn't taken a hand since that time. This is very close to god as prime mover--saving that it usually entails a belief in deliberate acts of creation, rather then just setting the system in motion, and usually also entails a claim that man is the intended "end-product" of the process. To the god as first cause definition, i object on the basis of Occam's Razor.



There is too much "pollution" of the text from outside sources, too much pointless repetition (look at Genesis Chapters 7 and 8, and the entire flood story for repetition, often contradictory or not completely consonant), and too much irrelevance. Those living in an agrarian society can't necessarily be said to care what cosmogony is presented to them, or even to care if one is provided. Cosmogonies benefit priesthoods, who want to underpin their authority as intercessors with the god. Farmers care about rainfall, and when it does or doesn't occur; they care about the health of their livestock and the amount of fodder they can reasonably accumulate, and what that means about how many animals are to be slaughtered and how many are to be preserved for reproductive purposes. There is no good reason to assert that they care if anyone writes down convoluted and often silly stories about the origin of the cosmos, and why "we are the chosen people." They'd very likely be more impressed with priests who pulled a little of their own weight, and showed up at harvest time to help get the crop in with as little waste as possible.



If the "discoverer" of the wheel made an elaborate scripture on the subject, and demanding complete obedience to every jot and tittle of the "law" embodied therein--i'd join him or her in that scorn.

RL seems to have the typical naive Creationist impression of how rocks are dated.

Pick up any rock, ground in to dust and insert it into the "Insert rock dust" hole. The highly technical DAC-666 Rock Dating Machine will than make a lot of noise, flash a lot of lights and the date of the rock will be displayed on a screen.

"Hello
Your rock is a piece of Granite that is 125,567,482 years old + or - 300,000 years. It was delicious. BURRRRRRRP."

God can be a crutch for those who are weak or fearful, as can money, power, status, relationships, and lots of other things. It needn't be. If we define God not as some anthropomorphic entity, but as the experience of Being or Pure Consciousness:

(1) God is not provable but neither is any scientific theory (with the exception of mathematical theorems). Scientific theories are falsifiable, not provable. Big difference. Is God falsifiable? Is any subjective experience falsifiable? Is love falsifiable? Is jealousy? Anger? Happiness? It is not sufficient to say that it just seems really unlikely to be true. (Many people said that of quantum mechanics when it was first proposed.)

(2) God is no less testable than other subjective experience -- thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Are they real?

(3) Belief in God is rational if it is based, not on faith, but on direct experience. Is direct experience of God possible? Yes. That is the basis of numerous spiritual rituals and practices. When practiced correctly, they produce a heightened state of awareness in the practitioner -- the experience of unbounded pure consciousness. I know. I have experienced it, as have many others. It is beyond words.

Your generalization of the concept of God gets you around most of the conflicts with reality associated with a strict interpretation of the bible as a description of creation, but it doesn't provide any more information as a part of a theory, so it's essentially redundant and subject to occam's razor.

Your experience is not valid evidence because you can not differentiate your experience from delusion. How can anyone outside of your experience know the empirical validity of your 'feelings'. If we accepted your claim of spiritual experience, we would have to accept all other claims as well, no matter how radical or demented. How would you differentiate your experiences from all others?

[quote="rosborne979]If we accepted your claim of spiritual experience, we would have to accept all other claims as well, no matter how radical or demented. How would you differentiate your experiences from all others?[/quote]

Or....

My god, through personal spiritual experience, said your god is a false god.

Prove me wrong.

My god can knock your god's dick in the dirt with one thunderbolt tied behind her back . . .

I know this because i experienced the totality of the experience while in a state of higher consciousness which i induced with deep breathing, the silencing of the ego, and three dozen twinkies washed down with two liters of Mountain Dew.

IFeelFree, It is precisely "beyond words," becuase it's based on personal emotion and experience. It doesn't necessarily make it "truth." I have the same experience when I watch a good movie; it's almost "spiritual.

I have listened to good music, and I have cried; beyond words.

The falsifiability criterion was developed by Karl Popper in an attempt to distinguish what makes empirical science different from metaphysics. A statement is only scientific if it makes assertions that may be falsified by observation. After a theory has withstood multiple attempts to refute it by tests or observations, it can be said to have been confirmed by science. Theories which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. Popper characterizes non-testable theories as metaphysical.

There's medication that can fix that.

Thing is, other religions owing allegiance to other gods have the same sort of personal ecstatic experience. If they're true, then not only the Christian god, but also Vodun (commonly called incorrectly voodoo) gods exist and are much more widely experienced than the Christian god is, Allah exists, and the Hindu gods exist. Now several of these, Christianity and Islam in particular, say that only their particular god exists. Which leads us to an inescapable contradiction if we accept the mystic experience as really indicative of a one to one connection with a god.

username, Excellent point: all gods provide the believer with some "spiritual" experience that they can't express in words. Truth is a relentless mystic buster.

IFeelFree is being more precise with his definition of 'spiritual experience' over in This Thread.

This conflation of "personal experience" and "dispassionate observation" is a not so subtle attempt by some of the religious folks to provide a sense of validation of their worldview 's ability to explain the natural world (at least in the case of ewvolution). I reject the entire basis of personal ex perience as a valid way to process data, since, by definition , it is a totally subjective decision process that cannot be repeated under controlled conditions by a dispassionate observer, nor does it communicate anything concrete about how the natural world is assessed.
Foxylady brought this point up in another thread and spent many pages trying to "tap dance" as if P.E. were a reasonable way to inspect the world. Its not. It lives in the theater of "testimony" and "revelation", not in the objective world of metrics and visible evidence.

The two POVs are worlds apart and separated by centuries of time.