Search This Blog

Monday, May 17, 2010

The difference between science and propaganda

Science is not help captive by the ruling paradigm. Science does not respect persons, require degrees, suffer fools for long nor stand still for back burners. Science is interested and inquisitive and it cares about answers rather than consequences.

One Darwinist I respect on a certain level is Richard Dawkins. Yes, his adherence to what I consider to be ridiculous positions has made him a millionaire a few times over and quite famous to boot. Yet sometimes he is quite disarmingly honest. In those moments he reveals a small child within who is still dissatisfied with his toys and wants something more. Allow me to excerpt from Apologetics Press, with highlighted or bolded portions by me.

Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science

The SETI Project, Falling “Floppy Discs,” and A Major Missed Implication
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
[EspaƱol]
Printer version | Email this article

SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).

What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:

Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).

We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.

Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.

In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).

It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.).

“Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/SETIFAQS.html

McDonough, Thomas (2004), “Two Decades of SETI,” [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/seti-history.html.



Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.



~

In truth, Darwinists really cannot see the forest for the trees. The truth is right in front of Richard Dawkins and he even sees it, but he cannot reach out and grasp it for he has imprisoned his mind in bars of his own making. By determining that he is a naturalist he is missing out on the one ET that actually exists, the Creator God. God is certainly not only extra-terrestrial but He is supernatural. Anyone who allows his brain to simply work without loading it down with propagandized inhibitions would say, yes, it is obvious that design is all around us. Our engineers study organisms to learn how to make better machinery. This is one big fat DUH. Yet even with faced with the obvious truth...

Ian Juby has had dialogues with one or two of the same people I have had dialogues with, people associated with a group I consider harmful and reprehensible. I need not name them. But I will post this entry from Ian:

reation Ministry

Creation Science Research & Lecturing
& Specializing in Technology education
All pages on this website copyright © 1998-2008, Ian Juby

Examining the Delk Track
Background
Common Criticisms
Q&A


Background:
In July of 2000,
Alvis Delk was wandering through the Paluxy river, in Glen Rose, Texas, when he flipped over a slab of rock which contained a pristine fossil dinosaur track. These tracks are common in the area, and he took it home for a keepsake.
It sat in his living room for eight years.

Sadly, in 2007, he had a bad accident which left him hospitalized for quite some time. When he got home, he needed money to pay off his medical bills, and began to clean off the dinosaur track in hopes that he could perhaps fetch a few hundred dollars for it.
This is when he discovered that was also a fossil human footprint in the rock, still covered under dried clay.

This find has profound ramifications for the Creation/Evolution debate. Evolutionary scholars have admitted that if dinosaurs and humans lived together in the past, then this completely destroys the theory of evolution.

The slab was purchased by the Creation Evidence Museum of Glen Rose, Texas. It was photographed and documented by David Lines, and molded by Dough Harris, Daniel Elif, and myself.

This page is devoted to providing my own first-hand knowledge and information about the track, and to answer many of the common questions and objections.


The location where the Delk track was found.
(click on image for higher resolution)






Photo by David Lines, courtesy of Creation Evidence Museum

Common criticisms:



"It's a carving"
Hey - maybe! I'd just like to see some evidence of that, instead of this random ad-hoc claim being hurled around as if it were fact.

Unlike the skeptics, who make claims without one shred of evidence, I will actually present evidence as to why they are legitimate fossil footprints:

Friability of the rock:
Look at the photo yourself (close-up of matrix); I find it very difficult to believe that a rock this friable could be carved without disintegrating. This friability is quite common in the main track-bearing layer of the Paluxy.

Doug Harris and I spent an hour just claying up all those cracks before molding. We were gravely concerned that the silicone would literally rip the rock to shreds when we de-molded.

So how is one supposed to pound chisels into this rock, or run die grinders on it without shaking / hammering it into pieces?

Interestingly, I would also suggest this limits how far the slab could have been transported by the river. The Paluxy is well known to float slabs of rock the area of a car downstream, and this rock was obviously ripped up from its host rock and deposited where Delk found it. However, this rock simply could not sustain much tumbling - I doubt it went far.

CT scans show compression:
Of critical importance is the results of the CT scans that were performed on the slab. Watch the video at the top of this page to see an explanation of CT scans, how to read them, and see the scans for yourself. Also, head on over to David Line's page which shows numerous cross-sectional X-rays produced by the CT scans.


These X-rays show distinct high-density areas in the rock immediately surrounding and underneath the tracks. Carving the tracks would have cut through the harder surface layer, and would be visible in the X-rays. Also, the typical claim of skeptics is that forgers in the past used acid to etch the rock after carving a dinosaur track, to hide the tool marks in the rock. Acid etching would actually reduce the surface density of the rock, and would be visible in the X-rays.

Furthermore, Dr. Carl Baugh (director of the Creation Evidence Museum) actually interviewed people who carved dinosaur tracks during the depression. These people tried carving human tracks once in a while (one must immediately wonder why they would do this - might I suggest it was because of the fossil human tracks they had seen in the Paluxy river bed which inspired them?), the human tracks never sold, and so they stopped carving them. Secondly, they never carved a dinosaur track and a human track together, for the simple reason that everybody immediately thought it was a fake and wouldn't buy the track.

I am open to the objection / claim that it's a carving, but so far, I haven't even been remotely impressed by the calibre of skeptical arguments.

If anybody's got any other ideas as to what it could be, besides a genuine fossil human footprint that a dinosaur stepped on, then I wanna hear it: email me at ianjuby at ianjuby.org



Close-up of matrix, photo by David Lines
(click image for higher resolution)

"That's not an Acrocanthosaurus track"

First of all, dinosaur track identification is tenuous at best. We were not there when the tracks were made, therefore dinosaur track identification is never anything more than a best guess - no matter who's doing the guessing. You're quite welcome to place your guess!

Originally the Delk dinosaur track was identified by Dr. Baugh as a Trachodon, specifically because there was no claw impressions. However, after comparing it side by side to other, actual fossil Acrocanthosaurus tracks in the museum, he concluded it was an Acrocanthosaurus track which simply had not pressed deep enough to leave claw marks.
There is the distinct possibility it could be the track from another dinosaur - I personally don't care which one, because it's a dinosaur track. Evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together completely destroys the concept of evolution, as leading evolutionary scholars have admitted.
"Look how unnatural that human footprint is"

This is where it gets quite comical; because if it was a perfect track, the skeptics would say "it's too perfect, it's obviously a carving." I know this because that's what they've argued before with other human tracks from the Paluxy!

Human footprints take on a remarkable and strange variety of shapes and forms. If you don't believe me, head down to the beach and examine footprints in sand, mud, clay, etc... You will be surprised. That footprint is completely human, there is no other creature that makes a footprint like a human. Even apes have, essentially, four "hands" - they don't have "feet."
In this case, it appears that the big toe got hooked during forward locomotion. Why would a carver carve a track in an "unnatural" position? It would be far more convincing if it were a "perfect" track, so why the imperfection? It makes more sense that it is a legitimate, albeit strange, track.

"It hasn't been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal"

Ah yes, this is quite a humerous argument too. No "reputable, peer-reviewed journal" dares to publish evidence like this which destroys evolution. Entire books have been written on this subject, not to mention the recent movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." There are peer-reviewed creation journals out there, and this track will be included in our upcoming article on the Paluxy track research. However, evolutionists will simply reject such an article out of hand anyway, because it's not an evolutionary journal.

Go figure - evolutionary journals won't publish anything that knocks evolution, therefore because evidence like this won't be published in evolutionary journals, it is rejected by evolutionists.

I'm not even going to waste much time with this very silly argument that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the tracks are authentic.

If there are some scientists who wish to legitimately examine it, I'm sure that can be arranged - but only under very strict control of CEM. Why? Because some evidence like this has been destroyed before. See Don Patton's website for more details on this episode.

If there's going to be a symposium / forum for interested investigators, I'll post details here later.

"He's not 'Dr.' Baugh - he faked his credentials"

Haha! First of all, I'm quite tired of this slanderous lie that's been promulgated around the internet. I looked into it the whole matter myself - unlike the skeptics who just regurgitate a rumour they heard on talk.organs. Doctor Baugh worked very hard to earn his degree, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the authenticity of the Delk track.... does it?

It pleases me greatly to see such comments and railings, which are obviously nothing more than a desperate ploy to misdirect people from the evidence.

Look at the evidence people - it's presented here, and ignore the babblings of those who would desperately try and distract you from it. In fact, you might want to ask yourself why they are so desperately trying to distract you from it! Look at the evidence, judge for yourself, and ask yourself what the ramifications are for you if the bible turns out to be true and evolution false.


"CT scans produce 'beam hardening' which accounts the higher density you see on surfaces"
(updated Aug 26, 2008)

Okay, this is going to get a little technical on youse guys ("youse guys" - that's Canadian for "Y'all").

After much ado about "beam hardening" artifacts in the CT scans, combined with one comment posted on youtube, I wanted to be sure about a few things. I called the Glen Rose Medical center and spoke with two separate CT technicians on a variety of issues surrounding the slab, including the technician who actually performed the CT scan on the Delk slab. It was very enlightening.

"Beam hardening" is an artifact in CT scan X-rays that appears at surfaces, including the surfaces of cavities. This was a problem in the early days of CT technology, as well as the early days of Gamma Ray CT. Because CT scans are compiled by computer, an algorithm can be incorporated into the analysis to remove beam hardening artifacts. While I'm not an expert on CT, everything I've been able to dig up so far shows that beam hardening artifacts never appear to go any deeper than 1-2 scan pixels below the surface.

Beam hardening is especially prominent with irregular surfaces, and the Delk slab would certainly fall under the catergory of "irregular surface."

Could the higher density be from beam hardening and not from compression of the mud by the feet that made the prints?
In short, it would appear "no way!"
As I had written here before, the high density is not visible around some of the cavities - like the outer toes of the dinosuar track. It is also completely absent from the heels of both tracks. As I argued then (and as the CT technician who performed the scan mentioned without my prompting), this "surficial beam hardening" would be visible on the entire rock, if it were from beam hardening.

Furthermore, the Glen Rose Medical Center's CT scanner incorporates the anti-beam-hardening algorithms which removes beam hardening artifacts!


Can the very deep, high-density portions be explained by beam hardening or other artifacts?
There was a post on youtube by "ftom" that brought up some very good questions, but made a statement which must be addressed. He claimed that 4cm deep "higher density" in the rock is not uncommon for beam hardening (at least, that was my understanding of what he said). I choked on this big time, but didn't want to say anything until after I did some investigation, after all, maybe I'm wrong.

But think about it: Would you spend millions of dollars on a piece of equipment that's supposed to be ultra-accurate if you can get false readings 4 centimeters deep and wide??!!??? I wouldn't! Such false readings and beam hardening artifacts would complete invalidate the entire CT technology!

When I mentioned this to the CT techs, both of them remarked that this was flatly impossible. The second CT tech (who did not perform the scans) was looking at the scans on file at the time.

Furthermore, I will reiterate the facts which anyone can see by watching the video and looking at the full-resolution scans here and on David Lines' website:
  • the surface hardness is absent from many places in the rock
  • the highest density rock is at the junction of the middle dinosaur toe and the human footprint; where both tracks would have compressed the matrix. It is up to 4 centimeters deep and wide at this point (see below). This makes complete sense if the tracks are both authentic - both footprints compressed that area of mud. This makes no sense when trying to explain it as artifacts like beam hardening, as this is the only place where such large-area, high-density is visible.
  • there are portions of the tracks which do not have any surficial hardening. Thus, it is clear that the higher density seen elsewhere is quite real. To claim that portions of the tracks show no higher density and thus must have been carved is a ludicrous argument: Did the carver only carve portions of the tracks? What about the portions that do show higher density and are therefore legit? No - the variations in density only add to the authenticity of the density readings.


Are the density variations within a reasonable ratio?

There was "fall-out" from this post - click here to read the report.
Nevertheless, ftom made a very pertinent point about the density variations in the CT scans, and asked an excellent question: Are the density variations within reason? i.e., if the highest density was very hard, but the lowest density was that of a jellyfish, then there was a problem. I would agree, so I asked the CT techs to get a better handle on how density is calculated and portrayed on the scans.

As the CT technicians mentioned, they save people's lives by scanning a tumour and diagnosing whether it is benign or malignant just by analysing the density variations!
It should be noted at this time that the images are also produced to maximize contrast. The X-rays you see have variable grey scales, and thus the pixel colour is not a true representation of the density, merely a guide - i.e., you can't judge the density of a pixel by its shade.

The density variations are calculated using the Hounsfield numbers, and on the right are several select X-rays images from the CT scans, each of which has density sample sites. The circles are the sample areas, and the readings are in the bottom right corner of the image. For example, in Figure 7e, there are three sample sites, and the reading from sample 1 is listed as follows:

1: m 2768.04, sd 292.37, a 36.30mm2

The only important things here are the first and last numbers. "m" is the hounsfield number, and "a" is the area of the sample circle.

To give you an idea of how to interpret the Hounsfield numbers, the higher the number, the higher the density. Hounsfield numbers have the density of water as their zero point.
The CT tech at GRMC very kindly gave me a smattering of sample numbers, so you have an idea of the density/hounsfield number ratio:

  • Air inside a lung: -651 (note this is negative)
  • Cortical bone: 172
  • Liver: 33
  • Rib center: 104
  • Rib surface: 754
  • Vertebrae: 195
So the lowest density sample in the Delk slab is a Hounsfield number of 487 (Figure 7e, sample 3), and the highest 3048 (Figure 7a, sample 2).

One thing can be said with certainty: the numbers are certainly of sufficient density - the lowest density is greater than that of most bone, except at bone surfaces like a rib, which is very hard, very dense, and very brittle.
The other conclusion which can be reached with certainty is that the density variations are real, and thus it is good evidence of compression of the mud matrix by two footprints, before the mud turned into rock.




Figure 7a


Figure 7b



Figure 7c


Figure 7d


Figure 7e


"Dinosaurs don't make tracks like that"

Um... yes, they do! Honest!
A gen-you-whine Paluxy dinosaur track
(click on image for high-resolution)


Q&A

"Are those drill holes making a line up the middle dinosaur toe?"

Nope. That's actually the deepest part of the track, which happens to break through laminations in the rock in places, as well as some dimples in the rock, giving the appearance of a line of holes. See photo on right. The toes on the human track also break through laminations, leaving similar, circular holes in the rock.




"You mentioned 'unintuitive compression' in the video - what do you mean by this?"

Particularly when Dr. Baugh sectioned dinosaur tracks from the Paluxy a number of years ago, it was noticed that sometimes there was no visible deformation underneath the track. There was no doubt about the authenticity of these tracks, so what was going on? Furthermore, Professor M.E. Clark (University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana) who is a Paluxy track veteran of a few decades, also noted the lack of visible compression artifacts underneath a dinosaur track that had been broken in half when a ledge on the side of the Paluxy had broken off, revealing the cross-section of the track.

The Loma Linda university research report also sectioned a dinosaur track and a human track, both reported to have come from the Paluxy. They cited the lack of distortion underneath the dinosaur track as evidence it was carved. Sure - maybe it is a carved track - but the lack of distortion of the laminations underneath a track is not definitive of a carving.
However, the presence of laminations distorted by the foot when making the track is obvious evidence of authenticity.

When the Burdic man track was first sectioned across the ball, it showed no apparent distortion of the laminations in the rock - however, sectioning towards the heel and toes revealed incredible and dramatic distortion of the laminations. See Don Patton's report here to see the distorted laminations yourself.





"There appears to be a thin layer of higher-density rock on all edges of the slab - care to comment?"

There does appear to be higher density patches on the edges of the slab, though it is also absent from patches along the edges as well.

Again, this is probably crystalization over time. We do not know when this rock was ripped up from its host, we don't know how long it sat in the river, and we don't know how long it sat on shore. Thus, the idea that it is surface hardening/crystalization over time seems a reasonable explanation.

Please note however, that this does not invalidate the higher density associated with the two tracks in any way:

1) Both tracks have areas (particularly the heels) where there is no higher density rock
2) The density variations associated with the tracks are dramatically deeper and wider than any of the surficial high density - by a factor of up to 3. In particular, the displaced mud at the intersection of the human track and the middle dinosaur toe was first compressed by the human, then displaced by the dinosaur. This high-density area is over 4 centimeters deep and wide, whereas the surficial high-density layer seldom exceeds 1.5 centimeters.

The dramatic variations in the density lend much credence to their authenticity. The variations appear to be quite real, and align well with the ichnofossils being genuine.



"What if someone carved the rock, and then etched it with acid?"

To answer this deep question, one of our researchers, David Lines, took some gen-you-whine Paluxy limestone - the very same stuff the dinosaur and human tracks are found in - and soaked it in muriatic acid. Read his very technical report here.

In short, acid wouldn't affect the CT scans, although if it did, it would show up as a less dense surface.


Generated August 13, 2008


~

I hate to say it, but there are Darwinists out there who KNOW that there are and have been dinosaur and man tracks found together. There is evidence that I have previously reported that a couple of Darwinists appear to have gone out to the Glen River site to destroy a track that had both dinosaur and man prints together. But too bad for them, we have this one and there will be more found/unveiled I am pretty sure.

But it only takes one. One to make scohen blush at trying to fudge the math on population graphs (sigmoidal it is) and make creeper call me names and Woolf to lecture us on how that kind of rock cannot exist and on and on and on...

I wonder what Dawkins would say if he could see this track and really understand the results of the scans and realize that both man and dinosaur were imperiled and perished in the same Flood event that created the vast sedimentary rock layers and the fossils and etc? Would he become another Anthony Flew and begin lecturing about how Darwin was wrong? Would he even begin to wonder about God?

In any event, I am far more qualified to teach a class on Young Earth Creationism versus Atheistic Naturalistic Materialistic Darwinism than most commenters here because I am not blind to one side of the proposition. You who have an a priori commitment to naturalism and scientism are willingly blind to simple truths that are raining down around you like willow seeds.

What I wonder about and this is what really puzzles me is this. How can some people hide evidence of creation and/or destroy it? Do you really think that if you can get most people to agree with you that the truth of it will change? Do you think getting everyone on the Darwin side will make God go "poof" just like you think that all time and matter just "poofed" into existence and life just "poofed" itself into the material world on Earth?

A few years ago (go ahead and look this up) after one of the Paluxy researchers gave a lecture and showed slides of a dinosaur/man track and went back home, two people from that same place purchased tickets to come to the region. Two men were spotted going down the riverbed with sticks or tire irons or something similar. The next day several tracks, including the star attraction, had been beaten with something and smashed beyond recognition. The men who did this know who they are. Reward money was offered up to identify the culprits and a suspect was offered a large sum to take a lie detector test. He refused.

What kind of mind and heart does something like this? Who would smash Galileo's telescope, who would burn down the laboratory of the Curies, who would think this way? How can people think this way? It is baffling to me. Science is looking for truth.

Too many so-called scientists are simply high priests of Darwinism. They would have me burned at the stake if they could. Many a good Christian man was beaten and tortured and killed during the Dark Ages for the crime of owning and reading all or part of the Bible! There have been so-called churches that have done great wrongs. Back then the ruling paradigm said only priests could have the Bible and only the Church could tell people right and wrong. Penances and indulgences and great sins were ordered from on high. We called those days dark.

Yet now we have an organization, the NCSE, that is devoted to censoring and stamping out scientific study and proud of it. Give Eugenie Scott a hooded robe and a rack and God help us all! Thousands upon thousands of so-called educators and so-called scientists in fear of the study of creation or Intelligent Design or one particular ancient text...just one. The Bible. I would be ashamed to be associated with the NCSE or talkorigins or any group that censors inquiry and promotes mindless propaganda. Is that clear enough? No matter what you think of me, I have clear conscience and a mind set upon discovering truth and I am not afraid of truth.

63 comments:

radar said...

You will need to go to Ian's site to see the right edge of the photos. Plus you really want to click on his links on that post. Ian Juby is a doggone scientist and he does it better than a lot of people lugging around Nobel prizes.

scohen said...

"One to make scohen blush at trying to fudge the math on population graphs (sigmoidal it is)"

Excuse me? Where is your evidence for me fudging the numbers? Where's your own math, bucko? Let's see some Radar math.

On some level, I realize that you really don't know what you're talking about, and lying about me is your only recourse. Radar, I'm not responsible for your ignorance of basic math and it's sad that you don't even understand that a sigmoidal vs. exponential curve makes no difference to the core of Ken Ham's blather (though you must admit that human population growth has not leveled off and at present isn't sigmoidal). Not that you even appear to understand the basic premise of Mr. Ham's argument. Come to think of it, neither do I.

The simple fact is, I used Ham's numbers, and Ham's reasoning and the functions demanded by Ham and it totally failed. It produced absolutely silly population numbers across the board. What's sad is you don't even understand this and resort to lying about my motives.

Furthermore, are you arguing that humans have always had uncontrolled exponential growth? That's laughable. Populations should be stable, that's healthy. Exponential growth like we're experiencing now is not sustainable and is a very *bad thing*.

Finally, wasn't there some commandment about bearing false witness?

I fully expect more mathy graphs copy and pasted tomorrow rather than a cogent reply from you.

radar said...

scohen speaks with forked tongue. IF you actually know anything about the subject you know my figures are correct and the curve presented is correct and so it is tiring to hear you complain about how stupid I am. That's the way children argue. Grow up a little and admit that the numbers say maybe 6000 years for the human population from a single family because that is what the numbers say. Either that or be the first guy in history to give me numbers that work out to 300 thousand years or whatever Darwinists think now (God knows you all change your time frames for everything all the time).

Population theory recognizes normal growth patterns in populations. The human growth pattern is right on the sigmoidal curve and the forecasts for future population also hit that curve. You are pretending that it would be normal for man to stay at the same population for multiple thousands of years and then suddenly begin to grow. Our numbers historically do not support that. Population genetics do not support that. Your content-free response is not impressive. I think maybe I am giving some of you too much credit. Apparently you are so good at fooling yourself you think you can do it to me and other readers without putting forth any effort.

Clearly, the normal population growth formulas give us a short time period for man on Earth, or something remarkably disastrous like the Flood that would have rebooted the population from a very small start. Our human population fits in quite nicely with that scenario.

Also clearly the readers who do not comment, which is the majority, see me posting essays of my own and posts by some brilliant scientists and hard-working researchers and tying them together with a bow on top. Then you guys attack me and try to change the subject and run away from the problem. You cannot have such a small population of the dominant organism on this planet unless you have a short time frame. We are the big dogs on planet Earth, the most dangerous predator bar none.

radar said...

I miss Dan S, who was willing to have an intelligent discussion. But I suppose he hoped he could drag me over to the Darwin side.

Darwinists are like a guy who tries to rob a bank but the silent alarm gets tripped and their hostages have escaped. The cops are asking them to come out and then they will shoot in the tear gas and try to take them all alive without shooting them down.

Recent studies in genetics falsify Macroevolution completely. I know a lot of Darwinists have to realize this and they are simply looking to hold everyone off while they figure out an exit strategy. But you have lost already. How can you not see it? Amazing.

Jon Woolf said...

Here's another mental technique that good scientists use, Radar: look at this evidence and wonder if I was on the other side, would I find this evidence convincing?

There have been numerous previous reports of 'man tracks' from the Paluxy River trackways. Every single one has proven to be false, either a misidentification or a case of forgery. The Delk Track doesn't even look as good as other known fakes, and yet you expect people to believe that this time, it's real. If the tables were turned and this was somebody claiming "conclusive evidence for evolution" and then showed you something as laughably bad as the Delk Track, would you be convinced by it?

Somehow, I don't think so.

As for the rumor that some nasty rotten evolutionists destroyed man-tracks -- who, where, when, and what's the evidence? I know some filth made such an accusation against Glen Kuban and it was proven to be a lie. So of course now you'll say it was somebody else. Anything to preserve your picture of evolutionists as demons in human form, right?

Too many so-called scientists are simply high priests of Darwinism. They would have me burned at the stake if they could.

Gee, overdramatize much?

No matter what you think of me, I have clear conscience and a mind set upon discovering truth and I am not afraid of truth.

Your tactics belie your words. Why won't you engage in honest discussion of subjects like Grand Canyon geology, natural selection, genetics, the "no young isotope" phenomenon? Why won't you even learn what you need to in order to fully understand and analyze your own side's arguments, never mind the other's?

creeper said...

"I would be ashamed to be associated with the NCSE or talkorigins or any group that censors inquiry and promotes mindless propaganda."

I am going to withdraw my charge against Talk Origins that they post things they know have been refuted. Until such time as I want to go back there or research past notes to look for anything documented, I won't claim that they do anything like that. I will just say that I don't like the site and leave it at that.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"You are pretending that it would be normal for man to stay at the same population for multiple thousands of years and then suddenly begin to grow. Our numbers historically do not support that. Population genetics do not support that."

This is not only normal, but supported by evidence we see around us all the time. Relatively constant populations are so common it's hardly thought worth remarking on.

And yet a YEC position forces you to deny this very obvious fact.

"Also clearly the readers who do not comment, which is the majority, see me posting essays of my own and posts by some brilliant scientists and hard-working researchers and tying them together with a bow on top."

I take it they also see you ignoring any counter-arguments, likewise based on the work of brilliant scientists, hard-working researchers etc. and dismissing them as part of some vast conspiracy.

"You cannot have such a small population of the dominant organism on this planet unless you have a short time frame. We are the big dogs on planet Earth, the most dangerous predator bar none."

And was man always the "big dog"? Er, no. Chaos Engineer had a good comment about that.

"Either that or be the first guy in history to give me numbers that work out to 300 thousand years or whatever Darwinists think now (God knows you all change your time frames for everything all the time)."

In the context of a blog discussion, perhaps we use somewhat different time frames on the spur of the moment, though generally of the same order of magnitude, because obviously there is no clear one point in time at which one can say this is now a modern human being. 100,000-200,000 years is an okay rough starting point for homo sapiens.

"Then you guys attack me and try to change the subject and run away from the problem."

Running away from the problem? Perhaps you've forgotten that this silly Gish gallop you've been on for the past few weeks is just an attempt to cover up your aborting the discussion of dating methods, where you were unable to back up your overblown claims.

Not just that, but look at the last bunch of posts here, nothing but a series of discussions that you run away from to get to the next post full of pasted articles. It's nothing but running, running, running. If you're that confident in your positions, then argue a subject to completion. As it is, you're just looking desperate.

In years past, I've compiled a list of questions you've either failed or refused to answer; we could start up another one.

-- creeper

radar said...

"I would be ashamed to be associated with the NCSE or talkorigins or any group that censors inquiry and promotes mindless propaganda."

I am going to withdraw my charge against Talk Origins that they post things they know have been refuted. Until such time as I want to go back there or research past notes to look for anything documented, I won't claim that they do anything like that. I will just say that I don't like the site and leave it at that.


They have proven their intention to be deceptive as I pointed out about seven or eight months ago and at that point declared they were lumped in with Dr Dino and 9/11 truthers.

radar said...

schohen won't admit the truth. I didn't expect creeper to do anything but ignore evidence and complain but you have a serious problem with population numbers and frankly you need to reconsider your indefensible position. It is absolutely ludicrous.

Woolf/creeper probably at least one of you is a representative of an anti-creationist group of some kind and not one of you will deal with the issues of the cell. You guys use weird terms like "Gish Gallop" and "my creationist masters" that show you to be ideologues who would not admit they were wrong if the hand was in the cookie jar at the time.

Population is case closed, you lose.

Dino and man track together is case closed, you lose.

Design features in the organism is win by technical knockout. You cannot even put up a fight.

Grand Canyon? Woolf you don't even know what you are talking about when you discuss how limestone forms. Ignorance must be bliss. You claim that the Tapeats folds were made in old cold rock but there are no signs of heating. Of course you also must be one of the people that thinks water runs uphill and dinosaurs all backed downhill, right?

I did not say who wrecked the rock at Paluxy so you are accusing and then judging and declaring innocent a guy I did not name. I know that guy is anti-science because he works to hide truth and fudge information to crank out Darwinist garbage and I don't want to associate with that kind of thinking.

Readers, go back to the Darwinism is Dead series and notice how the commenters fail to say much of anything of substance? Same here. They cannot refute the footprint. One of their kind tried and made himself look silly.

Man and dinosaur lived together. Well, at the same time anyway. I doubt they often shared quarters.

scohen said...

Very well Radar.

From here

"We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion."

What kind of growth rate is White describing here?

The numbers I came up with for present day are the same as what AIG published. Where their argument fails is for much earlier dates. Can you not see that? Did you not check their work?
Using AIG's numbers, how many people were alive in the year 0? How many were alive when the pyramids were built?

"schohen won't admit the truth"

The numbers don't lie radar. If I was fudging them, then why did they match AIG's?
If you're going to accuse someone of fudging numbers you better have some evidence on your side. Aside from your statements, you haven't provided any.

creeper said...

"Population is case closed, you lose."

You wish. You've made a weak claim that human population can not remain constant for a long time and have failed to back up this claim in any way whatsoever. Rather than back up your claim, you mutter something about victory and "case closed" while heading for the exit. Sorry, that doesn't do the trick.

"Dino and man track together is case closed, you lose."

Jon some time ago presented you with a link that was skeptical of this dino/human footprint. You deigned not to acknowledge its existence. Now you present a number of arguments by Ian Juby while completely failing to address the content at that link.

And here you are, hastily proclaiming victory and "case closed" before/without addressing any of this. No doubt by tomorrow you'll paste another 20 or 30 screens full of some other articles on some other subject and claim that this discussion is finished. You're completely frantic these days. What are you running away from, Radar?

Hm. When I look at the title of this post, I wonder if you are aware of the difference between science and propaganda.

One thing I personally find odd about the Delk print is that the two prints make roughly the same impression in what must after all be relatively soft mud. Think about what it would take for you to leave a footprint like that in a substance, how soft it must be.

Now consider the difference in weight between a human being and a dinosaur big enough to leave that footprint. Think about that for a moment. Wouldn't the dino footprint really sink in quite a bit deeper than the human one?

"Design features in the organism is win by technical knockout. You cannot even put up a fight."

What you call "design features" are "functional features", which can be explained by natural selection. You may think of them as "design features" if you wish, but you haven't confirmed this in any way, and can hardly claim that it's case closed on this.

To even have a "fight" about this, you'd have to be able to have an informed discussion about the theory of evolution, which it appears you cannot.

You know what would be a clear "design feature"? A clear example of specified complexity that could not be explained by functionality, like a Bible verse spelled out in DNA. As long as it has function, it can be explained by the theory of evolution, and it is you who is unable to put up a fight.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"Woolf/creeper probably at least one of you is a representative of an anti-creationist group of some kind"

What difference would it make if we were? It's about the arguments, not about constant ad hominem excuses.

"and not one of you will deal with the issues of the cell."

Something tells me you either didn't read or didn't understand the comments on those posts.

"You guys use weird terms like "Gish Gallop" and "my creationist masters" that show you to be ideologues who would not admit they were wrong if the hand was in the cookie jar at the time. "

"Gish Gallop" is a simple and apt description of a common creationist debating technique - when cornered into a position he or she cannot defend, the creationist spews out a whole series of supposed "problems" with the theory of evolution etc., moving from one to the next before giving the opponent time to respond or acknowledging the opponent's responses. Not just that, but it almost always takes longer to rebut every single point than it does to spit it out in the first place.

That's pretty much what we've been seeing on your blog ever since you failed to back up your claims re. dating methods - backed in a corner, then spitting out one subject after another at a rapid pace and ignoring counterarguments.

Sorry if the term "Gish gallop" irritates you or if you think it's indicative of someone being unable to consider opposing evidence (which incidentally I am not), but it is descriptive and apt.

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

You guys are humorous: scohen, Woolfie, and "creepy". You remind me of my daughter when she was 5 years old with hands over ears saying, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you."

You are so eager to deflect a threat to your worldview that you continue to pile on, pat each other on the back, call names, make unsupported pronouncements, etc.

If you don't agree with Radar, then why do you feel so motivated to keep coming here and attempting to undermine him? Who goes to the websites of idiots and argues with them? There is no profit in it... because everybody agrees they are idiots.

I contend that people like yourselves only come here to argue with the proprietor because you are truly concerned that the material being presented is not only believable but potentially damaging to your own worldview.

Good work Radar. Keep it up.

radar said...

http://ianjuby.org/delk/commentary.html

For those who want to follow the ball on the Delk track.

Thanks Hawkeye! There are a few people who read my blog to try to keep up with an overview of what creation science is doing and hopefully they go check out sites on my links where actual scientists are found. Although if this was the 19th century I would be...well, a scientist is a scientist no matter what or how many acronyms precede or come after his name. I am an amateur but have the urge to learn and share no matter what. I am always learning. Even the commenters have helped at times, actually.

scohen said...

"You remind me of my daughter when she was 5 years old with hands over ears saying, "La, la, la, la! I can't hear you."

You've got to be kidding me. I used AIG's own math to show how wrong they are and that's what a 5 year old would do? Maybe you had a very precocious five year old. Note how it's Radar that's calling names here.

Care to add *anything* substantive Hawkeye? Care to point out where you think I erred?

I thought not.

"I contend that people like yourselves only come here to argue with the proprietor because you are truly concerned that the material being presented is not only believable but potentially damaging to your own worldview."

Not really, but your response is revealing. If you must know, I'm here because I really dislike ignorance and the promulgation of it. I've been fascinated by creationists ever since one disrupted one of my biology classes in college.

creeper said...

What scohen said.

Hawkeye, not only do I find what Radar posts here to be utterly non-threatening to my worldview, I find the persistent weakness of his arguments an interesting indicator that YEC really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Note, for example, his predictable inability to back up his overblown claims re. dating methods and to refute dating methods as they stand.

Not that Radar is some kind of authority, but he is pretty motivated. To him, scientific findings have to show X or his worldview actually is threatened. No young Earth means no Fall means no Jesus offering salvation - the narrative falls apart. Scary stuff if you've signed up for the literal interpretation. Can you imagine the pressure that puts on him? Actually, I guess you don't have to, since you're in the same predicament.

Whereas if some unexpected proof came to light, for example, that DNA was designed, I would conclude that DNA was designed. We still wouldn't know who did it, and it's still no proof of the madly improbable God described in the Bible.

And if, for example, there were incontrovertible proof that the Earth was young and there is an afterlife and there is a God who judges us etc. - well heck, I'd just believe in God then.

It's a mystery why, if God exists, he would have created a world that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why don't dating methods simply indicate a world 6,000 years old? Why don't we see tree rings abruptly stop at 6,000 years, or at least show signs of a major disruption? Same for ice core layers. Why are there signs of prehistoric humans? Why are there endrogenous retroviruses indicating evolutionary relationships to various other hominids? Is that something that God just happened to have "designed" in there? To fool us into thinking he didn't design it?

As for why I keep coming back here - I guess it's interactive entertainment of sorts. Some people watch reality shows or knit socks or go hiking - I find this somewhat entertaining. Oh and Radar's arrogance, hypocrisy and dishonesty are also a factor, almost forgot to mention that.

But it's interesting you should choose to make that contribution. Funny how creationists like to claim little (and big) victories wherever they can. If people comment - they must be worried and threatened, otherwise why would they respond? If people don't comment - they must not have any response, otherwise why wouldn't they respond?

-- creeper

P.S.: re. "creepy" - wow, what was that about sounding like a five-year-old?

radar said...

"Whereas if some unexpected proof came to light, for example, that DNA was designed, I would conclude that DNA was designed. We still wouldn't know who did it, and it's still no proof of the madly improbable God described in the Bible."

IF?!

This is the problem with you, you cannot see the nose in front of your face. If.

The world population graphs back to around the time of the flood. I could go on and on and on. Really, the dating methods are all flawed because we cannot go back long ages to calibrate them so we cannot be sure of any of them. No calibration, no accuracy.

Darwinists have one thing going for them and that is the apparent long ages for starlight. Everything else, the fossil record, the design of organisms, the Anthropic Principle/fine tuning, historical genealogies, thermodynamics, the orbits of the planets and the Moon, the likely lifespan of the Sun...they all make Darwinism look like a childish belief in a tooth fairy.

Creation scientists are studying genealogies to try to get the best date for year one. They are studying rates to find some that can be accurately calibrated and measured and depended upon. They have shown that adult stem cells are superior for research and medical usage. But they spend a lot of time proving Darwinism wrong while Darwinists keep looking for ways to move the goaline further down the field to avoid giving up the winning score.

If scientists would put the metaphysical aside, quit spending money on SETI and such and use their time on practical operational science we would all benefit. Richard Dawkins is functionally useless. SETI is a money drain. Behe could quit trying to show Darwinists there is no macroevolution and go back to simply studying and applications in his chosen field.

If.

creeper said...

"This is the problem with you, you cannot see the nose in front of your face. If."

That's right, IF, for the reasons I explained. Functionality itself is not automatic proof of design, given the theory of evolution. Nor is complexity. It seems you may have misunderstood a number of ID arguments there.

I understand you just want to race to the finish without explaining the route, but your assumption of design is just that, an assumption.

"The world population graphs back to around the time of the flood."

What you're actually saying is that it is possible to construct a hypothetical graph that gets you to your desired result.

Are you aware of your own inconsistency here?

On the one hand you reject dating methods that go back beyond the dates for which you think they can be calibrated because you claim they can not be calibrated, even though we can see different dating methods confirming each other.

On the other hand you freely accept (and wish to claim as gospel truth or even "evidence") a graph that goes back well before it is calibrated by anything, even though it is not confirmed by any other data. It is complete conjecture the further back you go. (And on a sidenote you remain unable to back up your assertion that human population can never be constant.)

Even just to be consistent, you would have to abandon one or the other claim here.

"I could go on and on and on. Really, the dating methods are all flawed because we cannot go back long ages to calibrate them so we cannot be sure of any of them. No calibration, no accuracy."

Even to the extent that they can be calibrated against each other, they clearly negate a young Earth.

But again, if you want to be consistent and if you want to pursue this claim, then you have to abandon any claims re. climate science that go back before the written record over the last two centuries. You've claimed that this is due to evidence of vineyards in England and so on, but that kind of evidence doesn't give the detail that is needed. You don't think all the data you've looked at re., say, a medieval warm period is based on that, do you?

-- creeper

creeper said...

If you simply want to dismiss dating methods because you think they can't be calibrated that far back (an extraordinarily limp blanket dismissal, by the way), that still leaves you short of any reasonable explanation for the consistency of results obtained by radiometric dating. It seems you're guilty of acting like that five-year-old that Hawkeye was describing when you consistently refuse to acknowledge the significance of dating methods.

Again, here is a useful primer from a Christian perspective. Your arguments against dating methods are not just weak, but the way in which you present your "counterargument" indicates that you haven't really examined this issue with an open mind at all.

The text at that link is written by this guy:

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

He is also very much a Christian. That's what his text is about, after all, radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. So any ad hominem attack on your part, dismissing him as part of some conspiracy or whatever will not fly here.

The whole text is worth a read, but I just want to point out that it includes a useful explanation of common misconceptions re. dating methods, some of which you have definitely fallen victim to:

2. No one has measured the decay rates directly; we only know them from inference.

Decay rates have been directly measured over the last 40-100 years. In some cases a batch of the pure parent material is weighed and then set aside for a long time and then the resulting daughter material is weighed. In many cases it is easier to detect radioactive decays by the energy burst that each decay gives off. For this a batch of the pure parent material is carefully weighed and then put in front of a Geiger counter or gamma-ray detector. These instruments count the number of decays over a long time.

3. If the half-lives are billions of years, it is impossible to determine them from measuring over just a few years or decades.

The example given in the section titled, "The Radiometric Clocks" shows that an accurate determination of the half-life is easily achieved by direct counting of decays over a decade or shorter. This is because a) all decay curves have exactly the same shape (Fig. 1), differing only in the half-life, and b) trillions of decays can be counted in one year even using only a fraction of a gram of material with a half-life of a billion years. Additionally, lavas of historically known ages have been correctly dated even using methods with long half-lives.

4. The decay rates are poorly known, so the dates are inaccurate.

Most of the decay rates used for dating rocks are known to within two percent. Uncertainties are only slightly higher for rhenium (5%), lutetium (3%), and beryllium (3%), discussed in connection with Table 1. Such small uncertainties are no reason to dismiss radiometric dating. Whether a rock is 100 million years or 102 million years old does not make a great deal of difference.


(continued)

-- creeper

creeper said...

13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.

This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

15. Low abundances of helium in zircon grains show that these minerals are much younger than radiometric dating suggests.

Zircon grains are important for uranium-thorium-lead dating because they contain abundant uranium and thorium parent isotopes. Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium. However, as a gas of very small atomic size, helium tends to escape rather easily. Researchers have studied the rates of diffusion of helium from zircons, with the prediction from one study by a young-Earth creationist suggesting that it should be quantitatively retained despite its atomic size. The assumptions of the temperature conditions of the rock over time are most likely unrealistic in this case.


-- creeper

creeper said...

"Darwinists have one thing going for them and that is the apparent long ages for starlight."

It's hardly the only one.

"Everything else, the fossil record, the design of organisms, the Anthropic Principle/fine tuning, historical genealogies, thermodynamics, the orbits of the planets and the Moon, the likely lifespan of the Sun...they all make Darwinism look like a childish belief in a tooth fairy."

The fossil record...? It's completely incompatible with a young Earth, with the notion of a global flood, with "kinds" being created and then not evolving. Completely incompatible with all of that. How can you claim that they in any way prove YEC? There is no explanation of any kind whatsoever from a YEC perspective to explain the sorting of fossils in the rock layers. You've tried -

The fossil layers are generally distributed as one would expect in a flood, the bottom dwelling sea life at the bottom, the fish at another level, shore-dwellers at another layer and the largest land animals near the top. (Particularly the ones capable of recognizing danger and able to run to higher ground).

- and failed.

"The design of organisms" - again, presuming the conclusion.

Thermodynamics - the theory of evolution doesn't violate them at all, for reasons we've discussed at great length. Another argument you're running away from.

The likely lifespan of the sun... I think Jon addressed this some time ago and you failed to respond.

Genealogies - not sure what they're supposed to prove.

"Creation scientists are studying genealogies to try to get the best date for year one. They are studying rates to find some that can be accurately calibrated and measured and depended upon."

How are they planning to calibrate them? What is the point of finding a "rate"? Aren't they simply trying to confirm a series of historical events?

"They have shown that adult stem cells are superior for research and medical usage."

What does that have to do with creationism?

"But they spend a lot of time proving Darwinism wrong"

Put yourself in their shoes. They can't prove a young Earth being right, so they're stuck taking potshots at old Earth/theory of evolution evidence. It sucks but they don't have much of a choice.

"while Darwinists keep looking for ways to move the goaline further down the field to avoid giving up the winning score."

Is this related to your peculiar claim that scientific progress amounts to "shifting goal posts", and that a preferable route is to stick to dogma and avoid scientific progress?

"If scientists would put the metaphysical aside,"

They by and large do. Arguments between creationists and scientists are only a very minor, if amusing, sideshow. No scientist today is seriously still trying to "prove" the theory of evolution. YECs aside, it's simply accepted and confirmed.

"quit spending money on SETI and such and use their time on practical operational science we would all benefit."

It's not like things like SETI represent a big chunk of science expenditures, or that SETI funding (all of 4 million a year) cuts into, say, the cure for cancer (over a billion a year). This sounds like a rather fact-free claim on your part.

"Richard Dawkins is functionally useless. SETI is a money drain. Behe could quit trying to show Darwinists there is no macroevolution and go back to simply studying and applications in his chosen field."

Yes, they could, but there are plenty of people doing that.

-- creeper

Jon Woolf said...

Hawkeye asked:
If you don't agree with Radar, then why do you feel so motivated to keep coming here and attempting to undermine him?

Thus spoke the great general Sun-tzu, over 2500 years ago:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

"If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Creationists are an effective demonstration of the last. I prefer to follow the first.

radar said...

Thus saith Woolf"

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

"If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."


Fair enough, Woolf. I feel as if locking horns with Darwinists sharpens my game. If you think I fall into category three then you fall into category two. That's okay, I do not answer every commenter but every commenter gets his say. This is first amendment land. Keep it clean and you can soapbox all you like.

I was a drug dealing party animal rock and roll singer nightclub crawler drunken brawler agnostic whocarestic dedicated Darwinist who was transformed into a child of God and eventually a creationist. I've been on both sides. If you consider me an unworthy opponent you sure have been wasting your time.

If Nazareth (ironic) had come to know Christ maybe they would have sung this: "Now you're messin' with...a son of The God (Now you're messin' with a son of the GOD)"...Just remember I have the Creator of the Universe on my side.

The other side has the heartbreaker and the soulshaker. I prefer the heart and soul saver. Your Darwinist religion will not serve you well on the other side of this life. I won't be cheering to see you humbled by God.

Me? I was already humbled by God and saw the Light. My sins were piled up overwhelmingly high. My intellect could not save me, my family could not save me, learning could not save me. Christ could save me. Now that I know the real Master of the Universe (sorry, Ozzy) I know that He is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge and I am a blade of grass, here today and gone tomorrow. But I don't fear the Reaper. The end of this life is just the doorway to hanging out with the coolest Guy of all time...beyond all time.

radar said...

""If scientists would put the metaphysical aside,"

They by and large do. Arguments between creationists and scientists are only a very minor, if amusing, sideshow. No scientist today is seriously still trying to "prove" the theory of evolution. YECs aside, it's simply accepted and confirmed."

Tell us another one! All sorts of scientists are desperately trying to prove evolution. Television and magazines have a steady doctrinal drumbeat. Bacteria and fruit flies are born to die in an attempt to make them show signs of becoming something else, ANYTHING else. Darwinists have been searching for years for an actual transitional form crawling around with little hammers and brushes and hiding evidence that doesn't fit the paradigm.

Thank God for Dr. Mary Scweitzer, who was willing to promote the TREX with apparent blood vessels relatively intact despite the damage such a finding does to Darwin. She remains a firm Darwinist but she was willing to follow evidence and present it despite her belief system. Much respect to her.

This is why I deplore the talkorigins people, who would likely do the opposite with prime example being their still ridiculous Acambaro post. This is why I derided Dr. Dino, who would keep information he knew to be false posted on line, specifically the basking shark as dinosaur.

I don't do that and I don't back down when I am right, either. You can find fifty commenters who misunderstand the Laws of Thermodynamics and it doesn't matter. Numbers on your side don't matter. Having half the country propagandized doesn't matter. Galileo believed and I believe that truth will out.

Oh, and creeper? If you ever find an actual study of actual Christians who were placed into the penitentiary system as opposed to those who "convert" while inside then I will check it out and see if is more sensible that then numbers I extrapolated from the data available. I know a couple of guys who do prison ministry and a longtime prison guard and they will tell you that crooks get saved a lot in prison but sometimes it is a means to an end by someone who is used to doing a con. It is prison, after all.

radar said...

Actually, creeper, as Ken Ham points out the Moon cannot have been there all that long. No Moon, no tides, no rich environment for life. Moon too close, disaster. Moon too far away, disaster. It may have moved around 900 yards or so in seven thousand years. What do you do with millions?

How about the Sun? It isn't static. How long would such a star be hospitable to life? How many such stars are there?

YEC doesn't have any trouble demonstrating a young earth at all and the fossil layers support our side. The makeup of the organism supports our side. All you really have that we haven't got figured out is the light years of light. One thing, really.

Science will keep moving and eventually disprove emphatically everything you have said about life's origins. The one thing we wonder about is whether we will be able to understand how God made an apparently 15 billion year old Universe in a four days (since He made light on day one and the stars and Sun and Moon on day four). We don't know how he did this nor do we know how he started time and made a material Universe either. But we are concentrating on the things we can prove.

Jon Woolf said...

You misunderstand, Radar. I don't need to know why you're a True Believer; I only need to know that you are.

All sorts of scientists are desperately trying to prove evolution.

Not true. All sorts of scientists are trying to understand how and why evolution does the things it does. That's partly because such studies hold out the hope of new treatments for human diseases, and partly because gathering knowledge is what human beings do.

Television and magazines have a steady doctrinal drumbeat.

Television shows, books, magazines all talk about evolution because they're popular-science materials, and evolution is the reigning paradigm in the life sciences.

Darwinists have been searching for years for an actual transitional form

No, they haven't. The question of whether transitional forms exist was answered conclusively by the discovery of Archaeopteryx lithographica, 150 years ago. Since then, the examples have piled higher and higher. Protoceratops, Diarthrognathus, Tiktaalik, Hyracotherium, Sphecomyrma, Pachyrachis, Protocetus, Ardipithecus ... the list goes on and on.

I don't do that and I don't back down when I am right, either.

What about when you're wrong?

Jon Woolf said...

Actually, creeper, as Ken Ham points out the Moon cannot have been there all that long.

We'll see...

No Moon, no tides, no rich environment for life. Moon too close, disaster. Moon too far away, disaster.

We don't know this. We do, however, know that Earth would still have tides even if the Moon wasn't present. Hint: look up "solar tides."

It may have moved around 900 yards or so in seven thousand years. What do you do with millions?

Well, let's see...

900 yards/7000 years = 0.13 yards per year, which in turn equates to roughly 4.629 inches or 11.8 cm/year.

Oops! By direct measurement, the Moon's current rate of recession is 3.82±0.07cm/year -- about one-third of Ham's number.

However, if he's right then the actual value shouldn't make much difference. So let's insert the correct number and continue... 3.82cm/year times 4.5x10^9 years = 1.719x10^10 cm. Convert to kilometers (oh, how easy are metric conversions!) and we get 171,900km.

My astronomy text tells me that the Moon's current mean orbital radius is 384,400km.

So, subtract the one from the other, and four and a half billion years ago, at the current rate of recession, the Moon would have been ... 212,500km away.

Hmmm...

And geologic evidence indicates that the Moon's rate of recession now is rather higher than it's been in the past.

Hmmm, indeed...

The one thing we wonder about is whether we will be able to understand how God made an apparently 15 billion year old Universe in a four days

Uhhh, Radar ... if you believe God made the Universe look old when in fact it isn't, then why do you spend so much time trying to refute the evidence for an old Earth?

creeper said...

"If you ever find an actual study of actual Christians who were placed into the penitentiary system as opposed to those who "convert" while inside then I will check it out and see if is more sensible that then numbers I extrapolated from the data available."

Wow. You really don't have a single solitary clue what my argument re. the prison population was, do you? Or even why your "reasoning" was completely and utterly objectively "black is white" wrong?

This even though I pointed it out to you in excruciating detail, several times, at a level where my kids could easily understand it... "Fallacy of division" ring a bell? No? Figures.

Maybe you don't recall, but you didn't "extrapolate numbers from the data available" to arrive at your estimate of the prison population. You committed a whopper of a logic mistake that should give any readers of this blog (if those alleged readers outside of the regular commenters here really exist) with regard to your intellectual acumen and honesty.

The prison population discussion was a perfect example of how you make overblown claims (this one outside of your usual two hobby horses) that you can't back up, but then have too much pride to admit you were wrong.

If anybody cares about this argument, just do a search on "Timbuktu" on this blog, you'll get to the relevant explanations pretty quickly.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"the fossil layers support our side"

Then what is the explanation for the sorting of fossils in their respective rock layers?

You keep making such claims even though the opposite is true - and you're consistently unable to back them up. If you can't provide such an explanation, then you can't claim that the fossil layers support YEC.

They don't support YEC. On the contrary, they're a huge friggin' problem for YEC.

The theory of evolution can make falsifiable predictions with regard to what kind of fossils will be found in rock layers dated to a certain age and find them confirmed over and over. Tiktaalik was a perfect example of using such a prediction that confirmed both dating methods and the theory of evolution.

According to modern geology and the theory of evolution, the prediction made sense. According to YEC, it should have been impossible. The proof is in the pudding: the predictions were confirmed.

You can conclude what logic dictates is the most likely explanation...

... or, as usual, you can ignore it and change the subject. And spread unfounded untruths about how the fossil layers support YEC.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"The one thing we wonder about is whether we will be able to understand how God made an apparently 15 billion year old Universe in a four days"

Thank you for conceding that the evidence indicates an old Earth.

"(since He made light on day one and the stars and Sun and Moon on day four)."

Which clearly disproves your hypothesis that God likes to do things directly and elegantly, as previously discussed here.

"We don't know how he did this nor do we know how he started time and made a material Universe either."

That's one thing I don't get - why do you take it as a given that (a) time had to be created, and (b) that God created time? There's no mention of it in the Bible. Are you just taking some arguments you've heard and running with them? A bit like overhearing some ID chat about irreducible complexity and concluding that all complexity must indicate design?

Curious. And curiouser.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper, you apparently have no idea what is in the rock records at all. I throw up my hands with you on that point. The fossils are obviously either buried quickly and catastrophically in place, caught in some kind of current and settled in place or sorted and aligned by current flows. We find all of these features in fossil rocks and all are consistent with a flood. The upper layers are consistent with ice age disaster and dike breaks. You must live on a different planet.

As to population genetics, scientists have observed and learned how populations grow and calibrated these observations so that the sigmoidal graph is not a product of supposition so much as it is accepted methodology. Do you know any population geneticists?

Furthermore since God said He made the Universe in six days he therefore did not make it "look old." He just made it accessible to us. There is no "Making Universes For Dummies" but if there way, one chapter would probably be devoted to making sure the sentinent beings would need to be able to observe the thing in order to appreciate it.

Prison population. I got ahead of you on that one because you are just not able to understand the reasoning and yet you persist, I knew you would, simply because you have nothing good to say for evolution, probably. I think my reasoning was rational based on the information and AS I SAID MANY TIMES no one has done a study on this particular subject and published numbers so when called upon to speculate, I did so with the information afforded me. So live with it or not.

And NOOOO of course having farms in Greenland and vineyards in England would never be associated with warming. Perish the thought! They must have imported massive numbers of sunlamps from ET the Extraterrestrial on his last visit to Europe. Geesh.

creeper said...

I went through Jon's calculation, and - hardly a surprise - it checks out. Question is, where would Radar have gotten this dud of a claim?

Well, there's mention of it on Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham's outfit, here. They don't seem to make the same mistake that Jon mentions - they say 250 m change over 6,000 yrs, which comes to 4.167 cm/yr. So when you run these numbers, they don't even agree with AiG's claim that if you extrapolate this to an old Earth, the moon would touch the Earth 1.5 billion years ago. On the contrary, it's pretty much in line with Jon's calculation - the small difference in the input data means that it would be 187,500 km closer instead of Jon's 171,900 km.

So what gives? AiG made a claim that doesn't add up, and they didn't show their work. One might suspect some conversion error or something.

Turns out some creationist noticed and asked them about this:

[The July 11 AiG web] article mentioned the moon moving away from the earth at approximately 1.5 inches a year. It said that would be 250 meters in 6,000 years which I can get on my computer’s calculator program. It also mentioned the moon as being 400,000km away and that 1.5 billion years ago the earth and moon would be touching at that pace. However I get 9.6 billion years at the 1.5 inches a year pace and am not so sure that the moon moving away from the Earth would be constant. I would think that the speed at which the moon moves away from the Earth would be lower at lower distances due to planetary gravity?

He's pointing out that AiG's claim of the moon basically touching Earth 1.5 billion years is a non-starter, and that they would actually touch 9.6 billion years ago - more than twice the age of the Earth on which all dating methods agree, approx. 4.5-4.6 billion years.

He's also pointing out that over time, the moon would move away more quickly, due to reduced gravitational pull from the Earth.

Does AiG address this? Heck no.

I look at the title of this blog post, and it couldn't be more apt: "The difference between science and propaganda". Perhaps it'll give Radar something to think about.

Here's a hint, Radar, free of charge: you might want to retire the moon orbit talking point...

-- creeper

radar said...

I leave it to the reader whether a normal person, upon finding an incredibly intricate and functional highly advanced ANYTHING laying in the road would decide that it just poofed itself into existence.

A house? Built itself. Computer? Designed itself. Organisms? Decided to become something from nothing. Makes sense, right?

Jon Woolf said...

creeper, you apparently have no idea what is in the rock records at all.

Sorry, Radar, but he does and you don't.

The fossils are obviously either buried quickly and catastrophically in place, caught in some kind of current and settled in place or sorted and aligned by current flows.

No, they aren't. This is one of the things that shows you don't know fossils as well as you think you do. Like most people, you picture most fossils as being like those spectacular skeletons in natural-history museums: complete or nearly so, perfectly preserved, in situ, exactly as they died. But in fact, such situations are rare. That's why palaeontologists prize lagerstatten so much. The VAST majority of fossils are isolated fragments: a single leaf, a trilobite cheek, a few crinoid segments, a dinosaur humerus, a shark tooth. Many fossils show evidence of scavenging. Many show weathering, meaning they were exposed to the elements before they were buried.

Organisms? Decided to become something from nothing. Makes sense, right?

No. Which is one reason why I'm not a creationist.

scohen said...

"How about the Sun?"

How about it? What a star!

"It isn't static."

No, it's not.

"How long would such a star be hospitable to life?"

Looks like about 10 billion years. It's roughly half way through its main sequence right now.

"How many such stars are there?"

G-type stars make up about 7.6% of all stars. In our galaxy there are between 200 and 400 billion stars, meaning there are between 15.2 and 30.4 billion stars like the sun.

In our galaxy alone.

There are roughly 100 to 500 billion galaxies in the known universe. Each of them have hundreds of billions of stars.

Mind blowing, actually.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, I seem to have missed this badly-aimed snipe from Radar: Woolf you don't even know what you are talking about when you discuss how limestone forms.

Really? How fallible of me.

Or perhaps not...

"Most sedimentary rocks are clastic sedimentary rocks, formed from cemented sediment grains that are fragments of preexisting rocks...

"Chemical sedimentary rocks are rocks deposited by precipitation of minerals from solution. An example of inorganic precipitation is the formation of rock salt as seawater evaporates. Chemical precipitation can also be induced by organisms. The sedimentary rock limestone, for instance, can form by the precipitation of calcite within a coral reef by corals and algae." (from p. 118 of Physical Geology, by Charles Plummer and David McGeary, 1996)

And from a couple of pages later:

"Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed mostly of calcite (CaCO3), usually precipitated in shallow seawater through the actions of organisms."

So as I said, limestone is a chemical sedimentary rock, not a clastic, and you don't get it from "sediment flows."

You claim that the Tapeats folds were made in old cold rock but there are no signs of heating.

Well then, maybe heating wasn't part of that particular event. Maybe pressure did most of the work. Or maybe the heating wasn't enough to leave visible signs.

creeper said...

”creeper, you apparently have no idea what is in the rock records at all. I throw up my hands with you on that point. The fossils are obviously either buried quickly and catastrophically in place, caught in some kind of current and settled in place or sorted and aligned by current flows. We find all of these features in fossil rocks and all are consistent with a flood. The upper layers are consistent with ice age disaster and dike breaks. You must live on a different planet.”

??

Jon has already addressed this in part, but I thought I was pretty clear about the fact that fossil sorting by rock layers was the problem. Instead you try to distract with a (or are distracted by your own) strawman argument. Yes, quick burial certainly helps in the creation of the more impressive fossil finds. I don’t think that was disputed. But quick burial is not synonymous with a global flood or a unique identifier of one. Quick burial also happens in an old Earth scenario. Not just that, but in a young-Earth scenario we’d expect to find it a lot more often. After all, the entire population of all species on Earth was subjected to rapid burial at the same time. We’d expect all kinds of fossils rapidly buried together.

For the record, the question remains unanswered: what is the explanation for the SORTING OF FOSSILS in their respective rock layers?

Do you really not understand the question?

Or do you understand it and have the sense to be embarrassed by the fact that YEC has no possible explanation for this?

-- creeper

creeper said...

”Furthermore since God said He made the Universe in six days he therefore did not make it "look old." He just made it accessible to us. There is no "Making Universes For Dummies" but if there way, one chapter would probably be devoted to making sure the sentinent beings would need to be able to observe the thing in order to appreciate it.”

Well, you said it was “apparently 14 billion years old”, which would indicate that it “looks old”. I’d conclude from that that it is old. You don’t.

-- creeper

creeper said...

”Prison population. I got ahead of you on that one because you are just not able to understand the reasoning and yet you persist, I knew you would, simply because you have nothing good to say for evolution, probably.”

Wasn’t it you who brought it up this time?

”I think my reasoning was rational based on the information and AS I SAID MANY TIMES no one has done a study on this particular subject and published numbers so when called upon to speculate, I did so with the information afforded me. So live with it or not.”

Anybody reading this, please paste this into your google search -

site:radaractive.blogspot.com Timbuktu

- to get an idea of the nonsensical strawman argument that Radar is trying to pull here. Radar is quite simply talking about a completely different argument, and apparently has not even read the detailed explanation of the massive error in logical thinking (in this case, the “fallacy of division”) that he committed. To save you the trouble of searching, here’s one example:

""First, I completely and totally covered the prison population question question and spent a great deal of time on it, in no way skulking away.”

Far from it, Radar, as you are well aware, or at least should be. You asserted that 11% of the prison population were Christians and claimed that your numbers showed this, but subsequently could only show numbers that showed such data for the general population, not the prison population. It’s clearly a nonsensical stance that is factually wrong: having data that show that something applies to x% of a group does not allow you to conclude that the same thing applies to x% of an arbitrary subset of that group. For example, if you know that 10% of the population of Timbuktu wear fake moustaches, you can simply not conclude from that that 10% of a village somewhere in Timbuktu wear fake moustaches. It is possible that anywhere from zero to 100% of the inhabitants of that village wear fake moustaches.

These facts were pointed out to you. See http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2007/07/creeper-versus-radar-movie.html, about 3 comments from the end. Note that this is the last comment on the subject, to which you did not respond – and so you did actually skulk away without being able to back up your claim.

It doesn't matter if you can prove what percentage of the overall population does X, you can not as a result claim that a subset of that population does X, and that's exactly what you (erroneously) did.

Do you understand it now?

Do you?

Seriously.

How many times are you going to make me copy or rephrase this very simple point?

You even went out of your way to lecture us on logical fallacies, including this one (the fallacy of division) and here you are, absolutely blind to that very fallacy.

Will you please actually read it this time and indicate that you're able to comprehend it?

Please?


Nope. Looks like Radar still either hasn’t read it or comprehended it and will keep flogging this strawman over and over and over.

I’m not even getting into the fact that Radar’s calculation as to how he claims to have arrived at those 11% was a complete mess – the point I've been making over and over is the logical disconnect of claiming that if it applies to the general population, it is proof that the same is true of the prison population.

I suspect that every other reader on this blog gets it now, but Radar will probably have pride win out over reason yet again...

-- creeper

creeper said...

And NOOOO of course having farms in Greenland and vineyards in England would never be associated with warming. Perish the thought! They must have imported massive numbers of sunlamps from ET the Extraterrestrial on his last visit to Europe. Geesh.”

Your childish sarcasm is ill-placed. Again, you’re evading the point and putting up yet another strawman. (Or not getting it?)

Wow. I thought I was pretty clear. Those data you’re looking at, they don’t just say “warmer this year or decade”. Scientists don’t read “vineyards in England or Greenland” and use that to plug X number of degrees into a graph. Look at the climate graphs that you use when discussing climate issues. It goes up and down, decade by decade – you think they got that from “vineyards in Greenland”? If so, how? They infer actual temperature values using tree rings and ice core layers.

And if you insist that tree rings and ice core layers are utterly wrong (despite all evidence to the contrary), then kindly refrain from commenting on climate issues unless it’s based on the written record of the past two centuries or so, and whatever info you can glean from "vineyards in Greenland" - though not much more than "it used to be warmer".

-- creeper

Hawkeye® said...

Jon Woolf,

Thus spoke the great general Sun-tzu, over 2500 years ago: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"...
Ahhh, so you DO in fact view creationists as "the enemy". They are not merely competitive researchers postulating an alternative reality... they are a hostile force to be repelled and defeated! Interesting insight.

QED

Hawkeye® said...

schohen,

You've got to be kidding me. I used AIG's own math to show how wrong they are [...] Care to add *anything* substantive Hawkeye? Care to point out where you think I erred?


Sorry, but I must have missed that. Can you point me to your calculations so I can evaluate them?

radar said...

Tree rings and ice cores are only worthwhile when we have a calibration for them, which we do to a certain extent over the last couple of thousand years by indexing known large volcanic events and locating them in context in cores and rings. Once you go back a couple of thousand years or maybe even three thousand you lose the ability to calibrate and mark time using those methods.

Weather reports and so on also are worthwhile when they are within the recorded history of mankind. You Darwinists take the small amount of calibrated and trustworthy data and run with it backwards in an attempt to show long ages. I use the data that is within our ability to calibrate and find that it supports a climate that goes up and down and largely due to the activity of the Sun.

Meanwhile, you do the opposite with the world population. We have pretty accurate population statistics within recorded history that lands our population growth right on that sigmoidal curve. I do not care much for Ken Ham's figures because you will notice in my original population post I did not use them so that is a strawman. Mankind is the king of every jungle and sigmoidal is accurate. It reflects the historical data and is continuing to agree with current population growth.

Special pleading about the population of man is ridiculous. Every population of anything pretty much without exception faces predation and disease. We are the top predators and the best at avoiding diseases so I am not buying the idea that the population was in virtual stasis for 100,000 years or so. BS.

radar said...

"As for why I keep coming back here - I guess it's interactive entertainment of sorts. Some people watch reality shows or knit socks or go hiking - I find this somewhat entertaining. Oh and Radar's arrogance, hypocrisy and dishonesty are also a factor, almost forgot to mention that."

So this sounds like the statement of someone with a borderline personality disorder. It is sad to hear apparently grown and intelligent men flinging poo because they have no better argument.

Arrogance? I am not the one who thinks he is smarter than the God of Creation. I am the one who is humbled by the Creator and am in awe of what He has done. I am the one who has admitted tons of past sins and my continued need for a forgiving God.

Hypocrisy? I say who I am and I am who I am. You need to go back and check a dictionary out before you call names.

Dishonesty? You claim to be a math guy. The population numbers...you have to deliberately hide your eyes and cross your fingers and toes to claim this population reflects even tens of thousands of years. I would say you are the one lying in order to protect your worldview rather than facing facts that are harmful to it.

What do psychologists call it when a patient accuses others of the very behavior THEY exhibit?

radar said...

As to creeper, again ad nauseum I see the value of tree rings as far back as we have historical data that allows us to calibrate them.

Suppose somebody uses a garden hose to fill a splash pool for their kids and leave the hose hanging over the lip and suppose the water was not quite turned off so that there would be a slow drip...drip...drip. When you look at processes without considering the flood you are looking at the drip...drip...drip and not allowing for the time when that hose was on full blast.

I can see you guys computing the several months it must have taken to have filled up that splash pool!

radar said...

"Jon Woolf,

Thus spoke the great general Sun-tzu, over 2500 years ago: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles"... Ahhh, so you DO in fact view creationists as "the enemy". They are not merely competitive researchers postulating an alternative reality... they are a hostile force to be repelled and defeated! Interesting insight.

QED"

Hawkeye, one of them even said something about me obeying "my creationist masters" as if I was on a payroll tasked with writing a blog! As if...but hey, if someone wants to pay me? Maybe I should start using those Google ads? Since China is as a nation doing phishing, why not?

radar said...

no creeper, I made a post in which I explained how I made a guesstimate of the prison population and that was a sidebar discussion of no great consequence, from which you have made a great and ridiculous deal ever since. I don't care what you think the percentage of Christians is in prison. What does that have to do with origins, pray tell? You have no idea, do you?

And when I mentioned the destruction at Paluxy in a recent post I didn't say Kuban did it but you have. I simply said that the accused refused to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence. You can take it from there as you will.

Woolf you can quote from Darwinists about what they think about limestone formation until you are blue in the face but evidence says otherwise. Go ahead and quote Darwin and LaMarck and heck, why not Lyell? Those guys are all wrong, too.

Jon Woolf said...

Radar wrote: We are the top predators and the best at avoiding diseases ...

Bubonic plague. Pneumonic plague. Malaria. Yellow fever. Smallpox. Measles. Mumps. Rubella. Syphilis. Typhus. Influenza. Kala azar. Polio. Hemorrhagic fevers. Mass killers, every one -- and those are only some of the ones we know about.

In the early 1800s, puerperal fever killed as many as 25% of European and American women who gave birth in hospital maternal wards. The guilty bacteria were spread entirely by contaminated doctors and medical instruments. When doctors figured out what "sterilization" meant, the death rate for puerperal fever dropped to almost nothing.

Then there are the noninfectious diseases that are treatable now, that never were before: diabetes, ulcers, sickle-cell anemia, congenital defects, etc.

The best at avoiding diseases ... yeah, right.

scohen said...

Hawkeye,
Search for 'very well' above. There is an excerpt from AIG as well as a link to the page that contains the excerpt.

I used the following formula for growth and 2010 - 4500 years as a starting point:

x(t) = a * b^(t/T)
where a is the initial population post-flood (8) b is 2 (doubling) and T is 150 years from above. t is the number of years post-flood.

I wrote a small ruby program in the interpreter to play around with the numbers. Here it is:

def calculate(year,years_to_double=150)
puts (8.to_f * 2**((year + 2490).to_f / years_to_double.to_f)).to_i
end

(the 2490 constant comes from subtracting 4500 from 2010. This allows you to put in a year rather than an amount of time post-flood)

If you want to play around with it, Go here and enter the above code as well as the year you want to calculate:

For example

calculate(1900)

You can also change the doubling rate

calculate(1900,140) will make it double every 140 years.


Again, calculating the population for historic but ancient events with the numbers AIG cites events gives hilarious results. For instance, at the start of the roman republic (BC 509), this method only results in 75,629 humans in the world.

I think AIG's claims are silly and wholly without merit, as populations don't behave like that in any circumstance. Playing around with the numbers makes the case.

Jon Woolf said...

We have pretty accurate population statistics within recorded history

What was the pre-contact population of the Americas?

Woolf you can quote from Darwinists about what they think about limestone formation until you are blue in the face but evidence says otherwise.

[snork] The name of the textbook was "Physical Geology," not "Darwinist Geology." Many geologists don't give a damn about Darwin. His work doesn't affect theirs at all.

Lyell wrote his masterwork thirty years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Darwin took Volume I of Principles of Geology with him as reading material on the voyage of HMS Beagle.

You know, it's really fun to watch you squirm desperately away from even "rocks for jocks" level earth science. Basic sedimentology, rock classification, the basics of radiometric dating, taphonomy ... you don't really understand what conventional theory says about any of it, do you?

scohen said...

"Dishonesty? You claim to be a math guy."

Creeper has never to my knowledge claimed to be a math guy.

I think that you think that I said that.

Even though I don't claim to be a math guy. I just know a little math. I'm a computer science guy.

...and a little microbiology, though that's getting quite dated.

scohen said...

"I simply said that the accused refused to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence"

Hmmm. I wasn't aware you had to prove your innocence in the United States.

You learn something new every day.

Hawkeye® said...

scohen,
I reviewed your math and it appears to be correct. I am not familiar with the Ruby programming language, so I can't verify it 100%.

Bottom Line: I agree with the premise of the article that "billions of people can be born in thousands of years". However, I disagree with the premise that the flood occurred around 2500 BC. I believe it occurred much earlier than that, say 4-5,000 BC. I have no proof one way or the other, but I doubt that the flood occurred during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, ca.2700−2200 BC. Just my opinion.

As for doubling rates, they have varied over time, so a single rate is not a realistic assumption. However, I don't think that the author of the article was attempting to reconstruct history, but rather trying to make a point.

scohen said...

Hawkeye:
"I reviewed your math and it appears to be correct."

Thank you. So when radar said that I fudged it, that was a pretty shady thing to say, right? Did you notice how you and Radar approached my challenge differently? You asked to see how I came up with my numbers and reviewed my response. He just (falsely) accused me of fudging them.

"I am not familiar with the Ruby programming language, so I can't verify it 100%"

Not to nit pick, but you could go to the site I gave you and run a couple examples and then do them by hand and see if things check out. I guess you'll have to trust me ;)

"As for doubling rates, they have varied over time, so a single rate is not a realistic assumption."

I completely agree with this. AIG's statements are embarrassingly weak, unrealistic and silly. They're poor math and poor logic. That's what I was demonstrating. Doubling rates are absolutely *not* constant (well, they are for bacteria), they're very slow at first (very, very, very, slow) and then speed up over time.

"However, I don't think that the author of the article was attempting to reconstruct history, but rather trying to make a point."

They don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to make a point by using totally made up and unrealistic numbers. You make a point by presenting thoroughly researched mathematically sound figures that make your case for you.

"I doubt that the flood occurred during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, ca.2700−2200"

I know, I thought that was supremely funny as well as it betrays a complete lack of historical awareness on AIG's part. Again, I'm using AIG's numbers.

Still, isn't the flood calculated by adding up the ages of various people in the bible? 5000 BC is right around the time of creation, no? Noah was 600 at the time of the flood and I assume more than 400 years passed between Adam and Noah.

I'm no bible scholar though.

creeper said...

"I agree with the premise of the article that "billions of people can be born in thousands of years"."

By itself certainly a reasonable stance, as supported by all the evidence. Actually, I think that's something we all agree on.

The controversy is over the very early stages of this - did it start up from 8 people, 4-6K years ago, or more like 100,000 or so?

"However, I disagree with the premise that the flood occurred around 2500 BC."

Agreed.

"I believe it occurred much earlier than that, say 4-5,000 BC. I have no proof one way or the other, but I doubt that the flood occurred during the Old Kingdom period of ancient Egypt, ca.2700−2200 BC. Just my opinion."

That certainly is a way around some of the evidence against a flood in approx. 2300 BC, though there's plenty of evidence against even a young Earth 2K years older than that. But thank you for at least taking some of the evidence against a flood in approx. 2300 BC on board.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"So this sounds like the statement of someone with a borderline personality disorder. It is sad to hear apparently grown and intelligent men flinging poo because they have no better argument."

I don’t "fling poo" because I have no better argument, I fling better arguments because I have better arguments.

"Arrogance? I am not the one who thinks he is smarter than the God of Creation."

Neither am I, if that’s what you’re implying. I don’t think I’m smarter than the God of Creation. I happen to think the God of Creation doesn’t exist. Big difference.

"I am the one who is humbled by the Creator and am in awe of what He has done. I am the one who has admitted tons of past sins and my continued need for a forgiving God."

So you’re humbled by your deity, fine. That doesn’t mean you can’t also be arrogant to your fellow man. When you display gaps in your knowledge that would embarrass a high school student and then turn around to claim you’re teaching a college-level class on this blog, that is arrogance. (It’s also called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, btw.

"Hypocrisy? I say who I am and I am who I am. You need to go back and check a dictionary out before you call names."

I know very well what hypocrisy is, and your persistent claiming to avoid one website that you claim posts lies while consistently supporting two other websites that actually do spread lies (AiG and the Family Research Center falls squarely under hypocrisy.

Or to dismiss actual dating methods because you claim they aren’t calibrated and then declare an uncalibrated, unsubstantiated formula to be solid evidence - although that may be more confusion on your part than actual hypocrisy.

"Dishonesty? You claim to be a math guy."

What scohen said. I don’t think I ever claimed to be a math guy. Funny, though, that you follow the question "Dishonesty?" with a false claim.

”The population numbers...you have to deliberately hide your eyes and cross your fingers and toes to claim this population reflects even tens of thousands of years."

Not at all. Not only is the reasoning behind claiming that the sigmoid curve absolutely applies to the human population completely unsubstantiated (including but not limited to the problem that Jon keeps pointing out, that you can’t generalize from a sample of one), but the application of it the way you wish to see it is disproven when compared to real life data – it fails the calibration test, and since it is the only application of the formula, it fails as a valid rule.

It doesn’t apply as a rigid rule (the way a scientific law does) to populations, though it can serve as an approximation of a population curve under certain circumstances. But it is not a rigid curve that always applies... It’s not like, say, radiometric dating, where the curves can be calibrated in great detail, so that we have confidence in their results and the fact that they are in fact applicable.

"I would say you are the one lying in order to protect your worldview rather than facing facts that are harmful to it."

What lie are you alleging here? You have a pattern, when cornered, of accusing me of lying without specifying the lie. Would that fall under "bearing false witness against one’s neighbor"? Sure seems like it to me.

Unless you can specify the lie, this is nothing but a clumsy attempt to turn the table without basis.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What do psychologists call it when a patient accuses others of the very behavior THEY exhibit?"

I'm sure you know it's called projection, but you have yet to demonstrate either my hypocrisy or my dishonesty, and you haven't actually demonstrated how they don't apply to you - so projection doesn't really apply here. Tough luck, the charges remain squarely on your shoulders.

"again ad nauseum I see the value of tree rings as far back as we have historical data that allows us to calibrate them."

What about, say, a hundred years before the oldest non-tree ring used for calibration? Or 500 years? Is your claim that from that point on the trees simply generate tons and tons of excess rings for no known reason?

See, that's where it becomes helpful to compare data from different parts of the globe. We can use those to broadly calibrate the data. A global flood hypothesis for approx. 2344 BC doesn't mesh with the data.

"Suppose somebody uses a garden hose to fill a splash pool for their kids and leave the hose hanging over the lip and suppose the water was not quite turned off so that there would be a slow drip...drip...drip. When you look at processes without considering the flood you are looking at the drip...drip...drip and not allowing for the time when that hose was on full blast.

I can see you guys computing the several months it must have taken to have filled up that splash pool!"


I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to express with this analogy.

"one of them even said something about me obeying "my creationist masters" as if I was on a payroll tasked with writing a blog!"

I don't think money was mentioned. There are other ways for someone to be your master.

"no creeper, I made a post in which I explained how I made a guesstimate of the prison population and that was a sidebar discussion of no great consequence, from which you have made a great and ridiculous deal ever since."

What I very specifically and in crystal-clear language make clear over and over is not the discussion about the specific percentage (which is what you STILL think this is all about, even though simply reading through my highlighted and linked comment above would tell you that it's NOT), but the complete logic fail of thinking that by demonstrating something about the GENERAL population, you can then claim that as proof about a subset (in this case the PRISON population). It is demonstrably wrong and a poor application of logic, and yet you fail to show any sign that you comprehend the problem.

"I don't care what you think the percentage of Christians is in prison."

I can't say it's a burning issue for me either. I demonstrated, with sources, that it was around 70%. You didn't like that, and so you put up a very convoluted and erroneous argument that supposedly demonstrated a certain percentage among the GENERAL population, and then pretended that was in any way related to the percentage of Christians among the PRISON population.

Still don't get it?

-- creeper

creeper said...

"What does that have to do with origins, pray tell? You have no idea, do you?"

With origins, nothing. I don't recall saying they were in any way related or that being part of the discussion in any way. Your inability to understand or even acknowledge the actual argument that I made (and that I've simplified to the level where my 7-year-old can understand it) is an interesting indicator of how you treat very simple arguments on your blog though.

For a most straightforward example, there's this. You accused lava of something that was demonstrably not true. Did you read the comments that pointed this out to you? Not at all. You simply kept trumpeting your wrong assertion and glossed right over one comment after another that laid out where you were wrong in painstaking detail.

EVENTUALLY you realized that you were mistaken, but not before you simply ignored numerous explanations.

I'm bringing this up because we can see this pattern with many other arguments on your blog as well. The prison population/fallacy of division issue is one - never once have you indicated that you in any way even understand the issue at hand - the fallacy of division itself. Do a search on "Timbuktu" on your blog and you will find the simple, I would say even child-proof explanation of the problem. Then ask yourself why you are so resistant to even acknowledging that problem with your argument. It is part of the reason why I mentioned your arrogance later, though if you have an alternate explanation, I'd be happy to hear it.

You claim to post evidence by pasting elaborate posts from elsewhere with a little commentary, and when any counter-arguments are put up, you again show no sign that you understand them - or in many cases even the posts that you copied and pasted to begin with.

"And when I mentioned the destruction at Paluxy in a recent post I didn't say Kuban did it but you have."

That's twice in as many comments that you have me confused with somebody else.

-- creeper

radar said...

I think maybe some people will come back here to see this post today or tomorrow. Allow me to summarize:

The human population growth is right on the expected sigmoidal curve that populations emulate if there was one family that got off the Ark and the earth was repopulated from them. DNA research tends to support this as well. I got my curve and my curve numbers from a population geneticist and a statistics specialist and not from Ken Ham, by the way.

talkorigins was challenged to correct their outright fabrications and have failed to do so. They are a propaganda site.
Look, people can be wrong. The nation of Japan issued a Pleisiosaur stamp shortly after a fishing trawler found something that look like a sea-going dinosaur but analysis of the carcass proved it to be a rotting basking shark. Another similar carcass washed up in California years before but no one examined it carefully. I have urged creationists to abandon the trawler dragon. Dr. Dino did not and he had other problems so I identified his site as propaganda as well.

I did not name the talkorigins guy who was accused of destroying prints but he was offered a good sum of money to take a lie detector test and he refused, so...

radar said...

Ad nauseum. Trumpeting to the world about how brilliant you are and how stupid I am is useless blather. If you have evidence to present, do so. Otherwise you are not discussing, you are just throwing poo. These Delk tracks are a case in point.

radar said...

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.htm

Anonymous said...

That's right Radar: if you can't win the argument, return to the article later to get the last word in and declare victory.

radar said...

I had already won this argument. The track is genuine and Darwinists didn't get to it to destroy it so it is safe and sound and preserved for posterity.