The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Perfection]

The main problem with C14 dating is that it can only give ages of less than 100,000 years because it it decays very rapidly, so thus any dating of fosils would come back with next to no C14, but when you look at many fossils, none of them even get close to the detection limit of the new AMS machines, which is an extremely small 0.0001% and yet no fossil has been found to even be close to that limin and most are way higher than that.
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

That's because New C14 is produced at extremely low rates which is undetectable by most instruments but capable of being detected by the AMS. My link talked about the mechanisms behind it.

The article abbout he Helium seems to be the worst of the lot because it says just so much but just by looking at the first bit of evidence that he gives about the data in the picture just near the start. The fact that he assumes that there are defects in the first place is not a good place to start since we are talking about one of the hardest materials and thus they are very good for measurement because they will not have much room for error in them. Also I want you to give me a brief summary of that article, because it is massive to say the least. This is to show what you understand about the issue.
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

Sorry, I don't do book reports. I outlined in the first post that links shouldn't make up your arguement. Argue on your own two feet.

The evidence does not fits the model that it should for an Evolutionary POV, but they do fit exactly to the Creationary model, or very close to it.

What is the creationist model of radioactivity?

The diffusion rates of helium would have to be slowed down dramatically for it to fit the Evoluntion model and the only wy that could be done is under. The effect of pressure does not effect zircons that much, so it is basically a non factor.

Umm, how do you know that pressure effects don't matter? What about all those other problems listed in my rebuttal

The problem with Polonium Halos is the fact that they have such a short half life that the amount needed would be great for such halos to form. The problem is that right now we see very little Polonium and thus we should not have any Polonium at todays rate of decy, but there must have been sources of Polonium great enough to cause these halos.
http://www.icr.org/article/301/10/
http://www.icr.org/article/2467/10/

Actually, the YECs you mentioned say that Polonium halos would be fine in an Old Earth model, read your sources correctly!

 

[Sophie 378]

I read in the New Scientist that this guy thinks he can alter the half-life of nuclear waste. This would be great from the point of view of not polluting and cheaper storage and so on. However, if half-lives are not constant but can be affected by the environment, this would shake up a great deal of physics - including radiometric dating. The current model - and afaik there's no other evidence against it - is that half-lives are independent of other variables. Any comments on the reliability of his research, or what implications this would have for YECs?

 

[ironduck]

Would like to see the whole article..

 

[brennan]

He claims to have cut the half-life of a radioactive sodium isotope by 1 per cent by embedding it in palladium metal cooled to a few degrees above absolute zero.

So it's 1% less radioactive, wow; and cryogenically storing all our nuclear waste would cost how much?

No sign of any science for us to analyse. As far as I know there is no reason to think that temperature would have any effect on nuclei or radioactivity.

Personally, I gave up on the New Scientist years ago - too much baby language.

Edit: the guy normally publishes stuff about Neural Networks - what the hell is he doing mucking about in nuclear physics?!?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

At any rate, now YECs have a new argument against radioactive dating (besides pretending that the only method that exists is C14) - the Flood cooled the earth to just above absolute zero!

 

[Cheetah]

At any rate, now YECs have a new argument against radioactive dating (besides pretending that the only method that exists is C14) - the Flood cooled the earth to just above absolute zero!

That actually made me laugh. Good thing I wasn't drinking Cola just then, it's so hard to get out of keyboards.

 

[ironduck]

Sure, you laugh now, but what you fail to understand is that Noah's ark was equipped with special space-style insulation and with all the animals on board there was ample heat generation. Especially from the dinosaurs.

 

[Cheetah]

Actually, I was thinking more of icesticles (sp?) dropping from the sky and giant icebergs floating on lots of roaring water like in Ice Age 2.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well. if the H20 was created from scratch, it would need to grab heat from the environment.

 

[Souron]

Unless the heat was created from scratch too . . .

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh course, but as you can see, the radiometric data from the Flood has skewed all the data everywhere.

So, clearly, the H20 landed at zero Kalvin and brought the planet to nearly absolute zero for 40 days and 40 nights. This affects the isotopes more than the animals because ... erm ... uber-animals are immune to freezing just like some species of plants and frogs are nowadays resistant.

The fact that not all animals are immune any longer just proves that there is only information loss with mutation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim

What experiment or evidence could disprove Evolutionary theory? What could someone unearth from a rock or under a rock? What experiment could happen in a zoo? Is it even falsifiable?

 

[brennan]

Fossil evidence would show that dogs have always been dog and cats have always been cats. We would never find any 'transitional' fossils. (which of course we do.)

Fossils in every strata back to the creation/flood would contain almost identical animals. (which they don't.)

God created all the animals at once, so the oldest strata would contain the afore-mentioned dogs and cats, along with evertything else almost exactly as they are today (rather than only single-celled organisms - which is what we actually find.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

What experiment or evidence could disprove Evolutionary theory? What could someone unearth from a rock or under a rock? What experiment could happen in a zoo? Is it even falsifiable?

I think it was Haldane who came up with the famous rabbit-in-a-Cambrian-stratum possibility of disproof. Then we've got the whole "true chimaera" business; basically, if an animal was found that genuinely combined features of widely separated groups, say a platypus which had an actual duck bill in lieu of something that merely looks superficially like one, that would sink evolutionary theory as presently understood*. Put another way, if animals did not fit into a nested hierarchy, ToE would be untenable. As for what could happen in the zoo, we've got the good old example of a bird giving birth to a mammal, or the equivalent**. Do you need more examples?

* Needless to say, sinking ToE would not help Creationism one jot. Creationism fails on its own merits. This is really the reason that the modern creationism movement is such a fraud - they pretend that their inanities should be the null hypothesis.

** Amusingly, I've heard more than one creationist state that they won't believe in evolution until and unless they see a chimp giving birth to a human. This is like refusing to believe in gravity until rocks start to fall upwards.

 

[The Last Conformist]

TLC:

You mentioned awhile ago about plankton being too dense in the fossil record to occur at one time (or something like that). i.e., they couldn't have been killed in the Flood.

Any chance you could point me at a proper write-up of that position?

Try this:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm

 

[El_Machinae]

You might have missed it Mr. Conformist: earlier you were talking about fossilised plankton and how there's more in a certain area of rock than should be possible if the earth is too young.

I was hoping you knew of a good summary of this piece of evidence.

edit: Funniest cross-post I have ever typed!
Thanks for the above

 

[BasketCase]

Put another way, if animals did not fit into a nested hierarchy, ToE would be untenable.

Why? What would be the problem? A highly-adaptable critter (i.e. one that can switch roles) is more likely to survive.

An example for ya: microscopic plants which, if they lose their chlorophyll (or become unable to photosynthesize for other reasons), can move around and forage for food. In short, it acts like a plant, but if necessary it can act like a predator. There really are such critters out there.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why? What would be the problem? A highly-adaptable critter (i.e. one that can switch roles) is more likely to survive.

An example for ya: microscopic plants which, if they lose their chlorophyll (or become unable to photosynthesize for other reasons), can move around and forage for food. In short, it acts like a plant, but if necessary it can act like a predator. There really are such critters out there.

I was specifically speaking of animals for a reason (viz. lateral gene transfer and intracellular symbionts), but it's unclear how the critters you speak of would not fit into a nested hierarchy.

Anyway, the problem is simply this; for organisms that evolve in a strictly darwinian fashion, such as metazoans (= mulitcellular animals, more or less), lineages can only split, never recombine. True chimaeras would imply that lineages can both split and recombine, which would result in a net of evolutionary relationships, not a nested hierarchy.

(Note that the question was about overturning evolutionary theory, not organic evolution as such. Disproving the former would be akin to showing that sunrise isn't caused by the earth turning - disproving the later would be akin to showing that the sun does not rise.)

 

[BasketCase]

but it's unclear how the critters you speak of would not fit into a nested hierarchy

By moving around in it.

In my opinion, the evolutionary tree isn't strictly a nested hierarchy, yet a true "chimera" wouldn't sink ToE at all; the fact that we've never seen a platypus with an actual duck bill doesn't mean such a critter isn't possible. Just unexpected.

 

[brennan]

There are also Koalas and Pandas.