YEC'ist Fruit Loops, anyone?
Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
What do you mean specifically? Are you suggesting that the several isotopes of Sr behave differently chemically? If not, then how will you arrange to vary the ratio of their concentrations in the minute parts of a lava flow that form a single zircon?
What can happen, according to what I've read, is that a zircon can be pulled into a later flow and act as the nucleus for additional crystal formation. Then the isochron won't give any age, or rather it would give two if we had enough data points.
Um, no.
Decay rates are 'normed' by the study of radioactive decay rates in the laboratory (which can be done very accurately). Daughter decay products that are known to not be present in newly solidified rock are what is searched for. Data that doesn't converge is thrown out because it obviously does represent a system that has not remained closed or was otherwise contaminated. Yes, spurious, anomalous results (like a couple measurements of 34 billion-year ages that don't get any cross-validation), that don't have any bearing on the measured quantity in a different sample, are often thrown out, but not because "they don't like them", because there are other reasons to believe the measurement is suspect. That's not fabrication of data, it's the proper way of dealing with statistics.
Yep.
I know I'm not going to convince those engaging in the debate.
It's good to know that others people are getting it, though.
That's my goal.
Thanks.
The ToE is tightly defined regarding the development of mammals by taxonomy, DNA relationships, and the extensive reptilian to mammalian transitional fossil record. It is not an overstatement at all to say that finding a true mammal in the Devonian time period would obliterate the ToE.
Finding a footprint that just reminds us of a bear's, on the other hand, merely indicates the possibility of a previously undiscovered evolutionary branch. That would certainly qualify as a find worthy of an extensive revision of the ToE regarding the Permian Age, though, and that is what MacDonald was saying.
The next time I get a straight answer out of you will be the first.
There can be no physical causation in the absence of space/time - of the geometry. Were it not for time, events could not occur. Were it not for space, things could not be.
And we know there was a beginning of space/time in this universe. All cosmologies (inflationary, cyclic, ekpyrotic, imaginary time, multi-verse, multi-world, hesitating, etc.) rely on geometry - i.e. there is always a beginning.
Thus there was also a beginning of physical causation, an uncaused cause. The only possible uncaused cause is God.
Or one of those maniacs who used "Godtoldme" to explain their genocide.
I mean specifically that you can't *calculate* this value and you can't *observe* this value. You *first* make an *assumption*(well several actually but I am simplifying), *then* calculate. The *assumption* comes *first*.
If you can't see that, then you can't see that.
Pray to Jesus that He heals your lame posts. Thank you.
You have just described Elsie's technique to a fault.
"You have just described Elsie's technique to a fault."
Stop using logic; it'll melt their brains.
Very few people have heard the voice of God telling them to be nice to their neighbors and even to their enemies.
Except Jake and Elwood.
You cannot *know* that daughter products were not present because you weren't there to *measure* it. It supposedly happened millions of years ago, how can you measure it? You can't.
And you can't apply current measures beyond the period over which they were measured (well 'scientists' do, but they shouldn't).
You *assume* and you *norm* and you *throw out* that which does not agree with your *assumptions*. Then you 'conclude' and claim that it is all so 'scientific'.
Dishonest from the beginning.
You speak as though you can say, with authority, that you have observed examples of both "common design" and "common ancestry" and therefore can accurately distinguish between the two.
Indeed I have. Not only have I "observed" examples of "common design", I have personally created quite a few of them. I am quite conversant with the design process, and what sorts of features designed objects will and will not have, and for what reasons, and what sorts of characteristic features will be found shared, and not shared, by things made by a common designer.
But, that is begging the question.
Maybe you are, but I'm not.
How can you know (when you study and observe a given set of organic beings) that you are looking at an example of common ancestry as opposed to an example of common design?
Because, as I've already pointed out, common design produces certain types of similarities and differences, which are quite distinct and recognizeably different than the types of similarities and differences which result in things which are produced by common ancestry. You clearly haven't bothered to read the links I provided -- these go into more specific detail on that topic.
You have already ruled out "common design"
No, I haven't. You are jumping to false conclusions based on nothing I've actually written.
(because it doesn't fit your evolutionary preconceptions).
Wrong again.
In your view, common design simply never occurs because you have already decided beforehand that no Designer exists.
No, you are yet again mistaking your *presumptions* for facts. You have either misunderstood my points, or are letting your own preconceptions get in the way of understanding them.
That only leaves the other option
No, I do not make the mistake of the fallacy of the false dichotomy. I have pointed out that there is *positive* evidence for common ancestry, nowhere have I committed the fallacy (so common among fans of "design") of thinking that I can "demonstrate" one explanation by trying to rule out some other explanation.
Are you actually reading my posts, or just posting your wild guesses about how someone "must" examine these issues?
(the only one you will accept)
Now you're just being obnoxiously insulting. No, that is not the case, and I have said nothing which would lead any rational person to that conclusion.
which is common ancestry.
I assert that there is positive evidence of common ancestry, because there is. Not only have you failed to deal with that issue, you have run around issuing baseless insults while utterly misdescribing my position, failing to address what I have actually said, and dodging having to deal with the actual evidence in any way.
Do you want to have an actual discussion, or do you just want to desperately issue insults so you won't have to think?
So I guess no matter what species we are talking about or looking at, we all know that we shall see the idea of common ancestry "proved".
You "guess" wrongly. I can only speculate as to whether the reason is your utter failure to understand the material, or your unwillingness to address it.
Come back and try again when you're ready and able to talk about something I've actually written, and not so quick to spew groundless insults in an attempt to console yourself about how anyone who arrives at a conclusion different than yourself "must" have gotten there by virtue of being a closed-minded idiot. I guess that's more comforting than having to deal with the fact that they might possibly have information that could challenge your desired conclusions, eh?
Without a doubt, Alamo-Girl!
What really drives me nutz about E. O. Wilson's statement is that he is saying evolution uses "illusions" to accomplish "ends" or "purposes" (reproductive success) while at the same time many if not most Neodarwinists strongly deny that nature has any purposes at all. What a jumbled mess!
Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement Alamo-Girl! You can probably tell I've been doing a little thinking about "the observer problem" lately....
I'm especially wondering if you have an opinion on whether H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus, and H. sapiens neanderthalensis were members of the ape-kind, human-kind, or (gasp!) transitional species, a.k.a. "missing links".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.