Posted on 03/31/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by EveningStar
In the summer of 2006, I heard that a new book called Godless presented an insightful and devastating criticism of the theory of evolution. Although I learned that its author, Ann Coulter, is not a scientist but a lawyer turned author and TV pundit, she nevertheless appeared to be an intelligent and well-educated person, so I started reading. At first I was puzzled. There did not seem to be anything new; only tired and outdated antievolution arguments involving moths, finches, and fruit flies. But it wasn't until Coulter dusted off the old Piltdown man story that I suddenly realized: it was a hoax! And it was brilliant...
(Excerpt) Read more at talkreason.org ...
Ah, so now you want to whine..
Wow, what a remarkably distorted "summary" of the actual events and reasons...
But hey, why start being fair and accurate now, eh?
It is quite grand that you actually read the whole book and can give an accurate report of how much of that book, discussed evolution...I myself did not read the book, and from many of the reports right here on FR, I was led to believe that evolution was 'barely' discussed...
Now, I see, that may have not been true...I guess I will just have to get the book for myself, and actually see who is telling the truth here...Of course, I am sure, you know, that I rely on your judgement here, as you have actually given us the number of chapters that actually discussed evolution...all I have to do, is look it up, and see who is telling the truth, and who is stretching it...
Thanks for the info...
First off, I'm Jewish, so Paul doesn't impact how I think. However, I will note that from my description above, Adam was the first man in a spiritual sense. I'm not sure a homo sap without a spirit is man.
With regard to Adam being made of the dust of the ground, there's something interesting about the Hebrew word translated as "made" of "formed." From what I've read, the root of the word a term used for making pottery.
A potter does not simply throw down clay and have it take the form he wants. He molds and reshapes it over time. The image, I think, a Hebrew would have had from Genesis 2:7, is not an instant creation in final form, but a creation in which formless material is molded and remolded, through intermediate forms, until its final form.
Which, all in all, is not that bad a description of evolution in terms that ancient people might understand.
In other words, I believe the first part of Genesis 2:7 is an explicit description of evolution.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on uniformitarian geology and the explanation for things like the Matterhorn, mammoth graveyards in the arctic/Siberia, The Lewis overthrust, La Brea tar pits, Sicilian fossil graveyards over 4000 feet above sea level on Mt. Etna, The Malta caves and how they should not be placed in the deluvian model?
What an extremely interesting perspective on that verse...I had not heard of this view before, and I thank you for it...
I did not "condemn" you.
Suffer us fools a quiet space not to care so much about so little.
I did not call you a "fool".
I pinged you to a post I thought you might find of interest, since you at least cared enough about the topic to come read the thread and comment on it, and my post was not at its heart about "the varying philosophies of man", as you put it, it's about honesty and integrity, which I hope you'll agree are more lofty subjects than mere disagreements about "varying philosophies".
You reckon we oughta wear name tags or something?
Sorry PH if you are already here. Haven't got to the end of the threads.
The c14 method uses assumed c14/c12 ratios. The assumption is that the atmosphere was the same when the organic material is being analyised. With radiocarbon being manufactured in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays, historically the assumption is that it has not changed. Therein is an "x" factor.
This is from Fairhill and young and I'll quote it so that I do not mangle it. "We note in passing that the total natural (current?)c14 inventory of 2.16 x 1030 atoms corresponds to the c14 decay rate of 1.63 x 104 disintegrations/m2s of the earth, considerably below the estimated production rate of c14 atoms averaged over the last 10 solar cycles (111 years) of 2.5 x 104 (+0.5 x 104) atoms/m2s. The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate." (Advances in Chemistry, vol. 93 pg. 402)
The possible influx/outflow rates are where the possible errors are. This is based on the advancements of tree-ring data showing that the issue is a lot more complex than was/is first thought.
You ask about C14/C12 ratios, and the ratios in the atmosphere in the past, and write "historically the assumption is that it has not changed."
That was true in the early days of radiocarbon dating. But, in 1958, de Vries showed that atmospheric fluctuations did occur and suggested means of accounting for them in dating. The fluctuation appears to be on the order of 1%. Since then, a detailed calibration curve has been worked out using dendrochronology and other techniques.
The current calibration curve is in 1 year increments back to about AD 1600, and in 10 year increments back to about 12,600 years ago. Much of this is based on the tree rings found in standing dead bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southern California. Bristlecone pines have distinct annual rings because of their environment, unlike other species, which can have more than one ring per year. These tree rings are matched with environmental events, such as volcanoes, of known ages, and the method is shown to be accurate as far back as these comparisons are possible.
The tree-ring calibration curve has been confirmed and extended based on other methods. It goes back past 25,000 years last I heard.
Your next question is on the current C14 levels. You cite an article which notes, "The source of discrepancy is unknown unless the present day production rate is indeed significantly higher than the average production rate."
The answer is likely that since the atomic bomb tests beginning in the 1940s, the atmospheric levels of C14 have increased from what they were prior to the tests. Perhaps this is what Fairhill and Young have noted.
Your final comment on tree-rings; I am not sure what you mean by that.
For a large amount of information on radiocarbon dating, see Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.
No, actually it isn't. Evolution is a branch of science that has multiple disciplines. Such as mirco and macro that is followed using other SCIENCE disciplines. There is not a degree in Evolution.
Have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The opening up of the New World? The Slave trade? Maybe you should go watch the Merchant of Venice.
The People of the Book are more similar than any other group of people.
>> Personally, I like to defend truth no matter who says it...
And here you lie completely in the margins of error. As one who purports to be a critical thinker, you should reflect on your statement I quoted above. It's quite a statement few should be willing to make.
You certainly could have made your point without a catalog of information. To inundate the thread with so much data is obnoxious - and of course, we know you know that.
The practice of science is not that of Faith. It's a pragmatism that welcomes volatility, curiosity, creativity, and reexamination. Dogmatic practitioners soon find themselves mumbling alone and without cause. If you're unwilling to engage then best not to complain or mumble for that matter.
Wow! What a reasoned response!
I'm sure Ichneumon, as well as the lurkers, are impressed by your wit and acumen!
...all I did was make a stupid Seinfeld joke.
45 journals! Jeez, C-man everytime you send me a link it takes me a year to get through them! :o) I think that is why I only get to discuss this with you about that often!
Also, are you AZ? i haven't check your homepage. If you are I have a question about an excavation down there a while back (50's or 60's) that has a "mysterious" theory about it. If I think of her name and that of the dig she was working on I'll send it.
If I don't get back to you tonight it's because Im over at the link you sent.
FReepgards,
K4
Why do you say, that Ichy posting his data was obnoxious?...frankly, I was fascinated by it, as I am sure others may have been as well...of course, I did take the time to read it all, and tried to absorb as much as I could...But this is no different from other posters who post nothing but reams of Scriptures...actually whenever I am on a thread that piques my interet, I do make the attempt to read everyones posts, long, short or somewhere in between...
I did not know that there was a standard to be followed, as to how long, or short ones posts should be...
Frankly, if a long post upsets you, just scroll right on past it...but for the rest of us, those long posts may be something we are greatly interested in..
Until JR, says, that no one can post such long posts, there will always be some of these...so what?...just that mouse and just scroll on past...the rest of us, will take up your slack...
Pass the coffee, we're gonna be here a while.
:o)
On the C14/C12 ratios, that appears to be natural. Fluctuations on the order of 1% appear when the tree-ring comparison is made.
This was found, if I recall, by de Vries by comparing historically known samples with radiocarbon dates. Once the tree-ring calibration was developed, the ages matched.
I am not sure of the method used by Fairhill and Young; I have not examined their paper. If they were just using the beginning and end points of their range, they might have been using ratios affected by nuclear bombs for the end points, giving an artificially inflated slope.
Check into it and let me know what you find.
LOL, admittedly, that's what I did. I'm a bit of a hypocrite, though, being known for long posts myself. I'm actually not sure why I was included in the long ping...was he pinging everyone who posted here? Must have taken some effort.
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.