Christianity Vs. Evolution
Radiometric Dating- I have already shown that this dating method is inaccurate, but I will briefly mention it again. The dates, when compared with different radio-isotopic methods, ARE inaccurate. I have already shown the link to the relevant web page. I never stated that the dates produced by these methods were random, what I did say was that they are VERY inaccurate. If you look at sources like wikipedia, you donÂt know how their dates were obtained for any specific entity, not all dates are from radiometric dating, as I said in my last post, a lot of dates in relation to fossils are influenced by what the palaeontologist THINKS the date should be.
Stu explicitly stated that the helium zircon experiment SHOULD be put down to faulty experimental technique. Thus implying the lab that preformed the tests.
You talk about h. erectus skulls/fossils as if they are great in numbers. How can you seriously say that you know the cranial capacity range of the H. erects ÂspeciesÂ if you havenÂt surveyed a substantial fraction of that population? Here is a link that shows that the differences can be found in humans, and are by no means indicative of subhuman classification, I have the book referred to in the link and it clearly shows humans are capable of a diverse range of morphological shapes. The link also shows a Noble prize winner for literature dying at 80 with a cranial capacity of 833cc; http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/86/. Thus he can be compared to Turkana boy, in that the man was fully grown and was obviously capable of a high standard of literature. Does this sound like a regular human being to you? It does to me. The sources you are getting your information from are obviously highly biased, and if you want the WHOLE picture, you might want to diversify your sources. One other link in regards to various cranial capacities; http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000637/.
IÂve read your link for differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, and all the differences have been explained through vitamin D deficiency and rickets. There is no reason to invoke the mysterious and unsubstantiated theory of evolution.
The evolution of the specific avian features CAN NOT be explained by evolution; http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2775.
You state with much confidence that all irreducibly complex systems CAN evolve, IÂll put this comment down to your naivety and lack of knowledge of creationist arguments. Have you even read any creationist arguments about these irreducibly complex systems? I seriously doubt it. Evolution is so hopeless is explaining these systems it is not funny. If you want to discuss any of these, I suggest discussing the eye ball, there is much literature about this in both the creationist and evolutionist circles.
I think you misunderstand the idea of a Âworking modelÂ. When I say working model I am talking about a model that works! Evolution is full models/stories that have no scientific basis what so ever, human evolution is the most humorous of them all. Thus there are plenty of evolutionary models, but none of them work or make sense.
When I talk about the lack of a working model for evolution I am referring to a genetic level. ItÂs all well and good to have stories about evolution (which is what you have shown), but there must be a genetic model/theory that shows the genetic information in an organisms DNA can increase and evolve. Even Richard Dawkins admits evolution hasnÂt been observed while it is happening. So if evolution isnÂt being observed then clearly the model isnÂt working, thus no Âworking modelÂ.
Human evolution- So can you propose any working theories of the evolution of the unique human features? I read your link for some theories of the evolution of bipedalism, and just as I though more bad stories. Postural feeding hypothesis- If this theory was correct then the modern primates have no excuse for still being quadrupedal. Provisioning model- Modern primates can carry much food, very efficiently, with out resorting to bipedalism. Thermoregulatory model- Primates can easily climb up trees on hot days to reach a better breeze if need be. But why would primates stand up to lose body heat when this action clearly produces more heat then it would dissipate?
Why would evolution increase the brains of primates when it is clear from humans that an increase in brain size DOES NOT mean an increase in IQ. Even humans that have a cranial capacity of 624cc are considered normal in every sense of the word; http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/86/. So you see that it IS NOT logical that evolution would select a larger brain in primates.
Bahleda Here is a web site that i've just found in regards to criticisms of the helium diffusion experiment. Your arguement was that excess helium is extant in the surrounding rocks. I'm not sure how I missed this in the paper, but as the link shows, there was virtually no helium in the surrounding biotite compared to the zircon samples, thus the rocks surrounging the test sample DO NOT contain excess helium that has contaminated the sample. Your point of contention is thus refuted. I'm sorry I didn't pick up on this earlier, it would saved us lots of time.
Stu Helium Experiment- This experiment CAN be reproduced, the fact that no one, either sceptic or the original experimenters, havenÂt done so does not mean the results are unreliable. I think you might be interest to know that the upcoming R.A.T.E. II project will include an expansion of the data collected by the original R.A.T.E. project in regards to the helium diffusion experiment. So a reproduction of the experiment should be on its way. Good news for everyone.
I agree that no lab or experimentalist is perfect, but to automatically blame the lab the way you did is just irresponsible, even the main critics have not put the blame for the results on the lab. It takes a huge leap of faith to say that a respected lab is capable of making such a huge blunder. If the lab suspected that they had made such a blunder, as you charge, IÂm sure they would have endeavoured to repeat the tests, but they havenÂt.
How do you know if the irregular ÂdateÂ in the sample is contaminated? As far as IÂm aware the only reason the date/result is discarded as contaminated is because it is irregular and unexpected, not because there is proof of it being contaminated.
If you are implying that the change in radio-isotopic decay rates is the natural law that was different in the past, then yes. WhatÂs the point of science? Well science is the testing of a theory through a reproducible experiment. You canÂt reproduce the past can you? So as far as IÂm concerned the study of the past isnÂt science, in the strictest sense at least. Science is the study of organisms living NOW, not in the past. Science is the study of nature in general NOW, not in the past. If you are studying something in the past then this is more speculation rather then science.
If the theory of evolution was proven then this proves that the God of the Bible does not exist. This is what I meant to say. The Bible explicitly states that the earth, and all the life in it, was created only 6000 years ago. Evolution and the creation account in the Bible are totally incompatible.
Concordant Dates- How do you know what the technique was for achieving these dates. As I stated in a previous post, a lot of dates obtained for fossils are made up by the palaeontologist. There are a number of examples of the dates for fossils changing many years after the fossil was originally dated. Some dates are very malleable. So it shouldnÂt be too much of a surprise that the dates may show a consistent pattern if they can be changed at will.
Bahleda, this is the link that I promised you-http://creationwiki.org/Response_to_criticism_of_RATE%E2%80%99s_helium_diffusion_dates
Radiometric Dating - Let's try to clarify this a bit. First off, radiometric dating indicates an age of 4.5 billion years, which would disprove the contention that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. There are two bodies of evidence that disagree with each other: one in support of radiometric dating, and the other against. I think you would agree that the body of evidence supporting radiometric dating is much bigger. Therefore, the YEC position must provide arguments explaining why radiometric dating does not work. Here are the arguments I can find that you have given against radiometric dating (besides specific evidence):
"The main problem, as I see it, with radioisotope dating is contamination." It is not as though contamination of samples is a foreign concept to geologists. Geologists do take contamination into account when using radiometric dating and not just when their dates don't agree (http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm). Also, in many cases the daughter isotope is strongly rejected in the material being dated, such as lead in zircon. Here is a link addressing the claim that K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating is inaccurate: (http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html). The points it makes include: excess argon is rare and enough excess argon to skew the results significantly is even rarer, the magnitude of the errors is pretty small, and Ar-Ar does not assume the initial amount of Ar40 is known.
"The dates, when compared with different radio-isotopic methods, ARE inaccurate."ÃÂ In other words, the various radiometric dating methods disagree with each other. I'm not sure what website you're referencing. However, if it's only an experiment that produces conflicting dates and not an explanation of why dating methods should produce discordant dates, it can be easily countered by the fact that they generally do produce dates consistent with each other and other dating methods (http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm - consistency of radiometric dating methods which each other) (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html - consistency of radioisotope dating with other dating methods)
No succinct quotes, but you have stated that researchers commonly dismiss outlying dates as contaminated. This statement needs a source. Single measurements cost hundreds of dollars, so it does not make a lot of sense that they would conduct multiple tests on each sample. You also mentioned that paleontologists often choose dates for fossils they think are right instead of testing them. Besides the fact that this doesn't actually say anything about the accuracy of radiometric dating, it also needs a source. That could mean a lot of different things. Do they just roll some dice whenever they find a new fossil site or do they only date one fossil per fossilized organism? Of course, in many cases they could probably come up with an approximate date if they knew when a certain species lived.
"Anything to do with the past CAN NOT be considered fact."ÃÂ First of all, I question why you believe creationism either if this is the case. As I have said before, if you are right, there is no reason to believe in the Bible or history, as both specifically relate to the past. However, I do not agree with this point. Science does assume that the same scientific principles that apply today also applied in the past. I believe this to be a reasonable assumption. For example, science assumes that if pure water at 1 atm boils at 100C now, then pure water at 1atm has always boiled at 100C. Likewise, decay rates have remained constant unless a specific factor changes them, and, as both you and Stu have pointed out, decay rates are affected by very little.
I wanted to cover much more than radiometric dating, but I was lucky to get even this much done this weekend. I'll get to all the other stuff tomorrow if I'm lucky.